Ahlebayt

Table of Contents
Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias.........................................................................................................................6

Prophet’s Wives are Ahlel Bayt.............................................................................................................................................7
Prophet’s Daughters are Ahlel Bayt....................................................................................................................................13
Half Hadith-ing (Zaid ibn Arqam).........................................................................................................................................23
The Status of Ahlel Bayt......................................................................................................................................................29
Foundation of Shi’ism is Nasibi............................................................................................................................................34
Slander Against Prophet’s Wives.........................................................................................................................................35
Mothers of the Believers.....................................................................................................................................................39
Al-Ifk: Quran Defends Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬...........................................................................................................................40
First Lady of Islam................................................................................................................................................................45
Verse 33:33 Does Not Make Anyone Infallible....................................................................................................................47
The Wives of Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫)عليه السالم‬....................................................................................50
Shia Du’a (Saname Quraish) Curses Two of Prophet’s Wives..............................................................................................52
Love for Ahlel Bayt and Sahabah.........................................................................................................................................54
Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬Didn’t Do Ghusl in Front of Men...........................................................................................................55
How the Shia Abandoned the Ahlel Bayt.............................................................................................................................59
Fatwa: Kufr to Slander Bibi Aisha........................................................................................................................................60
Al-Islam.org says: Do not name your daughter with the name “Aisha”..............................................................................62
Who are the Ahlel Bayt?.....................................................................................................................................................64
Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah....................................................................66
154 Wise Sayings of Sayyiduna Ali.......................................................................................................................................68
Sayyida Aisha is Part of Ahlel Bayt.......................................................................................................................................71
Question:......................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Answer:........................................................................................................................................................................... 72
The Prophet Defends His Wife Aisha...................................................................................................................................75
The Status of the 12 Imams.................................................................................................................................................76
Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i Says Wife is Part of a Man’s “Ahl”...............................................................................................77
Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33...................................................................................................................................80
The Quran Challenge...........................................................................................................................................................85
The Quran Challenge, Part II...............................................................................................................................................90
The Quran Challenge, Part III:...........................................................................................................................................100
The Quran Challenge, Part IV............................................................................................................................................106
Shi’ism is Kufr: Imams Superior to Prophets.....................................................................................................................112
Infallibility = Shirk..............................................................................................................................................................118
Imamah and Shirk.............................................................................................................................................................125
Imam Knows the Hour of His Death..................................................................................................................................129
Al-Kafi or Al-Kufr?..............................................................................................................................................................134
Ayatollah Khomeini...........................................................................................................................................................136
Imamah: the Antithesis of Egalatarianism.........................................................................................................................137
Turbulent History of Imamah............................................................................................................................................140
Fraudulent Representatives of the Hidden Imam.............................................................................................................143
How Does the Current Imam Lead the Shia?.....................................................................................................................145
Some Questions for the Shia.............................................................................................................................................149
Let’s Say That I Wanted to Convert to Shi’ism…................................................................................................................152
The 12th Imam of the Shia is Dajjal?.................................................................................................................................153
Fatwa: Ayatollah Khomeini is not Muslim.........................................................................................................................155
Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying?........................................................................................................156
Quran (13:7): Not a Proof for Imamah..............................................................................................................................161
Shia Believe in Holy Books After the Quran.......................................................................................................................162
Saying “Ya Ali Madad” is Shirk...........................................................................................................................................166
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Jesus (‫?)عليه السالم‬.................................................................................................................................170
Ali’s Message (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬in Nahjul Balagha....................................................................................................................172
Turbah: Sajdah to the Imams............................................................................................................................................174
Grave Worship.................................................................................................................................................................. 174
Who Invented Shirk?.........................................................................................................................................................176
Shrines: the Need to Raze Them and Level the Graves.....................................................................................................177
Saqifah: A Sunni View........................................................................................................................................................179
Battle of the Camel............................................................................................................................................................211
Origins of the Shia Sect.....................................................................................................................................................222
Battle of Siffin.................................................................................................................................................................... 233
The Shia Killed Ali (R.A.), Hussain (R.A.), and Hussain’s Grandson (R.A.)...........................................................................236
Ali (R.A.), Hasan (R.A.), and Hussain (R.A.) Hated the Shia................................................................................................244
Fatwa on Hussain’s Fighting Against Yazid........................................................................................................................256
A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain........................................................................................................................................268
Jewish Encyclopedia: Abdullah ibn Saba, Founder of Shi’ism............................................................................................270
Hadith About Muawiyyah: “May Allah Not Fill His Belly” [A Sunni Perspective]...............................................................271
Fadak, Part I: Shia Hadith Confirms Abu Bakr’s Justice (R.A.)............................................................................................272
Fadak, Part II: Why Didn’t Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬Return Fadak?................................................................................................275
Fadak, Part III: Ahlus Sunnah is Not Abandoning the Quran.............................................................................................280
Fadak, Part IV: Shia Women Do Not Inherit Land Anyways...............................................................................................281
Fadak, Part V: Fatima’s Anger (R.A.)..................................................................................................................................282
Fadak, Part VI: Fadak Was Not a Gift.................................................................................................................................296
Fadak, Part VII: Charity is Good.........................................................................................................................................299
Fadak, Part VIII: The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance...............................................................................302
Fadak, Part IX: Umar (R.A.) Upheld Abu Bakr’s Decision (R.A.)..........................................................................................304
Fadak, Part X: The Shia Who Deny Our Interpretation of the Al-Kafi Hadith.....................................................................310
Fadak, Part XI: Respect for Fatima (R.A.)......................................................................................................................312
Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion................................................................................................................................................314
Neither Abu Bakr Nor Umar Was a “Liar, Sinful, Treacherous, and Dishonest”................................................................316
Four Caliphs and Prophet Related by Marriage.................................................................................................................324
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬Gave His Daughter to Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.................................................................................................327
Shia Websites Confirm Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage to Umar............................................................................................345
Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar].................................350
Marriages of the Four Caliphs and the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬................................................................................354
Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, the Second of the Two..................................................................................................................357
The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs.......................................................................................................................................379
Al-Islam.org Admits that Umar Married Ali’s Daughter.....................................................................................................385
Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah..................................................................389
Hadith About the (Non)Incident of the Pen and Paper [A Sunni Perspective]...................................................................392
Abu Bakr and Ali Related Through Marriage.....................................................................................................................441
he Prophet’s Praise of Abu Bakr........................................................................................................................................442
The Ayatollahs Recommend Self-Flagellation...................................................................................................................442
Matam: Self-Flagellation...................................................................................................................................................450
Pictures of Matam.............................................................................................................................................................454
Matam Videos................................................................................................................................................................... 461
Black Clothes..................................................................................................................................................................... 463
Why Sunnis Do Not Comemmorate Ashura......................................................................................................................464
More Pictures of Matam...................................................................................................................................................469
Racism in Shi’ism...............................................................................................................................................................472
Mutah................................................................................................................................................................................ 476
Al-Shia.com on "Rewards for Doing Mutah".....................................................................................................................478
A Plea from a Muslim Sister..............................................................................................................................................485
More Shia Hadith on Mutah..............................................................................................................................................487
The Mutah Pimps..............................................................................................................................................................488
Mutah and Hypocrisy........................................................................................................................................................490
Ayatollah and Mutah.........................................................................................................................................................490
The Fiqh of Mutah.............................................................................................................................................................491
Legalized Whore-Houses in Iran........................................................................................................................................495
Supreme Leader Khamenei on Mutah...............................................................................................................................496
In Mutah, Man Does Not Provide Support to Woman Nor Child......................................................................................496
Mutah is Haram.................................................................................................................................................................497
Making a Living from Mutah Prostitution..........................................................................................................................505
Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa: Virgin Girls Can Do Mutah.............................................................................................506
Fatwas: Permission of Wali Not Required for Mutah; Shia Guy Can Take Sunni Girl in Mutah.........................................506
Misyar Marriage is Not Like Mutah...................................................................................................................................508
Grand Ayatollah Sistani on the Only Difference between Mutah and a “One Night Stand”..............................................510
Shia Hadith: Woman Who Does Mutah Twice Will Become Pure.....................................................................................511
Shia Website Al-Islam.org Says A Woman Who Enters Into Mutah is “Rented”...............................................................512
USA Today: ‘Pleasure Marriages’ (Mutah) Regain Popularity in Iraq................................................................................516
Marriage With the Intention to Divorce............................................................................................................................518
Taqiyyah............................................................................................................................................................................ 530
Realplayer Audio: Taqiyyah...............................................................................................................................................536
Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah..................................................................537
Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting.....................................................................................................540
Al-Raj’ah [The Return]: Imams Reincarnated....................................................................................................................543
Tahreef.............................................................................................................................................................................. 545
Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting.....................................................................................................547
Shaykh al-Mufid and Tahreef, Strike Two..........................................................................................................................551
Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33.................................................................................................................................554
Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 11:73.................................................................................................................................560
The Quran Condemns Sects..............................................................................................................................................577
Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer....................................................................................................579
Kindness Towards the Shia................................................................................................................................................599
Mufti Taqi Usmani did NOT sign the “Amman Message”..................................................................................................601
Is AhlelBayt.com a “Salafi” Site?........................................................................................................................................604
How Reliable is “The History of at-Tabari”?......................................................................................................................605
Why Prophet Muhammad Did Not Have a Wasi...............................................................................................................610
Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias.....................................................................................................................612
Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias
Imam Bukhari declared:
“I don’t see any difference between praying Salah behind a Jahmi or a (Shia) Rafidhi and a Christian or a Jew.
They (Jahmis/Rafidhis) are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their
testimony to be accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.”
(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)

When the matter is so severe that we should not send our greetings to them nor befriend them nor even visit
them, then how deviated is the Manhaj of those who call to unity with the Shias!
Prophet’s Wives are Ahlel Bayt
The term “Medinatul-Nabi” translates to “the City of the Prophet.” This was eventually shortened to “Medinah”
which although it translates technically to simply “city,” it is referring to the City of the Prophet (i.e. formerly
Yathrib, and now the second most holy city of the Muslims).
The term “Ahle Bayt Muhammad” translates to “People of the House of Muhammad.” This phrase was also
shortened to simply “Ahlel Bayt” but it is implicit that this refers to the House of the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬and nobody else. It translates to “people of the house” with emphasis on “the” to denote the respect given
to the Prophetic household.
Both the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia believe it is important to love the Ahlel Bayt. Now, the question is: who
are the Ahle Bayt Muhammad (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬The answer to this question is quite simply that first and
foremost the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt. The Prophet’s wives have the most right to be referred to as Ahlel
Bayt, over and above all other individuals.
Dictionary Definition of “Ahlel Bayt”
Let us first define the words “Ahlel Bayt.” To establish absolute objectivity, we will not define it ourselves, but
rather we will quote straight from the most popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org (emphasis is ours):
Al-Islam.org says
“ The term “ahl” signifies the members of a household of a man, including his fellow tribesmen, kin, relatives,
wife (or wives), children, and all those who share a family background, religion, housing, city, and country
with him…“Bayt” refers to habitation and dwelling, including tents and buildings both. The “ahl-al-bayt” of
any person refers to his family members and all those who live in his house.
source: http://al-islam.org/mot/default.asp?url=14ahlbayt.htm ”
We encourage our readers to verify this defintion by picking up any Arabic dictionary. There are three words to
look up: Ahl, Bayt, and Ahl-Al-Bayt. Let us reproduce what one such Arabic dictionary has to say, although the
results will no doubt be virtually identical in any other dictionary.
Ahl: noun; relatives including wives, children, brothers, sisters, and other kinsmen, and sometimes used to refer
to fellow tribesmen
Bayt: noun; house; place of residence
Ahl-Al-Bayt: noun; those people in relation to a man who live in his house, especially his wives and unmarried
children that live under his roof and are provided for by him
In fact, the primary definition of Ahl Bayt is a man’s wives; in Arab culture, it is considered rude to call a man’s
wives by their actual names, and hence people will refer to a man’s wives simply as his “Ahl Bayt”.
The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah
The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah thus take the wives of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to be the Ahlel Bayt.
This is in accordance with the dictionary definition of the word as shown above. The Prophet’s wives are part of
the Prophet’s Ahl, and they live in his Bayt. Therefore, Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬
ّ and Hafsa (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬
ّ are
included in the Ahlel Bayt.
The Shia
The Shia Ayatollahs do not have a positive viewpoint of the Prophet’s wives. In fact, the Shia Ayatollahs
possess “baraa” (hatred) for Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and we shall examine this in later
articles. It is because of this reason that the Shia Ayatollahs deny that the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt. In
fact, many of our Shia brothers who do not speak Arabic are even unaware of the actual definition and usage of
the term “Ahlel Bayt” since they simply listen to their Ayatollahs.
The Shia Ayatollahs say that only four people are part of the Ahle Bayt Muhammad, namely Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. We would like to question the basis upon
which they make this claim. This is not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but rather this is
the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. These were the four individuals who lived under the roof of Ali (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬, not the roof of Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. It is agreed upon by both the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia
that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬did not live in the Bayt of Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬but rather had his own place
of residence, in which Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬also lived.
The Shia also include their Infallible Imams in the Ahlel Bayt. We wonder on what basis they do this as well,
since none of these individuals (other than Ali [‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫]ر‬, Hasan [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫]ر‬, and Hussain [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)]ر‬
lived in the time of the Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬, let alone in the Bayt of Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬.
ّ ّ ّ
Common Usage of the Term “Ahl-Al-Bayt”
The Quran is an Arabic book that has been revealed to people whose language was Arabic. We will misinterpret
the Quran if we attempt to understand its words in a way that was not (and could not be) understood by the
primary addressees of the book. Today, if we ask an Arab friend to come to our house with his Ahl-Al-Bayt, the
default is that he will come to our house with his wife and children who are staying in his house. He might bring
his married children or he might not. He might even bring a friend if the friend is a permanent resident of his
house. But primarily, an Arab will understand from this that he should bring his wives, since this is the central
and primary definition of the phrase “Ahl-Al-Bayt”.
An Arab will be extremely shocked if he finds that by Ahl-Al-Bayt we meant his cousin, married children, and
grandchildren, all of whom live in another house. He will be extremely shocked that we do not mean his wife
who lives in his Bayt. This is because for any Arab, the word Ahl-Al-Bayt (which literally means those staying
in the house) includes the wife (or wives) of a person. This was in no way any different at the time of the
Prophet. It is the same in all Arab countries. It is interesting that even in Iran (being a Shia dominated country)
people use the word Ahl-Al-Bayt to refer to the wife as well as children of a person. If we look at any popular
book of Arabic words we will find that in the definition of Ahlel Bayt, wife is included. We would thus like to
ask the Shia Ayatollahs why they proclaim a different definition of the word Ahlel Bayt? Why should it be that
the Prophet’s wives are not part of Ahlel Bayt but rather the Infallible Imams are? In our opinion, this defies
logic.
Logic and Common Sense
Ahlel Bayt means the family of a man living in his house. If we were to ask any Shia who is a part of his own
family, he would most definitely include his mother (or his spouse) in his response. Mothers and wives are the
basic foundation of a family. If we were to ask an unbiased third party as to who the family of Muhammad (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was, the first names they would mention would be the Prophet’s wives.
The Quran Refers to the Prophet’s Wives as Ahlel Bayt
As Muslims, we believe in the absolute authority of the Quran. It is the highest source of legislation; in fact, it is
the very speech of Allah. The Quran refers to the Prophet’s wives as the Ahlel Bayt. Allah Almighty Himself
negates all those who dare argue that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬are not part of the Ahlel Bayt.
The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet as Ahlel Bayt in the following verse:
“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not
soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your
houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular
Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all
abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran,
33:32-33)
The transliteration reads:
“Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa
allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja
aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu
Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33)
There is in fact not a single verse in the Quran which identifies Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, or Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬
ّ as the Ahlel Bayt. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the 12
Infallible Imams of the Shia, let alone calling them Ahlel Bayt. The term “Ahlel Bayt” has been used twice in
the Quran, and both times it is used to refer to the wives. And a similar term, Ahli Baytin is used in the Quran to
refer to the wife of Imran (mother of Moses). And yet, not a single time is the word “Ahlel Bayt” used in the
Quran for Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, or Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Nowhere does
the Quran say “O cousin of the Prophet” but rather the Quran says “O wives of the Prophet.” If following the
Ahlel Bayt is the fundamental of belief as the Shia Ayatollahs claim, then why is it that the Quran never once
mentions Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬let alone mentioning him as the Ahlel Bayt? If we ask our Shia brothers to produce
verses in the Quran about the Ahlel Bayt, they will be dissapointed to find that these verses are all in relation to
the Prophet’s wives.
Second Time the Quran Uses the Word “Ahlel Bayt”
Ahlel Bayt is used another time in the Quran and again this time to refer to the wives:
“She said: ‘O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely
old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.’ They said: ‘Do you wonder at Allah’s decree? The grace of
Allah and His blessings on you, o you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House)! for He is indeed worthy of all praise,
full of all glory!’” (Quran, 11:72-73)
“Qalat Ya Waylata ‘A’alidu Wa ‘Ana Àjuzun Wa Hadha Ba`li Shaykhaan ‘Inna Hadha Lashay’un Àjibun.
Qalu ‘Ata`jabina Min ‘Amri Allahi Rahmatu Allahi Wa Barakatuhu Àlaykum ‘Ahlul-Bayt-i ‘Innahu Hamidun
Majidun.” (Quran, 11:72-73)
In the verse above, Prophet Ibrahim’s wife asks the angels how can she have a son, and they respond back
calling her and Prophet Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬as Ahlel Bayt. And again, the collective pronoun is used to refer to
the Prophet Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬and his wife. Nobody else was in the room other than them, and the angels
referred to them all as Ahlel Bayt, including Prophet Ibrahim’s wife.
The Quran declares that Wives are Part of the Family
Allah Almighty says that all of the members of Prophet Loot’s family will be saved aside from his wife. Allah
says: “(All) except the family of Loot. Them all surely We are going to save (from destruction). Except his
wife…” (Quran, 15:59-60)
The construction “except his wife” would be non-sensical unless the wife was included in the family of Loot (
‫)عليه السلم‬. Otherwise, why would Allah need to clarify that Loot’s wife was an exception to the rule that the
family of Loot (‫ )عليه السالم‬would be saved?
Hadith
In Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet specifically refers to Aisha as part of Ahlel Bayt:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316
Narrated Anas:
A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I
was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and
then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to
invite.
Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”
He (the Prophet) said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house
chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s
Mercy be on you, Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”
She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you.”
Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha
and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.
Sahih Bukhari is considered the most reliable book of Hadith, and therefore there is no doubt that this is an
authoratative declaration that the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt.
Certain Shia Ayatollahs will often take Hadith out of context in order to “prove” that the Prophet’s wives are
not part of the Ahlel Bayt. We shall examine all of these Hadith in later articles, and we shall see that the reality
is that an unbiased view of the Hadith merely confirms the Quran, namely that the Prophet’s wives are part of
the Ahlel Bayt.
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim by Zayd ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬that the Prophet’s wives are part of the Ahlel
Bayt. In Sahih Muslim (Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith-5920), Zayd says “His wives are among the people of his
household.” He further emphasized: “His spouses are a fiber of his household.” If the wives are the fiber of
Ahlel Bayt, it means that they are the fundamental unit of it.
In future articles, we shall–Insha-Allah–examine other Hadith, those that are commonly taken out of context by
the Shia Ayatollahs.
Scholarly Opinion
Shaikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says: “With regard to the wives of the Prophet…they are included
among the members of the family of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.” This is the majority opinion of the
Ulema.
One Last Argument
We ask our Shia brothers to ponder upon why the Quran and the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬used the term
“Ahl-al-Bayt” as opposed to simply “Ahl” which means “family.” By confining the Ahl with “Al-Bayt” this is
restricting who is being referred to as the family living under the roof of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Neither Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, nor Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬lived in the same
house as the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. On the other hand, the Prophet’s wives most definitely did.
If Allah was referring to the family of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬that did not live in his house, then
surely the word “Ahl” would have been more appropriate to use; the additional specification of “Al-Bayt”
would then be completely extraneous and in fact self-contradictory. The phrase “Ahl-Al-Bayt” confines the Ahl
to those who live inside the Bayt, which consists of the Prophet’s wives. Any other explanation is nonsensical.
Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah holds the Ahle Bayt Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in the highest regard. In fact, we believe
that Ali’s family (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫–)رض‬along
ّ with the families of Aqeel (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬
ّ and Abbas (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫–)رض‬are
ّ
honorary members of the Prophetic Ahlel Bayt. Ali’s family (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is commonly referred to as Ahlel Kisa
(People of the Cloak) and they are highly regarded by the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. However, we disagree
with those who exploit the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to hurt and degrade the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (
ّ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬. We ask Allah to shower His Infinite Blessings upon both of these families.
Certain Shia propagandists might try to claim that we are insulting the family of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬by saying that
they are “only” honorary members of the Ahlel Bayt, but this is not true at all. The Shia declare that Salman Al-
Farsi (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was an honorary member of Ahlel Bayt. Is this insulting Salman Al-Farsi (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬No,
it is in fact exalting him. Likewise, to say that Ali’s family (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is an honorary part of the Ahlel Bayt is
likewise an exaltation and not an insult at all. The Shia have called Salman Al-Farsi (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to be an
honorary member of the Ahlel Bayt; therefore, if they accuse the Sunnis of hating Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬for calling
him an honorary member, then they are also guilty of hating Salman Al-Farsi (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
Al-Islam.org says
“ The reference to Salman Farsi as a member of the Ahlul-Bayt is honorary. Salman Farsi’s conversion to
Islam left a great impression on the HolyProphet (S) and others. Throughout the years of the Holy Prophet’s
mission, Salman Farsi was one of the companions most dedicated in the service, defence and propagation of
Islam. His service to the household of the HolyProphet and his sincere love for them earned him great respect
from all quarters of the Ahlul-Bayt. Thus, as an honor for him, the Prophet (S) referred to him as one of the
Ahlul-Bayt (AS). We pray that he will be raised in the honorable company of the ones he loved so dearly.
source: http://al-islam .org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00450.html ”

Perhaps the reason that the Shia Ayatollahs love the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and not the Ahlel Bayt of
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has to do with how the faith of Shi’ism came into being. Indeed, the early
ancestors of the Shia are the Saba’ites, followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. These Saba’ites excessively praised Ali
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was superior to the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and eventually even declared that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ‫)وسلم‬. Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is superior to Ali
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and not the Ahlel
ّ ّ
Bayt of Muhammad (‫ ?)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬Is this not a remnant of the Saba’ite origin of Shi’ism?
Furthermore, there is absolutely no logic in calling the Infallible Imams of the Shia to be part of Ahlel Bayt and
then deny that the Prophet’s wives are part of Ahlel Bayt. Surely, the Prophet’s wives have a much greater right
to be part of Ahlel Bayt than people who did not even live in the Bayt of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Conclusion
The Prophet’s wives are the Ahlel Bayt. Many Shia Ayatollahs slander Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬with many baseless accusations (we shall examine these accusations in later articles). We ask our Shia
brothers to ponder over the true nature of this love. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah are lovers of Ahlel Bayt and
certainly not Nasibis (haters of Ahlel Bayt). In fact the reality may be that the Ayatollahs are the ones who are
Nasibis as they hate the Ahlel Bayt (i.e. Prophet’s wives) so much that they even deny that they are the Ahlel
Bayt! In fact, the AhlelBayt.com website was primarily designed to defend the Ahlel Bayt, namely Aisha (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنها‬, from the slander uttered against her.
The fact that the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt is proven from the Quran, Hadith, scholarly opinion,
dictionary, logic, common sense, and common usage of the word “Ahlel Bayt.” Those who care to argue so
vehemently against the verses of the Quran can only be those who hate the Ahlel Bayt so much and so
passionately that they must even reject the Word of Allah.
Prophet’s Daughters are Ahlel Bayt
The Shia accept Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as part of the Ahlel Bayt, but we must analyze on what basis they do this.
Do they honor Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬because she is the Prophet’s daughter, or rather because she is Ali’s wife?
The answer, we hope, shall be made obvious: it seems to us that they do not honor the daughters of the Prophet
(‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but rather they only honor Ali’s wife.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had four daughters, not just one. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and
Khadijah had five children: Qasim (‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫)رض‬, ّ Zaynub (‫ى هللا عنها‬55‫)رض‬,
ّ Ruqayyah (‫ى هللا عنها‬55‫)رض‬,
ّ Umm
Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and Fatima (‫عنها‬ ‫هللا‬ ‫ى‬‫ض‬ّ ‫)ر‬. And yet, the Shia Ayatollahs will say that only Fatima (‫ضى‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬is part of the Ahlel Bayt. We’d like to ask why the other three daughters are left out? Unfortunately, it
seems that in order to maintain consistency, many Shia clerics go so far as to claim that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬had only one daughter! This is an easily proven historical inconsistency, but it is trumpeted on many
Shia websites, including the popular “Answering-Ansar” website. The Ahlus Sunnah love all the Prophet’s
daughters equally and it pains us to see that the rights of three of our noble Prophet’s daughters are neglected.
We wonder how our Shia brothers would feel if we said that Fatima ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was not the daughter of the
ّ ّ
Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬, or that Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was not the son of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫?)ر‬
Every authoritative historical account affirms that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had four daughters; even
secular historians attest to this fact. We could provide numerous references here that would prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the Prophet had four daughters. However, in such discourses one will always find
individuals who will quote from sources which may be objectively declared dubious, but will be touted by one
party to be authoritatively factual. The argument will, in that case, be reduced to a tedious dispute between “our
word” against “theirs”. Therefore we shall attempt to prove our claim from the Quran, something which our
Shia brothers will admit is an accurate source, as a matter of creed.
The Quran Declares That the Prophet Has More Than One Daughter
Allah says in the Quran:
“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon
them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given
trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran, 33:59)
Here, Allah uses the plural word for daughters, not the singular form. Allah uses the term “banaatuka” which
means “your daughters.” If it was one daughter only, it would be “bintuka.” This completely negates the claim
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had only one daughter. Had this been the case, then surely Allah would
have not used the plural form, since Allah is above making grammatical mistakes. (We hope that the noble
Sahabah will not be accused of doing Tahreef or tampering of the Quran!) We could provide more evidence to
prove this fact of history, but it will certainly be a pointless endeavor if a Muslim cannot accept an evidence as
ideologically authoritative as the Quran.
Why The Ayatollahs Deny Three Daughters of the Prophet
Let us return to the idea that Shi’ism originates from Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers. Notive, how the Shia
Ayatollahs do not care about the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. They only care about the
Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Notice how the Shia Ayatollahs deny that the Prophet’s wives are part of the
Ahlel Bayt, but Ali’s wife is part of the Ahlel Bayt. Notice how Ali’s children–Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hussain
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫–)ر‬are considered by them to be in the Ahlel Bayt, but the Prophet’s three daughters are not. This
again leads us to confirm the idea that Shi’ism originates from the Saba’ites. These Saba’ites excessively
praised Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was superior to the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and eventually even declared that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫)عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬5‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآل‬is
superior to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and
not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Is this not a remnant of the Saba’ite origin of Shi’ism?
Another reason why the Shia Ayatollahs must deny that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had three daughters
was because two of these daughters–namely Ruqayyah (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ ّ and Umm Kulthoom (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫–)رض‬
ّ
married Uthman Bin Affan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, the third Caliph. The Shia Ayatollahs base their entire belief on the
repudiation of the first three caliphs; if the three caliphs were really evil as the Shia say they are, then why did
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬marry two of his daughters to one of these three Caliphs? Again, this, in our
opinion, questions the ideological foundation of Shi’ism.
The Shia revere the Nahjul Balagha, which they claim are the sermons and letters of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. It is one
of the most sacred and authoratative of Shia books. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah believes that many of the
narrations in the Nahjul Balagha are forgeries; however, the Shia accept all of it, and thus we will quote straight
ّ ‫ )ر‬married two of the daughters of the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
from the Nahjul Balagha to prove that Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫)عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 163

Ali went to see Uthman and said to him:
“You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet
of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (Ùmar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for
acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and
you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.”
(Source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/163.htm)
This proves that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had two daughters who married Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. This
revelation is troublesome the Shia Ayatollahs it would involve exalting the status of Uthman’s family (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬. And most importantly, it shows that Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was such a pious person that the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬gave him two daughters.
Al-Islam.org
The popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, finally rescinded the Shia claim that the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
had only one daughter. Let us see what Al-Islam.org has to say:
Al-Islam.org says
“ Most reports (like those of Ibn Ishaq, al-Mas’udi) indicate that she [Khadaija] was the mother of all the
Prophet’s children apart from Ibrahim (who was the son of Mary the Copt). She bore the following children to
the Prophet: al-Qasim; Zaynab, Ruqqayya, Umm Kulthum and Hazrat Fatima (A.S). Bibi Fatima was the
youngest daughter according to most reports. The daughters accepted Islam and migrated with the Prophet to
Medina.
source: http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00083.html ”
And we also read the following:
Al-Islam.org says
“ Khadija, peace be upon her, was the first woman who believed in the Prophet’s divine prophecy. She put all
her wealth at his disposal to propagate and promote Islam. [39] Six children were born of his marriage: two sons
named Qasim and Tahir who passed away as infants in Makkah and four daughers named Ruqiyah, Zaynab,
Umm Kulsum, and Fatima, who was the most prominent and honoured of them all. [40]
source: http://www.al-islam.org/glance/4.htm ”
It is distressing that the Shia exalt Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬by using the honorific “(A.S.)” as well as “Hazrat” but
you will notice no such respect for the other beloved daughters of the Prophet (‫لّم‬5 ‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5 ‫)ص‬.
Nonetheless, we are pleased that they accept the Prophet’s daughters. We kindly ask Shia-Chat and Answering-
Ansar to follow suit and also rescind their claims that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had only one daughter.
How distressing it was to see an entire thread on Shia-Chat discussing how the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
had only one daughter. The Answering-Ansar moderator boldly declared: “The Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
had only one daughter, Bibi Fatima [A.S.].”
The Shia website Al-Islam.org has definitively refuted those who claimed that the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
did not have four daughters. We read the following:
‫‪Al-Islam.org says‬‬
‫“‬ ‫‪Khadija gave birth to several children of whom only four daughters survived: Zainab, Umme Kulthum,‬‬
‫‪Ruqiya, and Fatima-Zahra who was the youngest and most exalted of them all.‬‬
‫‪There is a difference between historians regarding the first two daughters, for some claim that they were the‬‬
‫‪Prophet’s step-daughters; but the fact is that they were his direct daughters. This fact will be explained in the‬‬
‫]‪coming pages, if Allah wills. [1‬‬
‫‪[1] The story of Khadija’s marriage was summarized and carried on from Bihar al-Anwar: v.6.‬‬
‫‪source: http://www.al-islam.org/gracious/5.htm‬‬ ‫”‬

‫‪It should be noted that Bihar al-Anwar is a very authoratative book to the Shia.‬‬
‫صلّى( ‪We are pleased that Al-Islam.org has accepted the truth on this matter, and has admitted that the Prophet‬‬
‫ضى هللا عنها( ‪) had four daughters. However, we must ask then: if Fatima‬هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
‫‪) is to be included in the‬ر ّ‬
‫‪)? Is this not unfair? Is‬صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم( ‪Ahlel Bayt, then why aren’t the other three daughters of the Prophet‬‬
‫ّ‬
‫?‪this not illogical‬‬
‫‪Al-Shia.com‬‬
‫‪Another popular Shia website, www.al-shia.com, contains the following Hadith compiled by Imam Kulayni in‬‬
‫‪Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. All of the below Hadith confirm that Umm‬‬
‫‪):‬صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم( ‪Kulthoom, Ruqayyah, and Zaynub are direct daughters of the Prophet‬‬
‫‪Al-Shia.com says‬‬
‫“‬
‫‪‬‬ ‫روى الصفار بسنده عن االمام الباقر (ع ) قال ‪ :‬ول‪55‬د لرس‪55‬ول هّللا (ص )من خديج‪55‬ة ‪ :‬القاس‪5‬م والط‪5‬اهر ‪ ,‬وام كلث‪5‬وم ‪ ,‬ورقي‪5‬ة ‪,‬‬
‫وزينب وفاطم‪555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555‬ة ((‪))642‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫وروى الصدوق بسنده عن الصادق (ع ) قال ‪ :‬ولد لرسول هّللا (ص )من خديجة ‪ :‬القاسم والطاهر ـ وهو عبدهّللا ـ وام كلثوم ‪,‬‬
‫ورقي‪5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555‬ة ‪ ,‬وزينب وفاطم‪5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555‬ة ((‪))643‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫وقـال الـكـليني ‪ :‬ولد له منه‪5‬ا قب‪5‬ل مبعث‪5‬ه ‪ :‬القاس‪5‬م ‪ ,‬ورقي‪5‬ة ‪ ,‬وزينب وام كلث‪5‬وم ‪ ,‬وول‪5‬د ل‪5‬ه بع‪5‬د المبعث ‪ :‬الـطـيـب والـطـاهر‬
‫‪ .‬وفاطم‪555‬ة وروى ايض‪555‬ا ‪ :‬ا ن ه لم يول‪555‬د بع‪555‬د المبعث اال فاطم‪555‬ة (ع ) ‪ ,‬وان الطيب والط‪555‬اهر ول‪555‬دا قب‪555‬ل مبعث‪555‬ه ((‪))644‬‬
‫وقـال الـشيخ الطبرسي ‪ :‬فاول ما حملت ولدت عبد هّللا بن محمد وهوالطيب ((الط‪55‬اهر)) والن‪55‬اس يغلط‪55‬ون فيقول‪55‬ون ‪ :‬ول‪55‬د ل‪55‬ه‬
‫منها اربعة بنين القاسم وعبد هّللا والطيب والطاهر ‪ ,‬وانما ولد له منها ابنان ‪ ,‬الـثـانـي ‪ :‬الـقـاسـم ‪ ,‬وقـيـل ‪:‬ان القاس‪5‬م اك‪5‬بر ‪,‬‬
‫‪ .‬وه‪5555555‬و بك‪5555555‬ره ‪ ,‬وب‪5555555‬ه ك‪5555555‬ان يك‪5555555‬نى وارب‪5555555‬ع بن‪5555555‬ات ‪ :‬زينب ورقي‪5555555‬ة وام كلث‪5555555‬وم وفاطم‪5555555‬ة ((‪))645‬‬
‫وقال ابن شهر آشوب ‪ :‬اوالده ‪ :‬وله من خديجة ‪ :‬القاسم وعب‪55‬د هّللا ‪,‬وهم‪55‬ا الط‪55‬اهر والطيب ‪ ,‬وارب‪55‬ع بن‪55‬ات ‪ :‬زينب ورقي‪55‬ة وام‬
‫كلث‪55‬وم وفاطم‪55‬ة وفي (االن‪55‬وار) ‪ ,‬و(الكش‪55‬ف ) ‪ ,‬و(اللم‪55‬ع ) ‪ ,‬وكت‪55‬اب البالذري ‪ :‬ان زيـنب ورقي‪55‬ة كانتاربيبتي‪55‬ه من جحش فام‪55‬ا‬
‫القاس‪555555555555‬م والطيب فمات‪555555555555‬ا بمك‪555555555555‬ة ص‪555555555555‬غيرين ‪ ,‬مكث القاس‪555555555555‬م س‪555555555555‬بع لي‪555555555555‬ال ((‪))646‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫هّللا‬
‫وروى المجلسي عن الكازروني عن ابن عباس قال ‪ :‬اول من ولدلرسول بمكة قبل النبوة القاسم وبه كان يكنى ‪ ,‬ثم ولد له‬
‫زينب ‪ ,‬ثم رقية ‪,‬ثم فاطمة ‪ ,‬ثم ام كلث‪55‬وم ‪ ,‬ثم ول‪5‬د ل‪5‬ه في االس‪55‬الم عب‪5‬د هّللا فـسـمي الطيب والط‪5‬اهر وامهم جميع‪55‬ا خديج‪5‬ة بنت‬
‫خويلد وكان اول من مات من ولده القـاسم ثم مات عـبدهّللا بمكة ‪ ,‬فقال العاص بن وائ‪55‬ل الس‪55‬همي ق‪55‬د انقط‪55‬ع ول‪55‬ده فه‪55‬و اب‪55‬تر ‪,‬‬
‫‪ .‬فانزل هّللا تعالى ( ان شانئك هو االبتر ) ((‪))647‬‬
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/maws…0014.htm#link72 ”
As for our English-only readers, we have the following quote from Imam Kulayni (which is actually a
translation of one of the above Hadith):
“He [the Prophet] married Khadijah when he was twenty and some years old. Before recieving the Divine
Commands, his children born to him from Khadijah were Qasim, Ruqayyah, Zaynub, and Umm Kulthoom. Of
the children born after he recieved Divine Commands were al-Tayyib, al-Tahir, and Fatima (a.s.)”
(source: al-shia.com, http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/lib/)
Authority of Shia Historical Accounts
The classical Shia scholars never argued that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had only one daughter. This was
only a recent phenomena when the Ayatollahs realized that their position on the Ahlel Bayt did not make logical
sense if the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬really did have more than one daughter. It is unfortunate that this
policy of denial is a prevalent tactic of debate today. It is adopted with many other topics as well, such as
Abdullah Ibn Saba; they deny his existence just like they deny the existence of the Prophet’s daughters. We
would like to ask how it is that Shia historical accounts can be taken seriously when they deny such basic facts
such as how many daughters the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had and who Abdullah Ibn Saba was?
Such famous Shia scholars as Kulayni, Majlisi, Sadooq, Toosi, and Tabarsi have confirmed that the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had four daughters. Thus, when the modern day propagandists argue and say that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had only one daughter, then we remind them that they are not only arguing with
us, but also these classical scholars. This newfound Shia opinion is in fact 100% at variance with what the very
founding fathers of Shia theology had to say, those who were the foundation pillar of knowledge for the later
generations of the Shia.
Conclusion
It is a prevalent opinion of the Shia followers to say that the Sunnis dislike or are against the Ahlel Bayt. This is
simply not true. We have just shown how it is the Shia who, in fact, deny the very existence of the Prophet’s
daughters.
To us this denial is an insult and we kindly ask the Shia Ayatollahs to refrain from insulting the Ahlel Bayt of
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬by denying their very existence. We urge our Shia brothers to think about the
veracity of their beliefs and what reasons they have for denying the rights of three of our Prophet’s lovely
daughters. It is clear that, contrary to much of what is disseminated, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah indeed
loves the entire family of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, including all his wives and all his daughters.
Word Games With Verse 33:33

From: Zain ********
To: admin@ahlelbayt.com
Verse 33:33 in the Quran is the Verse of Purification. The Ahlel Bayt–namely Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, and
the Infallible Imams including the Mehdi–were made infallible by verse 33:33 in which Allah says: “And Allah
only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure
and spotless.” (33:33) The Prophet placed a cloak underneath all four of these people and then made them
infallible by this verse in the Quran.
Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin
Dear Brother Zain,
Thank you for your correspondence.
When we read verses of the Quran, we should read the entire passage and not just isolated parts of it. We must
see what is the context of what is being said. Otherwise, we will be misled. We are afraid that many people,
either knowingly or unknowingly, are taking the Quran and Hadith out of context simply to win debates. Insha-
Allah we should read the Quranic verses in their entirity and with an open heart.
Brother Zain, you have mentioned Verse 33:33 of the Quran. Let us now read to whom this verse in the Quran
is addressed to; let us read the entire sentence, starting from verse 33:32 all the way to verse 33:34.
abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And recite
what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest
mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).” (Quran, 33:32-34)
Allah Almighty clearly addresses the wives of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. If we were to argue that this
verse is the verse of purification and that it makes certain people infallible, then we would have to conclude that
it is Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the rest of the Prophet’s wives which were made infallible. We base this on the
simple fact that the verse was revealed with the heading “O wives of the Prophet.” Brother Zain, how can we
say that this verse refers to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Infallible Imams when none of them are mentioned here,
but only the wives are addressed? We understand that it is a popular concept that this verse makes the Ahlel
Bayt infallible. However, it is also the same people who spread such conceptions who believe that Aisha ( ‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬hated Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. It seems to us that, if anything, it is Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬who is made infallible,
and if indeed that is the case shouldn’t the Shia side with her over Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫?)ر‬
There is actually not a single verse in the Quran which identifies Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (
‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬,
ّ or Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬
ّ to be Ahlel Bayt. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the 12
Infallible Imams of the Shia, let alone mentioning them as the Ahlel Bayt. Nowhere in the Quran does it refer to
the Hidden Imam as the Ahlel Bayt. How is it then that a very fundamental aspect of the Shia faith is not in the
Quran, which is supposed to be the ultimate guide to truth? How can the ultimate guide be devoid of the essence
of belief, as the Shia claim that following their Ahlel Bayt is? The term Ahlel Bayt has been used twice in the
Quran, and both times to refer to the wives. The Quran does not say “O cousin of the Prophet” but rather it says
“O wives of the Prophet.”
In conclusion, the verse you have mentioned, Verse 33:33, was addressed to the Prophet’s wives.
Thank you for writing to us, and feel free to ask any more questions.
Sincerely,
Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
———————————————–
RE: from Zain ********

You have said that the verse 33:33 is referring to Aisha. How can Aisha possibly be infallible when she hated
Ali and she went out to fight against him?
Dear Brother Zain,
Thank you again for writing and giving us the opportunity to further clarify our position.
Firstly, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬did not hate Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬nor did she leave her house to fight against Ali (‫ضى‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬. This is a myth and it is slander, very much like the slander against Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬when people
accused him of killing Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬went out to seek reconciliation with Ali (‫ضى‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬in order to prevent bloodshed. This was her intention, and she was not the one who started the Battle of
the Camel, no moreso than Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was. We shall disclose more information on this topic in a future
article.
Secondly, the verse 33:33 does not make anybody infallible. Nobody is infallible, not even the prophets. This
idea of making people infallible is alien to Islam and it is akin to what the Christians have done with Prophet Isa
(i.e. making him infallible). This is an exaggeration that leads to Shirk, since an attribute of the Creator is given
to the creation. We will discuss infallibility in relation to verse 33:33 in a future article, Insha-Allah.
Sincerely,
———————————————–
From: Nabeel ***********

I am curious as to what the Shia say about Tahreef of the Quran, especially in regards to Verse 33:33. Can you
please shed some light on this matter?
Dear Brother Nabeel,
The very ideological foundation of Shi’ism comes falling down when we read the Quran and find out that the
Prophet’s wives are referred to as Ahlel Bayt. To deal with this inconsistency, certain Shia Ayatollahs claim
that the Quran has been tampered with. Observe what the popular Shia website Al-Islam.org has to say on this
issue; Allamah Sharaf al-Din says:
“…it is quite possible that the purification verse concerning the People of the House was revealed separately
and then, when the verses of the Quran were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to
the wives of the Prophet, either in error or deliberately.” (Al-Islam.org, Lesson 19, http://www.al-
islam.org/leadership/)
It is clear that the Shia first make up their beliefs and then read the Quran, as opposed to first reading the Quran
and then deriving their beliefs from it. When verses of the Quran conflict with Shia doctrine, then possibilities
are sought to explain away discrepancies. This is clearly an unnecessary complication. Therefore, it makes
sense to read the Quran as is and then decide upon one’s beliefs, rather than deciding on a belief first and then
manufacturing a “Quranic proof” in the realm of “possibilities”.
Such a belief that the verses in the Quran were manipulated by being arranged in a certain way is very much in
line with the classical Shia opinion that the Quran has had Tahreef (tampering) and has been changed by the
Sahabah. How can the Shia believe in Tahreef Bit Tarteeb (tampering in the order of verses) when Allah
Almighty has promised in the Quran that He Himself will protect the Quran from any tampering or
manipulation. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:
“Absolutely, we have revealed the Reminder [the Quran], and, We verily are its Guardian; we will preserve it.”
(Quran, 15:9)
“This is an honorable Quran in a protected book, well-guarded. A revelation from the Lord of the universe.”
(Quran, 56:77-80)
“Indeed, it is a glorious Quran, in a preserved master tablet.” (Quran, 85:21-22)
Allah has promised that He will protect and perserve the Quran from any and all tampering. In fact, this is a
central belief of Islam, without which the entire faith of Islam topples. Indeed, many Western orientalists and
evangelical Christians have labored hard to convince people that the Quran has been tampered with. If the
Quran were tampered with, then Islam has been changed and altered, just like the Muslims claim that the Bible
was changed and altered. To doubt the veracity and integrity of the Quran is to doubt all of faith, and this is
Kufr Akbar (Major Disbelief). We ask our Shia brothers not to throw their religious book and their entire faith
into the garbage can simply because they wish to hate Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and want so desperately to exclude
her from the Ahlel Bayt. This is a very poor reason to destroy one’s faith.
We cannot really have intelligent dialogue with our Shia brothers if we do not both agree on the Quran as the
gold standard. We can never prove to the Shia anything when they claim that the subject in the sentence has
actually changed. A Non-Muslim could easily claim that the verse talking about Abu Lahab was placed in the
wrong place and it should in reality be placed before the verse about following the Messenger! Suddenly, Abu
Lahab is the messenger of Allah! How can we seriously argue with people when they play word games with the
Quran, using cut and paste to make it mean whatever they want it to mean? This would turn the Quran into a
jigsaw puzzle and makes it meaningless as a book of guidance.
It is quizzical that certain Shia Ayatollahs of today say that they don’t believe in Tahreef of the Quran, but at the
same time they claim that verse 33:33 was placed deliberately next to the verse about the Prophet’s wives; they
say that the meaning of the Quran was thus manipulated and the integrity of the Quran lost. In fact, most Shia
scholars believe in Tahreef bit Tarteeb, which is the idea that the order of verses in the Quran were tampered
with.
Even if we look at verse 33:33 in isolation, we see clearly that the verse is talking about the wives:
“And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of
Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And
Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you
pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:33)
Surely, the Quran is not referring to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬when it commands to stay quietly in the house and not
make a dazzling display. Rather this can only be referring to the Prophet’s wives.
Sincerely,
———————————————–
From: Zain *********

In verse 33:33, the Quran switches tenses and changes from feminine form to masculine form. This clearly
means that the group being referred to has changed and that it is not being addressed to the Prophet’s wives any
more. Allah switched tenses which is His way of making it obvious that the special position of Ahlel Bayt is not
for the Prophet’s wives.
Response From AhlelBayt.com Admin
Dear Brother Zain,
Thank you for writing to us. May Allah guide you and guide us both to the Straight Path.
We would like to proclaim at the outset that if Allah wished to exclude the Prophet’s wives from Ahlel Bayt,
nothing prevented Him from saying this in the Quran; nobody–not even the supposedly “evil Sahabah”–could
force Allah to reveal the Verse of Purification in the middle of the commands to the Prophet’s wives.
The term “Ahl” is masculine, no matter if it is referring to men or women. When an Arab refers to a man’s
Ahlel Bayt and by this he means his wives, he will still make use of the masculine form, because Ahlel Bayt is a
masculine construction even though it refers to the wives. Ahlel Bayt cannot be used in the feminine, simply
speaking from a grammatical standpoint. So we should not be surprised when Allah uses the masculine term for
Ahlel Bayt. If, for example, this website were in Arabic, then we would use the masculine form for Ahlel Bayt
even if we were only referring to the Prophet’s wives. If you were to tell an Arab man to bring his wives to your
house, you would say “please bring your Ahlel Bayt” and this would be said in the masculine tense despite the
fact that you are referring to his wives. It is considered rude in Arab-Islamic culture to ask a man “how is your
wife” and instead the more culturally appropriate question is: “how is your Ahlel Bayt?” It is the polite way to
refer to a man’s wives, and indeed, any time you refer to a man’s Ahlel Bayt, the masculine form is used. This
is the Arabic language, and only an ignoramus and non-Arabic speaker would claim otherwise.
The verse was revealed to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and was referring to his wives, and thus the term
Ahlel Bayt was used, in reference to the Prophet and his wives, thereby necessitating the usage of the collective
masculine tense. If there is even one male in a group of females, then the collective masculine tense becomes
necessary. It is impossible to exclude the Prophet’s wives from this verse because it is addressed to them.
To completely end any possible confusion on this matter, we shall provide proof from the Quran itself. Ahlel
Bayt is used another time in the Quran and again this time to refer to the wives, using the collective masculine
tense:
“She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely
old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allahs decree? The grace of Allah
and His blessings on you, o you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House)! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of
all glory!” (Quran, 11:72-73)
The transliteration reads: “Qâlat Yâ WaylatâA’alidu Wa Anâ Àjûzun Wa Hadhâ Ba`lî Shaykhâan Inna Hâdhâ
Lashayun Àjîbun. Qâlû Ata`jabîna Min Amri Allâhi Ramatu Allâhi Wa Barakâtuhu Àlaykum Ahlul-Bayt-i
Innahu amîdun Majîdun.” (Quran, 11:72-73)
In this verse of the Quran, the masculine form is being used for Ahlel Bayt even though the Ahlel Bayt in
question is only one single woman. Again, this is the norm of the Arabic language, and indeed this is why the
classical Shia scholars never made this argument about tense switching since to an Arab, it makes no sense
whatsoever.
If Allah was purposefully switching tenses and this so clearly showed Allah’s intention, why then do the Shia
Ulema–-as shown by Al-Islam.org–-argue that there had been Tahreef bit Tarteeb (i.e. tampering in the order of
verses) of the Quran? How was Allah purposefully switching tenses when it was supposedly the Sahabah who
manipulated the Quran’s order and it was they who decided the order, not Allah? This, to us, does not make any
logical sense. How can the Shia further two contradictory claims, on the one hand claiming that the Sahabah
may have purposefully placed the purification verse in the middle of the verses to the Prophet’s wives, and on
the other hand claiming that this was Allah who was purposefully switching tenses to prove some point?
Furthermore, we’d like to state that Allah has mentioned it many times in the Quran that it is a Book of clear
guidance, and that it is written in an easily understandable form. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “These are
the signs of the clear book.” (12:1) How clear is the Quran if an unbiased reader will think that it is the
Prophet’s wives who are being referred to but in reality it is supposed to be Ali’s family ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬What
prevented Allah from simply ending this confusion and instead clearly saying “O cousin of the Prophet and his
family” instead of “O wives of the Prophet?” Why this confusion? Why did Allah place this verse of
purification in the middle of commands directed towards the Prophet’s wives? Wouldn’t this mean that this is
far from a clear book but rather it is a cryptic and confusing book?
Brother, you should read the Quran with an open mind and a receptive heart, without manipulating verses to
mean what you want them to mean. Before and after Allah talks about being pure and spotless, the Quran is
addressing the Prophet’s wives. Even after the pure and spotless part, Allah continues by saying “and recite
what is rehearsed to you in your homes…” This is still referring to the wives of the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬since it is telling them to recite the Quran in their homes, not in the mosque like men do. The entire verse
33:32-34 was revealed to caution the Prophet’s wives to stay inside their homes so that Allah could keep them
pure and spotless. Why is it that before and after the pure and spotless part, the Shia say these refer to the
Prophet’s wives? How come all of the Quran’s warnings refer to the Prophet’s wives, but any praise about
being pure and spotless automatically belongs to Ali’s family (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬Is this really a fair reading of the
Quran?
Indeed, certain Shia Tafseer of the Quran say that virtually every praise in the Quran is given to Ali (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬, and every condemnation to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. This is not a fair and balanced
way to read the Quran, but rather it is a manipulation of the Word of Allah. If Allah wanted to condemn Abu
Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in the Quran, then nothing prevented Him from mentioning their
names like He mentioned Abu Lahab’s name. If Allah wanted to praise Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in the Quran, then
nothing prevented Him from mentioning him as the “cousin of the Prophet” like Allah mentioned the Prophet’s
wives. We cannot manipulate the speech of Allah to suit our own desires.
Perhaps the greatest manipulation of all is to say that this verse was revealed in reference to the Infallible
Imams; where does Allah say any of this? Instead, He says “O wives of the Prophet.” What could prevent a
Bahai from claiming that the verse is actually addressing Bahaiullah instead of the Prophet’s wives? We do not
mean to be insulting or callous, but we need our Shia brothers to understand how the Ayatollahs’ interpretations
are highly suspect.
Half Hadith-ing (Zaid ibn Arqam)
From: Zain ********

The following verse in the Quran declares that the Ahlel Bayt have become infallible: “And Allah only wishes
to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and
spotless.”
The Prophet’s wives are not part of Ahlel Bayt. This is mentioned in your Sahih Muslim, narrated by Zaid ibn
Arqam. Please see Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith-5923.
Dear Zain,
Thank you for writing to us.
We are afraid that you are doing something we like to call “Half Hadith-ing.” What do we mean by this? We
mean that you are only posting half of a Hadith, much like you only posted half of the Quranic verse. This is not
the proper way to read the Quran or the Hadith and can lead to misinterpretations and misconceptions.
You posted verse 33:33 of the Quran, but only half of it. Let us look at the rest of it:
abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And recite
what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest
mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).” (Quran, 33:32-34)
When we post the entire verse, numerous things become clear among which is the fact that the verse, in fact, is
addressed to the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫!)ر‬
Similar clarifications become apparent if we read the entire narration of Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, namely
what comes before and after it. If we do so we shall see that Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬categorically declares
that the Prophet’s wives are most definitely part of the Ahlel Bayt.
You have asked us to look at Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith-5923. We will now kindly ask you to
read what comes right before it, namely Hadith-5920, 5921, and 5922. All of these are part of the same
narration and event as Hadith-5923. Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are all abridged versions of Hadith 5920,
which is the entire Hadith. For example, Hadith 5922 simply says:
“This hadith [5920] has been transmitted on the authority of Abu Hayyan but with this addition: ‘The Book of
Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance
and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.’”
This means that Hadith 5922 cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920, which is the entire Hadith, whereas
Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are abridged versions with minor additions and the words of additional narrators.
In fact, it is stated in Hadith 5923 (the one often quoted by Shia) that it cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920.
Notice the bolded part below:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him: “You have found goodness (for
you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer
behind him…”, and the rest of the Hadith is the same [as Hadith 5920] but with this variation of wording
that he said…
(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5923)
So we see that Hadith 5923 (as quoted by the Shia) cannot stand alone without the un-abridged version of
Hadith 5920.
Let us now look at Hadith 5920 which is the un-abridged version:
“He (Husain) said to Zaid: ‘Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his
family?’ Thereupon he said: ‘His wives are the members of his family but here the members of his family
are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.’ And he said: ‘Who are they?’ Thereupon he said: ‘Ali
and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil and the offspring of Jafar and the offspring of Abbas.’
Husain said: ‘These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden?’ Zaid said: ‘Yes.’”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920)
In perhaps the clearest version of this Hadith, Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬says:
“His wives are among the people of his household, but the people of his household who are forbidden to receive
sadaqah (charity) after his death are the family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far and the family
of ‘Abbaas. All of these are forbidden to receive sadaqah.”
So of course the Prophet’s wives are part of the Prophetic family, but Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was simply
talking about those members of the family who were forbidden Zakat. Here he was only talking about a specific
sub-group within Ahlel Bayt. This is why he said “his wives are the members of his family but here the
members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.”
An example of this is if a dying woman tells her friend: “Please take care of my children after I am dead.” The
friend replies: “You have five children–two of them are already married. Do you mean them too?” Then, the
dying woman responds: “No, they will be taken care of by their husbands, so I am only (here) talking about the
three children of mine who are not married.” This does not mean that the two married children are not still part
of her family, but all it means is that she is right now specifically worried about those members of her family
who will have no means of support. Likewise, in the Hadith narrated by Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, a group
of Muslim soldiers had criticized Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬reprimanded these men
and warned them to take care of his Ahlel Bayt (i.e. referring to Ali who was an honorary member of the Ahlel
Bayt). To this, the people asked: But doesn’t Ahlel Bayt equal wives? And to this, Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
made the clarification that here the Ahlel Bayt was in regards to those parts of the Ahlel Bayt who could not
recieve Zakat: the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was about to die and he worried about those parts of his family
who would not have the luxury of being supported by Zakat. This is similar to the analogy of the dying woman:
there is more concern for those members of the family who have no other source of financial support.
This Hadith narrated by Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬is also narrated in Musnad Ahmad (Hadith no. 18464).
Hence, there should be absolutely no confusion on this issue since we can find this same narration in more than
one book. In Musnad Ahmad (Hadith no. 18464), Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬says:
“His wives are the members of his family but here the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of
Zakat is forbidden.” (Ahmad, Hadith no. 18464)
Zaid (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬

ّ says “His wives are among the people of his household.” He further emphasized: “His
spouses are a fiber of his household.”
Furthermore, since when has Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬turned into the authorative source of the Islamic
belief system? Since when has the word of Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬become superior to the speech of
Allah, namely verse 33:32-34 in which Allah Almighty addresses the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel Bayt? Zaid ibn
Arqam (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬
ّ was not even narrating the word of the Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬5‫ه وآل‬5‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬when he was
conjecturing on who is and who is not part of the Ahlel Bayt; rather, he was speaking of his own accord.
Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬said in the same narration that along with Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and his family there are
other families included in the Prophetic household, including the family of Aqil (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, the offspring of
Jafar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and the offspring of Abbas (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. It is our understanding that the Shia do not accept
these individuals and their offspring as part of the Ahlel Bayt. So then how can this Hadith be used as proof for
the Shia? With this logic, it may seem that the verse 33:33 was actually revealed to all of these families.
Contrary to the expectations of many Shia, this Hadith actually helps elucidate the status of the wives of the
Prophet (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ّ ‫ )ر‬as part of the Ahlel Bayt and helps discredit the idea that they are somehow distinct from
the Ahlel Bayt.
The same Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬says in the preceeding part of Sahih Muslim:
“I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered
in connection with Allah’s Messenger.”
How then can we take this Hadith, appear to change its meaning, and place it above the Word of Allah in the
Quran in which He specifically addresses the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as Ahlel Bayt. Not a million Hadith
or Tafseer or Fatawa could change this fact.
Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬was only talking about that portion of the Prophetic family which could not accept
Zakat. The reason why the wives were exempted from this rule is also stated by Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in
the very same Hadith. He said that a wife can be divorced and “she goes back to her parents and to her people.”
At this point in time, she is no longer cared for by the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Let us remember that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was given special money in the form of the Khums, or the one-fifth tax of which
a part was reserved for the family of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. It would thus not be necessary for the
Prophet’s family to need Zakat since they were always provided for by the state. (The Zakat is considered the
filth of the Muslim masses [through the removal of which one’s wealth is purified] not befitting the Prophetic
Family, whereas the Khums is considered an honor befitting the Prophetic Household.) However, if a wife
divorces, then she is no longer given this Khums nor is she provided for by the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬,
and therefore she may need the Zakat if she has no other support.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did divorce some of his wives. These wives ceased being part of Ahlel Bayt
upon divorce, and thus the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬stopped providing for them financially. As such, the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬could not promise their financial well-being and they may even need Zakat to
maintain themselves as single divorced women. Furthermore, after the Prophet’s death, his widows were
forbidden to re-marry (this injunction is in the Quran). Thus, it would be unfair to them to prohibit them from
Zakat since they have no husband to care for them. Obviously, the option of Zakat in dire need could then not
be taken away from them.
It should be noted that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬never divorced Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬or Hafsa (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬. This should be something for our Shia brothers to ponder upon since it is a testament to how much the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬loved these women and how loyal he was to them–the same women that the Shia
Ayatollahs slander.
Let us read what Sunni Path has to say:
SunniPath.com says
“ Question:
Can you please explain this following hadith found in Muslim about ahlul bayt. Why does the narrator state that
the our mothers are not part of ahlul bayt? Clearly this is the opinion of the narrator and not what the Prophet (s)
but why did Imam Muslim add this hadith to his collection? However i wanted to know if you could please
explain this hadith and why does the narrator state that our mothers are not part of Ahlul Bayt.
Sahih Muslim
Book 031, Number 5923:
Answer:
Salamu ‘Alaykum wa Rahmatullah
I pray this finds you in the best of health and Iman. May Allah grant you all good in this life and the next.
In order to answer your question, I will address the issue in two parts.
[1] Regarding why Imam Muslim mentioned this narration in his collection, it was to show the variant wordings
and chains of the hadith. It was not uncommon for the scholars of hadith to mention these variations.
Amongst the reasons for this was to compare the different texts (mutun) of the same hadith in order to find
possible discrepancies, hidden defects, and also due to the principle that separate chains count as separate
ahadith regardless of whether the actual text of the narration is the same.
Since Imam Muslim was primarily interested in hadith and its chains (unlike his teacher Bukhari who was more
interested in the fiqh aspect of hadith) one will see that Imam Muslim adduces, under a given chapter-title, all
the hadith on that patricular issue/event - sometimes even stating preferences and strengths of individual chains.
[2] Secondly, regarding whether the wives of the Prophet (May Allah be pleased with them all) are part of the
Ahly al Bayt then indeed they are. The primary evidence for this is the Qur’anic verse 33:33
However, the question arises: Why then did Sayyidina Zayd ibn Arqam (Allah be pleased with him) state that
the wives were not included?
To understand this one must understand the context under which the term Ahly al Bayt was being employed.
The context of this narration is in regards to those for whom zakat is forbidden. This relates to a very specific,
textually-defined relationship.
Under this condition (i.e. those for whom zakat is forbidden) the wives will not be included since they are
lawfully entitled to zakat according to the consensus of the scholars as Ibn Hajar states in his Fath al Bari. This
is clearly evident from the narration of Sayyidina Zayd, which Imam Muslim cites prior to the one being
discussed, wherein he states:
‫قال نساؤه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة‬
“He (Zayd) said, ‘His wives are from his house (ahl baytihi) but the members of his house [in this context] are
those for whom charity is forbidden.”
Imam Nawawi, commenting on this narration states that in terms of standing, respect, rights and high regard
preached by the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) towards his family, the wives do indeed enter .
However, they do not enter into those for whom zakat is forbidden.
Further, as Sayyidi Gibril Haddad stated, one should know that it is one of the Prophetic characteristics that the
wives that survived him are his wives forever as he himself said to Umm Salama when she asked to be under
the mantle: “Are you not pleased to be my wife here and in the hereafter?” They cannot remarry nor inherit
from him, so the analogy drawn by Sayyidina Zayd is inapplicable to them except for the ruling of zakat.
Thus, to conclude, the wives are part of the Ahly al Bayt. There are numerous narrations to attest to this such as
the one narrated by Imam Bukhari from Anas ibn Malik wherein the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him
peace) entered upon Sayyidah A’isha and greeted her “Peace be upon you People of my house” (assalamu
‘alaykum ahly bayti). Sayyidina Zayd (Allah be pleased with him) does not negate this but merely states that
those for whom zakat is forbidden are a more specific group excluding the wives.
And Allah knows best

Salman Ahmad Younas
Approved by Faraz Rabbani
”
We shall take the opportunity to quote another Hadith in Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫لّم‬5‫ )وس‬himself refers to Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬
ّ as being Ahlel Bayt. Therefore, even if we accepted the Shia
proposition that Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬denied that the Prophet’s wives were Ahlel Bayt, then his opinion
would have to be rejected because nobody’s word can be taken above that of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
In Sahih Bukhari, we see a narration in which the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself addresses Aisha (‫ضى‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬as part of Ahlel Bayt:
Narrated Anas:
A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I
was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and
then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to
invite.
Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”
He (the Prophet) said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house
chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be
on you, Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”
She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you.”
Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha
and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.
Therefore, we hope it becomes apparent that the claim that Sunni Hadith exclude the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنهم‬from Ahlel Bayt is incorrect.
In conclusion, the Shia who use this Hadith of Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to “prove” their claims are doing
what we like to call “Half Hadith-ing.” You will notice this same approach taken by the Shia with certain verses
of the Quran as well. As a side-note, it should be asked: why are the Shia so adamant in denying the Prophet’s
wives the position of Ahlel Bayt? Do they really hate the beloved of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬so much?
These are the women that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was intimate with; not a single person alive today
can claim this honor. So why this undying hatred for the women in the Prophet’s life? Why the need to go to
such great lengths to misinterpret seemingly straight-forward verses in the Quran?
The Status of Ahlel Bayt

All Muslims believe in respecting the Ahlel Bayt. However, many Shia espouse a viewpoint that goes against
the Islamic concepts of egalitarianism and is a rejection of Quranic exhortations. The Shia believe that the
Prophet’s descendants will be automatically granted a high rank and status based on their familial connection to
the Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآل‬. They believe that nobody can attain the rank of these “Syedis” simply
because they were not born to the Prophet’s family, and this is why Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to them is forever
inferior to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. The Shia say that the only ones who are allowed to be the Imams and leaders of the
Muslims are those who come from the lineage of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. It seems to us that it would
not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia believe that the Prophet’s descendants are automatically superior to
everyone else based on their lineage.
The reality, however, is that a person’s lineage and birth has no bearing on his rank and station on earth in the
eyes of Allah. The only criterion which decides a person’s rank and station is a person’s Taqwa (piety). The
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬spoke well of the Ahlel Bayt and Ahlel Kisa (People of the Cloak) not because
they were related to him, but rather because these people had great Taqwa. The Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
knew them personally and he experienced their dedication to Islam first-hand. As such, the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫لّم‬55‫ه وس‬55‫ )وآل‬could vouch for them. The Prophet (‫لّم‬55‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬55‫ )ص‬also complimented his Sahabah
(Companions), the Ansar (Helpers), Muhajiroon (Immigrants), and many other groups of people. When the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬complimented the Muhajiroon, he did not do so simply because they were part of
a certain Meccan tribe, but rather because they had great Taqwa. The same holds true for the Ansar, the
Sahabah, and anyone else.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬used Ahlel Bayt as a description to denote that these family members had
great Taqwa. For example, if a person has a very pious uncle, he would say “my uncle has Taqwa; you should
respect my uncle!” This does not mean that he has selected his uncle simply because he is a biological uncle,
but rather because the uncle has Taqwa. Had his uncle been a sinful and distasteful person then he would have
said that he has no relation to his uncle. Likewise, we are respecting the Ahlel Bayt not simply because they are
related to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but rather only because they had a great deal of Taqwa.
The Quran repeatedly holds each individual responsible for his or her own conduct. The actions of one soul
cannot affect another, neither positively nor negatively. To do so would go against the egalitarian spirit of
Islam, and would instead be a reflection of Jahiliyyah custom in which people thought they would be saved
based on their familial connections as opposed to their Taqwa.
Quran
The Quran declares that on the Day of Judgement everyone’s familial connections will be cut off: “so now all
relations between you have been cut off” (Quran, 6:94)
And then Allah says: “one soul shall not avail another” (Quran, 2:48) And again: “one soul shall not avail
another” (Quran, 2:123)
The Quran categorically states that no soul shall have an effect on another: “no soul benefits except from its
own work, and none bears the burden of another” (Quran, 6:164)
And again, Allah repeats it “that no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another–And that man shall have
nothing but what he [himself] strives for” (Quran, 5:38-39)
As well as: “that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts” (Quran, 6:70)
Allah says “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes,
that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has Taqwa
[piety].” (Quran, 49:13)
Hadith
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬declared that people were born inherently equal “except by piety and good
action (Taqwa). Indeed the best among you is the one with the best character (Taqwa). Listen to me. Did I
convey this to you properly?… Each one of you who is here must convey this to everyone not present.”
(Excerpt from the Prophet’s Last Sermon as in Baihiqi)
Islam came and destroyed this concept of hereditary rank. The Quran declares that people are created inherently
equal and differ only based on their Taqwa (piety): “Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he
who is the most righteous of you.” (Quran 49:13)
It is our hope that it has become clear that the Shia who believe in this are going against the Quran when they
think that the Prophet’s family will be judged by another criterion or by a special lenience simply because they
are the Prophet’s family, or that they will be automatically exalted based on something other than merit. They
argue that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬had more of a right to the Caliphate than Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬because he was
related to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and the leadership could only be from a certain lineage of people [a
concept not unfamiliar in the modern day context of the KKK and other discriminatory belief systems which
raise people based on birth to a certain group as opposed to merit]. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has
condemned this attitude in no uncertain terms, calling it nothing less than a remnant of the pre-Islamic Time of
Jahiliyyah (Ignorance).
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said: “There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the
sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold,
Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral
glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and
Adam was created out of dust.” [At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud]
The Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬said further: “Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of
arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds.
Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was
made of clay… If they do not give this up (i.e. pride in ancestors) Allah will consider them lower than the lowly
worm which pushes itself through dung.” [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]
And the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said: “The people of such and such a tribe are not my friends and
supporters, rather my friends and supporters are the pious, no matter where they are.”
.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said: “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of a non-Arab
over an Arab, or of a white man over a black man, or of a black man over a white man, except in terms of
Taqwa (piety). The people come from Adam and Adam came from dust.”
The Prophets and their Families
After all, Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was born of a family who were Mushriks (polythiests) so
how can lineage possibly mean anything? Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬had a son who was destined to Hell-Fire and
his example is mentioned in the Quran, showing that not even if a person’s father is a prophet does this mean
anything. Prophet Ibrahim’s father was a Mushrik and Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬will disown him on the Day of
Judgement. We see that ties of blood relation sever and the only real familial connection is through Taqwa. The
Prophet Muhammad’s uncles were blood-related, but do we say that Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl will get any
special privelage because of this?
People should not be accorded special rights simply because they were born to the right womb. People should
be judged based on their Taqwa, not their birth. Bilal (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was a slave, born to a slave woman, and
today he is remembered as one of the noblest of Sahabah–despite his “lowly birth.” On the other hand, both
Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were from the same bloodline as the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and yet they are
the two people for whom Allah has promised Hell-fire.
To take it even one step further: today, there are descendants of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab who are highly
religious Muslims, and will Insha-Allah enter Paradise. Would it be proper and just of Allah to limit the
greatness of such people simply because they come from a certain stock, and not another? Then why is it that
the Shia say such things against the progeny of Yezid, as if the progeny of Yezid had any say in being born of
his loins!
The point is simple: who a person is born to should not decide his status in the eyes of Allah or in the religion of
Islam. It should only be one’s Taqwa which dictates a person’s station and rank. This is why it is discomforting
that the Shia trace Imamah via the Prophet’s bloodline just like a hereditary kingship. Why didn’t Allah
Almighty simply make all the prophets to be like a hereditary kingship? He instead chose from amongst the
people the best of character and the ones with the most Taqwa. Prophet Musa (‫ )عليه السالم‬came from people
who were slaves, and yet his rank was raised far above the king of the country, Pharaon. In the words of Martin
Luther King: people should be judged based upon the content of their character and nothing else. This is what
defines a person’s rank on this earth.
The Ayatollahs will oftentimes retort that Prophet Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬asked for his progeny to be leaders.
However, it should be noted that his sons were the ancestors of the entire Semite race and the only ones alive in
the entire region. This argument is equivalent to saying that Allah chose Prophet Adam’s family (‫ )عليه السالم‬and
exalted them as leaders, and then using this as evidence against the idea that Allah judges only upon merit.
Furthermore, we should all make du’a that our progeny is pious; this in no way means that we are saying our
progeny is superior to the progeny of other people.
Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is not the best because of his birth, but only because he was the best
in Taqwa. And the Ahlel Bayt and Ahlel Kisa were complimented by the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬not
because of their birth but because the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew of their great Taqwa. Why should the
Prophet’s family be exalted just by virtue of being his family? Should they not be exalted for their
righteousness, their piety, and their Taqwa?
And even if we take the view that the family of the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬should be exalted above all
others, then why is one section preferred above all others? Uthman’s father (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the Prophet’s
second cousin, making Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬a nephew of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. If the lineage of the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is to be exalted above all others, then why is Uthman’s side of the family (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬neglected in this adulation? If this is countered by the fact that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the husband of Fatima (
‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ّ
ّ ‫)ر‬, the daughter of the Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬, then what about Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gave Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬two of his daughters in marriage. Does that not mean
that Uthman’s lineage (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬has twice the right to be exalted above Ali’s lineage (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬No, this
is contrary to the egalitarian spirit of Islam. Birthright does not mean anything. Only Taqwa does.
Syedi
Today, so many Shia claim to be “Syedi.” How exactly does one inherit the title of Syed? Just because the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬called one person to be Syed, this does not mean that all his progeny magically
become Syed as well. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gave the title of Siddeeq to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫;)ر‬
does this mean that all of his progeny are also magically Siddeeq (i.e. truthful)? A person does not inherit such
qualities or titles, but rather he/she must work for them and strive for them with their own actions and deeds.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (‫ )رحمه هللا‬says:
“The idea that there are “sayyids” or “walis” (“saints”) whom Allaah has singled out from among mankind for
some favour, or that they have a status which other people do not share, is an idea which is based on the Magian
belief that Allaah is “incarnated” in people He chooses from among mankind. The Persians used to believe this
of their kings (Chosroes), and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendents. This
Magian (Zoroastrian) idea spread to the Muslims via the Raafidi Shi’ah, whose origins are Magian – so this idea
was introduced to the Muslims. This idea says that Allaah selects some of mankind, to the exclusion of others,
for this status, which is the status of imaamah and wilaayah. So they believe in this idea with regard to ‘Ali ibn
Abi Taalib and his descendents, and they add other positions to that, such as sayyid…They said that as this
sayyid or wali has this position and status, then they know better what is in our best interests, so we should
entrust our affairs to them, because they are better than us, and so they are more entitled…There can be no
doubt that this is obviously a misguided notion.”
And perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that many of the people who claim to be “Syedi” today are of
Iranian or Pakistani ethnicity. How can these people realistically claim descent from the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬who was Arab? Their skin is not the same color as the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, their facial
structure is from another race altogether, and even their DNA would attest to the fact that they are anything but
descendants of the Prophet (‫ !)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬And why is it that we find very few people in Arabia who
claim to be Syedi, and yet every third person claims this rank in Iran and Pakistan?
The unfortunate truth is that these Syedis are misguided. The reasoning is simply that the position of “Syed” is
respected in these lands and “being a Syedi” is in vogue, while anybody can easily claim to be Syedi. We find
that in Iran there are many Ayatollahs who claim to be Syedi and thus they are exalted because of this. In
Pakistan, many of the “saints” claim to be Syedi and they are thus exalted by the incredulous people for this.
Historically, the Shia leaders have exploited the masses by collecting Khums (religious tax) from their
followers, all because they are “Syedi.” This is no doubt exploiting the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and his
family, all for materialistic gain.
It would be more accurate to say that Iranians are the descendants of fire-worshippers and Pakistanis are
descendants of Hindu pagans. Likewise, most Arabs are the descendants of idol-worshippers, including the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself. The writer of this article is most likely the descendant of a Hindu pagan,
but he does not think that Allah would judge him any differently had he been born to another lineage!
Conclusion
Indeed, to cogitate that the Ahlel Bayt or Ahlel Kisa are special because of their familial connection as opposed
to their Taqwa is to, in fact, diminish the status of the Ahlel Bayt.
To conclude, yes we must respect the Ahlel Bayt and Ahlel Kisa. But this is not because they are born of a
certain lineage, but rather because they had a great deal of Taqwa. We reject all those who claim to be superior
based on their lineage.
Furthermore, anyone who is pious and a believer becomes family to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Allah
says in the Quran: “The believers are nothing else than brothers.” (Quran, 49:10) In Islam, family is based not
on blood but rather on faith. We are brothers and sisters in the Deen, and if our blood-relatives are of another
faith, then they are not family in the eyes of Islam; faith is the marker for who is part of our family. Those who
convert to Islam and who are pious are adopted into the Muslim family.
The evidence for this can be seen by the fact that even the supposedly lowly slaves were declared to be Ahlel
Bayt. It was narrated that Mihraan, the freed slave of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, said: the Messenger of
Allah said: “We are the family of Muhammad… the freed slave of a people is one of them.” (Narrated by
Ahmad, no. 15152).
Anyone who is pious is included in the Ahl of Islam, the brotherhood and sisterhood of the Ummah. It is
transmitted by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim that in one incident some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-
Farsi. They spoke of the inferiority of Salman’s Persian ethnicity, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬declared, “Salman is from us, the Ahlel Bayt.” And with that did the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬destroy the Jahiliyyah concepts of discrimination based on one’s birth. Suddenly, the Persian Kisra
(King) became the most despicable whereas the lowly Muslim slave Bilal (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬became one of the
highest in rank.
It was not the intent of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to make a dynasty of rulers after him, nor did he
mention this in any authentic report. On the contrary, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬stated that the most
eligible to claim a right to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬are the most pious, regardless of their descent or
the place they lived in.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬turned to Medinah and said: “Those Ahlel Bayt of mine think that they have
the most right (to me) and it is not like this. Rather those who have the most right to me from amongst you are
the pious, whoever they are and wherever they are.” [Narrated by Ibn Abi Asim 2/689 and Al-Tabarani 20/121]
In another Hadith, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬condemns people of the future who would lay claim to
power based on familial descent from the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬: “a man from the people of my house,
who will assert that he belongs to me, whereas he does not, for my friends are only the God-fearing.” [Narrated
by Abu Dawuud # 4230 and Ahmad # 5892 and others]
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has shown that the true relationship to him is that of piety and religion and
not of biological descent. Had the Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬indeed set a dynasty of rulers from his
offspring, this would have cast doubt to the Prophet’s truthfulness and sincerity in conveying Allah’s word and
then the Prophet (‫لّم‬55‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬55‫ )ص‬would have been like other kings who were after this Dunya
(materialistic world) and founded kingdoms with dynasties from their offspring. Indeed, the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬even forbade his progeny from inheriting wealth from him!
It is outside of our capabilities and inclinations to force people to leave concepts which the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬himself condemned in the strongest of manner, but it should be noted, however, that this method of
exaltation will not be seen as something praiseworthy by the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬or his family, but
rather they will view it as an abomination, much like a white person of good moral standards would find it
offensive if someone else declared him superior simply because he was white. Most white people look down on
Neo-Nazis, despite the fact that the Neo-Nazis are “praising” the white race. Likewise, the Prophet’s lineage
will look down on those Shia who are “praising” them in such an exaggerated manner and based on criteria
other than their merit.
Certain people may rationalize this discrimination by saying “Allah is God and God can do anything.”
However, it is not God who is discriminating. Allah is clear in the Quran, in which He definitively states that
Taqwa is the only criterion. If individuals decide to engage in discrimination based on birthright, then they
should do it on their own accord and stop justifying it using Allah as an excuse. Thus, in our view it is
unacceptable that the Shia reject the first Caliph on the basis of his lineage, and it is this bigotry that the Shia
faith is based upon. It may be the case that this notion of discrimination was propagated by Abdullah ibn Saba
and the Saba’ites, the founders of the Shia movement; ibn Saba was Jewish and he may well have carried over
the notion of a chosen group of people, a concept of Judaism. This idea would then have been fostered by the
Persian converts to Shi’ism who often came from Magian backgrounds.
We ask Allah to shower His Infinite blessings upon the Ahlel Bayt, the Ahlel Kisa, the Sahabah, the
Muhajiroon, the Ansar, and the believing Muslims!
Foundation of Shi’ism is Nasibi
We hope that, here, we have proven beyond a doubt that the Prophet’s wives are indeed part of Ahlel Bayt.
The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬as Ahlel Bayt in the following
verse:
33:32-33)
The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna
bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna
wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha
warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran”
(Quran, 33:32-33)
Thus we hope that it has become clear that whoever slanders the Prophet’s wives and talks ill of them can be
considered a Nasibi (hater of the Ahlel Bayt). The most beloved of the Prophet’s wives was Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬. However, it, unfortunately, appears that a very important premise of Shi’ism is based upon slander against
her, the Mother of the Believers and rightful member of the Ahlel Bayt.
Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬narrated a Hadith in which the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬specifically appointed Abu
Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬to lead the prayers as Imam during the Prophet’s sickness at the end of his life. The Sahabah (
‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah rightfully interpreted this appointment to mean that the Prophet
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬appointed Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as his successor, not Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. The majority of
the Shia admit that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the Imam of the prayers during the Prophet’s last few days of
life; however, they argue that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had really appointed Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to lead the
prayers, but that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬lied to the people by claiming that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬had
ّ
appointed Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to lead the prayers. Recently, there have been some Shia who have even gone
to the extreme of denying known historical events by saying that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬never led the prayers as
Imam; they again accuse Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬of being a liar, and say that the Hadith about Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬leading the prayers were fabricated by Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Al-Tijani is a very popular Shia scholar and writer who recently published his best-selling book “Then I was
Guided.” In this book, he says: “…either by his [Abu Bakr’s] daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is
well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings [Hadith].” (Then I was
Guided, p.141) Al-Tijani futher says: “…she [Aisha] played an important role in the denial of the Prophet’s will
for Ali…” (Then I was Guided, p.119-120) This book can be found referenced on the popular Shia website Al-
Islam.org, and it is at the forefront of the Shia dialogue with the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah; this viewpoint that
Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬fabricated Hadith to prove her father’s claim to Caliphate is accepted by Ijma (consensus)
of all the Shia Ayatollahs and Maraje’ (high scholars).
Based on this, it is our understanding that the Shia opposition to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬cannot be understated. It is
the foundation block of Shi’ism that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. Without believing
in this, the Shia would be forced to accept Abu Bakr’s (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬appointment as successor Imam and the
entire belief of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬being the first Infallible Imam becomes implausible. Thus, the Shia are faced
with two options: either they slander Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and call her a liar, or they accept Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
and then rescind their claims that it was Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬who was appointed as successor Imam by the Prophet
(‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
The Shia claim to be the “followers of the Ahlel Bayt,” but the reality is apparently otherwise; had they
followed the Ahlel Bayt (i.e. the Prophet’s wives), then they would have accepted Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬as the
successor Imam to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and the Muslim Ummah would have remained united. The
truth of the matter is that it is the Shia who are the Nasibis, because they hate the Prophet’s wives. The Ahlus
Sunnah wal Jama’ah loves the entire Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophet’s wives, all his children, Ali (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬and his family, etc., whereas the Shia only love one segment of the Ahlel Bayt and despise other parts of it.
Slander Against Prophet’s Wives
The Shia scholars slander the Prophet’s wives, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. They do not have a
good opinion of Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬ because she was the daughter of the first Caliph (Abu Bakr [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)]ر‬,
and they do not speak well of Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬because she was the daughter of the second Caliph (Umar bin
Khattab [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)]ر‬.
The Shia believe that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬was a Munafiqh (hypocrite) and Kaffir (disbeliever), and we see this
allegation in the well-known books of the Shia: “Aisha was an infidel woman (Kaffir).” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol.
No. 2, Page No. 726) It is further stated: “Aisha was a hypocrite (Munafiqh).” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Page No. 867)
And again: “Aisha and Hafsa were hypocrite and infidel women.” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 900)
The famous Ayatollah, Mullah Baqir Majlisi, states: “She [Aisha] was a traitor.” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi,
Tadhkiratul Aimmah, p. 66)
The Shia argue that whoever denies the Imamah of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is considered a Kaffir, and they say that
ّ ‫ )ر‬is one of the leaders (along with Muawiyya [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )]ر‬in the opposition against Ali’s
Imamah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this:
:”‫ واعتقادنا‬. ‫الم‬555‫اء عليهم الس‬555‫وة االنبي‬555‫د نب‬555‫ ) من جح‬6 ( ‫ة‬555‫الم بمنزل‬555‫ده عليهم الس‬555‫ة من بع‬555‫نين واالئم‬555‫ير المؤم‬555‫ة أم‬555‫د إمام‬555‫” فيمن جح‬
“‫ه‬55‫لى هللا علي‬55‫د ص‬55‫وة محم‬55‫فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من االئمة عليهم السالم أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع االنبياء ثم أنكر بنب‬
‫“ وآله‬
Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html
Translation: Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imaamat of Ameer ul Mu’mineen [Ali]
and the Aimmah after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”
.
Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer ul Mu’mineen but rejects a single Imaam
after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood
of Muhammad (saws).”
.
Sheykh Mufid declared:
“‫”اتفقت االمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من االئمة وجحد ما أوجبه هللا تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار‬
Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar23/a39.html
Translation: “The Imamiyya is in agreement that the one who rejects the Imaamat of one Imaam and rejects the
obedience to them which Allah (t) ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.”
.
Hence, there should be no confusion on this matter that the Shia believe Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is a disbeliever
(Kaffir) destined for Hell-Fire. In fact, the Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is not
only a Kaffir but rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [Imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org quotes the Shia
Tafseer for verse 9:12 as:
“According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed and fought
against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt…Ali ibn abi Talib had recited this verse at the
battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet.” [Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12,
http://www.al-islam.org/quran/]
.
In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom
Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Talha (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and Zubair (
ّ ‫ )ر‬who are being referred to in this Verse as the “Leaders of Kufr.” This view is also the position of
Kashani in his Tafseer Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes
Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as one of the “Aimmatul Kufr” (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish polythiests, the
Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians.
.
Oftentimes one will find Shias who use Taqiyyah (deception to protect one’s religion) when they debate with
the Ahlus Sunnah, and they claim that they don’t say that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is a Kaffir. How is this possible
when Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬supposedly fought against the so-called Infallible Imam of the Shia? Not only this,
but Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬ was the sole reason that the Ahlus Sunnah believe Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to be the first
Caliph and not Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. To the Shia, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬thus represents the leader of the enemies of
Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, a chronic liar and fabricator of Hadith.
Let us now examine what Al-Tijani (a popular Shia scholar) said about Aisha: “…she [Aisha] tried hard to
support her father, even by fabricating sayings [Hadith].” (Then I was Guided, p.141). Here, Al-Tijani is
accusing the Prophet’s wife of being a liar. It is well accepted that fabricating Hadith is Kufr (disbelief) both in
Shia and Sunni schools of thought.
The Shia call Aisha “the horn of Shaitan” and they claim that the Prophet said this. Al-Tijani alleges in his
book: “Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he pointed towards the house where Aishah was living,
then said, ‘There is the trouble … there is the trouble … there is the trouble … from where the devil’s horns
come out.’” (Then I was Guided, p.119)
The accusations by the Shia scholars do not stop there. To create a diabolical mystique around Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬, they accuse her of hating to even mention the name of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬ and that she celebrated on the day
that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬died. Al-Tijani says: “she [Aisha] did not like mentioning his [Ali’s] name, and when she
learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” (Then I was Guided, p.117-118)
The Shia scholars even accuse Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬of being an accomplice to murder. They say that Aisha (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬advocated the murder of Uthman (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫)رض‬,
ّ and they quote her as saying “Kill the old fool
[Uthman].” Not only did she advocate the murder of Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, but the Shia also say that she then
used the murder of Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as an excuse to wage war against Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and kill even more
Muslims. Al-Tijani claims: “she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the
commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of
Muslims, according to the historians. She did all that because she did not like Ali who advised the Prophet to
divorce her.” (Then I was Guided, p.117) Not only this, but the Shia scholars also add that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬
was responsible for the murder of Muawiyya (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
There are even Shia scholars who argue that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬attempted to murder
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself: “Aisha and Hafsa poisioned the Prophet.” (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Page No.
118) This is voiced by one of the Shia Maraje, namely Mullah Baqir Majlisi: “Aisha and Hafsa tried to martyr
Rasulullaah by giving him poison.” (Vol. 2, Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) And again: “…
those two female munafiqs (referring to Aisha and Hafsa) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering poison
to him.” (Hayatul Quloob, page 745, Vol 2, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) Some of the more liberal Shia will deny that
ّ ‫ )ر‬poisioned the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but they will not deem it blasphemous to argue
this point; in fact, we noticed an entire thread about this topic on Shia-Chat, where poster after poster was
arguing that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬had attempted to poison the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
We hope it is becoming more and more apparent that the accusations levied at Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬seem to stem
more from emotions, rhetoric, and inherent bias rather than reliable and referenced historical facts. Aisha (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬are portrayed as being demonically bad people; these being two of the women
whom the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬remained married to and loved for his entire life.
The Shia cleric Mutahhiri was quoted in the Tehran Times as saying: “Now that we see Ali, and Ammaar,
Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with Aisha and az-Zubayr and Talhah, we do not feel any hesitation,
for we see the second group as people with the look of criminals, that is, the effects of evil and treachery are
evident on their faces: and when we look at their faces and their treacherous characters we guess that they are
people of the Fire.” (Shia cleric Mutahhiri, Tehran Times, 25th August, 1982)
This is voiced again in this Shia book: “…Muawiyya and Aisha were worst people of all times.” (Makalmaat-e-
husainia, page #59). And Mullah Baqir Majlisi said: “They [Aisha and Hafsa] were both hypocrites
[Munafiqeen].” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi, Hayatul Quloob, 2:745)
And there are even Shia scholars who go to the extreme of saying that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬were indecent women: “Hafsa was an indecent women.” (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, Page
No. 123) And: “Aisha was charged of committing open vulgarity.” (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain
Dehlevi, Page No. 840) Al-Tijani says in his book: “How could Umm al-Mu’mineen Aishah leave her house in
which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: ‘And stay in your houses and do not display your
finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours.’” Is Al-Tijani accusing the Prophet’s own wife of
displaying her finery [i.e. showing her breasts, body, etc] to everyone?
The Shia scholars believe that the Mehdi will come and exhume the body of Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in order to flog
her for her sins: “When the Twelvth Imam returns, Aisha will be raised from the dead so as to be whipped as
due punishment.” (Al Shafi, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 108) And: “When the Twelvth Imam returns, he will bring
Aisha to life so as to torment her.” (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 139) As well as: “Imam Mehdi will punish Aisha
with stripes.” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 901) Mullah Baqir Majlisi says: “When Imam Mahdi
arrives, Aisha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be
vindicated.” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi, Haqqul Yaqeen, p. 347)
The Shia accusations against Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ ّ range from the absurd [i.e. that she gave poison to the
Prophet] to the outright childish; for example, Al-Islam.org dedicates so much of its webspace to discuss how
ّ ‫ )ر‬was an imprudent, rude, and “jealous woman.” Stories will then be cited about how Aisha (
‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was so jealous and vengeful towards her co-wives and step-child Ibrahim (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ;)ر‬the way the
Shia describe her makes her sound diabolical, more like the wicked stepmother in the Disney movie
“Cinderella” than a real life person. In fact, the Shia will never even name their daughter “Aisha” because to
them this name is a cursed and wretched name; this shows the depth of their hatred for Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The
Shia scholars will belittle Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬by saying that she was barren and infertile, citing this as a reason
that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬hated her co-wives and was jealous of Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
The entire faith of Shi’ism is based upon calling Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. To the
Shia, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is the chief rejector of the Imamah of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, because of whom the entire
Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah supposedly abandoned the Imamah of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. We wonder why then the
Shia scholars say that they are the “followers of Ahlel Bayt” since Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and her co-wives are the
Ahlel Bayt! Allah Himself addresses them in the Quran as such.
The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬as Ahlel Bayt in the following
verse:
33:32-33)
The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna
bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna
wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha
warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran”
(Quran, 33:32-33)
We ask Allah to shower His infinite blessings upon Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, the Mothers of
the Believers, and to protect them from the slander of the Nasibis who, while proclaiming what has been
mentioned above, can not possibly claim to love the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬despite
whatever they claim of the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. In future articles, we shall Insha-Allah refute this
malicious slander against our beloved Mothers, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Mothers of the Believers
The Quran bestows the title of “Mother of the Believers” (Umm Al Mumineen) to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Hafsa (
ّ ‫)ر‬, and the rest of the Prophet’s wives:
“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Quran, 33:6)
Therefore, anyone who declares “baraa” (disassociation) from Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and says that she is not his
mother, such a person is not a believer. In order to be a believer, a Muslim must accept all of the Prophet’s
wives as his mothers as decreed in the quoted verse. He must treat Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬with the same respect
that he treats his own mother with. Let us see what the Quran says about respecting one’s parents:
“Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both
of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in
terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: ‘My Lord! bestow on them
Your Mercy…’” (Quran, 17:23-24).
Allah says again: “And (there is one) who says to his parents ‘oof’ ! …for they are those in loss!” (Quran,
46:17-18)
If Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬is the mother of the believers, then the people who slander her, insult her, and criticize
her are not believers. We wonder what will be the fate of those who speak of Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ ّ with
contempt, who repel Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, disassociate themselves from her [i.e. “baraa”], and call her an enemy
of Islam? How can the mother of Muslims, as declared by Allah, be an enemy of the Muslims?
Why would Allah bestow this honor upon Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬if they were the enemies
of the Muslims? Surely then Allah would have addressed them with the title of Umm Al Nasibioon (Mother of
the Nasibis). Why would Allah try to confuse the believers by complimenting a supposed enemy of Islam? Was
Allah trying to fool us? In another verse in the Quran, Allah addresses the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as
“Ahlel Bayt”:
33:32-33)
Allah bestowed upon Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬the special honor of being addressed in the
Quran as both Ahlel Bayt and Umm Al Mumineen, a position of double respect not given to anyone else other
than the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. This is something for our Shia brothers to reflect upon. Do they really
feel comfortable criticizing people who have been elevated to such a high status by Allah in the Quran? Can any
Shia claim to be mentioned in the Quran in such a manner? No mainstream Muslim is mentioned in the Quran
like this either. Based on this, everyone alive today should know their place in this world as inferior to the
Prophet’s wives; and inferior people should not criticize those higher in rank than them (i.e. higher in the ranks
of Allah). We ask: are any of the contemporary Shia Ayatollahs mentioned in the Quran and bestowed an honor
like the Prophet’s wives? The answer is a resounding no: none of them are mentioned in the Quran, and so it is
up to the Shia wether or not he chooses to follow those honored in the Quran (i.e. the Prophet’s wives) or those
who malign those honored in the Quran.
Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if their local Ayatollahs delivered sermons denouncing their biological
mothers? Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if Al-Islam.org or other Shia websites broadcasted slander against
their biological mothers like they dedicate page after page denouncing Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬Al-Islam.org has a
whole page dedicated to the charge that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was a jealous woman. Answering-Ansar has a page
dedicated on their site to condemning the Prophet’s wife. Would believers find it acceptable and within
religious protocolto insult their own biological mothers? Yet, an insult against Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is a personal
insult to all the believers. Recently, the Muslims rallied against the Denmark newspaper which insulted the
Prophet (‫ ;)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬should we not also rally against the forces that insult his wives and the Mothers
of all the Believers?
Should we not heed the word of Allah and lower the wing of humility to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, the Mother of the
Believers? Should we not, in fact, pray for her and the rest of the Prophet’s wives as mentioned in the Quran:
“My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy…” (Quran, 17:23-24)
Al-Ifk: Quran Defends Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
The incident of al-Ifk is narrated in both Sunni and Shia Tafseer; the incident is also narrated on the popular
Shia website, Al-Islam.org. We shall first re-tell the story of al-Ifk and then later shall we authenticate it with
Shia Tafseer from Al-Islam.org.
Incident of al-Ifk
On the way back to Medina, the Muslim army stopped for a rest, but then the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
unexpectedly ordered the army to continue the march again. Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬noticed that her onyx necklace
was missing so she retraced her steps to find it. When she finally found it and returned to the camp, the Muslim
army had already left without her. Her litter was veiled so her absence was not noticed.

ّ ‫ )ر‬waited for someone to notice she was missing and to come back for her. Fortunately, she
did not have to wait long, for a young Muslim man named Safwan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, who had fallen behind the
army after taking a rest, reached the camp during the night and found her lying fast asleep. Safwan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
ّ ّ
recognized her and escorted her back to the Muslim army and the Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬.
Unfortunately, some hypocrites who had seen Safwan (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫)رض‬ّ and Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5 ‫)رض‬
ّ arrive alone
together began to gossip and spread slanderous lies about them. Eventually the story reached the Prophet (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself and by then the whole community was talking about what might or might not have
happened between the two young Muslims. Naturally, the believers were certain that nothing bad had happened,
but the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) thought otherwise and were not afraid to insinuate that was the case, accusing
the Prophet’s wife of engaging in an adulterous affair.
Aisha’s Feelings (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬are Hurt
The accusations against Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬hurt her deeply and she soon fell so sick that she asked the Prophet
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬if she could return to her parent’s house until the matter was cleared up. The Prophet (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬then tried to vindicate Aisha’s honor (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬by calling everyone to the mosque and
publicly defending her reputation, but the hypocrites who had started the trouble in the first place only made
matters worse, so that arguments broke out all over the mosque, and people had almost come to blows over the
matter before the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬calmed them down and silenced them. The Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬said to Abdullah ibn Ubayy, leader of the Munafiqoon: “O Muslims, who will deal with a man [i.e.
Abdullah ibn Ubayy] who I have heard is speaking in an offensive manner about my family? By Allah, I know
nothing but good about my family.” [Bukhari, Muslim]

ّ ‫ )ر‬Defends Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was a person with a lot of Gheerah (protective jealousy) which, according to
the Sunnah, is considered a good quality in Muslim men. So the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was naturally
incensed by the accusations that his wife had slept with another man. These accusations caused him a great deal
of agitation. The Companions of the Prophet (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬saw how miserable the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬had become over this issue, and so it was that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬said to him: “O Allah’s Apostle! Allah
does not impose restrictions on you, and there are plenty of women other than her. If however, you ask her slave
girl, she will tell you the truth!” (Bukhari)
The popular Shia author and scholar Al-Tijani cited this as evidence that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬told the Prophet (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to divorce Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. He declares that this is recorded in Sunni accounts as well and
he off-handedly cites the above Hadith from Bukhari as his “evidence.” This is what we like to call “Half-
Hadith-ing” [i.e. using half of a Hadith to “prove” one’s point]. If we look at the other half of the Hadith, we see
that it negates Al-Tijani’s claim that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬told the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to divorce Aisha (
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Al-Tijani
Let us see what Al-Tijani, the popular Shia scholar and writer, has to say on the issue. Al-Tijani says: “We may
ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played
an important role in it…how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn
Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she
did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk…”
(Then I was Guided, p. 117)
ّ ‫ )ر‬did not in any way advise the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to divorce Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. He
ّ ّ
merely said that the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬could since nobody had greater rights than the Prophet of
Allah, but that it would be better if the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬just asked Aisha’s slave girl, who was
with Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬most of the time, on the matter of Aisha’s innocence. The slave girl was in the room,
and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬meant to say that all the believers knew Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was innocent, even a “lowly”
slave girl.
In any case, as we shall see soon, if Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and asked the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬doubted Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ‫ )عليه وآله وسلم‬to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk, then this would mean that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was one of the
Munafiqoon. Is this what the Shia are accusing Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of? The Quran itself would declare anyone who
doubted Aisha’s innocence (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to be a Munafiqh. So this is slander against not only the Prophet’s wife
but also against Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Allah Almighty Defends Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
It would be none other than Allah Himself who would declare Aisha’s innocence (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and vindicate
her of the slander levied against her. Allah revealed to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬the following verses,
condemning those Munafiqoon who doubted Aisha’s innocence (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and slandered her honor:
[24:11] “Surely those who fabricate the lie are a group from among you…Every man will receive what he has
earned for this sin, and whoever had the greater part in it will have a grievous punishment.”
[24:12] “Why did the men and women believers, when they heard it, not think good of their own folk and say:
‘This is clearly a lie?’”
[24:13] “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they did not produce witnesses, they are certainly liars
in the sight of Allah.”
[24:14] “If it were not for the grace of Allah, and His mercy on you in this world and in the next world, an
awful doom would have overtaken you for what you repeated.”
[24:15] “Since you received it with your tongues, and repeated what you did not know anything about with your
mouths, you thought it was a trifle, but in the sight of Allah it is serious.”
[24:16] “Why, when you heard it, did you not say: ‘It is not for us to repeat this, Glory be to You (O Allah), this
is a serious slander.’”
[24:17] “Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if you are indeed believers!”
[24:18] “And Allah makes the signs clear to you; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.”
[24:19] “Surely those who love to spread around slander about those who believe will have a painful
punishment in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do not know.”
[24:20] “And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, (Allah would have hastened the
punishment upon you). And that Allah is full of kindness, Most Merciful.”
[24:21] “O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of Shaitan…”
[24:22] “And…Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? …”
[24:23] “Verily, those who accuse chaste women, who never even think of anything touching their chastity and
are good believers, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter, and for them will be a great torment.”
[24:24] “On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs or feet will bear witness against them as to
what they used to do.”
[24:25] “On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allah,
He is the Manifest Truth.”
[24:26] “Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good
men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful
provision.”
Shia Tafseer
Sometimes Shia will have a hard time absorbing these verses, so they will oftentimes try denying that these
verses were revealed in relation to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. They will even completely deny the incident of al-Ifk,
which is a known historical event recorded in the preserved annals of history and is even in the authentic Shia
books.
To categorically prove that these verses were revealed in regard to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in the incident of al-Ifk,
we shall quote straight from the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which contains the authentic Shia Tafseer
of Pooya/M.A. Ali. This is the most authentic Shia Tafseer in English, and can be found at the following Shia
website: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/
The reader can simply use the search function on the left hand side of the site (http://www.al-islam.org/quran/)
to find the Shia Tafseer (Pooya/M.A. Ali) of verses 24:11-19. We shall copy and paste what Al-Islam.org says
here:
Al-Islam.org says
“ The particular incident referred to here occurred on the return from the defensive expedition of the Bani
Mustaliq in 5-6 Hijra. At one of the halts, A-isha, the Holy Prophet’s wife, withdrew from the camp to cleanse
herself in the nearby desert. There she lost her necklace. As it was dark there she took time to discover it. In the
meantime the march was ordered. As her litter was veiled, it was not noticed that she was not in it. When she
returned to the camp, she could do nothing but wait. She fell asleep. Next morning she was found by Safwan
who had been left behind to pick up anything inadvertently left behind. He put her on his camel and brought
her, leading the camel on foot. This episode furnished some malicious enemies of the Holy Prophet, particularly
the hypocrites, with an opportunity to raise a scandalous storm in order to hurt the feelings of the Holy Prophet.
The ringleader among them was the chief of the Madina hypocrites, Abdullah ibn Ubay. Mistah, her uncle, also
helped him. Ibn Ubay is referred to as the man who took on himself the lead among them to spread the scandal.
Ali ibn abi Talib knew that it was an obvious lie (as said in verse 12), concocted to hurt the Holy Prophet, so he
asked Burayrah, the maid of A-isha, to tell the mischief-makers the truth about her mistress. On Burayrah’s
report the scandal was diffused.
People may think it is an insignificant matter to speak lightly of something which damages a person’s character
or reputation, but with Allah it is a most serious matter in all cases…
[Pooya/M.A. Ali 24:11]
source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/ ”
Shia Slander
Allah Almighty Himself declared Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬innocent and warns everyone not to make any accusations
or slander against Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. He says: “Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if
you are indeed believers!” (Quran, 24:17)
Yet today we see that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬is still insulted and slandered. She is accused of hating Ali (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬and of being an enemy of Ahlel Bayt. To the Shia, being a Nasibi (hater of Ahlel Bayt) is worse than
Zinnah and indeed such a person is declared a Kaffir according to their texts. Therefore, what Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬is accused of is in fact far worse than what the al-Ifk Munafiqoon spoke about. Commiting Zinnah does
not make one a Kaffir, and none of the Munafiqoon during the incident of al-Ifk ever accused Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬of being a Kaffir.
In fact, the very same Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is not only a Kaffir but
rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [Imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org quotes the Shia Tafseer for verse 9:12
as:
Al-Islam.org says
“ According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed and fought
against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt…Ali ibn abi Talib had recited this verse at the
battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet.
[Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12]
In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom
ّ ‫ )ر‬fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Talha (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Zubair (
ّ ‫ )ر‬who are being referred to in this Verse as the “Leaders of Kufr.” This view is also the position of
Kashani in his Tafseer Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes
Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬as one of the “Aimmatul Kufr” (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish polythiests, the
Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians.
The Shia Ayatollahs also accuse Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ ّ of fabricating Hadith which is another act of Kufr.
Fabricating Hadith is considered Kufr by both the Sunni and Shia Ulema! It is unfortunate that she is called a
Kaffir when Allah Himself declares her a believer: “Surely those who love to spread around slander about those
who believe will have a painful punishment in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do
not know.” (Quran, 24:19) Moreover, Allah declares Aisha to be a “good believer”: “Verily, those who accuse
chaste women, who never even think of anything touching their chastity and are good believers, are cursed in
this life and in the Hereafter, and for them will be a great torment.” (Quran, 24:23)
If the Shia accuse Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of being vile, then they are accusing the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of
being vile. Allah says: “Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good
men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a
bountiful provision.” (Quran, 24:26) This is the absolute verdict on the character of Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and
stands as a refutation against all the slander made against her. This verse was revealed in regards to Aisha ( ‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬in the incident of al-Ifk, and this is agreed upon by even the authentic Shia Tafseer. So we wonder then
why the Shia feel comfortable with slandering her character.
Conclusion
Any unbiased person can see that the accusations levied against Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬by the Ayatollahs are worse
than those levied against her by the Munafiqoon in the incident of al-Ifk. The latter only accused Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬of Fisq (i.e. Zinnah is not Kufr), but the Ayatollahs accuse her of Kufr (i.e. fabricating Hadith is Kufr, and
according to the Shia, so is preventing the Imamah of Ali [‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)]ر‬.
No believer should feel comfortable slandering a woman who was specifically defended in the Quran by Allah
Almighty, a person whom the Quran warns against slandering in the strictest of tones, declaring those who do
so to be unbelievers. During the incident of al-Ifk, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬publically denounced the
Munafiqoon and said that he knew nothing bad about his family; so why then do the Shia scholars insult the
Prophetic family by speaking ill of them, even when the Quran and Hadith both exonerate Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫?)ر‬
First Lady of Islam
Introduction
The Americans bestow respect upon their president, and one way they do this is by extending this respect to his
wife, whom they refer to as the First Lady of America. Historically, the British have bestowed respect on the
wife of their king. Surely, the respect bestowed upon the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬by the Muslims should
far surpass the respect the Americans give to the President, or the British have given to the King.
If the Americans have the decency to respect the First Lady of America, and if the British have the decency to
respect the Queen of England, then surely the Muslims should have the decency to respect Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
the First Lady of Islam. All government officials address the First Lady of America with respect; but do we see
the Ayatollahs (the officials of the Shia religion) addressing the First Lady of Islam with respect? Instead, they
call her a Kaffir [the Imam of Kufr], Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of Islam.
Insulting or harming the Prophet’s wife (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is insulting and harming the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
himself. Even the man with the least amount of chivalry and self-respect would not allow people to insult his
wife, and this includes the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Sunni Imam and Shia Ayatollah
There is the story of a Sunni Imam who gave a speech in front of a Shia mosque. He began the speech by
praising the Ayatollah of the Shia mosque and declaring his undying love for him. After this, the Sunni Imam
began insulting the Ayatollah’s wife and declared her to be a Kaffir, Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of
Islam.
The Ayatollah rushed outside and began yelling at the Sunni Imam. The Sunni Imam responded, “but I love
you, dear Ayatollah!”
To which the Shia Ayatollah responded with, “then why do you insult my wife?”
The Sunni Imam calmly replied: “I love you, but I am against your wife who is an imprudent, inappropriate, and
hateful woman.”
The Shia Ayatollah raised his fist in the air and said: “By Allah, if you hate my wife, then you hate me! My
wife is my beloved!”
The Sunni Imam said: “She is my enemy. May Allah curse her!”
The Shia Ayatollah was rightfully incensed: “By Allah, I cannot stand for such slander. May Allah curse you!
An enemy of my wife is an enemy of me! By Allah, I wish to kill you!”
The Sunni Imam then said: “O Shia, you reject the love of those who hate your wife. So then, why do you think
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬will accept your love for him when you hate his wife and insult her, calling
her a Kaffir, Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of Islam?”
To this, the Shia Ayatollah was left speechless.
Indeed, no man allows others to slander his wife, and the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is the one with the most
Gheerah (protective “jealousy”) in regards to his wives. If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬heard the things
ّ ‫)ر‬, no doubt the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would be furious.
which the Shia say about Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
Hurting the feelings of the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is hurting the feelings of the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
ّ‫)وسلم‬. In fact, this methdology of targetting the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was used by the Munafiqoon
(hypocrites) to hurt the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in the incident of al-Ifk: they insulted Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬
ّ ّ
in order to insult the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬by extension.
The Quran
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was actually extremely sensitive about his wives, and Allah thus warned the
believers about hurting them. His wives were considered so precious that Allah instructed the believers to talk
to them from behind a screen and He also forbade anyone from marrying them after the Prophet’s death: “When
you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a screen. That is purer for your hearts and for their
hearts. It is not for you to cause injury to the Messenger of Allah, or ever marry his wives after him. To do that
would be something dreadful in the sight of Allah.” (Quran 33:53) If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was so
sensitive about his wives, then we can only guess at what his response would be towards those Ayatollahs alive
today who malign them.
A rule of thumb in Islam is that we should treat our brothers like we want ourselves to be treated. Thus, before
anyone insults the Prophet’s wife, one should first allow others to insult one’s own wife. If he does not allow
others to insult his own wife, then we wonder why he feels so comfortable insulting the wife of the greatest man
ever born.
The Quran itself serves as a testament to the fact that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the rest of the Prophet’s wives are
righteous Muslims. In fact, the Shariah as expounded through the Quran declares that Muslims are forbidden to
marry people who are not righteous. Allah demands in the Quran: “Marry those among you who are single and
the righteous ones among yourselves, male or female.” (Quran 24:32) This is a command, in the imperative
form of Arabic; even the Shia Ulema forbid their followers from marrying unrighteous women. To say that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would go against his own laws and marry a bad and unrighteous woman is
undoubtedly Kufr! Ayatollah Khomeini said: “It is forbidden in Islam to marry the Fasiqoon (sinners).” So we
ask this Ayatollah: is he accusing the Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬of sinning by marrying one of the
Fasiqoon?
Allah further declares: “Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for
good men and good men are for good women.” (Quran, 24:26) So if the Shia Ayatollahs say that Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬is bad, then this means that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is also bad! The Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬is good, so he can only marry those who are good. And the most interesting thing about this verse, 24:26,
is that it was revealed in the incident of al-Ifk which was about Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Hence, there should be
absolutely no confusion on the matter of Aisha’s noble character (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said: “A man may marry [a woman] for four reasons: for her property, for
her rank, for her beauty, or for her religion (and character). So marry the one who is best in the religion and
character and [you will] prosper, or else you will be a loser.” If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not even
fulfill his own advice and if he married a woman of bad religion and bad character, then by his own words he
would be a loser! We seek Allah’s Mercy from such slander. Surely the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬only
married righteous women, and Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was righteous.
Allah further says: “They (wives) are like garments for you, and you are like garments for them.” (Quran,
2:187) In the Tafseer, both Sunni and Shia Ulema say that this means that husbands should hide the faults of
their wives, and vice/versa. Hence, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was a covering for Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬,
ّ ّ
protecting her from slander and insults. Indeed, if the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬were alive today, he would
defend Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and refute the malicious lies levied against her. In fact, Allah commands the Prophet
ّ ّ
(‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬to be a protector and maintainer of his wives: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of
women.” (Quran, 3:34)
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬loved his wife Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬dearly. How can the Shia deny this when
Allah declares in the Quran: “And of His Signs is this: He created for you mates from yourself that you might
find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.” (Quran 30:21) Every Muslim man is
commanded to love his wife, and even the disbelievers love their wives! How can we face the Islam-haters and
defend our Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in front of them if they say that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did
not even love his own wife? What kind of a man except a cold-blooded wretch does not love his own wife? By
Allah, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬loved Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and if he loved her, then we should love her
too.

ّ ‫ )ر‬is of the Ahlel Bayt; she is the First Lady of Islam, the Queen of our hearts, the Mother of
the Believers, and the beloved of Allah’s Beloved.
Verse 33:33 Does Not Make Anyone Infallible
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says:
“And Allah wishes only to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt, and to make you pure and
spotless.” (Quran, 33:33)
The Shia claim that this verse makes the Ahlel Bayt infallible; the Shia believe that here Allah ( ‫ )عز و جل‬made
the Ahlel Bayt perfect in the sense that they cannot make any mistakes, nor forget anything, nor commit any
sins whatsoever. Based on this interpretation, the Shia claim that the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, Ali (‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬, Fatima (‫ى هللا عنها‬5 ‫)رض‬,
ّ Hasan (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫)رض‬,
ّ Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫)رض‬,
ّ and the other nine Imams are the
infallibles.
But does this verse actually make anyone infallible? First off, if we say that this verse makes people infallible,
then we must say that it makes the Prophet’s wives (‫ى هللا عنهم‬5‫)رض‬ ّ to be infallible, since Allah (‫ز و جل‬55‫)ع‬
addresses the Prophet’s wives. Let us analyze the entire verse:
abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And
recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the
finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).” (Quran, 33:32-34)
But the truth is that nobody was made infallible by this verse. Allah’s (‫ )عز و جل‬statement was not to assure the
Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬that they had already been purified, but rather to stipulate a condition that if they
obeyed Him, He would remove all abomination from them and thus purify them. He only wished to purify them
if they met this condition, namely that they wear Hijab when they are out of the house (i.e. not making a
dazzling display) and establish regular prayer as well as charity. If we analyze the context, we find that Allah
Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬was giving the Prophet’s wives some divine directions to do all what He commanded them
and to abstain from what He forbade. He thus informed them that if they conformed to His commands and
abstained from what He forbade, He would reward them by removing all abomination from them and make
them pure and stainless.
It should be noted that Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬has used this pattern of speech to address many people.
Consider the following verse:
“Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favor upon you,
that you may be grateful.” (Quran, 5:6)
In this verse, Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is talking about the believer; should we really conclude that that Allah (‫)عز و جل‬
has now made the person completely clean and purified based on this? That is indeed missing the important
conditional statement that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is making.
In another verse, Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬says:
“Allah does wish to make clear to you and to show you the ordinances of those before you.” (Quran, 4:26 )
He also says:
“Allah does wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh).” (Quran, 4:28)
The wish of Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬expressed in the above mentioned verses comes as a condition of being loyal to His
commands, to love Him and make Him pleased. Otherwise, without fulfilling this condition, His wish will not
come into reality, (i.e the purification will not occur).
In another verse, Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬says:
“For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in repentance and loves also those who keep themselves
pure and clean.” (Quran, 2:222)
Allah also said in the Quran to all His believers:

“But He so will to purify you and complete His favors on you.” (Quran)
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬so addresses His servants in many other Quranic verses in a similar vein. Therefore, if we claim
that the aim of Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬in purifying the Ahlel Bayt was to make them infallible, it would
necessitate us to say that all the believers are infallible, following the Quranic verse which states that Allah
Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬so wills to purify them.
As Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬told us of His wish to purify members of the Prophet’s family, He similarly
informed us of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah (‫)عز و جل‬
to purify the believers was meant to make them infallible, then all sincere pious believers are infallible and
impervious to sin. (Of course, this is incorrect and we find that none of these verses make anyone infallible.)
The purification mentioned in the aforementioned verse (33:33) was not meant to make anyone infallible, but
rather simply to expiate them for past sins like we get expiation for our sins when we go for Hajj. This style is
widely used in the Quran. We read in the Quran:
“Of their goods take alms, so that you might purify them and sanctify them…” (Quran, 9:103)
We will never find anybody who says that the purification mentioned in the afore-mentioned verses was meant
to make the Prophet’s family members or the believers into infallibles.
Furthermore, and this cannot be stressed enough, the Shia are exaggerating on the meaning of the word “pure.”
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬desired to make them pure and spotless, but this does not mean that they are infallible! The
words “pure” and “infallible” are not interchangeable. Surely, the Shia would have to agree that Salman al-Farsi
ّ ‫ )ر‬and other great heroes of Islam are considered to be pure, but we do not say that they are infallible.
The Shia would say that their Ayatollahs are pure, but few would say that they are infallible. Likewise, this
verse in the Quran is addressing the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ّ ‫)ر‬, promising them to be pure, but it does not in
any way confer to them infallibility. This would be reading into the text of an otherwise straight-forward
Quranic verse.
Another inconsistency in Shia theology is the fact that the Shia adamantly claim that their Imams are born as
Imams. They are pure from birth and can never sin in their lives. This is a central part of Shia belief, and one
reason they claim that a little boy in a cave is to be the Imam Mehdi, since he is born pure. Why then would the
verse 33:33 be revealed, clearly indicating that Ali was being cleansed by Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬for his sins; what sins,
we ask, if he was born an Infallible Imam? We ask the Christians why Jesus (‫ )عليه السالم‬asks Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬for
forgiveness in the Bible if he is infallible; there are many such Biblical verses in which Jesus (‫ )عليه السالم‬is
praying to the “Father” for forgiveness. Surely infallibles have no sins to ask for forgiveness or purification for
since they do not sin in the first place!
The verse 33:33 does not mean that purification has already taken place, but it rather asserts explicitly the will
of Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬to purify the sincere wives of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Prophet (‫صلّى‬
‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫ )هللا علي‬was eager to pray for his immediate and other relatives to be included in the verse of
purification, in order to achieve the same as his spouses (‫ى هللا عنهم‬5‫)رض‬ّ were promised. Likewise, he even
included Salman al-Farsi (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in his Ahlel Bayt.
And we ask the Shia: how many times did the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬invoke Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬to make
Ali’s family pure and spotless? The Shia will proudly show multiple times, citing many examples from the
Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah; and we, the Ahlus Sunnah, acknowledge that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did
ask Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬multiple times to make Ali’s family pure and spotless. However, we wonder why there
would be a need for the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to keep asking for purification of his family? He asked
again and again. If they were infallible and did not have any sins to begin with, then there would be no need to
ask Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬again and again for this purification. Indeed, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬asking for his
relatives to become “pure and spotless” was just one of the many du’as that he would make to Allah (‫)عز و جل‬. It
is what we would call an “every day du’a” much like our local Imam prays for the forgiveness and purification
of all his congregation, or how a mother prays for the forgiveness and purification of her children. How many of
us have asked Allah (‫)عز و جل‬: “O Allah, purify me of my sins and purify my family from sins.” Each and every
one of us should ask Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬this. How many of us make this same du’a day after day, obviously
indicating that we need Allah’s mercy, not that we are infallible.
In any case, even if the Shia were to somehow convince us that verse 33:33 makes someone infallible, the first
to be made infallible by this verse would have to be the Prophet’s wives (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬since they are the ones
that verse 33:33 is addressed to. The Shia are thus faced with two options: they can accept Aisha ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
as infallible. In this case, they must accept her statement that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬appointed Abu
ّ ‫ )ر‬to be the Imam of the prayers while he was sick; this would mean that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
was the rightful first Caliph and not Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Such a concession by the Shia would topple a very
important foundation of Shi’ism which is rooted in the succession of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. The second option for the
Shia is to say that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Ahlel Bayt were not made infallible by this verse, and this too
topples the entire Shia doctrine of Infallible Imamah, a corner-stone of their belief. Either way, the Shia is in a
predicament.
The Wives of Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫)عليه السالم‬
The Quran emphatically declares that the pure should only marry the pure. Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬commands:
“Marry those among you who are single and the righteous ones among yourselves, male or female.” (Quran,
24:32)
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬further declares:
“Impure women are for impure men and impure men are for impure women. Pure women are for pure men and
pure men are for pure women.” (Quran, 24:26)
The Ahlus Sunnah uses this as proof that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬must be pure, since the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬married her. The Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, after all, would not knowingly violate the Quran and
marry someone who is impure. Since the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was pure, he must only marry the pure.
The Shia revile Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, so to counter this argument, the Shia bring up the wives of Prophet Nuh (
‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫)عليه السالم‬. Both of these women were married to pure Prophets, and yet they
themselves were impure and will burn in Hell-Fire, according to the following verse in the Quran:
“Allah has made an example for those who are an unbelieving people: the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut.
They were married to two of Our servants who were believers, but they betrayed them and were not helped at
all against Allah. They were told: ‘Enter the Fire along with all who enter it.’” (Quran, Surat at-Tahrim: 10)
However, it seems that this argument is inconsistent and we hope to, Insha-Allah, show that if anything, the fact
that these two Prophets had sinful wives is only a testament against Shi’ism, since it creates a logical
inconsistency in the Shia theology (which we shall examine in this article).
The Quran clearly says that a pure man should not marry an impure woman. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini said:
“It is forbidden in Islam to marry the Fasiqoon (sinners).” So the obvious question is: why did Prophet Nuh (
‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫ )عليه السالم‬do so?
The Ahlus Sunnah has a simple answer to this question: Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫)عليه السالم‬
did not know about their wives’ sinfulness at the time that they were getting married. Hence, they did not
violate Allah’s commands willfully. They did not marry sinful women intentionally. Had the two known that
their wives would be Kufaar (disbelievers), it is likely that they would never have married them in the first
place. But only Allah knows Al-Ghaib (the Unseen), and only Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬knew their eventual destination of
Hell-Fire.
To this, a Shia might respond that perhaps Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬likewise married Aisha (
‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬without knowing her true nature. Perhaps he too married an impure person without knowing.
However, here a problem arises within Shia theological beliefs. The Shia adamantly believe that the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and the Imams know the Al-Ghaib (the Unseen); they have knowledge of everything in the
heavens and the earth. So it is not possible for the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬not to know the nature of Aisha
(‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬since–according to the Shia–he must know everything.
Al-Islam.org says
“ Imam Ali said: “I swear by God Who holds my soul in His hand that I know all that the Prophet knew, and
that I know all of the past and all of the future, up until the Day of Resurrection.”
source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ ”
According to Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, the Imams could supposedly tell who
is going to Paradise and who is going to Hell-Fire merely by listening to a person’s voice:
“By listening to the voice of a person, the Imams can tell if the person was destined to go to hell or to heaven;
they would thus answer his questions accordingly.” (Usool Al-Kafi, p. 185)
Hence, the Shia cannot make the claim that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not know the nature of Aisha (
ّ ‫ )ر‬when he married her. If Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was impure and sinful, then the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬knew it (according to the Shia belief). If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬then knowingly married an
impure and sinful person, then the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was violating multiple verses in the Quran
which forbid this.
There is no way around this for the Shia. The fact of the matter is that the Shia have no way that they can
rationalize the manner in which these two Prophets married sinful women. According to the Shia belief, the
Prophets knew the character and destination of these women. It is simply an inconsistency in the Shia belief:
were not the two Prophets being sinful by intentionally marrying sinful women?
The Ahlus Sunnah, on the other hand, does not have any inconsistencies in its belief. We believe that the Quran
commands the Muslim men only to marry pure women. Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫)عليه السالم‬
did not know the nature of their wives when they married them, and hence no blame can be placed on the
shoulders of these men. Furthermore, the commandments in the Quran in regards to marrying the pure were
commandments given to this Ummah, not necessarily the Ummah of Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (
‫)عليه السالم‬. The Shariah of these previous Prophets may have differed from the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad (
‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. It is known, for example, that other Prophets were allowed to marry more than four wives.
So we cannot say anything about Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫ ;)عليه السالم‬what we do know is that
this Ummah–including our Prophet Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫–)ص‬was forbidden to knowingly marry
impure women.
In regards to Prophet Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫)ص‬, he never divorced Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬.
ّ This is
acknowledged by the Shia. If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬ever knew that Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬
ّ was a
Kaffir, then it would have been sinful for him not to divorce her, since it is Haram to be married to a Kaffir. The
Shia books clearly says that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was a Kaffir. Click here to read “Shia Accuse Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬of Being a Kaffir.”
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬never thought Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was a Kaffir; otherwise, he would have
divorced her. Since he did not, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did
not question the purity of his wife. If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬thought Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was sinful,
impure, and a disbeliever, then he himself would never have married her, and if he had married her, nothing
prevented him from divorcing her! The Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬5‫ه وآل‬5‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬divorced other women, and yet he
remained married to Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to the last day.
In conclusion, the Shia cannot bring up the issue of the wives of Prophet Nuh (‫ )عليه السالم‬and Prophet Lut (‫عليه‬
‫ )السالم‬since they themselves do not have a viable explanation for it, whereas the Ahlus Sunnah does. The Shia
cannot reconcile their belief that the Prophet and Imams see all of Al-Ghaib and yet they married sinful women,
in direct violation of the Quran’s commandments. The Ahlus Sunnah trusts the opinion of Prophet Muhammad (
‫ ;)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬if the Quran says to only marry the pure and the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬marries
Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, then the Ahlus Sunnah will be the last to question her purity. As believers it should not be
our policy to second-guess the Prophet of Islam (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Quran commands the Muslims,
including the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, to marry pure women; to say that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was sinful is
ّ ّ
to say that either the Shia know more than the Prophet (‫( )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬i.e. the Shia know that Aisha is
sinful but the Prophet did not), or that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬sinned by violating the Quran and
married an impure woman. Neither option is acceptable. The only acceptable position is to say that the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬married Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was a pure woman.
Shia Du’a (Saname Quraish) Curses Two of Prophet’s Wives
How is it that Shia missionaries can do Taqiyyah and deny that they hate the Prophet’s wives, when they have
authentic du’as which condemn Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, ask Allah to curse them, and to
beat them. This is the depths of their hatred for the Prophetic Household, the Ummahatul Mu’mineen (Mothers
of the Believers), and the Prophet’s lovers.
A very famous Shia du’a called “Saname Quraish” condemns Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar bin Khattab (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, as well as their two daughters: Aisha bint Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hafsa bint Umar bin Khattab
(‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬, the two lovely wives of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. In this du’a, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬are referred to as the “two idols of Quraish.” And their daughters are condemned
alongside them. We do not know how the Shia can look us in the face and say that they don’t hate the Prophet’s
wives.
That du’a is available on the following Shia site: http://www.duas.org/alaviya/dua-120.htm
Duas.org says
“ In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful.
O Allah! Curse the two idols of Quraish [Abu Bakr and Umar]…and their two daughters [Aisha and Hafsa].
Rebuke them, they have consumed Your sustenance and have denied Your obligations. Both have discarded
Your commands, have rejected Your revelation, have disobeyed Your Prophet, have destroyed Your religion,
have distorted Your book, have made Your laws ineffective, have declared Your obligatory actions as incorrect,
have disbelieved in Your signs, have oppressed Your friends, have loved Your enemies, have spread corruption
among Your people, [and] have made Your world incur losses.
O Allah! Send Your curses on them and their helpers as they have ruined the house of Your prophet, have dug
the door of his house, broken the roof, have brought down the walls, have made the skies [into] the ground,
have destroyed its inhabitants, have killed their supporters, have put to death their children, have deserted his
pulpit…
O Allah, send Your chastisement on them to the extent of the [combined] sins of every disobedient person.
…and to the number of pious people whom they have troubled, and whom they have driven out of their cities
and [thereby] helped the disbelievers, and the Imam on whom they were cruel…
…and [they] have changed the obligatory laws, and have destroyed the practise of the Holy Prophet.
…and whatever evils they have concealed, the blood which they have shed…
[They] have changed the goodness and have altered the commands, have created disbelief…
…the lie for which they have cheated, the inheritance which they have plundered…
…[they have] stopped the booties from [being given to] them, and [they] have consumed the prohibited wealth,
and that ‘Khums’ (the fifth part) which they considered as permitted for them, and that evil whose foundation
was put, and that cruelty which they made common, that oppression which they spread, those promises which
they dishonored, those covenants which they broke, those lawful things which they termed as unlawful, and
those unlawful things which they termed as lawful, that hypocrisy which they have concealed in their hearts…
…and to the amount of treachery which they bore in their hearts, and those stomachs which they have split
open…and that door which they broke-open, and those gatherings which they dispersed and those degraded
people whom they gave honor to, and those honorable people whom they insulted, and by the number of rights
which they have usurped…
…and the order of the Imam which they opposed, bestow Your wrath on them to the extent of their atrocities!
O Allah! Your curses on them to the extent of alteration in the Quran and the covering of truth, rendering the
will worthless, and breaking the promises, and declaring all the claims as void, refusing all allegiances,
presenting excuses, introducing breach of trust…Bestow Your curses on them!
O Allah curse those two, secretly and openly, with such a beating which is forever continuous, nonstop
and innumberable. Such a whipping which commences in the morning but does not end at night.*
Such a beating should be on those tyrants, and their helpers, their assistance, their friends and their lovers, those
attracted to them and those who acknowledge their deeds, those who present proof for them, and those who
follow their words, and those who approve their actions.
(Then recite four times).
O Allah! Send such a harsh chastisement upon them that the dwellers of Hell start screaming. O Lord of the
Universe, accept this prayer from me.
Love for Ahlel Bayt and Sahabah
The Ahlel Bayt refers to the family of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Sahabah refers to the friends of
the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Shia claim to love the Ahlel Bayt only, and hate the Sahabah. The
Nasibis, on the other hand, love the Sahabah but hate the Ahlel Bayt. Both groups are incorrect in their views.
The correct position is to love both the Ahlel Bayt (Prophet’s family) and the Sahabah (Prophet’s friends).
Islam-qa.com says
“ Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him).
The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him),
hence they were called Naasibis because they set themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Raafidis [the Shia] are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so they claim, but they
hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and criticize.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, explaining the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah: They (i.e., the
Sunnis) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him); they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning them… but they reject the way of the Raafidis [the Shia] who
hate the Sahaabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Naasibis who insult Ahl al-Bayt in words
and deed…
Al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/154.
Undoubtedly rebelling and hating the Ahl al-Bayt and other Sahaabah is a serious kind of bid’ah (innovation)
that implies slandering this religion which was transmitted to us via the Sahaabah, the Ahl al-Bayt and others.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “With regard to Ahl al-Sunnah, they regard as friends all the believers.
When they speak it is on the basis of knowledge and fairness, unlike those who are ignorant or follow their
whims and desires; they reject the way of both the Raafidis [the Shia] and the Naasibis and they hold all of the
early generations in high esteem, and they recognize status and virtue of the Sahaabah and respect the rights of
Ahl al-Bayt as prescribed by Allaah…”
Among the books which speak of the Naasibis and refute them and their ideas, and discussed those who went to
the other extreme, namely the Raafidis [the Shia], is Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah.
You can refer to this book or some of its abridged editions.
”
Logically, this is the only position that makes sense (i.e. to love both the Prophet’s family and friends). It would
obviously anger the Prophet if we insulted his family or his friends, and this goes for any human being alive.
Which of us today would accept that a person would attack our family or our friends? Even the least of us
would defend our family and friends.

ّ ‫ )ر‬Didn’t Do Ghusl in Front of Men
A common tactic of the Shia is to say that the Ahlus Sunnah says such-and-such and then they will say “it’s in
Sahih Bukhari”, without actually showing us the entire Hadith in question. One such instance is the Hadith
about Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬teaching two men how to do Ghusl. The Shia will claim that the Sunnis believe
that Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬ did Ghusl naked in front of two non-mehrem men.
ShiaChat.com Moderator “Aliya” says
“ it’s in the sahih collections of the non-shias that Aisha showed na mahrams how to do ghusl actually
performing it (not just showing via motions while clothed).
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251]

”
First off, the ShiaChat moderator is 100% incorrect in saying that two non-mehrems approached her. In fact, if
we actually look at the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, we find that Bibi Aisha was the sister of one of the men and
she was the aunt of the other man! Therefore, they were not at all non-mehrems.
Let us read the Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251:

Narrated Abu Salmah:
Aisha’s brother and I went to Aisha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet. She brought a pot
containing about a Sa’ of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at that time there was a screen
between her and us.
The Hadith was narrated by Sayyiduna Abu Salmah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬who regarded Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as his
aunt by suckling because Aisha’s sister (Bibi Umm Kulthoom [‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )]ر‬suckled Sayyiduna Abu Salmah (
ّ ‫)ر‬. And the other person was Aisha’s brother (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬.
The Shia propagandists will say things like “why would two men come to a woman to teach them Ghusl?” This
is not strange at all, because they did not just come to any woman, but they come to their sister and aunt,
respectively. And Bibi Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬555‫)رض‬
ّ was considered a scholar and she taught many Sahabah
(Companions), so there is nothing strange in this.
Therefore, we see that the Hadith in Bukhari talks innocently about Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬showing her
brother and nephew (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬how to do Ghusl. There is nothing strange in this. We would like to ask the
Shia if they would find it strange if they read somewhere that Bibi Fatima (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ ّ taught her son,
Sayyiduna Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, how to do Ghusl? The answer is certainly “no,” and we would thus like to ask
our Shia brothers to not harbor a different standard for the wife of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, Bibia
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬has already warned the Muslims of spreading such slander against Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in
the Quran and this is the famous incident of Al-Ifq in which–according to both Sunni and Shia sources–Allah (
‫ )عز و جل‬says about those who slander Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬: “Allah admonishes you that you should not
return to the like of it (slandering Aisha) ever again if you are believers.” (Quran, 24:17)
To read more about the incident of Al-Ifk, please go to the following link:
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/ifq
ShiaChat.com Senior Member “MOHIB E AHLAYBAIT” says
“ Quran only cleared her of indecency in one specific case.
”
No, Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬condemned those people not to slander about Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in regards to the
incident of Al-Ifk, but also about anything similar to it (i.e. “the like of it”)! Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says about those
who slander Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬: “Allah admonishes you that you should not return to the like of it
(slandering Aisha) ever again if you are believers.” (Quran, 24:17)
The incident of Al-Ifk was one in which the hypocrites accused the Prophet’s wife (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of being
sexually immodest. Surely, if the Shia would like to insinuate that Bibi Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬
ّ was sexually
immodest by doing Ghusl in front of a man naked, then this would be considered “the like of it (slandering
Aisha).”
The Shia propagandists will oftentimes use Taqiyyah to hide their hatred of Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and they
will sometimes refrain from directly attacking her. Instead, they will use innuendo and sarcasm to put her down,
and this is one instance of it. There should be no doubt in the minds of the Muslims that Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬was the most modest of women.
ShiaChat.com Senior Member “MOHIB E AHLAYBAIT” says
“ one of the two [possibilities]: compiler of the Hadith or Ayesha are at fault, either way it proves shia point of
view.
”
Notice how the Shia brother is willing to accept that Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was immodest! And also notice
how the Shia admit that if we could somehow malign Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫( )ر‬in whichever way possible) that
would then “prove” the Shia point of view, meaning quite simply that the Shia point of view is that Bibi Aisha (
ّ ‫ )ر‬was an indecent woman. This belief is part and parcel with the Shia doctrine.
In any case, ShiaChat has declared that there are only two possibilities: either Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was
sexually immodest or the Hadith is false (in which case the Ahlus Sunnah is slandering Bibi Aisha [‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)]عنها‬. However, there is a third possibility: the Shia propagandists take Hadith dramatically out of context in
order to prove their point.
Let us examine the Hadith which the Shia point to:

Narrated Abu Salmah:
Aisha’s brother and I went to Aisha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet. She brought a pot
containing about a Sa’ of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at that time there was a
screen between her and us.
The Hadith itself clearly states that there was a screen between her and the two men! This refers to Purdah
which is very definitive, and in Islam, the Purdah refers to a strict barrier between male and female. Because the
Hadith is so crystal clear on the matter that the two were separated by a screen, I do not see how the Shia can
actually try to use this Hadith against us!
As any student of the Hadith sciences knows, most incidents have multiple narrations. Some of these narrations
are abridged and would not make sense without the entire narration. In fact, this incident mentioned in Sahih
Bukhari is also narrated in Sunan Abu Dawood (which narrates the same incident but goes more in depth).
Sunan Abu Dawood states that Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬left the room, performed Ghusl behind a screen, came
out, and then verbally told them how to do Ghusl. Therefore, it seems to be a complete distortion of facts to
claim that Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was indeed naked in front of two men.
How many people learned how to do Wudu and Ghusl from Islamic audio cassettes, videos, and books? It is not
imperative that a physical demonstration be done in order to learn how to do Ghusl. After Bibi (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
had completed her own Ghusl, then she taught her brother and nephew verbally on the matter of Ghusl.
The Hadith in Al-Bukhari is a summary of the incident, and the detailed explanation is Sunan Abu Dawood. It
is the same event, and there is 100% concordance between the two Hadith. Both Hadith say she was behind a
screen. Not Bukhari, nor Muslim, nor Abu Dawood, nor any other scholar has ever said that she wasn’t behind a
screen and this is only the imagination of Shia who watch pornography and do Mutah left and right.
It may be said, however, that the Hadith doesn’t make sense then if the screen was between the two. Well, there
is no room for interpretation since the Hadith itself says there was a screen between them! And all of this in the
same sentence, so how can the Shia accept part of the sentence and then ignore the rest of it which says that
there was a screen between her and the two men?
The Shia will ask: if Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was doing a demonstration of Ghusl, what benefit would that
have if the audience it was directed at did not see her?
ShiaChat.com Moderator “Aliya” says
“ what would be the point of a demonstration that the audience couldn’t see?
”
When Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬went to perform Ghusl, she never said that this was a demonstration to the men.
Otherwise, as has been stated, there would be no need for a screen. The truth of the matter is very simple and
straightforward. Bibi Aisha’s brother and nephew (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to know how to do Ghusl. When they
approached Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬about this, she said that she was doing Ghusl herself and then after she did
it, then she would teach them how to do it verbally. This view is strengthened and bolstered by the Hadith itself
which categorically states that there was a screen between them, and the Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawood which
tells us that she left the room to perform Ghusl and only after she came out did she teach them how to do Ghusl.
The fact that it is narrated with such detail in Sunan Abu Dawood will, Insha-Allah, clear all doubts regarding
this matter.
As can be seen, these accusations (both about the character of Bibi Aisha [‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ ]ر‬and about the nature of
Sahih Bukhari) are baseless. This current slander of Bibi Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5 ‫)رض‬ ّ is similar to the way the
Munafiqoon (the Hypocrites) saw Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and another man together in the incident of Al-Ifk,
so they automatically tried interpreting this in the dirtiest way possible. A similar approach is used by the Shia
when they view the Hadith about Bibi Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬teaching her brother and nephew (‫ضى هللا عنهم‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬how
to do Ghusl.
How the Shia Abandoned the Ahlel Bayt
When the Prophet was alive, the disbelievers and hypocrites tried their utmost to hurt him and one of the
methods they used to do this was to target those close to him (i.e. his family). One such famous incident is the
event of Al-Ifk, in which they accused the Prophet’s wife of adultery. It was such attacks on his family
members that prompted the Prophet to warn again and again about honoring his family. This warning was
especially in regards to the females in his family, as it is well-known that Arabs would debase the women in a
man’s family as a means to hurt the man himself. The women in a man’s life are his sensitive spot; a man will
be less hurt about someone insulting his own honor and more hurt about someone insulting the honor of his
wife.
The sayings of the Prophet made it clear that it was important to protect the honor of the Ahlel Bayt, especially
the female members of his household. There were even Quranic injunctions in regards to honoring the Prophet’s
wives, warning the Muslims to respect them by not entering the Prophet’s house and looking at them or even
annoying them, referring to them as the Mothers of the Believers. The intensity with which the Quran and
Hadith advocated the protection of the Prophetic Household prompted certain evil elements to devise new ways
of harming Ahlel Bayt as a means to get at the Prophet of Islam. It was then that the founders of the Shia
movement decided that the best way to turn the Muslims against the Prophetic Household (i.e. the Ahlel Bayt)
was to change the very meaning of the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the eyes of the masses. So they went about this
task, and they began to say that the Prophet’s wives were not part of the Ahlel Bayt and neither were three of
his daughters.
So it was that the Shia masses began cursing the Prophet’s family members (i.e. his wives) and even denying
the existence of his daughters, all in the name of honoring the Ahlel Bayt. The irony of this should not be lost
on anybody. How is it that the imaginary Dajjal Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Askari (the so-called Hidden Imam)
was a part of the Prophetic Household, whereas the people who actually lived in the Prophet’s house were
cursed as traitors, including Aisha and Hafsa? How long can this farce continue? How long can the Shia masses
operate under the silly assumption that they are the lovers of Ahlel Bayt, when they are the ones who curse
members within the Ahlel Bayt?
The Shia say they follow the Sunnah as transmitted through the Ahlel Bayt. What kind of bold-faced lie is this?
The Prophet’s wives were part of the Prophet’s family, and yet the Shia reject all of the Hadith narrated by
them, declaring them to be fabricators of Hadith! It could be said that Abdullah Ibn Saba–the founder of
Shi’ism–is laughing in his grave right now because he duped such a large portion of the Muslims, getting them
to curse the very Ahlel Bayt that they claim to revere. Ibn Saba was a Jewish Rabbi who pretended to convert to
Islam in order to start this deviant sect with the express intent of not only dividing the Ummah but to hurt the
Prophet and his family specifically. He knew that it would be impossible for him to call the people towards
harming the Ahlel Bayt, so he decided to change the meaning of the word so that his deviant followers would
end up cursing the real members of Ahlel Bayt, all in the name of the Ahlel Bayt. What better methodology to
bring someone’s family down than to pit some members of that family against others?
We ask Allah to send His Blessings down upon all of the Prophet’s wives, as well as all the 11 Imams.
Fatwa: Kufr to Slander Bibi Aisha
Question:
Could you please answer my question about Shee‘ah (Shi‘a) Islam? Is it permissible for one to think badly of
the Prophet’s wife ‘Aa’ishah?
Answer by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid:
Praise be to Allaah.
…The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Sharee’ah. The one who leaves Islaam will
be asked to repent by the Sharee’ah judge in an Islaamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the
true religion, he will be killed as a kaafir and apostate, because of the command of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017)…
The scholars of Sunni Islam are all agreed that whoever condemns ‘Aa’ishah for that of which Allaah has stated
she is innocent is a kaafir, because he has rejected Allaah’s statement of her innocence in Soorat al-Noor.
Imaam Ibn Hazm quoted a report with an isnad going back to Hishaam ibn ‘Ammaar, who said: “I heard Maalik
ibn Anas say: ‘…whoever curses ‘Aa’ishah should be killed.’ He was asked, ‘Why do you say that concerning
(the one who curses) ‘Aa’ishah?’ He said, ‘Because Allaah says concerning ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased
with her (interpretation of the meaning): “Allaah forbids you from it [slander] and warns you not to repeat the
like of it forever, if you are believers.” [al-Noor 24:17]’”
Maalik said: “Whoever accuses her goes against the Qur’aan, and whoever goes against the Qur’aan should be
killed.”
Ibn Hazm said: “This comment of Maalik’s is correct, and it is complete apostasy to reject Allaah’s words that
clearly state her innocence.”
Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: “Because the people who slandered ‘Aa’ishah accused a pure and innocent person
of immorality, then Allah exonerated her. So everyone who accuses her of that of which Allah has stated she is
innocent is rejecting what Allah says, and everyone who rejects what Allah says is a kaafir. This is the opinion
of Maalik, and the matter is very clear to those who have insight.”
Al-Qaadi Abu Ya‘laa said: “Whoever slanders ‘Aa’ishah by accusing her of that of which Allah stated her
innocence is a kaafir, without doubt. More than one imam stated this ijmaa‘ (consensus) and gave this ruling.”
Ibn Abi Moosaa said: “Whoever accuses ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, of that of which Allaah
stated she was innocent has left the religion (is no longer a Muslim) and has no right to marry a Muslim
woman.”
Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is a part of the Sunnah to say ‘May Allah be pleased with her’ after mentioning the
wives of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him), Mothers of the Believers who are pure and
innocent of any evil. The best of them are Khadeejah bint Khuwaylid and ‘Aa’ishah al-Siddeeqah bint al-
Siddeeq, whose innocence was stated by Allah; (they are) the wives of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of
Allaah be upon Him) in this world and the next. Whoever accuses her of that of which Allah has stated her
innocence has rejected the words of Allaah All-Mighty.”
Imam al-Nawawi, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: “‘Aa’ishah’s innocence of that of which she was
accused is stated definitively in the Qur’aan. If anyone doubts that (may Allah protect us from such a thing), he
becomes a kaafir and an apostate, by the consensus of the Muslims.”
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: “The ummah is agreed that whoever slanders her is a
kaafir.”
Al-Haafiz ibn Katheer said, in his Tafseer: ” The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, all agreed that
whoever accuses or slanders her after the revelation of this aayah is a kaafir, because he has rejected the
Qur’aan.”
Badr al-Deen al-Zirkashi said: “Whoever slanders her is a kaafir, because the Qur’aan clearly states her
innocence.”
The scholars based their ruling on the one who slanders ‘Aa’ishah on the following evidence:
(1) The evidence that is derived from the verses in Soorat al-Noor that clearly state her innocence. So whoever
accuses her after Allah has declared her innocent is rejecting the words of Allah, which is kufr beyond any
shadow of a doubt.
(2) Slandering the family of the Prophet SAWS (peace be upon him) hurts and offends the Prophet himself, and
there is no doubt that whatever hurts and offends the Prophet SAWS (peace be upon him) is kufr, by consensus
(ijmaa‘). Evidence that the slander of his wife hurt and offended the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be
upon Him) is seen in the hadeeth of the slander (al-ifk) reported by al-Bukhaari and Muslim, in which ‘Aa’ishah
says: “. . . The Messenger of Allaah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) stood up on that day and asked
who would go and deal with ‘Abdullaah ibn Ubayy. He was on the minbar, and said: ‘O Muslims, who will deal
with a man who I have heard is speaking in an offensive manner about my family? By Allaah, I know nothing
but good about my family.’ . . .” What the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) meant was: who
will be kind to me, and excuse me if I go and deal with him myself, and I give him what he deserves because I
have heard that he is speaking in an offensive manner about my family. This proves that the Prophet (Peace &
Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) was so deeply offended and hurt that he asked people whether they could
deal with this person fairly.
Imaam al-Qurtubi said, in his Tafseer of the aayah “Allaah forbids you from it [slander] and warns you not to
repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers.” [al-Noor 24:17]”:
“This is concerning ‘Aa’ishah . . . because of the hurt and offence that the Messenger of Allah (Peace &
Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) felt with regard to his honour and his family. This is kufr on the part of the
one who does it.”
(3) Slandering ‘Aa’ishah implies insulting the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him), because
Allah, may He be glorified, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Bad statements are for bad people (or bad women for bad men) and bad people for bad statements (or bad men
for bad women). . . ” [al-Noor 24:26]
Al-Haafiz ibn Katheer, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “I.e., Allah would not have made ‘Aa’ishah the
wife of the Messenger of Allah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) if she had not been good, because
he is better than any good person. If she had been bad, she would not have been fit to marry him from a shar‘i
point of view, and Allah would never even have decreed it..”
Finally, let us remember that the most beloved of all people to him (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him)
was ‘Aa’ishah al-Siddeeqah bint al-Siddeeq, as is proven in the report of ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, who said: “The
Messenger of Allaah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) put me in charge of an army during the
ghazwah (campaign) of al-Salaasil. I came to him and asked him, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, who among the
people is most beloved to you?’ He said, ‘Aa’ishah.’ I asked, ‘Who among men?’ He said, ‘Her father.’ I asked,
‘Then who?’ He said, ‘‘Umar,’ then he mentioned a number of others.”
So whoever feels hatred towards the beloved of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon
Him) will deserved to be despised by him on the Day of Resurrection. And Allaah knows best.
See ‘Aqeedat Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah fi’l-Sahaabah al-Kiraam by Naasir al-Shaykh, 2/781, and I‘tiqaad
Ahl al-Sunnah fi’l-Sahaabah by Muhammad al-Wahaybi, p. 58).
The Shia say:
The verses in Soorat al-Noor apply only to the specific charges levied against Aa’ishah in the incident of Al-Ifk
and not to any other accusations against her.
Rebuttal:
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says: “Allah warns you to never repeat anything similar to this again, if you are indeed
believers.” [al-Noor 24:17] By the words “anything similar”, we see that it cannot possibly refer only to the
incident of Al-Ifk, but rather it applies to any similar slander against Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Indeed, accusing her
of fabricating Hadith, of being one of the Imams of Kufr, and other such things are even more egregious than
Zinnah. Therefore, not only is this slander similar to that of those who criticized her in the incident of Al-Ifk,
but it is in fact a far more reprehensible thing to utter against her.
More importantly, Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says in the same sequence of verses the following words: “Vile women are
for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women;
such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision.” [Soorat al-Noor,
24:26] This is in reference to Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬,
ّ meaning Allah (‫ز و جل‬55‫ )ع‬has declared her to be good.
Therefore, anyone who says that Aisha (‫ى هللا عنها‬5‫)رض‬ّ is not good is rejecting this verse in the Quran and
whoever rejects a single verse in the Quran is a disbeliever.
Al-Islam.org says: Do not name your daughter with the name “Aisha”
The depths of hatred that the Shia Ulema have for the Prophet’s family (i.e. the way in which they disassociate
themselves from his wife Aisha) manifests itself in the following fatwa passed by the Aalim Network on the
very popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org. The Shia are discouraged by their scholars to name their daughters by
the beautiful name of “Aisha”–such is their hatred for the beloved of our beloved Prophet.
Al-Islam.org says
“ QUESTION:
as salaam alaikum -
I have a brief question for you concerning the name A’isha. I am fairly new to Islam and me and my wife are
expecting our first child. At any rate, I was wondering if such a name would be discouraged within the Shi’a
Islamic community due to the association she had with rebelling against ‘Ali etc. or if it is a common enough
name so as to not have relevence in such matters. Your advice will be much appreciated.
ANSWER:
Salaamun ‘alaykum,
Due to her actions against Imam Ali during the times of the Prophet and after his death (including the famous
battle of the Camel), the followers of the ahl al-bayt are not encouraged to keep her name for their children.
Wasallamu ‘alaykum
source: http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00711.html
”
Our Response:
Firstly, we should state that Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬never rebelled against Ali (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and this is a myth
which the Shia propagandists have repeated so much that the masses just take it as an accepted fact. Ibn
Khaldun said: “(The) more an incident becomes popular the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is
woven around it.” This is the case with the Battle of the Camel, in which the Shia criminals attacked Aisha’s
caravan and sought to blame her for that, and this tradition of slandering Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬continues up until
this day to the point that even some lay-person Sunnis erroneously start accepting the Shia version of history in
which Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬rebelled against Ali (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. In fact, this is not the case, and we invite you to
read the following article on the Battle of the Camel: Battle of the Camel
It is only the Shia Ayatollahs who view Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as a rebel against Ahlel Bayt and it is for this
reason that they discourage their followers from naming their children with the name of “Aisha” and it is for
this reason that you will never find a Shia who has a daughter with this name. What is unknown to the Shia
masses is that their Ayatollah’s hatred for Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the name “Aisha” is not shared by the
Infallible Imams of the Shia. Indeed, the Shia Ayatollahs have flouted the Sunnah of the same Imams they claim
to follow; whereas the Shia Ayatollahs say not to name daughters with the name of Aisha, in fact the Infallible
Imams of the Shia very much did name their daughters with that name.
We shall hereby provide purely Shia sources to confirm the fact that the Infallible Imams of the Shia did in fact
name their daughters with the name of “Aisha”:
1. Aisha bint Musa al-Kadhim: This was the daughter of the seventh Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely
Imam Musa al-Kadhim. The esteemed Shia scholar, Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari, states in Tawarikh al-Nabi wa
al-Aal [p. 125-126] that Imam Musa al-Kadhim had seventeen daughters and they were named “Fatima al-
Kubra, Fatima al-Sughra, Ruqayyah, Ruqayyah al-Sughra, Hakima…… Aisha, Zaynad and Khadijah.” Shaikh
Mufid also mentions her in al-Irshad [p.303]. Two other strong Shia references are Umdat al-Talib of Ibn Anba
[p. 266 {footnote}] and al-Anwar al-Nu`maniyya of Ni`mat Allah al-Jaza’iri [v.1, p.380]. The name of this
daughter is also mentioned in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v.2, p.90 and 217].
2. Aisha bint Ali al-Rida: This was the daughter of the eight Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam Ali al-
Rida. The famous Shia Qadi, Ibn al-Khashab, said in Mawalid Ahl al-Bayt: “(Imam) Al-Rida had five sons and
one daughter. They were Muhammad al-Qani, al-Hasan, Jafar, Ibrahim, al-Hussain and the daughter whose
name was Aisha.” This is quoted by Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari in Tawarikh al-Nabi wa al-Aal [p.128].
3. Aisha bint Ali Zayn al-Abidin: This was the daughter of the fourth Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely
Imam al-Abidin. This fact is referenced in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v. 2, p. 334].
4. Aisha bint Jafar as-Sadiq: This was the daughter of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, the sixth of the Infallible Imams
of the Shia. This is also recorded in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan al-Irbili [v. 2, p. 373]).
5. Aisha bint Ali al-Hadi: This was the daughter of the tenth Infallible Imam of the Shia, namely Imam Ali al-
Hadi. This is mentioned by Shaikh al-Mufid in al-Irshad [p.334] and also in Kashf al-Ghumma of Abu al-Hasan
al-Iribli [v.2, p.334]
6. Aisha bint Jafar ibn Musa al-Kadhim: This was the grand-daughter of the Infallible Imam of the Shia (i.e.
the daughter of the Imam’s son, Jafar ibn Musa). This is stated by Abu al-Hasan al-Umari in al-Mujdi [p.109].
And there are many more such examples. The fact of the matter is that none of the eleven Imams of the Shia
(the last one did not exist) ever disassociated themselves from the Prophet’s wives nor any of the Sahabah. This
is a myth propagated by the Shia leaders who are the haters of Ahlel Bayt and who do not follow the Sunnah of
the Imams, which is to love and adhere to the Prophet’s wives and the Sahabah. The eleven Imams never hated
to name their daughters “Aisha” so why should the Shia Ayatollahs hate to do that? We ask our dear Shia
brothers to turn away from their hateful leaders, reject the way of Shi’ism, and to instead accept the mainstream
Islam which was practised by all eleven of the Imams.
Who are the Ahlel Bayt?
Question:
Who are the Ahlel Bayt?
Answer:
Primarily, the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt. After them, there are others who were also called that, but it
should be remembered that the ones with the most right to be called Ahlel Bayt are first and foremost the
Prophet’s wives.
Follow-up Question:
Can you please clarify: who else is a part of the Ahlel Bayt?
Answer:
The Ahlel Bayt refers to the Prophet’s family. Yes, it is true that the Prophet’s family are of an exalted status.
However, the Shia opinion of who is Ahlel Bayt is discriminatory and ethically wrong. The rightly guided
Ahlus Sunnah holds that the Ahlel Bayt does indeed refer to the Prophet’s family, but that the Prophet’s family
includes all pious Muslims; the reason for this is that relations are based on Taqwa (piety) in the Islamic belief,
not on blood. It was based on this fact that the Prophet referred to Salman al-Farsi as being Ahlel Bayt, even
though Salman was Persian in ethnicity and completely unrelated to the Prophet by blood.
Anyone who is pious is part of the Ahlel Bayt; some of these people were specifically mentioned to be part of
this group. These include:
1. The Prophet’s wives

2. The Prophet’s children
3. The Prophet’s freed slaves
4. Ahlel Kisa (People of the Cloak, i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib’s family)
5. The family of Aqil
6. The offspring of Jafar
7. The offspring of Abbas
8. Salman al-Farsi
And perhaps some others we may have missed…
However, the Ahlel Bayt is not limited to these people. Included in the Ahlel Bayt is every God-fearing
believer. The Prophet said:
“Do not come to me with your lineages on the Day of Resurrection! My Family is every God-fearing believer.”
and
“Every Prophet has a Family and carriage; my Family and carriage are the Believers.”
An appropriate analogy is the fact that the Prophet named ten Sahabah specifically by name as being promised
Paradise, but this does not mean that they are the only ones to go to Paradise. Likewise, the Prophet specifically
referred to certain people as being family, but this does not mean that others are not also part of it.
Islam does not support bigotry, discrimination, or racism. Instead, Islam is egalitarian and just.
Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah
The following fatwa is found on the Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Shahroudi
(http://www.shahroudi.net/) He is one of the Maraje’ (top scholars) of the Shia, and he teaches at the Islamic
Seminary at Qum. Not only this, but here he admits that there are authentic Shia Hadith which prove that the
Infallible Imam of the Shia would curse the Prophet’s wives after each prayer, five times a day. So how can the
Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact that cursing the Prophet’s wives is a part of their faith?
Please note how the Grand Ayatollah allows the cursing but it must be done in such a way as not to reveal the
Taqiyyah that is being done in front of the Sunni masses. Perhaps this will wake up those Sunnis who are fooled
by the Shia lies when they say that they do not curse the Prophet’s wives or Sahabah. This comes from the
mouth of the Grand Ayatollah himself.
All of the quotes on this page are found on the following page off of the Grand Ayatollah’s website:
http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm
(scroll down to questions 50 and 51)

‫نين علي بن‬5‫داء ألميرالمؤم‬5‫ هل يجوز لعن بعض اُمهات المؤمنين مثل السيدة عائشة لمعصيتها للرسول ولخروجها على إمام زمانها وإلعالنها الع‬: 50 ‫سؤال‬
‫أبي طالب(عليه السالم) سواء بالتصريح باالسم علنا ً أو‬
Question 50: Is it permissible to curse some of the Mothers of the Believers, such as lady Aisha for
her disobedience of the Prophet, declaring war upon the Imam of her time, and showing enmity
towards Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly with her name or
implicitly?
ّ‫د ورد أن‬55‫ف النفس وق‬55‫وف تل‬55‫ يجوز لعن ك ّل من أعلن العداء ألميرالمؤمنين أو الزهراء أو األئمة(عليهم السالم)فكيف بمن ظلمهم وحاربهم إالّ مع خ‬: ‫الجواب‬
) ‫ اإلمام الصادق (عليه السالم) كان يلعن ثمانية بعد ك ّل صالته (أربعة من الرجال وأربعة من النساء‬.
Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali),
al-Zahra, or the Imams. And why not after the oppression (they faced) and the fighting against
them? Except (do not curse them) if there is fear of being harmed. And it is also mentioned that
Imam al-Sadiq (a.s.) used to curse eight (of them) after all his prayers.
‫و‬55‫ل ه‬55‫ان ) ه‬55‫الث ( عثم‬55‫ر ) والث‬55‫ أحببت السؤال عن مقطع اللعن الوارد في زيارة عاشوراء وأخص بالذكر هنا لعن األ ّول (أبي بكر ) والثاني ( عم‬: 51 ‫سؤال‬
‫بيت(عليهم‬55‫ة من آل ال‬55‫ان األئم‬5‫ل ك‬5‫الم) ؟ وه‬55‫ه الس‬5‫انه (علي‬55‫رد على لس‬55‫ا ولم ي‬55‫ارج عنه‬55‫ه خ‬55‫الم) ؟ أم أن‬55‫ه الس‬5‫وم(علي‬5‫د ورد عن المعص‬55‫ارة وق‬55‫زء من الزي‬55‫ج‬
‫السالم)يجيزون اللعن الثالثة ويعتبرونه أمراً يثاب المرء عليه ؟‬
Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Dua’s of the
Ziyarat of Ashura, and I talk in particular about the cursing of: the First (Abu Bakr), the Second
(Umar), the Third (Uthman). Is it part of the Ziyarat and has it been reported by the Infallible (a.s)?
Or has it been rejected? And did the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt allow the cursing of these three and
did they say the person who does it is rewarded?
‫ل‬55‫ ب‬، ‫وراء‬55‫ارة عاش‬55‫ا ً بزي‬5‫المين مختص‬55‫ نعم اللعن جزء من زيارة عاشوراء ويكرر مئة م ّرة وقد صدر اللعن من األئمة (عليهم السالم) وليس لعن الظ‬: ‫الجواب‬
‫ نعم الب ّد أن يكون اللعن غير مناف للتقية‬. ‫الروايات في ذلك متواترة‬.
Answer: Yes, cursing is permissible in the Ziyarat of Ashura. Repeat it hundreds of times. It has
been reported that the Imams cursed and this was not just the cursing of the oppressors of Ashura,
but repeatedly (others as well). And this is found in a lot of similar Hadiths. And yes, the cursing
must not be done in a matter to reveal the Taqiyyah.
154 Wise Sayings of Sayyiduna Ali
1. Fear God and you will have no cause to fear any one.
2. Resignation to the Will of God is the cure of the disease of the heart.
3. The word of God is the medicine of the heart.
4. Lead such a life, that, when you die, the people may mourn you, and while you are alive they long for your
company.
5. The days of life pass away like clouds, so do good while you are alive.
6. Of all the follies the greatest is to love the world.
7. Opportunity is swift of flight but slow to return.
8. Pride, cowardice, and miserliness are bad for me but good for women.
9. The most happy is he to whom God has given a good wife.
10. He who knows himself knows God.
11. Do not soil your conscience for anything but heaven
12. The disease of the heart is worse than the disease of the body.
13. To fight against one’s desires is the greatest of all fights.
14. The strongest amongst you is he who subdues his self.
15. Wealth and greed are the roots of all evils.
16. Riches without faith are the greatest poverty.
17. A man’s worth depends upon the nobility of his aspirations.
18. Knowledge enlivens the soul.
19. The learned lives, although he dies.
20. The sum total of excellence is knowledge.
21. To respect the learned is to respect God.
22. Generosity hides shortcomings.
23. The wealth of a miser is as useless as a pebble.
24. Desire is one’s most inveterate enemy.
25. Those who walk on the surface of the earth shall one day be interred in it.
26. Every breath of man brings him nearer to death.
27. People are asleep as long as they are alive, they are awakened when they die.
28. Patience is the fruit of faith.
29. Virtue never dies.
30. A man’s glory from his virtue is greater than the glory of his pedigree.
31. No shelter is safer than piety.
32. A man’s behavior is the index of his mind.
33. Courtesy costs nothing but buys everything.
34. Clemency graces power.
35. Jealousy devours virtue as fire devours fuel
36. He that lends a listening ear to reproach is one of those that deserve reproach.
37. Forgiveness is she crown of greatness.
38. Carnal appetites are nets spread by the devil.
39. Every arrow does not hit the mark, nor every prayer granted.
40. Ostentatiousness spoils prayers.
41. Fear none but your sins.
42. He who praises you murders you.
43. A man who praises himself displays his deficiency of intellect.
44. Honor your parents and your sons will honor you.
45. A man is hid under his tongue.
46. The tongue of a wise man lies behind his heart.
47. The tongue pierces deeper than the spear.
48. He who purifies his heart from doubt is a believer.
49. The opinion of a wise man is an oracle.
50. To seek counsel is to go to the fountain of guidance.
51. Association with a fool is tyrannical to the soul.
52. God hastens the fall of tyrants.
53. Tyranny leads to moral cowardice.
54. A tyrant’s success is his moral defeat.
55. It is better to die than to beg.
56. When a man begs he loses his faith.
57. Hajj is the Jihad of every believer in faith.
58. A wise enemy is better than a foolish friend.
59. Silence is the best reply to a fool.
60. The best speech is one that is short and reasonable.
61. Speech is like a medicine, a small dose of which cures but an excess of which kills.
62. He that has no courage has no religion.
63. His grief is long whose hope is short.
64. The right of freedom of speech consists in speaking the truth.
65. Repentance washes away sins.
66. Folly is an incurable disease.
67. To assist the wrong is to oppress the right.
68. Sinning is a disease, repentance is its medicine, and abstinence from it a sure cure.
69. Sorrow makes a man old before his time.
70. Pride impedes progress and mars greatness.
71. To forgive is the crown of greatness.
72. He who understands humanity seeks solitude.
73. Right is the best argument.
74. Misrepresentation spoils narration.
75. As a man’s wisdom increases, so his desire to speak decreases.
76. He who seeks to do justice with men, let him desire for them what he desires for himself.
77. The greatest sin is the sin that the sinner considers to be ordinary.
78. Contentment is the asset which is never exhausted.
79. Governments are a trial for men.
80. He who fights against the truth, the truth will defeat him.
81. Finding fault in others is one’s greatest fault.
82. Haste is a species of madness.
83. Greed is perpetual enslavement.
84. He who does not know his own worth is doomed to destruction.
85. The best investment is one with which duties are performed.
86. Anger is a fire kindled, he who restrains anger extinguishes the fire; he who gives vent to it is the first to be
consumed by such fire.
87. Jihad is the highway of prosperity.
88. None is more solitary than a miser.
89. Knowledge is the ornament of the rich, and the riches of the poor.
90. Knowledge is the sum total of excellence.
91. He who teaches you a letter binds you with a fetter of gratitude.
92. As long as we do not hope, we do not fret.
93. He who indulges in jokes and loose fall, loses a part of his wisdom.
94. Truth is bitter, but its result is sweet; falsehood appears to be sweet but it is poisonous in its effect.
95. Miserliness is the root of many evils.
96. Knowledge and practice are twins, and both go together. There is no knowledge without practice, and no
practice without knowledge.
97. He who dissembles plays with his honor.
98. When God wants to humiliate a person He deprives him of knowledge.
99. When your power increases, decrease your desires accordingly.
100. He who listens to a backbiter loses a friend.
101. It is no justice to decide a case on mere conjecture.
102. He who does not know his own worth is deemed to ignominy.
103. He who practices thrift would never be in want.
104. He who does not know should not be ashamed to learn.
105. Patience is to faith, what head is to the body. When patience goes, faith goes, when head goes, the body
goes.
106. The grace of God is the best guide.
107. A good disposition is the best companion.
108. Wisdom is the best friend.
109. Good breeding is the best inheritance.
110. There is nothing more hateful than pride.
111. Be among men like bee among birds.
112. Mix with the people with your tongue, but be separate from them in your deeds.
113. Be generous but do not be a spendthrift.
114. Do not run after the world, let the world run after you.
115. A wise man is he who does not despair of the bounty and mercy of God.
116. He who is aware of his own faults is oblivious of the faults of others.
117. What the eye sees the heart preserves.
118. The vision of the eye is limited; the vision of the heart transcends all barriers of time and space.
119. Do not be misled by appearances for these are apt to be deceptive.
120. Do not have too many irons in the fire; concentrate on one thing at a time.
121. What you do not like for your self, do not like it for others.
122. Contentment is the treasure which is never exhausted.
123. The advice of old men is dearer than the bravery of young men.
124. That knowledge is superficial which is merely on the tongue. That knowledge is real which demonstrates
itself in your practice.
125. Waste of time is one’s greatest loss.
126. He who knows to keep his secret knows the way to success.
127. Foresight is the way to safety.
128. No relationship is stronger than the relationship that exists between man and God.
129. Enlighten the heart with prayers.
130. Strengthen your heart with faith.
131. Suppress all lust with piety.
132. Do not sell the Hereafter for the world.
133. Do not speak in a state of ignorance.
134. Refrain from unnecessary talk.
135. Do not tread the path from which you can apprehend the danger of running astray.
136. In the affairs of God, do not be afraid of the accusations of the evil mongers.
137. In all that you do seek the protection of God.
138. Do not covet what is undesirable.
139. If you seek the truth neither stray from the right path, nor be assailed by doubts.
140. Do not become a slave of your desires.
141. That wealth is no wealth which brings dishonor.
142. Whatever harm accrues of silence can be remedied but whatever harm is done because of speech cannot be
remedied.
143. It is better to restrain your desires than to stretch your hand before others.
144. A little that is earned because of honest labor is better than a larger amount gained through dishonest
means.
145. Guard well your secret.
146. He who seeks more than what is necessary indulges in error.
147. To oppress the weak is the worst tyranny.
148. Do not bank on false hopes for that is the capital of the dead.
149. A wise man takes a lesson even from a minor lapse.
150. Overpower desires and suspicions by patience and faith.
151. He who does not take the middle course strays.
152. A stranger is he who has no friends.
153. When hopes are frustrated despair becomes the way of life.
154. He who trusts the world, the world betrays him.
Sayyida Aisha is Part of Ahlel Bayt
Question:
(Are) the Ummaahatul Momineen (Mothers of the Believers) part of Nabi (s)’s Ahlay Bait or not? What (do)
the Ulama of Ahle Sunna wal Jama say about that?
Answer by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad:
Yes, the Mothers of the Believers are definitely part of the Ahl al- Bayt of the Prophet.
(Source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2773&CATE=1)
Question:
The Ummaahatul Momineen rizwanullah anhunna ajmaeen are part of Nabi Sallalho Alahi wasslam AhlayBait or
not? What the Ulama of Ahlesunna wal jama say about that?
Answer:
Wa àlaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:
Yes, the Mothers of the Believers are definitely part of the Ahl al- Bayt of the Prophet, upon him and them
blessings and peace, as indicated by the sayings of Allah Most High in His Book according to the understanding
of the Ulema of Tafsir.
Regarding the primary evidence of the Book of Allah addressing the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) (Sura 33) as
"Ahl al-Bayt":
28. O Prophet! Say unto THY WIVES: If ye desire the world's life and its adornment, come! I will content you
and will release you with a fair release;
29. But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the
good among you an immense reward.
30. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for
her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.
31. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her
reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision.
32. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Ye are not like any other women. If ye Keep your duty (to Allah), then
be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.
33. And stay in your [F] houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the Bedizenment of the Time of ignorance. Be
regular in prayer, and pay the poor due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove
uncleanness far from you [M/F], O FOLK OF THE HOUSEHOLD, and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough
cleansing.
34. And bear in mind that which is recited in your [F] houses of the revelations of Allah and wisdom. Lo! Allah
is Subtile, Aware.
It is clear that a switch from feminine to masculine with reference to The address to Ahl al-Bayt means
(1) the grammatical value of Ahl is Masculine and/or
(2) at least one man is included with the feminine group being addressed. The latter group would thus consist in
the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) *together* with the Mantle (Ìtra): Àli, Fatima, and their Children.
This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary.

In addition, it includes the zak�t-forbidden Muttalibi families of Àli, Àqil, Ja`far, and Àbbas; while Haqqi in
Ruh al-Bayan added Salman al-Farisi according to the explicit hadith "Salmanu minn� Ahl al-Bayt" as a proof
that the freedman is part of a man's household, while Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn Àrabi in his Futuhat (2:126-
127) explained Ahl al-Bayt in the Salman hadith as referring to each Muslim that acquires the attributes of his
Master i.e. the Prophet (SAWS). The latter sense is confirmed by the narrations stating: "Do not come to me
with your lineages on the Day of Resurrection! My Family is every Godwary believer" and "Every Prophet has
a Family and carriage; my Family and carriage are the Believer" (�l� wa ìddat� al-mu'min).
In conclusion, Ahl al-Bayt has many meanings according to context, and The context of 33:33 is: first the wives
of the Prophet (SAWS), then the Wives together with the noble Ìtra, and Allah knows best.
Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): "Allah Most High quit using the feminine pronoun in his address and turned
to the masculine by saying {liyudhhiba ànkum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine
plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet's] house and the men. Explanations have
differed concerning the 'Ahl al-Bayt' but the most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and
wives; al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and Àli being among them... due to his cohabitation with the
daughter of the Prophet (SAWS) and his close companionship with the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Baghawi, Maàlim al-Tanzil (2:393): "In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl al-
Bayt. ... (3:428) He means by Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) because they are in his
house and this is the narration of Saìd ibn Jubayr from Ibn Àbbas."
Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shià's claim that verse 33:33 Is specific to Fatima, Àli, and their
two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin
(ìsmat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, Because restricting the meaning to them is
not consistent with what precedes the verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part
of the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also."
Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Ta'wil fi Maàni al-Tanzil (3:490): "They [Ahl al-Bayt] are the wives of the Prophet
(SAWS) because they are in his house." Then he mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the
Ìtra or that they are the families of Àli, Àqil, Ja`far, and al-Àbbas.
Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq al-Ta'wil (3:490): "There is in it [verse 33:33] a proof that his wives
are part of the Folk of his Household (min ahli baytihi). He said 'from you [M] (ànkum)' because what is meant
are both the men and women of his family (�l) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tath�ran = and cleanse you
[M/F] with a thorough cleansing} >from the filth of sins."
Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to mean the Ìtra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-
Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From Ìkrima concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed
concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): "In this [33:33] there is an explicit proof that the wives of the
Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)."
Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280) and al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (9:48-49): "Ibn Àbbas,
Ìkrima, Àta', al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Saìd ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) are specifically
meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu
Saìd al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada - it is also related from al-Kalbi - said that those meant are specifically
Àli, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this
was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the
verse [Hud 73].... A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the Ìtra]... A
number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn
Kathir, and others."
Al-Jalalayn: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: "It was said the verse [33:33] is comprehensive (`�mma) to mean the People of
his House in the sense of his dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense of his
lineage and these are his offspring."
Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the Ìtra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from Ùrwa
that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] means the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and it was revealed in the house of
À'isha."
Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi Ìlm al-Tafsir (6:378): "Then He showed their superiority over all women when
He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone [masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist]
said: 'He did not say, "like any other woman" in the feminine, because the masculine form denotes a general
exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and all.'"
Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet (SAWS) visited À'isha and, upon entering her house, said:
"As-Sal�mu àlaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa rahmatullah." Whereupon she responded: "Wa àlayka as-Salam wa
rahmatullah, how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May Allah bless you." Then he went around to see all of his
wives and said to them exactly what he had said to À'isha.
Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-Àziz (2:865): "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] meaning, the wives of the
Prophet (SAWS) and the men [and women] of the People of his House."
Al-Thaàlibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (2:212): "This verse [Hud 73] shows that the wife of a man is
part of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)... and 'the House' in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the
dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives]."
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From Ibn Àbbas: "This verse [33:33]
was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."
Ibn Jamaà, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur'an (p. 421 #1201) and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat al-
Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur'an: "Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are
Àli, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. �l
Àqil, �l Àli, �l Ja`far, and �l al-Àbbas]."
Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi Ùlum al-Qur'an (2:197): "The phrasing of the Qur'an [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that
the wives are meant, that the verses were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them
from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included with them it was said with the
masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the
Household}. It is then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household - both male and female -
as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it shows that Àli and Fatima are more [specifically]
deserving of this description ["Ahl al-Bayt"] than the wives."
Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:378-379): "It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet - Allah
bless and greet him - are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim's wife
as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet
- Alah bless and greet him - when He said:... [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning
of the address concerns them."
Abu al-Suùd, Irshad al-Àql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur'an al-Karim (7:103):
"This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and
greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the
opinion of the Shiìs who narrow it to mean only Fatima, Àli, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with
them. As for what they claim as their proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of
Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded."
WAllahu a`lam.
Hajj Gibril
The Prophet Defends His Wife Aisha
The Shia propagandists slander the Prophet’s wife, Aisha. It should be noted, however, that the Munafiqoon
(Hypocrites) and Kufaar (Disbelievers) have always sought to hurt the Prophet by slandering his wife; as such,
there is nothing new in the Shia tactics. During the lifetime of the Prophet, many of the enemies of Islam hurt
the Prophet by slandering his wife, and this pained the Prophet very much. The Prophet said:
“Who would exonerate me from the accusations of that person who has troubled me in regards to my family?
By Allah, I find nothing in my wife but goodness!”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 37, Number 6673)
The Prophet has asked who will exonerate him from the accusations made against his wife. It will be the Ahlus
Sunnah wal Jama’ah that will do that, Insha-Allah!
The Status of the 12 Imams
Question:
What is the status of the 12 Imams of the Shia?
Answer:
The first 11 Imams were pious individuals who were a part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah; they had nothing to
do with the Shia. None of them claimed Imamah as the Shia claim, because this would be accusing them of
being Dajjals, and they were innocent of that. This is similar to the case of Prophet Jesus (may Allah be pleased
with him), who was a Muslim and not a Christian. The Christians, by their beliefs, have accused Prophet Jesus
of being one of the Tawagheet, and yet we know that Prophet Jesus was innocent of that. In the same manner
that Prophet Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, similarly did the 11 Imams never claim for themselves
Imamah (i.e. divine appointment). The Muslims have a greater right to Prophet Jesus than do the Christians, and
so too do the Sunnis have a greater right to the 11 Imams than do the Shia.
We ask Allah to send His Blessings down upon each and every one of the 11 Imams, starting from Ali ibn Abi
Talib all the way to Hasan al-Askari, may Allah be well-pleased with them! They were not only the pious
descendants of Ahlel Bayt, but they were also from amongst the best of people.
As for the 12th Imam, he did not exist, because Hasan al-Askari (may Allah be well-pleased with him) did not
have a son.
Shaykh Gibril Haddad was asked about the status of the Imams of the Shia, to which he replied:
I heard Dr. Nur al-Din Ìtr in class say: “Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble
Prophetic Tree and many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
Team Ahlel Bayt asked the following question to Shaykh Maqbool Ahmad al-Makki, a graduate of Umm al-
Qurra: “What is the status of the 11 Imams?” To which the Shaykh replied:
“There is no doubt that they were righteous and they were amongst the pious spiritual leaders of the Muslims.
They had nothing to do with the Shia.”
Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i Says Wife is Part of a Man’s “Ahl”
Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i, the former leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of Najaf, wrote in his book “Sirat
al-Najat” that the wife is a part of a man’s “Ahl”. It should be noted that “Sirat al-Najat” is a very famous book
which is referenced on Al-Islam.org many times. Is it not clear from this that the Prophet’s wives are a part of
his “Ahl”?
Does this not expose the hypocrisy of the Shia leaders when they include their own wives in their Ahl, but they
then rip the Prophet’s wives out of his Ahl? This is indeed indicative of the two-faced attitude of the Shia
Ayatollahs, whereby they will never tolerate a man insulting their own wives, but they themselves will degrade
the Prophet’s wives! Aisha and Hafsa are a part of the Ahlel Bayt, and the Shia leaders lie when they claim to
be the lovers of Ahlel Bayt when in fact they are the enemies and revilers of the Prophet’s wives (i.e. his Ahlel
Bayt). We kindly ask the Shia laypersons to disassociate themselves from their leaders and to instead embrace
the true lovers of Ahlel Bayt, i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah.
Q: There is a command to convey the Haqq (Truth) to one’s “Ahl” as well as to forbid them from the evil
things, so in this command, who is “Ahl”? And is one’s wife included in this, and is this command (to convey
the truth) applicable to one’s wife?
Answer by al-Ko’i: Yes, the wife is part of the “Ahl”, and this command is in regards to her too. And Allah
knows best.
(source: Sirat al-Najat, by Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i, p.426

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33
The Shia claim to be the Madhab of Ahlel Bayt, and the center of their religious sect is their belief in the divine
appointment of the twelve Imams from this Ahlel Bayt. And yet, the Shia cannot provide a single verse in the Quran
which mentions any twelve Imams of Ahlel Bayt. In fact, the term “Ahlel Bayt” is only used twice in the Quran and the
irony is that the word is used both times to refer to a man’s wives! The Quran categorically addresses the Prophet’s
wives as Ahlel Bayt; this is the same group that the Shia despise and curse! How then can the Shia claim to be the lovers
of Ahlel Bayt when in fact they accuse the Prophet’s wife of murder, Fisq, and heresy? In fact, it is the Ahlus Sunnah
which categorically loves the Ahlel Bayt, not the Shia. It is the Sunnis who are the true lovers of Ahlel Bayt, because we
love the Prophet’s wives.
The most oft-repeated Quranic verse in Shia literature is 33:33, which the Shia quote again and again. The
importance of this verse to the Shia faith cannot be overstated; a simple gander of Shia texts confirms that this
verse is not only repeated over and over, but it is used as a basis and justification of the Shia sect. What is
interesting, however, is that most Shia laypersons have only heard half of this verse; they commonly think of
the verse as simply:
“Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make
you pure and spotless.”
But few of them know that this is simply a half-quote; indeed, the entire passage reads:
abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And
recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the
finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).”
(Quran, 33:32-34)
In fact, Allah addresses the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel Bayt. This would of course include Aisha, daughter of Abu
Bakr, and Hafsa, daughter of Umar. And yet we find that the Shia have an intense hatred for Aisha and Hafsa,
and it is on this basis that we Sunnis say that the Shia are not the lovers of Ahlel Bayt as they claim. In fact, the
Shia are the most ardent opponents and enemies of Ahlel Bayt. Nobody can deny that if Allah Almighty refers
to the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel Bayt, then nobody–no Ayatollah and no propagandist–could claim otherwise.
We would indeed take the Word of Allah above that of the Shia.
Tahreef
It was on this basis that the classical scholars of the Shia claimed that there was Tahreef (tampering) of the
Quran. They claimed that the “evil” Sahabah changed the Quran, and that the Mushaf we have today is not the
real Quran (at least not in its unaltered form). The contemporary Shia scholars, however, completely deny that
they believe in Tahreef or that this belief was ever a part of their sect. Nonetheless, despite this denial, many of
the Shia Ulema hold onto the belief known as Tahreef bit Tarteeb (tampering in the order of the verses of the
Quran such that the meaning of it is changed). Many Shia scholars claim that verse 33:33 was altered in such a
manner.
The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of the Quran along with
commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by Answering-Ansar here, and hence there should be no question
about its authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 33:33, this Shia Tafseer reads:
Translation: “If we take out this verse (of purification) from the middle, and then we read the verse (addressed
to the wives) from the beginning to the end, we then find no fault in it and it looks better in this form. From this,
it is clear that this verse (of purification) does not belong to this place and it was added deliberately for some
special purpose.”
(source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 33:33)
The Shia scholar, Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, in the Shia book “Imamate and Leadership” quotes Allamah
Sharaf al-Din (Kalimat al-Ghurra’, p.213) as follows:
“Although we are convinced that no distortion has taken place in the verses of the Noble Qur’an and that our
heavenly Book has not been tampered with in any way, it is by no means clear that the arrangement and
recension of the verses is precisely that in which they were revealed. For it is quite possible that the
‘purification verse’ concerning the People of the House was revealed separately and then, when the verses of
the Qur’an were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to the wives of the Prophet,
either in error or deliberately.”
(Al-Islam.org, Lesson 19, http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/)
It should be understood that the Allamah’s disclaimer that the Shia do not believe in Tahreef is as disingenuous
as those who say “I don’t mean to be racist, but…” Whatever follows such a statement is always racist!
Allamah Sharaf al-Din basically says: we don’t believe in Tahreef but there may have been Tahreef. Utterly
absurd! The Shia wish to pay lip-service to the claim that they don’t believe in tampering of the Quran, and yet
they further various hypothesis that allude to textual tampering of a dramatic proportion.
The “Khateem al-Muhhaditheen” al-Majlissi says a similar thing in “Bihar al-Anwar”:
‫الحهم‬55‫ات لبعض مص‬5‫ة الزوج‬5‫ياق مخاطب‬55‫ا في س‬55‫ أو أدخلوه‬، ‫به‬5‫ا تناس‬5‫وا أنه‬55‫ع زعم‬5‫عوها في موض‬5‫ا وض‬5‫فلعل آية التطهير أيض‬
‫الدنيوية‬
‫ة‬55‫ل اآلي‬55‫ا قب‬55‫قط مم‬55‫ه س‬55‫ فلعل‬، ‫يره‬55‫ سيأتي أخبار مستفيضة بأنه سقط من القرآن آيات كث‬: ‫ولو سلم عدم التغيير في الترتيب فنقول‬
‫وما بعدها آيات لو ثبتت لم يفت الربط الظاهري بينها‬
Translation: “It is possible that the purification verse was added (by the Companions) at this part (of the verse)
claiming that it was referring to the wives, or they added in the verses addressing the prophet’s wives, to suit
their religious needs…Even if we accept that there was no tampering (by the Companions) in the order (of the
verses), we say there are many narrations which discuss the removal/canceling of Quranic verses. [Maybe there
were verses before and after the verse of purification and they were removed]; if these verses were not removed
before and after the verse (of purification), we would see the apparent link between them.”
(source: Bihar al-Anwar, pp.234-235,

http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/index.html)
The great Shia Mufassir, Tabatabai, writes:
‫أليف‬55‫د الت‬55‫بي أو عن‬55‫أم ٍر من الن‬55‫ا ب‬55‫فاآلية لم تكن بحسب النزول جزء اً من آيات نساء النبي وال متَّصلة بها و إنما وضعت بينها إ ّم‬
‫بعد الرحلة‬
Translation: “The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of) revelation, was initially not a part of the
verse about the Prophet’s wives and had no link to these verses, but rather it was later added between these
verses either by the Prophet, or after his death when the Quran was compiled.”
(source: al-Mizan, Vol.16, p.321,

http://www.ahl-ul-bait.com/newlib/Quran/almizan/almizan16/f7-16.htm)
Conclusion
Is it not interesting that the most famous verse to the Shia causes him so much trouble? Various Shia scholars
have become utterly confused when they read this verse in its entirety and they have to invent various plausible
explanations, anything to “explain away” a gaping hole in their faith, namely that Allah Himself addressed the
Prophet’s wives as “Ahlel Bayt”, that same group that the Shia writers malign with the most malicious of
words!
The utter confusion of the Shia scholars is evidenced by the colorful explanations they provide. They seek to
somehow explain how the verse about purifying Ahlel Bayt is addressed to the Prophet’s wives. We have said
this before and we will say it again and again: Shi’ism cannot be found anywhere in the Quran, but rather they
have to take certain verses, splice them in half, distort them, add their own commentary, and mix in their own
fabricated Hadith. If we simply pick up any Shia text, we will find the repeated reference to the Ahlel Bayt, but
if we open the Quran, we find no such vibe, and even if we look up the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the Quran, we find
that it refers to the Prophet’s wives!
The methodology of the mainstream Muslim is that he first reads the Quran and then makes up his mind after
this based on what the Quran says. Meanwhile, the methodology of the Ahlul Bidah wal Dalalah (The People of
Innovation and of Hell-Fire, i.e. the Shia) is that they first make up their minds with their own ideas and the
ideas of their priests, and then they go into the Quran looking to generate “evidences” and “proof” to back up
these preconceived beliefs, manipulating and twisting verses of the Quran to make them mean really whatever
they want them to mean.
May Allah save us from those who seek to butcher the Quran with their lies.
The Quran Challenge
Crux of the Sunni/Shia Divide
The center of the debate between the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia revolves around the issue of Imamah (i.e. Aimmatal
Masoomeen). The importance of Imamah is so great that the Shia Ulema consider those who reject Imamah to be Kaffir.
Likewise, the Sunni Ulema consider those who accept (in toto) the Shia doctrine of Imamah to be Kaffir.
Most of the polemical debate between Sunni and Shia revolves around peripheral issues such as Mutah, Matam,
Saqifah, Ghadeer Khumm, Fadak, and other such side issues. However, the fundamental issue of debate–
namely Imamah–is oftentimes ignored. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih:
Every other disagreement the Shia have with the Sunnis [other than Imamah] has its roots in the Shia insistence
on Imamah as a principle of Islam, both in belief and practise. From differing views and interpretations of
history, entirely different systems of Hadith collection and authentication, and divergent manners of performing
Islamic practises, all these dissimilarities can be traced back to Imamah as a doctrine in Shia faith.
It is therefore only reasonable that the focus of any serious quest for truth would begin and end with the
principle of Imamah in the mind of the truth-seeker. Trying to research about the differences between Shia and
Sunni without considering the dogma of Imamah as a main sticking point will lead to dead ends and fruitless
arguments. I have personally witnessed a number of [Sunni-Shia] discussions that quickly descend into chaos
because one side or the other wishes to discuss a subject of peripheral importance.
Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.5; Download book here
It is safe to say that if the Shia did not believe in the concept of Imamah, then they would not be considered a
separate sect. The other issues of contention between Sunni and Shia are simply a consequence of Imamah.
Hence, Imamah and its validity in the Quran is the main issue of contention between the Ahlus Sunnah wal
Jama’ah and their Shia brothers.
Imamah
Before we proceed, it is important to state what exactly is the Shia doctrine of Imamah.
The Shia doctrine of Imamah: Apart from the Prophets, there are another group of God-appointed persons
called Imams. These are people who possess Ismah (infallibility) and have access to a knowledge that is not
accessible by ordinary people. The world cannot be empty of an Imam otherwise it will be destroyed. In the
Islamic context, these individuals are twelve people among the descendants of the Holy Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬who are appointed by nobody except Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬alone to lead the Muslims. Anyone who chooses a
leader other than these twelve is misguided and not a complete believer. The twelvth (last) of the Imams is the
Mehdi and, although he has been in occultation for more than one thousand years, he will return when Allah (‫عز‬
‫ )و جل‬wishes and then justice will prevail.
Importance of Imamah
The above stated doctrine of Imamah is the core belief of the Shia. The Shia consider five articles of belief as
fundamentals of religion. These are:
1. Tawheed (Oneness of God)

2. Nabuwwah (Prophethood)
3. Ma’ad (Day of Judgement)
4. Adl (Justice of God)
5. Imamah (the above stated doctrine)
Imamah is considered by the Shia to be one of the Usool-e-Deen [fundamentals of religion].
In the words of Sidi Abu Salih:
In Shi’ism, the matters of religion are divided into Usool-e-Deen and Furoo-e-Deen. The Usool-e-Deen are the
principles of belief in the religion, analogous to the Pillars of Faith in Sunnism. The Furoo-e-Deen relates to the
practises in the religion, such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and so on.
To introduce the reader to what constitutes the Usool-e-Deen in Shi’ism, I will quote the following tract from
Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghita’s book “The Origin of Shi’ite Islam and its Principles” (Asl
ash-Shi’ah wa Usuluha):
“Those matters which concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion) and
they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl, and Ma’ad.” [“The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles, Part II:
Fundamentals of the Religion”, Part II: The Fundmentals of the Religion, Section The Fundamental Beliefs, p.218]
“We believe that the Imamah is one of the

In similar fashion, the Shia scholar Muhammad Ridha Muzaffar states:
fundamentals of Islam (Usool-e-Deen), and that man’s faith can never be complete without belief in it.”
…The [only] real issue of contention [between Sunni and Shia] is with respect to [the belief in] Imamah. As [the Shia scholar]
Allamah Kashiful Ghita mentions: “It is the question of the Imamah which distinguishes the Shia sect from all other
sects. Other differences are not fundamental; they are furoo’i (i.e. secondary)” [Asl-ul-Shia wa Usuluha, p.221]
Thus, the importance of Imamah in Shi’ism is more than the importance of Salat (prayer); Imamah is considered
Usool-e-Deen [i.e. fundamental] whereas Salat is Furoo-e-Deen [i.e. secondary]. It would be accurate to say that
the Furoo-e-Deen are a direct consequence of the Usool-e-Deen. Imamah is considered the most important pillar
of Islam. And by Imamah, we do not mean “leadership” since even the Sunni–as well as any group of people–
consider leadership to be an important issue. When we refer to “Imamah” we are referring to the specific Shia
doctrine of God-appointed infallible leaders who must be followed.
Denying Imamah
The sheer importance that the Shia scholars give to Imamah can be seen by their views on those who reject
Imamah. Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this:
Al-Shia.com says
“ :“‫ واعتقادنا‬. ‫) من جحد نب وة االنبي اء عليهم الس الم‬ 6 ( ‫” فيمن جحد إمامة أم ير المؤم نين واالئمة من بع ده عليهم الس الم بمنزلة‬
“‫“ فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من االئمة عليهم السالم أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع االنبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى هللا عليه وآله‬
Translation: Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameer al Mumineen
[Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the
Prophets.”
Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] but rejects a single
Imam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all of the Prophets and then rejects the
Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html ”
Al-Shia.com says
“ Shaikh Mufid declared:
“‫”اتفقت االمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من االئمة وجحد ما أوجبه هللا تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار‬
Translation: “The Imamiyyah [Shia] are in agreement (’Ijma) that the one who rejects the Imamah of one Imam
and rejects the obedience to them which Allah ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire
forever.”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar23/a39.html ”
Therefore, we see that this issue of Imamah is not one to be taken lightly. On the one side, the Shia scholars say
that those who reject Imamah are misguided and deserving of Hell-Fire. On the other hand, the Sunni scholars
say that those who accept the Shia doctrine of Imamah in toto [i.e. in totality] are guilty of believing in false
prophethood (i.e. Dajjals).
Where is the Doctrine of Imamah in the Quran?
We ask the reader: where is the doctrine of Imamah in the Quran? This is a very sound question. The Quran is
the book of guidance and we have been told by the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬that whenever we feel lost, we
can consult the Quran and it will never betray us. The Shia doctrine of Imamah is not a minor issue, but rather it
is very important and it is the core belief of the Shia. Its importance is to the extent that the Shia Ulema hold
that because of disbelief in this doctrine, 80% of Muslims are misguided and in fact not true believers. If this is
the case, then we ask the reader: which verses of the Quran have given us this “all-important” doctrine of
Imamah?
If Imamah is central to Islam, and the Quran is the central book of Islam, then surely the Quran should have the
belief of Imamah in it. And yet, for hundreds of years, the Shia scholars have not been able to answer the
“Quran Challenge.” The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah has repeatedly challenged the Shia to produce even one
single verse in the Quran that outlines the Shia concept of Imamah. Time and time again, anyone who tries to
seek proof for Imamah from the Quran fails to do so.
The Quran Challenge
This is an open challenge for the Shia to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of
Imamah. Can the Shia produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation,
without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” their interpretation, without
Tafseer, and without their own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?
When the Shia is forced to produce the Quranic verses without any additions, he will find it impossible to even
come close to fulfilling the “Quran Challenge.” Not a single verse in the Quran says anything even remotely
close to “O believers, after the Prophet, there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow
them.” The Shia can never produce a single verse in the Quran that shows anything even similar to this. In fact,
the Shia will be forced to produce long Tafseer and circuitious arguments involving certain verses with added
meanings to them; but if we ask the Shia to simply read the verse without any insertions, then suddenly they
cannot produce even a single verse in the Quran to justify Imamah. Suffice to say that the Shia becomes
polemically incapacitated if he is forced to use the Quran and Quran alone.
The Shia have stated that Imamah is the fundamental of faith, and so there should thus be many verses in the
Quran on this topic. Yet, the “Quran Challenge” only asks for the Shia to produce even a couple of verses from
the Quran, yet even this is not possible. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the names of their Infallible
Imams; not even Ali’s name (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is ever mentioned in the Quran. But more importantly than this, there
is not a single mention of the very concept of Imamah. This is peculiar, to say the least; how can Imamah be
part of Usool-e-Deen (a fundamental pillar of faith) and yet not be mentioned even a single time in the Quran?
The truth is that the Quran mentions all the fundamentals of belief, and if something is not in the Quran, then
that “thing” cannot possibly be a fundamental of belief.
Imamah Not Mentioned in Quran
Every single fundamental of Islam is mentioned in the Quran numerous times. Tawheed and the concept of
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬are mentioned over two thousand times. The concept of Messengers and Prophets [Risalah and
Nabuwwah] is mentioned repeatedly; in fact, the words “Rasool” and “Nabi” is used over four hundred times.
All of the other Usool-e-Deen (fundamental of religion), other than Imamah, are mentioned hundreds of times
in the Quran. Yet, the Quran remains completely silent on the issue of Imamah.
The Shia say that Imamah is one of the Usool-e-Deen, but we see that even the Furoo-e-Deen (the subsidiary
and secondary parts of religion) are mentioned much more than Imamah is (which is actually never mentioned).
Salat (prayer), the second pillar of Islam, is mentioned 700 times in the Quran. Zakat (charity), the third pillar of
Islam, has been mentioned over 150 times. And yet, where is Imamah? The Quran is the complete guide for
humanity, and yet the Shia are saying that the fundamental core belief (i.e. Imamah) is not in it.
The Quran clearly says that Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is divinely appointed as the the Messenger of
Allah (‫ز و جل‬55‫ )ع‬and that we should follow him. If there was another divinely appointed person we were
supposed to follow after him, shouldn’t his name also be mentioned in the Quran? Why is it too much to ask
that the twelve Imams be named in the Quran? Or how about even one of them? Not even Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is
named in the Quran. For argument sake, we will not even demand names; what about even the very concept of
divinely appointed Imams that will come after the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and that we must follow them?
We would argue that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬should have included the names of such people for the book to really be
complete, yet we are unable to find even a single verse in the Quran which describes even the concept of
Imamah. Not a single verse can the Shia produce in this regard.
The Quran is the ultimate guide for humanity. It contains all the fundamental beliefs of our faith. If Imamah was
really a part of our faith, then it would be in the Quran. But Imamah is not in the Quran and we reject whatever
belief is not justified in the Quran. There are many verses in the Quran that say that the believers are those who
pray, give alms to the poor, do good deeds, and other such things; but why is it that not a single verse says the
believers are those who follow and obey the Infallible Imam?
Conclusion
Both Sunni and Shia, as well as all other Islamic-oriented sects, have their own set of Hadith, Tafseer, historical
accounts, and rituals. However, the Quran should be mutually agreed upon by both sides as being an authentic
guide to the truth. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih, in order for a dialogue between Sunni and Shia to be fruitful,
…the Lowest Common Denominator should be found, a work that will be accepted as fully authentic in terms
of its message and its integriy by both the Sunni and Shia sides. This book is, of course, the Noble Quran.
Therefore, the first and most important place to look for resolving big differences of doctrine such as those
between the Sunni and Shia sects should be the Quran.
Thus, whichever group has basis for its beliefs in the Quran, it is this group that we should adhere to. A group
whose beliefs are not in the Quran cannot be followed as this would be refuting the Word of Allah (‫)عز و جل‬.
The Quran is complete in its guidance; Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬says: “We have left nothing out of the Book.”
(Quran, 6:38)
In Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia believe are Ali’s sermons and letters, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬says: “The Quran is
the Hujjat (Proof) of Allah for his servants…it is the basis of Islam…and the guidance for anyone who follows
it and justification for anyone who takes it as his approach and the evidence for anyone who takes it as his
supporter in his discussions and winner for anyone who uses it for making his arguments.” [Nahjul Balagha,
Sermon 198]
Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in Shia Hadith: “Anyone who comes to recognize the truth from any
sources other than the Quran will not be saved from Fitnah.”
The importance of the Quran is stated clearly by the Infallible Imams of the Shia: “If you come across two
Hadiths narrated from us [Imams] then compare them with the Book of Allah; what is in accordance then take it
and what is in disagreement then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 1, p.190) And again: “Whatever comes to you
related from us [Imams] then compare it with the Book of Allah; whatever is in accordance with it then accept it
and whatever contradicts it then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, p.158)
The realization that Imamah does not appear in the Quran may come as a shock to our Shia brothers. We
encourage them to look in the Quran for verses about the twelve Infallible Imams, and surely they will not find
any. As stated by one brother: “I did not find Shi’ism in the Quran.”
Article Written By: Owais Muhammad

Edited By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
Special thanks to the author of the following book
“Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”

By: Abu Salih
Synopsis: Imamah is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Shia, and it is the major difference between the Shia
and mainstream Muslims. The Quran is the central book of Islam, and hence, it contains all of the major beliefs
of the Muslims. In the book “Imaamah and the Quran”, the author analyzes how Imamah, the major belief of the
Shia, is absent from the Quran. This book was instrumental in the creation of this website, and it can be
purchased here.
The Quran Challenge, Part II
Please read Part I of “The Quran Challenge” before proceeding. In Part I, we challenged the Shia to produce even a single
verse in the Quran that proved their doctrine of Imamah. After miserably failing at this task, there were many “cop-out”
semi-responses to our challenge. We shall address them here, and it will become abundantly clear to the unbiased
reader that the weakness of the Shia responses is indicative of the baseness of the belief in Imamah.
Shia Response #1
“ There are also no verses in the Quran to tell us how to pray. We learn some of our duties from the Hadith and not
the Quran.
”
Firstly, the Shia consider Imamah to be Usool-e-Deen (fundamental of religion) whereas Salat (prayer) is
Furoo-e-Deen (subsidiary and secondary part of religion). Hence, the comparison between the two is unfair,
because Salat is considered an Islamic ritual (a Fiqh matter) whereas Imamah is considered essential to the core
belief of Islam, on the same level as Tawheed, Prophethood, and the Day of Judgment.
Imamah is important enough to convince the Shia to separate themselves from the mainstream Islam. If the only
difference between the Shia and mainstream Muslims was the way they perform prayer, then they would never
have become a sect outside of orthodox Islam.
Having said that, the reality is that Salat has been referred to explicitly and strongly more than 700 times in the
Quran. In each of these verses, one of the aspects of prayer is covered. Many of the verses talk about the details
of prayer, such as how to come prepared for prayer (ablution), prayer in travel, and other such matters. So we
wonder why the Shia would compare Salat with Imamah. Salat is mentioned over 700 times, whereas Imamah
is never mentioned.
Certainly, with such a vast and strong reference to Salat from Quran, Muslims will refer to the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬to know the details. Nobody is saying that the Quran should contain the nitty-gritty of where our
hands should be placed while praying and other such minor Fiqh issues. But the concept of Salat is very much
stressed in the Quran; again and again, Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says that the believers are those who establish Salat.
There is not a single reference to Imamah; had Imamah been simply outlined in the Quran, then the Muslims
could refer to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬for the nitty-gritty details such as how much Khums to pay to
the Imam and other such minor Fiqh issues. And yet, Imamah is never mentioned even fleetingly.
The truth is that Imamah is an imaginary concept concocted by the Shia scholars and it does not exist. If it
existed, it would be in the Quran; its absence from the Quran is evidence of its imaginary nature. Salat is
mentioned 700 times, and yet we find zero verses in the Quran about “Infallible Imams;” even the name of Ali (
ّ ‫)ر‬, the leader of these Imams, is not mentioned.
We wonder why Salat is mentioned so many times in the Quran, but there is absolutely no mention of the 12
Imams, the Infallible Imamah, or even the divine Imamah of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The Shia believe that Imamah is
Usool-e-Deen (i.e. primary) whereas Salat is Furoo-e-Deen (i.e. secondary). So why would a minor point be
mentioned so many times and not the major one? In Islam, it is Haram to enter someone else’s house without
first knocking on the door and getting permission. This is mentioned in the Quran. How come something so
miniscule as this could be mentioned in the Quran and yet we find nothing on the “all-important” concept of
Imamah, which is supposedly the main pillar of belief? And consider this with Allah’s (‫ )عز و جل‬declaration:
“We have left nothing out in the Book.” (Quran, 6:38)
Shia Response #2
“ There are certain verses but you need to look at the Hadith to understand their true meaning because we are
advised to learn the Quran from the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and Hadith are his teachings.
”
The fundamentals of faith are all mentioned in the Quran, and their details are in the Hadith. It is unthinkable
that the Hadith would go against the Quran, or expound an entire invisible arm of faith that is completely absent
in the Quran. In fact, such a “Hadith” which has no basis in the Quran has to be thrown out as unauthentic, even
according to the Infallible Imams of the Shia: “If you come across two Hadiths narrated from us [Imams] then
compare them with the Book of Allah; what is in concordance then take it and what is in disagreement then
reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 1, p.190) And again: “Whatever comes to you related from us [Imams] then
compare it with the Book of Allah; whatever is in concordance with it then accept it and whatever contradicts it
then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, p.158)
Why is it that only when it comes to Imamah, we suddenly need Hadith to help us? We certainly do not need
Hadith to understand from the Quran that Salat, Hajj, fasting, and Jihad are obligatory on Muslims. We do not
need Hadith to understand from the Quran that a Muslim needs to believe in the Oneness of God; even the
Prophets, Angels, and the Hereafter are mentioned in the Quran, but not a single time is Imamah mentioned.
None of the other fundamentals of faith are completely absent from the Quran!
All of a sudden, when it comes to Imamah, Hadith becomes a vital tool to understand the Quran? How can this
be when the Shia Hadith itself says that a person should reject those Hadith which do not conform to the Quran?
It is true that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬explains certain verses of the Quran, but explaining is different
from interpreting and changing the very meaning of the verse. The Quran is the clear guide to the truth; how
could Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬expect people of our time to use Hadith to understand the meaning of the Quran? Which
Hadith should a person follow? There are dozens of Shia sects, each with their own sets of Hadith. Surely, Allah
(‫ )عز و جل‬did not expect people to become Hadith scientists and analyze all of these. Instead, Allah (‫)عز و جل‬
said that the Quran is the guide to the truth, so the fundamental of faith should be found from it.
Shia Response #3
“ Imamah is an extension of the idea of Ali’s Divine Appointment ( ‫رضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ). As such, we do not need to find proof
for Imamah, but rather of Ali’s Divine Appointment ( ‫رضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ). Evidence for this can be seen in the Quran: “Only Allah
is your Wali (friend), and His Messenger, and the believers–those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, who
humbly bow down.” (Quran, 5:55)
In this verse, Allah says our Walis are Allah, His Messengers, and then Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. The Quran is referring
to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬when it says “the believers, those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, who
humbly bow down.” This is because Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was bowing down in prayer and gave his ring in charity to
someone while in Rukoo, so this is why the verse referred to him in this way.
”
It is incorrect to claim that Ali’s Divine Appointment is the issue and not Imamah; after all, this Divine
Appointment is to Imamah! Having said that, the same can be asked about Ali’s Divine Appointment. Not a
single time in the Quran is Ali’s name (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬mentioned, let alone a verse that refers to his Divine
Appointment. So once again, the Quran is silent on the issue and the Shia find no basis for their beliefs in the
Quran.
In regards to Verse 5:55 above, it is a stretch to say that this verse refers to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Once again, we see
that the Shia was unable to simply show us the verse in the Quran without their own commentary. As such, this
does not fulfill the “Quran Challenge” in the least. Without their added commentary, this verse does not in any
way discuss their Shia belief.
In fact, it is an impossibility that this verse refers to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬when it talks about “believers” which is in
the plural form. How can this verse refer to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬when it is in the plural form? Yuqeemoona, yu-
toona, hum, and raki’oona are all plural structures. Now, the Shia will respond by saying it is in plural because
it refers to all of their twelve Infallible Imams. But that is peculiar, since the Shia was just arguing earlier that
this verse referred to a specific story in which Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬gave his ring in charity while in Rukoo. This is a
contradiction that needs to be pondered upon.
Lastly, even if we let the Shia believe that this verse refers to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, this still does not answer the
“Quran Challenge.” This verse is talking about “Wali” which means “friend.” It has nothing to do with
Infallible Imamah. If that were the case, were the Shia arguing that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is one of the Infallible
Imams, since Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says that He is Wali of the believers?
What would stop a Bahai person from claiming that this verse actually refers to Bahaiullah? A Bahai person
could easily narrate a convoluted story about how Bahaiullah gave charity and was bowing down to God, and
then vehemently claim that this verse refers to Bahaiullah. The Aga Khanis could claim that this verse refers to
The Aga Khan. Indeed, if we accept the Shia claims, then there really is no way to stop anyone from taking any
verse in the Quran and twisting it to mean really whatever they want it to mean.
It is disconcerting how the Shia play Legoes with the Quran. For example, if the Quran calls someone(s) Ahlel
Bayt, the Shia will claim it is Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, even though it is addressed to the Prophet’s wives. If the Quran
uses the word “Mawla,” then the Shia say this is Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The Quran calls Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬an Imam,
so the Shia claim that this shows Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is an Imam. Even Qadiyanis can claim that Mawla means
Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani. Or Hindus can claim that Imam means Rama or Kali Mata. Anti-Islam orientalists can
say that it refers to the Moon God that Muslims slay virgin women for.
We sincerely advise our Shia brothers to read the Quran in an unbiased manner. Ahlel Bidah (the People of Evil
Innovation) will first expound their beliefs and then after this they will look for “evidences” in the Quran. On
the other hand, true believers will first read the Quran and then this will decide what their beliefs are. If a person
adamantly believed in Santa Claus, then he could easily read the Quran and make different verses refer to Santa
Claus. But if such a person read the Quran with an open heart and an unbiased mind (i.e. with no
preconceptions), then there is no way that he could arrive at the erroneous belief in Santa Claus.
It should be noted that the response by the Shia, quoting the verse of the Quran with such excessive and
rambling commentary, is indicative of their weak position. The more they have to talk, the more obvious their
lack of Quranic support becomes.
Shia Response #4
“ There is no mention of the name of Prophet Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in the Bible but still the Christians
need to believe in him.
”
The Quran tells us that the Bible did in fact give information about Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
but that these verses were removed.
If Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬thought that the people could be guided to the right path just by the version of the Bible we
have today, then why would He find the need to send the Quran to replace the Bible? No human being can be
expected to know about our Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬from reading the present-day Bible.
Furthermore, there is an interesting side-note to be added here. The Jews and the Christians believe in the
concept of prophethood; but do they have any institution of Imamah? They have never even heard of this word,
and there is surely no English equivalent of it. This is another point to ponder for the Shia; up until the Shia
invented it, there was no concept of Imamah.
Although it would be appropriate for the Quran to mention the twelve Imams by name, the “Quran Challenge”
is not asking the Shia to even find the names of their Imams in the Quran, but rather simply the concept of
Imamah. The concept of prophethood is well-established in the Bible (both old and new testaments). It is only
after the establishment of this concept in the Christian holy book that they were expected to believe in another
prophet, namely Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The concept of Imamah, however, has not been referred to
in the Bible, let alone being established as a doctrine. Therefore, from this respect too, the comparison is
illogical.
Shia Response #5
“ The verses of the Quran are usually general and it is not the style of the Quran to name people (i.e. the Imams).
Show us the names of all 124,000 prophets if everything is supposedly in the Quran.
”
Nobody asked for names. We are simply asking for the concept. We are looking for a few general verses that
simply outline the doctrine, or at least even the mention of the doctrine. In fact, we’ll settle for something along
the lines of: “O Muslims, be aware that there will be certain Imams for you after the Prophet who are appointed
by Allah and you need to follow them.” It is as if the Shia want us to believe that Allah ( ‫ )عز و جل‬was worried
about talking about Imamah explicitly.
Having said that, we have the name of Zaid (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in the Quran who was a Sahabah, and his name is there
to refer to a very minor issue. It is not unfair to ask for a single verse with the name of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in it if
(according to the Shia) he was a central part of faith (i.e. the first Infallible Imam). To the Shia, the religion
revolves around Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, so shouldn’t he be mentioned in the Quran? The Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬has been mentioned numerous times by name and his position as prophet and messenger are mentioned in
multiple places.
It is incorrect to say that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬would not reveal the names of the Imams; the name of the man we had
to follow was mentioned explicitly (i.e. Muhammad [‫ )]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and if there was someone other than
him, then the name would be mentioned. Yes, all 124,000 prophets do not need to be named (namely because
they have no relevance to us), but the one(s) we have to follow (i.e. Muhammad [‫ )]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has
special relevance to the Muslim and was revealed to the people so there would be no doubt who to follow. Had
there been others to follow afterwards, then surely Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬would have included their names in the
Quran. The Arabs of Mecca could not be expected to need to know the names of all of these 124,000 prophets,
but the one prophet they had to follow was named many times (i.e. Muhammad [‫)]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Surely,
if there was another divinely appointed person in the future, then that person is important enough to be named
like Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was.
Ninety-nine different names for Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬have been mentioned in the Quran. Six entire chapters are
named after the names of the Prophets (yet not a single verse let alone an entire chapter is about an Infallible
Imam). Luqman, Aziz of Egypt, Zulqarnain, Abu Lahab, and Zaid (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬are some of the few mentioned
by name in the Quran. Four different angels are mentioned by name, five different mosques are mentioned by
name, etc. So why is it that Ali’s name (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is not mentioned a single time in the Quran? If Ali (‫ضى هللا‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬and his divine appointment of Imamah are the fundamental part of faith, then where are the Quranic verses
that mention Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬His name is not used a single time. If Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬could mention the names
ّ ‫)ر‬, Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, Moses, Haroon (‫)عليهم السالّم‬, and such, then why didn’t
of Zaid (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬also mention the name of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫?)ر‬
The Quran is supposed to be complete, and yet the Shia are saying that the fundamental core belief is not even
in it. An author who writes a book without getting his main point across would get an ‘F’ if an English teacher
graded it. Are the Shia trying to say that the author of the Quran, Allah the Almighty (‫)عز و جل‬, deserves an ‘F’
for failing to mention the crux of faith in a book which Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬Himself declares to be a complete guide
for humanity?
Shia Response #6
“ The Quran says “follow the Prophet.” There are Hadith from the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬that prove the
doctrine of Imamah and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
”
At this point it should be stated that the Shia Hadith are fabrications. So it is really quite convenient for the Shia
to say that we won’t see this in the Quran but only in their Hadith. Meanwhile, different Shia branches have
different Hadith that say whatever they want. The Ismaili Shia (i.e. the Aga Khanis) have contradictory Hadith
saying other people are the Imams. The various Shia branches debate with each other based on their respective
fabrications.
Our refutation to “Shia Response #1″ is also applicable here, since it is the same argument in different wording.
Why is it that it is only for this article of faith that we need to consult the Hadith? Let us test something. If we
take the Quran in our hands and open it up by chance to a random page, we are guaranteed that no matter where
it is opened up, a few verses before or after are about either the Oneness of God, Prophethood, the Day of
Judgment, destiny of the human being, or duties of Muslims. Now, how far would we have to go in order to find
a verse that (and this only with the help of Shia “Hadith” and rambling Tafseer) could be interpreted as Imamah
in the Shia doctrine? How come for our other fundamental beliefs the Quran is quite direct, even for our main
duties as Muslims; but when it comes to Imamah, suddenly the Quran is silent and only the Shia Hadith mention
it. This is inconsistency and Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is far greater than having inconsistency in His perfect book. Hadith
is not the second volume of the Quran. Authentic Hadith are the details of the Quran, but the basics of our belief
are of course in the Quran.
The Shia position is further weakened when we take into account that for every Hadith the Shia use to prove
Imamah, there are other Hadith that are in contradiction to it. In fact, even Hadith (as a whole) are not structured
in a way to prove Imamah. Such a justification is in fact the main reason for having different Islamic-oriented
sects. Zaidis, Ismailis, Bohris, Ibadis, and Bahais all have their own Hadith. All of these have the same problem,
namely that they are trying to understand their religion from sources other than the Quran, using fabrications to
prove their faith and expounding beliefs that can find no bearing in the Quran.
There is no denying the sheer importance of Hadith. However, the Hadith should have basis in the Quran. It is
wrong to believe that entire arms of our faith have to be derived only from Hadith and such beliefs have no
basis in the Quran. To all Muslims, except those who have broken up into sects, the fundamentals of belief are
derived from the Quran; if they are not, then either they are wrong or they are not fundamental and thus not
acceptable reasons for forming a specific sect to be separated from the rest of the Muslims, especially when the
Quran explicitly forbids splitting up into sects. In fact, since all of these sects have different sets of Hadith, and
so too do the mainstream Muslims, we must see which set of Hadith has consistency with the Quran. If the Shia
Hadith are inconsistent with the Quran, then we must reject this source altogether. And ofcourse the Shia Hadith
are inconsistent because the Quran never mentions the institution of Imamah.
Shia Response #7
“ There are no explicit verses because if there were, then the Quran was in danger of being tampered with by the
Sahabah.
”
This is actually guessing Allah’s (‫ )عز و جل‬intention and is very close to Kufr (disbelief). From where would one
come to this conclusion? Is there any verse in the Quran that says Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬has not revealed certain things
because if he does, then someone will change the Quran? In fact, the Quranic verses are supportive of the
opinion that nothing has been left out for us from the Quran; furthermore, Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬promises that He will
keep the Quran safe.
To argue that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬did not reveal the entire message in the Quran for fear of tampering is actually
attributing Taqiyyah (lying to save one’s religion) to Allah Himself (‫)عز و جل‬, which is pure blasphemy. Allah
Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬declares: “We have left nothing out in the Book.” (Quran, 6:38) Did Allah Almighty (‫عز و‬
‫ )جل‬say “We have left some stuff out of the Book because We are scared someone might change it?”
Allah Almighty (‫ز و جل‬55‫ )ع‬has promised in the Quran that He will protect it from being tampered with:
“Absolutely, We have revealed the Reminder [the Quran], and verily, We are its Guardian; We will preserve it.”
(Quran, 15:9) In another verse, Allah says: “This is an honorable Quran in a protected book, well-guarded. A
revelation from the Lord of the universe.” (Quran, 56:77-80) And again: “Indeed, it is a glorious Quran, in a
preserved master tablet.” (Quran, 85:21-22)
By arguing that there is a fear that the Quran will be tampered with, even though Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬has promised
that this won’t be the case, this is either accusing Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬of lying or of questioning Allah’s (‫)عز و جل‬
promise and power. In any case, there are many reasons why this argument is horrible, and it should be fairly
obvious that it is a fallacious. For example, if Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬couldn’t preserve knowledge via the Quran, then
why could He do it through the Hadith? The Shia themselves reject many of their own Hadith as Daeef (weak)
and Mawdu (fabricated), so what logic could Allah (‫ز و جل‬55‫ )ع‬possibly have to not include this precious
information in the Quran but instead put it in Hadith?
Furthermore, why was Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬only fearful of revealing about Imamah but not about other things? The
Quran felt no qualms in declaring idolatry to be Haram even though the Quraish were ready to kill the Muslims
for this declaration. By the same logic, Allah Almighty (‫ )عز و جل‬shouldn’t reveal verses against idolatry since
the Munafiqoon might tamper with the Quran then. We could pretty much say anything and argue that Allah
didn’t include it for fear of tampering.
Shia Response #8
“ The Quran was changed by the Sahabah who hated the Ahlel Bayt, and certain verses were removed by them.
”
This has actually been the opinion of some classical Shia scholars. In fact, this is the most logical reply to the
“Quran Challenge.” However, no Shia scholar these days refers to this response. In fact, they publically deny
that the Quran has ever been tampered with.
In any case, such a believe in Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran would be a violation of the verses in the Quran
in which Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬promises that He will protect and safe-guard the integrity of the Quran. Allah Almighty
(‫ )عز و جل‬has promised in the Quran that He will protect it from being tampered with: “Absolutely, We have
revealed the Reminder [the Quran], and verily, We are its Guardian; We will preserve it.” (Quran, 15:9) In
another verse, Allah says: “This is an honorable Quran in a protected book, well-guarded. A revelation from the
Lord of the universe.” (Quran, 56:77-80) And again: “Indeed, it is a glorious Quran, in a preserved master
tablet.” (Quran, 85:21-22)
In any case, if certain verses were removed, then how do we know that there wasn’t some verses in the Quran in
support of Bahaiullah or even George W. Bush? By this assumption (i.e. that the Quran has been changed),
there is no basis for any opinion derived from Quran.
Furthermore, the anti-Islam Orientalists have constantly tried questioning the integrity of the Quran, and they in
fact cite the opinions of classical Shia scholars who believed in Tahreef. The Quran declares that the Bible and
Christianity are invalid now because the Bible has been tampered with; if a religious book is tampered with,
then the religion itself has been invalidated. To argue that the Quran has been adulterated is to say that Islam
has been invalidated. This is pure Kufr.
Shia Response #9
“ Where in the Quran is it said that Abu Bakr should be the first Caliph?
”
Firstly, it is not appropriate to answer a question with a question. We oftentimes see Shia responding to
questions with questions, as if the Ahlus Sunnah also being wrong somehow justifies the Shia to be wrong. If
the Ahlus Sunnah said that 2+2 is not 6 as the Shia believe, would it be valid for the Shia to respond that 6 is
correct since the Ahlus Sunnah say 2+2 is 5 and this too is incorrect? Both 5 and 6 are incorrect answers. The
point is that it is not a valid methodology of justifying one’s faith by finding errors in someone else’s faith.
Having said that, this question raised by the Shia only shows the misunderstanding of some people about the
belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Believing in the Caliphs is not a fundamental element of Islam.
According to the Ahlus Sunnah, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 Pillars of Islam; believing in the
Caliphate of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬is not part of either of them. (This is altogether unlike the Shia faith in
which Imamah is an article of faith and is the most important one.)
Any group of people tends to select someone as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so
is by election. This is a routine social/political practise. Certainly, no system of public election was established
at that time and the election of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was done through Shura of those people present at
Saqifah. Someone could argue that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was not a good choice or that not all qualified people
were present at the time; this is an individual opinion, but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in the
Quran about it. It is simply a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no
logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.
Let us not compare apples with oranges. The doctrine of Imamah is a fundamental belief of Shi’ism, whereas
election or selection of Caliphate is just a routine and common socio-political practise. It’s like comparing the
election procedure of President of the USA (i.e. Caliphate) to the divine appointment of the Pope by the Vatican
(i.e. Infallible Imam). The President (or the Caliphate) doesn’t claim Divine Providence like does the Pope (or
the Imam). If a certain person wants to claim religious right and divine appointment, then surely this person
better bring the proof from the religious book!
On the other hand, does anybody ask for divine proof when one selects a President or even the Imam of prayers
in our mosques? Nobody would ask an MSA President to bring evidence from the Quran about his election, but
if someone were to claim to be divinely appointed by Allah (‫)عز و جل‬, then we ask for evidence from the Quran
for this claim.
In any case, let us look at the present situation in Iran. Is there any divine command about how to establish a
leadership in the occultation of Mehdi? Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was selected to lead much like Khomeini was
selected to lead. Let us remember that there were no religious system of governing for the Shia after the
occultation of the Mehdi 1,000 years ago. No divine ordinance came down to make Ayatollah Khomeini leader
of Iran; in fact, there were many Ayatollahs who spoke out against Khomeini and they were subsequently jailed
for treason.
It has turned out that the Shia ended up being in the same situation as the mainstream Muslims, namely that
they had to elect a leader by themselves in the absence of any direct divine command or appointment. Why are
the Shia so much against Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and yet they support Khomeini?
Shia Response #10
“ It is a test and that is why it is not mentioned in the Quran. It is to see who will be a believer and who will not.
”
This claim puts the function of Quran as a book of guidance under serious doubt. By this claim, there is no use
to read Quran to get any guidance because (who knows?) maybe there is a fundamental part of our belief that is
not mentioned in the Quran because Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬wants to test us! By the same token, Bahais claim that the
Quran talks about their prophet Bahaiullah. When we ask them where in the Quran, they will show some verses
that have nothing to do with their claim. When we say but these verses are not clear about their claim, they say
“Oh because God is testing you…” How convenient indeed.
This is again playing with divinity. Who are we to decide for Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬that what is a test and what is not a
test? The prophethood of Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was also a test but there are many verses in the
Quran that directly tell people that Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is a prophet. A test is different from a
puzzle. Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬says in the Quran that He makes things clear for people. Even a teacher first makes it
clear for his students what is the material of the exam and then he designs a test based on that material. We need
to read the Quran to see what are the materials that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is going to ask us about on the Day of
Judgment. Is ‘believing in the doctrine of Imamah’ one of the materials that the Quran commanded us about?
Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬makes things clear for us and sends us enough evidences and then tests us to see if we can be
humble enough to obey His guidance.
Let us give an analogy. Let us pretend that there was not a single verse in the Quran about the Day of Judgment.
It is like saying that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬is testing us to see if people can somehow magically guess or deduce that
there is a Day of Judgment. This runs totally contrary to logic, as well as to the fact that humans cannot see the
Ghaib (the Unseen) so how can we know anything that Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬hasn’t revealed to us? Allah (‫)عز و جل‬
makes it clear in the Quran that we need to believe in Him and His Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and to do
good things and the test is whether we obey these commands. Allah (‫ )عز و جل‬does not play games with us. He
does not expect us to solve puzzles and riddles. We wonder why the Shia cannot see this in any other way.
Imamah is not explicitly referred to in the Quran but still the Shia insist on themselves to be separated from the
mainstream Muslims because of this doctrine, and then they expect everyone else to simply guess or deduce that
Imamah is necessary. On what basis is a mainstream Muslim supposed to be able to deduce that Imamah is a
part of faith?
Shia Response #11

“ There are certain verses in the Quran but they are coded and only Allah knows their meanings. For example, “Alif
Lam Meem” is in the Quran and nobody knows the meaning of this. Another example is that of Surah Kawthar; Kawthar
is the code name Allah uses for Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬.
”
Again, what can stop a Bahai person from saying that certain verses are coded and if we break the code, it
actually says that Bahaiullah is the next prophet? In fact, there was a man by the name of Rashad Khalifa who
claimed to be prophet based on a mathematical code he made of the Quran. Again, all of our previous responses
apply here. Which verse in the Quran tells us that it is in code? On the contrary, the Quran says that it is clear.
Please refer to our earlier rebuttals for Shia Responses 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10, since they all apply to this argument as
well.
Conclusion
We see that none of the above responses by the Shia are really answering the “Quran Challenge.” These
responses are actually escaping from the truth. Give a Quran (the translation) to an English man who has no
idea about Islam and ask him to read it and write down five important articles of Islamic belief based on his
understanding from the Quran. We imagine that he will write down the Oneness of God, Prophethood, the Day
of Judgment, perhaps the rewards and punishments, prayer, Zakat, and so on. But is there any chance that he
writes the doctrine of Imamah as the Shia put it? Surely not!
The very reason that the Shia need to include lots of explanation and commentaries and Hadith to “prove” the
Imamah doctrine from verses of the Quran proves that the Quran is not explicit and direct about Imamah, and
when a book of guidance is not explicit and direct about something, that “thing” cannot possibly be a
fundamental of guidance; people who have chosen to be separated from the mainstream Muslims because of
that “thing” are responsible for their sectarian attitude. We should keep in mind that whereas there is not a
single verse to show Infallible Imamah, there are many Quranic verses which reprimand those who split up into
sects.
The Quran says that the main complaint of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬about his people on the Day of
Judgment is that they put the Quran aside and ignored it: “And the messenger cried out: ‘O my Lord! Surely,
my own folk have made this Quran of no account.’” (Quran, 25:30)
The Quran Challenge, Part III:
 Introduction
In this article, we examine every single time the word “imam” is used in the Quran. A central tenet of Shi’ism is
to follow the twelve Infallible Imams; to the Shia, it is one of the Usool-e-Deen (Fundamentals of Religion). If
this concept of Imamah were truly a fundamental of Islam and if it really were as important as the Shia claim,
then surely this concept should be mentioned in the Quran. However, we find that the Quran does not mention
the Infallible Imams of the Shia in any way, shape, or form.
The Arabic word “imam” appears seven times in the Quran, and its plural form (a’immah) appears another five
times. One of the interesting things about Arabic is the manner in which one word is used in so many different
ways all with the same basic root meaning. In regards to the word “imam”, it means “a thing which is
followed.” This thing which is followed can be a person, place, or thing. For example, in the Quran, the word
“imam” is used to refer to a leader (who is followed), a road (which is followed), and a book (which is
followed). In the Quran, the word “imam” is used five times to refer to a thing (i.e. inanimate non-human
object), whereas it is used to refer to a person the other seven times. Of these seven times, the word “imam” is
never used to refer to the Infallible Imams of the Shia.
 Imam = road
The word “imam” translates to “road” in verse 15:79 of the Quran.
1. Quran, 15:79: “So we took vengeance on them; And verily, the two (cities) are on a clear road (imam).”
For Shia Tafseer of verse 15:79 along with an in-depth analysis, please click here.
 Imam = book
Another four times that the word “imam” is used, it translates to “book” or “record.”
2. Quran, 46:12: “And before this (Quran), there was the book (imam) of Musa, an example and a mercy; and
this (Quran) is a confirming book in the Arabic language, that it may warn those who do wrong and bring good
tidings for the righteous.”
3. Quran, 11:17: “…And before it was the book (imam) of Musa, a guide and a mercy…”
For Shia Tafseer of verses 46:12 and 11:17 along with an in-depth analysis, please click here.
4. Quran, 36:12: “Verily, We will restore the dead to life, and We write that which they sent forth, and that
which they left behind; and everything We have recorded in a clear book (imam).”
5. Quran, 17:71-72: “One day We shall call together all human beings with their respective record book
(imam): those who are given their record in their right hand will read it (with pleasure), and they will not be
dealt with unjustly in the least. But those who were blind in this world, will be blind in the hereafter, and most
stray from the Path.”
For a critical analysis of verses 36:12 and 17:71-72, please click here.
 Other Seven Instances
As we have seen, the word “imam” has been used for inanimate objects five of the times it is used in the Quran,
and thus these five verses cannot fulfill The Quran Challenge (i.e. providing proof of the Infallible Imamah
from the Quran). The other seven times the Quran mentions the word “imam”, it actually does refer to a person
and thus translates to “leader.” However, none of these eight instances refer to the Infallible Imam of the Shia.
The word “imam” is used in the Arabic language to describe any leader. The leader of the prayers would be
called “imam”, the leader of the football team would be called the “imam” of his team, and the leader of an
army would also be referred to as the “imam” of his troop. Thus, it should be noted that there is a monumental
difference between using this word “imam” to describe a leader of a certain group and when we use it to denote
the twelve Infallible Imams of the Shia. The Ahlus Sunnah refers to its own prayer and mosque leaders as
“imams”; the Shia as well will refer to their political and religious leaders as “imams”, and we commonly hear
phrases such as “Imam Khomeini” and “Imam Majlisi”, neither of whom were part of the twelve Infallible
Imams of the Shia.
So now the question is: the other seven instances that the word “imam” is used in the Quran, are these verses
relating specifically to the twelve Infallible Imams of the Shia, or are they rather referring to “leaders” in
general? The answer is clearly the latter: the term “imam” is used to refer to “leader” in the generic sense like
the word “leader” is used in the English language.
 Evil Leaders
It becomes abundantly clear that the Quran is using the term “imam” to denote “leader” rather than the Infallible
Imam of the Shia. Irrefutable proof of this lies in the following two verses in the Quran:
6. Quran, 9:12: “Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr.”
7. Quran, 28:41: “And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire.”
It could be argued that these two verses are referring to the Shia Infallible Imams, warning us to fight them
because they call us towards Hell-Fire. To such an accusation, the Shia would quickly respond that the word
“imam” is used in these two verses not to refer to their Infallible Imams, but rather that the word is being used
in the generic sense of “leader”.
We wonder then why the Shia apply a double-standard and apply a different meaning to the verses in the Quran
which use the word “imam” in a positive sense? Surely, it would be more consistent and honest to say that the
Quran universally uses the word “imam” in the generic sense and that it never refers to the twelve Infallible
Imams of the Shia.
The above two verses cannot possibly be in relation to any divinely appointed persons since the persons in
question are evil and wicked. Again, the conclusion to be reached is that the Quran uses the word “imam” to
denote a leader in the general sense of the word, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Infallible Imams.
 Israelites
8. Quran, 32:23-25: “We made it a guide for the children of Israel. And We made of them leaders (imams) to
guide by Our command so long as they persevered with patience and continued to have faith in Our
communications. Verily your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they
differ (among themselves).”
9. Quran, 28:4-5: “Lo! Pharaoh exalted himself in the earth and made its people castes. A tribe among them he
oppressed, killing their sons and sparing their women. Lo! he was of those who work corruption. And We
desired to show favor unto those who were oppressed in the earth, and to make them leaders (imams) and to
make them the inheritors.”
These two verses cannot possibly be in relation to any Infallible Imams, since all of the Israelites are promised
to become leaders if they persevere with patience and had faith in Allah’s communications. The verse relates to
all of the Israelites, and surely all of them were not Infallible Imams. Even Allah says in the same verse that
“your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they differ.” This makes it
clear that the context is in regards to all of the Israelites who differed amongst each other.
A very convincing argument is found in the book “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”:
The Ayah clearly states that the Bani Israel as a whole were made “Imaams” on Earth. Thus, the entire tribe is
given the position of Imaamah in this verse. Comparing it with other Quranic Ayahs about the Children of
Israel, we see that it closely resembles Verses such as this one:
“They [the Children of Israel] said: ‘We suffered hurt before you came to us, and since you have come to us.’
He [Musa] said: ‘It may be that your Lord is going to destroy your adversary and make you viceroys in the
earth, that He may see how you behave.’” (Quran 7:129)
We see that the position of vicegerency and dominion does not refer in here to a perfect infallible leadership,
but rather a leadership where the people are judged for their actions; hence the statement: “that He (Allah) may
see how ye behave.”
Thus, the placement of “Imaamah” in the hands of the Children of Israel in this Verse is similar to the dominion
and leadership that Allah may bestow upon any people after rescuing them from their oppressors. It cannot refer
to a special form of Imaamah simply because the population as a whole is granted this Imaamah, and they are
responsible for the good and bad actions they commit once they are placed under this position.
Source: “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”, authored by Sidi Abu Salih. This book is
endorsed by the Ahlel Bayt website and can be downloaded here.
Furthermore, the Israelites were promised leadership so long as they perservered with patience and had faith in
Allah’s communications. Thus, their leadership was contingent on fulfilling these two things. According to the
Shia, Imamah is a title given to a person at birth and it is not a position that is earned by doing good deeds or
showing patience. So why would Allah make the leadership contingent on the behavior of these individuals?
Clearly these two verses do not conform to the Shia doctrine of Imamah, and the authentic Shia Tafseer do not
attempt to use these verses to refer to the doctrine of Infallible Imamah.
 Leaders of the Pious
There are only two verses left which the Shia use to respond to The Quran Challenge and which they base their
entire theology upon:
10. Quran, 2:124: “And (remember) when his Lord tried Ibrahim with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them,
He said: ‘Lo! I have appointed you a leader (imam) for mankind.’ (Ibrahim) said: ‘And of my offspring (will
there be leaders)?’ He said: ‘My covenant includes not Zalimoon (wrong-doers).’”
11. Quran, 21:72-73: “And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, a son’s son, and We made (them) all good. And
We made them leaders (imams) who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of
good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve.”
Now the question is: is the word “imam” being used to denote a leader in the generic sense, or are we referring
to the Infallible Imams of the Shia? The Shia will adamantly claim that this refers to their Infallible Imams, and
yet they will conveniently ignore the following verse in the Quran which also uses the word “imam” in a similar
context:
12. Quran, 25:71-74: “And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah with an (acceptable)
conversion; Those who witness no falsehood, and, if they pass by futility, they pass by it with honorable
(avoidance); Those who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if
they were deaf or blind; Those who say: ‘Our Lord, grant us the coolness of our eyes in our wives and children,
and make us leaders (imams) of the pious.’”
In this verse, Allah Almighty is talking about who are the righteous believers. This verse speaks of normal
people who do not belong to a special class like the Prophets, asking Allah to make them leaders, in the sense of
paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to emulate. It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a
group of “divinely appointed Imams.” The verse clearly mentions that whoever fulfills those conditions (i.e.
repents, does good, etc.) should invoke Allah to make them paragons of virtue (i.e. leaders of the pious).
In the verses we discussed previously, we have seen that the word “imam” was used to denote an evil leader in
the general sense of the word; over here, we see that the word is used to denote a good leader in the general
sense of the word. This is not referring to any Infallible Imam of the Shia. It is telling normal people to invoke
Allah to make them leaders. The Infallible Imams are, according to Shia belief, appointed Imams at birth and
this position of infallibility is not something that a person can pray for or get simply by doing good deeds.
The Shia will continually try pushing the verse in relation to Prophet Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬to prove their doctrine
of Imamah. They will state that the verse clearly declares that the Imams will be infallible because in it Allah
says: “My covenant includes not Zalimoon (wrong-doers, unjust, etc).” This argument is quickly rejected
because the opposite of Zalimoon (wrong-doers) is not Infallible but rather it is Mu’min (good-doer) or ‘Adl
(just). Allah promised to make the righteous to be leaders of the world, but His promise would not extend to
those who were Zalimoon.
Indeed, a person who is fallible is not necessarily one of the Zalimoon. If that were the case, are we going to
argue that Ayatollah Khomeini is one of the Zalimoon? Or what about the Prophets who were not raised to the
level of Imams; are they Zalimoon? What about Salman Al-Farsi (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who is fallible but still revered
by the Shia? Or the other great heroes of Islam? How can the pious Muslims be Zalimoon when Allah orders
them to fight the Zalimoon? This would be a logical inconsistency. As can be seen, the opposite of Zalimoon is
not infallible; otherwise, this would be declaring all of these pious personalities to be Zaalim!
The verse in the Quran regarding Prophet Ibrahim (‫ )عليه السالم‬simply states that Allah’s covenant does not
extend to the unjust, so what is the opposite of unjust? The following response can be found in the book
“Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”:
Who is a just person?
The immediate word that would come to our minds when thinking of the opposite of “unjust” is “just”. It is not
“perfect” or “Infallible”. This is obvious, and does not need much elucidation. Thus, the qualities of a just
person in general is what the reader should strive to look for. The answer is found from the answers given by
the office of Grand Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani:
Question: Who is a just person?
Answer : A person is said to be just when he performs all those acts which are obligatory upon him, and refrains
from all those things which are forbidden to him. And the sign of being just is that one is apparently of a good
character, so that if enquiries are made about him from the people of his locality, or from his neighbours, or
from those persons with whom he lives, they would confirm his good conduct.
Source: http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=4&lang=eng&part=4
It is seen from the Ayatullah’s answer that under normal circumstances the definition of “just” is not at all
connected with divine protection from sin, but rather concerns the overall good conduct and piety of a person. It
struck me as strange as to how this can suddenly change for one Verse of the Quran, without any unbiased
reason provided from the Shia side.
Source: “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”, authored by Sidi Abu Salih. This book is
endorsed by the Ahlel Bayt website and can be downloaded here.
The unbiased person could not justify the concept of Imamah simply from a couple verses in the Quran which
refer to Prophets as leaders of the pious. The term “imam” is used in the generic sense of “leader” and it would
take a wild imagination to say that it refers to some distinct position or rank (i.e. the Infallible Imamah). The
Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was referred to as a “noor” (light) and “bashar” (human being) but do we say that
these are two distinct positions and ranks? Of course not! Any sane person would agree that these words are
used in there general sense. It would be preposterous to say that the Prophet was given the rank of Noor and that
there are other people who also reach this position of Noor. Likewise, the Quran uses the common Arabic word
“imam” and it is an injustice of the Shia to mangle it to create a specific position or rank based around it. The
evidence that the word “imam” is used in the general sense can be seen quite clearly when the Quran refers to
“leaders (imam) of Kufr” or the other verses in the Quran that we have examined which show that either a
whole group of people were made into “leaders (imam) of the pious” or that they prayed to be so.
 Conclusion
We find that the Quran does not contain the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Shia believe that after the Prophet (
‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, there were twelve Infallible Imams and that it was the fundamental of faith to follow them
and adhere to them. Where then are these twelve Infallible Imams in the Quran? Can the Shia even provide one
verse in the Quran which says something to the effect of “there will be twelve Infallible Imams after the Prophet
Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and you must follow them”? Instead of finding a verse even vaguely similar
to this, the Shia will be forced to mangle a handful of verses in the Quran just to prove that even one single
Imam is mentioned in the Quran.
Indeed, the true question is this: if the Quran can use the word “imam” to mean a book, a road, and leaders of
kufr…then why cannot the Quran also mention the twelve Infallible Imams? The twelve Infallible Imams are
the core belief of the Shia, so then why are they not mentioned in the Quran? Surely, the only logical conclusion
is that the doctrine of the twelve Infallible Imams is an innovation and deviation from the Islam of the Quran,
otherwise Allah would have mentioned it in the Quran. And because Imamah is absent from the Quran, the Shia
will be forced to toy around with a handful of verses that use the word “imam” albeit in a completely different
context than intended by the Shia.
It is not a small part of faith to pledge allegiance to a divinely appointed leader. So surely it should be
mentioned in the Quran! It is an oddity that such an important command such as to follow Imams after Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is not worthy of being mentioned in the Quran. Indeed, this is what led some
classical Shia scholars to say that the Quran has been tampered with. This is the only logical conclusion that
could be made, but today you will not find any Shia who will claim this publically.
The question remains: why is there no verse in the Quran about the institution of the twelve Infallible Imams?
We find Shia literature replete with references to the Imams. Indeed, the Shia have elevated the status of the
Imam to monumental proportions, exhorting him as a creature that possesses more knowledge than the angels,
prophets, and creation. Then how come the Quran just doesn’t say it?
Article Edited By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Special thanks to Abu Salih and Owais Muhammad from whom much of this article was lovingly stolen from.
The book “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”, authored by Abu Salih, is endorsed by the
Ahlel Bayt website and can be downloaded here. It was instrumental in the publication of this article and is a
valuable guide for those who want a more in-depth discussion of the topic.
The Quran Challenge, Part IV
This article is the fourth in a series of articles entitled “The Quran Challenge.” The reader is advised to go through Parts I-
III before proceeding to Part IV.
The Quran Challenge, Part I
The Quran Challenge, Part II
The Quran Challenge, Part III
In Part I, we discussed how important Imamah is to the Shia, and how they view it as more important than
Prophethood/Messengership. In Part III, we looked through every instance in the Quran in which the word
“Imam” is used, and we found that not once is the Shia concept of Imamah referred to in the Quran.
Now we compare this with the plethora of verses in the Quran which discuss Prophethood/Messengership.
Verse after verse mentions the Prophets and Messengers, their names, their roles, and their stories. And yet, we
fail to see any similar such discussion of the Shia Imams. In fact, no mention of the twelve Imams is in the
Quran. The obvious question is why would Allah mention Prophethood/Messengership so many times in the
Quran, but fail to mention Imams, which–according to the Shia–are more important than the
Prophets/Messengers? This is a very big anomaly that is difficult to explain away.
The following is an excerpt is from “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective” by Sidi Abu Salih:
After going through the instances where the word “Imaam” is mentioned in the Quran and determining that
none of them proves nor supports the concept of Imaamah in Shiaism, it was only apppropriate to examine the
context and meaning provided to the words “Nabi” and “Rasool” in the Quran.
Examining the Word Nabi in the Quran
The case with the usage of the word Nabi is quite different from that of the word Imaam. While the root word
from which “Nabi” originates is used in different ways, such as “Naba’” (news), “Naba’tukuma” (inform you),
“Anbaaka” (informed you), the terms Nabi and Nabieen/Anbiyaa (plural forms of Nabi) themselves are used in
a very specific manner in the Holy Quran. From the approximately 80 instances wherein the words Nabi or
Nabieen occur, not one of them refers to anything other than a Prophet of Allah.
Below is a list of a few instances when the word Nabi is used in the Quran. The list is categorized, to show that
Allah has revealed a variety of topics surrounding His Prophets.
Rejecting and killing Nabis without just cause and its punishment
﴿ َ‫رُون‬5ُ‫انُو ْا يَ ْكف‬55‫أَنَّ ُه ْم َك‬55ِ‫ َك ب‬5ِ‫ َكنَةُ َذل‬5‫س‬

ْ ‫ ِربَتْ َعلَ ْي ِه ُم ا ْل َم‬5‫ض‬
ُ ‫ب ِّمنَ هّللا ِ َو‬
ٍ 5‫ض‬ َ ‫آؤُوا بِ َغ‬55َ‫س َوب‬ ِ ‫الذلَّةُ أَيْنَ َما ثُقِفُو ْا إِالَّ بِ َح ْب ٍل ِّمنْ هّللا ِ َو َح ْب ٍل ِّمنَ النَّا‬
ِّ ‫ض ِربَتْ َعلَ ْي ِه ُم‬ُ
ْ ُ َ
َ‫دُون‬5555555555555َ‫انوا يَ ْعت‬5555555555555‫وا َّوك‬5555555555555‫َص‬ َ
َ ‫ا ع‬5555555555555‫ َك بِ َم‬5555555555555ِ‫ق ذل‬ َ َ ُ
ٍّ 5555555555555‫ ِر َح‬5555555555555‫اء بِغ ْي‬5555555555555َ‫ونَ األنبِي‬5555555555555‫ت ِ َويَقتل‬ ُ ْ ‫هّللا‬ ِ ‫ا‬5555555555555َ‫﴾ بِآي‬
Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save (where they grasp) a rope from Allah
and a rope from men. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them.
That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the prophets wrongfully. That is
because they were rebellious and used to transgress. (Quran 3:112)
True believers accept all Nabis of Allah
﴿‫ق‬ُ ‫سى َوالنَّبِيُّونَ ِمن َّربِّ ِه ْم الَ نُفَ ِّر‬ َ ‫سبَا ِط َو َما أُوتِ َي ُمو‬
َ ‫سى َو ِعي‬ ْ َ‫وب َواأل‬
َ ُ‫ق َويَ ْعق‬
َ ‫س َحا‬ ْ ِ‫قُ ْل آ َمنَّا بِاهّلل ِ َو َما أُن ِز َل َعلَ ْينَا َو َما أُن ِز َل َعلَى إِ ْب َرا ِهي َم َوإ‬
ْ ِ‫س َما ِعي َل َوإ‬
َ‫سلِ ُمون‬ َ َ ْ َ
ْ ‫﴾ بَيْنَ أ َح ٍد ِّمن ُه ْم َون ْحنُ لهُ ُم‬
Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed
unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto
Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and
unto Him we have surrendered. (Quran 3:84)
Belief in the Nabis is a basis of faith
ِ ‫اآلخ ِر َوا ْل َمآلئِ َك ِة َوا ْل ِكتَا‬

﴿ َ‫ب َوالنَّبِيِّين‬ ِ ‫﴾ َولَـ ِكنَّ ا ْلبِ َّر َمنْ آ َمنَ بِاهّلل ِ َوا ْليَ ْو ِم‬
…but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the
prophets… (Quran 2:177)
Allah sending Nabis as bringers of both good news and warnings
﴿ ‫اختَلَفُو ْا فِي ِه‬

ْ ‫س فِي َما‬ ِّ ‫َاب ِبا ْل َح‬
ِ ‫ق لِيَ ْح ُك َم بَيْنَ النَّا‬ ِّ َ‫اس أُ َّمةً َوا ِح َدةً فَبَ َع َث هّللا ُ النَّبِيِّينَ ُمب‬
َ ‫ش ِرينَ َو ُمن ِذ ِرينَ َوأَن َز َل َم َع ُه ُم ا ْل ِكت‬ ُ َّ‫﴾ َكانَ الن‬
Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as
warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind
concerning that wherein they differed… (Quran 2:213)
Allah’s covenants with the Nabis
﴿ ‫ ْذتُ ْم َعلَى َذلِ ُك ْم‬5‫ َر ْرتُ ْم َوأَ َخ‬5‫ا َل أَأَ ْق‬55َ‫ ُرنَّهُ ق‬5‫َنص‬
ُ ‫ ِه َولَت‬5‫ؤْ ِمنُنَّ ِب‬55ُ‫ق لِّ َما َم َع ُك ْم لَت‬
ٌ ‫ص ِّد‬ ُ ‫ب َو ِح ْك َم ٍة ثُ َّم َجاء ُك ْم َر‬
َ ‫سو ٌل ُّم‬ َ ‫َوإِ ْذ أَ َخ َذ هّللا ُ ِميثَا‬
ٍ ‫ق النَّبِيِّيْنَ لَ َما آتَ ْيتُ ُكم ِّمن ِكتَا‬
ْ َ ْ
َ‫ش َهدُوا َوأنَا َم َع ُكم ِّمنَ الشَّا ِه ِدين‬ َ َ ْ َ ْ ُ َ
ْ ‫ص ِري قالوا أق َر ْرنَا قا َل فا‬ ْ ِ‫﴾ إ‬
When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the
Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye
possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My
burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye
witness. I will be a witness with you. (Quran 3:81)
Forbidden to take Nabis as Lords
ْ ‫﴾ َوالَ يَأْ ُم َر ُك ْم أَن تَتَّ ِخ ُذو ْا ا ْل َمالَئِ َكةَ َوالنِّبِيِّيْنَ أَ ْربَابًا أَيَأْ ُم ُر ُكم بِا ْل ُك ْف ِر بَ ْع َد إِ ْذ أَنتُم ُّم‬
﴿ َ‫سلِ ُمون‬
And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he
command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? (Quran 3:80)
Some Nabis favored over others
﴿ ‫ض َوآتَ ْينَا دَا ُوو َد زَ بُو ًرا‬ َ ‫ض ْلنَا بَ ْع‬

ٍ ‫ض النَّبِيِّينَ َعلَى بَ ْع‬ ِ ‫ت َواألَ ْر‬
َّ َ‫ض َولَقَ ْد ف‬ َّ ‫﴾ َو َربُّ َك أَ ْعلَ ُم بِ َمن فِي ال‬
ِ ‫س َما َوا‬
And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the
prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms. (Quran 17:55)
Nabis sent to previous nations
﴿ َ‫س ْلنَا ِمن نَّبِ ٍّي فِي اأْل َ َّولِين‬

َ ‫﴾ َو َك ْم أَ ْر‬
How many a prophet did We send among the men of old! (Quran 43:6)
The reader may think of other categories where to place some of these Verses in addition to the ones provided,
and there exist many other cases when the word “Nabi” is used in the Quran that are not listed (this would prove
repetitive in the context of the discussion).
From the few examples provided, it is obvious that the term is used with the meaning of “Prophet of Allah” and
nothing else. The Sunni and Shia commentaries do not even spend time in trying to prove that the “Nabi” refers
to a Prophet sent on a mission from Allah, save for perhaps the first time the term occurs in the Quran. This is
because the inference is so obvious it needs little explanation. Even the bitterest enemy of Islam does not
attempt to show that “Nabi” means some other type of “prophet” that is not related to its religious connotation.
The different ways in which the functions and roles of the Prophets are delineated in the Quranic verses
themselves is very straightforward, while the term “Imaam” is not treated in such clarity. I personally found
myself amazed at such a contrast. The reason for this is the weight given to the doctrine of Imaamah in Shaism
to the point that many Shia scholars consider it as being higher than Nubuwwah. It seems strange that in the
“more important” case only 12 examples are mentioned, some of which go against the doctrine under
discussion, while the “less important” dogma has been mentioned much more often (almost seven-fold), all of
them pointing towards “Divine Prophethood”.
Examining the Ayahs of the Quran it is seen that there is not a single Verse with the word “Nabi” that speaks
against the concept of Nubuwwah. Moreover, the belief of Nubuwwah can easily be put together by using the
Quran as the prime reference without stretching the meaning of any of the Ayahs. Later it will be seen that some
of the Verses discussing Prophets and Messengers contradict and seriously undermine the essence of the Shia
Imaamah doctrine. For the time being however, it is enough to note the difference between the manner in which
Nabis and Imaams are discussed in the Quran in terms of clarity and importance given to them.
Examining the Word Rasool in the Quran

The next topic to look into is the Quran and its usage of the word “Rasool” (Messenger). Like in the previous
case with the word “Nabi”, the root word has been used in different ways, with the terms “Arsalna”, “Arsala”,
“’Yursil” sometimes referring to Allah sending Messengers, or to Allah sending a punishment, or at other times
to a Ruler sending a delegation.
However, with respect to the specific word Rasool (and its plural “Mursalin”/”Rusul”), we see that the total
number of times the term has been used exceeds 360 times. There are a few instances (around 15) where the
Messenger being referred to is either an Angel, or a Messenger that is not divinely sent. However, in the
remaining cases (about 350 cases) it can be seen that the Rasool is in effect a human sent by Allah to declare
His religion to a given people. So yet again, the level of clarity the Quran uses in describing Rasools and its
coherence with Islamic belief is quite unlike the comparison between the term “Imaam” and the doctrine of
“Imaamah” in Shiaism.
Again, some of the places where the word Rasool has been used are presented below, placed in categories for us
to understand the various ways in which the Quran explains the role, function, and duties of Messengers:
Messengers sent to Every Nation
﴿ َ‫س ِط َو ُه ْم الَ يُ ْظلَ ُمون‬ ِ ُ‫سولُ ُه ْم ق‬

ْ ِ‫ض َي بَ ْينَ ُهم بِا ْلق‬ ُ ‫﴾ َولِ ُك ِّل أُ َّم ٍة َّر‬
ُ ‫سو ٌل فَإ ِ َذا َجاء َر‬
And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment) it
will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged. (Quran 10:47)
People will not be punished until a Messenger is sent to them
ُ ‫ض ُّل َعلَ ْي َها َوالَ تَ ِز ُر َوا ِز َرةٌ ِو ْز َر أُ ْخ َرى َو َما ُكنَّا ُم َع ِّذبِينَ َحتَّى نَ ْب َع َث َر‬
﴿ ً‫سوال‬ ِ ‫ض َّل فَإِنَّ َما َي‬ ِ ‫﴾ َّم ِن ا ْهتَدَى فَإِنَّ َما يَ ْهتَدي لِنَ ْف‬
َ ‫س ِه َو َمن‬
Whosoever goeth right, it is only for (the good of) his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth,
erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another’s load, We never punish until we have sent a
messenger. (Quran 17:15)
Peoples rejecting Messengers
َ ‫ت هّللا ِ َولَق ْد َجاء َك ِمن نَّبَإ ِ ا ْل ُم ْر‬

﴿ َ‫سلِين‬ ِ ‫ص ُرنَا َوالَ ُمبَ ِّد َل لِ َكلِ َما‬ ُ ُ‫صبَ ُرو ْا َعلَى َما ُك ِّذبُو ْا َوأ‬
ْ َ‫وذو ْا َحتَّى أَتَا ُه ْم ن‬ ُ ‫﴾ َولَقَ ْد ُك ِّذبَتْ ُر‬
َ َ‫س ٌل ِّمن قَ ْبلِ َك ف‬
Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the
persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there
hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before). (Quran 6:34)
Punishment for those who reject the Messengers of Allah
﴿ ْ َ‫ ِزي ا ْلق‬5555‫ َذلِكَ نَ ْج‬5555‫و ْا َك‬5555ُ‫انُو ْا لِيُؤْ ِمن‬5555‫ا َك‬5555‫ت َو َم‬

َ‫ ِر ِمين‬5555‫و َم ا ْل ُم ْج‬5555 ُ ‫ اء ْت ُه ْم ُر‬5555‫و ْا َو َج‬5555‫رُونَ ِمن قَ ْبلِ ُك ْم لَ َّما ظَلَ ُم‬5555ُ‫ا ا ْلق‬5555َ‫ ْد أَ ْهلَ ْكن‬5555َ‫﴾ َولَق‬
ِ ‫ا‬5555َ‫لُ ُهم بِا ْلبَيِّن‬5555‫س‬
We destroyed the generations before you when they did wrong; and their messengers (from Allah) came
unto them with clear proofs (of His Sovereignty) but they would not believe. Thus do We reward the
guilty folk. (Quran 10:13)
Belief in Messengers as a Pillar of Faith

﴿ َ‫ك‬55َ‫ا ُغ ْف َران‬55َ‫ ِم ْعنَا َوأَطَ ْعن‬5‫س‬ ُ ‫ق بَيْنَ أَ َح ٍد ِّمن ُّر‬
َ ‫الُو ْا‬55َ‫سلِ ِه َوق‬ ُ ‫سو ُل بِ َما أُن ِز َل إِلَ ْي ِه ِمن َّربِّ ِه َوا ْل ُمؤْ ِمنُونَ ُك ٌّل آ َمنَ ِباهّلل ِ َو َمآلئِ َكتِ ِه َو ُكتُبِ ِه َو ُر‬
ُ ‫سلِ ِه الَ نُفَ ِّر‬ ُ ‫آ َمنَ ال َّر‬
ْ َ
ِ ‫﴾ َربَّنَا َوإِليْكَ ال َم‬
‫صي ُر‬
The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers.
Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no
distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy
forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying. (Quran 2:285)
ُ ‫ي أَنزَ َل ِمن قَ ْب ُل َو َمن يَ ْكفُ ْر بِاهّلل ِ َو َمالَئِ َكتِ ِه َو ُكتُبِ ِه َو ُر‬

﴿ ‫سلِ ِه َوا ْليَ ْو ِم‬ ِ ‫سولِ ِه َوا ْل ِكتَا‬
َ ‫ب الَّ ِذ‬ ُ ‫يَا أَيُّ َها الَّ ِذينَ آ َمنُو ْا آ ِمنُو ْا بِاهّلل ِ َو َر‬
ِ ‫سولِ ِه َوا ْل ِكتَا‬
ُ ‫ب الَّ ِذي نَ َّز َل َعلَى َر‬
‫ضالَالً َب ِعيدًا‬َ ‫ض َّل‬ َ ‫﴾ اآل ِخ ِر فَقَ ْد‬
O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His
messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels
and His scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray. (Quran
4:136)
Some of the Messengers’ stories have been told to us, some have not
َ ‫ص ُه ْم َعلَ ْي َك َو َكلَّ َم هّللا ُ ُمو‬

﴿ ‫سى تَ ْكلِي ًما‬ ْ ‫ص‬ ُ ‫صنَا ُه ْم َعلَ ْي َك ِمن قَ ْب ُل َو ُر‬
ُ ‫سالً لَّ ْم نَ ْق‬ َ َ‫سالً قَ ْد ق‬
ْ ‫ص‬ ُ ‫﴾ َو ُر‬
And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee;
and Allah spake directly unto Moses (Quran 4:164)
Purpose of Messengers
﴿ ‫س ِل َو َكانَ هّللا ُ َع ِزيزًا َح ِكي ًما‬ ُّ ‫س َعلَى هّللا ِ ُح َّجةٌ بَ ْع َد‬

ُ ‫الر‬ ِ ‫ش ِرينَ َو ُمن ِذ ِرينَ لِئَالَّ يَ ُكونَ لِلنَّا‬
ِّ َ‫سالً ُّمب‬
ُ ‫﴾ ُّر‬
Messengers of good cheer and of warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah
after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (Quran 4:165)
ُ ‫اح َذ ُرو ْا فَإِن تَ َولَّ ْيتُ ْم فَا ْعلَ ُمو ْا أَنَّ َما َعلَى َر‬
﴿ ُ‫سولِنَا ا ْلبَالَ ُغ ا ْل ُمبِين‬ ُ ‫﴾ َوأَ ِطي ُعو ْا هّللا َ َوأَ ِطي ُعو ْا ال َّر‬
ْ ‫سو َل َو‬
Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that the duty of Our
messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message). (Quran 5:92)
Disbelievers and Messengers on Day of Judgement
﴿ ‫ر‬5 َ 5ُ‫شفَ ُعو ْا لَنَا أَ ْو ن‬

َ 5‫ َل َغ ْي‬5‫ر ُّد فَنَ ْع َم‬5 ْ َ‫شفَ َعاء فَي‬ ُ ‫ق فَ َهل لَّنَا ِمن‬ ُ َ‫َه ْل يَنظُرُونَ إِالَّ تَأْ ِويلَهُ يَ ْو َم يَأْتِي تَأْ ِويلُهُ يَقُو ُل الَّ ِذينَ ن‬
ُ ‫سوهُ ِمن قَ ْب ُل قَ ْد َجاءتْ ُر‬
ِّ ‫س ُل َربِّنَا ِبا ْل َح‬
َ‫ض َّل َع ْن ُهم َّما َكانُو ْا يَ ْفتَرُون‬ َ ‫س ُه ْم َو‬ َ ُ‫س ُرو ْا أَنف‬
ِ ‫﴾ الَّ ِذي ُكنَّا نَ ْع َم ُل قَ ْد َخ‬
Await they aught save the fulfilment thereof? On the day when the fulfilment thereof cometh, those who
were before forgetful thereof will say: The messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth! Have we any
intercessors, that they may intercede for us? Or can we be returned (to life on earth), that we may act
otherwise than we used to act? They have lost their souls, and that which they devised hath failed them.
(Quran 7:53)
Believers and Messengers on Day of Judgement

ُ ‫ اءتْ ُر‬5‫ ْد َج‬5َ‫دَانَا هّللا ُ لَق‬5َ‫وال أَنْ ه‬5
﴿ ‫ ُل‬5‫س‬ َ ‫ ِد‬5َ‫صدُو ِر ِهم ِّمنْ ِغ ٍّل ت َْج ِري ِمن ت َْحتِ ِه ُم األَ ْن َها ُر َوقَالُو ْا ا ْل َح ْم ُد هّلِل ِ الَّ ِذي َهدَانَا لِ َهـ َذا َو َما ُكنَّا لِنَ ْهت‬
ْ َ‫ي ل‬ ُ ‫َونَزَ ْعنَا َما ِفي‬
ُ ْ ُ ُ َّ ْ ْ َ ْ
َ‫ق َونودُوا أن تِل ُك ُم ال َجنة أو ِرثتُ ُموهَا بِ َما ُكنتُ ْم تَ ْع َملون‬ ُ ْ
ِّ ‫﴾ َربِّنَا بِال َح‬
And We remove whatever rancour may be in their hearts. Rivers flow beneath them. And they say: The
praise to Allah, Who hath guided us to this. We could not truly have been led aright if Allah had not
guided us. Verily the messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth. And it is cried unto them: This is the
Garden. Ye inherit it for what ye used to do. (Quran 7:43)
Messengers put under hardship
﴿ َ‫َن ا ْلقَ ْو ِم ا ْل ُم ْج ِر ِمين‬ ُ ْ‫ص ُرنَا فَنُ ِّج َي َمن نَّشَاء َوالَ يُ َر ُّد بَأ‬
ِ ‫سنَا ع‬ ْ َ‫س ُل َوظَنُّو ْا أَنَّ ُه ْم قَ ْد ُك ِذبُو ْا َجاء ُه ْم ن‬
ُ ‫الر‬
ُّ ‫س‬َ َ ‫ستَ ْيأ‬
ْ ‫﴾ َحتَّى إِ َذا ا‬
Till, when the messengers despaired and thought that they were denied, then came unto them Our help
(Quran 12:110)
Believing in Allah and His Messengers as a way to Sincerity and Paradise
﴿ ‫و ُر ُه ْم‬5555555555ُ‫ ُر ُه ْم َون‬5555555555‫ َد َربِّ ِه ْم لَ ُه ْم أَ ْج‬5555555555‫ َهدَاء ِعن‬5555555555‫الش‬ ِّ ‫ َك ُه ُم‬5555555555ِ‫لِ ِه أُ ْولَئ‬5555555555‫س‬

ُّ ‫دِّيقُونَ َو‬5555555555‫الص‬ ُ ‫وا بِاهَّلل ِ َو ُر‬5555555555ُ‫﴾والَّ ِذينَ آ َمن‬
َ
And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the loyal, and the martyrs are with their
Lord; they have their reward and their light (Quran 57:19)
Thus, it is seen that the way the word “Rasool” has been mentioned in the Quran is even more commanding and
authoritative than for the word “Nabi”. Only 13 of the occurrences of the word “Rasool” were included above,
and yet theer can be no doubt as to what type of “Messenger” the Quran is referring to. As noted before, there
are some cases in which the word “Rasool” has been used outside of its religious meaning or has been used with
respect to non-human Messengers. Yet the total number of occurrences where the Messenger being alluded to is
in line with Islaamic doctrine are so many and so unambiguous that only a fanatic would deny the importance
Allah has placed upon the concept of “Risaalah” in the Quran. Even if a person with minimal knowledge on
how to interpret the Quran where to give his opinion about these Verses, we would find that his understanding
in many cases corresponds closely to that of the expert scholars of Islam. This is due to the radiating clarity with
which many of these Ayahs have been revealed. Again, if we were to compare it with the “higher” principle of
Imaamah, we would see the weakness of the Shia arguments.
Conclusion
I started to see the difference between what the Shia scholars were stating in terms of the importance of
Imaamah and what Allah Himself has said in the Quran. Was it only a coincidence that the manners in which
these doctrines are discussed are so vastly different? Or is it because Imaamah is not part of the Islam revealed
to Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salaam), and is the product of a different outlook?
This article was excerpted from the following book:
“Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective”

By: Sidi Abu Salih
Synopsis: Imamah is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Shia, and it is the major difference between the Shia
and mainstream Muslims. The Quran is the central book of Islam, and hence, it contains all of the major beliefs
of the Muslims. In the book “Imaamah and the Quran”, the author analyzes how Imamah, the major belief of the
Shia, is absent from the Quran. This book was instrumental in the creation of this website, and it can be
purchased here.
Shi’ism is Kufr: Imams Superior to Prophets
The Shia Ulema believe that the position of Infallible Imam (i.e. Imamah) is higher than the position of Messenger or
Prophet (i.e. Risalah and Nabuwwah). Al-Islam.org, the popular Shia website, declares that “the office of Imamate is a
higher and more exalted office than prophethood.” (Lesson Number 17, http://al-islam.org/leadership/)
Thus, the Shia Ulema believe that their twelve Infallible Imams are superior to all of the Prophets, except
Prophet Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬5‫ه وآل‬5‫)صلّى هللا علي‬. They argue that Prophet Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬5‫ه وآل‬5‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬is
superior to the twelve Imams not because he was a Prophet, but rather “since Prophet Muhammad was an Imam
during his time as well.” (Shia Encyclopedia, “Imamat vs. Prophethood,” Part 1, http://www.al-
islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/8.html)
The Shia belief can be stated in equation form:
Prophet Muhammad > 12 Imams > All of the other Prophets
Imamah > Prophethood
There should be absolutely no confusion on this issue; this view is the dominant view of the Shia Ulema.
Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Fazel Lankarani, one of the Head Ayatollahs in the Shia Seminary in Qum, issued
the following statements on his official website:
Imam Ali (Alayhi Salam) is higher in rank than other prophets, because of his Imamate, but he is not higher in
rank than the Prophet Muhammad (saws), because Muhammad (saws) was both Prophet and Imam.
Source: http://www.lankarani.org/English/faq/110q.html
This view is categorically stated in the Shia Encyclopedia:
The Shia further believe that the twelve Imams of the House of Prophet Muhammad have the rank higher than
that of ALL the messengers (be Imam or not) except Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Source: Shia Encyclopedia, “Imamat vs. Prophethood,” Part 1, http://www.al-

islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/8.html
In the book “Peshawar Nights”, the Shia scholar, Sultanu’l-Wa’izin Shirazi, says: “Since the holy prophet was
superior to all other prophets Ali was also superior to them.” (Peshawar Nights, http://www.al-
islam.org/peshawar/7.1.html)
The same view is held by the Shia Tafseer, also available on the Al-Islam.org website: “It means that a prophet
is not necessarily an Imaam and Imaamat is an office of decidedly higher order…” (S.V. Mir Ali/Ayatollah
Mahdi Puya Commentary of Verse 2:124, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/)
In all of the authoratative books of the Shia, the recurring view is that the Imams are superior to the Prophets
except Prophet Muhammad: “Imam ‘Ali and the other Imaams of Ahlul Bayt are believed by the Shi’as to be
higher in rank than all prophets and messengers except the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.)” (Shiism: Imaamate and
Wilayah, p.96)
Ayatollah Khomeini declared: “And an essential tenet of our Shi’ite sect is that the Imams have a position
which is reached neither by the angels nor by any commisioned messenger of God.” (Hukumat-i-Islami, p.52-
53)
Of the four main Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi is considered the most reliable and authoratative. In it, we find
the following Shia Hadith: “The Imams possess all the knowledge granted to the angels, prophets, and
messengers.” (Al-Kulaini, Al-Kafi, p.255) Another narration in Al-Kafi says: “Signs of the prophets are
possessed by the Imams.” (Al-Kafi, p.231)
Allamah Baqir Al-Majlisi says about the Imams: “Their preference [is] over the prophets and all the people.”
(Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol 26, Chapter 6) He further stated: “…our Imams are higher [and] better than the rest of the
prophets…they are more knowledgeable than the prophets…this is the main opinion of the Imami (Shia), and is
only rejected by one who is ignorant about the traditions.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 26, p.297)
In the propaganda book titled “Peshawar Nights”, the Shia scholar Shirazi mentions the following about
Ibrahim:
Allah intended to make his rank more exalted. Since prophethood and the title of Khalil (friend) did not
apparently rank a higher rank, the office of Imamate was the only office of a higher order to which even a
Prophet of Allah could be entrusted…That Ali attained the rank of prophethood can be proven by the reference
to the Hadith of Manzila (Tradition Regarding Ranks)
Source: Peshawar Nights, http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/4.2.html
This same view is held by Allamah Majlisi, who even admits that the Shia “might as well” call their Imams to
be Prophets:
On the whole, after admission of the fact that the Imams are not prophets, we are bound to acknowledge the fact
that they are superior to all Prophets and Awsiya (legatees) except our Prophet (salutations and peace upon him
and his family). To our knowledge there is no reason not to describe the Imams as Prophets except
consideration to the status of the Final Prophet. Our intellect too, cannot perceive a distinction between
Nabuwwah (prophethood) and Imamah.
Source: Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 26, p.82
Syed Ali Milani, another leading Shia personality, wrote an entire book entitled“The Preference of the Imams
over the Prophets (A.S.)” This book is available on the following Shia website: www.shiaweb.org
We could provide more references to prove our point, but we shall stop here for brevity sake. The bottom line is
clear: the Shia believe that their Imams are superior to Prophets.
Shi’ism is Kufr
We have often heard the attractive rhetoric that Muslims should unite (i.e. Sunni-Shia unity) and that the
differences between Sunni and Shia are minor. Some say that the differences are only on minor things such as
the way we pray. Others say the differences are merely political and historical, not religious or spiritual. This
could not be farther from the truth! The difference between Sunni Islam and Shi’ism is monumental; the Shia
believe in false prophets after Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and thus there should no confusion
that Shi’ism is Kufr. The difference between Sunni Islam and Shi’ism is on a core fundamental issue, one which
shapes the entire faith itself.
The Shia will argue that they do not believe in Prophets after Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and that their
Imams are not Prophets. But, as is the case with the Shia, they swallow the second part of this statement,
namely that their Imams are not Prophets but rather they are superior to Prophets. It would be Kufr
enough to believe that there are people equal to Prophets after the Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬,
but it is an even greater Kufr to say that there are people who are superior to the Prophets. To give an
appropriate analogy: it would be Kufr to say that there is a god equal to Allah, but it would be even greater Kufr
to say that there is a god greater than Allah.
The faith of Shi’ism is Kufr just like Ahmadis, Submittors, Nation of Islam, Bahais, and Aga Khanis are Kaffir.
Finality of Prophethood
A central belief of Islam is that Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is the final Prophet. Anyone who
believes in a Prophet after Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is considered a Kaffir.
Allah Almighty says in the Quran:
“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but the Messenger of Allah and the Last of Prophets. And
Allah has knowledge of everything.” (Quran 33:40)
As soon as Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬died, there arose many Dajjals (false prophets) in the land
of Arabia. The followers of these Dajjals formed deviant and heretical sects. The Sahabah waged war against
these false prophets, their followers, and all other apostates; thus began the Wars of Riddah (Apostacy) in which
the heretics were defeated and the finality of the Prophethood defended.
Unfortunately, every generation and land has witnessed its fair share of false prophets. Today, many divergent
cults and heretical sects still exist. And yet, no matter how divergent their beliefs are to each other, there is one
commonality to them all: they do not believe in the finality of prophethood, or somehow they get around this
concept by playing word games. One such example is the Qadiani sect that believes in the messengership of
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadian. Another deviant sect is the Rashad Calipha sect (i.e. the Submittors) who
believe that Rashad Calipha is a messenger after Muhammad. The Nation of Islam (NOI) believes that Elijah is
a God-appointed leader, and the Bahais believe that Bahaiullah is a God-appointed individual after Muhammad.
These sects claim to follow the Quran and yet they defy its very words in which Allah Almighty so clearly
defines Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬as the last of the Prophets. How do they justify this contradiction?
They resort to a method used by the Jews: playing word games with the Word of Allah. Rashad Calipha’s sect,
for example, says that Verse 33:40 only declares an end to Prophethood but not to Messengership; he thus
declares that he is a Messenger and not a Prophet. In this way, the Submittors give lip service to the idea of
finality of prophethood, but in reality, they exalt their leader above that of the Prophets. Similar justifications
and word games are utilized by the Qadianis, who refer to their leader as a “Messiah” or “Mahdi” instead of
Prophet. The Aga Khanis believe that their leader, the Aga Khan, is a God-appointed person after Prophet
Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and they thus exalt Prince Kareem.
In the end, all of these sects are using word games to extend the prophethood and destroy the finality of Islam.
They give all the same powers, prestiges, and honors to their leaders as Prophets but they will deny that this
person is a Prophet after Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫)ص‬, and will use other words such as “Mahdi”,
“Messiah”, “Aga Khan”, or even “Messenger.” However, both Sunni and Shia Ulema declare these sects to be
deviant Kuffaar for the reason that they deny the finality of prophethood. Indeed, a rose would still be a rose
even if it were to be called by another name. Simply changing the name of an entity does not change the nature
of that entity.
The Shia sect has also extended the institution of prophethood by playing word games. They follow the
“Aimmatul Masomeen” (Infallible Imams) who are considered equal to Prophets. In fact, they are superior to
Prophets as we have seen above. For all practical intents and purposes, Imams are the same thing as Prophets, as
indicated by the statements of the Shia leader, Allamah Majlisi:
On the whole, after admission of the fact that the Imams are not prophets, we are bound to acknowledge the fact
that they are superior to all Prophets and Awsiya (legatees) except our Prophet (salutations and peace upon him
and his family). To our knowledge there is no reason not to describe the Imams as Prophets except
consideration to the status of the Final Prophet. Our intellect too, cannot perceive a distinction between
Nabuwwah (prophethood) and Imamah.
Source: Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 26, p.82
It is simply a formality that the Shia do not refer to their Imams as Prophets. Otherwise, the Imams are equal to
and even superior to the Prophets. They have all the same powers, prestiges, and signs as Prophets; the Shia
Hadith book, Al-Kafi, states: “Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams.” (Al-Kafi, p.231)
The finality of Prophethood is thus abolished in the Shia sect, and instead there is a continual extension of it in
the form of Imamah. The popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, declared: “The Shi’ah believe that the Imamate
constitutes an extension of prophethood in its spiritual dimension.” (Lesson Number 24: http://al-
islam.org/leadership/ )
As can be seen clearly by the unbiased observor, all of these deviant sects extend Prophethood in one way or the
other, and thus believe in Dajjals. The truth of the matter is that Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is
the absolute seal of the Prophets. There is no other position equal to or higher than the status of the prophets and
messengers; such a thing as having a position higher than prophetood would obviate the need to declare the
finality of prophethood.
Allah declares in the Quran:
What is the point of declaring Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬as the Last of the Prophets if there are people
superior to Prophets that will come later? Why didn’t Allah say “Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets but he
is also an Imam, and there will be Imams who are superior to Prophets that will come after Muhammad.”
Surely, that would have cleared up the confusion.
The Shia believe that there can be no Imam after Imam Mehdi; he is the twelvth Imam and the absolute last.
Anyone who claimed to be an Infallible Imam today would be declared a Kaffir by the Shia Ulema. In fact, the
(Twelver) Shia call the Aga Khanis to be deviant because they believe in Imams after the twelvth. Just like
Muslims believe that anyone is a Kaffir who believes in a Prophet after Muhammad ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, so
too do the Shia believe that anyone who believes in an Infallible Imam after Imam Mehdi is a Kaafir.
Now let us suppose that a Shia follower suddenly started his own sect, let us call it Mullah-ism. Followers of
this hypothetical sect believe in another position other than Imam known as “Mullah”. According to followers
of Mullah-ism, Mullahs came after the 12th Imam when he went into occultation, and these Mullahs are higher
in rank than the Imams. Imagine the reaction of the Shia to a person who says that there can be a Mullah greater
in rank to their Infallible Imams! How quickly would the Shia Ulema be to condemn these followers of Mullah-
ism.
By creating a station or position higher than that of Imam, the followers of Mullah-ism have obviated the very
reason the Shia declare Imamah to have ended with the twelvth Imam. Suddenly, Mullahs become higher than
Imams, thereby making it inconsequential that the station of Imamah came to an end. Of course, this example of
“Mullah-ism” is only hypothetical, but it fits perfectly with the relationship of Shi’ism to (Sunni) Islam. By
creating a rank and station higher than that of Prophet, the Shia have obviated the very reason that we declare a
seal on Prophethood. What is the point of saying that there will be no more Prophets if there are people who
supercede Prophets?
Shia Rebuttal
The Ahlus Sunnah accuses the Shia of believing in false Prophets/Messengers; indeed, the Shia simply call
them by a different name (i.e. “Imam”). The Shia deny this claim and say that there is a difference between
Imams and Prophets/Messengers. The typical Shia counter-response to this is:
“Nabuwwah/Risalah (Prophethood/Messengership) and Imamah are two different stations. Messengers recieve
revelation. The Imams do not recieve revelation. They are only divinely inspired (ilham). So Imamah is not the
same as Risalah.”
What the above fails to mention is that although Imamah may not be the same as Risalah (Messengership), it is
definitely the same as Nabuwwah (Prophethood). The Shia Ulema have said that the difference between
Messengers and Prophets is that the former recieves revelation whereas the latter is divinely inspired (ilham).
This is rooted in the Shia belief. According to Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:
“What is a Messenger, a Prophet and one who is told? He said: A Messenger is one to whom the angel appears
and speaks. A Prophet is one who sees in his dream [ilham]. Possibly the Prophethood and Messengership is
combined in a single person.” (Source: Usool Al-Kafi, Book 4, 442-4)
In another narration in Al-Kafi:
“A Prophet is one who sees the angel while asleep, and hears him but does not see the angel awake [ilham]. A
Messenger is one who hears the voice while awake and sees, while asleep, and also with his eyes sees the angel
when awake.” (Source: Usool Al-Kafi, Book 4, 439-1)
The Shia are in agreement that there is a difference between the word “Nabi” (Prophet) and “Rasool”
(Messenger). And the Shia believe that only those who are Messengers recieve revelation whereas those who
are Prophets only will recieve divine inspiration (ilham).
So whereas the Shia might find some room to claim that their Imams are not the same as Messengers (for the
reason that they do not recieve revelation), but they still do not prove that Imams are different than Prophets.
Both Prophets and Imams recieve their words through divine inspiration (ilham) only. There is thus no
difference between Prophets and Imams, and the names are basically interchangeable.
Alinaam.org
The website alinaam.org explains why the Shia sect is Kufr:
Alinaam.org says
“ It is essential that Muslim sympathisers of the Shias divest themselves of the notion that Shi’ism is part of Islam –
that it is just as one of the other four Madhabs which constitute the Ahlus Sunnah. Shi’ism is not Islam nor is it a sect of
Islam. The ostentatious religious calls of an Islamic hue emanating from Khomeini and his clergy do not make Shi’ism any
closer to Islam than the religious and ‘Islamic’ calls and slogans of religions such as Qadianism.
Like Qadianism, Shi’ism too believes in the extension and perpetuation of Nubuwwat (Prophethood) after
Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). Although both religions (Qadianis and Shi’ism) overtly assert a
belief in the finality of the Nubuwwat of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), they covertly believe by
way of fallacious interpretation in the continuation of Nubuwwat.
Shi’i religious literature abundantly clarifies the fact that Shias believe in the continuation of Nubuwwat after
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). The only cover presented by Shi’ism for this Kufr belief is a name,
viz., Imaam. Instead of calling the one they believe to be a Prophet or Nabi or Rasool, they describe him as an
Imaam, and instead of saying Nubuwwat they say Imaamat. But, in terms of Shi’i religion there is absolutely no
difference between a Nabi or a Shi’i Imaam. In fact, Shi’ism propagates the superiority of an Imaam over a
Nabi.
Imaamat is a continuation of Nubuwwat, there is no doubt. Their beliefs as propounded by their own authorities
unequivocally assert total equality between Nubuwwat and Imaamat, in fact, Imaamat is even accepted to be
superior to Nubuwwat by the Shi’i religion.
The Shi’i book, ‘The faith of Shia Islam’ states,
‘We believe that Imaamat is one of the fundamentals of Islam and that man’s faith can never be complete
without belief in it. It is wrong to imitate our fathers, family or teachers in this matter, even if we respect both,
for it is just as necessary rationally to consider Imaamat as it is to consider Tawheed and Nubuwwat.’
‘We believe that, just as it is necessary for Allah to send someone as a prophet, so it is also necessary for Him to
appoint an Imaam.’
‘The Imaamat is therefore a continuation of a prophethood, and the reasoning which proves the former’s
necessity is the same that which prove the latter’s. ‘We believe that, like the Prophet, an Imaam must be
infallible, that is to say incapable of making errors or doing wrong, either inwardly or outwardly …’
‘Their (i.e. the Shi’i Imaams) position in regard to Islam is the same as the prophet’s, and the reasoning which
necessitates their infallibility is the same as that which necessitates the Prophet’s infallibility, and there is no
difference between them in matters.’
‘The Faith of Shia Islam’, states:
‘We believe that the Imaamat, like Prophethood, must be an appointment from Allah through His Messenger, or
an appointed Imaam. From this point of view, the Imaamat is the same as the prophethood.’
No one should therefore labour under the misapprehension that Shi’ism believes in the Islamic concept of
Finality of Nubuwwat. The Qadianis claim to believe in the Finality of Nubuwwat, but their devious
interpretation of this concept opens the way for them to accept Mirza Ghulam as a Nabi. In the same way, the
Shi’as believe in the continuation of Nubuwwah inspite of their claim to believe in the Finality of the
Nubuwwah of Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). Each and every attribute, office, function and
institution exclusive with Nubuwwah is asserted for the Imaams by the Shi’as. One who studies the religious
literature of the Shi’as will not fail to understand that on only this one basis of Imaamat, the Shi’as are not
Muslims.
Rejection of a Nabi is Kufr. One who does not believe in a Nabi is a Kaafir. This is the belief of Islam. But
according to the Shi’ah religion, belief in Imaamat is Fardh just as Fardh as it is to believe in Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). According to Shi’ism, one who denies any of the Shi’i Imaams – one who does
not accept any of the Shi’i Imaams – is a Kaafir. Propounding this view, the Shi’i authority, Kulaini, states in
his ‘most trustworthy and celebrated work of Hadith’, Al-Kaafi:
“We (i.e. the Imaams) are those whose obedience Allah has made Fardh… Whoever denies us is a Kaafir.”
This belief in Shi’ism categorically indicates that the Shi’i religion regards its Imaams as Ambiyaa. All those
who do not subscribe to the Shi’ah doctrine of Imaamat are branded as Kaafirs by the Shi’ah religion. This is an
indisputable fact in terms of Shi’ah theological writings. It is entirely another matter for Khomeini and the
present Shi’a clergy to ostensibly claim that they regard Sunnis as Muslims. Such devious statements are based
on the Shi’ah doctrine of Taqiyyah (holy hypocrisy) and stem from pernicious political motives.
”
Conclusion
We have proven in this article that the Shia sect is Kufr. We have established this fact by providing references
from well-known sources in which the Shia declare their Imams to be superior to Prophets. This belief voids a
person’s Kalimah since it is implicit in the Kalimah that we mean to say that the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
is not just a Prophet, but he is the last Prophet. The Shia believe in Imams who have the same position as
Prophets, and the only difference is in the names and nothing else.
Infallibility = Shirk
Introduction
Muslims believe that only the Creator Allah Almighty is perfect. On the other hand, creation cannot possibly be perfect
as this is an attribute only Allah Almighty can posses. Humans, who were created simply out of dust, are an excellent
example of imperfection. All humans commit mistakes and sin.
As Perfection is an attribute of Allah, Imperfection then is an attribute of human beings. This is why the
imperfect human beings bow down to the perfect Creator. Indeed, to ascribe an attribute of Allah to a human
being is an act of Shirk; it is ascribing partners to Allah Almighty. If we believed that a human being was
perfect/omniscient/omnipotent, then we are guilty of Major Shirk.
From the very beginning of time, Prophets have taught humanity this same message. Unfortunately, people have
always been led astray by Shaytan who tricks them into commiting Shirk. The prime example of this are the
Christians, who eventually started giving Allah’s Attributes to Prophet Isa (‫)عليه السالم‬. Prophet Isa (‫)عليه السالم‬
himself would preach Tawheed, and yet his astray “followers” started attributing Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬to God!
The Quran clearly says what the fate of such people will be: on the Day of Judgement, Prophet Isa ( ‫)عليه السالم‬
himself will testify against these so-called “followers.”
It should be noted that the story of Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬is mentioned in the Quran not only for the Christians
but in fact more for the Muslims. After all, a Christian would reject the Quran, so the primary audience of the
Quran is the Muslims. The example of the Christians was put forth in the Quran as a reminder to Muslims so
that Muslims don’t fall into the same trap.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened and the Shia followed the same pattern of innovation as the
Christians: the Shia started attributing the attributes of Allah to the Prophets and their Imams. The Shia believe
in the Infallibility (Ismah) of Prophets and Imams. In this article, we will examine what exactly Infallibility
(Ismah) means to the Shia and why the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah considers this belief of the Shia to be
Shirk.
Ismah (Infallibility)
The Shia believe that Prophets/Imams do not ever sin and cannot commit mistakes; to them, the Prophets and
Imams are perfect. This is a core belief of Shi’ism, and is actually part of the Usool-e Deen of the Shia.
Let us examine some quotes from authentic Shia sources to see what the belief in Ismah is all about.
ShiaNews.com says
“ Shaykh Muhamad Riza Muzaffar, a famous and eminent scholar of the first half of this century writes, “We [Shias]
believe that all Prophets are infallible… Infallibility means purity from all sins, both major and minor ones, and from
mistakes and forgetfulness.” (Al-Muzzafar, The Faith of Shia Islam, p. 21)
Shaykh Abu Ja’far as-Saduq, a scholar born during the minor occultation of the Present Imam and died in 381
AH, says: “Our [Shia] belief concerning the Prophets, Apostles, Imams and Angels is that they are infallible,
purified from all defilement (damas), and that they do not commit any sin, whether it be minor or major. He
who denies the infallibility to them in any matter appertaining to their status is ignorant of them… Our belief
concerning them is that they are infallible and possess the attributes of perfection, completeness and knowledge,
from the beginning to the end of their careers.” (As-Saduq, A Shi’ite Creed, p. 87)
Allamah Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (d. 728 AH) writes the following of the Shia Imams: “He is immune to sin from
the first of his life to the last of it.” (Allamah al-Hilli, Al Babul Hadi Ashar, p. 58)
source: http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000006.php ”
Grand Ayatollah Shirazi was asked the following question on his official website, www.shirazi.org.uk :
Grand Ayatollah Shirazi says
“ Are the Prophet (S), his daughter Fatimah al-Zahra’ (AS), and the twelve Imams (AS) Ma’soom (infallible)? What is
the limit of this Ismah (infallibility)? Is it from committing any disobedience? Or is it from making mistake, and forgetting
(things)? Or is it from overcoming sleep such that (potentially) the prayer time is missed?
[Grand Ayatollah Shirazi answered]: “…Imams, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all, are all
Ma’soom – infallible – from committing any disobedience, any mistake, and any forgetfulness, even an
overcoming sleep such that they may the prayer time…We have discussed in detail the logical and rational
proofs as well as the narrated evidence with respect to this ‘Ismah in many of our books on the fundamentals of
belief and Fiqh.”
source: Grand Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website,
http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ ”
The Shia thus believe in three points:
1. The Imams can never commit major or minor sins.

2. The Imams do not make mistakes.
3. The Imams never forget anything.
We see that these are all attributes of Perfection which are unsuitable for humans. Only Allah Almighty is the
One incapable of forgetting or making a mistake. All human beings can make mistakes. This is the definition of
being a human being.
The Quran
We will now proceed to prove without a shadow of doubt that Prophets are not infallible according to the
Quran. We will show how the Quran refutes all three points and how Prophets can sin, do make mistakes, and
do forget.
The most obvious example is that of Prophet Adam (‫)عليه السالم‬. We cannot fathom how the Shia factor in the
story of Adam (‫الم‬5‫ه الس‬5‫)علي‬. Allah Almighty forbade Prophet Adam (‫الم‬5‫ه الس‬5‫ )علي‬from going near a tree in
Paradise. But Shaytan convinced Prophet Adam (‫ )عليه السالم‬to sin and violate the Law of Allah.
In Verse 20: 121-122 in the Quran, Allah Almighty says:
Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray.

Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance. (Quran, 20:121-122)
Prophet Musa (‫ )عليه السالم‬also committed a mistake of killing an Egyptian man. In Verse 28:16 of the Quran,
Allah Almighty says:
He [Musa] said: ‘My Lord! Verily, I have wronged myself, so forgive me.’ Then He [Allah] forgave him.
Verily, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful. (Quran, 28:16)
Prophet Dawood (‫ )عليه السالم‬commited the sin of passing judgement before hearing the case of the second
disputant. In Verse 38:23-24 of the Quran, Allah Almighty says:
…and he [Dawood] sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down prostrate and turned (to Allah) in
repentance.
So We forgave him that, and verily, for him is a near access to Us, and a good place of (final) return (Quran,
38:23-24)
And our Prophet Muhammad (‫لّم‬5‫ه وس‬55‫ه وآل‬55‫لّى هللا علي‬5‫ )ص‬was rebuked by his Lord for several things that are
mentioned in the Quran, such as the following in verse 66:1:
O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you, seeking to please your
wives? And Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran, 66:1)
In another verse in the Quran, the Prophet (saaw) is rebuked for not listening to an old man:
(The Prophet) frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him. But didn’t you know that perhaps
he might grow (in spiritual understanding)? Or that he might have received an important lesson, and the
teaching might have profited him. As to the one who thought he was self-sufficient, you attended to him -
though it was not your fault that he did not grow (in spiritual understanding). But as to the one who came to you
earnestly seeking and with reverence, of him you were unmindful. It should not be so! (Quran, 80:1-11)
In another instance, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬decided to free prisoners in the Battle of Badr, but Allah
wanted him to first seek justice by punishing the enemies of Islam. And so it was that Allah corrected the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in the Quran:
“It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a
great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for
freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” (Quran,
8:67)
There should be no doubt left in the minds of anyone that the Prophets cannot only make mistakes but they can
also commit minor sins. No human being is above this, and to believe such a thing is to commit Shirk. The
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬will reject those who dare elevate his status to that which is not befitting of a
man.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬repeatedly told his followers that he is just a man and no more. Indeed, the
Prophet’s modesty is a shining example to us all. The Shia have committed a grave sin by associating the
Attributes of Allah to human beings.
The Prophets were the best of the human beings. There is no doubt about this. We should respect all the
Prophets and they are leaders to humanity. But we should not exalt them to the status of God, or else we will be
falling in to the same trap as the Christians fell into.
Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the
truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have
strayed from the soundness of the way.” (Quran, 5:77)
Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah
Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa:
The view that the Prophets were protected from major sins (kabaa’ir) but not from minor sins (saghaa’ir) is the
view of the majority of the scholars of Islam… It is also the view of the majority of the scholars of tafseer and
hadeeth, and of the fuqahaa’. Nothing was reported from any of the Salaf, Imams, Sahabah, Tabi’een or the
successive generation that does not agree with this view.
What has been narrated from the majority of scholars is that they (the Prophets) are not infallible with regard to
minor sins, but they are not left to persist therein. They do not say that this does not happen under any
circumstances. The first group from whom it was narrated that they are infallible in all cases, and who say that
the most, are the Raafidis (Shi’ah), who say that they are infallible and protected even against forgetfulness and
misunderstanding…
(Source: Islam-QA,
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4)
Prophets as Role Models
Shia says
“ Allah has commanded us to follow the Messengers and take them as our example. The command to follow them is
taken as meaning that everything they did is an example for us to follow, and that every action and belief of theirs is an
act of worship. If we suggest that that the Messenger committed a sin, there will be a dilemma, because that implies
that we are commanded to imitate this sin which was committed by the Prophet because we are commanded to follow
his example, but at the same time we should not agree with it or do it, because it is a sin.
”
This argument would only be valid and appropriate if the sin is hidden and not obvious in such a way that it
could be confused with acts of obedience. But Allah has explained to His Messengers where they went wrong
and enabled them to repent without delay. Thus, there is no confusion on the matter, and the Muslims know
what is right and what is wrong. Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid responded to this Shia argument by saying:
This argument is valid and is appropriate if the sin is hidden and not obvious in such a way that it could be
confused with acts of obedience. But Allah has explained to His Messengers where they went wrong and
enabled them to repent without delay.
(Source: Islam-QA,
In fact, the believers can imitate the Prophets in the manner in which they repent and seek Allah’s Help. For
example, the example of Prophet Adam (‫ )عليه السالم‬touching the forbidden tree serves as a good reminder for all
Muslims; we know from this story that we should obey Allah and that when we disobey Him, then we should
repent immediately and sincerely like Adam (‫ )عليه السالم‬did.
Although the Prophets are not infallible in totality, they are infallible in the specific aspect of conveying the
Message of Islam. For example, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would never make a mistake when he was
reciting the Quran. Angel Jibrael (‫ )عليه السالم‬instructed the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to “read” to which the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬responded that he could not read. But Allah allowed him to read and recite when
it came to the Quran because it was Allah Himself who would ensure that the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
would convey it correctly. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was at first worried that he would forget the words
of Allah, but Allah reassured Him that Allah has taken the responsibility of ensuring that the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬conveys it with 100% accuracy.
Allah says in the Quran: “Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he
speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed. He has been taught (this Quran) by one mighty in
power.” (Quran, 53:1-5)
The Ummah is agreed that the Messengers do not make mistakes when it comes to conveying the message.
They did not forget anything that Allah revealed to them, except for things that were abrogated. And Allah
guaranteed His Messenger that he would remember it and would not forget it, except for that which Allah
wanted him to forget, and He guaranteed to remember the whole Quran in his heart. Allah declared: “We shall
make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad) shall not forget (it).” (Quran, 87:7)
So the fact that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is not infallible in totality does not mean that the Message will
be compromised at all. The reason for this is clearly stated in the Quran, namely that Allah has taken the
responsibility: “It is for Us to collect it and to give you (O Muhammad) the ability to recite it (the Quran).”
(Quran, 75:17)
Hence, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because
Allah ensured this. On the other hand, it is not impossible for the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to make minor
mistakes on issues that have no bearing on his delivering the message. For example, he could make minor
mistakes when it came to non-religious issues, such as agriculture, carpentry, and other such secular matters.
Making minor mistakes in such matters does not put into question the Prophet’s ability to convey the Message.
Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid declared:
With regard to worldly matters…with regard to agriculture, medicine, carpentry, etc., he was like all other
people. Allah did not tell us that he was sent to us as a businessman or a farmer or a carpenter or a doctor. His
mistakes in these fields are quite natural and do not impact on his Message at all.
(Source: Islam-QA,
In a Hadith narrated by Muslim:
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬came to Madinah, and they were pollinating the date-palms. He said, “What
are you doing?” They said, “We always used to pollinate them.” He said, “Perhaps if you do not do that, it will
be better.” So they did not do it, and the harvest was lacking. They mentioned that to him, and he said, “I am
only a human being like you. If I tell you to do something with regard to religion, then follow it, but if I tell you
to do something based on my own opinion, I am only a human being.” (narrated by Muslim, 2361).
We note that the Messenger (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬made a mistake in this worldly matter, because he was like all
other human beings. But this does not take away from his greatness as a Prophet. A Prophet is not expected to
know extraneous things such as how to fix an automobile radiator, solve quadratic equations, or other such
matters which do not pertain to his Prophethood nor do they aid him in his mission to spread the religion of
Islam to the corners of the globe.
The Standing Committee
The Standing Committee, one of the most respected scholarly bodies of the Ahlus Sunnah, was asked:
Do the Prophets and Messengers make mistakes?
The Standing Committee replied:
Yes, they make mistakes but Allah does not let them persist in their mistakes, rather he points out their mistakes
to them as a mercy to them and their nations, and He forgives them for their mistakes, and accepts their
repentance by His Grace and Mercy, for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful, as will be clear to anyone who
studies the verses of the Quran which speak of that.
(Source: Islam-QA, Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 3/194,

Greatness of the Prophets
There is absolutely no doubt that the Prophets are the best of human beings. It does not take away from their
character at all to say that they are not perfect, or to say that they can commit minor mistakes and such. In fact,
this only increases them in their greatness. First off, the Prophets do not commit major sins, but only minor
ones. And Allah allows them to commit these sins so that He increases them in their faith when they ask for
repentance. When a person sins, and then repents, Allah increases him in status for this.
Yes, sins are a shortcoming, but only if they are not accompanied by repentance, for repentance brings
forgiveness of sin, and does not contradict goodness or bring blame upon a person. Rather, in many cases a
person may be better after repenting than he was before he fell into sin. It is well known that no Prophet
committed sin except that he hastened to repent and seek forgiveness. The Prophets did not persist in sin or
delay repentance, for Allah protected them from that, and after repenting they became better people than they
were before. [Paraphrased from the words of Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid, Source:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4]
Conclusion
The debate over the issue of the Prophets’ infallibility is completely unnecessary, since the Quran itself
mentions several instances in which Allah is reprimanding the Prophets for making a mistake. We have cited
some of these verses in this article. These verses should be enough to convince the unbiased viewer that the
Shia idea that their Imams are infallible is an exaggeration and blasphemous innovation that runs contrary to the
Quran.
Simple logic dictates that it makes little sense for the Prophets to be asking for forgiveness from Allah unless
they were capable of comitting mistakes and minor sins in the first place; otherwise, why would there even be a
need to ask for forgiveness? If a person does not commit sins, then there is no need to ask for forgiveness, and
yet we find that the Prophets repeatedly asked for forgiveness. This can only mean that they did commit
mistakes and minor sins, although they hastened for repentance.
The idea of Ismah (Infallibility) is at the core of the Shia faith. We have disproved it by providing verses from
the Quran, and thereby we have toppled the ideological foundation of Shi’ism.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/
Reference: Islam-QA,
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4
Imamah and Shirk
 Introduction
The major difference between the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and their Shia brothers is the concept of Imamah.
The Shia believe in their twelve Infallible Imams. The Christians have exalted the status of Prophet Isa (‫عليه‬
‫ )السالم‬to a level higher than that of a human, and for this, Allah has condemned them in the Quran. Likewise,
the Shia have exalted their Imams to a level of Shirk, granting them powers, abilities, and qualities only
befitting of Allah Almighty.
 Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini
Muslims believe that nobody can help us or hurt us except Allah Almighty. He is the absolute reason for our
survival and existence on this earth. Without Allah, the human species would be extinct.
Instead of believing that our existence revolves around Allah, the Shia believe that their existence revolves
around the Imam. Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini declared: “If the Imam is absent the human species will be extinct.”
(Source: http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/WhatBenefit12thImaminOccultation.htm )
This is truly a contradiction to the verse in the Quran in which Allah says: “Allah has granted you life…”
(Quran, 45:26)
The full text of the Ayatollah reads as follows:
“The existence of the Imam as a perfect and unique embodiment of humanity serves as a link between the
material and the spiritual world. If the Imam is absent the human species will be extinct. If there is no Imam
then God cannot be known or worshipped perfectly. Without the Imam the link between the material and the
spiritual becomes severed. The heart of the Imam is like the source of electricity that distributes light to
numerous lights. The illumination and energization of the hidden universe first mirrors in the heart of the Imam
and then from there it reflects on the hearts of humankind. The Imam is the heart of the created universe and the
leader and guide of humankind.”
(Source: http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/WhatBenefit12thImaminOccultation.htm )
What is truly perplexing is the fact that the Infallible Imams are not mentioned in the Quran at all. If they truly
were so important that existence was impossible without them, then where is this mentioned in the Quran?
Where does it say in the Quran that Allah cannot be worshipped without the Imam? Where in the Quran does it
say that the link between the material world and the spiritual world becomes severed without the Imam? Where
in the Quran does it mention that the Imam is the heart of the very universe? If the Imam was truly the heart of
the universe, wouldn’t this have been mentioned in the Quran?
 Imam Sadiq
One of the Infallible Imams of the Shia, Imam Sadiq, said the following about himself:
“We are the leaders of the Muslims, God’s proofs for His creatures, masters of the believers, guides for the
Godfearing, and those invested with discretionary authority over the affairs of the Muslims. We are the security
for the dwellers of the earth, just as the stars are the security of the dwellers of the heavens. It is because of us
that the heavens descend on earth whenever God permits. It is because of us that the rain descends and blessings
of earth come out of it. If we had not been on earth its dwellers would have been consumed in it.” (source:
http://www.karbala-najaf.org/Fourteen/Occultation.htm )
Arrogance (Khibr) is Haram (forbidden). How can the Imams talk about themselves in such an arrogant manner
as this? Truly, if the Shia are adamant in their belief that Imam Sadiq said all of this self-praise, then this only
makes the Imam seem like a pompous egoist. Let us simply look at the humbleness of the Prophet Muhammad (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬who was instructed to say repeatedly that he was just another man. Allah Almighty says in
the Quran: “Say [O Muhammad]: ‘I am but a man like yourselves’” (Quran, 18:110)
How can the Imams be the masters of the believers? Where in the Quran does it say that the Imams are our
masters? Surely, Allah is our Master, Glorified and Exalted be He! It is Allah who gives rain and the Imams
have nothing to do with causing rain to shower the earth. Allah says in the Quran: “See you not that Allah sends
down rain from the sky…” (Quran, 22:63)
 Imam Al-Rida
Imam Al-Rida–yet another of the Shia Imams–was also very arrogant about himself (if we give credence to
Shia sources). In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, Imam Al-Rida says the following
about himself:
“The Imam is utterly free of sin and pure of all fault. He is celebrated for his knowledge and his forbearance…
The Imam is unique in his age, in the sense that no one can attain his rank. No scholar can come within range of
his knowledge, and he is unequalled in all his qualities. He possesses all virtues and worthy attributes without
any striving on his part, and he is adorned with all lofty characteristics.” (Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. I, p.200,
Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
How can the Imam possess all the good things without even striving for them? This is truly an exaggeration
beyond bounds. Every human being must strive, and Allah commands His followers to do so.
 Imam Jafar al-Sadiq
The Shia are known for their exaggeration in matters of faith. This exaggeration and innovation can be clearly
seen on the Shia book on Imamate, available on the Al-Islam.org website. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said the
following:
“Whenever the Imam wishes to be informed of something, God informs him of it…We are the administrators of
God’s affair, the treasures of His knowledge, and the repository of His revealed mysteries…God’s greatness
requires that when He appoints a person as His proof to mankind He discloses to him the knowledge of the
heavens and the earth.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
Imam Jafar also said:
“If I were to meet with Musa and Khidr, I would tell them that I am more knowledgeable than both of them, and
I would expound to them matters unknown to them. For they knew only what had been and what was, and they
knew nothing of what would happen down to the Day of Ressurection, whereas we have inherited knowledge of
all that from the Prophet.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
Imam Jafar is reported by the Shia to have said the following to his peers: “I swear by God that knowledge of
the first things and the last things has been bestowed on us [Imams].” On hearing this utterance of the Imam,
one of his companions asked him wether he had knowledge of the unseen. He [Imam Jafar] answered:
“Woe upon you that you find it necessary to ask such a question. We are fully informed of each drop of sperm
in the loins of men and the wombs of women. Woe upon you; open your eyes, and let your hearts perceive the
truth! We are God’s proof, dwelling among His creation, but only the believers whose faith is as firm as the
mountains of Tihamah has the ability to perceive this truth. I swear by God that if I wished I could inform you
how many pebbles exist in the world, even though their number is constantly growing, by night and by day.”
(Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
These quotes are all contradictory to the Quran, in which Allah declares that He and He alone possesses
knowledge of the Unseen. This idea that the Imams can see the Unseen, that they can know everything about
the heavens and the earth, and all of these other exaggerations are contradictory to the spirit of Islam. To give
the attributes and qualities of Allah to the creation is the unforgiveable sin that is known as Shirk.
 Ali ibn abi Talib (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
The Shia indirectly slander Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬by attributing fallacious statements to him. If we were to believe
these reports, then we would be forced to see Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as having Khibr (arrogance). Hence, the Ahlus
Sunnah categorically rejects these statements as fabrications. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is reported by the Shia to have
said the following:
“He [Allah] opened up for me channels of knowledge permitting me to know when every death occurs, when
disasters descend, what are men’s genealogies, and the decisive speech (that separates truth from falsehood); He
permitted me to hook upon the world of the unseen, so that past and future events were unfolded before me; He
perfected religion for mankind, completed His blessing for them, and accepted Islam for them as religion for
them by appointing me as the holder of divine authority. and He instructed Muhammad, peace and blessings be
upon him and his family, to inform the people of all that. These are God’s gifts to me, so may praise be given to
Him alone.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
The Shia originate from the Saba’ites, followers of Abdullah ibn Saba. They praised Ali (‫)رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ
ّ ّ
excessively and eventually exalted his status to equal to the Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬. Today, the Shia deny
that they originate from the Saba’ites, yet the statements about Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬seem to verify the link between
Abdullah ibn Saba and the Shia. Let us examine a statement attributed to Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬by the Shia, in which
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is said to be equal in knowledge to the Prophet (‫ ;)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬according to the Shia, Ali
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬said:
“I swear by God Who holds my soul in His hand that I know all that the Prophet knew, and that I know all of
the past and all of the future, up until the Day of Resurrection.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
Not even the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew all of the future, as mentioned in the Quran itself:
“Say (O Muhammed), ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of Allah. Nor do I know the future. Nor
do I say to you that I am an angel. I simply follow what is revealed to me.” (Quran, 6:50)
It is Kufr to say that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬knew all of the future, for it is denying this verse in the Quran in which
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself denies this ability. Imagine the reaction of the Shia if the Ahlus
Sunnah declared that Umar bin Khattab (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was equal in knowledge to the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫!)وسلّم‬
According to the Shia, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬said:
“He [Allah] opened up for me channels of knowledge permitting me to know when every death occurs, when
disasters descend, what are men’s genealogies, and the decisive speech (that separates truth from falsehood); He
permitted me to hook upon the world of the unseen, so that past and future events were unfolded before me; He
perfected religion for mankind, completed His blessing for them, and accepted Islam for them as religion for
them by appointing me as the holder of divine authority. And He instructed Muhammad, peace and blessings be
upon him and his family, to inform the people of all that. These are God’s gifts to me…” (Source: http://al-
Truly this is an exaggeration beyond bounds, indicative of the Shia faith as a whole. The Shia find no
corroboration in the Quran for these errant beliefs.
 Al-Kafi
Al-Kafi is the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. In it, we find Hadith after Hadith wherein the
Imams decare their own greatnesses to the world to behold. One such Hadith is:
“We [the Imams] are the eyes of Allah in his creatures and the final authority in all human beings.” (Usool-e
Kaafi, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 145)
The methodology in which the Shia exalt their Imams is very similar to the manner in which the Christians exalt
Prophet Isa. In another Hadith, the Shia Imams declare:
“The Imam knows his hour of death and his death is in his control.” (Usool-e Kaafi, Vol. No. 1,Page No. 258)
According to the Shia, nothing can remain hidden from the Imams, and they have a complete knowledge of
past, present and future. (Usool Al-Kafi, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 260) The Imams could supposedly tell who is
going to Paradise and who is going to Hell-Fire merely by listening to a person’s voice. “By listening to the
voice of a person, the Imams can tell if the person was destined to go to hell or to heaven; they would thus
answer his questions accordingly.” (Usool Al-Kafi, p. 185) We see here that the Shia are granting Ali the role of
the Creator–namely to judge people.
In the Shia book Khilaqat-e-Norania, the Shia say that the Imam possesses authority to declare anything lawful
or unlawful. (Khilaqat-e-Norania, Page No. 155) This is completely contradictory to the Quranic injunctions, in
which Allah Almighty warns the believers not to declare the lawful to be unlawful and vice/versa, and that this
right was given only to Allah and His Messenger.
In Usool Al-Kafi, the Shia Haidth declares “The Imams are the face of Allah.” (Usool Al-Kafi, p83.) This is
blasphemy to declare a human being to be the face of Allah.
Another narration in Al-Kafi brazenly declares: “All of the earth belongs to the Imams.” (Al- Kulaini. Al-Kafi,
p.407) How this contradicts the Quran, where Allah declares: “To Allah belong all things in heaven and earth!”
(Quran, 31:26)
The following is another Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi: “There is not a single truth possessed by a people saved that
which originated with the Imams, and everything which did not proceed from them is false.” (Al- Kulaini, Al-
Kafi, p.399) Does this not contradict the Quran, which says Allah is the originator of all truth, not human
beings, as narrated in verse 24:25: “…and they will realize that Allah is the (very) Truth, that makes all things
manifest.” (Quran, 24:25)
 Conclusion
This article is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is a good insight into the manner in which the Shia exalt their
Imams and commit Shirk in the process. What is the most perplexing is the fact that if any of these statements
about the Imams were really true, then why is this not mentioned in the Quran? Surely, it is significant to
mention the greatness of the Imams in the Quran if all creation depends on the Imams and life cannot be
sustained without them. And yet, the Quran remains completely silent on the Imams. This is something for the
Shia to ponder upon.
Imam Knows the Hour of His Death
The Shia believe that the Imams know when they are going to die and die only by their own will. We find in Al-
Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith:
“The Imam knows his Hour of death and his death is in his control.” (Usool Al-Kafi, Vol. No. 1,Page No. 258)
Of course, this contradicts the Islamic belief, for not even the Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew
when he was going to die, and he definitely did not do so out of his own control. It is a fundamental belief in
Islam that nobody knows when they are going to die and nobody has any control over it save Allah Almighty.
Allah Almighty says in the Quran that everyone’s time of death is decided by Allah and Allah alone:
“And no soul can die except by Allah’s leave- a [divine] decree with a fixed term!” (The Noble Quran, 3:145)
The Shia claim that their Imams have control over their own deaths. But it is a basic concept in Islam that
nobody has control over his death. Allah decrees death, and nobody can change the manner in which they die, in
which land they die, nor can they avert death or even postpone it by a fraction of a second. Allah challenges
human beings to avert death:
“Say: Avert death from your ownselves, if you speak the truth!” (Quran, 3:168)
“Even if you had remained in your homes, those from whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth
to the place of their death.” (Quran, 3:154)
“It is Allah that gives life and causes death.” (Quran, 3:156)
The hour in which a person dies is known only to Allah Almighty. This also holds true for the Day of
Judgment–only Allah knows when the Day of Reckoning will be, but the Shia will say that their Imams know
everything about the future. How can they know of the Hour when Allah says:
“They ask you about the (final) Hour - when will be its appointed time? Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with
my Lord (alone): None but He can reveal as to when it will occur. Heavy were its burden through the heavens
and the earth. Only, all of a sudden will it come to you.’ They ask you as if you were eager in search thereof:
Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with Allah (alone), but most men know not.’” (The Noble Quran, 7:187)
“Verily the Hour is coming - My design is to keep it hidden” (The Noble Quran, 20:15)
“They say: ‘When will this promise come to pass, if you are telling the truth?’ If only the Unbelievers knew (the
time) when they will not be able to ward off the fire from their faces, nor yet from their backs, and (when) no
help can reach them! Nay, it may come to them all of a sudden and confound them: no power will they have
then to avert it, nor will they (then) get respite.” (The Noble Quran, 21:38-40)
“Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). It is He Who sends down rain, and He Who knows
what is in the wombs. Nor does any one know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: Nor does any one
know in what land he is to die in. Verily with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted (with all things).”
(The Noble Quran, 31:34)
“Men ask you concerning the Hour: Say, ‘The knowledge thereof is with Allah (alone)’: and what will make
you understand?- perchance the Hour is near!” (The Noble Quran, 33:63)
“The Unbelievers say, ‘Never to us will come the Hour’: Say, ‘Nay! but most surely, by my Lord, it will come
upon you;- by Him Who knows the unseen,- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on
earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the Record Perspicuous:’ ” (The Noble Quran,
34:3)
“And blessed is He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all between them: with
Him is the Knowledge of the Hour: and to Him shall you be brought back.” (The Noble Quran, 43:85)
“Say [O Muhammad]: ‘I know not whether the (Punishment) which you are promised is near, or whether my
Lord will appoint for it a distant term.” (The Noble Quran, 72:25)
The Quran declares that nobody knows in which land he will die, so how can the Imam know this? How can the
Imam know even more than this (such as his time of death, manner of death, etc)? Surely, none of this is in
control of a human being. How can the Imam know all of this when the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said he did
not even know what will happen to himself? Allah says in the Quran:
“Say (O Muhammed), ‘I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to
you. I only follow whatis revealed to me. I am no more than a profound warner.’” (The Noble Quran, 46:9)
do I say to you that I am an angel. I simply follow what is revealed to me.” (The Noble Quran, 6:50)
The manner in which the Shia have exaggerated with their Imams is very similar to the manner in which the
Christians did with their prophet. Such exaggeration always leads to one inevitable result, either directly or
indirectly–and this end result is Shirk. The Shia are attributing powers and prestiges that should not be given to
anyone except Allah Almighty.
Imams Can See Al-Ghaib (the Unseen)
The Shia believe that their Infallible Imams posses knowledge of Al-Ghaib (the Unseen). Here is a quote from Lesson 23
on the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org:
“The Immaculate Imams can also make contact with the world of the unseen (Al-Ghaib) whenever necessary by
seeking God’s aid and support and thereby gain access to knowledge they need.” (Source: http://al-
So the Imams are believed to be able to see Al-Ghaib , even though the Quran clearly says:
“None knows Allah’s Al-Ghaib (Unseen realm) except those whom He chooses from among His messengers.”
(Quran, 72:26)
In this verse, Allah categorically declares that only Messengers can see Al-Ghaib by the Grace of Allah. There
is categorical exclusion of anyone else, and this is known to anyone who understands the Arabic. This puts the
Shia in a dilemma. The Ahlus Sunnah has always accused the Shia of believing in false messengers (Dajjals),
but the Shia have adamantly denied that their Imams are messengers. So we wonder then: how do the Shia
respond to this Quranic verse without either admitting that they believe in false messengers after Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬or by admitting that they are commiting Kufr by believing that their Imams see
Al-Ghaib? What a predicament for the Shia!
There is no way out for the Shia on this matter. According to the Quran, only messengers can see Al-Ghaib.
This is clear evidence to the unbiased observor that the Shia believe in messengers after Prophet Muhammad (
‫ )ص}}لّى هللا علي}}ه وآل}}ه وس}}لّم‬since they say that their Imams see Al-Ghaib . The Shia simply do not call them by the name
“messenger” or “prophet”, but rather they use the term “Imam” instead. However, other than the name, the
Imam has all the same powers and prestige as a messenger or prophet. Denying the finality of Prophethood is
Kufr since it violates this verse in the Quran:
 Al-Kafi
Let us examine what the Imams say in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four books of Shia Hadith:
‫ إني العلم ما في الس ماوات وأعلم ما في‬: ‫عبدهللا عليه الس الم يق ول‬
‫االرضين وأعلم ما في الجنة وأعلم ما في النار وأعلم ما كان وما يكون‬
Imam Abu Abdullah said: “I have a knowledge about what in the heavens and what is in the earth,what in the paradise
and what is in the fire, and I know what was (before) and what is going to happen…”
“Biharul anwar” vol 26, p 111“
“Al Kafi” vol 1, p 261
The name of the chapter is simply shocking:
(‫)أن االئمة (عليهم السالم) إذا شاؤوا أن يعلموا علموا( *)باب‬

“If the Imam wants to know anything, he will know it”
“Al Kafi” vol 1, p 258
According to the Shia, Imam Jafar said: “Whenever the Imam wishes to be informed of something, Allah
informs him of it.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
He further stated: “I swear by God that knowledge of the first things and the last things has been bestowed on
us.” On hearing this utterance of the Imam, one of his companions asked him whether he had knowledge of Al-
Ghaib (the Unseen). He answered:
“Woe upon you that you find it necessary to ask such a question. We are fully informed of each drop of sperm
in the loins of men and the wombs of women. Woe upon you; open your eyes, and let your hearts perceive the
truth! We are God’s proof, dwelling among His creation, but only the believer whose faith is as firm as the
mountains of Tihamah has the ability to perceive this truth. I swear by God that if I wished I could inform you
how many pebbles exist in the world, even though their number is constantly growing, by night and by day. I
swear by God that after me you will rise up in enmity against each other until one group among you destroys
the other.” (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
Imam Baqir is reported to have said: “We have been given complete knowledge of the heavens and the earth.”
(Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
 The Quran
Once again, the Shia find no validation for their belief in the Quran, but rather the Quran rejects the idea that the
Imams can know Al-Ghaib. According to the Quran, none save a few chosen Messengers can see Al-Ghaib, and
even this is limited access as Allah pleases. Nobody save Allah and Allah alone knows “anything and
everything” as the Shia claim their Imams do. Indeed, there were matters of Al-Ghaib that were not shared with
Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and this is mentioned in the Quran. For example, the knowledge of the
Hour of the Day of Judgment was not given to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬repeatedly declared that he had limited knowledge and that only Allah knew all
of Al-Ghaib. To cogitate that the Imams know all of Al-Ghaib is a blasphemy beyond bounds. Here are some
verses in the Quran that refute the Shia belief:
“And with Him [Allah] are the keys of the Unseen (Ghaib); none knows them but He. ” (Quran, 6:59)
“Say (O Muhammed), ‘I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to
you. I only follow whatis revealed to me. I am no more than a profound warner.’” (Quran, 46:9)
“Say (O Messenger): ‘I do not control any benefit or harm for my own soul except as Allah pleases; had I
known the Unseen (Ghaib) I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me; I am nothing
but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who believe.’” (Quran, 7:188)
do I say to you that I am an angel. I simply follow what is revealed to me.” (Quran, 6:50)
“Nor will Allah disclose to [any of] you the secrets of the Unseen (Ghaib), But He chooses of His Messengers
(for the purpose) whom He pleases.” (Quran, 3:180)
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬only knew a limited amount of Al-Ghaib and only what Allah revealed to Him of
it. It certainly was not an absolute knowledge of Al-Ghaib, which is something that only Allah and Allah alone
knows because He is Al-Aalim (All-Knowing, Omniscient). In fact, Allah told His Messenger (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
that:
“These are announcements relating to the Unseen (Ghaib) which We reveal to you, you did not know them–
neither you nor your people…” (Quran, 11:49)
Surely, the Imams would be included in “neither you nor your people.”
Allah declares:
“And they say: ‘Why is not a sign sent to him from his Lord?’ Say [O Muhammad]: ‘The Unseen (Ghaib) is
only for Allah; therefore wait– surely I too, with you am of those who wait.” (Quran, 10:20)
“Say: ‘No one in the heavens and the earth knows the Unseen (Ghaib) but Allah; and they do not know when
they shall be raised.’” (Quran, 27:65)
“None knows Allah’s Al-Ghaib (Unseen realm) except those whom He chooses from among His messengers.”
(Quran, 72:26)
Al-Kafi or Al-Kufr?
The most reliable Shia book of Hadith is Al-Kafi. In it, we find narration after narration about Imamah, and we
shall herein examine some of the troubling Shia Hadith. It should be noted that this is only the tip of the iceberg
and that we will only be giving a brief glimpse into the exaggerations of the Shia in regards to their Imams.
However, anyone well-versed in Shia theology knows that there are entire volumes of books extolling their
Imams in such a manner.
 1. “All the Imams are infallible just like the prophets. The Shia derive their religion from their
immaculate Imams.” (Al-Kafi, p. 22)
It is interesting to note here that both the Prophets and Imams are mentioned here, but the Shia are keen on
saying that their religion derives from their Imams, not the Prophets. Whereas the Ahlus Sunnah derives their
faith solely from the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, the Shia derive theirs from their Imams. Indeed, the Shia even
say that their Imams’ sayings and actions are considered Hadith, unlike the Ahlus Sunnah which only considers
the Prophet’s sayings and actions as Hadith. Quran and Hadith are the two sources for Islamic jurisprudence,
and so the fact that the Shia derive their Hadith from an outside source is significant.
 2. “By listening to the voice of a person, the Imams can tell if the person was destined to go to hell or to
heaven; they would thus answer his questions accordingly.” (Usool Al-Kafi, p. 185)
How can the Shia claim that their Imams know the fate of everyone, when the Quran states that Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )ص}}لّى هللا علي}}ه وآل}}ه وس}}لّم‬did not even know his own fate, let alone the fate of everyone else. Allah
Almighty says:
“Say (O Muhammad): “I am not the first of the messengers, and I have no idea what will happen to me or to
you” (Quran, 46:9)
The truth is that only Allah Almighty knows who will be sent to Paradise and who will rot in Hell-Fire. This is
beyond the knowledge of human beings, and to say that an Imam can know this is to take away from the
exclusive powers of Allah. Allah’s name is Al-Aalim (the All-Knowing, Omniscient); it is implicit in this name
that Allah is the only one who is All-Knowing, and hence the usage of the definite article “Al” (the).
 3. “The Imams possess all the knowledge granted to the angels, Prophets and Messengers.” (Al-Kulaini,
Al-Kafi, p.255)
Again, we see how the Shia believe in Dajjals (false prophets) whom they call Imams. According to the Shia,
these Imams are more knowledgeable and powerful than the Prophets.
 4. “The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice.” (Al-Kafi, p.
258.)
How can the Shia claim that their Imams can avert their own death when Allah challenges human beings in the
Quran:
“Avert death from your ownselves, if you speak the truth!” (Quran, 3:168)
Death is a decree from Allah and Allah alone, and none can avert it nor does anyone have a choice in it. Allah
Almighty says in the Quran: “those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of
their death [no matter what]” (Quran, 3:154)
 5. “The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future,
and nothing is concealed from them.” (Al-Kafi, p. 260.)
We could quite literally replace the word “Imam” with “Allah.” Only Allah Almighty possesses all knowledge
of the past, present, and future. And nothing is concealed from Allah Almighty. How can the Shia claim that
their Imams are equivalent to Allah in this aspect? Surely, Allah Almighty can conceal things from the Imams.
“And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures– none knows them but He!” (Quran 6:59)
“Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen but Allah; and they do not know when they shall
be raised.” (Quran, 27:65)
There are innumerable Quranic verses to this effect in which Allah declares that He knows and human beings
do not know: “You know them not, We know them” (Quran, 9:101)
 6. “The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which they
were revealed” (Al-Kafi, p. 227.)
This is a typical Shia exaggeration. How can the Imams know all different languages without having studied
them? It is well known that when the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا علي}ه وآل}ه وس}لّم‬would appoint certain people to learn the
languages of foreign nations so that they could be ambassadors to that nation; the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
himself did not know any other language other than Arabic, and even in Arabic he was illiterate.
 7. “No one compiled the Qur’an completely except the Imams, and they encompass all of its
knowledge.” (Al-Kafi, p. 228)
Nobody can encompass all the knowledge of the Quran. Even the words “Alif Lam Meem” cannot be explained
by human beings. This is a miracle known only to Allah. Indeed, the depth of the Quran is beyond man.
 8. “Signs of the Prophets are possessed by the Imams.” (Al-Kafi, p. 231.)
This again shows how the Shia believe in false prophethood. Their Imams have all the characteristics of
Prophets. Despite the fact that they call them by a different name, there is no difference between Imams and
Prophets.
 9. “When the Imams’ time comes, they will rule in accordance with the ruling of the prophet David and
his dynasty. These Imams will not need to ask for presentation of evidence before passing their
judgments.” (Al-Kafi, p. 397.)
Only Allah Almighty is the Judge, so how can a human pass judgement without evidence? This was not the
Sunnah of the Prophet. (Also, we wonder why the Imam would use the Shariah of Prophet Dawud [‫ ]عليه السالم‬as
opposed to that of Prophet Muhammad [‫)?]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
 10. “There is not a single truth possessed by a people save that which originated with the Imams, and
everything which did not proceed from them is false.” (Al-Kafi, p.277.)
This is another absurd exaggeration of the Shia. How can all truths be derived from the Imams? What about the
Third Law of Thermodynamics? Was this truth also orginated from the Imams?
 Ayatollah Khomeini
Khomeini, in his book Al-Hukoomatul-lslamiyyah (the Islamic government), claims that the Twelve Imams are
infallible, and he raises them to a level above the heavenly angels and the commissioned Prophets of Allah; he
stresses:
“Certainly, the Imam commands a noble station and lofty position; a creative vicegerency to whose rule and
power submit the very atoms of all creation. And an essential tenet of our Shi’ite sect is that the Imams have a
position which is reached neither by the angels [in the highest heaven] nor by any commissioned messenger of
God. ” (Khomeini, Al-Hukoomat ul-lslamiyyah, pp. 52-53)
We wonder how the Shia could claim that the very atoms of all creation submit to the Imams. Surely, we should
only submit to Allah and Allah alone.
Khomeini further stated:
“The teachings and directives of the Imams are just like those of the Quran; it is compulsory on one to follow
them and carry them out.” (Khomeini, Al-Hukoomat ul-lslamiyyah, pp. 52-53)
Here we see how the Shia have gone away from the Quran and instead place their Imams as to be equivalent of
the Quran. Indeed, this is why we find no proof for the Shia faith from the Quran, but rather we only find it in
the sayings of the Imams (which the Shia refer to as their Hadith).
Ayatollah Khomeini
The Shia say that Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬seized the Caliphate wrongfully. The Shia say that a leader cannot be
elected by men, but rather must be appointed by Allah. We wonder: why then was Ayatollah Khomeini elected
as leader? Was he not also elected by men?
Ayatollah Khomeini and the rest of the Shia Ayatollahs exploit the teachings of Shi’ism in order to further their
own power and status. The Ayatollahs elaborate on the concept of Infallible Imams, and by doing so, they
indirectly boost their own position and status since they are the interim Imams. To put it bluntly, the Ayatollahs
are telling us that since the Hidden Imam could not make it to work today, Ayatollah Khomeini is going to be
filling in for him.
This concept is called Wilayat ul-Faqih. In the absence of the Hidden Imam, the Shia decided that they would
elect a popular leader, or deputy Imam. This deputy Imam, such as Ayatollah Khomeini, would be the
“representative” of the Mahdi while he is in occultation.
Under this system of Wilayat ul-Faqih, Ayatollah Khomeini became the supreme leader of the Shia of Iran. In
1969-70, the late Ayatullah Khomoeini further elaborated on the concept in his work “Islamic Government” and
the notion of Wilayat ul-Faqih was enshrined in the Iranian Constitution in 1979. Ayatullah Khomeini declared
that the deputy Imam is endowed with the same authority as an Infallible Imam, encompassing all spheres of
life. Ayatollah Khomeini declared himself to have Wilayat ul-Mutlaqa, or Absolute Authority from Allah.
Ayatollah Khomeini said in one of his speeches that the Wilayat-ul-Faqih can even order Muslims to stop
reading prayer if he finds that reading the prayers could harm Islam.
The Shia scholars have quoted the Infallible Imams as calling themselves Ayatollahs (the Signs of Allah). We
are not surprised to find that Khomeini also took this title. We wonder: how exactly is Khomeini a “Sign of
Allah?” In fact, his entire name–Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini–is a perplexity. Ruhallah translates to “Spirit of
Allah.” Are the Shia really claiming that Khomeini is the Spirit of Allah? Likewise did the Christians do with
their Prophet. The Shia also say that their Infallible Imams were the Hujjat (proof) of Allah, and we are then not
surprised to find that Ayatollah Khomeini also declared himself Hujjat of Allah.
Using the concept of Wilayat ul-Faqih and Mutlaqa, the Shia Imams have quickly brought themselves to such a
lofty position as rulers and monarchs of Iran. This Wilayat ul-Faqih is the biggest fraud in the world; these Shia
Imams have hoodwinked so many millions of people into being subservient to their rule.
Khomeini and the rest of the Shia leaders have used and abused the Shia doctrine of Imamah in order to boost
their own political power by using the concept of Wilayat-ul-Faqih. The Shia Ayatollahs have become so
powerful and politically influential that they have millions of Shia adherents posting up pictures of the
Ayatollahs as if they were pop idols.
The Shia Clergy have used their power to get immensely wealthy. They are quite literally swimming in money,
thanks to the concept of Khums. Of the Khums payment (which is 20% of a man’s income), half of it must be
given to the deputy Imam. In this manner, the Ayatollahs and Imams of the Shia have become billionaires in
Iran.
It is altogether degrading how the Shia Imams exploit their religion to fool the incredulous masses who do not
bother to question the exalted status of their leaders.
Imamah: the Antithesis of Egalatarianism
 Introduction
All four of the rightly guided Caliphs were selected by a system of Shurah (mutual consultation); furthermore,
the general public gave their Bayat (pledge of allegiance) to show their acceptance of each of these
nominations. As is apparent, this system of nomination was egalatarian in spirit and consistent with fairness.
The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs did not utilize the system of absolute monarchy or hereditary kingship that
was common during that time, namely because it was contrary to the spirit of Islam. Hereditary kingship entails
that certain people are created superior to others based simply on who their parents are, and whose womb they
come from. A prince becomes king simply because he was born from a mother who is a queen and a father who
is a king. He could be the most wretched and vile person on earth, but this does not matter because he was born
to the right family. Likewise, a person born to a peasant would “inherit” the status of peasant and could never
rise to the rank of leader of the people.
The Shia would have us believe that the leadership of the Muslims is to forever be a hereditary kingship. The
title of “Imam” is passed down by birthright. As such, the Imam’s bloodline is inherently superior to everyone
else. The son of the Imam automatically becomes the future Imam simply because he was fortunate enough to
be born to the right womb. The Shia say that Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬has no right to the Caliphate because he
was not related to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and was not part of the Ahlel Bayt; they say that Ali (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬must be Caliph because he was related to the Prophet (‫)ص}}لّى هللا علي}}ه وآل}}ه وس}}لّم‬. Likewise, they scorn
Muawiyyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬because they say that he was born from the lineage of Abu Sufyan, and the Shia will
never forget to mention this fact, as if this has any bearing on the nature of Muawiyyah (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
The Shia adamantly believe that the leadership of the Muslims cannot go outside one lineage, namely that of the
Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. This concept of birthright is contrary to the spirit of Islam, which dictates that
men work for their rank and position in this life, and that their lineage cannot possibly dictate their greatness.
This would go against not only Islamic morals, but against our contemporary notion of fairness as well.
 The Quran
Islam came and destroyed the concept of hereditary rank. The Quran declares that people are created inherently
equal and differ only based on their Taqwa (piety):
“Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you.” (Quran, 49:13)
The Quran repeatedly holds each individual responsible for his or her own conduct. The actions of one soul
cannot affect another, neither positively nor negatively. To do so would go against the egalatarian spirit of
Islam, and would instead be a reflection of Jahiliyyah custom in which people thought they would be saved
based on their familial connections as opposed to their Taqwa. The Quran categorically declares that on the Day
of Judgement a person’s familial connections will be cut off: “so now all relations between you have been cut
off” (Quran, 6:94)
And then Allah says:
“…one soul shall not avail another” (Quran, 2:48)
And again:
“…one soul shall not avail another” (Quran, 2:123)
The Quran categorically states that no soul shall have an effect on another:
“…no soul benefits except from its own work, and none bears the burden of another” (Quran, 6:164)
And again, Allah repeats it “that no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another–And that man shall have
nothing but what he [himself] strives for” (Quran, 5:38-39)
As well as: “that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts” (Quran, 6:70)
 The Hadith
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬declared that people were born inherently equal “except by piety and good
action (Taqwa). Indeed the best among you is the one with the best character (Taqwa). Listen to me. Did I
convey this to you properly?…Each one of you who is here must convey this to everyone not present.” (Excerpt
from the Prophet’s Last Sermon as in Baihiqi)
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said:
“There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible
than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance
of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or
an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust.” [At-Tirmidhi
and Abu Dawud]
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said further:
“Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahiliyah (ignorance) and the
glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do
wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay… If they do not give this up (i.e. pride in
ancestors) Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through Khara (dung).”
[Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]
The Shia are accusing the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of being a hypocrite; after all, how could the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬praise and exalt his progeny and lineage whilst forbidding anyone else from glorifying their
lineage?
 Historical Examples
People should not be accorded special rights simply because they were born to the right womb. People should
be judged on their Taqwa, not their birth. Bilal (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was a slave, born to a slave woman, and today he is
remembered as one of the noblest of Sahabah–despite his “lowly birth.” (He is also one of the few Sahabah that
the Shia respect.) On the other hand, both Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were from the same bloodline as the Prophet
(‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and yet they are the two people who Allah has promised Hell-fire for them.
And to take it even one step further: today, there are descendants of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab who are highly
religious Muslims, and will Insha-Allah enter Paradise. We do not think their lineages will any way hamper
their greatness. Such a thing would run contrary to the egalatarian spirit of the Quran. And what about the
example of Prophet Nuh (‫)عليه السالم‬, in which his own progeny died as a Kaffir? And what of Prophet Ibrahim (
‫ )عليه السالم‬whose own father was a Kaffir?
Another interesting observation is that if Allah really wanted to exalt the lineage of Muhammad (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬in such a manner as the Shia do, then why was Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬not the son of Muhammad (‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫?)وسلّم‬
 Conclusion
The bottom line is clear: the womb a person is born to does not decide the status of the person in the eyes of
Allah. On the contrary, the only thing which distinguishes people is their Taqwa. Hence, it is inconsequential
that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was related to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and it does not boost his nomination to
Caliphate over that of Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. The fact that Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is not related to the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬cannot possibly even be mentioned as a criterion for his rejection as Caliph. The birthright
of Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬cannot be even one iota of the reason for their nomination as
Caliph as this would be discrimination and bigotry, and Allah is not a bigot but rather he is “Most Just.”
It is discomforting that the Shia trace Imamah through bloodline in the same manner as a hereditary kingship.
The title of Imam passes down through the blood, and the progeny are considered superior to everyone else
based on their birthright. They are born Imams, and this is a rank given to them based on no effort on their own
part. Regarding the Imam, the Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi says: “He possesses all virtues and worthy attributes
without any striving on his part, and he is adorned with all lofty characteristics.” (al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, Vol. I,
p.200) Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/
Allah did not select people to become leaders based on their birth but rather instead He chose from amongst the
people those of best of character and those with the most Taqwa. Taqwa is what defines a person’s rank and
station on this earth. It would be completely unfair for Allah to decide rank based upon birth, as this goes
against basic morality and ethics. Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was not the best of the humans
because of his birth, but only because he was the best in Taqwa.
The idea that one lineage is superior to another runs contrary to the egalatarian spirit of Islam. The
leadership of the Muslims cannot be confined to one family as the Shia claim it is, but rather it is open to
any Muslim, namely the one who is most pious, regardless of his familial descent of which he had no
control whatsoever.
Turbulent History of Imamah
 The First Ten Imams
The cornerstone of the Shia faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal leadership of this Ummah after the
demise of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬ is vested in the Imam, who is appointed, like the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself, by Allah, and who enjoys all the distinctions and privileges of a Prophet. (In fact, the Shia
regard their Imams as superior to all of the Prophets aside from Prophet Muhammad [‫)]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
However, the Shia believe that Imamah, unlike Prophethood, can never come to an end. In this regard there is a
well-known Shia hadith which says that “the world cannot exist without an Imam,” and another which says: ”if
the earth were to be without an Imam for a single day, it would sink.”
Thus, when it came to pass that the first of those whom they regard as their Imams (Ali [‫ )]رضّى هللا عنه‬left this
world, a problem arose. Some of those who regarded themselves as his followers claimed that he did not in fact
die, but that he was in occultation and would return to establish justice. Others said that he was succeeded as
Imam by his son Hasan (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, who was in turn succeeded by his brother Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
When Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬ died, there were some who claimed to follow his other brother Muhammad (known
as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah) as their Imam. When he died, his followers claimed that he was in reality alive, in
occultation, and that he will return in due time. Others amongst the Shia took Hussain’s son, Ali, surnamed
Zayn al-Abidin, as their Imam, and upon his death transferred their loyalties to his son, Muhammad al-Baqir.
When al-Baqir died, there were once again elements from amongst the Shia who denied his death and claimed
that he would return one day, while others took his son Jafar as-Sadiq as their Imam.
When he died, there was mass confusion amongst the Shia: each of his sons (Ismail, Abdullah, Muhammad,
Zakariyya, Ishaq and Musa) were claimed by various groups amongst the Shia to be their Imam. In addition to
them, there was a group who believed that Jafar did not really die, and that he would return one day.
More or less the same thing happened at the death of his son Musa. Some of the Shia denied his death, believing
that he will return, and others decided to take as their new Imam one of his sons. Some of these chose his son
Ahmad, while others chose his other son Ali ar-Rida.
After him, they took as their Imam his son Muhammad al-Jawwad (or at-Taqi), and after him his son Ali al-
Hadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi, they looked upon his son Hasan al-Askari as their new–and
11th–Imam.
 Death of the Eleventh Imam
Six years later, in 260 AH, Hasan al-Askari, at the very young age of 28, is lying on his deathbed, but unlike
any of his forefathers, he leaves no offspring, no one to whom the Shia might appropriate as their new Imam.
The Shia who had been regarding Hasan al-Askari as their Imam were thrown into mass disarray. Would this
mean the end of the Imamah? The end of the Imamah would mean the end of Shi’ism and the Shia were surely
not ready for this.
The confusion that reigned amongst the Shia after the death of Hasan al-Askari is reflected by the Shia writer
Hasan ibn Musa an-Nawbakhti (who was alive at the time), who counts the emergence of altogether fourteen
sects amongst the followers of Hasan al-Askari, each one with a different view on the future of the Imamah and
the identity of the next Imam. Another Shia writer, Saad ibn Abdullah al-Qummi, who also lived during the
same time, counts fifteen sects, and a century later the historian al-Masudi enumerates altogether twenty
separate sects.
There were four major trends amongst these various sects:
(1) There were those who accepted the death of Hasan al-Askari as a fact, and accepted also the fact that he left
no offspring. To them, Imamah had thus come to an end, just like Prophethood came to an end with the death of
Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. However, there were some amongst them who kept hoping for the
advent of a new Imam.
(2) The second trend was to deny the death of Hasan al-Askari, and to claim that he would return in the future to
establish justice upon earth. This idea of occultation of the Imam is used by the Shia of various sects whenever
it is convenient.
(3) The third trend was to extend the chain of Imamah to Hasan’s brother Jafar.
(4) The fourth trend was the claim that Hasan al-Askari did in fact have a son, but that the son went into
occultation. The Ithna Ashari Shia (i.e. Twelvers) are from this group.
 Multitude of Shia Sects

Throughout the history of the Shia, there have been dozens upon dozens of sects, each claiming another lineage
for the Imamah. And at each turn, either the Imamah goes to a son, a brother, or if not any of these, then the
Imam must have gone into occultation; at each step, there are more schisms and consquently more Shia sects.
Because of this, there have been somewhere near one hundred or even more sects of Shi’ism. Today, there are
dozens of existing Shia sects (Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis,
Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Usoolis, Imamis, Shaikis, Akhbaris, etc) but it should be
remembered that for each sect in existence today, there are dozens more which died out. There are fiver, sixer,
sevener, niner, elevener, twelver, fourteen-er Shia.
In Shia belief, it is Kufr (disbelief) to falsely ascribe Imamah to an individual who is not really the Imam. As
such, each Shia sect looks down upon the other Shia sects as Kufaar (disbelievers) since they follow a different
chain of Imamah. An unbiased outsider would no doubt find this amusing, but the Ithna Ashari Shia is adamant
when he looks down on Ismailis, Aga Khanis, Bohras, Druze, and other Shia sects, unable to see the same
inaneness about himself. In their own circles, the Ithna Ashari Shia scoff at Ismailis and look at them as a silly
minority of heretics. Little do these same Ithna Ashari Shia realize that the vast majority of the Ummah
(namely the Ahlus Sunnah) looks down upon the Ithna Ashari Shia in the same way. Shi’ism is simply a
collection of heretics of every different color.
Even the way a Shia has to identify himself is reflective of the number of sects at every turn: the Shia must
describe himself as not just an Ithna Ashari but rather as Ithna Ashari Imami Usooli Jaffari Shia.
Twelver Ithna Ashari Shi’ism was never the predominant sect of Shi’ism like it is today; it was as marginal as
the rest of the Shia sects. The only reason that the Twelver Ithna Ashari Shia have become so predominant is
simply because of the actions of one man: Shah Ismail I, ruler of the Safavid Empire. He converted to Ithna
Ashari Shi’ism because he wanted to oppose the dominant Ottoman Empire which was Sunni. So Ismail I made
Ithna Ashari Shi’ism the official state religion and forced the entire Persian population to convert to Shi’ism or
accept the penalty of death. This was the Shia Inquisition against the Sunnis of Persia, who made up
the majority of the population in Persia up until this point.
If it had not been for Shah Ismail I, the Ithna Ashari sect would have died out just like the other dozens of Shia
sects died out; or at most, it would have been a marginal sect like all the other obscure Shia sects (including
Ismailis, Druze, Bohras, etc). Had Shah Ismail I converted to the Druze Shia sect, then the majority of Shia
today would be Druze. It was simply chance that the Ithna Ashari sect became the dominant Shia sect; had
Shah Ismail I not been born, then the chances are that the majority of Shia alive today would not be Ithna
Ashari.
Despite the multitude of Shia sects, they are the same: they are all false religions which use their fabricated
Hadith to justify their own Imams. These Shia criticize the Sunnis for not following the Imams, but they
themselves can’t agree on who the Imam is! How fickle are the Shia that they can attribute divine appointment
at whim!
The truth is that there is no such thing as Imamah, and the Doors of Prophethood have forever been closed with
the Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. There is nobody after him, and anyone who claims this is a
Dajjal. The last Prophet was Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وس}لّم‬ and his name was mentioned in the Quran.
Where are these other so-called Infallible Imams in the Quran? Why did Allah not include them? Certainly that
would have cleared up the mass confusion amongst the various Shia sects. Will the Shia then not understand the
folly in their ways and how far they have strayed away from the Quran?
Fraudulent Representatives of the Hidden Imam
 Introduction
The Shia say that their 12th Imam went into hiding, the lesser and greater occultation. What is interesting to see
is what happens when the Imam went into hiding [i.e. who takes his place during his absence].
When the 12th Imam supposedly went into Lesser Occultation, various people set themselves up as the
representatives of the Imam, and who were in control of a network covering various parts of the Islamic
empire–a network for the purpose of collecting money in the name of the Hidden Imam.
All followers of the Imams were obliged to pay one fifth of their income to the representatives of the Imams.
This is called Khums, which is a Wajibat of Shia faith. At the head of this network was a man who self-
appointed himself as the Khums collector; his name was Uthman ibn Said al-Amri. (Note: This practice of
Khums continues to this day: the Shia of Iran pay a religious tax that goes in the coffers of their Ayatollahs.)
 Death of the 11th Imam
The predicament at the time was that the 11th Imam, Hasan Al-Askari, had died without any offspring. Uthman
ibn Said resolved this predicament in an interesting manner: Uthman ibn Said declared that Hasan al-Askari
had left behind a son before he died. This child was supposedly four years old and was named Muhammad.
According to Uthman ibn Said, this son went into occultation and nobody but Uthman ibn Said himself could
have any contact with the Hidden Imam. And from that point onwards Uthman ibn Said would act as the wakeel
(representative) of the Hidden Imam and collect money in his name.
The truth is that Hasan al-Askari did not have any son, and there is an overabundance of historical evidence to
prove this. All secular historical accounts attest to this fact, and indeed, many sects of the Shia in fact admit that
Hasan al-Askari did not have a son. It is only the Ithna Ashari Shia and a few other branches of the Shia which
believe in this mysterious son.
Hasan al-Askari’s own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan al-
Askari’s estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother (instead of any to the son). If Hasan
al-Askari really had a child, then why did his own family not give a share of the inheritance to him? To deal
with this discrepancy, Uthman ibn Said and his ilk responded by denouncing Jafar (Hasan al-Askari’s brother)
as al-Kadhab (the Liar). Moojan Momen writes in “An Introduction to Shi’i Islam” (London, 1985, p. 162) that,
“Jafar remained unshakable in his assertion that his brother (Hasan al-Askari) had no progeny.” In this manner,
the Shia accuse Jafar of being a thief who stole from their Hidden Imam. (It should be noted that Jafar,
according to the Shia belief, would also be part of Ahlel Bayt, since he was the brother of Hasan al-Askari. The
Ithna Ashari Shia thus abandon Jafar, a member of the Ahlel Bayt, and instead follow Uthman ibn Said.)
Uthman ibn Said spread this wonderous fairytale of a son who was born to Hasan al-Askari. In due time, a
fantastic story was brought into circulation about the union between the 11th Imam and a Roman slave-girl,
who is variously named as Narjis, Sawsan or Mulaykah. She is mentioned as having been the daughter of
Yoshua (Joshua), the Roman emperor, who is a direct descendant of the apostle Simon Peter.
But history shows that there never was a Roman emperor of that name. The Roman emperor of the time was
Basil I, and neither he nor any other emperor is known to have descended from Peter.
The story goes on to tell of the Roman slave-girl’s capture by the Muslim army, how she eventually came to be
sold to Hasan al-Askari, and of her supernatural pregnancy and the secret birth of the son of whom no one–aside
from Uthman ibn Said and his clique–knew anything of. Everything about the child is enveloped in a thick and
impenetrable cloud of mystery.
 The Four Representatives
Uthman ibn Said remained the “representative of the Hidden Imam” for a number of years. In all that time, he
was the only link the Shia had with their Imam. During that time, he supplied the Shia community with tawqiat,
or written communications, which he claimed were written to them by the Hidden Imam. Many of these
communications, which are still preserved in books like at-Tusi’s Kitab al-Ghaybah, had to do with denouncing
other claimants to the position of representative. In fact, many people had come to realize exactly how lucrative
a position Uthman ibn Said had created for himself, but Uthman ibn Said blocked their efforts by the tawqiat
which called them liars and frauds. The Shia literature dealing with Uthman ibn Said’s tenure as representative
is replete with references to money collected from the Shia public (i.e. Khums).
When Uthman ibn Said died, his son Abu Jafar Muhammad produced a written communication from the
Hidden Imam in which he himself is appointed the second representative, a position which he held for about
fifty years. He too, like his father, had to deal with several rival claimants to his position, but the tawqiat which
he regularly produced to denounce them and reinforce his own position ensured the removal of such obstacles
and the continuation of support from a credulous Shia public.
Abu Jafar Muhammad was followed in this position by Abul Qasim ibn Rawh an-Nawbakhti, a scion of the
powerful and influential Nawbakhti family of Baghdad. Before succeeding Abu Jafar Muhammad, Abul Qasim
an-Nawbakhti was his chief aide in the collection of the one-fifth taxes (i.e. Khums) from the Shia. Like his two
predecessors, he too had to deal with rival claimants, one of whom (Muhammad ibn Ali ash-Shalmaghani) used
to be an accomplice of his. He is reported in Abu Jafar at-Tusi’s book Kitab al-Ghaybah as having stated: “We
knew exactly what we were into with Abul Qasim ibn Rawh. We used to fight like dogs over this matter (of
being representative).”
When Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti died in 326 AH, he bequethed the position of representative to Abul Hasan as-
Samarri. Whereas the first three representatives were shrewd manipulators, Abul Hasan as-Samarri proved to be
a more conscientious person. During his three years as representative, there was a sudden drop in tawqiat. Upon
his deathbed, he was asked who his successor would be, and he answered that Allah would Himself fulfil the
matter. We wonder: could this perhaps be seen as a refusal on his part to perpetuate a hoax that had gone on for
too long? Abul Hasan as-Samarri also produced a tawqiat in which the Imam declares that from that day till the
day of his reappearance he will never again be seen, and that anyone who claims to see him in that time is a liar.
Thus, after more or less 70 years, the last “door of contact” with the Hidden Imam closed. The Shia term this
period, in which there was contact with their Hidden Imam through his representatives-cum-tax-collectors, the
Lesser Occultation (al-Ghaybah as-Sughra), and the period from the death of the last representative onwards the
Greater Occultation (al-Ghaybah al-Kubar). The Greater Occulation has lasted for over a thousand years.
 Conclusion
When one reads the classical literature of the Shia in which the activities of the four representatives are
outlined, one is struck by the constantly recurring theme of money. The representatives of the Hidden Imam are
almost always mentioned in connection with receiving and collecting “the Imam’s money” from his loyal Shia
followers. There is a shocking lack of any activities of an academic or spiritual nature. Not a single one of the
four is credited with having compiled any book, despite the fact that they were in exclusive communion with
the last of the Imams, the sole repository of the legacy of the Prophet as the Shia claim.
The Shia community at large never had the privilege of seeing or meeting the person they believed to be the
author of the tawqiat. Their experience was limited to receiving what the representatives produced. Even the
argument of a consistent handwriting in all the various tawqiat is at best melancholy. There is no way one can
get away from the fact that the existence of the Hidden Imam rests upon nothing other than acceptance of the
words of the representatives.
This concept of someone writing hidden communiques has no basis in Islam. If there was any need for this, then
why wouldn’t the Prophet be the one to send these tawqiat? And in any case, the Prophet never did such a thing
and this belief is a Mushrik belief adopted from the Christian concept of the Holy Ghost. Just like the Christians
claim to reach out to the Holy Ghost, likewise do these Shia claim the same with their Hidden Imam. Many Shia
adherents today pray to the Hidden Imam for help much like the Christians do so with the Holy Ghost. The
presence of the Hidden Imam is supposedly in the room, exactly how the Christians say that they reach out to
the presence of their Holy Ghost. And just like the Catholic Church gets rich off of donations from its
adherents, so too do the representatives of the Imams get rich off their Shia followers.
In Iran today, the Shia Imams and Ayatollahs are multi-millionaires and even billionaires. They are exploiting
religion for money, wealth, and power. These Ayatollahs claim to be representatives of the Hidden Imam.
Perhaps, the greatest fraud representative of the Hidden Imam was Ayatollah Khomeini who duped the entire
Shia community. Khomeini claimed Wilayat ul-Faqih and called himself Wilayat ul-Mutlaqa, meaning that he
has absolute authority from Allah since he was the “representative” of the Imam in his absence. Like the Four
Representatives during the Lesser Occultation who condemned rival claimants to their position, so too did
Ayatollah Khomeini put so many Ayatollahs in house arrest for questioning his position as representative of the
Imam. These rival Ayatollahs decried Wilayat ul-Faqih as a fraud, but Khomeini silenced any threat to his rise
to power.
Indeed, the reason that the Shia Imams and Ayatollahs preach this concept of Infallible Imams is not out of
reverence for their twelve Infallible Imams, but rather it is to secure their own position of prestige as
representatives of these late Infallible Imams.
How Does the Current Imam Lead the Shia?
How does the current Imam lead the Shia?
After the death of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr was elected by Shurah (mutual consultation) as Caliph of the
Ummah. The Shia reject Abu Bakr’s election, and say that only Allah can decide the leadership of the Ummah.
The Shia further argue–and this they do emphatically–that it is not justice from God to leave us without any
divine leadership, and that this divine leader is the Infallible Imam. To further emphacize this argument, the
Shia ask the Ahlus Sunnah pointedly: “How is it possible that Allah would leave his Ummah without a leader?”
And they categorically state that it would indeed not be possible for Allah to leave his Ummah leaderless after
the death of the Prophet.
On the surface, these seem like valid arguments. Let us assume for the time being that the Ahlus Sunnah
accepted the fallacious assumption that we need an Infallible Imam to lead us, and that it would not be justice
from God to leave us without divine leadership. If the Ahlus Sunnah accepts this, then would it not be fair to
ask the next relevant question, which is: “Where is this divine leader now?” Where is the Infallible Imam
today? To this, the Shia will respond: “Oh, he has been hidden for more than 1,000 years and will come out near
the end of the world.” Nice!
This means that the theory of Justice of God in terms of guidance worked only for about three hundred years
(before the occultation)! Indeed, if the Shia want to argue that there is no way that the Ummah could be left
leaderless after the death of Prophet Muhammad, then why would Allah leave his Ummah leaderless after the
death of the eleventh Imam and the sudden disappearance of the twelvth Imam?
Imam means “leader;” how can a person be led when the leader is not contactable and accessible? Nobody has
had direct contact with the Imam Mahdi during his Greater Occcultation which has lasted over 1,000 years. So
what is the point of all this debate?
The Shia believe in Imamah and accuse the Ahlus Sunnah of not having a leadership system; well, at the end of
the day, we all ended up at the same point, didn’t we? The Shia had no leadership system up until the Iranian
Revolution, and the Irani system of “Wilayat ul-Faqih” (the current leadership system in Iran) is nothing but a
man-made system in certain scholars do Shurah (mutual consultation) in order to elect a leader for them. Well,
this is exactly what happened at Saqifah when people elected Abu Bakr, so what is all the fuss about? If the
Shia are willing to accept Ayatollah Khomeini as the leader of the Ummah, then why not Abu Bakr? Why do
the Shia find it OK for Khomeini to be the elected representative of the Hidden Imam, but they do not find it
OK for Abu Bakr to be the elected representative of the Prophet?
The main pillar of Shi’ism is that we need a divinely appointed Imam and the leadership of the Muslims is
divinely appointed. Without this pillar and buttress, the entire faith of Shi’ism collapses on itself. We again ask
the Shia why they can follow Khomeini but not Abu Bakr? The truth is that Ayatollah Khomeini was elected by
man, and so dies the entire argument of the Shia regarding how it would not be justice for God to leave us
without divine leadership. Khomeini is certainly not divinely appointed, and most Shia agree upon this. Some of
the Muslims have elected Usamah Bin Laden to be their leader; does Khomeini (the leader of the Shia) have
any divine advantages to Usamah?
The point is that if the Shia had a live Imam who was supposedly infallible and had access to extraordinary
knowledge, then we did not need this dialogue. Instead of all these debates, we would have asked a Shia to take
us to his Infallible Imam and there surely the Imam could prove us his right by his extraordinary knowledge,
character, and attitude. This is not the case now. If someone becomes a Shia these days, nothing will be changed
for him in terms of guidance. He will combine the prayers and attend ceremonies for Hussain and pay Khums to
scholars…but nothing in terms of being directed by a divine Imam.
So what exactly is all the fuss about? The Shia says it is obligatory to know the Imam of one’s time, but from
the so-called Imam of their time what do they know? Anything more than his name and the fact that he will not
come out till near the end of the world? So is it all about knowing a name rather than actual guidance?
We are fighting over a non-issue: The Infallible Imam doesn’t even exist.
The occultation of the Imam is 100% in variance with the very basis of the reason the Shia claim we need an
Imam. The Shia belief is in fact not self consistent.
On the one hand, the very reason we need an Imam is to lead, but now the Imam has been in occultation, so
what benefit does the Imam give now?
The whole foundation of Shi’ism is that the Shia needed an Imam after the demise of the Prophet and that it did
not make sense for Allah not to divinely appoint a successor to the Prophet. Then what about today? Why have
the Shia been living without any Imam for over 1,000 years? Why has Allah left the Ummah without a divinely
appointed leader for over a thousand years?
To respond to this question, the Shia will say that the Hidden Imam still guides them while he is in occultation,
but our question is: if the Hidden Imam (Mahdi) can guide the Shia without being alive with them physically,
why couldn’t our Prophet Muhammad guide us without being alive with us physically? Thus, the Shia simply
prove by their Aqeedah that their Twelvth Imam is higher and more superior than our Muhammad in
everything.
So again, we ask the Shia point-blank: How does the Imam lead the Shia? There have been no substantial
replies to this question, but we shall address the semi-replies that we sometimes get to this question.
Shia Response #1
The guidance of the Imam is not restricted to direct guidance. There are other functions of Imamah that we
cannot fully understand except that his existence is a must for the universe.
Refutation #1
This is just a philosophical argument (being affected by pre-Islamic belief) that has absolutely no support from
the Quran and Hadith. We have been told that certain angels are arranging certain things for the universe but we
have heard nothing about such an extraordinary claim that Imams are needed for the existence of the Earth. If
the existence of the universe was really linked to the Imam, then where is this mentioned in the Quran?
If we were to believe that the Earth needs an Imam to exist, then who was the Imam immediately before the
Prophet? Did the Prophet ever meet him? And why do we need someone being alive on the earth to do the job?
Imam Reza, the 8th Imam of the Shia, made a very interesting point: “If Allah wanted to extend the life of any
of his servants for the need of people to him, he would have extended the life of his Prophet.” (Kashi, Marifah
al-Rijal, p.379)
Furthermore, by the above reply in fact the Shia are stepping down and surrendering their main argument that
says in every time there is a need for an Imam to direct and lead people (i.e. tangible direction and leading, not
philosophical direction).
Indeed, the classical Shia scholars of old used to say that there is no need to even prove that we need a divinely
appointed Imam since it is “self-evident” that Allah would bestow each people with such a leader. It was only
logical, they reasoned. And they would scoff at the Ahlus Sunnah, taunting them for their lack of a tangible
leader. Let us examine one of the arguments for the existence of Imamah; Shaykh Mufid, one of the classical
Shia scholars, said:
“… Rationality tells us that surely there should be an infallible leader at every time who is not relying on people
in matters…of religion because it is impossible that people live in a time when there are no leaders to bring
them closer to good and farther from bad; and every incomplete human needs someone to advise him and every
oppressor needs someone to control him…and there should be someone who teaches those who don’t know and
wakes up the ignorant, advises the misguided and performs the Hadood (Punishments of Shariah) …and solves
the differences of opinion and appoints governors and defends the borders and protects properties…and gather
people for Eids and collective prayers.” (Al-Irshad by Shaykh Mufid, Section 36)
As it can be seen, this Shia scholar (who was one of the forefathers of Shia theology and who established Shia
doctrine) clearly says that there always needs to be an Infallible Imam at all times who could practically (and in
a tangible way) direct and guide people. For many generations after the Prophet’s death, the Shia berrated the
Ahlus Sunnah for not having a divine leader present, and the classical Shia literature is replete with arguments
about how it is not possible for Allah to leave the Ummah without a divinely appointed leader.
This of course was before the Imam suddenly went into occultation and dissapeared for one thousand years,
completely obliterating the entire theory that Allah would always bestow a physical leader since of course that
is “self-evident” as mentioned by the classical Shia scholars. How can we reconcile the classical Shia position
to the current one?
Shia Response #2
The benefit of the Imam in occultation is like the benefit of the sun when it is behind a cloud.
Refutation #2
This is nothing but a poetic justification of the problem. What is exactly meant by the sun behind clouds? The
sun behind the clouds has many benefits; in fact, there are too many to list. The sun still provides a lot of
sunlight even when it is behind a cloud, thereby giving light to human beings, aiding in photosynthesis for
plants, and warming the planet. These are just some of the many functions of the sun behind the clouds. What
then are the benefits of the Imam in occultation?
How has the Imam Mahdi been of any benefit while he is in hiding? Did he help in any way in the leadership
and ruling of Iran? There are a lot of controversial issues in Iran nowadays, and the Shia scholars are at
loggerheads over them. Some of these controversial issues include the extent of Wilayat ul-Faqih, modernism
and Islam, television, freedom of speech, and many other pressing concerns. There are even certain Shia
scholars (Mujtahids) that are under house arrest because they do not agree with the current policies and leader.
Were there any letters, voices, or emails from Imam Mahdi to clear up a bit of these difficulties? Which one of
these Mujtahids who are in severe disagreement with each other are directed and led by the Imam Mahdi and
how are the Shia people expected to realize this? Where is the benefit from the “sun behind the clouds?”
As can be seen, there is a difference between a fairy-tale and reality, and we sincerely hope that the Shia realize
this. The answer that the Imam is like the “sun behind the clouds” is fit only for youngsters who are sufficed
with poetic and fluff-filled answers. But for the people who want substance and meaning, this answer does
nothing. Of course, if a person wants to be fooled, then perhaps any explanation will do. Perhaps even the silly
and childish hoo-haa that the Imam is like the sun behind the coulds will do for those who do not like to think
for themselves, or rather, for those who want to cling onto their belief no matter what.
Shia Response #3
Here is an excerpt from the Shia website, Al-Islam.org:
“The following hadith corroborates the point we are trying to make, namely, that the actual reason for
occultation was not explained for the people, and except for the Imams themselves no one knew anything about
it.”
Imam Sadiq said: “The one entrusted with the command will necessarily live an invisible life…” I asked the
Imam the reason. He said: “I am not permitted to reveal the reason.” (Shia Hadith, reported by ‘Abd Allah b.
Fadl Hashimi)
Refutation #3
Finally, the Shia will admit that they do not know the reason their Imam went into hiding or what benefit the
Imam gives in occultation. Of course, this is not an answer but rather the lack of an answer.
The Shia repeatedly declare the importance of the Hidden Imam, but when the Ahlus Sunnah asks “why do we
need him and what benefit does he give you right now”, then the Shia will say: “We don’t know!”
This is the mentality of a school child who pretends to know something, and when another child asks what it is,
then he will say “I am not telling!” The reality is that the child could not say anything because he knew nothing
to begin with. Likewise, the reality is that the Shia Imams could not give a reply to the question of why we need
an Imam if he is in hiding, so they simply said “I am not telling!”
Why would the Shia Imams hide such a thing? What purpose does this serve? Does this make any sense? It is
an obvious cop-out. But of course, those minions who want to be fooled don’t really need good cover-ups to be
convinced. Any explanation will do, even the school child response of “I’m not telling!”
Every faith should have a logic behind it, or else the entire faith is baseless. We can find no reason for the
necessity of this Hidden Imam, and we openly challenge the Shia to produce a response to the question: How
does the current Imam lead the Shia?
Some Questions for the Shia
Imamah is the foundation of Shi’ism; the Ahlus Sunnah rejects Imamah because the doctrine makes little logical sense.
Indeed, there are many perplexing questions for the Shia as well as several holes in the doctrine of Imamah.
For example, if the Imam Mahdi is really hiding, then why is he doing so? Who or what exactly is he hiding
from?
The only response the Shia can come up with is that there is too much injustice in the world and he would be
persecuted by these tormentors if he appeared now (like what happened to their previous Imams), so because of
this, the Imam is in hiding. So then, couldn’t it be asked why the other eleven Imams didn’t also go into hiding
to protect themselves?
The Shia will stress that the twelvth Imam had to go into hiding for fear of tormentors and injustice. There is a
Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable book of Shia Hadith, in which the Infallible Imam declares that the
Imam Mehdi went into hiding out of fear.
Al-Islam.org says
“
Al-Kafi, vol 1, p 338. narration 9
- ‫ا عبدهللا‬55‫معت أب‬55‫ س‬:‫ال‬55‫ عن زرارة ق‬،‫ير‬55‫ عن عبدهللا بن بك‬،‫ة‬55‫ عن عبدهللا بن جبل‬،‫ة‬55‫ن بن معاوي‬55‫ عن الحس‬،‫ عن جعفر بن محمد‬،‫محمد بن يحيى‬
‫ يعني القتل‬- ‫ وأومأ بيده إلى بطنه‬- ‫ إنه يخاف‬:‫ ولم؟ قال‬:‫ قلت‬،‫ إن للقائم عليه السالم غيبة قبل أن يقوم‬:‫عليه السالم يقول‬
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ja’far ibn Muhammad from al-Hassan ibn Mu‘awiya from ‘Abdallah
ibn Jabala from ‘Abdallah ibn Bukayr from Zurara who has said the following:
“I heard (Imam) Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) say, ‘The person who will rise to Divine power on earth will disappear
from the public sight before he will do so.’ I then asked, ‘Why will this happen so?’ He said, ‘He will be afraid.’
He then pointed to his midsection meaning he (Mehdi) might be murdered.”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-1/144.html ”
That is awfully strange, since the Shia claim that the Imam Mahdi will come to rid the world of tormentors and
injustice. Why would he hide from tormentors unless he is scared of them? The Shia explanation for the
necessity of the Imam Mahdi’s return is 100% contradictory to the very reason he went into hiding in the first
place! He left because of injustice but supposedly is going to return to destroy it? Why not just get on with it? If
anyone was in need of destroying, it would be the supposed killers of the eleven Imams many of whom were
alive in the time when the twelvth Imam was supposedly born. So why didn’t the Mahdi go slay them and
collect Qisas (blood money)? No, instead he went into hiding thereby letting the tormentors go unscatched.
And why would an Infallible Imam leave his fallible minions to fend for themselves? What kind of leader does
this? How will a Hidden Imam hide from his responsibility of settling disputes, explaining the laws of God, and
providing guidance to his community? Instead of all this, he went into hiding, leaving his community at the
mercy of the fallible ones and the tyrants that he hid from?
Why should he be hiding to even warrant the question of “waiting for him” or “searching for him?”
Also, is it necessary for the Infallible Imams to exist incognito at all times until the end of time? What are the
duties and functions of the Imams to demand such a necessity? The Shia will respond that the universe needs
the Imam to exist and that all the atoms of the universe submit to the Imam, and without the Imam nothing
could survive. If the Imam is so powerful, then how come he cannot protect himself from the tyrant Sunni
Nasibis who slayed so many of them? The Shia believe that their Imams know all of Al-Ghaib (the Unseen) and
even know how they are going to die. If this is the case, then how come they didn’t know that they were going
to be poisoned or stabbed when they were? If they knew, then they surely would have prevented it!
Even if we concede that it is necessary to have Imams, why does it stop at twelve? If we concede we needed an
Imam after the death of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and that electing Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or any other
person cannot be just of Allah, then shouldn’t that logic continue to hold true? Don’t we always need an Imam
and not just a hidden one? If the Imamah was a religious obligation on the community, then why did the Imam
just pack up and leave? The truth is that the whole problem was that the eleventh Imam did not have a son and
so this ended the chain of Imamah, so of course the Shia invented the convenient story of a mysterious son
going into hiding.
Why twelve Imams? Why were eleven Imams just left to be killed by the evil Sunni Nasibis, and then the
twelvth decided to jump ship? Wouldn’t it make more sense then for the first Imam to have simply gone into
occultation? Why didnt Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬go into occultation? Or for that matter, why not the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ ?)عليه وآله وسلّم‬Surely, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬would be a better Mahdi than some little kid who according to the Shia is
hiding naked in a cave!
Why is the Imam hiding? And more importantly, why is the Hidden Imam hiding holy books from us? The Shia
believe that the Imams possess special holy books that nobody else can see, and these holy books are what give
the Infallible Imams all their immense knowledge. The Imams have the Book of Fatima, Al-Jafr, and Al-Jami.
Ask a Shia from what source does the Hidden Imam (who is just a child) get his immense knowledge from, they
will respond it is from these books. So how come Allah only gave these books of guidance and immense
knowledge to the Imams and not to everyone else? Why would Allah Almighty only give a book of guidance to
some people but not others? Did Allah restrict the Quran to only a few people, and hide it from the rest? How
can a book of guidance be hidden from the people that it is meant to guide?
Another perplexing question for the Shia is: what was the point of the Lesser Occultation? The Hidden Imam
apparently sent communiques to his Four Representatives in the form of Tawqiat. Why didn’t the Imam simply
tell everyone himself instead of going through a representative? What function does the representative serve?
The truth is that there is no reason, other than the fact that the Hidden Imam was a figment of the
representative’s imagination used to get him rich by collecting Khums (religious tax) in the name of this Hidden
Imam. “I have an imaginary friend and he demands that you give me money!”
Also, what is the basis of these Tawqiat (hidden communiques that the Imam Mahdi sent his Four
Representatives)? Why doesn’t Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬communicate through these Tawqiat?
And how come the whole Shia doctrine throughout the first eleven Imams was that the Sunnis were lacking
leadership and did not have an Imam? The Shia would taunt the Sunnis saying that they cannot come up with an
explanation for why Allah would leave them without a leader. But then suddenly after the twelvth Imam, the
Shia can make up amazing excuses and fascinatingly complex reasons for why they now don’t need an Imam
for over 1,000 years.
Again, the most fundamental question: why did the Imam go into hiding? The only semi-response the Shia can
give is that Allah is testing the Shia to see who will be strong while the Imam is absent. That is awfully strange.
The Shia would always taunt the Sunnis for why Allah would leave the Muslims leaderless after the death of
Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Sunnis believe that near the end of time, Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬will return.
So couldn’t we argue that the death of Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was a test for the believers to
see who was strong in the absence of a divine leader, until Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬returns? And in the meantime,
the Muslims could select their own leader, such as Abu Bakr (‫?)رضّى هللا عنه‬
Suddenly, this explanation is invalid to the Shia.
The Shia doctrine of Hidden Imam makes no sense, and the only plausible explanation is the truth: the Deputies
of the Imam, from the 4 representatives during the Lesser Occultation to the modern day self-appointed
deputees like the Ayatollah Khomeini, are simply using and abusing the concept of some imaginary Imam so
that they have the right to be his authority on earth while he is in hiding. This is why it is twelve Imams because
the eleventh one did not have a son, so it gave these opportunists a chance to claim to be the Mahdi’s
representative, and thereby grow powerful by collecting the Khums (religious tax) and dictating laws to the
people.
No other logical explanation can be made why the Ithna Ashari Shia have this concept of Hidden Imam. What
would make some sense to the unbiased observor would be like what the Ismaili Shia have, in the form of
continuous Imams up until this day; but just twelve doesn’t make sense. Can the Ithna Ashari Shia really think
of a reason why they are right and not the other dozens of Shia sects out there who follow another chain of
Imams?
The theory of the Hidden Imam and the twelve Imams makes no intuitive sense, nor is it in the Quran. It is thus
completely Batil (false).
Let’s Say That I Wanted to Convert to Shi’ism…
Let’s pretend that I became convinced that we need to follow Infallible Imams and I wanted to convert to
Shi’ism. Now, as a potential convert to Shi’ism, every sect of Shi’ism is telling me that I must follow their set
of Infallible Imams. There are at least 70 different sects of Shi’ism, each following their own lineage for their
Imams. There are the Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas,
Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, etc. Even amongst the Ithna Ashari Shia, there are many different sects,
including the Usulis, Akhbaris, and Shaykis. All in all, there are dozens upon dozens of Shia sects, each with
their own lineage of Imams.
As a Seeker of Truth, how do I know which of these lineages is correct? This is a monumental decision.
According to the Shia belief system, ascribing false Imamah to a person is Kufr (disbelief). Hence, if I pick the
wrong lineage to follow, then I become a Kaffir (disbeliever) destined for Hell-Fire. So I have to be very careful
when I pick which of these sects I want to follow and which of the Imams is the right one. Each of these sects
has their own set of Hadith which show that their set of Imams is the correct one. Some of these sects have very
divergent beliefs, but there are also many sects which are virtually identical with the exception of following a
different Imam, or branching the lineage at a different place [i.e. taking a second son as the Imam instead of the
third, etc].
Please tell me how I am supposed to proceed to find the true path? I wish I could go to the Quran for answers,
since Allah has called it the book of ultimate guidance. Unfortunately, the Quran does not mention the names of
any Imams, which is weird, because wouldn’t that be important stuff to put in a book of guidance? The Quran
clearly said to follow Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬who is the messenger of Allah, and yet I can’t find a
single verse about following any of these Imams, let alone with their names mentioned.
So now I’m forced to look at the “Hadith” from the various sects. Each of them have their own Hadith and each
of them declare the other sect deviant for following the wrong Imam and false Hadith. I’m so confused! How
exactly am I supposed to scientifically determine which Hadith is the authentic one and which is fabricated?
Does Allah really expect me to do this?
I know that Ithna Asharis are the most populous Shia group right now. But some quick research showed me that
this was only a recent phenomena: Shah Ismail I came to power during the Safavid Empire and he just
happened to convert to the Ithna Ashari sect, and then he forced all the Persians to convert to it by the penalty of
death. Before that, there were other Shia sects which were more influential. If I had lived in the Fatimid Empire
(which was Ismaili Shia), then it would have been Ismailism which was the majority for the Shia. The point is
that we can’t simply follow the Ithna Ashari sect because it is the largest, namely because it wasn’t always so.
If you are part of the Ithna Ashari Imami Usooli sect, I’m betting you were probably just born that way. Had
Shah Ismail I converted to a different sect of Shi’ism and followed another set of Imams, then you’d probably
have been born to that sect instead. In any case, just because Ithna Ashari is the majority, does that mean I
should follow it? Historically, the Shia believe that the majority of Muslims rejected the Imam and only a
handful of people were loyal to him. What if the real followers of the Imam are a really small and obscure Shia
sect? How am I supposed to find them then? Which one of the dozens of Shia sects is the right group to ascribe
to?
I am lost. Where can I turn to for guidance? If I want to convert to Shi’ism, then which sect should I follow and
which chain of Imams is the correct one? Can the Ithna Asharis give me one reason why they chose their set of
Imams as opposed to another sect’s set of Imams?
The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no way for a person to decide which is the right set of Imams to
follow, since the Imams are not mentioned in the Quran. What is mentioned in the Quran is to follow Prophet
Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and this is what we should do. Since the belief of Imamah is absent from the
Quran, we must reject it.
The 12th Imam of the Shia is Dajjal?
 Introduction
The Shia are waiting for their Twelvth Imam to descend upon them. The evidence suggests that the person that the Shia
will take as their Twelvth Imam will be none other than Dajjal, as prophecized in the Hadith of the Prophet. The Ahlus
Sunnah should thus always keep in mind that the Shia are the future followers of Dajjal.
 Jewish Law
The “Qaem” or Imam Mahdi of the Shia will rule according to the Laws of David and the family of David,
according to the Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four books of Shia Hadith. All of the following
Shia Hadith come from the same section in Al-Kafi reported by Al-Kulyani, located in Al-Kafi (Volume No.1,
p.387-398):
Narrated Ali ibn Ibraheem -from his father-from ibn Abi Umair-from Mansour-from Fadhl al Aour-from Abi Ubaidah who reported:
“When the Qaem of the household of the Prophet appears, he will rule according to rule of David and
Solomon.”
“I heard Abu Abdullah[as] saying: ‘The world will

Muhammad ibn Yahya-Ahmad ibn Muhammad-Muhammad ibn Sinaan-Abaan who reported:
not fade away unless a person from us appears who will rule according to the rule of the family of David’”
“I asked Abu Abdullah [as] : ‘On what will you
Ahmad–Ahmad ibn Muhammad–Ibn Mahboob–Hisham ibn Salim–Ammar as Saabati who reported:
rule if you are made the rulers.’ He replied: ‘By the rule of God and the rule of David. And if we are confronted
by a situation which we cannot solve, Gabriel (Ruh al Quds) will reveal it to us.’”
“I asked him by
Muhammad ibn Ahmad–Muhammad ibn Khalid–Nazr ibn Suwaid–Yahya al Halabi–Imran ibn Oueiyn–Jaeed al Hamdani–Ali ibn al-Hussein [as] said:
which law will you rule?” He said: “By the rule of David, and if there is something which we are unaware of,
Gabriel (Ruh al Quds) will reveal it to us.”
“I asked Imam Abu Abdullah [as]: ‘By

Ahmad ibn Mahran[ra]–Muhammad ibn Ali–Ibn Mahboob–Hishaam bin Salim–Ammar as Saabati reported:
what will you rule?’ He replied: ‘By the rule of God, and by the rule of David.’”
 Hebrew
Furthermore, the 12th Imam will speak in Hebrew:

Reported to us Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Saeed al Uqdah who said: Narrated to us Ali ibn al-Hasan at-Taymali who said: narrated to us al-Hasan and Muhammad the sons of
Abu Abdullah [as] reported: “When the Imam
Ali ibnu Yusuf, from Sa’daan ibnu Muslim, from rajaal, from al-Mufadhaal ibn Umar who said:
Mahdi calls out, he will supplicate to God in Hebrew.” [Al-Ghaybaa of an Numani, p.326]
 Jewish Followers
According to the Shia, the Jews will also be the followers of Imam Mahdi:
“There will appear along with

Sheikh al-Mufeed has reported in his Al-Irshaad from al=Mufadhaal ibnu Umar that Imam Abu Abdullah [as] has reported:
Imam Mahdi…people from the tribe of Moses.” [Al-Irshaad of al-mufeed at Tusi p.402]
According to Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Hidden Imam learns from a book called al-Jafr, which contains the
knowledge from the Israelites:
The Imams (a.s.) remained silent for a while and then said, “With us there is al-Jafr (the parchment). What do
they know what al-Jafr is?” I then asked, “What is al-Jafr (the parchment or a container) ?” The Imams (a.s.)
said, “It is a container made of skin that contains the knowledge of the prophets and the executors of their wills
and the knowledge of the scholars in the past from the Israelites.” [al-Kafi, Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1]
 Conclusions
All of these beliefs lead us to believe that the Shia’s 12th Imam is actually the Jewish Dajjal that the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬warned us about, who would mislead many and create destruction on earth. This is who the
Shia are waiting for. According to the evidence, this is what we know about their “Qaem”:
1. He will rule according to the system of the family of David, using the Talmud.
2. His language will be Hebrew.
3. His followers will be of the Jews and Israelites, for he is the king of the Jews.
4. The Hidden Imam learns from the Talmud which is contained in the “Jafr.”
 Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah
Let us now examine the true Hadith from the Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Jewish Dajjal that is prophecized
to appear:
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬told us in Hadith that Allah will grant the Muslims victory over Dajjal and the
Muslims will kill him and his shia; when the shia of Dajjal hide behind a tree or a stone, then the tree and the
stone will say to the Muslim that there is a Jew behind me come and kill him. (Musnad Imam Ahmad #5099) Is
it simply a coincidence that this Hadith uses the Arabic word “shia” to describe the followers of Dajjal?
“To every Ummah there is a magian and the magian of this ummah are those who reject the Qadr [pre-
destination]. If anyone amongst them dies, do not attend their funeral, and if anyone amongst them becomes
sick don’t visit them and they are Shia-tul Dajjal and it is the right of God to join them with the Dajjal.” (Sunan
Abi Dawoud #4072)
The Shia reject the concept of pre-destination and instead have adopted the Mutazallite school of thought which
shuns Qadr. And who are the descendants of the Magians other than the Persians who mix Magianism with
Islam?
And perhaps most conclusive of all is the frightening Hadith in which the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has said:
“The Dajjal will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan, having on themselves Persian shawls.” [Sahih Muslim
#5227]
Today, we see the military alliance between Israel and Iran. Click here for more details. Why would the Jews be
wrapped with Persian shawls? Today, Persia is Shia. Shouldn’t the Ahlus Sunnah be prepared to deal with this
alliance between the Jews and the Persian Shia?
The Shia ask Allah to hasten the coming of their Hidden Imam who is locked up and hidden somewhere. The
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has promised that the Jewish Dajjal will also be locked away somewhere and
hidden from the world, as reported in the narration of Tamim ad-Darri in Sahih Bukhari.
Indeed, the founder of Shi’ism was the Jewish Abdullah ibn Saba and the so-called “savior” of the Shia will be
the Jewish Dajjal. Of course, we don’t know this for certain and it is only a theory, but the evidence suggests
that it is a highly likely scenario.
Fatwa: Ayatollah Khomeini is not Muslim
The Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini
Question: What is the Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini?
Response: Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al)
of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu àlayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers
(àlayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim.
Shaykh al-Albaanee
al-Haawee min Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee – Page 349
source: www.fatwa-online.com
Based on this, we can see that it is Kufr (disbelief) to say that there exists anyone superior to the Prophets and
Messengers, such as the Shia say of their Infallible Imams. It is therefore the ruling of the scholars that such a
person is not a Muslim and outside the folds of Islaam.
Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying?
Subject: Was Ali Lying? Was Husayn Lying?

From: “John ******* < *****@madinah.cc>
Date: Thu, May 10, 2007 11:23 pm
Asalaamu Alaykum brothers,
I do not particularly consider myself either Shi’i or Sunni Muslim. I am a bit confused to be honest, but I had a
question that I was hoping to get your opinion on. Are Ali and Hasan and Husayn lying when they make the
claim of imamate for themselves? I believe there is a hadith where Hasan and Husayn are the chiefs of Jannah,
and there is no question that these people are truly some of the most beloved to the Prophet (S) and some of the
most pre-eminent figures in Islam.
When Husayn writes a letter to the Kufans saying (this is sourced from al-Tabari in the book Early Shi’i
Thought) “People selfishly took away our right…God gave the family of the Prophet authority,” what does he
mean by this? It seems he is obviously claiming imamate, or at the LEAST that God mandated we follow him.
Further, with the Hadith (judged Sahih in Tirmidhi) that says “Ali is with the Truth (haqq) and the Qur’an, and
the Truth and the Qur’an are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come upon me at Kawthar”
doesn’t that make Ali’s claims to Imamate to be true?
Just thoughts that have me worried,
Thank you very much,

Wa salaam,
John
Response by Team Ahlel Bayt:
Wa-Alaykum As-Salam, and thank you for writing to us.

At the outset, we must state that nobody working for Ahlel Bayt is a qualified Islamic scholar. Having said that,
we will Insha-Allah answer your questions as they seem easy enough:
1. Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain lying when they made the claim for Imamah themselves?
Answer: These three men (may Allah be well-pleased with them) never claimed the Imamah for themselves,
and this is a lie perpetuated by the Shia. In fact, this is true for the rest of the Shia line of Imams: all of these
individuals were pious Muslims who would never declare themselves divinely appointed Infallible Imams.
We refer you to the example of Prophet Jesus (‫)عليه السالم‬. The Christians could challenge us by asking us: Was
Jesus (‫ )عليه السالم‬lying when he claimed to be divine or the Son of God? We reply to them the same way that we
reply to the Shia: He (‫ )عليه السالم‬never did claim such a thing and hence the question itself is invalid!
In fact, none of the eleven Imams of the Shia (the twelfth one did not exist) publically declared themselves to be
Infallible Imams. They were known amongst their communities as being Sunnis and never once did they
publically utter a word of Imamiyyah doctrine. In order to deal with this inconsistency, the Shia had to in fact
invent the doctrine of “Taqiyyah”; these Imami Shia defended the silence of their own Imams by claiming that
the Imams were in a state of political quiescence due to the fact that they were in a state of Taqiyyah! How
utterly convenient!
Yes, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬did seek the office of the Caliphate, but so
too did many other Muslims. For example, Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬sought to be Caliph, but does anyone
ever claim that he thought he was an Infallible Imam? At this point we should make the clear distinction
between an Imam (i.e. leader) and an Infallible Imam; we Sunnis accept the former (Imams as temporal or even
as spiritual leaders) but we reject the concept of Infallible Imams (i.e. the Shia doctrine of Imamah). The term
“Imam” simply translates to “leader”; I could be the Imam of the prayers or even the Imam of my football team.
However, this is not a divinely ordained designation such as Prophethood or Messengership. To extend this
further, a man who works for the postal service could be called a messenger (as he delivers messages), but this
is not to be confused with a divinely appointed Messenger of Allah.
So yes, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬did seek the Caliphate, but he never claimed to be divinely ordained or an Infallible
Imam. There is a huge difference between contesting to be the Caliph of the Muslims (as a temporal leader) and
claiming to be divinely appointed by God Himself (i.e. Imamah). And indeed, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hussain (
ّ ‫)ر‬ did become Caliphs of the Ummah and we do not deny this! They were both Rightly Guided
Caliphs!
The Shia movement began with Abdullah ibn Saba and his Ghullat (extremist) followers. Ibn Saba used to forge
letters in the name of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and distribute them amongst the Shia living in far off places. All of this
went on underground without the knowledge of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬himself; in fact, when Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬did find
out, he burned many Saba’ites to the stake! And this fact–that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬burned extremists within his
own ranks–is attested to even in Shia books.
Throughout the line of the eleven Imams, there were men who claimed to be Wakeels (agents) of these Imams.
These Wakeels appointed themselves as the spokespersons for the Imams. The first Wakeel of the Shia was
Abdullah ibn Saba himself who forged many letters in the name of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and distributed them across
various provinces. And this practise continued with each of the Imams, with fraudsters claiming to be the
Wakeels (agents) of the Imams. These Wakeels claimed to their Shia followers that the Imams were under
house arrest and that they (the Imams) were forbidden from talking to the Shia followers directly, or else they
would be arrested. These Wakeels claimed that the Imams were under Taqiyyah and that the Shia followers
should not–in essence–“blow their cover.” And this is why the Shia masses were never able to communicate
directly with their Imams, and instead were in contact only with the Wakeels. With this masterful excuse of
Taqiyyah, the Wakeels began collecting the Khums tax which Shia believe are due to their Imams. This was the
“end game” of the Wakeels (i.e. to collect the Khums in the name of the Imams and to hoard it for themselves).
Because all these dealings were going on underground, the Imams were largely unaware of this deceit on the
part of the Wakeels, but when they did find out about this, they would condemn the Wakeels.
To give a good analogy, let us take the hypothetical example of a con-artist who wanted to make some money.
So this con-artist will go to a chat-room of Free Mason groupies, and then he will convince them that he is the
Wakeel (agent) of George Bush who is in actuality a Free Mason himself. The con-artist convinces them that
George Bush is a Free Mason by forwarding them a chain e-mail which is supposedly written by George Bush
himself! The con-artist then asks for donations in order to aid George Bush’s re-election, but in reality he
hoards all this wealth for himself, without George Bush knowing about it at all. When one of the Free Masons
groupies asks the con-artist why Bush isn’t here himself to collect the money, the con-artist replies that Bush is
under Taqiyyah (i.e. he is hiding his identity of being a Free Mason). To cover his tracks, the con-artist makes
this crowd of people to swear to secrecy and to operate under Taqiyyah.
The same is what went on with these Wakeels who collected Khums money for themselves, claiming it for the
Imams. But when the Imams themselves found out about this fraud, they took punitive action against these
fraudsters. Let us take the example of Zurarah who was one such self-appointed Wakeel of the Imams. It should
be noted that the Imami Shia revere Zurarah as a very pious religious figure and they narrate many traditions
through him. If you were to ask a Shia who was one of the most pious of the Wakeels, they will tell you
Zurarah. He was one of the founding fathers of Shi’ism; Zurarah claimed to be the Wakeel of Imam Jafar as-
Sadiq (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and he collected Khums money in the name of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
And yet, we find that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬publically denounced and cursed Zurarah! What an
amusing situation the Imami Shia found themselves in, whereby their own Wakeel had been condemned and
cursed by the same man he claimed to be representing! Fear not, for the Shia always had the safety net of
Taqiyyah to resort to! And what an utterly convenient excuse that became. To explain away the actions of Imam
Jafar as-Sadiq (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬,
ّ the Imami Shia claim that Imam Jafar (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬
ّ was simply acting under
Taqiyyah! These Shia claimed that the public condemnation and cursing of Zurarah was just some act designed
to save Zurarah’s life. What another masterful lie that could be fed to the gullible Shia masses! We read from
their very own book which is also referenced on Al-Islam.org:
It seems that because of his vehement activities in the cause of Jafar, Zurara met with some difficulties and even
dangers. Thus, to spare him hardships, (Imam) Jafar, resorting to the principle of Taqiya, apparently disavowed
him and even cursed him…[it was] in order to save Zurara…
(The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, by Dr. S.H.M. Jafri, p.306)
So we see that Imam Jafar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬denounced and even cursed Zurarah, and this was the case not only with
this one particular Wakeel but many other Wakeels as well. Yet, the Imami Shia insulated themselves from the
insults of their own Imams by coming up with the masterful idea that the Imams were actually under Taqiyyah!
This thereby curtailed the ability of the eleven Imams to stop these fraudsters, because they (the fraudsters)
would simply forge many more Hadith and letters in the name of the Infallible Imams claiming that what they
had just said in public was simply under Taqiyyah for fear of being apprehended by the Sunni government.
These Wakeels would forge letters in the name of their Imams claiming that the Imams were opposed to the
Sunni government. Such was the case with Abdullah ibn Saba who forged sayings in the name of Ali (‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬claiming that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was opposed to Caliph Uthman bin Affan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. And these forged
letters were the reason that many people assassinated Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬because they thought that these were
the orders of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬himself, though in reality they were forged by the hands of Abdullah ibn Saba.
Similarly would the Wakeels forge letters in the name of the Imams in which the Imams were supposedly
opposed to the Umayyad or Abbasid Caliphs. The so-called persecution of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt was
actually a horrible exaggeration engineered by the Wakeels who claimed many amazing things such as that the
Imams were imprisoned or even poisoned by the Sunni government. The Shia orchestrated countless rebellions
against the Abbasid Caliphs, and yet we find that the Imams themselves always condemned them and distanced
themselves from the Shia rebels. We read:
(Imam) Al-Sadiq’s quiescent policy did not satisfy a considerable body of his adherents. Their political
movement caused schism amongst the Imamites. The instigator of this political movement was called Abu al-
Khattab…but (Imam) al-Sadiq then repudiated and denounced him…
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, by Dr. Jassim Hussain, p.33)
Abu al-Khattab was yet another self-appointed Wakeel who was repudiated and denounced by the Imam of his
time. These Wakeels routinely forged letters in the name of the Imams, and when the Imams found out of this,
they would always condemn these Wakeels. There are countless such examples, all explained away by the Shia
as being “Taqiyyah” only.
In fact, the Imams even told their companions to work in the Sunni administration of the Abbasids, which is a
clear proof of the Sunni-ness of the Imams. We read:
“(Imam) al-Kazim permitted a few of his adherents to work in the Abbasid administration, especially in the
offices of al-wizaara and al-bareed (government mail)”
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, by Dr. Jassim Hussain, p.36)
The Shia once again explain this away by claiming that these adherents were under Taqiyyah and were simply
working for the Abbasid administration to spy on them. How superb are the Shia excuses to explain away all
facts that do not jive with the Shia paradigm! In fact, to take it one step further, we read in that same book how
the Imam’s friends were even appointed by the Abbasids as governors of entire districts (in Khurasan,
Waddaah, etc). Why indeed would the Abbasid Caliphs do such a thing if they were truly opposed to the
Imams? This is a similar inconsistency the Shia face when they have to explain away why Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
married his daughter off to Umar ibn al-Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬.
The Imams of the Shia were in all actuality Sunnis, and they were very well-respected religious and spiritual
leaders of their communities. The Abbasid Caliph even offered to make one of the Imams his heir-apparent.
Caliph Ma’moon appointed Imam Ar-Ridha (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as the future Caliph of the Muslims! Now we are all
too amused at the way the Shia explain this away: they claim that the Caliph was simply trying to blacken the
reputation of Imam Ar-Ridha (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. What a strange and absurd explanation: why would a person give
the highest office to a man whom he hates? Surely this is nonsense! Not only did caliph Ma’moon give the
Caliphate to Imam Ar-Ridha (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬but he also married his own sister to him.
The Shia base their entire ideology on conspiracy theories, whereby the Imams were actually under Taqiyyah.
But this flouts the actual recorded history in which the Imams never claimed to be Infallible Imams or a part of
the sect and cult known as Imamiyyah.
2. When Husayn writes a letter to the Kufans saying (this is sourced from al-Tabari in the book Early
Shi’i Thought) “People selfishly took away our right…God gave the family of the Prophet authority,”
what does he mean by this? It seems he is obviously claiming imamate, or at the LEAST that God
mandated we follow him.
Answer: Please cite the exact page number of such a quote in al-Tabari, so we can more readily answer your
question. However, it is a well-known fact that many from Bani Hashim believed that they had the most right to
the Caliphate.
After the Prophet’s death, many groups claimed to have the most right to the Caliphate. The Ansars were one
such group. Many of the Ansars, such as Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, claimed that their right to authority
was taken away by the Quraish; but does anyone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬or the rest of the
Ansars were claiming to be Infallible Imams divinely appointed by Allah Himself? Surely not!
Yes, at first Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬held the erroneous view that the Caliphate should remain within the Prophet’s
clan. However, he later recanted from that view and said this on his death-bed:
“I know it full well that the Prophethood and the Caliphate cannot co-exist together in our family.”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.26)
Abu Sufyan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was one such person who believed that the Caliphate should belong to Bani Hashim,
and he was one of the most vociferous in saying this to the point of even offering to raise an army on behalf of
Bani Hashim. But does anyone claim that Abu Sufyan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was an Imami Shia who believed in the
divine Imamah of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫( ?)ر‬In fact, the Shia not only reject the idea that Abu Sufyan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was
a Shia, but they despise him!)
So we see that many from amongst Bani Hashim felt that they had the most right to the Caliphate, and they
furthered this demand many times. This was in large part due to the rivalry between Bani Hashim and Bani
Umayyah, both of which claimed to have the most right to the Caliphate. So we see that this debate was not a
religious one, but rather a political one, with each group claiming that it was more fit to be the temporal ruler of
the Muslims.
It should also be noted that Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was fighting for the rights of the entire clan of Bani Hashim,
including the ancestors of the Abbasids. One will find that the Abbasids likewise claimed that they were most
fit to rule due to their being of the same clan as the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. This does not at all mean that
they were claiming to be divinely appointed Imams, and nobody from amongst the Abbasids was known for
that. Instead, they were simply claiming the right to Caliphate, and not the doctrine of Imamah that the Shia
believe in. Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬believed that he was more fit to rule the Muslims due to the fact that he was the
Prophet’s grandson, and he felt that Yezid stole this right of his. It has everything to do with Caliphate and
nothing to do with Imamah.
You have quoted the following “God gave the family of the Prophet authority”, and this was the claim of many
from amongst the Bani Hashim–including the Abbasids who were avowed Sunnis and despised by the Imami
Shia! In other words, their argument was that since Allah had risen a Prophet out of Bani Hashim, He had thus
placed Bani Hashim in power and authority over and above other clans. Likewise, did Bani Umayyah claim that
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had chosen the Umayyads for he had married from amongst them. These
arguments were based on political–and not religious–rivalries between the two clans.
3. Further, with the Hadith (judged Sahih in Tirmidhi) that says “Ali is with the Truth (haqq) and the
Qur’an, and the Truth and the Qur’an are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come
upon me at Kawthar” doesn’t that make Ali’s claims to Imamate to be true?
Answer: There is no doubt in the minds of the Ahlus Sunnah that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was an honorable and honest
man. Here, you have indicated that since he was with the Truth and the Quran, does that not validate his claims
of being an Infallible Imam? Yet, this question is invalid because Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬never claimed to be divinely
appointed by Allah at all. Yes, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬did contest the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Uthman
ّ ‫)ر‬, but this was merely a political matter, just as Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬had contested Abu
Bakr’s Caliphate and how Zubair (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬contested the Caliphate during the electoral council after Umar’s
death.

ّ ‫ )ر‬never claimed for himself the Shia doctrine of Imamah, which is a baseless doctrine that finds
absolutely no proof for itself in the Quran. We ask you, brother, to look into the Quran and see if this doctrine is
ever mentioned in the Quran and you will find that it is never mentioned! It is an imaginary doctrine, so it is
quite wrong to attribute this idea to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was innocent from that.
4. I do not particularly consider myself either Shi’i or Sunni muslim
Answer: Brother, there is no such thing as Shia Islam; Shi’ism is distinct from Islam. We strongly urge you to
embrace mainstream Islam instead of following the deviant ways of the sects and cults. May Allah guide you–
and us–to the Truth!
Please feel free to ask any more questions.
Fi Aman Allah,
Team Ahlel Bayt.
Quran (13:7): Not a Proof for Imamah
Al-Islam.org says
“ [Pooya/Ali Commentary 13:7]
“You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people.” [Quran, 13:7]
Imam Muhammad bin Ali al Baqir also said that “the warner” means the Holy Prophet and “the guide” means
Ali and added “the authority to guide continues among us”. This verse also points to the continued existence of
a “guide”, namely al Mahdi al Qa-im…
The enemies of the Ahl ul Bayt try to conceal their merits, and deny their divine rights, but Allah’s plan is
always executed and His will invariably takes effect…
Aqa Mahdi Puya says…The Holy Prophet is a warner and every nation has a guide [i.e. the 12 Imams]
source: Pooya/Ali Commentary, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/ ”
Response
This translation of verse 13:7 relies on the current “Shakir” translation which is actually a forgery based off of
Maulana Muhammad Ali’s 1917 translation, who was an Ahmadi (i.e. Qadiani)!
The proper translation of the Quranic verse reads:
Verse 13:7
YUSUFALI: And the disbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But you (O
Muhammad) are truly a warner and to every people a guide.
PICKTHAL: Those who disbelieve say: “If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord!” You
(O Muhammad) are a warner only and for every folk a guide.
It is clear that here Allah has called the Prophet Muhammad as both a warner and a guide to all people. Indeed,
it is our Islamic belief that the Prophet was the only Prophet sent to all of mankind, and this is what is meant by
this Quranic verse.
Shia Believe in Holy Books After the Quran
As Muslims, we believe in the finality of Prophethood and the finality of the Holy Books. Prophet Muhammad ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬was the final Prophet. The Quran was the final Holy Book of Allah.
The Shia reject both of these central tenets of Islam. They extend the Prophethood through their Imams, who are
considered by them to be superior to Prophets (other than Prophet Muhammad). The Shia also believe in holy
books after the Quran, including the Mushaf Fatima (Book of Fatima), Al-Jamia, and Al-Jafr (The
Parchment). According to the Shia, these are books divinely inspired from Allah. There are many Shia Hadith
which refer to these three holy books, and we shall herein reference them.
These Shia Hadith are in Al-Kafi, the most important of the four books of Shia Hadith. These Hadith can also
be found on the very popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com.
(see: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm)
Another popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, explains what these holy books of the Shia are.
(see: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html)
 Al-Jamia
The Shia believe that this book, Al-Jamia, contains “all the lawful and unlawful” as well as “all matters that
people need.” It is considered to be more complete than the Quran, and it is also much larger than the Quran,
apparently the size of the leg of a huge camel.
According to the Shia website, Al-Islam.org:
“Al-Jami’a is a book of 70 cubits long. It is a book which was dictated by the Prophet (SAW) to Imam Ali (AS)
and, according to traditions preserved by Kulayni in his al-Kafi, has details of all the halal and the haram. It also
has all the legal judgements that people need to know.”
(source: Al-Islam.org,
http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html)
The Shia will sometimes defend themselves by saying that these holy books are not extensions of the Quran
because they do not dictate religious law. But the reality is that Al-Jamia supposedly contains the complete
Shariah, or religious law! It has the Shariah compensation for even the scratch caused by a person. It is thus
quite literally a “better” Quran.
Let us examine the Shia Hadith from Al-Kafi in regards to al-Jamia:
Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1
The Imam (a.s.) then said, “O abu Muhammad, with us there is al-Jami’a. What do they know what al-Jami is?”
I then asked, “May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, what is al-Jami’a?” The Imam (a.s.) said, “it
is a parchment seventy yards by the yards of the Messenger of Allah long that contains his dictations that is
engraved in to with the right hand writing of Ali (a.s.). It contains all the lawful and unlawful and all matters
that people need, even the law of compensation…[even for] a scratch caused to a person.” He then
stretched his hand to me and asked, “May I, O abu Muhammad?” I then replied, “May Allah take my soul in
service for your cause, I am all at your disposal.” He pinched me with his hand and said, “Even there is the law
of compensation for this.”
(Source: Al-Shia.com,
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm)
Hadith 639, Ch. 40, h 5
Then they asked the Imam (a.s.) about al-Jami’a. The Imam (a.s.) replied, “It is a parchment that is seventy
yards long with a width of hide like that of the leg of a huge camel. It contains all that people may need.
There is no case for there is a rule in it. In it there is the law to settle the compensation for a scratch
caused to a person.”
Hadith 640, Ch. 40, h 6

“With us there are such things that because of which we do not need people [but] instead people need us. With
us there is a book that the Messenger of Allah had dictated and Ali (a.s.) had written it down. It is a book.
In it there are all laws of lawful and unlawful matters.”
 Al-Jafr
Another Shia holy book includes “Al-Jafr” which is a parchment that contains the knowledge of not only
Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but also of the past Prophets and Infallible Imams. Al-Islam.org
says:
“…al-Jafr, on the other hand, is a book which Imam ‘Ali inherited from the Prophet. It contains knowledge of
past and future events.”
Not only this, but it would contain knowledge of the future including the names of every king who would rule
on earth. Such knowledge is of course not contained in the Quran, so we see that the Shia belief in such a lofty
book really decreases the signfiicance of our Quran. We find the following Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi:
Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1
The Imams (a.s.) remained silent for a while and then said, “With us there is al-Jafr (the parchment). What do
they know what al-Jafr is?” I then asked, “What is al-Jafr (the parchment or a container) ?” The Imams
(a.s.) said, “It is a container made of skin that contains the knowledge of the prophets and the executors of
their wills and the knowledge of the scholars in the past from the Israelites.”
H 639, Ch. 40, h 5
The Imam (a.s.) said: “It [Al-Jafr] is the skin of a bull which is full of knowledge.”
Hadith 641, Ch. 40, h 7
The Imam (a.s.) said, “I swear by Allah that with me there are two books in which there is the name of every
prophet and the name of every king that would rule on earth.”
 Mushaf Fatima
Perhaps the most important of the Shia holy books after the Quran is the “Mushaf Fatima,” or the “Book of
Fatima.” What is extremely troubling is that the Shia believe that after the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬died,
Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬took over the role of Prophethood by recieving divine inspiration. Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
supposedly recieved divine inspiration, and she would then narrate these divine revelations to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
who would write it down. It should be noted that this is slander against Fatima ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and the Shia are
accusing her of creating a holy book after the Quran and thereby acting as a Dajjal, or false prophet.
The Shia narrations boast about how much greater the Mushaf Fatima is than the Quran, declaring that it was
“three times bigger than your Quran.” The Shia will deny that this is the “Shia Quran” and they will try to
cogitate that there is no comparison between the Quran and the Mushaf Fatima. Then, we wonder: why is their
own Imam making such a comparison in the Hadith? Logically, since the Shia Hadith is comparing the Mushaf
Fatima to the Quran, the unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the Shia believe them to be on a
similar level.
The Mushaf Fatima actually contains information in it that is not in the Quran, including knowledge of future
events. The Shia believe that Mushaf Fatima, along with Al-Jamia and Al-Jafr, are books that were restricted to
the eyes of the Infallible Imams and nobody else. It was these books which supposedly gave the Imams their
immense knowledge.
Let us see Shia Hadith from Al-Kafi on this matter:
Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1
The Imams (a.s.) remained silent for a while and then said, “With us there is the book (Mushaf) of Fatima,
(a.s.) What do they know what Mushaf of Fatima is?” The Imam (a.s.) said, “Mushaf of Fatima is three times
bigger than your Quran. There is not even a single letter therein from your Quran.”
Hadith 636, Ch. 40, h 2
“The heretics will appear in the year one hundred twenty eight (745/746AD) because I have found it in the
Mushaf of Fatima (a.s.).” The narrator has said that he asked the Imams (a.s.), “What is Mushaf of Fatima?”
The Imams (a.s.) said, “When Allah took the Holy Prophet (s.a.) from this world, it caused such a degree of
grief to Fatima (a.s.) that only Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, knows its extent. Allah then sent an angel
to her to offer solace and speak to her. She complained about it to Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.) who asked her
to inform him whenever she would find the angel speak to her. She then informed him when the angel came to
speak. Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.) then would write down all that he would hear of the conversations of the
angel so much so that his notes took the shape of a whole book.”
Hadith 639, Ch. 40, h 5
The narrator has said that he asked the Imams (a.s.), “What is Mushaf of Fatima?” The Imam (a.s.) waited for
quite a while. Then he said, “You ask about what you really mean and what you do not mean. Fatima (a.s.) lived
after the Messenger of Allah for seventy-five days. She was severely depressed because of the death of her
father. Jibril (a.s.) would come to provide her solace because of the death of her father. Jibril would comfort
her soul. Jibril would inform her about her father and his place and of the future events and about what
will happen to her children. At the same time Ali (a.s.) would write all of them down and thus is Mushaf
of Fatima (a.s.).”
 Conclusion
How can the Shia then claim to be Muslim when they believe in holy books after the Quran? We do not believe
that people of the Bahai faith are Muslim, simply because they follow another holy book after the Quran! Truly,
such beliefs constitute Kufr Akbar (Major Disbelief).
Another oddity is that the Shia Imams supposedly possessed books of immense knowledge and yet they hid
them from the world, according to the Shia. These Imams did not share these books with their Shia followers.
Today, we do not find any Shia who has ever seen these three mysterious holy books. Indeed, the Shia believe
that the Hidden Imam has also hidden these books with himself. Imams are meant to guide, so why would they
possibly hide books of knowledge? The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was given the Quran, but he did not hide
this holy book from the people. Instead, he shared it with the world and told everyone to spread it so that people
be guided.
It would be childish of the Imams to say “this book is mine…stay away!” In fact, in the Shia Hadith, one of the
Infallible Imams of the Shia says:
“With us there are such things [i.e. Jafr Al-Jami] that because of which we do not need people [but] instead
people need us.”
It is a bit odd that the Imam would be boasting about this. The only explanation as to why the Shia Imams hid
their holy books is that these books simply did not exist and are a figment of the Shia imagination.
The truth is that the fundamentals of the Shia faith–in particular the institution of Imamah (which is the major
difference between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia)–are simply not in the Quran. Thus, the Shia are forced to
find the tenets of their faith in another book. On the other hand, the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah will continue
to reject any holy books after the Quran, and instead vehemently defends the absolute finality of the Quran and
the Islamic message.
Saying “Ya Ali Madad” is Shirk

The Shia are guilty of committing Shirk by giving characteristics of Allah to their Imams. The Shia even pray to
their Imams and invoke their names by saying “Ya Ali” or “Ya Hussain” or “Ya Nabi!” They then proceed to
make du’a asking for whatever they want. The famous Shia prayer “Ya Ali Madad” means “O Ali, help us!”
According to the very basic principles of Islam, this is Shirk (associating partners with Allah). What power does
Ali have to grant our requests? What power does Prophet Muhammad have to grant our requests? Indeed,
nobody save Allah has the power to grant our requests.
It is not permissible to ask Allah by the virtue of anyone, not even by the virtue of the Prophets or Messengers
or Awliyaa’ or righteous people. No one can compel Allah to do anything. It is not permissible to ask Him in
any way except by His Names and Attributes, as Allah says:
“And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him…” (Quran, 7:180)
And yet we see the Shia saying things like “Naad-e-Ali” which means “call on Ali!” We should only call on
Allah. Ali will tell these deviant Shia to stop calling him as he has no power, but rather to call Allah for help. In
the same manner will Prophet Isa repudiate the Christians for calling on him as opposed to Allah.
With regard to saying to the occupant of a grave, “O So and so, help me,” this is obviously Shirk, because it is a
supplication to someone other than Allah. Asking by the virtue of someone is a means to Shirk, and calling
upon a created being is Shirk in worship.
How can a Muslim seek assistance from any other than Allah Almighty? Despite the fact that every Muslim
must repeat the following words from the Quran in his prayer (salat) at least seventeen times a day:
“You alone do we worship, and Your aid alone we seek.” (Quran, 1:5)
We see the Shia saying things like “Ya Ali” and “Ya Mehdi” when they are distressed and need help. They will
say “Ya Ali Madad!” These people cry out these names in times of distress when they wish for help. In true
Islam, however, we should only say “Ya Allah!” Calling out anyone else’s name for help is Shirk, because we
believe only Allah can help us! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet, as well as the way of Ali.
Allah Almighty says clearly in the Quran:
“And invoke not, besides Allah, [anyone since that] will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did
so, you shall certainly be one of the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers). And if Allah should afflict you
with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His
grace.” (Quran, 10:106-107)
Humans, no matter their status, cannot help anyone or harm anyone. Only Allah Almighty can cause harm and
only He can bring benefit to us. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:
“Say [O Muhammad]: ‘I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as Allah wills’” (Quran, 7:188)
If the Prophet could not even have power of good or harm over himself, then how can we say that he has such
powers over others? If the Prophet himself declares that he cannot bring good or harm, then why are we asking
him?
Islam is a fiercely monothiestic faith, and rejects all forms of intermediaries with Allah. Intermediaries are none
other than idols. The pagans believe that their idols are intermediaries, and they invoke them to ask God for
help through them. So too do the Christians believe in Jesus as an intermediary to God. And so have the Imams
become an intermediary and idols for the Shia.
How often do we hear the Shia say: “Ya Ali, give us [such and such]” or “Ya Hussain, rescue us!” The Shia
even go to the graves of their Imams, crying and rubbing their tombs; it is not unusual to see a Shia kissing the
grave of his Imam and invoking the deceased Imam’s name in du’a. The Shia cry to their idols, kiss them, and
invoke them.
Then after doing all of this, the same Shia will say unashamedly about the Imam whose tomb they just cried to:
“I do not worship him.” This fact is embodied in their dictum: “Call upon Ali, the revealer of wonders.” When
these same people are asked if they worship Ali, they categorically deny this, despite the fact that they call upon
his name (and their Imams) appealing for aid in obtaining their most demanding needs.
This is exactly what modern day Hindus do. They worship idols, but if we ask them, they will look at us straight
in the eye and say that they are monothiests. They claim that they aren’t worshipping the idols, and that the
idols are just intermediaries to God.
O Shia, come to the Call of Islam and to Absolute Tawheedullah (Oneness of Allah). “La Illaha Illalah”…There
is no God except Allah! None is equal to Him and no partners and no intermediaries does He need.
“The most beautiful names belong to Allah; so call on Him by them…” (Quran, 7:180)
Allah did not say: “So call on Him by the names of the Imams, their shrines, etc.”
Allah Almighty also said in the Quran:
“And your Lord says: ‘Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer).’” (Quran, 40:60)
Allah did not say: “Call on Me by the names of the Imams, I will answer your prayer.”
We should invoke Allah and Allah alone for Help, and asking anyone else is Shirk, the one sin Allah will not
forgive.
Allah Almighty says it so clearly in the Quran:
“Verily those whom you call upon besides Allah are servants like you. Therefore, call upon them, and let them
listen to your prayers, if you are (indeed) truthful!” (Quran, 7: 194)
This is a challenge from Allah, whereby Allah dares anyone to ask others for help. Nobody can listen to our
prayers and grant them except Allah the Almighty.
Allah Almighty mocks those people who go to graves to supplicate invoking their Saints:
“If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not
grant it (your request) to you….But you cannot make those hear who are in graves…” (Quran, Chapter 35)
Islam shuns the superstitious (and useless) practise of visiting graves to worship (and in fact considers it
Haram).
“Call upon those whom you imagine beside Allah! They have not an atom’s weight of power either in the
heavens or in the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor does He need any of them as a helper.” (Quran,
34:22)
Allah Almighty says again in the Quran:
“Yet have they taken, besides Him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no
control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor Life nor Resurrection.” (Quran, 25:3)
Prophet Muhammad and Ali will say it proudly on the Day of Judgement that they are only slaves of Allah. In
fact, the Prophet was asked by Allah if he would rather be a king of men or a slave of Allah. The Prophet chose
to be a slave of Allah. There is no shame in this, and it is not belittling the status of either the Prophet nor Ali in
the least in admitting that they cannot give benefit nor do harm even to themselves.
The Christians may think that we are insulting Prophet Jesus by saying that he is only a slave, but the Quran
says:
“Christ disdains not to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah).” (Quran, 4:172)
The Prophet and Ali would be included in “those nearest (to Allah)” who would not disdain to serve and
worship Allah. All are powerless except Allah, and this is why we ask only Him for help. This is the essence of
Islam. Anything other than this is Shirk and subsequent Kufr.
The Shia teach their children to supplicate by calling out the names of their Imams, thereby inculcating the
habits of polythiesm in their children from a young age. This must be rejected, and children must be taught to
only ask Allah for help and do so by using His Names, as mentioned in the Quran.
We will even find Shia who recite the names of Ali, Hasan, and Hussain whilst they do Tasbeeh, and claim that
this is Dhikr. It is nothing short of Shirk, and Ali would burn such people on the stake if he knew that they were
doing such things. In a similar manner did Ali burn the followers of Abdullah ibn Saba to the stake for the very
same blasphemy.
The Shia believe that their prayers are accepted because they invoke the names of their Imams. They believe
that the names of their Imams are the key-factor for acceptance of their prayers and a major prerequisite for
getting invocations answered by Allah. This is similar to the unfounded claim by the polythiests who say that
their idols draw them nearer to Allah.
The polythiests would say that the idols are a “Waseelah” to bring them close to Allah. And likewise, the Shia
say that their Imams and Saints are the Waseelah to Allah, intermediaries who can bring them closer to Allah.
This is the concept of Tawassul, but it is rejected by true Muslims, who believe that the only Waseelah to Allah
is to be pious and to invoke Allah and Allah alone for help!
Whoever worships Ali, know that he is dead and that he cannot hear our cries, and even if he could, he could do
nothing to help us. But whoever worships Allah, let him know that Allah is Alive and can never die, and that He
has promised us help if we just turn to Him and Him alone. We should say only “Ya Allah Madad.”
ّ ‫ )ر‬or Jesus (‫?)عليه السالم‬
At first glance, these pictures seem like they are of Jesus Christ ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬as depicted by the Christians. However, all of
the pictures on this page are actually of Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Indeed, the Shia have done the same with Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬that
the Christians have done with Prophet Isa ( ‫)عليه السالم‬. The Shia claim that they love Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and have thus exalted
his status, but Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬himself will condemn them on the Day of Judgement, just like Prophet Isa ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬will
condemn the Christians for falsely exalting his position.
“O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the
inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of
the way.” (Quran, 5:77)
The Christians ascribe qualities of Allah to Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬in the name of loving him. So too do the Shia
exalt the status of Imamah in order to praise Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. The Shia say that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is perfect,
infallible, cannot make mistakes, cannot sin, knows Al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knows when he will die, dies only
by his own wish, and has the power to do Tawassul for his followers. The Shia refer to Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as
“Mazhar Al Aja-ib” which translates to “The Executor of Wonders,” a name that should only be used for Allah
Almighty. The Christians call Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬the Son of God, but the Shia go one step even further and call Ali (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to be the “Yadullah” or the “Hand of Allah.” The Shia call Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬the Living “Ism-i
Azam” or the Living “Supreme Name of God.”
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was a person, just like the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was a person. Yes, they were best of
people, but they were still people. They were still creation, and only Allah is the Creator. It should become all
too obvious to the unbiased observor how similar the Shia are to the Christians. Even we can compare a picture
of Ali (as depicted by the Shia) and Jesus (as depicted by the Christians) here. Notice the similarities:
It is compeletly forbidden in true Islam to make pictures of the Prophets or Imams. This is considered Shirk and
is a polythiestic practise of pagan people who desire to see the unseen because they are weak of faith and would
rather worship idols as opposed to Allah Who is part of Al-Ghaib (the Unseen). The manner in which the Shia
make portraits of these great figures is blasphemy and is actually very insulting to the Ahlus Sunnah. Yet, we
see that the Shia worldwide put up pictures of Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬in their houses. In fact, one simply has to turn on
the television to see marches in Iraq in which the Shia are parading around with pictures of Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
And this is not just done by some errant Shia, but rather it is sanctioned by the Shia Ulema. Ayatollah Sistani,
one of the leading Shia Imams, said “it is permissible to hang them” in reference to pictures of Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
When the Shia are questioned as to why they allow picture-making of their Imams, they will defend themselves
with weak arguments; but the truth is clear to the believers who know that it can only be wrong. We wonder
why these same Shia do not make pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Why then is it
permissible to draw pictures of Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and not of the Prophet (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬And why not take
it one step further and draw pictures of the Angels, Paradise, or even of Allah Almighty Himself?
Below we have included some Shia pictures of Ali (‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬we observe how dramatically similar they are
to the Mushrik Christian depictions of Prophet Isa (‫)عليه السالم‬. This is a mockery of Islam, and of the great Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Islam came to reject such polythiestic practises, and we find that the Ahlus Sunnah has never
engaged in such blasphemy.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Ali’s Message (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in Nahjul Balagha
The Nahjul Balagha is considered sacred by the Shia, which they consider the most reliable source for the words,
sermons, and letters of Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Let us examine one of these sermons in particular, which is available on the
popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org:
Ali says:
“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 keeping unity. 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. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he
may be under this headband of mine.”
(Source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/126.htm)
Let us now reflect on the words of Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, line by line.
“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…”
We could not possibly find a better description for the Shia than this. The Shia love Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬so much
that they exaggerate and exalt his status to a level of Shirk, thereby going away from rightfulness. The Shia give
the names of Allah to Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, calling him the Living “Ism-i Azam” of Allah, or the Living Supreme
Name of Allah. They call Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬the Mazhar Al Aja-ib (The Executor of Wonders) and Mushkil
Kusha (the Remover of Hardships) . They exaggerate so much that they call Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to be the Yadullah
(hand of Allah). They call him Asdadullah (unconquerable and ever-overpowering strength of Allah). They say
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was too powerful for even the angels to stop him, that all the atoms in the world submit to Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is the speaking Quran, and is the Mirror of Allah.
Look how loving Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬too much has caused them to exaggerate his status like the Christians did
with Jesus (‫)عليه السالم‬, and look how this leads to Shirk. It also leads to going away from rightfulness, such as
how the Shia hate the wives and companions of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬warned the
Shia on this matter. And the source is the Shia’s very own Nahjul Balagha.
“…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 keeping unity.”
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬says not to hate him like the Nasibis (haters of Ahlel Bayt). He then says that the best of people
are the ones who are on the middle course. Who else is that other than the mainstream Muslims (i.e. the Ahlus
Sunnah)? The Ahlus Sunnah loves Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬deeply, and considers him one of the greatest Sahabah. On
the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah does not exaggerate by giving him characteristics of Allah, nor do they hate
the wives or friends of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬says be with the majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity.
Can the Shia really get a clearer command than this? Who is the majority of the Muslims other than the
orthodox Ahlus Sunnah? Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬says be with the great majority of Muslims, not split up into these
tiny Shia sects.
“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.”
So why is it then that the Shia have schismed from the Ummah? Are they not a prey of Shaitan’s now? And so
it is that Shaitan has infiltrated the ranks of the Shia, leading so many millions of Shia astray. Why do the Shia
not follow Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬when he says to be with the great majority of Muslims?
“Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”
Even if someone claims to be a Shia’t Ali (i.e. under the headband of Ali), he really is an enemy of Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬if he calls for sectarianism and the creation of a religious sect. This is Ali’s condemnation of all Shia sects
that have split away from the mainstream Muslims. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬even commanded these heretics to be
killed, so it can be seen that he has no compassion for any of these deviants even if they claim to love him.
Turbah: Sajdah to the Imams
The Shia place a piece of stone or clay, known as “Turbah,” on the ground so that their forehead touches the
stone when they prostrate themselves in prayer. The Turbahs are made out of the stone or clay from the shrines
of Imams or saints. Oftentimes, the Turbah is made from the clay or stone from Imam Hussain’s shrine. The
Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussain’s
shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Ka’abah.
By praying to stones made from the shrines of their Imams and saints, the Shia are practising a polythiestic and
paganistic act of grave-worshipping; they are quite literally making Sajood (prostration) to the Imams or saints.
Indeed, praying to the Turbah of these Imams and saints is Bidah (evil innovation) and Shirk; it is not much
different than idol worshipping. What is the difference between the idol that Hindus do Sajood to and the
Turbah that the Shia do Sajood to? Both are considered Waseelah to bring them closer to God, and both of them
are prostrated to.
Shi’ism is rooted in Shirk; the Shia have allowed their so-called love for the Imams translate into polythiestic
adoration.
Grave Worship
We have seen in previous articles how the Shia believe that the Imams are infallible and posses many attributes
of Allah. But the Shia don’t stop there; they have taken it to the next level. The Shia have erected shrines over
the graves of their Imams. Millions of Shia from all over the world visit these shrines in Iran and Iraq to pray in
them.
The Ahlus Sunnah is stunned by this pagan practise of creating shrines and grave-worshipping. The Shia will
argue that they really aren’t praying to the deceased, but that really doesn’t make any sense. Why then do they
travel all the way to Iran to do prayer? Surely they believe there is some benefit of praying next to the body of a
deceased Imam? Otherwise, why would they come from so far to do it?
Shrines are completely Haram (forbidden) in Islam because they are paganistic and polythiestic in nature.
Historically, Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬destroyed all the shrines in Mecca. This point cannot be
stressed enough: the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬shed blood of the Sahabah in order that Mecca be cleansed of
shrines, and this was one of the Prophet’s first legislative acts after the Muslims conquered Mecca. How is it
that the Shia do not realize that what they are doing is completely antithetical to the entire mission of the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬who was sent to guide a shrine-worshipping people?
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬repeatedly condemned grave-worshipping in the authentic Hadith:
“Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of
worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.” (Sahih Muslim)
“May Allah’s curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” (Sahih
Bukhari)
“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”
(Sahih Bukhari)
“If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make
these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection.” (Sahih
Bukhari)
“Do not sit on the graves and do not pray facing towards them.” (Sahih Bukhari)
The first time in human history that people commited the sin of idol-worship was around the time of Prophet
Nuh (‫)عليه السالم‬. A very pious man passed away. Shaytan whispered in the ears of the tonwnspeople: he urged
them never to forget this pious man lest the townspeople abandon his example and be lost to sin. Once Shaytan
had convinced them of the necessity to revere the memory of this pious dead man, he then then convinced them
to erect a shrine over the grave of this man. Eventually, the people started praying in the shrine, and soon
thereafter Shaytan convinced them to pray to the deceased man.
It was in this step by step fashion that Shaytan was able to misguide people into Shirk. He convinced them that
they were doing a good thing by respecting a pious man, and he allowed them to add one Bidah (evil
innovation) after another, infusing polythiestic practise in their belief. Likewise do the Shia believe that they are
being pious by visiting shrines but in reality they have been fooled by Shaytan.
Of course, the Shia will make the futile argument that they really aren’t praying to the deceased person. It just
so happens that they pray next to the grave and supplicate. Indeed, this argument sounds very similar to what
modern-day Hindus claim. Hindus say that they don’t really worship the idol itself, that they really are
worshipping God, and that they are just facing the idol. We see there is very little difference between what the
Shia say and what the Hindus say.
The Islamic ethos deplores all idol-worshipping and is very strict in forbidding it. There is absolutely no point
in praying next to someone’s grave. There is no benefit in it, and grave-worship is considered a grave sin (no
pun intended). It is Shirk, and no matter what the intention is, it is still praying to the creation instead of the
Creator. We urge any Shia reading this to immediately cease engaging in idol-worshipping. If a Muslim wants
to “pay his respects” to a religious person of old, the best way to do that is to be an upright Muslim: to read
Quran, to pray Salat, to give Zakat, to make Hajj, and to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬does not want anyone to commit Shirk to him. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬does not want
anyone to commit Shirk to him. Neither would any pious person ever want someone to use them to commit
Shirk. The pious Muslims of the past would only want the Muslims of today to also be pious.
It is polythiestic the manner in which the Shia go to their shrines and cry next to them, rub them, and pray to
them. It is Shirk reminscent of the Jahiliyyah times when the pagan Arabs used to do this. Tawheedullah (the
Unity and Oneness of Allah) is the central tenet of Islam, and the Shia are guilty of violating this core belief by
engaging in Shirk, which is the absolute major sin in Islam. The main emphasis in Islam is to stay away from
Shirk, and yet the Shia embrace practises and customs that foster Shirk.
Who Invented Shirk?
The first people to commit Shirk (associating Partners with Allah) and idol-worship were the people of Prophet
Nuh (‫)عليه السالم‬. At that time, there were very few who could be called Mu’min, or good-doers; when one of the
Mu’min passed away, Shaytan came to the remaining people and told them that they should never forget this
Mu’min. To this, the people agreed. Shaytan then convinced the people that they should mark the grave of this
Mu’min lest he be forgotten. The people agreed to this. Slowly and gradually, Shaytan convinced them to create
new Bidah (innovations to Islam), such as build shrines around the graves of the man, and they began to refer to
him as a “saint.”
All of this Shaytan convinced the people that it was for a good cause: to remember the good-doers! Soon,
Shaytan convinced the people to put up pictures of the pious people…then, he convinced them to go to their
graves to worship…then, Shaytan told them to ask Allah for things by invoking the names of these saints…
eventually, the people started using these saints as Waseelah, or intermediaries to Allah. They would invoke the
names of the saints, and they would ask them for special favors. These people–the originators of Shirk–then
crossed over to the obvious eventuality: they began worshipping the saints.
The Shia have fallen into the same trap as the people of Prophet Nuh (‫)عليه السالم‬. They have done the same with
their Imams and saints. The Shia have erected shrines for their Imams and saints. They put up pictures of them
and they invoke their names in prayer. Some even do Tasbeeh to their names. They ask their dead Imams and
saints for special favors and believe in Waseelah through their Imams and saints.
Another example for the Shia to ponder is the example of the Christians, who exalted the status of Prophet Isa (
‫)عليه السالم‬. The Christians say that they love Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬but the truth is that Prophet Isa (‫)عليه السالم‬
will condemn them on the Day of Judgment. Likewise will Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬condemn those Shia who have
exalted his status.
Why do people commit Shirk? Shirk is actually a reflection of the base and primitive carnal instincts of
barbarian men. Primitive men have poor cognitive abilities and they do not possess the higher mental functions
to even think of the Al-Ghaib (the Unseen). They can only see what is in front of their very own eyes. What
they cannot see is not a reality, and they cannot deal with that. They are like animals; for example, the deer only
reacts to a car that is about to hit it, but it does not possess the cognitive ability to think that maybe it should
avoid roads because cars come there. It cannot imagine the cars, but can only see them when it is far too late,
and the car comes crashing into it.
Primitive man needs to worship whatever it can see: the sun, the moon, trees, rocks, people, shrines, etc. These
are physical things and do not require advanced abstraction. But the reality is that “blessed are those who have
not seen and yet believe.” Allah Almighty could easily reveal Himself and thus make everyone believe in Him,
but the very purpose of the test is to believe in the Unseen and to reject the baseness of this Dunya (materialistic
life).
Primitive men cling to polythiestic practises such as Ziaarat, grave-worshipping, Turbah, pictures of their
saints, shrines, etc…but Islam came to destroy polythiesm and paganism, and beckons its believers to let go of
primitive practises and to instead worship Allah and Allah Alone. Allah is Unseen and yet we believe in His
Omnipotency.
Shrines: the Need to Raze Them and Level the Graves
It is a sad state of affairs that errant Muslims have raised graves, mounted shrines over them, and exalted the
dead as was the practise of the pagans before the Call to Islam. Today, Muslims have built huge shrines over the
graves of some of the Ahlel Bayt, Sahabah, the righteous people, and others. This has led to the inevitable result
of mimicking pagans who worship the dead, either directly or indirectly. There is therefore a necessity to raze to
the ground these pagan shrines and to level the graves, as was the Sunnah.
Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid says:
“Islam forbids erecting structures over graves, and commands that any such structures should be knocked down.
But it is permitted to put a marker on the grave so that the family and friends of the deceased will know where it
is (and nothing more than this). However, this marker should not be a structure or anything else that is not
allowed in sharee’ah.”
With regard to the prohibition on erecting structures over graves, it was narrated that Jabir said: “The
Messenger of Allah forbade plastering over graves, sitting on them and erecting structures over them.” (Sahih
Muslim, 970)
Al-Shawkani said:
“The phrase ‘erecting structures over them’ indicates that it is Haram to build anything over a grave.”
Al-Shafi’i said:
“I saw the imams in Makkah ordering that what had been built (over graves) was to be knocked down.”
“With regard to the command to knock down structures that have been built over graves, that is proven in the
Sunnah.”
It was narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: Ali ibn Abi Talib said to me: “Shall I not send you on the same
mission as the Messenger of Allah sent me? Do not leave any statue without erasing it, and do not leave any
raised grave without leveling it.” (Sahih Muslim, 969).
Al-Shawkani said:
“The words ‘do not leave any raised grave without leveling it’ means that the Sunnah is that a grave should not
be made very high, and there should be no differentiation between those who were virtuous and those who were
not virtuous.”
“Making a grave higher than the amount that is permitted is Haram…The making graves high that is mentioned
in the Hadith especially includes the domes and shrines that are built over graves, and the taking of graves as
places of worship. The Prophet cursed those who do that (refer to Nayl al-Awtaar, 4/130).”
All of these pagan shrines should be torn down and removed. Instead, all of the dead should have flat and level
graves equal to everyone else. This is the faith of Islam. For the one who cannot accept this, he has deviated
away from the path of the Hanif (i.e. the monotheists) and inclined himself towards the Mushriks.
Saqifah: A Sunni View
Shia says
“Abu Bakr and Umar conspired to steal the Caliphate from Imam Ali (A.S.). After
the Prophet’s death, these two fools rushed to Saqifah in order to quickly bring Abu
Bakr to power in a coup d’état against the Ahlul Bayt. Meanwhile, Imam Ali (A.S.)
was unable to attend the meeting in Saqifah because he was too busy attending the
funeral of the Prophet (S.A.W.). And yet, Abu Bakr and Umar did not even have the
decency to attend the Prophet’s funeral and instead were so greedy that they used
that time to declare Abu Bakr the Caliph.
How can you follow such people who are so greedy and power hungry that they
didn’t even attend the funeral of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and instead used that time to
aggrandize themselves?
”
The matter was not at all as our Shia brothers say. The Shaikhayn (Abu Bakr and
Umar) did not at all intend to steal the Caliphate, nor did they miss out on the
Prophet’s funeral. Let us now narrate the story of Saqifah…
Grief Over the Prophet’s Death
The Prophet’s death sent shock waves of grief throughout the Muslim Ummah. We
read:
The tragic news (of the Prophet’s death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah.
Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of Medinah…Umar was so stunned (by
grief) that he almost loss consciousness.
(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559)

Umar’s love for the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was so great that he was in denial,
the first stage of grief. The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) states in “Grief
Counseling”:
The first stage of grief is denial of the loss…The thought of permanent loss is so
painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings.
Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial
may (thereby psychologically) minimize their loss…
Often the bereaved refuse to face the reality of the loss, and may go through a
process of not believing, and pretending that the person is not really dead…This
denial can take several forms: Denying the facts of the loss. The bereaved may
manifest symptoms that range from slight reality distortions to full blown delusions.
There may be attempts to keep the body in the house, retaining possessions ready
for use when the deceased returns, or keeping the room of the deceased untouched
for years…
The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain

away the deceased’s absence…in spite of having seen the deceased’s body with one’s
own eyes…[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on
seeing the deceased’s body or attending the funeral; however, this is not the case:
the distortions of reality can sometimes become firmer with such “evidence.” This
paradoxical effect is believed to be a result of the intensely emotional and
traumatizing nature of such “evidence” (i.e. seeing the dead body) which causes the
bereaved to have a flight from reality as a defense mechanism…
The bereaved may at first seem to accept the news of a loved one’s death, but later
this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is
mangled, etc.) or attending the funeral…the more emotional and traumatic the
experience, the higher the likelihood…of a flight from reality…
Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that
the patient has denied…Anger is a grief reaction commonly associated with denial,
usually directed towards the harbinger of the news of the loss as well as those who
seek to affirm the loss or those who reject the denial…these people require careful
and appropriate grief counseling…
(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association)
Our Shia brothers often bring up Umar’s denial as some sort of proof against him,
but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬loved the Prophet (
ّ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one. And so,
it was in the first stage of grief that Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬reportedly said in a state of
great emotion:
“By Allah, he (the Prophet) is not dead but has gone to his Lord as Musa bin Imran
went and remained hidden from his people for forty days. Musa returned after it
was said that he had died. By Allah, the Messenger of Allah will (likewise) come back
and he will cut off the hands and legs of those who claim his death.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.9, p.184)
As for Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, he was in his home when he heard of the Prophet’s
death, and immediately upon hearing this tragic news, he head towards the
Prophet’s Mosque in haste. We read:
Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered
the (Prophet’s) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha
and went straight to Allah’s Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of
Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophet’s face and bowed over him and
kissed him and wept, saying, “Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you…”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
And in another Hadith, we read:
Abu Bakr kissed the Prophet after his death.
So quite contrary to the callous and diabolic view that the Shia are portraying, Abu
Bakr’s first action was not at all to rush for the Caliphate, but rather he made haste
to visit the Prophet’s body. Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬ ّ ) was deeply affected by the
Prophet’s death, so much so that he broke down in tears whilst kissing the Prophet (
‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬then reassured the Muslims:
“To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad
is dead, but if (anyone of) you used to worship Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall
never die! Allah said: ‘Muhammad is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many)
apostles have passed away before him…(till the end of the Verse)…Allah will reward
those who are thankful.’ (Quran, 3:144)”
Ibn Abbas (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this Verse
before till Abu Bakr recited it and all the people received it from him, and I heard
everybody reciting it (then).”
Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“By Allah, when I heard Abu Bakr reciting it, my legs could not support me and I fell
down at the very moment of hearing him reciting it, declaring that the Prophet had
died.”
So great was Umar’s love for the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬that he fell down in
grief when Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬made him come to terms with the reality.
News of a National Emergency
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬stayed by the Prophet’s body. In some
time, however, a man by the name of Mughirah bin Shubah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬approached
ّ ‫ )ر‬and notified him of an impending emergency. Answering-Ansar
quoted the following in their article:
It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried
out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a
moment.” Umar 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: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah,
and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look
into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war.
On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”
(Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)
Based on what the Shia have quoted on their very own website, we see that the
matter was not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (
ّ ‫ )ر‬were devastated by the Prophet’s death and they wanted very much to
stay with the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. In fact, “Umar told him to leave them
alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the
Prophet.” Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar
were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬first informed Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬that they must head out towards
Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬refused to come out and disregarded Umar ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ ;)عنه‬it was only when Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was convinced of the dire situation that
he was able to pull himself away from the Prophet’s side. We read:
Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the
Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar]
sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he
was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another
message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to
personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…
The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet ( ‫لّم‬5‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5‫)ص‬
throughout his funeral, and they were only persuaded to come out because of the
warnings of a third man who implored upon them to save the Ummah from civil
war. The Ansar were about to declare their own Caliph by force of arms, ready to
declare war on any tribe that denied their leadership. The Ansar had adopted a most
belligerent attitude and were prepared to declare war; it is this precarious situation
that the Shaikhayn sought to diffuse peaceably. We read:
(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-
Medinah at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly
protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious
nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the
situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to
the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.
(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)
Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding)
how volatile the situation was: the Ansar were ready to elect their own man and
declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were
even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansar had adopted a very belligerent
attitude, and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬therefore went as peace-
makers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansar from placing themselves at
loggerheads with the rest of Arabia.
The Ansar were about to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as Caliph. During
the Islamic conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ( ‫لّم‬5 ‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5 ‫ )ص‬had given the
ّ ‫)ر‬. However, when the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬saw
standard to Saad (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
Saad’s belligerent attitude towards the Quraish, he (the Prophet) took the standard
away. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:
When the Apostle of Allah ordered Saad ibn Ubaadah to enter Mecca carrying the
standard, he (Saad) became aggressive towards the people and showed the anger he
felt against them. He entered Mecca shouting: “Today is the day of slaughter, the
day of capturing any daughter.”
Al-Abbas heard him and asked the Prophet: “Haven’t you heard what Saad ibn
Ubaadah is saying? I am afraid that he will attack Quraish fiercely.”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.92)
Upon this, the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took the standard away from Saad (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬and gave it to one of the Muhajirs, thereby averting a possible “dispute
between the Ansar and the Emigrants (Muhajirs).” (Kitab al-Irshad, p.92) It is clear
from this that Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬had a very militant attitude towards
the Muhajirs and Quraish in general. He was ready to fight them, and the
establishment of his Caliphate would have led to civil war. It was for this reason–
Saad’s condescending attitude towards the Meccans–that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬stripped him of the standard and it was also the reason that the Shaikhayn
rushed to prevent him from declaring his Caliphate. If Saad ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬were to
declare his Caliphate, the Muhajirs would protest his nomination on the grounds of
his attitude towards them, one of untoward hostility. The Muhajirs would then rush
to nominate their own Caliph, and the Ummah would thus be splintered into two
rivaling nation-states.
Furthermore, if the Ansar declared their own Caliphate, then nothing would prevent
other tribes–not only the Meccans but others–from similarly declaring their own
leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the
Caliphate. When Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬set out for Saqifah,
they did so with no intention of seeking the Caliphate for themselves but rather only
to prevent the Ansar from doing so by force of arms. The Shaikhayn went as peace-
keepers in order to soften the militant attitude adopted by some of the Ansar. The
Ansar were pushing the Ummah towards a civil war that could rip apart the nascent
Ummah to shreds and lay waste to all the hard work of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬, who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims.
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬took along with them Abu Ubaidah (
ّ ‫)ر‬, another Muhajir. These three Sahabah were from amongst the Ashara
Mubash Shararah (i.e. the Ten Companions promised Paradise by the Prophet), and
it was hoped that the influence of these three great personalities could avert a civil
war and disaster. In times of national crisis, the leaders of a country must become
strong and steadfast in order to deal with pressing matters of state, and they cannot
allow personal woes and feelings to hamper or hinder their effectiveness; if the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬were alive, he would not want Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
and Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to dilly-dally but rather he would indeed want them to act
swiftly to save the Muslim Ummah, which would be the best way to honor the
memory of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
We read:
So the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) hurried toward them (the Ansar); they met
Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (on the way), and the three of them marched towards
them (the Ansar).

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
I told Abu Bakr that we should go to our brothers, the Ansar, so we went off to go to
them, when two honest fellows met us (on the way) and told us of the conclusion the
people (the Ansar) had come to (i.e. to declare their own Caliph). They (the two
honest fellows) asked us where we were going, and when we told them, they said
that there was no need for us to approach them and we must make our own decision
(i.e. elect our own Muhajir Caliph).
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.685)
What he meant by this was what some of the Ansar had said earlier, namely:
“Let us have a leader from amongst ourselves, and you (Quraish) a leader from
amongst yourselves.”
Of course, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬were wise enough to know
that this would reduce the Muslim union into nothing but disjointed and warring
fiefdoms led by rivaling warlords. The Shaikhayn would in their respective
Caliphates transform the Muslim state into a powerful empire that would propel the
Muslims to greatness. These two men not only saved Islam from extinction (i.e. at
Saqifah) but expanded the Islamic world far and wide, ensuring a unified and stable
Muslim empire, an accomplishment which all Muslims worldwide should thank
them for.
Why Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬Stayed Behind
Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬did not take along Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and
ّ ‫ )ر‬because they were immediate relatives of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
Zubair (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬and it would not be fitting to bother them with such a matter during their
time of grief. We read in an authentic Hadith:
“A person’s family and relatives are the ones responsible for arranging his burial.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 2, Page 102)
We read:
Now Ali ibn Abi Talib was working busily preparing the Apostle (for burial), so
Umar sent a message to Abu Bakr (instead)…
We read further:
(They) left Ali and others (close relatives) to make arrangements for the burial of the
Prophet.
It should be noted that Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬mentioned in detail during his Caliphate
that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansar against
taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬left for
Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been
the case, then surely Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬would have brought along more than two
of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldn’t
Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬have brought with him a whole mass of his supporters and
friends? Instead, he went with only two Companions to a large group of the Ansar.
At Saqifah, there were thus only three Muhajirs who were far outnumbered by the
Ansar. This would be a less than ideal situation for a Muhajir like Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬: Abu Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn
Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬had a whole gathering of Ansar to back him! Common sense
dictates that if Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬had conspired to take
the Caliphate for themselves, then surely they would have brought along with them
more Muhajir friends of theirs.
This fact cannot be stressed enough, as it completely vindicates Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of all suspicion. These two men were so unaware of such
a happening that they went to Saqifah with no more than one man with them! Had
they desired to take the Caliphate, then what prevented them from taking along with
them a strong group of their supporters? Why did they not take along Uthman bin
Affan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, Khalid bin Waleed (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan (‫ضى‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, etc? If this was acoup d’état as the Shia claim, then it had to be the worst
planned operation ever in the history of humanity. The Ansar were the great
majority at Saqifah and they were ready to pledge Baya’ah to one of their own men;
if Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to further his own claim to the Caliphate, he should
have brought enough of his supporters to overwhelm the Ansar. Instead, he came
with only two Companions. Indeed, it was not a grab for power at all, but rather Abu
ّ ‫)ر‬, Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬set out only to
counsel the Ansar, hoping that their veteran status would straighten out the Ansar.
The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was not taken
along to Saqifah. How can anyone complain of this when the Shaikhayn did not even
bring along their closest friends and supporters? Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (
ّ ‫ )ر‬didn’t find the need to bring along Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫–)ر‬or any of the other
Muhajir Sahabah, for that matter–because they had no idea whatsoever that an
election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansar from electing
their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansar announced themselves the
leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader,
and fall into civil war.
What the Shia criticize the Shaikhayn for is actually something these two noble men
should be praised for: Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬were showing
softness and sensitivity towards Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, allowing him to grieve for his loved
one without having to worry about the fate of the Muslim Ummah. An analogy of
this is a man whose father dies and so his employee/colleague shoulders his work
load for a time so that the man can go to his father’s funeral without any other extra
worries or burdens to think about. And so it was that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Umar (
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Abu Ubaidah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬head out towards Saqifah–despite their
grief over the Prophet’s death–to deal with a major problem, and to prevent the
nascent Islamic state from collapsing into nothingness. Indeed, these three men did
single-handedly save Islam and prevent a great Fitnah.
The Ansar-Muhajir Divide
The two major groups of the early Islamic movement were the Muhajirs (Emigrants
of Mecca) and the Ansars (Helpers of Medinah). After the Prophet’s death, the
question arose as to which group would be granted the Caliphate. There were two
considerations: (1) the religious and spiritual issues, as well as (2) the practical and
socio-political issues.
The Religious and Spiritual Issues
As far as religion and spirituality were concerned, the Muhajirs were the more
rightful candidates for the Caliphate based on the fact that they were the first to
convert to Islam, they had struggled and sacrificed more for Islam, and most of the
seasoned Sahabah were from amongst the Muhajirs. Naturally, since they had been
in the folds of Islam for a longer time, they had acquired more deeds of merit than
the Ansar, and so they were the ones who deserved the Caliphate. No group
surpassed the Muhajirs in good deeds and service to Islam. It should be understood
that from a religious and doctrinal point of view, it was the merits of the Muhajirs
(i.e. their service, sacrifice, and good deeds for Islam)–not their lineage–that
granted them the right to Caliphate. However, in addition to this, there were many
practical and socio-political reasons that the leadership should remain from
amongst the Muhajirs, due to the fact that they were from the tribe of Quraish.
Nonetheless, these should not at all be confused for religious and spiritual reasons.
When Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬debated with the Ansar, the perceptive reader will note
that Abu Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) himself appreciated this difference. He himself only
furthered the religious and spiritual arguments (i.e. the merits of the Muhajirs), and
he only mentioned the practical and socio-political arguments (i.e. the position of
the Quraish) as the views held by the general public, not by himself; the latter were
important only insofar as maintaining the unity of the fledgling Muslim empire.
This distinction–between religious and socio-political reasons–is important to
understand.
Practical and Socio-Political Issues
In the times of Jahiliyyah before the advent of Islam, Arabia consisted of various
independent and sovereign city-states. Although they were not united as one nation,
the Arabs did nonetheless recognize Mecca as the center and helm of Arabia. The
Quraish of Mecca had become very powerful and influential due to the fact that they
took care of the Ka’abah: the Arabs from all over would pay the Quraish to have
them house their gods. Because of this special honor, the Quraish of Mecca were
generally honored by all the other tribes and operated as the United Nations (UN) of
Arabia. Meanwhile, whereas the sanctuary in Mecca was off limits to fighting and
warfare, the rest of Pre-Islamic Arabia was steeped in violence from incessant tribal
warfare and in-fighting.
This changed with the advent of Prophet Muhammad ( ‫لّم‬5 ‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5 ‫ )ص‬who
united all the various tribes together under the banner of Islam. It was the Prophet’s
powerful personality which brought peace to the warring factions. First, the Prophet
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬united the Aws and the Khazraj of Yathrib (i.e. Medinah), who
had been locked into a hundred year long war. These two tribes agreed to make the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬their arbiter and broker of peace. This unity between
the Aws and Khazraj bolstered the strength and prestige of Medinah in the eyes of
Arabia. Even so, the various tribes of Arabia still recognized the Quraish of Mecca to
be the leaders of Arabia; when the Quraish polytheists declared a state of hostility
with Medinah, the rest of Arabia joined suit and collectively came to be known as
the Confederates.
It was based on this situation that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and the Sahabah
realized that Mecca was the key to ruling Arabia. Until Mecca was not conquered,
the Muslims would never be recognized as the leaders of Arabia. It was for this
reason that the Muslim armies marched out against Mecca and conquered it; and
without fail, as soon as Mecca was converted to a land of Islam, the neighboring
tribes of all of Arabia paid tribute to the supremacy of the Islamic state. Tribe after
tribe then converted to Islam, and the Muslims were recognized as the new leaders
of Arabia. It was only after Mecca was conquered by the Muslims–and the tribe of
Quraish, the unwritten leaders of Arabia, converted en masse to Islam–that the
people of Arabia were willing to accept the supremacy of Islam under the leadership
of a Prophet from the tribe of Quraish. We read:
The conquest of Mecca was considered the most serious advantage achieved by
Muslims during those years, for it affected the course of events and consequently
affected the Arabs’ whole life [sic]…for the tribe of Quraish, at that time, were in the
eyes of Arabs the defenders and helpers of (all of the) Arabs. Other Arabs were only
(considered) their subordinates. The submission of the Quraish (to Islam) is,
therefore, estimated to be a final elimination of paganism in the Arabian
Peninsula…(after which) people began to convert to Islam in very large numbers.
We read further:
The destruction of idols installed in the Ka’abah meant the destruction of the idols
all over Arabia. Likewise, the entry of the Quraish into Islam implied the whole of
Arabia coming to the fold of Islam, for all eyes were fixed on the Quraish of Mecca to
see whether they accepted Islam or not.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.223-224)
Historians agree that–due to the socio-political structure of that time–the Arabians

would have rejected Prophet Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had he come from a
weak tribe, and it was only because he was from the leading tribe of the Quraish that
they accepted him. This is not at all a strange concept: if today the Micronesian
ambassador tried pushing legislation through the United Nations, no other country
would feel compelled to accept it. However, if the American ambassador adopted
such a legislation, then all the countries of the world would comply. In other words,
the United States–by one way or the other–is seen as the leader, and the countries
of the world would accept an American leader, not a Micronesian one.
When Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had been ex-communicated from
the leaders of the Quraish and banished to Medinah, the tribes of Arabia rejected
the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and his Message. When Prophet Muhammad (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬converted the tribe of Quraish to Islam and became their leader, then
all of the tribes of Arabia recognized him. The Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬used this
position of prestige to infuse the spirit of Islamic brotherhood throughout the land;
he warned against tribal affiliation and Assabiyyah, uniting all of Arabia under one
banner.
However, after the Prophet’s death, the unity of the Ummah–that the Prophet (‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had worked so hard to achieve–was in a state of great peril. A power
vacuum was created, and each of the various factions were vying for the position of
power, a situation that no doubt was threatening to tear up into pieces the nascent
Islamic state. Sir John Glubb says: “Mohammed was not dead an hour before the
struggle for power threatened to rend Islam into rival factions.”
The Ansar of Medinah were planning on declaring themselves the leaders of the
Muslim state, and this is how the gathering at Saqifah began. There was a great fear
that if the Ansar declared their own man to be the Caliph, then the tribes of Arabia
would reject them as being inferior and unfit to rule. Most of these tribes had
converted to Islam after the conquest of Mecca. Before the Islamic conquest of
Mecca, these Arab tribes had submitted to the leadership of the Meccan Quraish;
after the Islamic conquest of Mecca, these Arab tribes continued to submit to the
same Meccan Quraish who were now Muslim. If, however, the leadership were to
suddenly switch to Medinah–and if the Ansar declared their own man to be Caliph–
then nothing prevented these other Arab tribes from similarly declaring their own
leaders. The Ansar themselves knew this and they were satisfied with this idea that
every tribe have their own leader, but Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
knew that this would be unacceptable for the Muslims to become disunited after
they had been once united under the banner of Islam. Allah Almighty says:
“And hold fast, all of you together, by the Rope of Allah and be not divided amongst
yourselves.”
(Quran, 3:103)
Worse still was the fact that after the Prophet’s death, many of the new converts to
Islam apostasized; without the powerful leader of Muhammad ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬,
entire tribes renounced Islam and slipped back into Kufr (disbelief). Allah Almighty
warned of this in the Quran:
“And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were messengers that have
already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon
your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to
Allah in the least but Allah will reward the grateful.”
(Quran, 3:144)
It was in this precarious situation that the Ummah needed a strong and capable
leader to quickly replace the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬before the various groups
split apart in complete disarray and utter chaos. It was in this atmosphere that the
people needed to declare a Caliph posthaste in order to quell any rebellion. We read:
Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”
“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to
be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”
And this new leader could not at all come from a weak and unpopular tribe, because
the Arabians would definitely not have accepted him as a leader; such a thing would
have resulted in all out rebellion and collapse of the Muslim union. What the
Muslims needed was a candidate from a powerful and popular tribe with mass
appeal that could secure the vote from all of the other tribes.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself recognized the dynamics of Arabia at the
time. He knew that his successor must come from the tribe of Quraish; he knew that
if the Caliph was an Ansar, then this would have been the end of the Islamic empire.
The Prophet (‫لّم‬5‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5‫ )ص‬respected the right of the people to decide for
themselves who would be their Caliph; to impose upon them someone that the vast
majority of the people reject would not at all be just. The Arabian and Islamic
tradition was established that among the various groups present, only that group
assumed the political authority which enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the
people. At the time of the Prophet’s death, this was the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs) of
Mecca and not the Ansar (i.e. Aws and Khazraj) of Medinah.
It should be noted that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was not at all being racist or
discriminatory. But rather, he was applying the principles of self-determination and
popular sovereignty that are accepted today by international law. To give a proper
analogy: the former USSR was made up of many republics, including Russia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc. Of these, Russia is the most dominant. Would it
be fair to impose an Armenian on the masses when they would not recognize him?
Surely not! It would only be fair and just for a Russian to be the leader of the USSR
because only he would be accepted by the vast majority of the people. Likewise, in
Islamic Law, the leader must be accepted by the masses who pledge their Baya’ah to
him; if the masses do not pledge their Baya’ah to a person, then he cannot be Caliph
over them as that would be tyranny. Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in
his Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah: “Caliphate is not established merely with the
appointment of the Caliph, rather it requires (after the former Caliph’s death), the
approval of the Muslim Ummah.” (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p. 9)
Ghamidi says:
After the general acceptance of faith by the Arab masses, they (Quraish) enjoyed the
same confidence of the people and they were the influentials of the Arabs as they
were in the Pre-Islamic era. Hence, elections were not needed to confirm this reality.
There was there no room for a difference of opinion in the fact that the Quraish had
the popular support of the masses behind them and that no tribe could challenge
this position of theirs. There is no doubt that as far as Medinah was concerned, the
Ansar under Saad ibn Ubaadah and Saad ibn Muadh, the respective leaders of the
Aws and Khazraj, had more influence among the local population…Had the Islamic
State been confined only to Medinah, it can be said with certainty that after the
Prophet, they (the Ansar) would have assumed political authority. But after the
conquest of Mecca, when a large number of Arabs of other territories accepted
Islam, the political scene changed drastically. The extent of confidence commanded
by the Muhajirs of the Quraish far surpassed that of the Ansar.
It was based on this principle of popular sovereignty and self-determination–and

not Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry)–that the Prophet ( ‫لّم‬5‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬ordered
that a man of the Quraish tribe become the first Caliph. The Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and
in fact, the Prophet (‫لّم‬555‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬555‫ )ص‬warned against such Assabiyyah
(tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was
merely saying that the Quraish were fit to be the rulers because they commanded
the support of the masses of Arabia. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed
enough, it was the Quraish who had been for hundreds of years managing the affairs
of Arabia. They had thus developed the skills set and capability to lead, whereas
other tribes did not have such experience and were thus not capable to take on a
position of leadership. To suddenly switch the leadership from an experienced tribe
to a less experienced one would cause decay and civil collapse. We read:
Yes, he (the Prophet) admitted to tribal preference but it was confined only to those
which were known for their managing and leading capabilities due to the experience
and training that the members of those specific tribes were exposed to. For
management and commander-ship, he selected the capable and qualified persons
from among those families.
It is for these practical reasons that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said:
“Our political authority shall remain with the Quraish…as long as they follow
Islam.”
(Bukhari: Kitabu’l-Ahkam)
And the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬warned the Ansar:
“In this matter (i.e. leadership), bring forward the Quraish and do not try to
supersede them.”
(Talkhis al-Habeer, Vol.2, p.26)
As well as:
“After me, the political authority shall be transferred to the Quraish.”
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183)
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬clearly explained the reason for this:
“People (of Arabia) in this matter (i.e. leadership) follow the Quraish. The believers
of Arabia are the followers of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the
followers of their disbelievers.”
(Muslim, Kitabu’l-Imarah)
In fact, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬trusted the Ansar over the Quraish. One
must understand that only a small segment of the Quraish were the loyal Muhajirs,
whereas the vast majority of Quraish were recent converts after the conquest of
Mecca. After the Battle of Hunain, the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬showered the
Quraish and all the other tribes of Arabia with gifts of war booty, but he left out the
Ansar. We read:
Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said: “When Allah’s Messenger had given the Quraish and Arab
tribes those gifts and allotted nothing to the Ansar, a group of the Ansar felt so
uneasy about it that a lot of ill-statements against the Prophet were spread amongst
them to an extent that one of them said: ‘By Allah, Allah’s Messenger is ill-spoken of
by his folks men!’”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah)
Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, the leader of the Ansar and the man whom the Ansar
would seek to elect as Caliph at Saqifah, said to the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬:
“O Messenger of Allah, the group of Ansar is furious at you about the distribution of
the booty that you had won. You have allotted shares to your own (Quraish)
kinsmen and forwarded lots of gifts to the (other) Arab tribes, but this group (of
Ansar) has obtained nothing.”
Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar, wrote of this incident:
The Prophet of Allah made the distribution of the booty of Hunayn, particularly
among the Quraish. He gave a generous share to reconcile the hearts of some of
them like Abu Sufyan, Ikrima, al-Harith, Suhayl, Zuhayr, Abdullah, Muawiyyah,
Hisham, al-Aqra, Uyayna, and their like.
It is reported that he (the Prophet) gave the Ansar only a small part but that he gave
most of it to the people whom we have named. A group of the Ansar became angry
on account of that. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family, was
informed of their words and discontent against him. He summoned them and they
gathered. He told them: “Sit down but do not let anyone other than your own people
sit with you.”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.99-100)
The Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬then reassured Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and
the Ansar, saying:
“You Ansar, do you feel eager for the things of this world wherewith I have sought to
incline these people (i.e. the Quraish and Arab tribes) into the Faith (of Islam) in
which you (Ansar) are already (firmly) established?”
This is therefore the crux of the matter: the Prophet ( ‫لّم‬5 ‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5 ‫ )ص‬was
thinking only of the future of the Islamic state and how to unify the entire Arabian
peninsula. He ( ‫لّم‬5‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5‫ )ص‬was enticing the newly converted Quraish by
bestowing upon them gifts and giving them the leadership, which would result in
the rest of Arabia also submitting to the Islamic state. The Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬had so much trust in the Ansar (i.e. they were already firmly established in the
faith) that he knew that they would loyally sacrifice the leadership for the sake of the
Ummah. This is what the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬told Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, explaining to him that it was actually a lofty status that the Ansar had
obtained and that the Prophet (‫لّم‬555‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬555‫ )ص‬used gifts of spoils and
leadership to strengthen those weak in the faith. The former masters of Arabia (i.e.
the Quraish of Mecca) had been conquered by the Muslims of Medinah; it was a
face-saving measure to allow the leadership to continue from amongst the Quraish
so that they would not be humiliated and thereby weakened in faith and fervor.
Requirement to be Member of Majority Group
Shaikh Al-Sunnah and Lisaan al-Ummah (i.e. Imam al-Baqillani) stated that the
there is no requirement that a person must be Quraishi in order to be Caliph. He
stated that a person must simply belong to the majority group. This is also stated by
Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen, namely that the leader
must simply belong to the group in the majority. Because the Quraishis were the
majority group at the time of the Prophet’s death, therefore the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of
majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).
Saqifah
After the Prophet’s death, the Ansar had gathered at Saqifah and were intending on
nominating their own man as Caliph, namely Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫–)ر‬the
ّ ّ
same Ansar to whom the Prophet ( ‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬had said earlier words which
would again apply here:
“You Ansar, do you feel eager for the things of this world wherewith I have sought to
incline these people (i.e. the Quraish and Arab tribes) into the Faith (of Islam) in
which you (Ansar) are already (firmly) established?”
We read:
Being informed of the proceedings of the Ansars, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaidah
hastened to the meeting place and were there just in time to interrupt the
finalization of the Ansars choice of Saad ibn Ubaadah to the successorship of the
Prophet.
(A Short History of Islam, p.57)
Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬conveyed the following message to his fellow Ansar:
“Company of the Ansar! You have precedence in religion and merit in Islam that no
other tribe of the Arabs can claim. Muhammad remained ten-odd years in his tribe,
calling them to worship the Merciful and to cast off idols and graven images, but
only a few men of his tribe believed in him, and they were able neither to protect the
Apostle of Allah, nor to render his religion strong, nor to divert from themselves the
oppression that befell them all.
“Until, when He intended excellence for you (O Ansar); He sent nobility to you and
distinguished you with grace. Thus Allah bestowed upon you faith in Him and in His
Apostle, and protection for him and his companions, and strength for him and his
faith, and Jihad against his enemies. You (O Ansar) were the most severe people
against his enemies who were not from among you, so that the Arabs became
upright in Allah’s Cause, willingly or unwillingly…through you (O Ansar) Allah made
great slaughter (of the infidels) in the earth for His Apostle, and by your swords (O
Ansar) the Arabs were abased for him. When Allah took (the Prophet) to Himself, he
was pleased with you (O Ansar) and consoled by you.
“So keep control of this matter (i.e. the Caliphate) to yourselves, to the exclusion of
others, for it is yours and yours alone.”
When the Ansar said such sort of things (i.e. praising the Ansar and minimizing the
Muhajirs), Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was ready to respond. However, Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
refrained him and advocated a more conciliatory tone. We read:
In a situation packed with confusion, disorder, anger, and emotion, only a man like
Abu Bakr could do what was necessary. When Umar made an attempt to say
something, Abu Bakr put a check on him for he knew that the emotionally charged
Umar could mishandle the already deteriorating situation. Abu Bakr himself rose to
speak…

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“O Ansar! You deserve all the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but
this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

ّ ‫ )ر‬explained:
“(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religion…but the Arabs
will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraish…we (the Quraish) are in
the center among the Muslims with respect to our position…”
(The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193)

ّ ‫ )ر‬reminded the Ansar of the Prophet’s instructions that the
leader should be from the Quraish because they commanded the political authority
of all of Arabia. Indeed, had the Arabs back then had a sophisticated system of
polling and voting, the Arabs of the peninsula would have voted for the Quraish to
be the leaders, not the Ansar. Therefore, based on the principles of self-
determination and popular sovereignty, the leader of the Muslims should be from
the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs). Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬warned the Ansar that “the rest of
Arabia would never accept a non-Quraish (leader).”
The Ansar responded by extolling their own virtues and attempted to use this as
evidence of their right to Caliphate. To counter this, the three Muhajirs reminded
them that the the Muhajirs also had many qualities and accomplishments. Abu Bakr
ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“(We were) the first on earth to worship Allah (in Islam) and we were the patrons (of
the Prophet) and the supporting group of the Prophet. (It is we) who tolerated (great
suffering) and suffered with him (through many) adversities…”
(History of al-Tabari, Volume 3, p.219)
The Ansar had praised themselves, using this as a proof for their Caliphate.
However, the truth of the matter is that it was the Muhajirs who were the most
senior in rank amongst the Muslims. The Muhajirs were the first ones to stand up
for Islam: after the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬declared Islam in the land, it was
the Muhajirs who were the next after him to do so. It was the Muhajirs who were
turned out by their own people and who migrated in the Path of Allah. Therefore, if
anyone deserved the Caliphate based upon merit and service for Islam, then it was
the Muhajirs who took precedence in greatness over the Ansar. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬said:
“Now the Arabs found it most distressing that they should leave the religion of their
forefathers; so from among his (the Prophet’s) tribe Allah singled out the first
Muhajirs, by having them affirm that he spoke the truth and by their belief in him,
and consoling him and enduring patiently with him the harsh insults their tribe
(directed) against them and (their tribe), calling them liars. All the people were
opposed (to the Muhajirs) and rebuked them; but they were not distressed by their
small numbers or by (the people’s) single-minded opposition to them, for they were
the first who worshipped Allah on the earth and who believed in Allah and the
Apostle…Oh company of the Ansar, your superiority in religion and great
precedence in Islam are undeniable. May Allah be satisfied with you as helpers
(Ansar) for His religion and His Apostle. He made his Hijrah to you…so–after the
Muhajirs–there is no one among us who is in your station. We (the Muhajirs) are
the leaders, and you (Ansars) are the helpers; matters shall not be settled without
consultation, nor shall we decide on them without you.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, pp.4-5)

ّ ‫ )ر‬then said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any
selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam
(i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I
declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah.
You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
Ibn Ishaq narrates it as follows:
He (Abu Bakr) said: “All the good that you have said about yourselves (O Ansar) is
deserved. But the Arabs will recognize authority only in this clan of Quraish, they
being (considered) the best of the Arabs in blood and country. I offer you one of
these two men (Umar and Abu Ubaidah): accept whom you please.’ ”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah)
The Ansar made their counter-offer, saying:
“O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.”
Of course, this was an unacceptable solution to the problem, because nothing would
prevent the other tribes from similarly demanding that they each get to nominate
their own Caliph. If this were to happen, the Muslim union would dissolve into
various small and competing amir-ates. Not only this, but the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬never sanctioned the idea of having more than one leader, something which
would create confusion and disarray. Therefore, Umar ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ) rebuffed this
offer, saying:
“How preposterous! Two swords cannot be accommodated in one sheath. By Allah,

the Arabs will never accept your rule…”
(History of al-Tabari, p.194)
The Ansars and Muhajirs fell into argumentation, and then Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
said:
“O Saad (ibn Ubaadah)! You know very well that the Prophet had said in your
presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the
Arab (masses) follow their (Quraish) nobles and their ignobles follow their
(Quraish) ignobles.”
(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p.5)
Abu Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬

ّ ) explained that although he himself was well aware of the
Ansar’s greatness, it was the Quraish who commanded the popularity of the masses
of Arabia. It would not be justice for a less popular candidate to rule over a country,
one who did not command the confidence of the masses. A man must have the
acceptance and Baya’ah of the people in order to become Caliph: while the Ansar
may have secured the vote and support of many in Medinah, they would not be able
to do so in any other part of Arabia. These other Arab tribes would then demand the
Caliphate for themselves and thereby break away from the Muslim union. Therefore,
in order to prevent this scenario, a leader must be chosen from a group that had the
acceptance of the masses of Arabia, and this could only be a man from the Quraish.
“The people of Arabia are not aware of anyone’s political leadership except that of
the Quraish.”
(Musnad Ahmad, vol 1., p.56)
Finally, the Ansar assented and said:
“What you say is correct: we are your advisors and you are our rulers.”
(Musnad Ahmad, Vol.1, p.5)
And then Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬repeated his proposal, asking the Ansar to accept
either Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬or Abu Ubaidah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as their next leader. We read:
Abu Bakr Siddiq said, “Umar and Abu Ubaidah are here: choose any one of them.”
Umar said, “No! Abu Bakr is the most excellent amongst the Muhajirs. He has been
the Companion of the Prophet in the cave [as mentioned in the Quran]; the Prophet
asked him to be the Imam to lead the prayers, and prayer is the most superior of all
other articles of faith. Therefore, none (not I nor Abu Ubaidah) is entitled to assume
the duties of the Caliphate in the presence of Abu Bakr.”
Saying this, Umar stretched his hand first of all to take Baya’ah (oath of allegiance)
at the hand of Abu Bakr Siddiq followed by Abu Ubaidah and Bashir ibn Saad
Ansari. After that, the people of all sides of Abu Bakr came to take Baya’ah. As the
news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph.
Neither Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬nor Umar (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) desired the Caliphate. In a
well-known Hadith, the Messenger of Allah has said that he who seeks leadership is
not fit to assume it. (Bukhari: Kitab al-Ahkam, chapter 7; Muslim: Kitab al-Amarah,
Chapter 3) We see the qualities of a leader in the modest way in which Abu Bakr (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬does not himself seek the Caliphate but rather he asks the Muslims to
choose between Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Meanwhile, Umar
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬rejects the Caliphate himself, saying that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬is more
fit for it. And then Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬ ّ ) is so modest that he says in his
inauguration speech that “I have been chosen as your chief, although I am better
than none of you”, despite the fact everyone else knew that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
was the most worthy! We can clearly see that neither Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬nor
Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬desired the Caliphate for themselves and neither furthered their
own cause.
It was in this manner that Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ) became the first Caliph of the
Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did not seek the Caliphate let alone steal it from Ali (
ّ ‫)ر‬. The Ansar were the cause of the gathering. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and
Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬were forced to proceed to Saqifah in order to prevent a civil war.
The election of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was something un-premeditated and purely
spontaneous. To this effect, Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“The pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an un-premeditated spontaneous

affair which was (then only later) ratified.”
When Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬ّ ), Umar (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ), and Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ )
arrived at Saqifah, they came to know of the resolve of the Ansar (i.e. in seeking to
nominate their own man to Caliphate); and so these three Muhajirs attempted to
persuade the Ansar to change their minds. The Ansar wavered and the Muhajirs
jumped on this opportunity to resolve the conflict. Some people might say: why
didn’t the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬suggest delaying the nomination
of the Caliph until all of the Muhajirs (such as Ali) could be summoned? Umar (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬himself explained the reason:
“…because we were afraid that if we left the people (without rendering the oath of
allegiance), they might (in our absence) give the pledge of allegiance after us to one
of their men…”
In a slightly different version, Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

“We feared that if we left (without rendering the oath of allegiance), no agreement
would be hammered out (with the Ansar) later. (And if they then elected one of their
own men) it was either to follow the Ansar in what we did not approve of (i.e.
disobey the Prophet’s words), or else oppose them (i.e. with the sword), which
would have led to disorder (fasad).”
(History of al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.194)

ّ ‫ )ر‬would later say to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬:
“Had I delayed the matter, it would have posed a greater danger to the unity,
integrity, and solidarity of Islam. How could I send for you when there was no
time?”
When the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬arrived at Saqifah, the Ansar
were only moments away from nominating Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ). The
three Muhajirs were able to stop the Ansar from doing that but only momentarily,
and if they left without first securing the Baya’ah, they knew that the Ansar would
once again proceed to elect their own man. But when the Ansar gave their Baya’ah to
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, this was the Ansar taking a strong oath that would prevent
them from nominating any of their own men. Therefore, it is clear that the Baya’ah
to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was rushed in order to prevent double-mindedness on the
part of the Ansar. It was less than ideal, as expressed by Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬himself,
but it was born out of dire necessity and it was only with the Grace of Allah Almighty
that it worked out.
The Prophet’s Funeral
Although our Shia brothers imply that Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ّ ) missed out on the
Prophet’s funeral, this is actually not true at all. After he saved the Ummah at
Saqifah, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬rushed back to help with the Prophet’s funeral. In
fact, the only thing that Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) missed out on was washing the
Prophet’s body, something which is anyways done by the near relatives according to
Islamic custom. So we ask our Shia brothers: what exactly did Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
miss out on?
Not only did Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬help out with the burial, he was actually the one
who is credited with deciding where the Prophet ( ‫لّم‬5‫لّى هللا عليه وآله وس‬5‫ )ص‬was to be
buried. We read:
The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the
place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: “I have heard from the Messenger of Allah that
every Prophet is buried at the spot where he has breathed his last.” The Prophet’s
bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the
spot.
General Baya’ah
The Ansars and a few of the Muhajirs had given Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬at
Saqifah, but many of the Muslims had not. Therefore, a day after Saqifah, Abu Bakr
(‫ى هللا عنه‬555‫رض‬
ّ ) ascended the pulpit of the Prophet’s Mosque and the masses
(approximately 33,000 of the Sahabah) took Baya’ah at his hand. We read:
After the meeting at Saqifah Banu Sa’idah…(and) the burial of the Prophet, Abu
Bakr took the oath of allegiance from the general population and then rose to deliver
his (inauguration) address…that was the day when 33,000 Companions pledged
their allegiance to Abu Bakr.
This came to be known as the General Baya’ah. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬thus became
the recognized leader of the Muslim empire. One is always astonished with the
immense modesty of Abu Bakr ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬
ّ ), which contrasts sharply with the
monarchs and leaders of other empires. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬said to the people:
“I have been chosen as your chief, although I am better than none of you. Thus, if I
do good work, it is incumbent on you to extend your help and support me; if I go
wrong, it is your duty to put me on the right path. Truth and righteousness are a
trust and un-truth is a breach of trust. The weak among you are strong to me unless
I give them full justice, and the strong among you are weak to me unless I receive
what is due from them. Abandon not Jihad. When the people hold back from Jihad,
they are put to disgrace. Obey me while I keep obeying Allah and His Messenger;
renounce me when I disobey Allah and His Messenger, for obedience to me is not
incumbent on you then.”

And so it was that the most modest man of the Muslims became the Caliph of the
emerging Islamic empire.
Ali ibn Abi Talib (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬was not present at the General Baya’ah; instead, he took Baya’ah at
the hand of Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬some time later: some sources seem to indicate
ّ ‫ )ر‬took Baya’ah after two days, whereas others state that he did not
give it for six months. There is nothing strange at all in this discrepancy because an
innumerable number of events in Islamic history also have similar discrepancies
due to the fact that historical dating is a troublesome task. (For example, to give just
one other such instance, “The History of al-Tabari” cites some sources which state
that the Prophet died at 63 years of age, whereas others state that the Prophet died
two years later at 65 years of age; Tabari states both views in his book.)
Perhaps the strongest opinion is that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬gave Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬twice, once on the second day and the other six months later. The tradition of
the Muslims was to renew one’s Baya’ah periodically (i.e. the Muslims renewed their
Baya’ah to the Prophet on numerous occassions), and people may have expected Ali
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬to renew his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬due to the conflict of
Fadak which had created a situation in which some people questioned Ali’s loyalties
to the Caliph. Whatever the case, whether it was two days or six months is largely
immaterial. The fact is that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did in fact pledge his Baya’ah to Abu
Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, something which does not sit well with the Shia paradigm; why
would Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬pledge his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬at all if the Shia
claims were true?
We will, Insha-Allah, write an article citing the overwhelming evidence from Shia
sources which confirm that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬gave his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬. For now, we shall suffice with a handful of such reports, and we will focus on
those which indicate that in fact Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬gave this Baya’ah on the second day
after the General Baya’ah. Shaikh Tabrasi wrote in his “al-Ihtejaj” (a classical Shia
book) the following:
Tabrasi narrates from (Imam) Muhammad Baqir that when Usamah had left for
Jihad when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the news reached Usamah (and) he
returned with his army to Medinah. He (Usamah) saw a great number of people
surrounding Abu Bakr; on seeing this, he went to question Ali ibn Abi Talib and
asked: “What is this?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “It is exactly what you are seeing!”
Usamah asked: “Have you (also) given Baya’ah to him?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied:
“Yes.”
(Al-Ihtejaj, p.50: Printed Mashad, Iraq)

We also read the following, in another Shia book:
Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time
of consultation (i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of
the Caliphate: He was the companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We
know of his life and we know that the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead
the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to Abu Bakr).
(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha; Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed; Vol.1, p.132)
To provide an online source, we kindly refer the reader to “The Origins and Early
Development of Shi’a Islam” by SHM Jafri. Establishing this book’s authenticity in
the eyes of the Shia is not difficult since it is available on Al-Islam.org, the most
reliable Shia website on the internet. The book may be found here:http://al-
islam.org/index.php?sid=729406346&t=sub_pages_74&cat=74
The book “The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam” by SHM Jafri is so
authoratative that it is endorsed by the Iranian government. The book is published
in Qum with the blessing of the highest scholars (Maraje’) in the Islamic Republic of
Iran. Please go to this Shia website http://www.karbala-
najaf.org/shiaism/shiaism.html and scroll down to the bottom to confirm this.
It is also available on Al-Shia.com; you can view this here:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/
Al-Islam.org praised the book:
Al-Islam.org says
“For a good source on the effect that Imam Husayn’s sacrifices had on the minds of
the Muslims, see: Jafri, The Origins and early Development of Shi’a Islam.
With salaams and du’as
Liyakatali Takim
source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00706.html ”
Let us now look at Chapter 2 of this book which is entitled “Saqifa: The First
Manifestations”. We read:
Al-Shia.com says
“The Origins and Early Development of Shià Islam

S.H.M.Jafri
Chapter 2
Saqifa: The First Manifestations
But according to the most commonly reported traditions, which must be accepted as
authentic because of overwhelming historical evidence and other circumstantial
reasons, ‘Ali held himself apart until the death of Fatima six months later. Insisting
that ‘Ali should have been chosen, a number of his partisans from among both the
Ansar and the Muhajirun who had delayed for some time in accepting Abu Bakr’s
succession were fain to yield, however. They gradually, one after the other, were
reconciled to the situation and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr.
source:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/
”
And there are many other Shia books we can quote. For brevity sake, we shall not
include them all here. (We will, Insha-Allah, write an article on this topic in the near
future, Insha-Allah.) As for the Sunni sources, we read:
…Ali came to Abu Bakr and said: “I don’t refuse to admit that your virtues entitle
you to the Caliphate. My sole complaint is that we are the close relatives of the
Prophet, (so) why did you then take Baya’ah at Saqifah Banu Sa’idah without
consulting us? Had you called us there, we would have taken Baya’ah at your hand
ahead of everyone.”
Abu Bakr said in reply: “To treat the relatives of the Prophet well is dearer and more
desirable to me than to do so for my own relatives. I went to Saqifah Banu Sa’idah
not for the taking of Baya’ah but for putting an end to the dispute…I did not seek
their support (for Caliphate). Rather, they took their oath of allegiance to me on
their own…Had I delayed the matter, it would have posed a greater danger to the
unity, integrity, and solidarity of Islam. How could I send for you when there was no
time?”
Ali listened with rapt attention to what Abu Bakr Siddiq said and withdrew his
complaint gracefully. The next day, he (Ali) pronounced his allegiance to Abu Bakr
before a large congregation in the Prophet’s Mosque.
In another account, Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“Never for a moment was I eager for authority (imara) nor did I want it or pray to
Allah for it secretly or publically. But I was afraid of disorder. I take no pleasure in
authority. I have been invested with a grave matter for which I have not the strength
and can only hope (to) cope with it if Allah gives me the strength. I would (only
wish) that he who has the most strength for it were in my place.”
(Seerah of Musa ibn Uqba)
To which Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“We were angry only because we were not admitted to the council and we think that
Abu Bakr is the most worthy of supreme authority now that the apostle is dead. He
was the one with the apostle in the cave and we recognize his dignity and seniority;
and the apostle put him in charge of the prayers while he was still with us.”
(Seerah of Musa ibn Uqba)
Abu Sufyan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬offered Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬the Caliphate, promising to back Ali
ّ ‫ )ر‬with all his men and camels of war. Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬refused the offer.
This is narrated in both Sunni and Shia books. For Sunni sources, please refer to the
History of al-Tabari (Vol.9, pp.198-199). As for Shia sources, we shall herein cite
what is written in “al-Irshad” written by Shaikh Mufid:
…He (Abu Sufyan) called out at the top of his voice: “Banu Hashim, Banu Abd
Manaf! Are you content that the despicable father of a young camel, the son of a
despicable man, (i.e. Abu Bakr), should have authority over you? No, by Allah, if you
wish, let me provide horses and men who will be sufficient for it (i.e. to take the
Caliphate).”
“Go back, Abu Sufyan,” shouted the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali), peace be on him. “By
Allah, you do not seek Allah in what you are suggesting…”
Abu Sufyan went to the mosque. There he found the Banu Umayyah gathered. He
urged them (to take action) in the matter (i.e. against Abu Bakr) but they did not
respond to him.
(Al-Irshad, p.136)
In “the History of al-Tabari”, we read:
He (Abu Sufyan) said (to Ali): “O Abu Hasan, stretch out your hand so that I may
give you Baya’ah,” but Ali declined…(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: “By Allah, you
do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah…”
So we see that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did not at all wish to create Fitnah or disunity within
the ranks of the Muslims. He accepted the decision of the 33,000 Sahabah who
pledged Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and he upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. If Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, then
why do our Shia brothers create Fitnah by rejecting the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ ?)هللا عنه‬The fact that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬abstained from pledging Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (
ّ ‫ )ر‬cannot at all be used as a proof for the Imamah of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ;)ر‬if this
were the case, then could someone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of the
Ansar was an Infallible Imam because he refused to pledge Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The opinion of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬or Saad ibn Ubaadah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬could
not possibly overturn the collective decision of 33,000 Sahabah; Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬was the most popular candidate for Caliphate, and therefore it would not be
justice to give the position to anybody else.
In any case, Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬did give Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬eventually (be
it after two days or six months), and this in and of itself negates the Shia claims. If
ّ ‫ )ر‬thought he was divinely appointed by Allah to be the Infallible Imam
of the Muslim Ummah, then why would he ever pledge his Baya’ah to a man who
supposedly usurped a God-given position? Did the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬ever
pledge his Baya’ah to those who sought to deny his Prophethood? Why then would
Ali (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) pledge his Baya’ah to those who sought to deny his Imamah, a
position which the Shia hold to be higher than Prophethood? Our Shia brothers
should follow the way of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬which was to avoid causing Fitnah, instead
of following the ways of their Ayatollahs who seek to cause Fitnah by denying the
Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and, in doing so, setting themselves apart from
the great majority of the Muslims. It took Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬at most six months to
accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and yet it has been over a thousand
years and our Shia brothers have still not accepted it!
Eulogy of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
On the death of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“O Abu Bakr! May Allah shower mercy upon you. By Allah, you believed first of all in
the entire Ummah and made your belief the base of your behavior and manners.
You were the man excellent in trust and conviction, the most generous caretaker of
the Prophet. You were the greatest supporter of Islam and well-wisher of all
creatures. In manners, virtues and guidance you were closest to the Prophet. May
Allah confer on you the best reward on behalf of Islam and the Muslims. You
affirmed the Prophet when others denied him; you showed sympathy when others
were un-generous to him; you rose to help the Messenger of Allah when others held
themselves back…
“You stood like a rock in support of Islam and drove away the disbelievers. Neither
your argument was ever misdirected nor your insight weakened; your soul never
showed timidity. You were firm like a mountain; strong winds failed to uproot or stir
you. About you, the Prophet said: ‘Weak in body, strong in Faith; humble, exalted by
Allah; venerable on earth and worthy among the believers.’ Nobody could show
greed in your presence nor could give free expression to his (illicit) desires; the weak
happened to be strong to you and the strong weak till the right of the weak was given
to him and the strong was forced to give what was due.”
Therefore, we can see, that no matter the disagreements that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬
and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬may have had, they both reconciled and respected each other
deeply. Indeed, even Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was impressed with the eloquence of Ali’s
eulogy to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Why should our Shia brothers focus on the disputes
between two great men who eventually reconciled? Is this not being the cause of
great Fitnah?
Superiority of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
Thirty-three thousand Sahabah pledged their Baya’ah to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The
Muslim masses recognized the superiority of Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬above all the
other Sahabah, and they came to this conclusion after reflecting on the words of the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself. We read in the following Hadith narrated by
Amr ibn al-Aas (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬:
So I came to him (the Prophet) and said, “Which of the people is dearest to you?” He
said, “Aisha.” I said: “Who among the men?” He (the Prophet) said: “Her father.”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3662; Sahih Muslim, 2384)
In another Hadith, we read:
“We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best (of the Sahabah)…”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3655)
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was chosen by the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to
It was Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
be the Imam of the prayers in the Prophet’s sickness, and therefore this is indeed an
indication that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬saw Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as the
most suitable successor. He did not state this directly, because then the people
would view this as a religious obligation to be imposed on people, as opposed to the
will of the people (as is just). But the people rightfully interpreted it as the Prophet’s
“vote” for Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and it is therefore no surprise that 33,000 Sahabah
pledged Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and nobody else.
As for Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, he himself did not view himself superior to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬. Although Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬may have felt for a small stretch of time that he was
more fitted for the Caliphate, he would reverse this position, evidenced by the
sayings of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬later in life. Ali’s son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, narrated:
I said to my father: “Whom of the people was the best after the Messenger of Allah?”
He (Ali) said: “Abu Bakr.”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3671)
In another narration, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“No one is brought to me who regards me as superior to Abu Bakr and Umar but I
will punish him with a beating like a fabricator.”
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: It was narrated that he (Ali) used to speak from
the minbar of Kufa and say that the best of this Ummah after our Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬was Abu Bakr and then Umar. This was narrated from him via more
than eighty Isnads, and it was narrated by Bukhari and others. (Manhaj al-Sunnah,
1/308)

ّ ‫ )ر‬said:
“The best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr.”
(Musnad Ahmad, 839)
There is no doubt that the most superior of the Sahabah was Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
This was the view of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, the consensus of the Sahabah,
and the position of the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah (People of the Sunnah).
Therefore, based on this, it was only fitting that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬be declared
the successor of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Shia Account of Saqifah
Surprisingly, the Shia account of Saqifah is similar to the Sunni version. We read:
When Muhammad died, his daughter, Fatima, her husband, Ali, and the rest of the
family of Hashim, gathered around the body preparing it for burial…[a] group (of
Ansar) were gathering in the portico of Banu Sa’ida. It was reported to Abu Bakr
that the Ansar were contemplating pledging their loyalty to Sa’d ibn Ubada, chief of
the Khazraj. And so Abu Bakr and his group hurried to the Saqifa. One of the Ansar
spoke first saying that as the Ansar had been the ones who supported and gave
victory to Islam and since the Meccans were only guests in Medina, the leader of the
community should be from the Ansar. Abu Bakr replied to this very diplomatically.
He began by praising the virtues of the Ansar, but then he went on to point out that
the Muhajirun (the Meccans) were the first people in Islam and were closer in
kinship to the Prophet. The Arabs would accept leadership only from the Quraysh
and so Quraysh should be the rulers and the Ansar their ministers. One of the Ansar
proposed: “Let there be one ruler from us and one ruler from you…” And so the
argument went back and forth until Abu Bakr proposed: “Give your allegiance to
one of these two men: Abu Ubayda or Umar.” And Umar replied: “While you are still
alive? No! It is not for anyone to hold you back from the position in which the
Apostle placed you. So stretch out your hand.” And Abu Bakr stretched out his hand
and Umar gave him his allegiance. One by one, slowly at first, and then rushing
forward in a mass, the others did likewise…
Shi’i sources maintain that Ali did not in fact give his allegiance to the new Caliph
until after Fatima’s death, which occurred six months after the death of the Prophet.
(”An Introduction to Shi’i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi’ism”; by
Moojan Momen, pp.18-20)
It should be noted that this book is on Al-Islam.org’s recommended reading list.
Conclusion
Our Shia brothers make an issue out of nothing, creating an incident out of a non-
incident, an event out of a non-event. They insist on creating dissension and
disagreement over an event that took place over a thousand years ago. Is it not time
already to put the past behind us? Why must our Shia brothers live in the past
forever, crying over spilt milk? Abu Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) did more for the Muslim
empire than any of the millions of Shia alive today have done.
In any case, the event of Saqifah does nothing at all to further the Shia cause, and in
fact, an analysis of said event only strengthens the position of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Neither Abu Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬
ّ ) nor Umar (‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬
ّ ) conspired to steal the
Caliphate, and they did not proceed towards Saqifah with this intention. Our Shia
brothers cannot reproduce even a single authentic narration to indicate that this was
their plan; instead the Shia rely on silly conspiracy theories that hold no weight. Abu
Bakr (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) and Umar (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) saved the Muslim Ummah from self-
destruction, and in fact, it would be these two who would transform the Arabs into a
world power, one that would destroy the Persian empire and vanquish the Roman
empire. It was these two men who brought glory to the Muslim Ummah, and instead
of sending curses upon them like the Shia do, we should ask Allah to bestow His
Mercy and Grace upon them.
Battle of the Camel
 Introduction
One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is that she left her
house to fight Ali (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) in the Battle of the Camel. This lie has been
propagated so many times by the Shia scholars that people have started to think of
this as fact. In the words of Ibn Khaldum: “The more a supposed ‘incident’ becomes
popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”
The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬were
innocent of the Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits
who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Shia, who have historically been the
cause of much Fitnah.
 Shia Slander
Let us see what Al-Tijani, the popular Shia scholar and writer, has to say on the
issue. Al-Tijani says:
“We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by
Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah
allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was
the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us
that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce
her in the incident of al-Ifk…”(Then I was Guided, p. 117)
This is a blatant lie; the Shia scholars would have us believe that the entire Battle of
the Camel was over “hurt feelings” and was more of a soap opera gone awry then
anything else, in which a vengeful woman was hurt and she got hundreds of people
to fight over this. This is nothing but a fairy-tale fit for Lifetime TV, and it does not
withstand objective historical analysis.
 Uthman’s Assassination (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
During the reign of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, the third Caliph, the Islamic state had
expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles.
Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬were tilted in favor of the
Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to
slander Uthman (‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.
In any case, the Beduins found a spokesman in Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Ali (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ )
prevented these Beduins from resorting to violent rebellion and to instead use
peaceful negotiation. As the Vizier and top advisor of Caliph Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬,
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬had the ability to bring the case of the Beduins to the Caliph. Ali’s
supporters (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) were a myriad of disenchanted people, all of whom had
grievances with Caliph Uthman. A portion of these Shia’t Ali were the Saba’ites, the
ancestors of the modern day Ithna Ashari Shia. Abdullah ibn Saba, leader of the
Saba’ites, began the villification of Uthman ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬many of the disenchanted
Beduins in the Shia’t Ali were receptive to this Fitnah. This sub-section of the Shia’t
Ali would eventually over the centuries form the Shia we see today [i.e. Ithna Ashari
Shia].
Abdullah ibn Saba convinced some of the extremist Beduins in Egypt to rebel
against Uthman (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ّ ). This was not sanctioned by Ali ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ), who
favored arbitration. In any case, Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬heard of these Shia’t Ali who
were planning on rebelling against him [i.e. open treason]. So Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
ordered the Eygptian governor to punish the malcontents. When the Egyptian
Beduins found out that the governor was going to punish the malcontents on the
orders of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, they decided to launch a pre-emptive strike and seige
the Caliph’s home in Medinah.
This decision by the extremist members of the Shia’t Ali was not supported by Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. When Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬heard that extremist members of his own party
were plotting the murder of the Caliph, he immediately dispatched his own son to
defend Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬sent a letter to Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
saying, “I have 500 men, so give me the permission to defend you from these people,
otherwise things would happen that they would kill you.” Uthman (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ )
answered, “May Allah reward you for your good intentions, but I do not want blood
to be shed for my cause.” [Tareekh Damascus, p.403]
Hasan (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Ibn Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Ibn Al-Zubair (‫رضّى‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, and Marwan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬rushed to the house of Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬raising
their swords. Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬told them, “I order you to go back home, put your
swords in their sheaths, 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 Hadith was
narrated in Al-Estia’ab with a good authentication.]
When Hasan (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬ّ ) entered upon Uthman ( ‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ), he said, “O
Commander of the Faithful! I am under your command, so order me as you
wish.” Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬answered, “My dear brother’s son! Go back, and stay in
your home until Allah carries out His order. I do not need the shedding of
blood.”[Musnad Ahmed, Virtues of the Companions, #753]
And so it was that the Amir Al Mumineen Uthman bin Affan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was slain
by certain extremist members of the Shia’t Ali, namely the Saba’ites [the pioneers of
modern day Shi’ism].
 Ali’s Caliphate (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
After Uthman’s death ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, the Shia’t Ali asked Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to declare
himself Caliph. Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who
murdered Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not want to be associated with
these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider
very authentic. [It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe the Nahjul
Balagha to contain many forgeries.] The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and
letters of Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬condems his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their extremist actions.

Ali says to his Shia:
“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan]
Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after
having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and
know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in
order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you
as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people…You have
broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its
commands!”
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm]

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the
murder of Uthman, Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces
and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are
hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I
respond to you, I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever
[anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I
would listen to and obey whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better
for you as a counsellor than as chief.”
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]
At first, Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬refused to be Caliph. However, he eventually accepted the
position and became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his announcement as Caliph, there
was a large grumbling from people who accused Ali ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) of being an
accomplice in the murder of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, since it was well known that it
was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s
house (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ). This accusation made against Ali ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) is recorded in
Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha which is titled “About those who accused Ali of
Uthman’s killing.”
 Qisas
There was a public outcry for Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute
Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the
murderers brought to justice. However, Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬decided to delay enacting
Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who
were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own
ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali (‫رضّى‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, so the last thing Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬could afford to do was lose more supporters
by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬decided to delay
enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬had the sincere intention
of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from
his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
As a consequence of Ali’s decision ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting
Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were
from the same tribe of Uthman ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬for example, the governor of Syria–
Muawiyyah (‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬was Uthman’s cousin ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and he was one of the
people demanding Qisas. The Prophet’s widow, Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, realized that the
situation was getting out of hand and that things might get ugly soon between those
demanding Qisas and those delaying Qisas. She decided to act as an arbiter on
behalf of Uthman’s family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to
Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters. Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. This point cannot be emphacized enough: Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬left her
house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.
 Reconciliation
In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded.
Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬: “O mother, what moved you
and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between
people.” So it was that Aisha (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, Talha (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and Zubair (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
met Caliph Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to urge him to find the murderers of Uthman ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬. It should be noted that during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬also went to
Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who
opposed Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Hence, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in
negotiating with the Caliph and urging him to do something, as long as this is done
in a peaceful and productive manner; in fact, this prevents bloodshed and violence.
 Uthman’s Killers
The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites]
obviously did not want Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to be successful in convincing Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬to prosecute them. “And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the
Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They
were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war
[between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would
know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors
did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness …
they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]
“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while
she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the
Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the
Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their
friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure
of Aisha, p.718] Aisha’s contingent ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬then returned fire in order to defend
the Prophet’s wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict.
And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬nor by Aisha (
‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنها‬rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked Aisha’s envoy ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent
capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬,
Aisha (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ), Talha (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ), and Zubair (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) found their
contingents fighting each other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did
they know that it was Uthman’s killers who had initiated this entire operation,
hoping that it would cause Aisha’s mission ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬of negotiation to fail. The
Saba’ites would blame the entire matter on Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, and we see clearly
today that their descendants–the Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of
blaming Aisha (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba
and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophet’s wives and his
companions.
 Aisha’s Intention (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
Aisha’s intention (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to
make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shia’t
Ali. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran:
“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between
them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye
(all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah;
but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah
loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so
make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran,
49:9-10)
Aisha (‫رض}}}}}}ى هللا عنها‬

ّ ) said in no uncertain terms: “I only wanted
reformation.” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42) Ibn Al-Arabi explains that “her
presence in the Battle of the Camel was not for war, but people…complained to her
about the affliction. They hoped for her blessing in the reformation [between
Muslims], and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is
present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to
represent what Allah says ‘If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel,
make ye peace between them.’”
It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected
the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of
the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and
people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her
influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (
‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including
Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. It is likely that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬would have accepted her plea to find
Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start
the war.
Aisha’s intentions (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to
stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬said: “I came out to
reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be
content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’
matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)
 “And stay in your homes…”
Al-Tijani further alleges:
“How could Umm al-Mu’mineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered
her to stay, when the most High said: ‘And stay in your houses and do not display
your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours…’ (Quran, Verse
33:33)” (When I was Guided, p. 117)
Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did not leave her house displaying her finery! We fear Allah from
such blasphemy; would the Shia like to share the same fate as the Munafiqeen
(hypocrites) who accused Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬of adultery in the incident of Al-Ifk and
who were subsequently condemned in the Quran? We seek Allah’s Mercy from
slandering the chastity of the Prophet’s own wife. Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬left her house
in complete Hijab and fully covered; thus, she did not in any way violate this verse of
the Quran.
Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the
Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can
never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste
and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such
as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to
the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and he himself travelled with his wives after this.
For example, he travelled with Aisha ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this
occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to
accuse the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of violating the meaning of this verse!
Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated
that Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gave Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is
allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her
departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be
saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)
An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway.
However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is
permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save
Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed
to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬thought that she could
prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an
arbiter. In fact, if Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬thought that leaving her house was the only way
to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but
no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).
It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
told Saudah (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of
the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine
injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step
out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)
If the Shia knew of an incident in which Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did not leave her house
and this resulted in some harm to the Ahle Bayt Ali, then suddenly the Shia would
reverse their position and use this story against Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. For example, if
Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬could have hypothetically prevented the assassination of Ali (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬by leaving her house and warning him of it, would the Shia still hold to their
statement that the Prophet’s wives could not leave their homes? Based on this
hypothetical scenario, we see that the Shia accusations are completely biased.
 “If two parties amongst the Believers…”
Even if we accept the Shia propaganda that Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬went out to fight Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, then we cite the following verse in the Quran:
“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between
them…make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who
are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and
reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)
This shows that two believers, even two of the most righteous Mu’mins on earth, can
get in disagreements that become violent. This does not mean that one party must
necessarily be right and the other party must be the devil. This is simpleton thought:
both Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬and Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬had legitimate viewpoints. Aisha (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬cannot be blamed for wanting Qisas for Uthman’s murderers, a right granted by
Shariah. And Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬cannot be blamed for delaying Qisas because he was
trying to prevent more Fitnah.
 Shia Double Standards and Inconsistencies
It should also be noted that had it been Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Umar Bin Khattab (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who had delayed enacting Qisas for Ali’s murderers, then the Shia would
slander them for this; again, to the Shia, it is not the actions which matter but rather
who takes those actions. If Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬does anything, then it is right. If Abu
Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Aisha (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, or
Muawiyyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬do anything, it is automatically wrong.
Having said that, the truth is that it was not Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬who was responsible
for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman (
‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬, and they did not want Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to convince Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to swiftly
prosecute them.
The Shia fairy-tale regarding the Battle of the Camel is far-fetched and full of
inconsistencies. The Shia say that Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was complicit in the murder of
Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and that she used his murder as an excuse to fight Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬. In Nahjul Balagha, one of the “sayings” of Ali ( ‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) is the
following: “They [i.e. Aisha] are demanding of me a right [i.e. Qisas] which they
have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed.” (Nahjul Balagha,
Sermon 22) The Ahlus Sunnah believes this to be an obvious forgery and a grave
enormity to accuse the Prophet’s wife of murder!
According to the Shia, Aisha rejoiced when Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was killed. But then
she heard the news that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was the new Caliph, and she was supposedly
mortified. To quote Al-Tijani, the famous Shia scholar and writer:
“We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by
Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah
allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was
the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us
that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce
her in the incident of al-Ifk…”(When I was Guided, p. 117)
How could it be that the Battle of the Camel was started over Aisha’s hurt feelings (
‫ ?)رضّى هللا عنها‬Let us logically analyze this spurious claim. The fact of the matter is
that there were hundreds of people protesting on the streets, all of them demanding
Qisas for Uthman’s murder. Most of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (
ّ ). For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ), was one
such individual. There was also Talha (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) and Zubair (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ). The
question begs: if Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬had publically advocated Uthman’s murder and
she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be “allied” with
Muawiyyah (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ّ ), who also fought with Ali ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ )? This is truly a
contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬have fought Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to
punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬murder
his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor,
evidenced by the fact that the Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬in relation to Muawiyyah (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
Furthermore, if we switch Ali’s name with Abu Bakr and Aisha’s name with Fatima,
then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬fought Abu Bakr
(‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬,
but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr ( ‫ !)رضّى هللا عنه‬We see this glaring double-
standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to
Fadak, then Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is in the right despite the fact that, according to the
Shia, she is cursing the Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph. Here, the Shia will say that
Abu Bakr’s position (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly
compete with Fatima’s position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes
to the Battle of the Camel, then Aisha’s position ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) as Mother of the
Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that
Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!
And is it really believable that hundreds of people would fight against the Shia’t Ali,
simply because Aisha’s feelings ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬were hurt over an incident that took
place years before? The Shia scholars taint Aisha’s image (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬by saying that
she did all this simply because Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬told the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to
divorce her. [It should be noted that this is another Shia fairy-tale that we shall
expose in another article; Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬never told the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
to divorce Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬.] This reason for the Battle of the Camel does not
explain why hundreds of people took to the streets against Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Were
they all angry at this comment made by Ali ( ‫ ?)رضّى هللا عنه‬Or was there something
else they wanted?
 Conclusion
The reality is that Aisha ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ), Talha (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ), Zubair (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ),
Muawiyyah (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and hundreds of other people wanted Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to
apprehend Uthman’s killers who were in his camp. Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬always planned
on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aisha’s request ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬to speed up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this, and they attacked
Aisha’s envoy (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the
Camel and saving their own skin. It should be noted that both Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and
Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬reconciled after the Battle of the Camel, and Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬even
escorted Aisha (‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ) back home. This fact alone should be enough for
anyone; if Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not hold a grudge against Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, then
surely the Muslims today should not hold a grudge against her.
It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of

having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he
claimed prophethood. The Munafiqeen accused Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of using the
Caliphate to empower his family. The Munafiqeen accused Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of taking
the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman. Likewise have the Shia taken the
actions of the Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them of having alterior
motives. The righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers
and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt
to their fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife and lover.
Origins of the Shia Sect
Jews of Yathrib
Prior to the advent of Islam, the Arabian Peninsula was inhabited by various
warring tribes. Due to their lack of unity and their incessant inter-tribal warfare, the
Arabs were a backwards race with few cultural achievements and very little military
power. The motley Arabs were trapped in between two regional super-powers; to the
West was the powerful Roman Empire and to the East was the mighty Persian
Empire, and both would terrorize neighboring Arab provinces at will.
It was then that a Prophet arose by the name of Muhammad, who unified the
various Arab tribes under the banner of Islam. The Islamic ethos shattered the
Jahiliyyah concept of Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) and unified the Muslims under
the newly defined concept of the Islamic Ummah. The Prophet unified the city of
Yathrib (Medinah) which was a hotbed of inter-tribal warfare.
The Jews of Yathrib feared the unification of the Arabs, because they used to play on
the differences between the various groups. The Jews thus conspired with a group of
people, the Munafiqoon (the hypocrites), who claimed to be Muslim but were really
disbelievers. Their leader was a man named Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salool. This
was the first attempt of the Jews to subvert Islam from the inside, using Abdullah
ibn Ubayy and his lot to create schisms within the Ummah. (The Jew by the name of
Abdullah Ibn Saba would use this same technique to create schisms within the
Ummah.)
First, the Prophet unified the city of Yathrib (Medinah) and he expelled the
conspiring Jews. Then, he conquered Mecca and set about unifying all of Arabia.
The Prophet sent invitation letters to the nations of the world, inviting them to the
Call of Allah.
The Persians
The Persian King, Chosroes, tore up the letter and declared that he would never
follow the lowly Arabs. The Persians considered themselves a superior race. Theirs
was a nation of racial haughtiness and supremacism. They were not willing to
submit to the way of the inferior Arabs, nor were they ready to accept the radical
Islamic call for racial equality.
After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Abu Bakr quelled the apostate tribes in the
Wars of Riddah (Apostasy), and he thereby maintained the unity of the Arabian
Peninsula. Two years later, Umar bin Khattab assumed power and at this time, the
Islamic nation-state was coming of age. Border skirmishes between Rome and
Persia eventually erupted into all-out war.
Under the guidance of the Commander of the Faithful Umar, the Muslim armies
defeated Rome and blitzed across Persia, dealing both empires a crushing blow. The
Persians, with their haughty attitude of superiority, were sourly humiliated. The
Muslims took the Persians as POWs (Prisoners of War), and the once mighty
Persians were forced to work as slaves for a fixed term of punishment.
Harmuzan
The defeated Persian governor and former military commander, Harmuzan, was
brought before Caliph Umar. Umar said to the defeated Persian:
“Harmuzan, we Arabs are the desert-dwellers you considered too lowly for even
fighting with. We used to get licked by small columns of your troops. Now you see
your King’s throne and crown lying at our feet while he is running about places to
save his life. How did that happen?”
Harmuzan replied:
“Sir, then it used to be a war between the Persians and the Arabs. Now you have
your God with you.”
In another narration, Harmuzan declared that before it was merely the Arab forces
against the Persian forces, and the Persian forces were stronger. But now it was the
Arab forces and Allah, and it was impossible to defeat both at the same time. It was
thus that Harmuzan and his Persian confederates realized that the power of the
Republic of Medinah lay in its religious beliefs. To destroy the religious beliefs of the
Muslims would be to destroy the Muslims.
Harmuzan was to be executed for war crimes by Caliph Umar, but he saved his life
through an ingenious trick. He asked for water to drink, and requested Caliph Umar
for a reprieve for his life until he could finish his drink of water. Umar granted him
this request, and upon this, Harmuzan spilled the water on the ground. Because he
was unable to drink the water, therefore technically his royal reprieve would never
lapse. Caliph Umar upheld his word, and thereby pardoned Harmuzan.
Assassination Plot
Harmuzan “converted” to Islam and moved to Medinah, whereupon he planned the

Persian revenge on the Arab Muslims. Harmuzan blamed the Commander of the
Faithful Umar for the downfall of the Persian Empire, and it was thus that
Harmuzan hatched the plan to assassinate the Caliph.
In Medinah, Harmuzan became close companions with a staunch Christian named

Jafeena Al-Khalil. Jafeena was a political pawn of the Roman ruler and had served
as an official in Damascus, Palestine and Heerah; the defeat of Rome by the
Muslims left its mark on Jafeena who–like Harmuzan–swore revenge. The third
partner was a Jew by the name of Saba bin Shamoon (whose son would be Abdullah
Ibn Saba, the notorious founder of the Shia movement). Saba despised the Muslims
who had expelled the Jews on charges of conspiracy. All three of these individuals–
Harmuzan the Zoroastrian, Jafeena the Christian, and Saba the Jew–belonged to
peoples who had grievances against the rise of Muslim dominance.
They hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian, who had recently been captured by the
Muslims as a POW; he was a slave under a Muslim master. Abu Lulu stabbed Umar
bin Khattab to death. A day before Umar had been assassinated, Abdur Rehman-–
Abu Bakr’s son-–had seen Abu Lulu standing with Harmuzan and Jafeena. The
three men were whispering to one another. As Abdur Rehman passed by, the three
got startled and a double edged dagger fell to the ground. Abdur Rehman would
later confirm that this was the same dagger that killed Umar. The murder of Umar
was thus instigated by a coalition of a Roman Christian, a Jew, and a Persian
Zoroastrian. It should be noted that the Prophet had prophecized that the
Christians, Jews, and pagans would always be united against the Muslims.
Today, the modern day Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-
din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a
shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu
Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray
inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and
even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of
Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who
planted the seeds of the Shia movement.
Ubaidallah’s Revenge and Uthman’s Decision
Umar’s son, Ubaidallah, was infuriated by the murder of his father. Ubaidallah
killed both Harmuzan and Jafeena. Ubaidallah was thus charged with murder and
brought to the court of the new Caliph, Uthman bin Affan. Ali bin Abi Talib,
Uthman’s vizier, advised that Ubaidallah should be executed for murder because
there was not enough evidence to convict Harmuzan and Jafeena of any crime.
Furthermore, reasoned Ali, extra-judicial vigilante justice was not permitted in
Islam; Harmuzan and Jafeena should at least have been entitled to a fair trial and-–
if found guilty–-be executed by none other than the state.
However, the other Sahabah–-including Amir bin al A’as-–differed with Ali’s

position , because they sympathized with Ubaidallah , who was the son of the great
Umar . His father had just been murdered in cold blood, and so they wished that
Ubaidallah be forgiven due to the fact that he was acting out of distress. Caliph
Uthman thus ruled that Ubaidallah must pay blood-money. But because Harmuzan
and Jafeena had no relatives, Uthman declared that the blood-money should be
given to charity and the Baitul Mal. However, Ubaidallah was unable to pay the
blood-money due to lack of funds, and so it was that Caliph Uthman paid this
money out of his own pocket.
This was one of his first acts as Caliph, and the conspirators (in particular Abdullah
Ibn Saba’s father) viewed Uthman’s decision very unfavorably. It was in this
atmosphere that Uthman bin Affan came to power, and the machinations of the
conspirators continued in full force. Ubaidallah had killed Harmuzan and Jafeena,
but Saba bin Shamoon remained alive. His son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, “converted” to
Islam and he would uphold the task of destroying Islam from within.
The fact that Uthman showed mercy upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin Shamoon
and his son, Abdullah Ibn Saba. These two men looked sympathetically towards Ali,
due to the fact that Ali had taken a harsh stance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was
thus that Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling
the masses to adore Ali and agitating them against Uthman. It was Abdullah Ibn
Saba’s propaganda against Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontent
and caused the people to rise against the Caliph. And so it was that the Saba’ites
(followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman.
Uthman’s Caliphate
The murder of Umar by the Persians created an air of rebellion of suspicion. Under
the rule of Umar, the Islamic state expanded far and wide, but the conquered people
posed the constant threat of rebellion. Despite these amazing victories for the
Muslims, it turned out to be that the management of these vast territories became a
more difficult task than conquering them. During Caliph Uthman’s rule, the Islamic
empire had grown so large that it was crushing itself under its own weight; the state
was experiencing grave financial troubles.
Caliph Uthman was faced with the management of these conquered peoples who
were by nature rebellious and unruly. He had the task of appointing governors as
well as tax collectors; Caliph Uthman, an Umayyad, trusted very few people and
rightfully so considering the atmosphere of civil discontent at the time, not to
mention the assassination of Umar by the conquered Persians. So it was that
Uthman appointed his family and friends to government positions. For example,
during his reign, Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah remained the governor of Syria.
Ali acts as Vizier of the Caliph
Many poor Bedouins felt that the Uthman’s policies were tilted in favor of the
Umayyad elite. They wrongfully accused Caliph Uthman of nepotism. (Today, the
Shia also accuse him of this. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are the ones
who said that the Prophet Muhammad believed in nepotism, by restricting the
Caliphs in the Ahlel Bayt only.)
The Bedouins found a spokesman in Ali. Ali prevented these Bedouins from
resorting to violent rebellion and to instead use peaceful negotiation. As the Vizier
and top advisor of Caliph Uthman, Ali had the ability to bring the case of the
Bedouins to the Caliph, and by doing so, he brought these Bedouins to the
negotiating table instead of the war table.
The Partisans of Ali

Ali’s supporters were a myriad of disenchanted people, some of whom had
grievances with Caliph Uthman. These became the “Partisans of Ali” or the Shia’t
Ali. (It should be noted that this is not the same group as the Ithna Ashari of today.
In fact, the truth is that the Ithna Asharis did not exist back then, and the doctrine of
Ithna Ashari Shi’ism would only emerge centuries later.) Indeed, these Partisans of
Ali were simply recently converted Bedouins as well as conquered Persians. They
were not a religious sect, but rather a political party. The term “Shia’t Ali” was not
used to denote a distinct religious sect; in fact, the partisans of Muawiyyah would be
called “Shia’t Muawiyyah.”
Within the Partisans of Ali were a myriad of different groups; many of which were
Bedouins who had just recently converted from a Mushrik faith, as well as recently
conquered Persians who clung to their Zoroastrian ways. They were weak in faith,
ignorant, and barbaric. Both the Bedouins and the Zoroastrians were accustomed to
their former pagan beliefs and had a difficult time adjusting to Islam, and often-
times they would mix Islam with pagan thought.
The Saba’ites
The Zoroastrians (of the defeated Persian Empire), the Christians (of the defeated
Eastern Roman Empire), and the Jews (who had been expelled by the Muslims)
grieved for the old days. In their private counsel, these defeated elements had
reached the conclusion that it was not possible to fight Muslims on the battlefield.
Therefore, they resolved to sow the seed of discord amongst Muslims, using the
model of the Jews of Yathrib. The Prophet had called the Muslims to unite under the
banner of Islam and the Quran; the disunited Arabs had unified and defeated their
enemies. Thus, these conspirators decided to undo this process; they reasoned that
to remove the Muslims from Islam and the Quran would also cause disunity and
weakness.
The first step of these conspirators was the assassination of Umar. Umar’s son
Ubaidallah took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzan the
Persian. It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded that Ubaidallah be given the
death penalty for murdering Umar’s assassins. Abdullah Ibn Saba, whose father had
been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took a liking for Ali and declared
himself a Partisan of Ali. Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar-–it had after all
been his father responsible for Umar’s death; he also carried a grudge against
Uthman who pardoned the killers of his father’s companions.
Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during
the time of civil unrest during Uthman’s Caliphate. Ibn Saba “converted” to Islam,
and tried to gain a following amongst Ali’s more extreme supporters. These
followers of Ali were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman. They were
already upset with Uthman and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn
Saba who would convince them of Ali’s superiority over Uthman.
Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt
(Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could excel the Ahlel
Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali
was the most superior person after the Prophet. When he saw that some of his
followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the
appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this
right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the
Sahabah, and he is the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of
Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He then told his staunch supporters that Ali had
powers above those of a normal human being.
To appeal to the recent Persian converts, Ibn Saba infused Zoroastrian beliefs into
Islam. The Zoroastrians believed that God’s spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and
that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba
declared that the divinity of Imamah also moved from one Imam to another through
the descendants of Ali. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the
powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes.
Ibn Saba’s ideas appealed to the pagan side of the new converts from amongst the
Beduins and Persians; these pagans were accustomed to worshipping idols and
people, so the exaltation of Ali appealed to them. Eventually, Ibn Saba would take it
to the ultimate extreme and he applied in full force the concept of the Persian
Chosroes, declaring Ali to be Allah incarnated.
Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba’s antics, but once he
heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba’s followers
(called Saba’ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he
would eventually exile them to Mada’in (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph. But
the Saba’ites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding one’s
faith); this allowed the Saba’ites to avoid detection from the authorities, infiltrating
the ranks of the Shia’t Ali. Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in
Mecca and Medinah, remained oblivious to the Saba’ites who were mostly in Iraq
(i.e. Kufa), Persia, and Egypt.
With the practise of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Saba’ites functioned much like a
secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other clandestine
organizations. The Saba’ites operated under a strict code of secrecy and hid their
identities for fear of reprisal from the government. This created a situation such that
the authorities could not clamp down on the Saba’ites due to their elusiveness, and
the secret society continued to grow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shia’t Ali,
without even Ali’s knowledge.
The Saba’ites were the originators of the Shia faith. Generations later, these
Saba’ites would branch out into the various Shia sects we know of today: the Druze,
Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas,
Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Ithna Asharis, Usoolis, Akhbaris, Shaykis, and so
on.
Saba’ites Organize Attack on Uthman
It should be noted that these Saba’ite Bedouins were only one segment of the Shia’t
Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the
Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Saba’ites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph
Uthman. But news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia’t Ali
reached the ears of Uthman . Caliph Uthman thus ordered the Egyptian governor to
preemptively take action against the malcontents. But when the Eygptian Bedouins
found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents on orders of Caliph
Uthman, Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Bedouins to siege the Caliph’s home in
Medinah.
Ali did not take part in the siege, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali sent his own
sons to protect Caliph Uthman, and he even offered 500 men to protect Uthman .
How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali hated Uthman when he sent his own
beloved sons to defend him and to prolong his Caliphate? Indeed, Ali did not
support the Saba’ite Bedouins who favored Ali over Uthman-–much like Ali would
not support the modern day Shia today. The modern day Shia can never explain why
Ali did not raise his sword against Uthman, and they can only say that perhaps he
was preventing bloodshed. But then why was Ali ready to shed blood in the defense
of Uthman? Truly, the Shia cannot explain this: a man does not send his sons to
defend a tyrant. If a Sahabi sent his son went to defend Yezid whom the Shia
consider a tyrant, it would be the Shia who would be the first to condemn this
Sahabi!
Ali’s Caliphate
In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Saba’ite Bedouins. Once Uthman was
slain, the Shia’t Ali urged Ali to become the next Caliph. Ali, however, did not
approve of the actions taken by his extremist followers and he asked his Shia’t Ali to
find someone else to be Caliph. Ali became reclusive and shunned his followers
severely. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider one of the
most authentic sources of Ali’s lectures.

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the
murder of Uthman, Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces
and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are
hovering over the sky, and face are not discernible. You should know that if I
respond to you that I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever
[anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I
would listen to and obey whoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for
you as a counselor than as chief.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
However, the people pushed him and finally Ali became the Fourth Caliph. If Ali had
really been appointed to the Imamah by Allah, then why would Ali have refused this
appointment at first? Why would he dislike a position that was supposedly granted
to him by Allah? If Imamah was destined for him, why is Ali claiming that he wasn’t
even going to be the Caliph until the people put him up to it? We see that Ali says
the following in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali said:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you
yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
Battle of the Camel Instigated by Saba’ites
There was a public demand for Ali to find the killers of Uthman, especially since it
was known that the killers were part of the Shia’t Ali. However, Ali found himself
too busy preventing a civil war to invest time and resources into finding the killers,
so he planned on delaying it. This angered many people who wanted justice
immediately. They found a spokeswoman in Aisha, the Prophet’s widow. She
sympathized with the people who wanted to find the killers of Uthman.
The reality is that both Ali and Aisha had equally convincing arguments. On the one
hand, Ali wanted to delay spending time and resources to find the killers because he
had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aisha cannot be blamed for feeling
hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman, and surely the murderers should be brought
to justice! Aisha went to see Caliph Ali in order to resolve the issue peacefully
through arbitration. She feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the
malcontents by convincing Ali to find the murderers, they would rebel against
Caliph Ali. She thus adopted the Sunnah of Ali: it had, after all, been Ali who would
take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman in order that their demands be heard.
Both Aisha and Ali wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. However, the extremist
portion of the Shia’t Ali [i.e. the Saba’ites] that were responsible for the murder of
Uthman did not want Aisha to convince Ali to prosecute the murderers, since of
course it was they themselves. So these Shia’t Ali decided to attack Aisha’s
contingent thereby provoking a counter-response. Soon, Ali and Aisha found
themselves in a battle that nobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of
the Camel, and both Ali and Aisha found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they
did not want to fight.
Aisha’s contingent was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali for the trouble she had
caused, and Ali forgave her and safely returned Aisha to her home. Both Ali and
Aisha are considered Sahabah, and this is a shining example of how although
Sahabah get into disputes, they can resolve them in a civil manner. Aisha had the
humility to apologize despite the fact that she really didn’t do anything wrong, and
Ali had the nobility not to hold any ill-feelings towards her and to walk her safely
home.
During this chaotic time of civil war, all of the Sahabah were being pulled and
manipulated by their ardent followers, many of whom were rabble-rousers like the
followers of Ibn Saba in the Shia’t Ali. In the confusion of all of this, the Sahabah
found themselves facing a civil war, despite the verse in the Quran which stated that
the Ummah should remain united. It was a sad time in the history of Islam, with
great Sahabah fighting other great Sahabah. But it should be remembered that the
Battle of the Camel was concluded with the eventual reunification of Umm al
Mu’mineen Aisha and Amir al Mu’mineen Caliph Ali.
Battle of Siffin and the Saba’ite Revolt Against Ali
However, Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah was not pleased with this outcome because
Ali still did not prosecute the criminals within his own ranks. Muawiyyah was a
blood-relative of Uthman and he was very upset that the murderers were not
apprehended. Muawiyyah , then the governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali, and
he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death. In what was perhaps the most
important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces met Muawiyyah’s in the
Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali fought Muawiyyah for denying the Shia concept of the
Imamah, and that Ali 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 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]
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were
decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph
Ali, 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, 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
should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that
Allah had appointed Ali as Caliph. So they accused Ali 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. 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, 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 to be Caliph. And yet, Ali agreed to arbitration with
Muawiyyah. The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how
could Ali agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?
How could Ali agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali to
be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad agree to arbitration
and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali 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 Salah,
since these matters are already decreed by Allah.
This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali 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 was selected.
The Shia belief system is diametrically opposed to the very Ali they claim to follow,
and soon will they also be faced against Ali, much like the Khawaarij (former
Saba’ites) would turn against and face Ali; Ali is he who denied all claims of divine
appointment and of Infallible Imamah. Ali 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, namely the Khawaarij.
There is no plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar
question: why did Ali agree to Shurah? It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia
faith.
Ali Murdered by Saba’ites
In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali and killed him. So it was that
Muawiyyah became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are
the ones who killed Ali allowing Muawiyyah to be the Caliph, and now look at the
Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah 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 was divinely appointed and thus
arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.
After Ali’s death, the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah (lying) and
Kitman (hiding). Abdullah ibn Abbas, the Prophet’s cousin, persuaded many of
them to reject the Khawaarij doctrine, and so many of them did reject it, although
most of them continued to hold onto their Saba’ite Shia beliefs.
Conclusion
This article has traced the origins of the Shia, which date back to the assassination
conspiracy of Umar by the Persian Harmuzan, the Christian Jafeena, and the Jew
Saba. The latter’s son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, would carry on his father’s work by
adopting the subterfuge tactics of the Jews of Yathrib. Ibn Saba was successful in
weakening the Muslims from the inside by creating the Shia sect. Throughout its
turbulent history, the Shia (who originated from the Saba’ites) have spread Fitnah
to every corner of the Muslim world.
These Saba’ites had killed Uthman, attacked Aisha, and killed Ali. They had also
supported Umar’s assassin Abu Lula. They would betray Hasan and eventually they
would lead Hussain to his death and then later Hussain’s grandson would also die
from the betrayal of the Shia defectors. The ancestors of the Shia were a hate-
mongering people, responsible for creating disunity and disarray amongst the
Muslim Ummah. Today, this tradition lives on in the Shia, who carry on the practice
of Tabarra, cursing and insulting the pious pioneers of Islam, rabble-rousing and
trying to create hatred and disunity amongst the believers.
Battle of Siffin
 Introduction
Many people believe that the Battle of Siffin–in which Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬faced off with
Muawiyyah (‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬was the point at which the Sunni-Shia split solidified. At
this point, many people will take the simplistic point of view that Ali represented the
Shia side, and Muawiyyah the Sunni side. However, this is not true. Both Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬and Muawiyyah (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) were adherents of the same faith, of the
mainstream Islam. There was, however, a third group which would form in the
Battle of Siffin–theKhawaarij–who, via their relationship with the Saba’ites, were
the ancestors of the modern day Shia movement. In fact, the Battle of Siffin was an
important event in Islamic history to understand for this very reason as it raises
many questions that the Shia cannot explain.
 Reasons For Civil War
Muawiyyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬demanded that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬find and prosecute Uthman’s
killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shia’t Ali.
Muawiyyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was a blood-relative of Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and he was very
upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, then the
governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and he demanded the right
to avenge Uthman’s death ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. In what was perhaps the most important
battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬met Muawiyyah’s (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬in the Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬fought Muawiyyah ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for denying the
Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was 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 هللا عنه‬clearly
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 ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ). It would have been a decisive
victory for Caliph Ali (‫)رضّى هللا 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 هللا 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 (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been
convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as Caliph.
So they accused Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of 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 هللا 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
‫)هللا 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 هللا عنه‬to be Caliph. And yet, Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬agreed to
arbitration with Muawiyyah (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ). The million-dollar question, asked of
course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬agree to arbitration if it was a
matter decreed by Allah?
How could Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had
chosen Ali (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of
ّ
his Prophethood? So why would Ali ( ‫رض }ى هللا 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 هللا عنه‬was 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 هللا عنه‬was selected.
The Shia belief system is diammetrically opposed to the very Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬they
claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, much like
the Khawaarij [former Saba’ites] would turn against and face Ali ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬Ali (
ّ ) is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible
‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
Imamah. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬denied 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 هللا عنه‬, namely the Khawaarij. There is no
plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar question: why did
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬agree to Shurah? It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia faith.
 Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬Murdered by Saba’ites
In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and killed him. So
it was that Muawiyyah ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be
lost that the Shia are the ones who killed Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬allowing Muawiyyah (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬stealing 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 هللا عنه‬was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with
Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.
The Shia Killed Ali (R.A.), Hussain (R.A.), and Hussain’s Grandson (R.A.)
Introduction
The Shia comemmorate the Day of Ashura with great fanfare. What is strange is that
although they spend so much energy and passion in taking out parades of people
who do Matam, few Shia actually spend time to investigate what is the origin of the
Shia rituals of Matam. A simple investigation in the origins of this ritual will shock
the Shia.
Christmas
It seems that there is an underlying theme in humans: they will follow the way of
their forefathers without taking even a few minutes to question these beliefs and
practises. Just like the Shia do not take the time and energy to investigate the rituals
of Matam, the Christians likewise celebrate Christmas with little investigation into
the origins of this religious holiday.
For the Christians, the most important day of the year is Christmas in which
supposedly they celebrate the birth of Jesus. Worldwide, hundreds of thousands of
people celebrate this religious holiday. The irony of Christmas is that its origins are
actually pagan, and completely antithetical to Jesus who deplored pagan practises.
Jesus was not born in the winter, and therefore, it is odd that Christians celebrate
Jesus’s birthday on December 25th. December was actually the time in which the
pagans used to celebrate the winter solstice. A solstice is either of the two times of
the year when the sun is at its greatest distance from the equator. It was a time of
great importance for the pagans, who attributed special powers to the sun. During
the solstice, the pagans would hold various celebrations, including Saturnalia, Yule,
and the festival of Sol Invictus (the “unconquered sun”).
The pagan populations of Europe did not want to abandon these celebrations;
therefore, the Christian Church decided to adopt these holidays instead of alienating
these potential converts. Saturnalia, which took place December 17-23, was
modified and became the “twelve days of Christmas.” Yule, which took place on
December 25th, became Christmas. In fact, “Yule” and “Yuletide” are the archaic
terms for Christmas, and this is the meaning of “Yule” in both the full Oxford
English Dictionary and the Concise Oxford Dictionary. In many foreign languages,
people still use the word “Yule” as opposed to Christmas. Another important pagan
holiday held on December 25th was the festival of Sol Invictus.
The underlying point is that the Christian Church decided to adopt various pagan
holidays which all were celebrated around the time of the winter solstice. And in
fact, these pagan holidays revolved around festivities that involved sexual lewdness,
drunken orgies, and gambling. This is the pagan and irreligious origin of Christmas.
Today, “good” Christians celebrate Christmas. But in ancient times, good Christians
deemed it as a reversion to paganism and condemned Christmas as heresy. In fact,
Origen–considered to be one of the early fathers of the Christian Church–
condemned celebrating the birthday of Jesus as a pagan concept. Christmas was in
fact officially banned by the church in 1647. Although this ban was later over-
turned, various times in history would religious Christians remind their bretheren
that the holiday was of pagan–and not Christian–origins. The Puritans of New
England outlawed Christmas, and this ban remained in effect from 1659-1681.
The ritual of decorating one’s house with a Christmas tree is also from pagan
origins. The pagan Romans would do this to celebrate the holiday of Saturnalia,
again in honor of the pagan god Saturn. Cutting down trees and decorating them is
actually forbidden as pagan in the Bible (Jeremiah, 10:2-4). Other Christmas rituals
such as mistle-toe, logs, etc are also from pagan origins.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia says
“There was some dispute about the proper date of the birth of Christ and not
everyone agrees even to this day. It was not until A.D. 350, that December 25 was
declared the official date for celebrating Christmas by Pope Julius I. When the
fathers of the church decided to settle upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely
chose the day of the winter solstice, since it coincided with some rival religions’
celebrations and the rebirth of the sun (see Year of the Sun Calendar), symbolized
by bon-fires and yule logs. December 25 was a festival long before the conversion of
the Germanic peoples to Christianity, it seemed fitting that the time of their winter
festival would also be the time to celebrate the birth of Christ…
The popularity of Christmas can be better understood if it is viewed as a form of

winter celebration. Agricultural societies typically hold their most important festival
in winter since there is less need of farm work at this time.
The Romans had a winter celebration known as Saturnalia. This festival was
originally held on December 17 and honored Saturn, a god of agriculture. It recalled
the “golden age” when Saturn ruled. In imperial times, Saturnalia was extended to
seven days (December 17-23). Combined with festivals both before and after, the
result was an extended winter holiday season. Business was postponed and even
slaves feasted. There was drinking, gambling and singing naked. It was the “best of
days,” according to the poet Catullus.[7] With the coming of Christianity, Italy’s
Saturnalian traditions were attached to Advent (the forty days before Christmas).
Around the 12th century, these traditions transferred again to the “twelve days of
Christmas” (i.e. Christmas to Epiphany).[6]
Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, and its pagan celebrations had a
major influence on Christmas. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul (Yule),
originally the name of a twelve-day pre-Christian winter festival. Logs were lit to
honor Thor, the god of thunder, hence the “Yule log.” In Germany, the equivalent
holiday is called Mitwinternacht (mid-winter night). There are also twelve
Rauhnächte (harsh or wild nights).[8]
…In 274, Emperor Aurelian designated December 25 as the festival of Sol Invictus
(the “unconquered sun”). Aurelian may have chosen this date because the solstice
was considered the birthday of Mithras, a syncretic god of Persian origin. Mithras is
often identified with Sol Invictus, although Sol was originally a separate Syrian
god…
In 245, the theologian Origen denounced the idea of celebrating the birthday of
Jesus “as if he were a king pharaoh.” Only sinners, not saints, celebrate their
birthdays, Origen contended…
During the Reformation, Protestants condemned Christmas celebration as

“trappings of popery” and the “rags of the Beast”. The Catholic Church responded by
promoting the festival in a more religiously oriented form. When a Puritan
parliament triumphed over the King Charles I of England (1644), Christmas was
officially banned (1647)…
Various writers of the time condemn caroling as lewd, the dancing may have got out
of hand now and then (harking back to the traditions of Saturnalia and Yule).[6]
“Misrule” — drunkenness, promiscuity, gambling — was an important aspect of the
festival. In England, gifts were exchanged on New Year’s Day, and there was special
Christmas ale.[6]
[6] Murray, Alexander, “Medieval Christmas”, History Today, December 1986, 36

(12), pp. 31 - 39.
[8] Reichmann, Ruth, “Christmas”.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas ”
The Shia Rituals of Ashura
It is strange that so many millions of Christians can be really so ignorant that they
celebrate something in the name of Jesus even though Jesus himself would
condemn it as pagan. If these Christians would simply reflect on history, they would
find out how their whole religion is based on the antithesis of the very man they
claim to follow.
This irony of Christmas is paralled by the irony of Ashura, the Shia holiday. Firstly,
the Shia do not realize that it was the Shia themselves who were responsible for the
death of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Furthermore, the Shia of today don’t realize that the
rituals that they do during Ashura were invented by the very people who were
responsible for the murder of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Ashura is probably the most
important day of the year for the Shia, much like Christmas is for the Christian. If
the Shia minions actually stopped to reflect on the origins of this Shia “holiday”,
they would realize the baseness of their entire religion which is based on the very
antithesis of the very group (i.e. Ahlel Bayt) that they claim to follow.
The Story of Karbala
During his Caliphate, Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬shifted the Caliphate from Medinah to Kufa in
Iraq. The Kuffans were staunch Partisans of Ali (Shia’t Ali). The Jew Abdullah Ibn
Saba found the Kuffans to be very receptive to his claims that Ali was divinely
appointed by Allah, and his followers became the Saba’ites. When the Shia’t Ali met
the Shia’t Muawiyyah on the battlefield, Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬convinced Ali (‫ضى‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬to hold a cease-fire and to use arbitration to decide who will be the Caliph. Ali
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬agreed to arbitration. This angered the Kuffan Saba’ites because they
held the erroneous belief that Ali had been divinely appointed by Allah, so they
believed that Ali (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ّ ) was going against the will of Allah by agreeing to
arbitration. In their minds, there could be no negotiation on a matter that was
decreed by Allah. Some of these Kuffan Saba’ites rebelled against Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
turning on him and calling him an apostate. These people would be known as
Kharajites, and they would eventually assasinate their leader Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, the
same leader they had once claimed so much love for.
As for the remaining Kuffan Shias who did not become Kharajites, they would later
join the forces of Hasan ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ). However, Hasan (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) did not trust
these Shia as they were very disloyal. In his book al-Ihtijâj, the prominent Shia
author Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has preserved the following remark of Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬:
“By Allah, I think Muawiyyah would be better for me than these people who claim
that they are my Shia.” [Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 ,
Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989]
Distrusting his Shia, Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬made peace with Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
and gave him the Caliphate, so long as Muawiyyah ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬ ّ ) promised that
Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬would be made Caliph after Muawiyyah’s death ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
Hussain’s Shia protested at this, and Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫’)ر‬s reply is preserved in the
most important of the Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi:
“By Allah, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could
not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and
night until Allah decides between us. But I know the people of Kufa. I have
experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty,
nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their
hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.” [Al-Kafi, vol. 8 p. 288]
After this reconciliation took place between Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Muawiyyah (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬, the Shia’t Ali remained in Kufa. After the death of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, the ranks
of the Saba’ites and their sympathizers amongst the Shia’t Ali increased.
When Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬died, however, his son Yezid declared himself the
new Caliph, in violation of the agreement settled with Hasan ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ) which
stated that Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬would be Caliph. This angered the Shias of Kufa. So
it was that in Ramadan 60 A.H. that the Kuffans sent letter after letter from Kufa to
Mecca where Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was staying after his flight from Medinah. The
Kuffans assured Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬of their loyalty and allegiance to him; they had
not accepted Yezid as leader whom they resented. On certain days, there would be as
many as 600 letters accompanied by messengers describing the overwhelming
support of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in Kufa.
Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬

ّ ) decided to send his cousin Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ) to
investigate the situation in Kufa. Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬arrived in Dhul Qada where
he stayed with Ibn Awsajah al-Asadi. The Kuffans met Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and
pledged the support of 12,000 Shia’t Ali of Kufa. They promised to fight with and to
protect Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) with their lives and all they possessed. When the
number who pledged support rose to 18,000 Kufans, Ibn Aqil ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬ ّ ) felt
confident enough to dispatch a messenger to Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬informing him of
the bayat (oath of allegiance) of the Kuffans, and urged him to proceed from Mecca
and relocate his base to Kufa. So Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and his near ones began the
trek to Kufa.
Rumors of what was happening in Kufa soon reached Yezid in Damascus. He

dispatched Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad with 17 men to find Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
and kill him. When Ubaydullah arrived in Kufa, Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬called
the Kuffans to defend him. It was at this moment of need that the Shia of Kufa
deserted Ibn Aqil (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, fearful of Ubaydullah’s threats. Muslim Ibn Aqil (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬hid from Ubaydullah in the house of an old woman. The old woman’s son, a
part of the Shia’t Ali, notified Ubaydullah of Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫’)ر‬s location, hopeful
that this act would prevent Yezid from punishing Kufa. Based on this act of
treachory, the Shia’t Ali left Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬ ّ ) to be captured by
Ubaydullah.
Later that day–the Day of Arafah, the 9th of Dhul Hijjah–Muslim ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬was taken up to the highest ramparts of the fort. His last words before being
executed were:
“O Allah, You be the Judge between us and our people; they deceived us and
deserted us.”
The Shia of Kufa witnessed his execution, and not a single one of them went to the
aid of Hussain’s cousin. It is important to remember that only 17 men were with
Ubaydullah, whereas there were 18,000 Shia of Kufa who had pledged Bayat to
ّ ‫ )ر‬in front of Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. How could it be that
18,000 men could not stop 17 men from slaughtering the very man they had just
pledged support to? Such was the treachory of the Shia of Kufa.
Meanwhile, Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬had dispatched a mesenger by the name of Qais
ibn Mushir to inform the Kuffans of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫’)ر‬s arrival. The messenger
was captured by Ubaydullah, who ordered him to mount the walls of the fort and
publically curse Hussain ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬
ّ ) and his father. Instead, Qais ibn Mushir
praised Ali (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) and Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ), telling the Shia of Kufa that
ّ ‫ )ر‬was on his way, and he exhorted them to defend him. Upon
that, Qais ibn Mushir was executed. Yet another representative of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬had been killed by 18 men who met no ressistance from the 18,000 Shia of Kufa.
A ratio of 1,000 Kufans to each of Yezid’s men.
Yezid thereupon dispatched 4,000 soldiers to intercept Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. These
4,000 soldiers were actually on their way to fight the Daylamites, but Yezid re-
routed them to Karbala. These 4,000 soldiers passed through Kufa. The Kuffans
witnessed the departure of this force from Kufa with their own eyes, full well
knowing they were headed to Karbala to intercept Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. This would
be the Kuffans’ last chance to honor the oaths of allegiance to Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
which they had taken upon the hands of his cousin Muslim ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
This was the final opportunity to rush to the side of the grandson of the Prophet and
protect the Ahlel Bayt. It was after all the invitations and assurances of support from
the Shia of Kufa that encouraged Hussain ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬ ّ ) to abandon the safety of
Mecca for Kufa. But once again faithfulness, courage and commitment was found
lacking in the Shia of Kufa. Only a handful emerged to join Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬at
Karbala. Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬would comment:
“Our Shia have deserted us.”
The Shia of Kufa outnumbered Yezid’s men 18,000 to 4,000. Actually, the number
was greater than 18,000; 18,000 was simply the number of men who had
pledged Bayat (oath of allegiance) to protect Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Had they wanted
to, the Shia of Kufa could have defeated Yezid’s men and protected Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬. But instead, they did nothing but watch from afar with cowardice. The Shia of
today will eulogize this day and talk about how 71 men fought against 4,000 of
Yezid’s troops. Where did the other 18,000 go?
Al-Tawwabun (The Penitents)
Four years after the massacre of Karbala, the Shia of Kufa attempted to make
ammends for their desertion of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. They called themselves the Al-
Tawwabun, which translates to “the Penitents.” This group went to Karbala to
comemmorate Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and here it was that they began Matam, with
loud mourning, lamenting, and self-flagellation. These Tawwabun hit themselves to
punish themselves for the cowardice that they had shown that led to their Imam’s
death just four years earlier. This is the origin of the Shia ritual of Matam. It is
altogether amusing how the Shia never really wonder where this barbaric custom
started from or why it started in the first place. Little do they know that it is a
testament to this day of how they killed their own Imam, and how their whole
religion is centered around a false commitment to the Ahlel Bayt.
One More Act of Shia Treachoury
Karbala was not to be the last act of treason by the Shia against the Ahlel Bayt. Sixty
year later, the grandson of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, namely Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain (
ّ ‫)ر‬, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik.
Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬recieved the Bayat (oath of allegiance) of over 40,000 men, of
which 15,000 were from the same Kufa that deserted his grandfather. Just before
the battle started, all but a few hundred men deserted Zayd ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬en masse.
On the departure of the defectors, Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬remarked:
“I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.”
Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus,
on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH, another member of the Ahlel Bayt fell victim
to the treachery of the Shia of Kufa.
Conclusion
To this day, the Shia still commemorate Ashura by doing Matam (self-flagellation).
This ritual was passed down the generations by the Al-Tawwabun (the Penitents)
showing us that the Shia of today originate from the same Shia of Kufa who betrayed
ّ ‫)ر‬. The very reason that the Shia beat themselves is to punish
themselves for this betrayal of the Ahlel Bayt.
The Shia betrayed Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, Hussain (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ), and
Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The irony is not lost that the Shia claim to be
lovers of the Ahlel Bayt and yet historically they have betrayed them and lead to the
deaths of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Hussain’s grandson (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬.
Ali ( R.A.), Hasan (R.A.), and Hussain (R.A.) Hated the Shia

ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬hated the Shia’t Ali, the
people who claimed to be their followers. The Shia were barbaric, ignorant, and
uneducated Beduins from Iraq (i.e. Kufa) and Egypt who were new converts to
Islaam and who mixed the Deen with their pagan beliefs. They were strongly
affected by Abdullah Ibn Saba, the heretic who would try convincing the Shia’t Ali
that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was divinely appointed and had powers above that of a normal
human being. Ibn Saba’s followers were known as the Saba’ites, the ancestors of the
modern day Shia.
Abdullah Ibn Saba knew that if Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬or the Caliph found out about this
cult that was forming [i.e. the Saba’ites] then the authorities would clamp down on
them. So Ibn Saba taught his people to use Taqiyyah (lying to save one’s religion)
and Kitman (hiding one’s faith). Due to this fact, both Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Caliph
had a hard time figuring out who exactly were the Saba’ites. Additionally, most of
Ali’s time ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was spent in Mecca and Medinah, far away from Kufa and
Egypt where the Shia’t Ali and the cultish Saba’ites were growing. It is narrated that
on more than one ocassion did Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬find out about a Saba’ite and either
kill him or expel him. But for the most part, Abdullah Ibn Saba was successful in
getting the Saba’ites to infiltrate the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.

ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬would soon hate the
Shia’t Ali for their exaggerations, barbarism, and their cowardice on the battlefield.
Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬hated their so-called
supporters, and wished to be freed of them. These Shia would claim that they love
Ahlel Bayt and yet they would continually betray and backstab Ahlel Bayt, and do
things that the Ahlel Bayt forbade. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬ ّ ) said the
following about the so-called Shia:
“No one bears greater hatred towards us [the Ahlel Bayt] than those who claim to
love us.” [Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat Âl al-
Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl al-Kashshî.]
Ali condemned the Shia multiple times, and it is all recorded in the Nahjul Balagha,
which the Shia consider sacred. Let us examine Sermon 34 in which Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
says that his so-called supporters are not really his supporters and that he wants to
be rid of them. You can also view the sermon on Al-Islam.org which is the most
reliable Shia wesbite on the net.
Al-Islam.org says
“Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 34

During the fight against the people of Syria [Muawiyyah], Ali said to his Shia:
“Woe to you. I am tired of rebuking you. Do you accept this worldly life in place of
the next life? Or disgrace in place of dignity? When I invite you to fight your enemy
your eyes revolve as though you are in the clutches of death, and in the
senselessness of last moments. My pleadings are not understood by you and you
remain stunned. It is as though your hearts are affected with madness so that you do
not understand. You have lost my confidence for good. Neither are you a support for
me to lean upon, nor a means to honour and victory. Your example is that of the
camels whose protector has disappeared, so that if they are collected from one side
they disperse away from the other side.”
source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/34.htm ”
In the same sermon, Ali ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) also condemns the Shia for being trouble-
makers and fitnah-mongerers, saying:
“By Allah, how bad are you for igniting flames of war.”
Hasan did not trust these Shia either as they were very disloyal. In his book al-
Ihtijâj, the prominent Shia author Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi has preserved the
following remark of Hasan:
“By Allah, I think Muawiyyah would be better for me than these people who claim
that they are my Shia.” [Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 ,
Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989]
Distrusting his Shia, Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬made peace with Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
and gave him the Caliphate. His Shia protested at this, and Hasan’s reply ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬is preserved in the most important of the Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi:
“By Allah, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could
not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and
night until Allah decides between us. But I know the people of Kufa. I have
experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty,
nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their
hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.”
(Al-Kafi, vol. 8, p.288)
Hussain’s cousin Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was sold out to Yezid’s men by the
Shia. Muslim Ibn Aqil (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬sent a message to Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬warning
him about the Shia of Kufa:
“Do not be deceived by people of Kufa. They are those same Shia of your father from
whom he so dearly wished to part, by death or by being killed. The Kuffans have lied
to me and have lied to you, and a liar has no sense.”
Before being executed, Muslim Ibn Aqil (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬said about the Shia:
“O Allah, You be the Judge between us and our people. They deceived us and
deserted us.”
Then, Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬would be betrayed by the Shia of Kufa, who would feed
him to Yezid’s men who slaughtered Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬at Karbala. Hussain (‫ضى‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬would say before being martyred,
“Our Shia have deserted us.”
And the Shia betrayal of the Ahlul Bayt did not stop with Ali, Hasan, and Hussain;
indeed, they did not even spare Hussain’s grandson, Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنه‬. The Shia would betray him on the battlefield, defecting against him. Before
being martyred, Zayd (‫ى هللا عنه‬555555555555555555555‫رض‬
ّ ) said:
“I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain.”
ّ ‫ )ر‬condemned the Shia so many times in the Nahjul Balagha, page after
page of how much he reviled the people who claimed to be his supporters. Here, Ali
(‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫رض‬
ّ ) says that Allah will destroy the Shia of Kufa if they continue to be
decietful, and he asks Allah to change his Shia for other supporters, because he
distrusts his Shia who are not really his supporters but rather his enemies:
Al-Islam.org says

Ali chastises the Shia of Kufa:
“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”
source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm] ”
In the next sermon, Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬asks Allah to curse the looks of his Shia because
they betray him in the Battle of Siffin.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali says to his Shia at the Battle of Siffin:
“Keep quiet, may Allah make you ugly, O you with broken tooth. Certainly, by Allah,
when truth became manifest even then your personality was weak and your voice
was loose. But when wrong began to shout loudly you again sprouted up like the
horns of a kid.”
ّ ‫ )ر‬talked about how he knew that his supporters were really traitors.
He mentions it in this next sermon.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali says about his Shia:
“I always apprehended from you consequences of treachery and I had seen you
through in the garb of the decietful.”
How many times did the Shia betray the Ahlel Bayt on the battlefield? First, they
betrayed Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in the Battle of Siffin. Second, they betrayed Hasan ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬who refused to even fight Muawiyyah ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬ ّ ) after that. Third, they
betrayed Hussain’s cousin (Muslim Ibn Aqil) after they swore allegiance on his very
hand, and the Shia let the men of Yezid take him away to his execution. Fourth, the
Shia betrayed Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬on the battlefield, allowing Yezid’s men to chop
him up. Fifth, the Shia betrayed Hussain’s grandson (Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain),
defecting against him on the battlefield and leading to his death.
Let us see what Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬had to say about the treachorous and cowardly Shia:
Al-Islam.org says

“O people, your bodies are together but your desires are divergent. Your talk softens
the hard stones and your action attracts your enemy towards you. You claim in your
sittings that you would do this and that, but when fighting approaches, you say (to
war), “turn thou away” (i.e. you flee away). If one calls you (for help) the call
receives no heed. And he who deals hardly with you his heart has no solace. The
excuses are amiss like that of a debtor unwilling to pay. The ignoble can not ward off
oppression. Right cannot be achieved without effort. Which is the house besides this
one to protect? And with which leader (Imam) would you go for fighting after me?”
“By Allah! deceived is one whom you have deceived while, by Allah! he who is
successful with you receives only useless arrows. You are like broken arrows thrown
over the enemy. By Allah! I am now in the position that I neither confirm your views
nor hope for your support, nor challenge the enemy through you. What is the matter
with you? What is your ailment? What is your cure? The other party [Muawiyyah’s
Syrians] is also men of your shape (but they are so different in character). Will there
be talk without action, carelessness without piety and greed in things not right?!”
In fact, Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was completely exasperated with the Shia and he invoked
Allah’s curse upon them:
Al-Islam.org says

“You are a group whose heads are devoid of wit and intelligence. May you have no
father! Allah’s woe be to you!”
Ali (‫ى هللا عنه‬55‫رض‬
ّ ) could not stand his so-called Shia, and he disparaged them
repeatedly.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali says about his Shia:
“I am faced with men who do not obey when I order and do not respond when I call
them. May you have no father! Woe to you! What are you waiting for to rise for the
cause of Allah? Does not faith join you together, or sense of shame rouse you? I
stand among you shouting and I am calling you for help, but you do not listen to my
word, and do not obey my orders, till circumstances show out their bad
consequences. No blood can be avenged through you and no purpose can be
achieved with you. I called you for help of your brethren but made noises like the
camel having pain in stomach, and became loose like the camel of thin back.”
In this next sermon, Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬warns the Shia not to become heretics outside
the folds of orthodox Islam. And he warns them of their fate if they do this.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali said to his Shia:
“Storm may overtake you while there may be none to prick you (for reforms). Shall I
be witness to my becoming heretic after acceptance of Faith and fighting in the
company of the Prophet?! So you should return to your evil places, and get back on
the traces of your heels. Beware! Certainly you will meet, after me, overwhelming
disgrace and sharp sword and tradition that will be adopted by the oppressors as a
norm towards you.”
When Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was fighting Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, he cursed his Shia for
being false supporters and cowards. The Shia have always been cowards who have
betrayed the Ahlel Bayt consisently.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali admonishes his Shia:
“How long shall I accord you consideration that is accorded to camels with hollow
hump, or to worn clothes which when stitched on one side give way on the other.
Whenever a vanguard force of Syria [Muawiyyah’s Syrians] hovers over you,
everyone of you shuts his door and hides himself like the lizard in its hole or a
badger it its den. By Allah, he whom people like you support must suffer disgrace
and he who throws arrows with your support is as if he throws arrows that are
broken both at head and tail. By Allah, within the courtyard you are quite numerous
but under the banner you are only a few. Certainly, I know what can improve you
and how your crookedness can be straightened. But I shall not improve your
condition by marring myself. Allah may disgrace your faces and destroy you. You do
not understand the right as you understand the wrong and do not crush the wrong
as you crush the right.”
Al-Islam.org says

Ali said about his Shia:
“I saw the Prophet of Allah appear before me, and I said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! What
crookedness and enmity I had to face from my people.’ The prophet of Allah said:
Invoke (Allah) to place evil upon them,’ but I said, ‘Allah may change them for me
with better ones’”
ّ ‫ )ر‬repudiates the Shia of Iraq for saying that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬shouldn’t
go to arbitration with Muawiyyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬declared that Shura is
the way, and that he is not divinely appointed by Allah. He condemns the Shia for
saying that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was lying when he denied being appointed by Allah.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali said in condemnation of the Shia of Iraq:
“Now then, O people of Iraq! You are like the pregnant woman who, on completion
of the period of pregnancy delivers a dead child and her husband is also dead and
her period of widowhood is long while only remote relation inherits her. By Allah, I
did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I
have come to know that you say ‘Ali speaks a lie.’ May Allah fight you! Against whom
do I speak lie? Whether against Allah? But I am the first to have believed in him.
Whether against His Prophet? But I am the first who testified to him. Certainly not.
By Allah it was a way of expression which you failed to appreciate, and you were not
capable of it. Woe to you. I am giving out these measures of nice expression free of
any cost. I wish there were vessels good enough to hold them.”
ّ ‫ )ر‬said that he feared the oppression of his Shia and their lies against
him. And he called the supporters of Abdullah Ibn Saba to be cowards, and he called
the Shia to be the worst of supporters.
Al-Islam.org says

Ali said to the Shia of Kufa:
“People are afraid of the oppression of their rulers while I fear the oppression of my
subjects. I called you for war but you did not come. I warned you but you did not
listen. I called you secretly as well as openly, but you did not respond. I gave you
sincere counsel, but you did not accept it. Are you present like the absent, and slaves
like masters? I recite before you points of wisdom but you turn away from them, and
I advise you with far reaching advice but you disperse away from it. I rouse you for
jihad against the people of revolt but before I come to the end of my speech, I see
you disperse like the sons of Saba. You return to your places and deceive one
another by your counsel. I straighten you in the morning but you are back to me in
the evening as curved as the back of a bow. The sraightener has become weary while
those to be straightened have become incorrigible.
“O those whose bodies are present but wits are absent, and whose wishes are
scattered. Their rulers are on trial. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobeyed him
while the leader of the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s men] disobeys Allah but they
obey him. By Allah, I wish Muawiyya exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams,
so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them.
“O people of Kufa, I have experienced in you three things and two others: you are
deaf in spite of having ears, dumb in spite of speaking, and blind in spite of having
eyes. You are neither true supporters in combat nor dependable brothers in distress.
Your hands may be soiled with earth. O’ examples of those camels whose herdsman
has disappeared, if they are collected together from one side they disperse from the
other. By Allah, I see you in my imagination that if war becomes intense and action
is in full swing you would run away from the son of Abi Talib like the woman who
becomes naked in the front.”
ّ ‫ )ر‬condemns the Shia for their ideas going astray and for them being
heretics. And notice how he says that he wants the Shia to be replaced with
the real Muslims.
Al-Islam.org says

“Your ideas went astray and your affairs were dispersed. I do long that Allah may
cause separation between me and you and give me those who have a better right to
be with me than you.”
And again…
Al-Islam.org says

“[I] went away from you and would not have sought you so long as North and South
differed. There is no benefit in the majority of your numbers because of lack of unity
of your hearts”
And then again…
Al-Islam.org says

“You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honor 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. Some day I call you and some day I speak to you in confidence,
you are neither true free men at the time of call, nor trustworthy brothers at the time
of speaking in confidence.”
Again and again…
Al-Islam.org says

“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.”
Al-Islam.org says

“O people of differing minds and divided hearts, whose bodies are present but wits
are absent. I am leading you (amicably) towards truthfulness, but you run away
from it like goats and sheep running away from the howling of a lion. How hard it is
for me to uncover for you the secrets of justice, or to straighten the curve of
truthfulness.”
The next of Ali’s sermons ( ‫ى هللا عنه‬5 ‫رض‬
ّ ) very nicely discusses how the Shia will
separate from him and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬will have nothing to do with the Shia.
Al-Islam.org says

“For you there is either death or disgrace. By Allah, if my day of death comes, and it
is sure to come, it will cause separation between me and you although I am sick of
your company and feel lonely with you. May Allah deal with you! Is there no religion
which may unite you nor sense of shamefulness that may sharpen you? Is it not
strange that Muawiyya calls out to some rude low people and they follow him
without any support or grant, but when I call you, although you are the successors of
Islam and the (worthy) survivors of the people, with support and distributed grants
you scatter away from me and oppose me? Truly, there is nothing between me to
you which I like”
And perhaps the best of all to summarize with, Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬says that the people
have sinned by splitting up into Shias (sects), and that they have left Islam and
instead gone back to the pagan Beduin ways. He tells the Shia that they will
dishonor Islam by breaking the pledge of brotherhood with the Muslim Ummah and
insulting the pioneers of Islam.
Al-Islam.org says

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan]
Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after
having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and
know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in
order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you
as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people. Be sure that
if you incline towards anything other than Islam. the unbelievers will fight you.
Then there will be neither Gabriel nor Michael, neither Muhajirun nor Ansar to help
you, but only the clashing of swords, till Allah settles the matter for you…You have
broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its
commands!”
Fatwa on Hussain’s Fighting Against Yazid
Question:
[1] What is the ruling on rebelling against authority?
[2] What is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussain’s rebellion against Yazid? Was this
permissible according to the Shariah?
[3] Also, what view should Muslims hold of Yazid? I notice Shia often curse him. Is
this allowed?
Answer:
[1] The Ruling on Rebelling Against a Caliph
Throughout history, the Shia have rebelled against the Caliphs and leaders of the
Ummah, and they have committed acts of grand treason and treachoury. The list of
Shia mutinies is very long:
1. The assassination of Caliph Umar bin Khattab was carried out by Abu-Luluah,
who is considered a hero by the Shia and they honor him with the title of “Baba
Shujjah-e-deen”, which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” Today,
millions of Shia visit his grave in Iran, and pass out sweets on the anniversary of the
assassination of the second Caliph of Islam.
2. The Shia’t Ali of Egypt were fermenting a rebellion. When Caliph Uthman bin
Affan attempted to quell the mutiny, the Egyptian Shia surrounded the Caliph’s
house and killed him.
3. This led to the election of their Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib. However, the Shia’t Ali
mutinied against him as well, in the Battle of Siffin. A group of the Shia, called the
Kharajites, reneged on their pledge of loyalty to Ali, and eventually they killed him.
4. The Shia of Kufa would betray and mutiny against both Hasan and Hussain,
eventually leading Hussain to his death. And Hussain’s grandson, Zayd, would also
be betrayed by the disloyal Shia and was killed due to this treachoury.
5. The very first time the Muslims had to pay the Jizya tax to the Kufaar was when
the Muslims faced betrayal by the Shia in the East, so that they were forced to pay
protection money to the Byzantine Empire. Had the Shia not betrayed the Muslims,
the Muslim armies would have crushed the Byzantines under foot, but instead they
were forced to pay a disgraceful protection tax to the Kufaar.
6. In the 7th Hijri century, the Tatars corresponded with the Caliph’s minister, Al-
Alkami (who was Shia). Al-Alkami conspired with the Tatars, and organized a plot,
whereby Al-Alkami would deliver the Caliph in the arms of the Tatars. The Shia did
this in hopes of overthrowing the Caliph and replacing him with a Shia. Al-Alkami
convinced the Caliph that the Tatars were willing to sign a peace treaty. So the
Caliph, his ministers, and his scholars all went to meet with the Tatars, who were
waiting anxiously for them. Upon their arrival, the entire party of Muslims including
the Caliph were killed by the Tatars.
7. In the 8th Hijri century, we see that the Fatimids (who were Shia) supported the
Crusaders against Salahuddin Ayyoubi and the Muslims. The great Salahuddin had
to first replace the treachorous Fatimids before he could free the Holy Land.
8. Tipu Sultan, one of the greatest Muslim leaders in Indian history, was betrayed by
the Shia. The First Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, dispatched a Shia from
Moradabad to Iran in order to create a Shia opposition group to Tipu Sultan.
9. The Mongol hordes were called in by the Shia, who hoped to replace the Muslim
leaders with their own Shia. Instead, the Mongol brutes massacred the Muslim
masses and pillaged Islamic lands.
10. The “Hassassins” were Shia. They were trained killers hired to murder Caliphs
and leaders; they invented the modern day concept of professional assassin, and the
English word “assassin” derives from the word “Hassassin.”
11. The Shia Safavids implemented a policy of genocide against the majority Sunni
population. They then betrayed the Ottoman Caliph by supporting and backing the
Western forces, allying themselves against the Muslims.
12. And there are many more examples.
Therefore, we see that with regards to the Shia, they have been a rebellious lot since
the beginning of their existence, and many of their rebellions were supported by the
infidels.
On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah rejects treason and treachoury.
The general principle is that it is Haram to rebel against the Caliph unless he
commits open Kufr (disbelief). The Ahlus Sunnah considers loyalty to the Islamic
state to be a critical element of a Muslim. This is to prevent Fitnah that comes from
rebellion and upheaval.
IslamOnline.net says:
It should be known that Islam calls for justice and abhors oppression and injustice,
particularly if done against the people for whom one is responsible. Therefore, the
ruler is enjoined to fulfill his duties and establish justice among people. The first
among the seven categories to whom Allah will give shade on the Day of Judgment,
where will be no shade but His, is a just ruler. On the contrary, a Muslim ruler who
fails to fulfill his obligations and even oppresses Muslims is doomed to an awful
destiny in the Hereafter.
However, in removing the oppression and evil of an unjust ruler, Muslims should be
keen not to give way to greater evil and corruption. Therefore, the issue of
overthrowing an oppressive ruler should be decided after a thorough study and
calculations of the advantages and disadvantages in order not to lead to a greater
evil, which should be avoided according to Shariàh.
Elaborating on this issue, we’d like to cite for you the Fatwa issued by Dr. Ahmad
Saèed Hawwa, professor of Islamic Jurisprudence at Jordan University, who states
the following:
“The issue of rebelling against an oppressive ruler is to be decided after an accurate

study of Shariàh priorities. Muslim scholars in the past stated that this can be
allowed if there is preponderance of probability that the oppressive ruler can be
overthrown without inflicting greater harm. This is based on a well-established rule
in Islam: “Fending off smaller harm must not result in creating a greater harm.”
Likewise there is a rule: “Resort should be to the lesser of the two evils.” Only if
these conditions are met and these rules and cautions are taken into consideration,
then it is obligatory to embark upon overthrowing an oppressive ruler or agent;
otherwise Muslims should bear patiently, doing their best to lessen the effects of his
oppression and evil.”
Dr. Mahmoud Àkkam, professor of Shariàh at Syria University, also states the
following:
“A Muslim is allowed to rebel against an oppressive ruler in only one case, that is
when they notice apparent, explicit disbelief in him. This is because a disbeliever
cannot be given the oath of allegiance as a leader for Muslims, and this is an agreed
upon Islamic principle that no Muslim scholar has disputed. Almighty Allah says:
“Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers.
Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah…” (Al Ìmran: 28) He also says: “…
and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers.”
(An-Nisa’: 141)
Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported on the authority of Ùbadah ibn As-Samit who
said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) called us and we
took the oath of allegiance to him. Among the injunctions he made binding upon us
was: Listening and obedience (to the ruler) in our pleasure and displeasure, in our
adversity and prosperity, even when somebody is given preference over us, avoiding
to dispute the delegation of powers to a man duly invested with them (Obedience
shall be accorded to him in all circumstances) except when you have clear signs of
his disbelief in (or disobedience to) Allah (that could be used as a conscientious
justification for non-compliance with his orders), and telling the truth in whatever
position we be without fearing in the matter of Allah the reproach of the
reproacher.”
However, if the ruler remains a Muslim (and he did not show or display any act of
disbelief) but he is oppressive and transgresses against people’s rights, then Muslim
scholars have two opinions in this regard:
1. That it is permissible to rebel against him;
2. It is not permissible to rebel against him and Muslims should bear the oppression
patiently. And this is the opinion of the majority of Muslims in general. Each of
these two groups has provided proofs in support of its viewpoint. However, the
proponents of the second opinion gave weight to their opinion by considering the
objectives of Shariàh and by applying the juristic maxim that resort should be to
the lesser of the two evils. This is because bearing the injustice of the ruler patiently
will protect against the greater evil resulting from rebelling against him represented
in mass bloodshed, loss of wealth, and different violations, not to mention giving the
enemies of Islam an opportunity to attain their goals in Muslim lands. However, it is
permissible for Ahl al-Hall wal-Àqd (a group of honest, wise, experienced and
righteous people who possess the right to elect or remove a ruler) to overthrow the
oppressive ruler and choose another one if they are almost sure that this will not
lead to extended or greater evil.
Moreover, obeying a ruler in any matter that is explicitly forbidden by Islam is not
allowed, but rulers must be obeyed in anything beyond forbidden matters. Also,
Muslims should enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil in a very wise way that
leads to the removal of evil, not its increase, and they should be patient and
steadfast in fulfilling this duty (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil), and this
of course requires sacrifice and perseverance. Almighty Allah says: “…and enjoin
kindness and forbid iniquity, and persevere whatever may befall thee. Lo! that is of
the steadfast heart of things.” (Luqman: 17)”
End quote.
Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio declared in “Wathiqa ila Jami’ Ahl’s-Sudan”:

“…appointing an Ameer Al-Mumineen (commander of the faithful) is obligatory by
consensus; that obedience to him and his representatives (nuwwaab) is obligatory
by consensus; [however]…fighting the apostate ruler who has left the religion of
Islam for the religion of disbelief is obligatory by consensus; that taking the
government from him is obligatory by consenus; that fighting the apostate ruler who
has not left the religion of Islam because he ourtwardly claims Islam, but he mixes
the acts of Islam with the acts of disbelief (like most of the rulers of Hausaland) is
obligatory by consensus; that taking the government from him is obligatory by
consensus.”
The position of the Ahlus Sunnah is stated beautifully in the following Hadith:
Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of
Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A Muslim must listen to and obey
(the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered
to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no
obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).
To conclude, the general principle is that a Muslim must obey the Caliph and be
loyal to him, barring the following exceptions:
1) There is no obedience to the Caliph if he commands towards sin.
2) If the Caliph commits open Kufr, then it is obligatory to overthrow him.
3) If the Caliph does not commit open Kufr but he is oppressive and transgresses
against people’s rights, then the general principle is that the Muslim should give him
Naseeha (sincere advice) and counsel to turn away from oppression and
transgression.
4) If this fails, then rebellion against the Caliph is forbidden if the rebellion has a
high chance of failure and will therefore result in greater Fitnah (tribulation).
5) However, it is permissible for Ahl al-Hall wal-Àqd (a group of honest, wise,

experienced and righteous people who possess the right to elect or remove a ruler)
to overthrow the oppressive ruler and choose another one if they are almost sure
that this will not lead to extended or greater evil.
We read the fatwa by Shaykh Bin Baz:
Question:
There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and
sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that
results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many
problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove

an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove
it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according
to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims.
If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is
able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to
greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that
is OK.
But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the
assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of
major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear
and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to
pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good.
This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general
interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and
because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.
Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baaz
[2] Sayyiduna Hussain’s rising up against Yazid
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:
As far as the actions of Sayyiduna Imam Husain (Allah be pleased with him) and his
uprising against Yazid is concerned, firstly, it should be understood that according
to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne (wali al-ahd) is only one
of recommendation that requires approval from the nations prominent and
influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa.
Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyya:
“It is permissible for a Khalifah to appoint a successor without the approval of those
in power, as Abu Bakr appointed Umar (Allah be pleased with them both) as his
successor without the backing and presence of the prominent figures of the
community. The logical reason behind this is that appointing someone a successor
to the throne is not appointing his a Khalifa, or else, there will be two Khalifas, thus
there is no need for the influential people to be present. Yes, after the demise of the
Khalifah, their presence and approval is necessary”.
He further states:
“Khilafah (leadership) is not established merely with the appointment of the Khalifa,
rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah” (al-Ahkam
al-Sultaniyya, p. 9).
In view of the above, the majority of the Umma’s scholars are of the view that if a
Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in power,
then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After his demise, the
nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or
reject it.
Keeping this in mind, the leadership of Yazid was also subject to the same criterion
other leaderships are. His leadership could not be established after the demise of
Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him) until it was approved by the major
personalities of the nation.
Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) from the outset did not approve of
Yazid being designated a leader. This was his personal opinion that was based on
purely religious grounds and there was nothing wrong in holding this view.
After the demise of Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna
Husain (Allah be pleased with him) saw that the major personalities of Hijaz
including Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) had not yet
approved of Yazid’s leadership. Furthermore, he received heaps of letters from Iraq
which made it clear that the people of Iraq had also not accepted Yazid as their
leader. The letters clearly stated that they had not given their allegiance to anyone.
(See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/262 & al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8/151).
In such circumstances, Sayyiduna Husain’s (Allah be pleased with him) stand with
regards to Yazid’s leadership was that the pledge of allegiance by the people of Sham
cannot be forced upon the rest of the Muslims. Therefore, his leadership was as yet
not established.
In Sayyiduna Husain’s view, Yazid was a tyrant ruler who desired to overcome the
Muslims, but was not yet able to do so. In such a circumstance, he considered his
religious duty to prevent a tyrant ruler prevailing over the Muslim Ummah.
For this reason, Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) sent Muslim ibn
Aqeel (Allah be pleased with him) to Kufa in order to investigate the truth about
Yazid’s rule. His journey was not of an uprising nature, rather to discover the truth.
Had Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) thought that Yazid had imposed
his rule and established his power all over the Muslim lands, the case would have
been different. He would certainly have accepted his leadership without choice and
would not have opposed it. But he thought that this was a tyrant ruler that had no
authority as of yet, and can be stopped before he establishes his authority.
This is the reason why when he came close to Kufa and discovered that the
inhabitants of Kufa have betrayed him and succumbed to Yazid’s rule, he suggested
three things, of which one was “Or I give my hand in the hand of Yazid as a pledge of
allegiance”. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).
This clearly shows that when Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
discovered that Yazid had established his authority, he agreed to accept him as a
leader. However, Ubaid Allah ibn Ziyad was not ready to listen to Sayyiduna Husain
and ordered him to come to him unconditionally. Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be
pleased with him) was in no way obliged to obey his command and he also feared his
life, thus had no option but to fight him. This was the beginning of the unfortunate
incident of Karbala. (See, for details, Imam Tabari’s Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk &
Imam Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya).
End quote.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says:
When al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) was killed on the day of
‘Aashooraa’, he was killed by the sinful, wrongdoing group.
Allaah honoured al-Husayn with martyrdom, as He honoured other members of his

family, and raised his status, as He honoured Hamzah, Ja’far, his father ‘Ali and
others. Al-Husayn and his brother al-Hasan are the leaders of the youth of Paradise.
End quote.
[3] The Position of Yazid
With regards to your second question that, is it permissible to curse Yazid?

Firstly, it must be remarked here that this is not an issue on which one’s Iman
depends, nor will one be asked on the day of Judgement as to what opinion one held
about Yazid. This is a trivial matter, thus many scholars have advised to abstain
from indulging and discussing the issue and concentrate on the more immediate
and important aspects of Deen.
Secondly, it should be understood that there is a general and accepted principle

among the scholars that it is impermissible to curse a Muslim no matter how great
of a sinner he is.
Imam Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
“Cursing an upright Muslim is unlawful (haram) by unanimous consensus of all

Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: ‘Cursing a
believer is like killing him.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari).”
As far as the sinners are concerned, it is permissible (but not rewarded) to curse
them in a general manner, such as saying “Allah curse the corrupt” or Allah curse
the oppressors” and so forth. It has been narrated in many narrations that the
Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) cursed sinners in a general
manner. However, to curse a particular person who commits some act of
disobedience, such as oppression, murder, adultery, etc, there is a difference of
opinion. The Majority of Scholars Including Imam al-Ghazali hold the view that this
is impermissible.
Yes, it will be permissible to curse a person regarding whom it has been decisively
established that he died on disbelief (kufr), such as Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, Pharaoh,
Haman and their likes. (See: al-Adhkar by Imam Nawawi & Reliance of the traveller,
P. 772-773).
In view of the above, if it is established that Yazid died as a non-Believer or he

regarded the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) permissible
and died without repentance, then it would be permissible to curse him. However, it
this is not established, then it would not be permissible.
Indeed some scholars did curse him (Sa`d al-Din al-Taftazani, for example, See:
Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P. 2845), but the majority of the Ulama have
cautioned against cursing him. Firstly, because it has not been decisively established
that Yazid himself killed or ordered the unfortunate killing of Sayyiduna Hussain
(Allah have mercy on him). There are some reports that he expressed his remorse on
the actions of his associates, and even if he did, then murder and other sins do not
necessitate Kufr.
Imam al-Ghazali (Allah have mercy on him) states that it is even impermissible to
say that Yazid killed or ordered the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased
with him) let alone curse him, as attributing a Muslim to a sin without decisive
evidence is not permissible. (See: Sharh Bad al-Amali by Mulla Ali al-Qari, P. 123-
125).
He further states:
“If it is established that a Muslim killed a fellow Muslim, then the understanding of
the people of truth is that he does not become a Kafir. Killing is not disbelief, rather
a grave sin. It could also be that a killer may have repented before death. If a
disbeliever dies after repentance, then it is impermissible to curse him, then how
could it be permissible to curse a Muslim who may have repented from his sin. And
we are unaware whether the killer of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
died before or after repentance”. (ibid).
End quote.
In regards to Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and Yazid, there
can be no comparison between the two. Sayyiduna Hussain (Allah be pleased with
him) is the chief of the youth of Paradise, and the Ahlus Sunnah is agreed on his
great attributes. On the other hand, Yazid’s status in the Hereafter is unknown.
Therefore, the safest position is to pray for Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be
pleased with him) and to remain silent on Yazid. The importance of remaining
cautious before condemning Yazid stems from the fact that many of the reports used
against him have been provided by the Shia, who are known for their Ghullat
tendencies (i.e. exaggeration). They are therefore unreliable.
The issue of Karbala and Yazid has become one of mythical proportions to the Shia,
who have ascribed fairy-tales to the event. Ibn Kathir said in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya
(8:201-202): “Al-Tabarani mentioned in this chapter very strange reports indeed
and the Shia went overboard concerning the day of Ashura, forging many hadiths
that are gross lies such as the sun being eclipsed on that day until the stars
appeared, no stone was lifted except blood was seen under it, the celestial region
became red, the sun and its rays seemed like blood, the sky seemed like a blood clot,
the stars were hurling against one another, the sky rained red blood, there was never
redness in the sky before that day, and the like… among other lies and forgeries of
which not one report is sound.”
The Shia, in their quest to show support for Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be
pleased with him), have gone to extremes in casting Yazid as a diabolically evil
character sparing no insult against him. The Shia have even said that Yazid was a
homosexual, was impotent, was a bastard child, was a drunkard, was a sodomite,
and many other childish attacks, many of which they also use against Sayyiduna
Umar bin Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). It is therefore possible (and
highly probable) that in the same manner that these are lies against Sayyiduna
Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), then maybe these are also lies against Yazid.
If we were to judge Yazid, we could not use reports that are highly questionable (i.e.
from the Shia). Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “O you who believe! If an evil-doer
comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in
ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” (Quran, 49:6) This verse would
include the Shia, who are known for their lies and slander.
We should not take our history from the Shia who are known to be Ghullat
(exaggerators). They have historical records which are so polarized that Sayyiduna
Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and Yazid become comic book characters.
On the one hand, Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is described as a
super-hero who can split the earth’s core open with his sword and the angels
couldn’t even stop him; according to the exaggerating Shia, Sayyiduna Ali (may
Allah be pleased with him) single-handedly shook an entire fort down with his bear
hands. And on the other hand, the Shia call Sayyiduna Umar bin Khattab (may Allah
be pleased with him) to be a sodomite and a pervert, and many other dreadful
things. The Shia exaggerate and make everything into a fairy-tale between good and
evil. So how can we use the Shia accounts of history seriously, and how can we pass
judgement on a person based on obvious exaggerations?
Nobody can take a time machine and go back in time to see what really happened to
confirm which of the conflicting historical reports is accurate. Slander is a very big
deal in Islam, and Allah Almighty will not forgive slander without the permission of
the person we slandered. So what if we are wrong about Yazid and the reports
against him are from the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba who sensationalized things?
What then? Do we really want to be held accountable for that?
And what benefit is it to slander Yazid? What effect does Yazid have on one’s Deen?
The only thing insulting him does is make one’s heart full of senseless hatred. We
wonder why the Shia waste their time in this useless endeavor. We refrain from
insulting Yazid as it serves no benefit and again we have not been given the ability to
look into the hearts. The best answer to when someone asks about Yazid is “Wallahu
Aalim” (Only Allah knows).
The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah does not condone cursing Muslims. It seems that
the Shia culture revolves around cursing Muslims. This includes the Three Caliphs,
Sahabah, the Ansar, the Prophet’s wives, and many others, whom the Shia spend
day and night invoking curses and damnation on these Muslims. The Shia obsession
with sending curses and “lanats” on people is very absurd and disconcerting. Islam
is about peace and kindness, and we should not indulge ourselves in spiteful hatred,
vengeful rhetoric, and violent self-mutilation.
Therefore, it would best be to abstain from cursing Yazid, as there is no reward in

cursing him, rather one should abstain from discussing about him altogether and
concentrate on more practical aspects of Deen. May Allah Almighty give us the true
understanding of Deen, Ameen.
End quote.
A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain
The fact that the Shia of Kufa are the ones who abandoned Sayyiduna Hussain has
already been discussed earlier. What the Shia propagandists will reply to this is that
“sure, the Shia are the ones who didn’t defend Sayyiduna Hussain but it was the
Sunnis who actually killed him!”
However, this is not true at all. The man who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (i.e. gave the
death-blow) was a man by the name of Shimr bin Thil-Jawshan and he was a Shia,
as recorded in both Sunni and Shia books. Shimr was part of the Shia, and then he
betrayed Sayyiduna Hussain and joined Yazid’s men, giving Sayyiduna Hussain the
death-blow.
To provide a solid proof of this fact (i.e. that Shimr was a Shia), we refer to the
esteemed and classical Shia scholar, Al-Qummi. Al-Qummi, author of the famous
book “Mafaatihul-Jinaan”, writes in his book:“I say, Shimr was in the forces of
Ameer al-Mu’mineen on the Day of Siffin.” (Al-Qummi, “Safinatun-Najaat”,
vol.4, p. 492, Chapter Sheen Followed by Meem)
This is the scanned reference for the reader:

Jewish Encyclopedia: Abdullah ibn Saba, Founder of Shi’ism
The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says:
ABDALLAH IBN SABA

By : Hartwig Hirschfeld
A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and
embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was
banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an
antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he
obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every
prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali,
who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim
whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly
contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali
had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with
the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s
assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and
had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a
certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine
character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place.
It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with
the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was
probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the
Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).
Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i.

200-201);
Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.
Source: JewishEncyclopedia,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=189&letter=A
Hadith About Muawiyyah: “May Allah Not Fill His Belly” [A Sunni Perspective]
The Shia will look within the Hadith collection of the Ahlus Sunnah in order to
prove their viewpoint. However, the Shia will oftentimes need to make use of
academic deceit when they quote such Hadith. One such example can be found
when they procure Hadith about Muawiyyah.
It is recorded in the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah that the Prophet said of
Muawiyyah, “May Allah not fill his belly.” The Shia will then claim that the Hadith
thereby condemns Muawiyyah. What these Shia fail to say is that there is an Arabic
saying “may Allah not fill your belly” which means “may your sustenance be without
end” (i.e. its end never come). In the Semitic cultures, this is a commonly used
colloquialism: when someone is about to die, people say that so-and-so has reached
his fill of food.
Oftentimes, Shia youth will go to various discussion forums and use simple “copy
and pastes” in order to “prove” their point; they will duplicate this Hadith. These
Shia propagandists do not have a grasp of the Arabic language and are thus liable to
make such mistakes whereby they take things drastically out of context. The analogy
of this is a man telling his son to “break a leg” before a soccer match. If we were to
literally translate “break a leg” into Chinese, it would lose its intended meaning; a
Chinese reader would think that this father actually wants his son to physically get
hurt! If this same Chinese reader asked the Chinese police to arrest this man for
child abuse, they would probably do so. But if this Chinese reader went to English-
speaking police, they would probably laugh at him for misinterpreting English
colloquialism. In the same manner do we laugh at the Shia who use the afore-
mentioned Hadith to prove anything.
The truth is that the Shia scholars who first posted this Hadith about Muawiyyah
were engaging in deceit in order to fool the masses and “prove” their point. In
reality, the Hadith is in praise of Muawiyyah and not a condemnation of him.
Unfortunately, this Hadith is now circulating the internet without proper context.
We see that this is a recurring theme in the debate with the Shia.
Fadak, Part I: Shia Hadith Confirms Abu Bakr’s Justice (R.A.)
The issue of Fadak is a favorite topic for the Shia, and the story (in collusion with
spiteful rhetoric) is one that the Shia children grow up on. The Shia propagandists
feel no qualms in rabble-rousing and exploiting Fadak by reviving Fitnah and
disagreements that died hundreds of years ago. On the other hand, the Ahlus
Sunnah wal Jama’ah does not focus on the story of Fadak, namely to prevent
senseless Fitnah and out of respect for Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنها‬, two of the great personalities of Islam.
Because of the fact that the issue of Fadak is not a center of focus in Sunni circles,
many Sunni youth do not have the details about this event and most haven’t even
heard of it. Meanwhile, the Shia youth are trained with propaganda points to assault
the unknowing Sunnis with. This imbalance of knowledge leads to a quick “victory”
for the Shia propagandists.
The reality, however, is that the Shia version of Fadak is completely biased, contrary
to the facts, and yet another typical Taqiyyah-oriented deception and manipulation
of history designed to malign Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. We find that a fair analysis of
Fadak not only absolves Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of all wrong doing, but it also exposes
the falsity of the Shia paradigm.
 Fadak
Fadak was the name of a property that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬personally
owned. Upon the Prophet’s death (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬expected
to inherit Fadak, but Caliph Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬refused to give it to her and he
instead donated it to the state as charity. Based on this event, the Shia villify Abu
Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for “stealing” land from the daughter of the Prophet.
The reason Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not–and Islamically could not–give Fadak to
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was because the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had declared that
the Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Prophets are awarded special
financial privelages in order to aid them in their mission to spread Islam; Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬got a portion of the Khums on the very basis that he
was a Prophet. It is thus not an absurd stipulation that their inheritance too has a
special set of rules distinct from non-prophets. Both Sunni and Shia Hadith confirm
that the property of Prophets is left behind as charity and not to be awarded as
inheritance.
 Hadith
Let us now examine Sunni Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said:
“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)
So we wonder why this Hadith is reliable enough to prove Wilayah al-Faqih, but
suddenly it is not used by the Shia to defend Abu Bakr’s ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬position?
Do we not then see that the statement made by Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) about
Prophets not giving inheritance is the same statement that was made by Imam
Sadiq (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) whom the Shia consider to be infallible? Allamah Al-Majlisi
declared that the Hadith “do[es] not fall short of being Sahih.” And Ayatollah
Khomeini considered it to be so Sahih that he used it to prove his Wilayah al-Faqih.
If Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is to be considered a liar for quoting this Hadith, then
would the Shia also accept that Imam Sadiq ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ), Allamah Majlisi, and
Ayatollah Khomeini are also liars by same logic?
This Shia Hadith is referenced on Al-Shia.com, one of the most reliable of the Shia
websites:
Hadith 57, Chapter 4, h 1
“The prophets did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (wealth) as their inheritance but
they did leave knowledge as their inheritance.”
(source: Al-Shia.com,
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is recorded as saying:
“What we leave behind is to become alms.” (Hadith ash-Shafi)

The truth is that the Shia has no leg to stand upon since we point to their own Al-
Kafi.
Fadak, Part II: Why Didn’t Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬Return Fadak?
Previous
(Continued…)
 Crux of the Matter
When Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬became Caliph, he did not revoke the decision of Abu Bakr (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬on the propety of Fadak. What stopped Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬from doing this?
So why are the Shia against Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬when Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬upheld the
decision? In fact, the scholar Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in
his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when Ali ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) became the
Caliph he was approached about returning Fadak. Ali’s reply ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was:
“I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr
and continued by Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil
Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
This here is the crux of the matter. Why didn’t Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬return Fadak once he
became Caliph? There is no Shia response to this question. We ask our Shia brothers
to guess who returned Fadak. The Shia will be shocked to know that it would be a
later Umayyad Caliph that returned Fadak to the descendants of Fatima ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنها‬, even though the Umayyads are hated and villified by the Shia. (However, this
decision by the Umayyad Caliph was over-turned by future Caliphs on the basis that
it was incorrect, considering that the Prophet [ ‫ ]ص}}}لّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}}لّم‬forbade
inheritance of his property, and that Abu Bakr [ ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ], Umar [‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ],
Uthman [‫]رضّى هللا عنه‬, and Ali [‫ ]رضّى هللا عنه‬upheld the decision of Fadak.)
So again, we ask our Shia brothers: why didn’t Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬return Fadak once he
became Caliph? Why did he uphold Abu Bakr’s decision ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬if it was so
wrong? Why don’t the Shia hate Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for failing to return Fadak? Why
don’t they hate Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for reaping the gains of Fadak while he was Caliph?
Why the double standard with Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ )? The Shia say that Caliph
Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gave Fadak back to Hasan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hussain ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬,
and they accuse Caliph Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of being a tyrant because he snatched it
back from them. So then the question is: why didn’t Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬return Fadak to
Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hussain (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬when he became Caliph? Uthman (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬is a tyrant but Ali ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) is not? Indeed this is nothing short of an
incredible double standard.
What is also interesting is that Hasan ( ‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬who was also Caliph for a short
duration–also did not return Fadak! He did not claim it for himself, nor did he
distribute it to the other inheritors from Fatima’s lineage ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. So why did
he too do nothing about Fadak? Surely, if blame is to be put on Abu Bakr’s shoulders
(‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and on the shoulders of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, then fairness dictates that
equal blame should be put on Hasan (‫!)رضّى هللا عنه‬
 Shia Rebuttal #1: Taqiyyah
According to the Shia, Fadak should have been rightfully distributed to the progeny
of Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Then, why didn’t Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬do what is right? The only
response the Shia can give is their standard cop-out: why, of course Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
was doing Taqiyyah! The Shia will say that this is why he didn’t return Fadak. Oh,
nice! Whenever the logic of historical facts do not sit well with the Shia narrative,
they will then always have the trump card of Taqiyyah. (Taqiyyah, according to a
Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, means to say something outwardly but mean something else
inwardly.)
How can we have an intelligent discussion with the Shia when everyone in history is
doing Taqiyyah? Why can’t we claim then that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was also doing
Taqiyyah and that’s why he didn’t return Fadak to Fatima? And why couldn’t we say
that Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was also doing Taqiyyah? It becomes comical when one’s
entire historical narrative rests on Taqiyyah. There is no way to prove anything if we
rely on Taqiyyah as a precedent.
The only way the Shia can answer why Prophet Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as a companion and even married his daughter is that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was of course doing Taqiyyah! The only way that the
Shia can reconcile the fact that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬didn’t fight the Three Caliphs like
Hussain (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬fought Yezid is again of course Taqiyyah! Why didn’t Allah
reveal anything in the Quran about Imamah or the Wilayah of Ali? Again, Allah was
doing Taqiyyah!
 Shia Rebuttal #2: Usurped Property

We have also seen the Shia propagandists claim that the reason Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
didn’t take back Fadak was that the Ahlel Bayt does not take back usurped property.
To bolster this argument, the Shia will bring up the example of Prophet Muhammad
(‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, whose Meccan home had been usurped by the infidels; upon
conquering Mecca, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not take it back.
This answer is very weak, and easily debunked by simply providing the names of
Infallible Imams of the Shia who accepted usurped property. Caliph Umar bin Abdul
Aziz “returned” Fadak to Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, who accepted it. Imam Al-
Baqir is considered to be one of the Infallible Imams of the Shia, and thus very much
part of what the Shia consider to be the Ahlel Bayt. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz was
wrong in returning Fadak (and his ruling was overturned by later Caliphs), but
that’s not the point. The point is that we see here that one of their twelve Infallible
Imams accepted usurped property.
The government once again took back Fadak, and then another Caliph came along
later down the line who decided to once again return Fadak to the descendants of
Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Caliph Ma’mun would return Fadak to Imam Rida, yet another
of those whom the Shia consider to be Infallible Imams. And there are a couple
more examples of the Shia Infallibles accepting usurped property. Thus, this
argument of the Shia is baseless.
The Answering-Ansar Team has argued that “no Shia would use such a pathetic
argument”, but the reality is that we have seen this argument being used again and
again on various forums. Thus, it was imperative that we respond to it here. We are
glad that the Answering-Ansar Team also recognizes the baseness of this argument;
instead, they have said that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not want to commit Fitnah (i.e.
disunity, chaos, etc) and this is why he didn’t return Fadak. We address this
argument below.
 Shia Rebuttal #3: Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬Didn’t Want Fitnah
One could just as easily say that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬didn’t return Fadak for the
exact same reason. Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬must have been under immense stress
from the general public who would have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned
for those of a high rank such as Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was held
accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money
obtained from Fadak. This was at the same time that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was
waging a war against those who refused to pay Zakat. Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was so
strict on the Shariah in regards to the charity from Zakat; imagine how upset the
apostate renegades would have been had they seen him be lax on the charity from
Fadak.
In any case, this argument of the Shia is pretty much the same as the Taqiyyah
argument. Thus, our counter-response above applies here as well. In any case, if Ali
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was a brave and courageous man, then he should have done what is
right and restored the land to its rightful owners. The cowardly image of Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬that the Shia portray–of a man who cannot stand up for what he thinks is right–
is offensive to the Ahlus Sunnah. The Shia believe that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬could make
all the atoms of the earth submit to him, so surely he should have used some of this
supernatural power to do what is right.
 Shia Rebuttal #4: Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬Was Dead
Sometimes an E-Shia will try forwarding the argument that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬died
six months into Caliph Abu Bakr’s rule, and thus Fadak was a non-issue by the time
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬became Caliph. Unfortunately, this argument falls apart when we
look at the Shia narrations which show that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬approached Umar (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬and asked him to return Fadak to Fatima’s heirs, including Hasan ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
and Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Thus, according to the Shia, Fadak was still a monumental
issue and the land should be returned to the progeny of Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. In fact,
the Shia today still claim that Fadak should be returned to those whom they call
“Syedi.”
Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hussain (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬were the inheritors of Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنها‬, and thus Fadak–according to the Shia–was their right. The Shia curse Uthman
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for taking Fadak away from Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and giving it to Marwan (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. As can be seen, the issue of Fadak did not then die with Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬and this argument is weak.
 Conclusion
The Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) are baseless, since he was
following orders from Prophet Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬and this decision was
ّ
upheld by Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. If the Shia want to lay blame on Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for
using Fadak as a charitable property, then the Shia should also accuse Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬since he did the same thing during his Caliphate. The truth is that Ali ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬did at first think that Fadak should be given to Fatima ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنها‬however, he
changed his mind after being presented with Abu Bakr’s argument ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and
this is why Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬upheld the first Caliph’s decision in regards to Fadak.
Fadak, Part III: Ahlus Sunnah is Not Abandoning the Quran
Previous
(Continued…)
The Shia propagandists will argue that Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) went against the
Quranic rules of inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets
as clearly mentioned by the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم‬in both Sunni and Shia
Hadith. The very fact that such Hadith exist in the Shia canon makes impotent the
Shia attack on the personality of Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. In Al-Kafi, the most reliable
of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration:
The Shia will argue that the Quranic verses on inheritance pertain to Prophets and
non-Prophets alike, and that these rules are all-inclusive without exception. This
argument is weakened by the fact that the Shia Ulema themselves make exceptions
in the rules of inheritance. For example, the Quran declares that children inherit
wealth from their parents. However, the Shia Ulema (as well as the Sunni Ulema)
make an exception to this general rule: Kaffir children do not inherit from their
Muslim parents. Hence, not everyone is encompassed in the Quranic verse
regarding inheritance; it is the general rule for the average person, but there are
exceptions for special cases (and Prophets are one such exception).
The Shia propagandists may resort to dogmatic rhetoric declaring the supermacy of
the Quran and accusing the Sunnis of straying away from it by making exceptions to
the laws of inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, their own Infallible Imams have
made exceptions to the rules of inheritance that would make any Shia accusations
against the Sunnis to be simply hypocritical and sanctimonious. For example, the
Shia Infallible Imams have prohibited some heirs from inheriting certain items of
their estates, including the Dhul Fiqar (Ali’s sword [‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ]), the Quran, the
Prophet’s ring, and his bodily garments. These items were excluded from the
Quranic laws of inheritance and reserved for the new Imam, instead of being
properly distributed amongst the other children and eligible heirs. Hence, Imams
had a different system of inheritance, so why is it surprising for the Shia that the
Prophets also have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets?
The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and
exceptions to this rule. For example, the Quran says that men can only marry upto
four wives. And yet, we find in Hadith that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وس}لّم‬was
exempted from this ruling and he married more than four. Thus, the rules of Hadith
grant an exception to the Prophets, and their rules are different than the rules of
ordinary people as mentioned in the Quran. Any time a Shia propagandist attempts
to assert that we are going against the Quran, we remind them that Prophets in
general have different rules in certain matters; otherwise, are the Shia accusing the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of going against the Quran by marrying more than four
women? If the rule about marrying four women can be different for Prophets, then
similarly we see no problem in the rules of inheritance also being different for
Prophets. The analogy is perfect, and completely negates the Shia claims.
Furthermore, the Shia admit that the Quran dictates that if a person becomes poor,
then he becomes eligible for Zakat. This is a right of an individual based in the
Quran. And yet, the Hadith tells us that the Prophet’s family is not permitted to take
Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the Prophet’s family could not ask for
Zakat. This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophet’s family could not recieve
Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve
inheritance from the Prophet ( ‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Both rules come from the Hadith,
which modify the general rule in the Quran.
Fadak, Part IV: Shia Women Do Not Inherit Land Anyways
Previous
(Continued…)
An astounding revelation–of which many people happen to be uninformed of–is the

fact that, according to Shia Hadith, a woman does not inherit land or fixed property.
How is it that the Shia accept it for Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to inherit Fadak, when their
own Hadith does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?
In the Shia book of Hadith al-Kafi, al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled
“Women do not inherit land.” In this chapter, he narrates a Hadith from Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir:
“Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127,
Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)
He asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied:
“They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for
the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-
Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said:
“A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam,
vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)
Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said:
“Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299;
Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
So the Shia Hadiths themselves would deny the inheritance to Fatima ( ‫رض }ى هللا‬ ّ
‫)عنها‬ even if the Prophets were allowed to give inheritance to their heirs (even though
they are not). This makes the Shia arguments against Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬even
more useless.
UPDATE: We noticed that some Shia propagandists have accused the Ahlel Bayt
website of being unfaithful in our reproduction of these Hadith, but we have refuted
these baseless allegations here:Response to Shia Accusation that Our Website Lied;
Women Do NOT Inherit Land in Shia Hadith
Fadak, Part V: Fatima’s Anger (R.A.)
Previous
‫)…‪(Continued‬‬
‫)رضّى هللا عنها(‪) angered Fatima ‬رضّى هللا عنه(‪ Ali ‬‬
‫‪),‬رضّى هللا عنه ( ‪The Shia will also bring up the following Hadith to condemn Abu Bakr‬‬
‫‪) said:‬صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم( ‪wherein the Prophet‬‬
‫”‪“Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.‬‬
‫‪There is a great irony in the Shia mentioning this Hadith. What they don’t know is‬‬
‫‪the context of this Hadith. Once the Shia is made aware of the context of this‬‬
‫‪Hadith, he is shocked and will then realize that he has shot himself in the foot by‬‬
‫‪) addressed the above‬ص}}لّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم ( ‪bringing up this Hadith. The Prophet‬‬
‫‪) who‬رضّى هللا عنه ( ‪statement (”…he who makes her angry, makes me angry”) to Ali‬‬
‫‪) in a very famous incident. This incident is narrated‬رضّى هللا عنها( ‪had angered Fatima‬‬
‫‪by the esteemed founding father of Shia theology, Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, better‬‬
‫‪known as Al-Sadooq. In his book, Al-Sadooq relayed the following narration on the‬‬
‫‪authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. This narration is also available on Al-Shia.com:‬‬
‫‪“Majlisi‬‬ ‫”‪“Bihar‬‬ ‫‪43/201-202‬‬

‫إنه ج‪55‬اء ش‪55‬قي من االش‪55‬قياء إلى فاطمة بنت محمد ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه واله فق‪55‬ال لها ‪ :‬أما علمت أن عليا قد خطب بنت أبي‬
‫جهل فقالت ‪ :‬حقاما تقول ‪ :‬فقال ‪ :‬حقا ما أقول ‪ -‬ثالث مرات ‪ -‬ف‪55‬دخلها من الغ‪55‬يرة ما ال تملك نفس‪55‬ها وذلك أن هللا تب‪55‬ارك‬
‫‪ .‬وتع‪555555555555555555555‬الى كتب على النس‪555555555555555555555‬اء غ‪555555555555555555555‬يرة وكتب على الرج‪555555555555555555555‬ال جه‪555555555555555555555‬ادا‬
‫‪ .‬وجعل للمحتس‪5555555555555555‬بة الص‪5555555555555555‬ابرة منهن‪ 5‬من االجر ما جعل للمرابط المه‪5555555555555555‬اجر في س‪5555555555555555‬بيل‪ 5‬هللا‬
‫ق‪55‬ال ‪ :‬فاش‪55‬تد غم فاطمة عليها الس‪55‬الم من ذلك ‪ ،‬وبقيت‪ 5‬متفك‪55‬رة هي ح‪55‬تى أمست وج‪55‬اء الليل حملت الحسن على عاتقها‬
‫االيمن والحسين على عاتقها االيسر وأخذت بيد ام الكثوم اليسرى بي‪55‬دها اليم‪55‬نى‪ 5‬ثم تح‪55‬ولت إلى حج‪55‬رة أبيها‪ 5‬فج‪55‬اء علي‬
‫عليه الس‪555555‬الم ف‪555555‬دخل في حجرته فلم ير فاطمة عليها الس‪555555‬الم‪ 5‬فاش‪555555‬تد ل‪555555‬ذلك غمه وعظم عليه ‪ ،‬ولم يعلم القصة‬
‫ماهي فاستحيى‪ 5‬أن يدعوها من منزل أبيها‪ 5‬فخرج إلى المسجد فصلى فيه ماشاء هللا ثم جمع شيئا من كثيب المسجد واتكا‪5‬‬
‫عليه‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫فلما رأى النبي صلى هللا عليه واله ما بفاطمة من الحزن أفاض عليه الماء ثم لبس ثوبه ودخل المسجد ‪ ،‬فلم يزل يصلي‬
‫بين راكع وس‪55‬اجد وكلما ص‪55‬لى ركع‪55‬تين دعا هللا أن ي‪55‬ذهب ما بفاطمة من الح‪55‬زن والغم وذلك أنه خ‪55‬رج من عن‪55‬دها وهي‬
‫تتقلب وتتنفس‪ 5‬الصعداء فلما رآها النبي صلى هللا عليه وآله أنها ال يهنئها‪ 5‬النوم‪ ، 5‬وليس لها قرار قال لها ‪ :‬قومي يابنية‬
‫فق‪55‬امت فحمل الن‪55‬بي ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه واله الحسن وحملت فاطمة الحس‪55‬ين وأخ‪55‬ذت بيد ام الكث‪55‬وم ف‪55‬انتهى‪ 5‬إلى علي عليه‬
‫السالم وهو نائم فوضع النبي رجله على رجل علي فغمزه وقال ‪ :‬قم ياأبا تراب ‪ ،‬فكم س‪55‬اكن أزعجة ‪ ،‬ادع لي أب‪55‬اكبر من‬
‫وطلحة‬ ‫مجلسه‬ ‫من‬ ‫وعمر‬ ‫داره‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫فخرج علي عليه السالم فاس‪55‬تخر جهما من منزلهما ‪ ،‬واجتم‪55‬وا عندرس‪55‬ول‪ 5‬هللا فق‪55‬ال رس‪55‬ول هللا ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه واله ‪ :‬يا‬
‫ ) ومن آذاها بعد‬1 ( ] ‫ فمن آذاها فقد آذاني [ ومن آذاني فقد آذي هللا‬، ‫ني وأنا منها‬55‫عة م‬55‫علي أما علمت أن فاطمة بض‬
‫ ومن آذاها في حياتي كان كمن آذاها بعد موتى‬، ‫ كان كمن آذاها في حياتي‬5‫موتى‬
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar43/a21.html ”
Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A
miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah,
and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the
daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times:
“What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not
control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad,
and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit
and Muhajir in the way of Allah.
He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it
until night time…she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and
did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though
he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s
house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected
some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.
When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over
himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making
Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that
Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning
over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and
could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-
Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until
they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.
The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have
disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar
from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they
gathered around the Messenger of Allah.
The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of
me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me
has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has
disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he
has disturbed her after my death.”
(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also
narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)
This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also
narrated by Al-Majlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the
Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both
narrate this story.
It was actually Ali ( ‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) who had angered Fatima ( ‫رض}}}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ), and
ّ ّ
consequently, the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬chastised him by saying that whoever
angers Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬angers him. According to the Shia narration above, the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬even “put his foot on Ali” and “pinched him.” Not only
this, but the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬rounded up some of the Sahabah in order to
publically chastise Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬on the matter. Hence, if the Shia would like to
condemn Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for angering Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, then what about
this incident in which Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬does so? In fact, the very statement that the
silly Shia use against us is in fact the same statement that was used by the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬as a chastisement of Ali (‫!)رضّى هللا عنه‬
And this was not the only time that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬angered Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬.
According to Shia sources, we see several other instances. On one occassion, she was
angry with Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬because she saw his head in the lap of a slave girl that was
given to him as a gift. She even left him for awhile and went to her father’s house,
which is something that females do when they are upset with their husbands or they
are facing marital problems. This narration is available on the YaZahra.com, a
reputable Shia website:
YaZahra.net says
“Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147

‫ديت لجعفر جارية‬55‫ ) فاه‬1 ( ‫اجرين إلى بالد الحبشة‬55‫الب مه‬55‫ كنت أنا وجعفر بن أبي ط‬: ‫عن أبي ذر رحمة هللا عليه قال‬
‫نزل فاطمة‬55555‫ فجعلها علي في م‬، ‫ تخدمه‬5‫الم‬55555‫داها لعلي عليه الس‬55555‫دمنا المدينة أه‬55555‫ فلما ق‬، ‫ قيمتها أربعة آالف درهم‬.
، ‫ يا أبا الحسن فعلتها‬: ‫الت‬55‫الم في حجر الجارية فق‬55‫رت إلى رأس علي عليه الس‬55‫الم يوما فنظ‬55‫دخلت فاطمة عليها الس‬55‫ف‬
‫لى‬55‫ول هللا ص‬55‫نزل أبي رس‬55‫ير إلى م‬55‫أذن لي في المص‬55‫ ال وهللا يا بنت محمد ما فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين ؟ قالت ت‬: ‫فقال‬
‫ قد أذنت لك‬: ‫ال لها‬5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555‫ هللا عليه واله فق‬.
‫ وتبرقعت ببرقعها‬، ‫فتجللت بجاللها‬
source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html ”
‫‪Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I‬‬
‫‪migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams‬‬
‫‪was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that‬‬
‫‪she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw‬‬
‫”?!‪that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it‬‬
‫‪He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you‬‬
‫‪want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow‬‬
‫‪you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.‬‬
‫‪(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in‬‬
‫)”‪Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was‬‬
‫‪Yasoob.com is another well-known Shia website, and it too has these narrations in‬‬
‫‪which Fatima is angered by Ali.‬‬
‫‪Yasoob.com says‬‬
‫‪“Shaikh‬‬ ‫‪Saduk‬‬ ‫‪“Elal‬‬ ‫‪esh‬‬ ‫”‪sharae‬‬ ‫‪p‬‬ ‫‪185-186‬‬

‫انه جاء شقي من االشقياء إلى فاطمة بنت رسول هللا (ص) فق‪55‬ال لها‪ :‬أما علمت ان عليا قد خطب بنت أبى جهل فق‪55‬الت‪:‬‬
‫حقاما تق‪55‬ول؟ فق‪55‬ال‪ :‬حقا ما أق‪55‬ول ثالث م‪55‬رات ف‪55‬دخلها من الغ‪55‬يرة ماالتملك نفس‪55‬ها وذلك ان هللا تب‪55‬ارك وتع‪55‬الى‪ 5‬كتب على‬
‫النساء غيرة وكتب على الرجال جهادا وجعل للمحتسبة الصابرة منهن من االجر ما جعل للمرابط المهاجر في سبيل هللا‪،‬‬
‫ق‪5‬ال‪ :‬فاش‪5‬تد غم فاطمة من ذلك وبقيت‪ 5‬متفك‪5‬رة هي ح‪5‬تى أمست وج‪5‬اء الليل حملت الحسن على عاتقها االيمن والحس‪5‬ين‪5‬‬
‫على عاتقها االيسر وأخذت بيد أم كلثوم اليسرى بيدها اليمنى‪ 5‬ثم تحولت إلى حجرة أبيها‪ 5‬فجاء علي ف‪55‬دخل حجرته فلم ير‬
‫فاطمة فاشتد لذلك غمه وعظم عليه ولم يعلم القصة ماهي فاستحى ان يدعوها من منزل أبيها‪ 5‬فخرج إلى المسجد يص‪55‬لي‬
‫فيه ما شاء هللا ثم جمع شيئا من كثيب المس‪5‬جد واتكى علي‪5‬ه‪ ،‬فلما رأى الن‪5‬بي ص‪5‬لى هللا عليه وآله ما بفاطمة من الح‪55‬زن‬
‫أف‪55‬اض عليها من الم‪55‬اء ثم لبس ثوبه‪ 5‬ودخل المس‪55‬جد فلم ي‪55‬زل يص‪55‬لي بين راكع وس‪55‬اجد وكلما ص‪55‬لى ركع‪55‬تين‪ 5‬دعاهللا ان‬
‫ي‪55‬ذهب ما بفاطمة من الح‪55‬زن والغم‪ 5‬وذلك انه خ‪55‬رج من عن‪55‬دها وهى تتقلب وتتنفس‪ 5‬الص‪55‬عداء فلما رآها الن‪55‬بي ص‪55‬لى هللا‬
‫ال‬ ‫انها‬ ‫وآله‬ ‫عليه‬
‫يهنيها‪ 5‬النوم وليس لها قرار قال لها قومي يا بنية فقامت فحمل النبي صلى هللا عليه وآله الحسن وحملت فاطمة الحسين‪5‬‬
‫واخ‪55‬ذت بيد أم كلث‪55‬وم‪ 5‬ف‪55‬انتهى‪ 5‬إلى علي ” ع ” وهو ن‪55‬ايم فوضع الن‪55‬بي ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه وآله رجله على رجل علي فغم‪55‬زه‬
‫وقال قم يا أبا تراب فكم س‪55‬اكن ازعجته ادع لي أبا بكر من داره وعمر من مجلسه وطلحة فخ‪55‬رج علي فاس‪55‬تخرجهما من‬
‫منزلهما واجتمعوا‪ 5‬عند رسول هللا ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه وآله فق‪55‬ال رس‪55‬ول هللا ص‪55‬لى هللا عليه وآله يا علي أما علمت ان فاطمة‬
‫بض‪55‬عة م‪55‬نى وانا منها فمن آذاها فقد آذانى من آذانى فقد آذى هللا ومن آذاها بعد م‪55‬وتى‪ 5‬ك‪55‬ان كمن آذاها في حي‪55‬اتي ومن‬
‫‪،‬آذاها في حياتي كان كمن آذاها بعد موتى‬
‫‪source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html‬‬ ‫”‬
‫‪Yasoob.com says‬‬
“Shayh Saduk “Ilal esh sharai”
‫ديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها‬55‫اجرين إلى بالد الحبشة فاه‬55‫الب مه‬55‫ كنت أنا وجعفر بن ابى ط‬:‫ال‬55‫عن ابى ذر رحمه هللا عليه ق‬
‫أربعة آالف درهم فلما قدمنا المدينة اهداها لعلي ” ع ” تخدمه فجعلها علي ” ع ” في منزل فاطمة فدخلت فاطمة عليها‬
‫ في حجر الجارية فقالت يا ابا الحسن فعلتها فقال ال وهللا يا بنت محمد ما‬5‫ يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السالم‬5‫السالم‬
‫فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل ابى رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وآله فقال لها قد أذنت لك‬
‫فتجلببت بجلبابها‬
source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html ”
The Shia say that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was angry at Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬in the
incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also
angry at Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬at the same time? We read the following, as narrated by Al-
Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusi’s Amali:
“When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she
returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was
angry with Ali because he refused to help her.” (Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen,
pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusi’s Amali, p.295)
Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬made Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬angry
on more than one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions:
1) The Prophet’s saying “whoever disturbs her, disturbs me” is addressed to Ali (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنه‬if this statement involved
punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬before Abu
Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-
Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬angered Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنها‬. What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend
Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬.
 No obedience In transgression
When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬by bringing up the Prophet’s
words (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬about making Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬angry, we ask these
mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith and Quranic exhortations about not making
one’s parents angry. The Prophet has said that if a person makes his parents angry,
then this will anger Allah. We are told that if we disobey or anger our parents, we
disobey and anger Allah. However, what if a parent asks his daughter not to wear
the Hijab, and what if he gets angry if she does wear it? Would it then be sinful for
the girl to continue wearing Hijab? Of course not! The Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
said:
“There is no obedience in transgression. Verily, obedience is in good deeds [only].”

(Sahih Bukhari, Muslim)
We cannot obey another human being above Allah and His Messenger. So how

could Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬place the words of Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬above that of the
Messenger of Allah (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬who clearly said that Prophets do not leave
behind inheritance?
 Fatima’s anger (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬ in context
It should be noted that Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is not God. Her anger does not decide
who will go to Paradise and who will not. Not even the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is
God; nor will his anger decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. If the Shia
ask us proof of this claim, then we give them the example of Washu who killed the
Prophet’s uncle, Hamza ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Washu would later convert to Islam and repent
for his crimes; even still, the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬could not help but feel
anger when he saw the face of the man who killed his uncle. However, this was only
the personal feeling of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. It does not mean that Washu
would be condemned to Hell-Fire for crimes that he committed prior to his
conversion to Islam.
In any case, Fatima’s anger ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is not the factor which decides who goes to
Paradise and who burns in Hell-Fire. If Fatima’s anger ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is based on
something which is wrong from a Shariah standpoint [i.e. Fadak], then how can this
be the reason for Abu Bakr’s condemnation ( ‫ ?)رضّى هللا عنه‬Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was
angry at Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬on at least one occassion: Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬greatly upset
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬on many occassions, and even there were incidents in which she
was so angry that she left Ali’s house ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and went to stay with her father.
Do we condemn Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as a Kaffir now?
The truth of the matter is that people–even loved ones–get in arguments. We have
yet to see a husband who does not get in arguments with his wife. Siblings fight all
the time, and parents get angry at their children. We even have the example of
Prophet Musa (‫ )عليه السالم‬who lost patience with Khidr ( ‫)عليه السالم‬, and yet we find
that these are amongst the best of people as mentioned in the Quran (and
“infallible” according to the Shia). Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬got
in arguments, and yet we know that they were best of friends. Likewise, we believe
that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬got in arguments with Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Umar (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬. And the Ahlus Sunnah has no issue with this, so why do the Shia suddenly think
we would cower at the site of anyone getting in one argument with Fatima ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫?)عنها‬
The Shia exploit the Hadith about whoever makes Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬angry makes
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬angry. The Shia believe that the same is true of Ali (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, that whoever makes him angry also makes the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬angry. Likewise, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that whoever upsets the Sahabah
makes the Prophet (‫ )ص}}لّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم‬angry. Thus, the Hadith about angering
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬must be taken into the appropriate context and cannot be taken
in such simplistic and stark terms.
Furthermore, Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬

ّ ) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the
highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the
respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. As
such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬should have been careful
about angering Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, an unbiased observer could easily argue that it
was Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬who should have been careful of angering the Caliph of the
Muslims who by the Shariah was at a rank higher in status than anyone else. If the
Shia want to argue that Fatima’s position (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is higher due to the fact that
she is leader of the women of Paradise, then we can also say that Aisha’s position (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬is higher than that of Ali’s (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬based on the fact that she is
“Mother of the Believers” as mentioned in the Quran.
Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not judge the Companions and relatives of the
Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize
Fatima (‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنها‬we think she made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. The
Shia propagandists will now resort to rhetoric and emotional arguments whereby
they will ask if it is possible that the daughter of the Prophet–who was raised by
him–could possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake. By this
same logic, one could defend all of the actions of Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, for she was
the wife of the Prophet who was married to him at the tender age of six. So if the
Shia ask why we say Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬made a mistake, we ask the Shia why they
say Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia).
The reality is that any human being–even the greatest of Muslims–is capable of
making mistakes. We reject the concept of infallibility; it is a form of exaggeration
and an extension of Shirk, whereby the quality of Allah (i.e. perfection) is given to
humans. Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did not know of the Prophet’s Hadith which forbade
inheritance from him. Thus, her demand for Fadak was not based out of sin, but
rather out of a sincere mistake; mistakes are made by everyone, even the most pious
individuals.
 Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬ reconciled with Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
In any case, it was only initially that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was angry at Abu Bakr (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. The Shia endeavour to capitalize on her feelings to convey the idea that
because she was wronged, she had directed that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬should not
attend her Janaazah and that she remained angry with him until her demise. We do
not agree with this narrative, and we believe that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬eventually
became pleased with Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Fatima ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, Abu Bakr (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬frequently said:
“By Allah! Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! Kindness to the relatives of Rasool-Allah is

more beloved to me than my kindness with my own relatives.”
According to both Sunni and Shia narrations, Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was greatly
saddened by Fatima’s displeasure ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. He went to great lengths to please
her while remaining firm on the Shariah. He went to her home, stood at her door in
the midday sun and asked Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt
to placate and please Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Ultimately, she became pleased with him
and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun Nubuwwah,
Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqiand in the commentaries of Mishkaat.
Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:
“Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave
from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali
came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she
became pleased (with Abu Bakr).”
Shia records also confirm that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬became pleased with Abu Bakr (
‫)رضّى هللا 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 (7:273-281) 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.
How do we reconcile this Hadith with the Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari? This is
a commonly used Hadith by the Shia propagandist:

Narrated by Aisha:
After the death of Allah’s Apostle, Fatima–the daughter of Allah’s Apostle–asked

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give to her what was her share of inheritance from what
Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah
had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be
inherited; whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).”
Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr,
and continued assuming that attitude until she died. Fatima remained alive for six
months after the death of Allah’s Apostle.”
Both this Hadith and the Hadith stated earlier in Bayhaqi have been deemed to be
authentic narrations by the Hadith scholars. Therefore, how do we reconcile the
two? The explanation is simple: Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬may not have known that Fatima
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬had reconciled with Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was not
present at that moment, so she was unaware of it. This does not mean that the event
did not take place. Furthermore–and this point cannot be stressed enough–the
Hadith narrated by Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬really means that Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did not
speak to Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬again about the issue of Fadak, not necessarily that
she did not speak to him again at all.
Even though Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was in the right, he nonetheless had the nobility
and chivalry to continue trying to please Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, despite the fact that
she was in the wrong. The Shia propagandist will oftentimes show narrations that
show that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬regretted his causing Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to be
angry. We find nothing wrong in this, and we give the Shia the example of Ali ( ‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬who sought the good pleasure of Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬after the Battle of the
Camel. In both situations, Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬were in the
right, but they went to seek the good pleasure of the women, both of whom were
close to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Regarding the claim that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was averse to Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night
by Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty
and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death.
According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt
ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without
Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬explained that she had seen one
woman’s body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did.
When Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This
was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وس}}لّم‬. She instructed Asma (‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ) to give her body ghusl after death and
besides Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬no one else should be present. This was the reason for the
secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was
the wife of Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, which serves as another evidence that Fatima (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬before her death.
(In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatima’s grave [
‫]رضّ هللا عنها‬. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and
do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being
worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.)
Furthermore, although Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not attend the burial of Fatima (
‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬asked Abu Bakr (‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬on the basis that he was
Caliph–to conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ )
performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:
“Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted
the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.”
Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬had said that Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
should not lead the Janaazah, since Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is the one who asked Abu Bakr (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to do it in the first place!
 Three more refutations
The Shia will never agree with us that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬became pleased with Abu
Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and they will adamantly claim that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was angry
with Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for the rest of her life. They will quote Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
who said that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬remained angry with Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Our
response is three-fold.
Firstly:
If Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for
Abu Bakr (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ّ ), but rather it looks bad for Fatima ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ). She was
clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi,
which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, then she is angry
at a man wrongfully. And not just any man–but the Caliph of the Ummah. This
makes Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬look whimsical. The Sahabah–including Abu Bakr (‫رضّى‬
‫–)هللا عنه‬used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An
unbiased observor could say that if Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬remained adamant in her
anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She
should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging
Muslim state.
It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed
did become happy with Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬near the end of her life. Perhaps it was
that Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did not know that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬became happy with
Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬because he did not inform Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬about each and
everything (such as when he placated Fatima). We take this opinion since it
makes Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬look better, and not to make her look whimsical and
greedy like the Shia narrative does. Furthermore, there are many narrations that
indicate that this is indeed the case that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬made good with Abu
Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, so why should we ignore these?
Secondly:
The Shia keep saying that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬carried a grudge “her whole life,” as if
that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakr’s grave mistake (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬only lived six months after the Prophet’s death! So
even if Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬made Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬angry, her anger couldn’t
have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is it a long time.
Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get
a chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her
anger subside. Who does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family
members? Surely, a brother getting in an argument with a sister for a few months is
not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human beings and they do not ever
get into arguments with family members.
Thirdly:
It should be kept in mind that after the Prophet’s death, Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was
a highly emotional and distraught individual, since she loved the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬so much and missed him. Even the Shia say that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was
never happy for the rest of her life after the death of the Prophet ( ‫;)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
the Shia have exaggerated stories about how even Angel Jibraeel ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬would
comfort Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. So obviously, Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was in a bad mood,
and we cannot lay the entire blame on the shoulders of Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ );
indeed, if the Shia want to lay the blame on someone, then lay it on Allah for taking
away Fatima’s father. Her melancholy can be attributed to that, and we are not
surprised then that she was extra sensitive towards others including the Caliph, who
in her eyes, was replacing her father’s position as leader of the Muslims.
However, the most reliable position is that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬reconciled with Abu
Bakr (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ). It should be noted that the Shia will oftentimes cite obscure
sources and claim that they are “authoratative Sunni sources” or from so-called
“reknowned Sunni historians”; nobody can verify these truly strange reports, and
thus, we reject them as a basis for discussion on the matter of Fadak. Instead, we
rely on the reliable reports which indicate that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬died happy with
Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
 A Similar Hadith for the Sahabah
The Prophet said:
“Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after
me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them
hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for
me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears
enmity for Allah is about to perish!”
(Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi by Ahmad with three good
chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shuàb al-Iman, and
others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442).
Therefore, if the Shia would insist that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is to be criticized for
angering Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, then based on this same logic, shouldn’t Fatima be
criticized for her angering a Sahabi? Did not the Prophet say “whoever bears enmity
for them, bears enmity with me”? Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does interpret it in
this way, but we are simply showing the flaw in the Shia logic. The Prophet praised
many people, not only Fatima ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ) and Ali (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) but also other
Sahabah; the problem lies in the fact that the Shia stubbornly accept only those
narrations in regards to certain people but reject similar Hadith in regards to others.
It is only through this skewed interpretation and selective pick-and-choose
mentality that the Shia are able to construct an imaginary paradigm pitting one
friend of Allah against another.
In another similar Hadith, the Prophet said:
“Whoever loves Umar loves me. Whoever hates Umar hates me.” (At-Tabarani)
Therefore, we see that the Prophet said such words to many people he loved and the
honor was not unique to Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. If the Shia propagandists would like to
narrowly apply such a Hadith with regards to Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, then their entire
paradigm falls apart if they consistently apply similar Hadith directed towards
others loved by the Prophet. Indeed, what we see is that the approach of the Shia is
overly simplistic and sophomoric. The Prophet’s statement was a general one,
meaning simply that we should love the Sahabah, his Ahlel Bayt, etc, and not hate
them. If I were to say that you should love your sister or your brother, this is
speaking in general terms; no doubt, it is only inevitable–as is the nature of human–
to get in a couple arguments or even fights now and then. The Prophet was merely
emphacizing his love for these people and urging the people to love them in turn. If
one were to criticize Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) and Umar (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) for angering
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬over Fadak, then one could easily reply that Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
hated Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬over Fadak and the Prophet warned against hating Umar (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not apply the Hadith in the same
myopic way as the Shia does, but we are simply showing how strange the Shia logic
seems when applied consistently.
The Prophet also said:
“The Ansar! None loves them except a believer, and none hates them except a
hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allah loves him; and whoever hates them, Allah
hates him.”
Once again, this is a general statement only; it cannot be interpreted to mean that
no human being on earth can get in a disagreement or fight with any one of the
Ansar. Instead, what is meant by the Hadith is that the Prophet has a close affinity
and love for the Ansar, and that we should also share this, in general terms. The
same is the case with the Hadith in regards to Fatima’s anger. It is something to be
taken in general terms and it cannot be applied in the way that the Shia does in
order to malign the First Caliph.
Fadak, Part VI: Fadak Was Not a Gift
Previous
(Continued…)
The Shia propagandists will argue for hours claiming that Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
denied Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬her inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, the Sunni
position on Fadak is a “slam-dunk” because of the fact that the Shia’s own Hadith
declares that Prophets do not leave inheritance, thereby completely nullifying the
Shia position on the matter. As the Shia often do when they lose an argument, they
completely change their position in order to assume a position that will allow them
to win said argument. In the case of Fadak, the Shia will suddenly claim that Fadak
was not given to Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬as an inheritance, but rather as a gift (”hiba”)
from the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
Every single authoratative narrative, both on the Sunni and Shia side, affirms that
Fatima (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ) approached Abu Bakr (‫رض}}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) seeking Fadak as
her inheritance. The term “inheritance” is always used, and never “gift.” Even the
Shia books accuse Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) of denying Fatima (‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬ّ ) her
inheritance. This is the primary accusation of the Shia, not of stealing a gift. Indeed,
an integral part of the Shia accusation is that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬fabricated a
Hadith in regards to Prophets not leaving behind inheritance. Even a cursory glance
of Shia websites shows that the recurring theme is that Fadak was an inheritance
denied. The authoratative Shia website, Al-Islam.org, declares:
“Umar was the most harsh person in keeping Fatima (as) from Fadak and her
inheritance as he himself confessed.”
(Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/9.html)
If Fadak was bestowed upon Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬as a gift, then why did she claim it
as her inheritance and not say anything about a gift? We see narration after
narration in which Fatima (‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) talks to Abu Bakr ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) about
inheritance; if it was a gift, then why would she mention inheritance at all? And let
us dwell on the timing of the issue: it was immediately after the Prophet’s death (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬that Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬came to claim Fadak. If it had been a gift
during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, then it would have already
been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and
there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for it.
Some Shia propagandists will then claim that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gifted
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬Fadak as inheritance that she would assume after his death. Do
the Shia not realize that this is accusing the Prophet (‫ )ص}}لّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم‬of
commiting a Haram act? Both the Sunni and Shia jurists do not allow a man to “gift”
inheritance upon his death. If this was possible, then a man could simply “gift” all
his inheritance to the son, and thereby completely deny inheritance to the daughter.
In fact, one could “gift” inheritance to whomever he pleases! The entire Islamic laws
of inheritance would become nothing short of a joke. Indeed, once a person dies, the
property must be doled out according to the portions ascribed in the Islamic laws of
inheritance. (In the case of Prophets, the only portion–according to the Shariah–is
to charity.)
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬never sought Fadak as a gift: in every single narration about this
incident, Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬spoke about her inheritance. It was immediately after
the Prophet’s death that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬came to claim Fadak, and if it had been
a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم‬, then it would have
already been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death, and there would
have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for it. It is impossible that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gifted Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬the property as inheritance
that she would assume after his death, since this would be a violation of the Quranic
rules about inheritance, in which one cannot simply gift things to whomever one
wants. Could not then a father gift all of his inheritance to one son to the exclusion
of his daughters? Indeed, a little thought into the matter quickly leads us to the
conclusion that the Shia argument holds no weight.
The Shia propagandists will then do what they always do: quote strange, obscure,
and weak narrations claiming that these are “authoratative Sunni sources.” The
truth of the matter is that all of these reports that are so-called “Sunni reports” are
of a dubious character and cannot be used to prove that Fadak was a gift. We have
seen “Answering-Ansar” and other anti-Sunni sites use reports from someone
named “Fudayl ibn Marzooq” and yet we find that he is not a Sunni authority but
rather he is considered a liar and a fabricator by the Ahlus Sunnah! And there are
even other reports and quotes on Shia websites that are from books that our
scholars have never even heard of, and are no doubt outright falsifications.
The Shia propagandists will twist words and events in order to improve their
arguments in the debate with the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us even accept the fallacious
assertion of the Shia that Fadak was a gift. The Shia still cannot explain why Fatima
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬wrongfully said that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬lied and fabricated Hadith
about Prophets not giving inheritance.
(On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [ ‫ ]رضّى هللا عنها‬made
a sincere mistake, and nothing more. Neither does the Ahlus Sunnah accept the
exaggerated tales of Fatima [‫ ]رضّى هللا عنها‬cursing Abu Bakr [ ‫ ]رضّى هللا عنه‬and other
such things.)
We have proven that this Hadith (about Prophets not giving inheritance) exists even
in the Shia literature and it is considered Sahih. At minimum, the Shia must admit
that if the Shia version of history is correct, then Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was horribly
wrong for accusing Abu Bakr of fabricating the Hadith (which is in Al-Kafi).
This completely negates the Shia views on everything, since a central tenet of the
Shia doctrine is that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was infallible. If she was truly infallible,
then why doesn’t she know a Hadith that we have even proved from the Shia Al-
Kafi? Thus, if the reader finds himself in a debate with a Shia propagandist who
demands that Fadak was a gift, then we urge the reader to place the onus on the
Shia: do not see the need to even prove that Fadak was not a gift, but rather
repeatedly ask why Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬wrongfully claimed that this Hadith does
not exist, even though it appears in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih even by
Ayatollah Khomeini. No matter if Fadak was an inheritance or a gift, one thing
that can be proven is that if Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬accused Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of
fabricating Hadith, then she was wrong.
Fadak, Part VII: Charity is Good

Previous
(Continued…)
 Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬ Gave Fadak as Charity
The Shia will make it sound as if Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬took Fadak and made it his
own. Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not take a cent from Fadak, but rather he made it
part of the Waqf for the benefit of the Ummah and the emerging Muslim state.
Fadak became charity, and contrary to what the Shia insinuate, Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬did not buy a new car using the money from Fadak. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬was known to have dedicated most of his wealth to the Islamic cause. He lived
the life of a pauper, and was known for his ascetism. Prior to his conversion to
Islam, Abu Bakr (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) was a very wealthy man; after his conversion, he
dedicated this wealth to Islam and consequently lived a meager life. In the Shia
Makarem Shirazi, we find:
“ABUBAKR was an influential wealthy man, and made us of his influence and
wealth for improving Islam.”
(source: Makarem Shirazi,

http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/english/TAFSIR3/01.html#_Lnk7)
 Abu Bakr’s Dilemma (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophet’s daughter, and Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) felt
horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would
think that perhaps Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬should have shown lenience on the matter.
However, this would have set a horrible precedent if the first Caliph of the Ummah
willfully violated the Shariah of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, who clearly said
that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. To adjust the rules for close family or
friends would have shown nepotism. Indeed, it does not matter how high the status
of an individual is in a just state: he/she will have to adhere to the law of the land,
and exceptions cannot be granted based upon rank. Otherwise, an injust state would
be created in which the high class get away with things, and meanwhile the lower
class faces stricter implementation of law. Thus, it can be seen that Abu Bakr (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬must have been under immense stress from the general public who would
have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned for those of a high rank such as
Fatima (‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ). Abu Bakr (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) was held accountable to many poor
people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.
 Further Arguments
Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬made a sincere mistake and she did not realize that she does not
get inheritance from the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Nobody, not Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬nor Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, could place the words of Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬above those of
Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬which categorically forbade inheritance for
Prophets.
Additionally, if it was really to be inherited by the family of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫)وآله وسلّم‬, then Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬would have given the rightful share of it to Aisha
(‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬but he did not. So why aren’t the Shia grieving for Aisha ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
like they do for Fatima ( ‫ ?)رضّى هللا عنها‬And what about the other eligible relatives of
the Prophet (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Why is it that the Shia do not argue on behalf of
these people for Fadak? It is reported that Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬also asked her father
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬refused on
the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give inheritance. Why aren’t the Shia
crying over Aisha’s loss (‫?)رضّى هللا عنها‬
Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the
command of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. The Shia try to villify Abu Bakr, but
what was Abu Bakr’s only “crime” other than helping the poor? If the Shia want to
make this a competition between Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬and Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬,
then let us remember that the former wanted it for her own personal usage, whereas
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬wanted it to be given as charity for the benefit of the Muslim
Ummah. The Shia should stop focusing on the issue of Fadak, because it was a
sincere mistake of Fatima’s ( ‫ ;)رضّى هللا عنها‬the Ahlus Sunnah does not discuss Fadak
in its own circles for this very reason, out of reverence for Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. The
Shia meanwhile force our hand and make us continually prove that Fatima ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬was in the wrong, in order that we may exonerate Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬from
wrong doing. We ask Allah Almighty to accept Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬into the Highest Ranks of Paradise.
Fadak, Part VIII: The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance
Previous
(Continued…)
 Prophets Do Not Give Inheritance
The Shia propagandists will try to give examples from the Quran to prove that
Prophets actually do give inheritance. This is all in an attempt to undermine the
words of Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬who clearly said that Prophets do
not give material possessions as inheritance. This is recorded in a Sahih narration in
Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith:
It is sad that in an attempt to “win” a debate, the Shia will try to prove the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬wrong as a consequence.
The Shia propagandists will quote Verse 27:16 in which the Quran says: “And
Sulaiman was Dawud’s heir.” The Shia tactfully do not quote the entire verse, nor
the preceding verse. Allah says:
“We gave (in the past) knowledge to Dawud and Sulaiman, and they both said:
‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above many of his servants who believe!’
And Sulaiman was Dawud’s heir. He said: ‘O you people! We have been taught the
speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed
Grace manifest (from Allah).’” (Quran, 27:15-16)
In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman ( ‫ )عليه الس}}}الم‬inheriting

the knowledge of Dawud (‫)عليه السالم‬. It has absolutely nothing to do with material
possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman ( ‫ )عليه الس}}الم‬being
Prophet Dawud’s heir (‫)عليه السالم‬, we see that the Quran is talking about the special
knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in
regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses
that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬who
asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor.
It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of
Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word
“al-irth” in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses
cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity.
Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:
“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as

We have chosen” (Quran, Surah Fatir)
As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:
“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-
Mu’minoon)
Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people?
Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption.
It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬to be
asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would
be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬asked for a
son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the
legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob (‫ )عليه السالم‬would continue.
Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬was a poor man who
earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would
prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the
Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and they spent any
surplus in charity.
As for the case of Prophet Dawud ( ‫)عليه السالم‬, it is well-known that he had 100 wives
and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines.
If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why
is Prophet Sulaiman (‫ )عليه السالم‬mentioned as the soleinheritor? This proves that the
Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge. Otherwise,
Prophet Dawud (‫ )عليه السالم‬denied inheritance to his other children, and this would
violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance to the
children of Prophets.
If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not
make much sense that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to
an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable,
neither to Dawud (‫ )عليه السالم‬nor to Sulaiman (‫)عليه السالم‬. Even a Jew or Christian
inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol
the excellence of Sulaiman (‫ )عليه الس}}الم‬and to make mention of that which was
granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial
matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking, and burying the dead. This
is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Prophets, since it is
simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Prophets which
carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘he died, and his son inherited his property’, or
‘they buried him’, or ‘they ate, drank, and slept’ is not the kind of information that
would be conveyed in the stories of the Quran.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah,
Volume 1, p.240, with minor adjustments) It is thus obvious that the Quran is
talking about inheriting the loftiness of Prophethood, much like the Quran talks
about who amongst the believers will inherit the lofty position of Paradise.
In any case, all of these verses in the Quran must be interpreted in the light of the
Hadith which states that “Prophets do not leave dinars or dirhams as inheritance,
but they leave knowledge.” This Hadith explicitly negates the possibility that the
Prophets in the Quran were leaving material possessions as inheritance, but rather
were talking about knowledge. This along is sufficient proof to reject the Shia
manipulation of these Quranic verses.
Even if the Shia live in the delusional world that Prophets leave behind inheritance,
then this still does not answer why the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has stated in
Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Again, this Hadith has been
stated in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih. The Shia say that Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
accused Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of fabricating the Hadith, but we find that this Hadith
exists! If there is a discrepancy between the Quran and the Prophetic Sahih sayings,
then we must state that this is an accusation against the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬:
are the Shia really saying that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬incorrectly stated that
Prophets do not inherit?
Fadak, Part IX: Umar (R.A.) Upheld Abu Bakr’s Decision (R.A.)
Previous
(Continued…)
The Shia propagandists will sometimes claim that Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬overturned
Abu Bakr’s decision (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and gave Fadak back to Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. They will
use this as “proof” that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was wrong, implying that “look, even
your Umar gave Fadak back.” This is a blatant lie. Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬upheld Abu
Bakr’s decision (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬repeated the Prophet’s Hadith
that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Abbas (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬approached Umar ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) in regards to Fadak, and Umar ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ )
allowed them to take control of Fadak as “trustees”–not as “inheritors.” As trustees,
Ali (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) and Abbas (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) would be responsible for doling out the
charity funds derived from Fadak. As such, the two would be continuing in the steps
of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, all
of whom were trustees who distributed the revenue from Fadak as charity.
We find proof of this from Sahih Bukhari narrated by Malik bin Aus:
Umar said: “Allah’s Apostle used to spend the yearly expenses of his family out of
this property and used to keep the rest of its revenue to be spent on Allah’s Cause.
Allah’s Apostle kept on doing this during all his lifetime. I ask you by Allah do you
know this?”
They [Ali and Abbas] replied in the affirmative.
Umar then said to Ali and Abbas: “I ask you by Allah, do you know this?”
Umar added: “When Allah had taken His Prophet unto Him, Abu Bakr said, ‘I am
the successor of Allah’s Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it
in the same way as Allah’s Apostle used to do, and Allah knows that he was true,
pious and rightly-guided, and he was a follower of what was right.
“Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakr’s successor, and I kept
that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it
in the same way as Allah’s Apostle used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah
knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right.
“Now you both (Ali and Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and
presenting the same case; you, Abbas, came to me asking for your share from your
nephew’s property, and this man (Ali) came to me asking for his wife’s share from
her father’s property. I told you both that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our (prophets’)
properties are not to be inherited, but what we leave is Sadaqah (to be used for
charity).’
“When I thought it right that I should hand over this property to you, I said to you, ‘I
am ready to hand over this property to you if you wish, on the condition that you
would take Allah’s Pledge and Convention that you would manage it in the same way
as Allah’s Apostle used to, and as Abu Bakr used to do, and as I have done since I
was in charge of it.’
“So, both of you (Ali and Abbas) said (to me), ‘Hand it over to us,’ and on that
condition I handed it over to you. So, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to them
on this condition?”
The group said, “Yes.”
Then Umar faced Ali and Abbas saying, “I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you
on this condition?”
They said, “Yes.”
He said, “Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave
both the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I
have already given). And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I
will do the job on your behalf.”
(source: Sahih Bukhari,

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=53&translator=1)
Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬thus made Ali ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬ّ ) and Abbas (‫رض}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) trustees of
Fadak on the condition that they accept that they are not the owners of it, nor the
inheritors of it. In fact, Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬said in the above Hadith that if there is
even a bit of doubt on this matter, then they should return Fadak to Umar (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬who can act as its trustee instead. The fact that Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬made Ali (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬and Abbas ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬the trustees of Fadak was a compromise of immense
wisdom. Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gauranteed the goodwill of Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Abbas (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, but also Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬remained strict on following the Shariah and
doing with Fadak what Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬had done as well.
During the Caliphate of Uthman, Marwan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was made trustee of Fadak
and it was he who distributed the revenue as charity. When Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬assumed
power, he did not reclaim Fadak for himself nor did he give it to his sons, Hasan (
ّ ) and Hussain (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ). Thereby, Ali (‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) maintained the
position of Fadak as a charity, and he continued to allow Marwan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to be
its trustee.
The Shia will claim that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was under Taqiyyah during his Caliphate
and this is the reason he did not return Fadak. They say that Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬could
not restore Fadak to Hasan ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hussain (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬simply because if
he did this, then the people would conspire against him and rebel. In the words of
one Shia propagandist,
“So many people at the time rejected the Imamah of Ali. If they didn’t accept his
rule, then how would they accept the controversial reconfiscation of Fadak? In fact,
it would strengthen the views of those who opposed his Caliphate. Had Imam Ali
(as) restored Fadak by force, these people would have reacted in open opposition
and spread Fitnah and hatred against Imam Ali. These people would say that Ali was
abusing his power as Caliph to give favors to his relatives [i.e. Hasan and Hussain].”
There is no real way to respond to this since it is based on nothing but assumptions.
One could easily claim that this is the same reason that Uthman ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not
return Fadak to Fatima’s sons. Perhaps he too did not want to return Fadak because
it would damage his image; people would say that he abused his power as Caliph to
favor people who were related to him. This would cause people to rebel against him.
Actually, during the time of Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, there was a lot of civil strife and
people were ready to revolt against Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Had he given Fadak back
to Fatima’s sons, then people would have reacted against him with force, and this
would have created Fitnah and hatred against Caliph Uthman ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
On what basis can the Shia claim that their fairy-tale (about Ali [ ‫ ]رضّى هللا عنه‬doing
Taqiyyah) is any different than the above fairy-tale and scenario we gave (i.e. about
Uthman [‫ ]رضّى هللا عنه‬also doing Taqiyyah)? We see that when we play the game of
the Shia with history, the sky is the limit!
Perhaps, to extend this example, Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was also doing Taqiyyah! He
was the grandfather-in-law of Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Perhaps, Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did
not want the people to think that the Caliph was not using nepotism and favoring
his relatives. One could even claim that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was doing Taqiyyah by
pretending to be mad at Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
The truth is that Taqiyyah is a useless way to look at history. No matter what the
facts are on the ground, the Shia can always claim Taqiyyah. The facts are that Ali (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not return Fadak to Fatima’s sons, and nothing prevented him from
doing so. He did not even make them trustees of Fadak, like how Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
made Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Abbas (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬trustees of Fadak. In fact, one could
argue that Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was the first one to “return” Fadak to Ahlel Bayt and
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬didn’t even do this. So shouldn’t the Shia believe Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
to be the “good guy” and Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to be the “bad guy”? Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
made the Ahlel Bayt the trustees of Fadak while it was a Waqf; Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬didn’t
even do this!
Such hypothetical scenarios show that the Shia versions of history are nothing but
fairy-tales based in double standards.
When Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning
Fadak.
When Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia do not love him even though he
appointed Abbas (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as the trustees of Fadak.
When Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for failing to return
Fadak to Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hussain (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
When Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia say that he was doing Taqiyyah and
that’s why he didn’t return Fadak.
When Muawiyyah ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning
Fadak.
When Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was Caliph, then the Shia say that he didn’t return Fadak
again because he was doing Taqiyyah and didn’t want people to accuse him of
abusing power.
Do we notice a pattern? All of the above people did the same action [i.e. not return
Fadak] but all the people that the Shia love are excused [using Taqiyyah as an
excuse], but the people the Shia hate are accused of being tyrants. This is the
epitome of intellectual dishonesty. All of the above individuals should be kept to the
same standard and judged by their actions.
The Shia are being unjust bigots and supremacists. They believe that the Ahlel Bayt
are not to be held to the same standard as other people. This is not unlike white
supremacists who lock up blacks for crimes but do not lock up whites for the same
crimes; instead, they make up excuses for white criminals and thus exonerate them.
A black man will rob a bank and the whites will lock him up. But if a white guy robs
a bank, then the white supremacists will make all sorts of fanciful excuses like the
bank was owned by evil people who had stolen money and the white man was
simply returning the money to the poor, or perhaps he was using Taqiyyah. Thus,
people of white wombs are excused, and those born to other wombs are punished
for the same crimes.
Likewise, the Shia excuse all those who were born to the wombs of Ahlel Bayt; in
fact, the Shia say that they are infallible and cannot commit mistakes. Meanwhile,
the people of born of a different wombs, such as the the lineage of Abu Sufyan, they
are all cursed and wrong and guilty always.
Is this justice?
Is this consistency?
Why the double standard?
If the Shia are going to hate Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for not returning Fadak, then they
should also hate Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for not returning Fadak
during their respective Caliphates. And then these Shia should simply love Umar (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬since he did something that neither Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬nor Hasan (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬did [i.e. return Fadak].
The truth is that the Shia poured over our Sahih books of Hadith looking for
anything they could use against the first three Caliphs. They found a Hadith about
how Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬was angry at Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and they said “aha!”
They accepted the story of Fadak since it fit in their paradigm. Fadak may not even
have been a part of Shi’ism prior to this discovery in Sahih Bukhari, but then
suddenly it became a central part of Shi’ism since it helps their cause so much. It
doesn’t matter to the Shia whonarrates the Hadith, its Isnad, or anything. It
becomes Sahih simply because it supports Shi’ism. [In fact, the Shia base the story
of Fadak and Fatima’s anger [ ‫ ]رضّى هللا عنها‬upon a Hadith narrated by Aisha [‫رضّى هللا‬
‫]عنها‬, whom they call a liar and a fabricator. However, because Aisha [ ‫]رضّى هللا عنها‬
narrates a Hadith which supports the Shia cause, suddenly her word becomes
golden.]
So it was that the Shia were so happy and jumping with joy when they found this
Hadith against Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. However, they failed to realize that they were
also destroying their whole religion if they accepted the story of Fadak. They didn’t
realize that their own Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Hasan (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not give Fadak to
Fatima’s descendants either. Thus, if any fault is to be put on the shoulders of Abu
Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, equal fault should be placed on the shoulders of Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
and Hasan (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬.
We notice the same phenomenon with other stories that the Shia love to quote. For
example, the Shia poured over our Sahih Hadith books and found a Hadith about
Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and the incident of the paper and pen. So then the Shia invented
the story about how this was when the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was going to
appoint Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬as successor. The Shia propagandists will then trumpet this
Hadith about the paper and pen, only because to them it makes Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
look evil. In fact, if the Ahlus Sunnah had Sunni Hadith that said Umar ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
was the devil who even oppressed Allah, then the Shia would even accept this
Hadith! Anything so long as it makes the three Caliphs look bad, no matter if
acceptance of this Hadith would destroy the fundamentals of their faith in the
process. Indeed, the incident of the paper and the pen destroys the faith of Shi’ism
because the Shia claim that it was Ghadeer Khumm in which the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬appointed Ali (‫ !)رضّى هللا عنه‬In the incident of the paper and the pen, the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said that he had something new to write, so how could it
be the appointment of Ali ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) if he was already appointed at Ghadeer
Khumm? Suddenly, the pillar of Shi’ism–namely that Ghadeer Khumm proves that
we must follow Ali (‫–)رضّى هللا عنه‬falls down.
That’s OK to the Shia who is content with any story so long as it makes the three
Caliphs look bad. If there was a Hadith about anything bad about the three Caliphs,
then it becomes Sahih automatically to the Shia, no matter who narrated it. Ronald
McDonald or Mickey Mouse could narrate a Hadith, and as long as it made the three
Caliphs look bad, the Shia will consider it Sahih!
In conclusion, Ali (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬

ّ ) and Hasan (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) did not return Fadak;
therefore, neither Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬,
nor Muawiyyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬can be condemned by the Shia.
Fadak, Part X: The Shia Who Deny Our Interpretation of the Al-Kafi Hadith
Previous
(Continued…)
We find the following Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia
books of Hadith:
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 Wilayat 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.” (Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah,
p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)
When the Shia propagandist is reminded that the Hadith about Prophets not
inheriting is in their own Al-Kafi, he will resort to two measures. Either he will
change the topic and discuss the other more tertiary aspects of Fadak, or he will
make feeble attempts at rationalizing the Hadith. The Shia will say that the Ahlus
Sunnah is twisting this Hadith. This is the general approach taken by such anti-
Sunni websites such as “Answering-Ansar.” They will say that this Hadith in Al-Kafi
is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather has a symbolic
meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets.
Let us even accept this fallacious assertion, or any other explanation the Shia give.
The fact of the matter is that the Shia are accusing Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬ ّ ) of
fabricating the Hadith. They even say that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬accused him of this.
Regardless of the interpretation of this Hadith, the fact is that it at leastexists and
thus the Shia claims that it is fabricated are simply false. If they claim that Fatima (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬cursed Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and
all sorts of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi
would prove Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah
holds the view that Fatima [‫ ]رضّى هللا عنها‬made a sincere mistake, and nothing more.)
We remind the reader that–according to the Shia–Fatima ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) never
claimed that Abu Bakr (‫رض}}ى هللا عنه‬ّ ) was interpreting the Hadith in the wrong
manner, but rather she was claiming that he fabricated it completely! If it was a
mere difference in interpretation, then we could say that they both had their
individual Ijtihad on the matter, and the Shariah law states that the Ijtihad of the
Caliph takes priority. But the Shia’s main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬made an incorrect Ijtihad, but rather that he fabricated the Hadith entirely.
Whereas the Shia can certainly always argue senselessly about interpretations of the
Hadith, they have absolutely no basis for the claim that the Hadith was fabricated.
This claim is rejected on the basis of Al-Kafi, much to the chagrin of the Shia.
Thus, if the reader finds himself debating a Shia propagandist who simply demands
that we are interpreting the Shia Hadith in the wrong manner, then force him to
accept that Fatima (‫رض }ى هللا عنها‬
ّ ) was wrong to question Abu Bakr ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنه‬
ّ )
regarding the existence of the Hadith which is in the Shia’s own Al-Kafi. It is a no
way out situation for the Shia propagandist, who will then resort to switching gears
and focusing on other aspects of Fadak…anything other than having to talk about
the Hadith in their own Al-Kafi.
Fadak, Part XI: Respect for Fatima (R.A.)
Previous
(Continued…)
The Shia version of history is always simplistic; it is completely black and white, with no shades in
between. The Shia propagandists demand us to “pick” either Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Fatima (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنها‬. Why must we pick between the two? If our parents get in an argument, should we be forced to
“pick” between the two? In the argument between our parents, it may be that our father is correct and
our mother is incorrect. But this does not mean that we stop loving our mother! We simply disagree
on oneissue.
The Shia propagandists will then try saying that the Ahlus Sunnah is accusing Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬of
lying or this and that. We do not say that she lied at all! In fact, what we say is that if the Shia accounts
of history are correct, then she was lying by accusing Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬of so many things. (And
this is how we know that the Shia versions are false.) We do not believe in these
exaggerated Ghullat accounts of history. Instead, we say that Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬simply did not know
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said such-and-such, or maybe her interpretation of such-and-
such was different. Between telling a lie and telling the truth there are many other stages. One of them
is called “making a mistake.” And all human beings–even Prophets–make mistakes.
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬got in arguments with each other. But they were the best
of friends, and are known as the Shaikhayn. So too did Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬get in
arguments. Do the Shia really think that a single married couple has ever gotten away without even a
single argument? This would be living in some strange alternate universe to think otherwise! And we
actually know of at least one argument between Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, namely when
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬planned on marrying another wife other than Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. Both Fatima (‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬and the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬were upset at Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for this. But the reality is that
neither Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬nor Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬nor the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬were wrong about
the issue. They simply had different opinions and preferences. Nobody would say to pick between Ali (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬.
In any case, we cannot understand why we must pick between Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫رضّى‬
‫ ;)هللا عنها‬we do not see why we have to call one or the other a liar. Is it not possible that one of the two
simply made a mistake, and this was the cause of the argument? Unlike the Shia, the Ahlus Sunnah
does not haveGhullat tendencies and we do not say that one of the parties involved was infallible and
the other pure evil.
As for the Ahlus Sunnah–and this cannot be stressed enough–we consider it Makrouh (detestable) to
criticize Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬for no reason. The Shia will raise their children on stories about how evil
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was, and the bad things that Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did. The Shia children will hear
about the accounts of Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬murdering Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, and of Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
stealing Fadak. But the Ahlus Sunnah does not ever mention the story of Fadak in its own circles, nor
does it trumpet the mistake of Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. In fact, the only time we discuss Fadak is when we
argue with the Shia because they force our hand by condemning Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Otherwise, the
Ahlus Sunnah does not like to bring up arguments that ended 1400 years ago and have absolutely no
relevance to our faith! And worst yet, we are talking about people who are not even alive to defend
themselves; we cannot possibly look into the hearts and minds of these people and judge them.
And who are we to judge them when both Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬have done
more for Islam in one day than we shall do in our entire lifetime? Nobody on this earth is on par with
these two great heroes of Islam. Instead of wasting our precious time arguing about their faults,
shouldn’t we work on removing our own faults and worrying about our ownselves? Should we not
worry about our fate on the Day of Judgment? Surely on that Day, nobody will ask us “does Fadak
belong to Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬or Fatima (‫”?)رضّى هللا عنها‬
Furthermore, before the Shia condemns Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, he should ask himself if in his heart he
has even a “shadow of doubt” about Abu Bakr’s “guilt” ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Do the Shia not see all the other
differing accounts of Abu Bakr’s actions ( ‫ ?)رضّى هللا عنه‬What if one of the alternate accounts of Abu
Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬is correct? Then what? Surely it is a possibility! Therefore, there is at least a shred of
doubt and we should not condemn Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬lest we wrongfully accuse him of something.
This holds true for anyone, and this is why we should leave the judging upto Allah.
The truth is that the issue of Fadak has absolutely no religious significance. It was a mere legal
dispute. Fadak does not change the doctrine of Islam; it does not affect our prayers, our fasts, our
Zakat, our Hajj, or anything else for that matter. The truth is that Fadak has no relevance to anything
in our lives; in fact, it doesn’t even have relevance to any non-religious aspect of our lives! Neither of
the two parties involved–neither Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬nor Fatima (‫–)رضّى هللا عنها‬commited any sin in
the legal dispute of Fadak. If two people reached a different answer in a math problem, do we say that
one of them is sinning? No, we simply say that one of them is mistaken.
In regards to Fatima (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, she is revered by the Ahlus Sunnah. It is narrated in our authentic
Hadith that she is the chief of the women in Paradise. Any mainstream Muslim who talks ill of her is
considered deviant. We do not like to discuss her mistakes (which were few and far in between), and it
is only the Shia who forces us to do so because the Shia culture is one obsessed with finding faults (in
the Sahabah, the Prophet’s wives, and anyone else they can get their hands on). They engage us in
such dirty disputes and debates. We notice that the Shia is always busy sending “Laanat” on so many
different people; surely, the Shia should lighten his heart and refrain from sending “Laanat” on
everything that walks but rather to ask for Allah’s Mercy.
The Shia is obsessed with saying that the Ahlus Sunnah insults and hates the Ahlel Bayt. In reality, it
is the Shia who insult the House of Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬including his wives and three of
his lovely daughters. (The Shia even go to the extent of insulting the Ahlel Bayt by denying that the
Prophet [‫ ]صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had four daughters!)
Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion
Previous
(Continued…)
 Bias of the Shia
The Shia is clearly biased against Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Let us imagine that it was
not Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬but rather Aisha ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬in her place, and that it was
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬in the place of Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Then, the Shia would be talking
about how ungrateful, whimsical, and rebellious Aisha ( ‫رض}}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) was being
against the Caliph of the Ummah! They would say that Aisha ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) was
greedy for wanting Fadak for herself instead of giving it to charity and the poor.
Indeed, to the Shia, it is not the events that matter, but rather whom they are about.
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬are always right, and Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
and Aisha (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬are always wrong. Simply switch a few names around, and
suddenly, the Shia will switch arguments on the issue. To the Shia, Aisha ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬is wrong for going against the Caliph on the issue of Qisaas against Uthman’s
murderers (a right granted by Shariah); and yet, paradoxically, Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬
is right for going against the Caliph on an issue where she is wrong and the Shariah
denies her the right she seeks (i.e. Fadak).
The Shia is clearly biased: indeed, the Shia believe that Fatima ( ‫رض }ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ) is
infallible and incapable of sin or mistake; to the Shia, she is perfect. This belief of
the Shia is Shirk, because only Allah is perfect. How can the issue of Fadak–or any
issue for that matter–be judged fairly when we assume that one party is always
right? This is not a fair analysis of the event. No matter what Abu Bakr ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
or Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬did, the Shia would twist the events in some way or the other
to make sure that it was Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who was in the wrong. Had it been
Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who gave the Prophet’s land to Aisha ( ‫–)رضّى هللا عنها‬and had it
been Fatima (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬who was against this–then it would be the Shia who would
condemn Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬for violating the Hadith about Prophets not giving
inheritance.
In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬the “infallible” is
wrong or Prophet Muhammad ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬the “infallible” is wrong, since
their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima ( ‫رض}ى هللا عنها‬ ّ ). The words of
Prophet Muhammad (‫ )ص}}لّى هللا عليه وآله وس}}لّم‬as recorded by the Shia are 100% at
variance with the words of Fatima ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. So how can the Shia exaggerate and
say that anyone is above mistake, since two of their so-called infallibles are in
disagreement?
 Conclusion
In conclusion, Fatima ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنه‬was upholding the words of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, according to both
Sunni and Shia Hadith. The Shia propagandists will go in circles when they argue
about Fadak, but we advise our readers to continually remind them of two points,
both which they cannot refute:
1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:
There is no way around this Hadith for the Shia, and again, we urge our readers to
continually bring any arguments about Fadak back to this point. The Shia
propagandist will endeavor to drag the conversation away from this fact, but the
reader must remind him again and again that the Shia Hadith also confirms that
Prophets do not inherit.
2. Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the
exact same manner as Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬did. All of the Shia counter-arguments
to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬used Fadak as a Waqf,
then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬doing this as well.
These two facts completely nullify the Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬, which are nothing but slanderous lies.
This twelve part series on Fadak was paraphrased by Ibn al-Hashimi from an

article byMuhammad al-Khider.
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:
… ‫ير‬55‫ني النض‬55‫ال ب‬55‫لم من م‬55‫لى هللا عليه وس‬55‫وله ص‬55‫اء هللا على رس‬55‫مان فيما أف‬55‫ذا وهما يختص‬55‫ني وبين ه‬55‫نين اقض بي‬55‫ير المؤم‬55‫اس يا أم‬55‫ال عب‬55‫… فق‬
‫لى هللا عليه‬55‫ول هللا ص‬55‫ها أبو بكر فعمل فيها بما عمل رس‬55‫لم فقبض‬55‫لى هللا عليه وس‬55‫ول هللا ص‬55‫ال أبو بكر أنا ولي رس‬55‫لم فق‬55‫لى هللا عليه وس‬55‫ثم توفى هللا نبيه ص‬
‫ول هللا‬55‫ارتي أعمل فيها بما عمل رس‬55‫نتين من إم‬55‫تها س‬55‫وفى هللا أبا بكر فكنت أنا ولي أبي بكر فقبض‬55‫ابع للحق ثم ت‬55‫ار راشد ت‬55‫وسلم وهللا يعلم إنه فيها لصادق ب‬
‫ابع للحق‬5555555555555555555555‫ار راشد ت‬5555555555555555555555‫ادق ب‬55555555555555555555555‫لم وما عمل فيها أبو بكر وهللا يعلم إني فيها لص‬5555555555555555555555‫لى هللا عليه وس‬5555555555555555555555‫ص‬
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 اآلثم 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
ofreductio 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.
Four Caliphs and Prophet Related by Marriage
Nikah is an Arabic term used for marriage. It means “contract.” The Quran
specifically refers to marriage as “mithaqun Ghalithun,” which means “a strong
covenant.” Allah says:
“…and they have taken a strong pledge (Mithaqun Ghalithun) from you.” (Quran,
4:21)
The seriousness of this covenant becomes obvious when one finds the same term
(Mithaqun Ghalithun) being used for the covenant made between Allah and the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬before granting him the responsibility of the
Prophethood. (Quran, 33:7)
The Quran also uses the Arabic word “Hisn” in reference to marriage, which likens
marriage to being a fortress of righteousness.
As such, the importance of marriage cannot be understated. A man does not easily
give his daughter in marriage away unless he is assured of the goodness of the
husband-to-be.
Allah Almighty commands the Muslims in the Quran to only marry righteous

people:
“And marry such of you as are single and the pious.” (Quran, 24:32)
Conversely, it is Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to marry an unrighteous person.

The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬has said:
“You should marry the religious woman, otherwise you will be a loser.”
Furthermore, it is Haram for a father to give his daughter to a sinful man. This is
confirmed by all of the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars), and so there should be no
question on this.
The Shia declare that the first Three Caliphs were sinful and evil people. The Shia
declare them to be Nasibis and enemies of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and of the
Ahlel Bayt.
But how can the Shia reconcile the fact that the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
gave two of his daughters in marriage to the third Caliph, Uthman bin Affan (‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ ?)عنه‬Why would the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬give two of his daughters to a sinful
and evil man? By questioning Uthman’s character ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, the Shia are
declaring the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to be sinful by violating the Quran and his
own sayings which clearly declare that it is Haram to give a daughter to a sinful
man!
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬first gave his daughter Ruqayyah (‫ )رضّى هللا عنها‬to
Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and then later, he also gave him his other daughter, Umm
Kulthoom (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬. What noble character Uthman (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬must have had
based on the fact that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬trusted him with his
daughters–not just one but two!
Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, the first Caliph, was so close to the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬that he gifted his daughter in marriage to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Her
name was Aisha (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, and yet we find that the Shia revile her too. They refer
to her as a sinful transgressor, and an enemy of Ahlel Bayt. Would the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬really marry someone who was sinful and impious? This is accusing
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of sinning and violating the Quran as well as his own
sayings. By marrying Abu Bakr’s daughter, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬showed
his undying solidarity with Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, who–other than being the
Prophet’s father-in-law–was the Prophet’s best frend and top liuetenant.
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬also married Hafsa (‫)رضّى هللا عنها‬, the daughter of
Umar bin Khattab (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who was the second Caliph. How could Prophet
Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬make such catastrophic mistakes and marry the
daughters of his supposed enemies? The Shia revile Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and accuse
him of being an enemy of Islam. But this is simply preposterous based on the fact
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬married his daughter Hafsa (‫!)رضّى هللا عنها‬
And to deliver the knock-out punch, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gave his own daughter in
marriage to Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Her name was Umm Kulthoom (a different Umm
Kulthoom than the Prophet’s daughter). It shatters the entire foundation of Shi’ism
when we consider that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gave his daughter Umm Kulthoom ( ‫رضّى هللا‬
‫ )عنها‬in marriage to Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. The entire Shia paradigm of the Three Caliphs
being enemies of Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬thus collapses.
As can be seen, all of the Three Caliphs (which Shia insult and call the “three fools”)
were linked to Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬through marriage, blood, or
both. That is how close friends the Three Caliphs and the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬were. Furthermore, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬gave his daughter in marriage to Umar (
‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, and this just shows how mischievious the Shia propagandists are when
they try to make it look like they were all enemies. Far from it! None of them were
enemies. They were all best of friends and Sahabah (Companions) to each other.
Indeed, Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was the vizier and top aid to all Three Caliphs.
Whoever insults the first Three Caliphs is thereby insulting the relatives of the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. Is this a position the Shia would
really like to be in? The truth is that the Shia propagandists are the ones who are
Nasibis and they are the ones who hate the close ones of the Ahlel Bayt.
ّ ‫ )ر‬Gave His Daughter to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
Introduction

ّ ‫ )ر‬gave his daughter, Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, in marriage to
Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. This is a fact which most Shia lay persons have no idea about. It
is also a fact that topples the entire paradigm of Shi’ism. Because of this, many Shia
nowadays will say that this marriage between Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umm
Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is a fairy-tale.
However, the record of this marriage is in the Shia’s most reliable book of Hadith,
Al-Kafi. There are at at least four separate Hadiths attributed to the Imams which
affirm the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. In fact,
the 23rd chapter in the Book of Marriage (Kitab an-Nikah) in Furoo Al-Kafi is
dedicated to the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and it is called “Bab
Tazwig Umm Kulthoom.” Two of the four Hadith are in this chapter, while the other
two are found in a related chapter on ’iddah after marriage.
It should be noted that in the first narration the word “furuj” is used which
translates to “vagina”. The Shia narrator of the Hadith employed a derrogatory term
to refer to Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The truth is that the Shia abandoned Ali’s
daughter, Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, for they believe she has brought shame to
the Ahlel Bayt by having married into the family of Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ;)ر‬they thus
refer to her in a very insulting manner. It should also be noted that the Shia
narrations refer to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in an equally insulting manner, claiming that
he forced the marriage. We shall address this point later on, but for now, the point is
that the Shia propagandist has absolutely no grounds to claim that the marriage did
not happen since it is recorded in their own books.
The first two Hadith appear under the heading “Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s
Marriage.”
Al-Shia.com says
“5‫باب تزويج ام كلثوم‬
Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage
NARRATION 1
Al-Shia.com says
“9536 - 1 - ‫ عن أبي‬،‫ عن زرارة‬،‫ وحماد‬،‫ عن هشام بن سالم‬،‫ عن ابن أبي عمير‬5،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫علي بن إبراهيم‬
‫ إن ذلك فرج غصبناه‬:‫عبدهللا (ع) في تزويج أم كلثوم فقال‬
Translation: Ali ibn Ibrahim—from his father—from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr—from

Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad—from Zurarah, who narrates that:
“Abu Abdullah (a.s) said about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom: “That was the
vagina that we were forced to give.”
(narrated in Furoo al-Kafi, vol.5, p.347)
NARRATION 2
Al-Shia.com says
“ ‫ إنها صبية‬:5‫ لما خطب إليه قال له أمير المؤمنين‬:‫ عن أبي عبدهللا (ع) قال‬،‫ عن هشام بن سالم‬،‫محمد بن أبي عمير‬
)4(‫ خطبت إلى ابن اخيك فردني أما وهللا العورن زمزم‬:‫ وماذاك؟ قال‬:‫ مالي أبي بأس؟ قال‬:‫ فقال له‬5‫ فلقى العباس‬:‫قال‬
‫ فأخبره وسأله أن يجعل‬5‫ القيمن عليه شاهدين بأنه سرق والقطعن يمينه فأتاه العباس‬5‫وال أدع لكم مكرمة إال هدمتهاو‬
‫االمر إليه فجعله إليه‬
Translation: Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr—Hisham ibn Salim, who narrates that—

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said:
“When [Umar] proposed to Amir al-Mu’minin, he said, ‘She is a child.’ Then he
[Umar] met Abbas and asked him, ‘What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with
me?’ Abbas asked, ‘Why?’ Umar replied, ‘I asked your nephew for his daughter’s
hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of
Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honor that you have, and I will set up two
witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.’ Abbas thereupon
came to Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked Ali to put the
matter in his hands, and Ali complied.”
NARRATION 3
Al-Shia.com says
“1) (10902 1) ،‫ ابن عمار‬5‫ ومعاوية‬،‫ عن عبدهللا بن سنان‬،‫ عن محمد بن زياد‬5،‫ عن ابن سماعة‬،‫حميد بن زياد‬
‫ بل حيث‬:‫ عنها زوجها أتعتد في بيتها أو حيث شاءت؟ قال‬5‫ سألته عن المرأة المتوفى‬:‫عن أبي عبدهللا عليه السالم قال‬
‫ إن عليا عليه السالم لما توفي عمر أتى أم كلثوم فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬،‫شاءت‬
Translation: Humayd ibn Ziyad—Ibn Sama‘ah—Muhammad ibn Ziyad—Abdullah

ibn Sinan—Muawiyyah ibn ‘Ammar—Imam Jafar as-Sadiq:
“I asked him about a woman whose husband died: ‘Should she spend her ‘iddah in
her house, or where she wants to?’ He [the Imam] replied, ‘Where she wants to.
When Umar died, Ali came and took Umm Kulthoom to his house.’”
NARRATION 4
Al-Shia.com says
‫ بل حيث‬:‫ عنها زوجها أتعتد في بيتها أو حيث شاءت؟ قال‬5‫ سألته عن المرأة المتوفى‬:‫عن أبي عبدهللا عليه السالم قال‬
‫ إن عليا عليه السالم لما توفي عمر أتى أم كلثوم فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬،‫شاءت‬

Authenticity
We have here four chains of narration up to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. An
investigation into the authenticity of these chains of narration by Shia—and not
Sunni—standards reveals that each and every one of them is a highly reliable and
accurate chain.
NARRATION 1
Al-Kulayni received the reports from Ibn Abi Umayr through his teacher Ali ibn
Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi, who is so reliable that he [Ali ibn Ibrahim] is
his source for about one third of the material in Al-Kafi. Ali ibn Ibrahim is the
author of a classical Tafseer of the Shia, and is highly regarded by Shia rijal critics
such as an-Najashi and Ibn Mutahhar, who declare him to be “thiqatun fil hadith,
thabt, mu’tamad, sahih al-madhhab” (reliable in Hadith transmission, reliable,
dependable, correct in belief). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.545)
Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi reports from his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-
Qummi. He is reputed to have been the first to spread the Hadith of the Shia from
Kufa to Qum. Reports via him abound in Al-Kafi, through his son. He has been
generally accepted by the Shia as a reliable narrator. He is even mentioned by Abu
Jafar at-Tusi as having met the 9th Infallible Imam. (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.38)
His reliability as a narrator is attested to in a contemporary work on the authority of
his son, Ali ibn Ibrahim, Ibn Tawus and al-Allamah al-Hilli. (Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-
Tabrizi, Mu’jam ath-Thiqat, p.5)
Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi reports on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi
Umayr. This Ibn Abi Umayr is one of the most reliable Shia narrators ever. Abu
Jafar at-Tusi says of him: “kana min awthaq an-nas” (he was of the most reliable of
people). (Al-Fihrist, p.169) More importantly, he was of the elect group of Shia
narrators called the Ashab al-Ijma’ (Men of the Consensus). What this means is that
when the chain of narration is proven authentic up to one of these men, the rest of
the chain up to the Imam may automatically be assumed to be authentic too. (See
the details of this consensus in al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi ‘Ilm ad-Dirayah,
vol.2, pp.171-208) The authenticity of this narration is therefore proven on grounds
of this consensus.
NARRATION 2
This report also came down to al-Kulayni through Ali ibn Ibrahim, from his father,
from Ibn Abi Umayr. The discussion on the first chain of narration is therefore fully
applicable to this chain too.
NARRATION 3
Al-Kulayni reports this narration from his teacher Humayd ibn Ziyad. This
Humayd is graded by the Shia rijal critics as “alim jalil al-qadr, wasi’ al-’ilm, kathir
at-tasnif, thiqah” (a learned scholar of great status, wide knowledge, a prolific
author, reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.284)
Ibn Sama’ah is properly known as al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Sama’ah. He was
one of the foremost Shia fuqaha of Kufa, and is described as “kathir al-hadith,
faqihun thiqah” (a prolific narrator of Hadith, a jurist, reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat,
vol.1, p.225)
Muhammad ibn Ziyad is properly known as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad
al-Attar. He is described as “thiqah” (reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.2, p.91)
Abdullah ibn Sinan was an eminent Imami Shia of Kufa about whom it is

stated: “thiqatun min ashabina, la yut’anu ‘alayhi fi shay” (one of our reliable
associates against whom no criticism whatsoever can be levelled). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat,
vol.1, p.487)
Muawiyyah ibn Ammar was an eminent and leading Shia narrator of Kufa who
narrates from Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. His Shia biographers have documented about
him that he was“wajhan min ashabina muqaddaman, kabir ash-shan, azim al-
mahall, thiqah” (a leading figure amongst our associates, pre-eminent, great in
status, exalted in position, reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.2, p.239)
The opinions of the Shia critics of Hadith regarding the narrators of this report as
reproduced here unequivocally indicate that what we have here in an authentic
report.
NARRATION 4
Al-Kulayni recorded this report on the authority of several of his teachers, one of
whom isMuhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar al-Qummi. He was regarded
as “shaykhu ashabina fi zamanihi, thiqah, ‘ayn, kathir al-hadith” (the shaykh of our
associates in his time, reliable, an outsanding personality, a prolific narrator of
hadith). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.2, p.213)
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa al-Qummi was “shaykh al-Qummiyyin, wa-

wajhuhum, wa-faqihuhum, ghayra mudafa” (the shaykh of the people of Qom, and
their undisputed leader and jurist). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.69) Abu Jafar at-Tusi
and al-Allamah al-Hilli have unequivocally declared him “thiqah” (reliable). (ar-
Rijal, p.366; al-Khulasah, p.13)
Al-Husayn ibn Sa’id is described as “‘ayn, jalil al-qadr” (an outstanding

personality of great stature) and “thiqah” (reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.241)
An-Nadr ibn Suwayd is rated as “Kufi, thiqah, sahih al-hadith” (a reliable Kufan
who transmits authentic Hadith). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.2,p.292)
Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq.
His reliability as a transmitter of Hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of
al-Allamah and an-Najashi: “thiqatun thiqah” (reliable, and once again reliable).
(Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.2, p.315)
Sulayman ibn Khalid is mentioned as having been a student of Imam al-Baqir.

His death is recorded to have caused Imam Jafar extreme grief. He is universally
acclaimed as “thiqah”(reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol.1, p.378)
As we have seen, all four narrations are authentic according to Shia standards, and
they affirm the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Each
one was transmitted by reliable Imami Shia transmitters whose abilities and
trustworthiness in Hadith transmission has been deemed acceptable by the Shia
authorities.
More Shia Narrations
Not only did Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬get married, but
they also had two children together, namely Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Ruqayyah (‫ضى هللا‬ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬. Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬died on the same day and
their funeral was held together. Evidence of this comes from a fifth Shia Hadith,
narrated in the esteemed Shia work, “Tadheeb al-Ahkam” (Vol.2, p.380) in Chapter
“Meeras”:
“Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (as) said: ‘Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and her son Zayd bin
Umar both died at the same time. It was not possible to ascertain who had died first.
They did not inherit from one another and their funeral prayers were read at the
same time.”
Among the Shia sources that narrate the fact of this marriage from Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬with the statement “Umm Kulthum bint Ali ibn
Abi Talib died at the same time as her son Zayd ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab” and the
narration from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that “Umar ibn al-Khattab married Umm
Kulthum bint Ali with a dowry of 40,000 dirhams” are the following:
1- Agha Burzug al-Tahrani’s al-Dharià (5:184).

2- Ali ibn Muhammad al-Àlawi’s al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17).
3- Al-Fadil al-Hindi’s Kashf al-Litham (2:312).
4- Al-Hurr al-Àmili’s Wasa’il al-Shià Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314).
5- Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadi’s al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301).
6- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili’s Majma` al-Fa’ida (11:530).
7- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqi’s Mustanad al-Shià (19:452).
8- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari’s Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307).
9- Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhani’s Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496).
10- Al-Shahid al-Thani’s Masalik al-Afham (13:270).
11- Al-Shaykh al-Amini’s al-Ghadir (6:136-137).
12- Al-Shaykh al-Tusi’s al-Mabsut (4:272).
13- Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363).
14- Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiri’s Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308).
Did Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬ Force Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬ to Give His Daughter?
The classical position of the Shia has been that the marriage between Umm
Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬did in fact take place, although they
say that it was done by force. As the story goes, Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬threatened Ali (
ّ ‫ )ر‬with physical harm to him and his followers, and this is why Ali ( ‫ضى هللا‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬succumbed and gave Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to him.
Thus, what we have established is that the classical Shia position is 100% at variance
with the modern day Shia propagandists (such as the Answering-Ansar Team) who
claim that the marriage simply did not take place. How could the marriage be forced
if it never happened at all!? Truly this is a contradiction.
For so long, the classical Shia stuck to the opinion that they could justify the
marriage by saying that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was forced into giving his daughter away.
But then the Shia propagandists realized that this was easily refuted by the Ahlus
Sunnah. How could it be that the great Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, with all his courage and
bravery on the battlefield, would give his daughter in marriage to Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
the man who supposedly killed Ali’s wife (the Prophet’s daughter) and unborn
child?
Why didn’t Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬fight Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and defend Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)هللا عنها‬, who was the Prophet’s grand-daughter? For that matter, why didn’t Ali (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬raise his sword to defend Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and his unborn child? The Shia
version of history portrays Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as a coward; even a man of low status
would have enough courage not to give his daughter in marriage to a murderer and
a pervert. Would any of the Shia propagandists (the same ones who argue with us)
give their daughters in marriage to the man who killed their wives and children?
Would any man give his daughter to a man who is a child molestor and pervert, as
the Shia claim that Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is?
The truth is that the Shia version of history is false. Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was not a
murderer nor was he a pervert or any of the other horrendous things they accuse
him of. Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was a man of excellent character, and the
evidence is that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬would never give his daughter to anyone who did not
possess an excellent character. To think otherwise would demean the status of Ali (
ّ ‫ )ر‬to a position lower than most of us today, as none of us would give our
daughters in marriage to evil and sinful men. It is upto the reader to accept the
Ahlus Sunnah version of history (which maintains Ali’s courage and bravery [ ‫ضّى هللا‬
‫)]عنه‬, or the Shia version (which makes Ali [ ‫ ]ضّى هللا عنه‬appear cowardly and refers to
his daughter as a “furuj” or vagina).
The Misrepresentation of History
A major part of the edifice upon which Shi‘ism has constructed itself is its
idiosyncratic portrayal of the early history of Islam. It is especially in its
representation of the relationships that existed between Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬that Shi‘ism has acquired a character of its own.
Shia historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of
history would inevitably involve the invention of events, or versions of actual events
that would be at variance with standard sources. They seem to have been
considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their version of history would
override, and indeed obviate the need for a critical comparison of their narratives
with those of other historians of repute.
Their confidence appears to have been well founded, for a milennium has passed
and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically emotional and
sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically
scrutinised in a spirit of emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides
itself on the advancement of research methodology and techniques, the anomaly of a
methodology that has emotive appeal as its central component stands out like a very
sore thumb.
It is this spirit—of emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarship—that Shia

propagandists up to this very day insist on “revealing” to their Sunni audiences the
“truth” about the “persecution” suffered by the Ahlel Bayt at the hands of the
Sahabah. They can often be found launching into their particular
misrepresentations of history, with no respect for standards of historic authenticity,
and even less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact bringing disgrace
upon the Prophetic Household.
By constructing a fanciful tale of persecution of the Ahlel Bayt, the Shia

propagandists unknowingly end up portraying Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬as a coward, his
daughter as a “vagina”, and they even disgrace other members of the same Ahlel
Bayt they claim to follow, including the Prophet’s wives. Whilst claiming to love the
Ahlel Bayt, they deny the existence of three of the Prophet’s daughters, thereby
disregarding historical fact.
The Shia audiences are captivated by the emotional rhetoric; facts that differ from
their simplistic paradigm of “good vs evil” are simply disregarded. In fact, the last
thing on the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions
the writer or speaker makes himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of
history.
Persecution of Ahlel Bayt
One such case of the “invention of history” is the “persecution” of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
and Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬immediately after the demise of the Prophet. The Shia
propagandists have invented the story that Umar bin Khattab ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬hit Fatima
(‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬so hard that her unborn child was killed, and that Fatima ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
died subsequently six months later from the injuries. The Shia tales talk about Ali (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬being dragged through the streets by Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and made to give
Bayah to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
All of these stories have to the Shia mind become undisputable and incontestible
facts of history, no matter how spurious their origin, or how blatantly they clash
with authentic historical facts. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬will
forever be thought of by the Shia in terms of the “deeds” of that day, and no true
Shia who believes in these stories as factual truth could ever be expected to harbor
the merest ounce of goodwill towards Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫—)ر‬
let alone the rest of the Sahabah who stood with them and paid allegiance to them.
And yet, a less myopic approach to history shows that certain historical facts clash
with this Shia paradigm. If Ali’s wife was killed by Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, and if he
himself was persecuted by Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, then why
on earth did Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬name three of his sons after the Three Caliphs? It is a
historical fact that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬named three of his own children as Abu Bakr,
Umar, and Uthman. (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, “Kitab al-Irshad”, pp. 268-269, where
these three sons of Ali [‫ ]ضّى هللا عنه‬are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively. Al-
Shia.com excerpts this book and it is viewable here: http://al-
shia.com/html/ara/books/ershad-1/a10.html) No one, not even the most
magnanimous of people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for
the death of his wife and unborn child. That is why one simply cannot find a Shia
today named Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman.
Another fact of history which clashes with the alleged persecution of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
and Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬by the Sahabah is the marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬, the daughter of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, to Umar bin Khattab (
ّ ‫)ر‬. This marriage, in which Ali ibn Abi Talib (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬gave this daughter
borne to him by Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, in marriage to Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫—)ر‬
the very same man whom the Shia allege caused the death of Fatima ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫—)ر‬
assails the foundations of Shi‘ism in a way that few issues can. This historical fact
threw the house of Shi‘ism into violent disorder, and the Ulema of the Shia, reeling
under its impact, found themselves lunging at just about any twig in sight. This
paper looks at the various Shia responses to the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to
Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and demonstrates the embarrasment in the Shia camp to which
this contradictory cacophony of responses eloquently testifies.
The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the second daughter of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Fatima
(‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and the youngest of their four children. She was born in about the year
6 AH. Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬asked for her hand in marriage during his
Caliphate. This is recorded by Ibn Sa‘d in his work “at-Tabaqat al-Kubra” (vol.8,
p.338, ed. Muhammad ‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, “Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah”, Beirut 1990)
as follows:
I was informed by Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Jafar
ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir] that—
Umar ibn al-Khattab asked Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm Kulthoom in
marriage. Ali said, “I had kept my daughters for the sons of Jafar.” Umar said,
“Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah,there is no man on the face of the
earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to
achieve.” Ali said, “I have done so.”
Then Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasool-Allah] and the
pulpit. They—Ali, Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and Abd ar-Rahman—used to sit there,
and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, Umar used to come to
them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, “Congratulate me.”
They congratulated him, and asked, “With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir
al-Mu’minin?” He replied, “With the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
(source: Ibn Sa‘d in his work “at-Tabaqat al-Kubra”, vol.8, p.338, ed. Muhammad
‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, “Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah”, Beirut 1990)
The author above narrated one of the many Shia narrations on the authority of the
Infallible Imams of the Shia, including Imam Muhammad al-Baqir ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and
the esteemed Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. It is extremely odd that the Shia of
today will abandon the authority of these Infallible Imams who accepted that the
marriage took place, and instead they will take Answering-Ansar’s words over them,
a team which is comprised of non-scholars who deny historical facts in order to
boost their debating prowess.
The above narration was recorded by Ibn Sa‘d from a man called Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-
Laythi, who reported directly on the authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
and he from his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In other words, we have here a purely
Shia chain of narration via the Infallible Imams. Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi is regarded
by reputable Shia rijal critics, such as an-Najashi and Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli, as a
companion of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬who was “thiqah, sahih al-hadith”
(reliable, a transmitter of authentic hadith). (See al-Ardabili, “Jami‘ ar-Ruwat”, vol.
1 p. 109, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1983) Since he narrates directly from the Infallible
Imam, there can be no question about the veracity of his report. Thereupon, his
report is corroborated by a wealth of other narrations all of which affirm the
historicity of this marriage. Above it all is the fact that for over three centuries after
the event this marriage remained uncontested, and it was only then that the Shia
awoke to the threat that this marriage posed.
Two children were born from this marriage, namely Zayd ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Ruqayyah
(‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. After the martyrdom of Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬was married to her cousin Awn ibn Jafar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and after his death to his
brother Muhammad ibn Jafar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Ultimately she died while married to the
third of Jafar’s son, namely Abdullah (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, during the first half of the fourth
decade after the Hijrah. Umm Kulthoom’s son Zayd (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬died on the same
day as her, and the funeral prayer for mother and son was performed together.
The marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬has been unanimously accepted as a
fact of history by all major biographers and historians. Its authenticity has never
been contested by anyone—not even the staunchest Shia—during the first four
centuries after the Hijrah. It was only during the fifth century that ash-Shaykh al-
Mufid (died 413 AH) appears to have woken up to the threat that the acceptance of
this marriage holds for the doctrine of the Shia and their particular view of history.
In later centuries the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬would become a
major bone of contention for Shia polemicists. This marriage as a topic in Shia
theology owes its importance to its open contradiction to Shia views of religion and
history. This is expressed by the Shia authors Muhammad al-Hassun and Umm ‘Ali
Mashkur in their book “A‘lam an-Nisa al-Mu’minat” (p. 182) in the following terms:
The marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar ibn al-Khattab is counted amongst the
important issues presented to us by Islamic history, and as one of those matters
around which debate and research has continued at length—and still continues.
Those who regard this marriage as an authentic fact use it to prove the
righteousness of her husband [Umar] and Ali’s acceptance of him. Otherwise, why
would he give him his daughter in marriage? As for those who reject the historic
occurrence of the marriage, or are of the opinion that it took place under pressure
which Umar brought to bear upon Ali use this issue to justify the unrighteousness
and viciousness of Umar, and that Ali u did not approve of him.
A glance at history shows that the attitude of the Shia towards Umm Kulthoom’s
marriage (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬changed dramatically after the 5th century AH. Prior to that,
the Shia scholarship had sung to the tune that Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬had forced the
marriage upon Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, stolen the daughter of Ahlel Bayt, and was thus
condemned based upon these acts. However, after the 5th century AH, the Shia
attitude suddenly changed when it was realized that this made Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬look
like a coward; the Shia propagandists came up with the ingenious idea of simply
denying that the marriage ever took place.
It would not be the first or last time that the Shia would adopt the simple technique
of “deny, deny, deny.” Do we not see the Shia today who even deny basic facts like
how many daughters the Prophet had? The Answering-Ansar website says that the
Prophet only had one daughter, whereas the Shia website Al-Islam.org says that he
had four. How can the Answering-Ansar team reconcile their position with that of
Al-Islam.org? Surely the reliability of the Shia comes into question when they deny
simple facts and history that even their Shia contemporaries (and ancestors) did not
deny.
The fourth century after the Hijrah witnessed the compilation of Muhammad ibn
Ya‘qub al-Kulayni’s monumental work Al-Kafi. Al-Kulayni is referred to by the Shia
as “Thiqatul-Islam” which translates to “The Trust of Islam.” He is the Shia version
of Imam Bukhari: Al-Kulayni compiled the Shia Hadith into one large compendium.
Al-Kafi was compiled in Baghdad during the Minor Occultation of the Hidden Imam
(as stated by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani in “adh-Dhari‘ah”, vol.17, p.245) at a time when
the representative of the Imam resided in that city, which afforded the opportunity
for its contents to be scrutinized and ratified by the Hidden Imam himself (as stated
by Ibn Tawus in his book “Kashf al-Mahajjah”, p.159) This is in itself proof of the
authenticity of the narrations contained in the book (says al-Hurr al-‘Amili in
“Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah”, vol.20, p.71). Al-Kafi actually bears the seal of approval of the
Hidden Imam himself, and he was the one who named it “Al-Kafi” (meaning
“sufficient”) by saying, as reported by al-Khwansari in “Rawdat al-Jannat” (vol.6,
p.116): “hadha kafin li-shi‘atina” (This is sufficient for our Shia).
As has been mentioned above, at least four narrations in Al-Kafi refer to Umm
Kulthoom’s marriage (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. Not only this, but Al-
Kulayni decided to dedicate the 23rd chapter in the Book of Marriage (Kitab an-
Nikah) in Furoo al-Kafi to the marriage of Umm Kulthoom; consequently, he
entitled the section to be “bab tazwig Umm Kulthoom” (the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom). How can the Shia propagandist deny that these Hadith refer to Umm
Kulthoom’s marriage (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬when Al-Kulayni himself
mentioned that these Hadith are in reference to Umm Kulthoom’s marriage ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنها‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The Shia reader can even read the Hadith for himself as
posted on Al-Shia.com: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-
5/213.html
Then, we read in the foot-note on the same page, in which we read that the Hadith
are in reference to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin Khattab:
Al-Shia.com says
“ ‫ قد خطبها اليه عمر في زمن خالفته فرده اوال فقال عمر ماقال‬5‫ هذه هى بنت امير المؤمنين عليه السالم‬5‫ام كلثوم‬
‫ مافعل‬5‫وفعل‬
Translation: “[Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer al-

Mu’mineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for her hand in marriage during his [Umar’s]
caliphate, and at first Ali refused him. So then Umar said what he said, and did what
he did [i.e compelled Ali by words and force].”
Thus, there can be absolutely no confusion as to who the two people in question are
in this Hadith. Al-Shia.com itself admits that it is Ali’s daughter and the Caliph. This
should be an earth-shattering blow to the Answering-Ansar Team and their childish
antics.
Besides al-Kulayni, there were during this time other Shia authors too who affirmed
the marriage of Umm Kulthoom in a way much similar to that of al-Kulayni. One of
these was Abul Qasim al-Kufi (died 352 AH). He devoted a number of pages in his
book “al-Istighathah fi Bida‘ ath-Thalathah” to the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (
ّ ‫)ر‬, and after presenting several arguments and counter arguments, he
concludes the following:
…when Umar asked for the hand of Umm Kulthoom, Ali thought to himself: “If I say
no…that thing would come to pass which Rasool-Allah tried to prevent, and for
which reason he asked me to exercise patience, which is that people will fall into
apostacy.” It was better to hand over Umm Kulthoom to him than to kill him
(Umar). He thus handed her over to him, knowing fully well that what the man had
usurped of the wealth of the Muslims and of their government, and what he had
perpetrated by denying his (Ali’s) right and sitting on the place of the Prophet, and
his changes to and corruption of the laws and ordinances of Allah were far more
terrible and dreadful than his forcible possession of his daughter. He handed her
over, and resigned himself to patience, just like the Prophet had ordered him to do.
(Abul Qasim al-Kufi, “al-Istighathah fi Bida‘ ath-Thalathah”, p.90)
Thus, as can be seen, Abul Qasim Al-Kufi justified the marriage of Umm Kulthoom (
ّ ‫ )ر‬by inventing some flimsy excuses such as that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did not
want people to fall into apostacy. Abul Qasim also claims that the injustices
perpetrated by Umar (such as stealing the Caliphate, passing corrupt laws, and
stealing Fadak) were far worse than the crime of stealing his daughter; Abul Qasim
thereby concludes that if Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬remained patient in regards to this greater
crimes, then why should he now react impulsively for this lesser crime.
Does this Shia author not realize which girl he is talking about? He is talking about
the biological daughter of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Fatima (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, the sister of
Hasan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and the grand-daughter of the Prophet
of Islam! How is it a “lesser crime” to give away without a fight a woman of Ahlel
Bayt, and this to a man the Shia call a pervert and a murderer? Which father would
sit by idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an abominable enemy and
child-molesting pervert? This is the extent to which their twisting and corruption of
history has led them—that they are prepared to place upon their Imams the kind of
shame that even the simplest ones amongst themselves would never bear. As Allah
says in the Quran: “And the evil plot only entraps its own people.” (Quran, al-
Fatir:43)
In any case, we are going off on a tangent here by replying to Abul Qasim’s weak
attempts at justifying the marriage. Let us get back on track: what we have
established by quoting Abul Qasim is that he, like his Shia contemporaries,
acknowledged the marriage of Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and Umm Kulthoom (
ّ ‫)ر‬. After all, there is no point in brain-storming for excuses to explain away
an event if that event never took place in the first place. The very fact that the
classical Shia books contain justifications of the marriage proves without a shadow
of doubt that the marriage took place! A simpleton could understand this logic.
After the Fifth Century AH
With the ascendancy of the Shia Buyids at Baghdad during the latter half of the
fourth century, Shia scholarship gained the patronage it required, and there
developed under ash-Shaykh al-Mufid a school of Shia theology that was to leave its
lasting effect upon Shi‘ism. This school took full advantage of the methods and
techniques of the existing schools of theology, especially the rationalist approach of
the Mu‘tazilah. It adopted and appropriated Mu‘tazili methods to its own advantage,
and rationalised much of what had earlier been left to the domain of textual
authority.
The marriage of Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did not escape this process of
rationalization. When this issue was discovered to run against the grain of Shia
theology—a theology that has its roots in a particular perspective of history—there
was but one of two options open to the rationalizers. They could choose the way of
Abul Qasim al-Kufi, al-Kulayni and other traditionists, and accept the marriage as a
union achieved by force and threats of violence. But this option, instead of solving
the problem, created another problem: namely, it portrayed Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬as a
coward. The other option left open to them was to do a complete turnabout and
deny that this marriage ever took place at all.
Ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
The lead was taken by ash-Shaykh al-Mufid himself. He wrote an independent

treatise about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom, and discussed it in his other works
as well, most notably al-Masa’il as-Sarawiyyah. The tenth question in this books
deal with the marriage of Umm Kulthoom. It reads as follows:
TENTH QUESTION: What is his (al-Mufid’s) view regarding Amir al-Mu’minin
marrying his daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and regarding the
Prophet marrying his daughters Zaynab and Ruqayyah to Uthman?
ANSWER: The report speaking of Amir al-Mu’minin marrying his daughter to Umar
ibn al-Khattab is unfounded. It is narrated via Zubayr ibn Bakkar, and its chain of
narration is well known. He was untrustworthy in transmission. There is suspicion
on him in what he mentions. He used to hate Amir al-Mu’minin. What Ali ibn
Hashim claims to narrate from him is untrustworthy. This hadith was included by
Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Yahya in his book on genealogy, and account of that
people thought it to be true, thinking that it is narrated by an ‘Alawi (descendant of
Ali). However, the fact is that he narrates it from Zubayr ibn Bakkar…The hadith in
itself is a forgery.
At this point the benefit of investigating the authenticity of the four reports in al-
Kafi will become apparent. It can be seen here that al-Mufid places the
responsibility for inventing the marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬on the
shoulders of the historian Zubayr ibn Bakkar. However, even a cursory comparison
with the narrations in al-Kafi and the one quoted earlier from Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d (all
of which are but a drop in the ocean) demonstrates clearly that Zubayr ibn Bakkar
features nowhere in any of those chains of narration. Each of the narrators of those
reports was a Shia about whose trustworthiness the Ulema of the Shia were fully
satisfied. Not a single one of those reports originated from Zubayr ibn Bakkar. On
the contrary, each one of them is traced back to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
Al-Mufid’s protestations are thus completely bereft of substance. If anything, it
shows the man’s desperation for finding some grounds, no matter how flimsy or
spurious, on which to dismiss the marriage of Umm Kulthoom.
Aside from trying to make Zubayr ibn Bakkar responsible for the invention of the
marriage of Umm Kulthoom, al-Mufid tries to dismiss the incident by drawing
attention to the discrepancies regarding certain lesser details. He claims that certain
details about the marriage conflict, and thus the marriage is a myth; a similar
approach is taken by Shia propagandists today. A simple response to this is that
when a multitude of reports all share one common element, the common element
cannot be dismissed because of differences in negligible details. An objective scholar
who is not prejudiced by his idiosyncratic notion of what history should actually be
like will never stoop to the level al-Mufid has.
Objectivity here would require thoroughly sifting through the available historical
material and accepting the version that fulfils the criteria of authenticity, such as
have been demostrated in the case of al-Kulayni’s narrations in al-Kafi. If an
historical incident could be denied for a reason as flimsy as
discrepancies in minor details, one could well reject the battle of Badr
on grounds of the fact that there are differences regarding the exact date
on which it took place, or differences in the amount of combatants, or
even the amount of persons killed and taken captive. Here we are once
again treated to the spectacle of a scholar’s desperation to superimpose the
idiosyncracies of his theology over the facts of history, even if it means he has to
discard the most basic standards of objectivity.
At the end al-Mufid’s nonchalance failed to convince anyone—including himself.

Therefore, two paragraphs after denying the occurrence of Umm Kulthoom’s
marriage (‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬he comes back to fall into the queue of traditional Shia
scholarship behind people like al-Kulayni and Abul Qasim al-Kufi, and writes:
Amir al-Mu’minin was coerced to marry his daughter to the man, because he was
threatening and menacing him. There can thus be no argument against Amir al-
Mu’minin because he was forced into it for his own safety and that of his Shia. He
therefore complied under duress, just as we say that duress allows for even the
pronunciation of Kufr. Allah says: “Except him who is forced, but his heart is
content in faith.”
There is no end to one’s amazement at seeing how this man would place the safety of
the Shia (“for his own safety and that of his Shia”) over the chastity and honor of his
Imam’s daughter, and the Prophet’s grand-daughter.
The first explanation produced by al-Mufid—that of denying the historicity of the

marriage—was so ludicrous that he failed to convince even himself. His own
student, the eminent Sayyid Murtada (died 436 AH), brother of the compiler of
“Nahjul Balagha”, Sayyid Radi, was even less impressed by his teacher’s artifices. He
solemnly stuck to the line of traditional Shia scholarship, insisting that the marriage
was one of coercion and force. He dealt with the marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنها‬in two of his books. In the book ash-Shafi he discussed it at considerable
length, the gist of which he later incorporated into his other book “Tanzih al-Ambiya
wal-A’immah”, where he writes:
As for giving his daughter in marriage, we have mentioned the answer to this in the
book ash-Shafi in detail, and that he only consented to give his daughter after he
had been threatened and menaced and after there had been altercations at length.
(Sayyid Murtada, “Tanzih al-Ambiya wal-A’immah”)
After Sayyid Murtada, Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl ibn Hasan at-Tabarsi, the Shia mufassir of
the 6th century (died 502 AH) stuck to the same line. He writes in his book “I‘lam
al-Wara bi-A‘lam al-Huda”:
As for Umm Kulthoom, she is the one whom Umar ibn al-Khattab married. Our
associates say that he (Ali) only married her to him after putting up a lot of
resistance, severe refusals and finding excuses. Ultimately he was forced by
circumstances to turn her matter over to Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib who married
her off.
(Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl ibn Hasan at-Tabarsi, “I‘lam al-Wara bi-A‘lam al-Huda”, p.204)
A later Shia scholar, Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, writes in his book “Takmilat
ar-Rijal”:
The well known view of our associates, and the well known narrations are that Umar
married her by force, as Sayyid Murtada emphatically insists in his treatise on the
issue. In light of the narrations this is the more correct view. These narrations
remove whatever doubt there might have been regarding how Amir al-Mu’minin
could marry his daughter to him, when according to what the Shia believe it is not
supposed to be permissible to have marital ties with him, since forcible possession
and duress render everything permissible. The same applies to the objection
regarding how he could have borne this forcible taking of his daughter when the
very Hashimite spirit and Arab sense of honor would not tolerate such utter
humiliation and insult. These texts settle the matter completely.
(Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, “Takmilat ar-Rijal”)
Having found this niche of the “forced taking” of Umm Kulthoom ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, these
Ulema of the Shia took refuge in it from the torrent of questions and the utter
indignation of anyone who witnesses the way in which they have shed their own
shame and dishonor upon the memory of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and his daughter. Year in
and year out they wail and lament the death of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, but for the
honor of his sister Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬they have not the slightest
sympathy, blithely asserting that she was a “vagina forcibly taken” by Umar bin
Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Wouldn’t it be simpler, easier and indeed more honorable and
truthful just to accept the course of history as it was? But no, to them that would
mean the destruction of this edifice of theirs called Shi‘ism. So it is better for them
to sacrifice the honor of the Prophet’s grand-daughter than to forgo the doctrines
which their own minds fashioned. As al-Mufid indicated, they would rather “secure
the safety of the Shia” than protect the honor of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنها‬.
Conclusion
There is no doubt in the fact that Umm Kulthoom bint Ali (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫ )ر‬married
Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. The proof of this marriage can be found in Hadith
found in Al-Kafi, the Shia’s most reliable book of Hadith. Her marriage was
confirmed by Al-Kulayni, who for all intents and purposes is to the Shia who Imam
Bukhari is to the Sunnis. It is narrated on the authority of the Infallible Imams
themselves, including Imam Jafar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Imam Al-Baqir (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Not
a single Shia scholar denied this marriage for four centuries, and we have herein
included such Shia heavyweights as Abul Qasim Al-Kufi, Sayyid Murtada (brother of
the compiler of “Nahjul Balagha”), at-Tabarsi (the Shia mufassir of the 6th century),
Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, and pretty much every other Shia scholar before the
5th century AH. How is it that the Shia propagandists will reject the Shia
heavyweights and instead accept the lightweight Answering-Ansar, who are neither
religious scholars nor are they historians.
The secular historians who chronicled the era have included the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in their books and no neutral academic
mind could accept the Shia propaganda, much like no secular historian would deny
that the Prophet had more than one daughter. Thus, Umm Kulthoom’s marriage (
ّ ‫ )ر‬is an established fact, and the only possible controversy could be the
atmosphere surrounding the event. It is upto the reader to either accept the Shia
version of this marriage in which Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is such a coward that he gives his
daughter in marriage to his wife’s murderer, or the mainstream version of this
marriage in which Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬lovingly secures the future of his daughter by
wedding her to the heroic Caliph of the Muslims.
Shia Websites Confirm Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage to Umar
There are at least four Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi that confirm the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab. Here, we provide Shia websites that quote
these Hadith.
The first two Hadith appear under the heading “Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s
Marriage.”
Al-Shia.com says
“5‫باب تزويج ام كلثوم‬
Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage
Narration 1
Al-Shia.com says
“9536 - 1 - ‫ عن أبي‬،‫ عن زرارة‬،‫ وحماد‬،‫ عن هشام بن سالم‬،‫ عن ابن أبي عمير‬5،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫علي بن إبراهيم‬
‫ إن ذلك فرج غصبناه‬:‫عبدهللا (ع) في تزويج أم كلثوم فقال‬
Translation: Ali ibn Ibrahim—from his father—from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr—from

Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad—from Zurarah, who narrates that:
“Abu Abdullah (a.s) said about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom: “That was the
vagina that we were forced to give.”
Narration 2
Al-Shia.com says
“ ‫ إنها صبية‬:5‫ لما خطب إليه قال له أمير المؤمنين‬:‫ عن أبي عبدهللا (ع) قال‬،‫ عن هشام بن سالم‬،‫محمد بن أبي عمير‬
)4(‫ خطبت إلى ابن اخيك فردني أما وهللا العورن زمزم‬:‫ وماذاك؟ قال‬:‫ مالي أبي بأس؟ قال‬:‫ فقال له‬5‫ فلقى العباس‬:‫قال‬
‫ فأخبره وسأله أن يجعل‬5‫ القيمن عليه شاهدين بأنه سرق والقطعن يمينه فأتاه العباس‬5‫وال أدع لكم مكرمة إال هدمتهاو‬
‫االمر إليه فجعله إليه‬
Translation: Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr—Hisham ibn Salim, who narrates that—

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said:
“When [Umar] proposed to Amir al-Mu’minin, he said, ‘She is a child.’ Then he

[Umar] met Abbas and asked him, ‘What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with
me?’ Abbas asked, ‘Why?’ Umar replied, ‘I asked your nephew for his daughter’s
hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of
Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honor that you have, and I will set up two
witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.’ Abbas thereupon
came to Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked Ali to put the
matter in his hands, and Ali complied.”
Then, we read in the foot-note on the same page, in which we read that the Hadith
are in reference to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin Khattab:
Al-Shia.com says
“ ‫ قد خطبها اليه عمر في زمن خالفته فرده اوال فقال عمر ماقال‬5‫ هذه هى بنت امير المؤمنين عليه السالم‬5‫ام كلثوم‬
‫ مافعل‬5‫وفعل‬
Translation: “[Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer al-

Mu’mineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for her hand in marriage during his [Umar’s]
caliphate, and at first Ali refused him. So then Umar said what he said, and did what
he did [i.e compelled Ali by words and force].”
Narration 3:
Al-Shia.com says
‫ بل حيث‬:‫ عنها زوجها أتعتد في بيتها أو حيث شاء‌ت؟ قال‬5‫ سألته عن المرأة المتوفى‬:‫عن أبي عبدهللا عليه السالم قال‬
‫ إن عليا عليه السالم لما توفي عمر أتى أم كلثوم فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬،‫شاء‌ت‬

‫‪source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html ‬‬ ‫”‬
‫‪Narration 4:‬‬
‫محمد بن يحيى‪ ،‬وغيره‪ ،‬عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى‪ 5،‬عن الحسين بن سعيد‪ ،‬عن النضربن )‪“2) (10903 - 2‬‬
‫سويد‪ ،‬عن هشام بن سالم‪ ،‬عن سليمان بن خالد قال‪ :‬سألت أباعبدهللا عليه السالم‪ 5‬عن امرأة توفى زوجها أين تعتد‪ ،‬في‬
‫بيت زوجها تعتد أو حيث شاء‌ت؟ قال‪ :‬بلى حيث‬
‫شاء‌ت‪ ،‬ثم قال‪ :‬إن عليا عليه السالم‪ 5‬لما مات عمر أتى ام كلثوم‪ 5‬فأخذ بيدها فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬
‫—‪Translation: Muhammad ibn Yahya and others—Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa‬‬

‫‪al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id—an-Nadr ibn Suwayd—Hisham ibn Salim—Sulayman ibn‬‬
‫‪Khalid, who says:‬‬
‫‪“I asked him about a woman whose husband died: ‘Should she spend her ‘iddah in‬‬
‫‪her house, or where she wants to?’ He [the Imam] replied, ‘Where she wants to.‬‬
‫”’‪When Umar died, Ali came and took Umm Kulthoom to his house.‬‬
‫‪source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html ‬‬ ‫”‬
‫‪Additionally, the Hadith are narrated through various forms which are available on‬‬
‫‪various Shia websites:‬‬
‫محمد بن يعقوب عن حميد بن زياد عن ابن سماعة عن محمد بن زياد عن عبدهللا بن سنان ومعاوية بن ‪557) 156‬‬
‫عمارعن ابي عبدهللا عليه السالم قال‪ :‬سألته عن لمرأة المتوفى عنها زوجها تعتد في بيتها أو حيث شاء‌ت؟ قال‪ :‬بل‬
‫حيث شاء‌ت ان عليا عليه السالم لما توفي عمر أتى أم كلثوم فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬
‫‪http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-8/a9.html‬‬
‫وروى الحسين بن سعيد عن النضر بن سويد عن هشام بن سالم عن سليمان بن خالد قال‪ :‬سألت ابا ‪(558) 157‬‬
‫عبدهللا عليه السالم‪ 5‬عن امرأة توفي عنها زوجها اين تعتد في بيت زوجها أو حيث شاء‌ت؟ قال‪ :‬بل حيث شاء‌ت ثم قال‬
‫‪.‬ان عليا عليه السالم‪ :‬لما توفي عمراتى‪ 5‬ام كلثوم‪ 5‬فاخذ بيدها فانطلق بهاالى‪ 5‬بيته‬
‫‪http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-8/a9.html‬‬
‫‪ ….‬ثم قال ‪ « :‬إنّ عليا ً عليه السالم‪ 5‬لما مات عمر أتى اُم كلثوم‪ 5‬فأخذ بيدها فانطلق بها إلى بيته‬
‫‪http://www.rafed.net/books/aam/aalam-nesa/014.html‬‬
1) (221) 14 ‫ عن‬5‫فأما ما رواه محمد بن علي بن محبوب عن أحمد بن الحسن عن الحسين عن حماد بن عيسى‬
‫ النداء والتثويب في االقامة من السنة‬:‫ قال‬5‫شعيب بن يعقوب عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبدهللا عليه السالم‬.
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-2/a9.html
2) ((6997)) 4 ‫ عن أبي‬،‫ عن محمد بن مسلم‬،‫ عن العالء‬،‫ عن فضالة‬،‫ عن الحسين‬5،‫ عن أحمد بن الحسن‬،‫ـ وعنه‬
‫ كان أبي (عليه السالم) ينادي في بيته بالصالة خير من النوم‬:‫) قال‬5‫جعفر (عليه السالم‬،
‫ عن فضالة عن العال عن محمد بن مسلم عن أبي جعفر عليه‬5‫وما رواه هو أيضا عن أحمد بن الحسن عن الحسين‬
‫ كان أبي ينادي في بيته‬:‫ قال‬5‫السالم‬
‫بالصالة خير من النوم‬
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-2/a9.html
‫ فقال ال تدنس نفسك بها‬5‫عبد هللا بن سنان قال سألت أبا عبد هللا (ع) عن المتعة‬
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/boo…ehar100/b19.htm
‫ إن هللا عزوجل‬:‫) قال‬5‫ عن أبي الحسن موسى (عليه السالم‬،‫ عن بعض أصحابنا‬5،‫ عن محمد بن عيسى‬،‫علي بن إبراهيم‬
‫ وهللا بنفسي‬5‫ فوقيتهم‬،‫) فخيرني نفسي أوهم‬1( 5‫غضب على الشيعة‬.
http://www.alhikmeh.com/arabic/mktb…alkafi01/09.htm
Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of
Answering-Ansar]
If Ali’s wife was killed by Umar, and if he himself was persecuted by Abu Bakr and
Uthman, then why in the world did Ali name three of his sons after the Three
Caliphs? It is a historical fact that Ali named three of his own children as Abu Bakr,
Umar, and Uthman.
This fact is recorded by the classical Shia scholar, Shaikh Mufid, in “Kitab al-
Irshad”, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and
10 respectively.
Al-Shia.com excerpts this book and it is viewable here:

http://al-shia.com/html/ara/books/ershad-1/a10.html
http://rafed.net/books/hadith/ershad-1/index.html
Therefore, this is not a matter of debate, since Al-Shia.com itself documents how
three of Ali’s sons were named Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.
No one, not even the most magnanimous of people, names his son after his enemies
who were responsible for the death of his wife and unborn child. That is why one
simply cannot find a Shia today named Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman.
This fact categorically rejects the Shia paradigm which is based upon the false idea
that Ali disapproved of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. In fact, not only were they
not enemies, but rather they were Sahabah (companions) and friends to each other,
so much so that Ali honored them by naming his children after them. This shatters
the very basis of Shi’ism which is centered around the supposed oppression of the
Ahlel Bayt at the hands of the Sahabah.
Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s Article “Names of Imam Ali’s sons”
The first thing that should jump out at the reader is that Answering-Ansar could not
deny that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Instead, Answering-
Ansar had to explain away this phenomenon by claiming that Ali did indeed name
three of his sons with these names, but that it had nothing to do with his love for the
Three Caliphs.
Answering-Ansar claims that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were common names
like Tom, Dick or Harry today. Therefore, reasons Answering-Ansar, it is not
surprising that Ali named his sons with these names.
My response to this is simple: if three men named Tom, Dick or Harry came to my
house and killed my wife and unborn child, then I don’t think I would ever name my
kids Tom, Dick or Harry. Whether or not that these are common names, the fact
that these three individuals did what they did would be enough for me to stay away
from these three names. Regardless of the fact that these are common names, there
is no chance that a man today would name his children Tom, Dick or Harry after the
murderers of his wife/child who had the same exact names. Likewise, the Shia
accuse Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman of oppressing his family, killing his wife and
unborn child; it is therefore highly unlikely that Ali would then name his children
after them. Why would a person name one of his sons after the man who killed
another one of his sons?
Furthermore, if Ali named one of his sons after one of the Three Caliphs, then
perhaps we could claim coincidence. But rather, Ali named three of his children
after the Three Caliphs. Think about it: if Tom, Dick or Harry came into my home
and killed my wife/child, do you think I would then name my children after all three
of these individuals? Fine, if one of my children was named Tom, then we could
claim coincidence. But suddenly when it becomes Tom, Dick, and Harry, it just
seems like too big a coincidence.
Ali had eighteen sons, and there are hundreds of names to choose from. Why in the
world would he pick three names after the three people he hated and who oppressed
his family? Answering-Ansar is asking us to accept a very big coincidence. The Shia
faith is based around the oppression of the first Three Caliphs and yet here we see
that Ali named his sons after them.
Answering-Ansar would have us believe that it is just one big coincidence that Ali
named his sons after Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. They say again and again that
these are very common names and so it is not a big coincidence at all. We remind
these Shia that Ali named two of his sons Umar and two of his sons Uthman. Surely,
this is not random chance, but rather we see that Ali named his sons after
prominent Islamic figures, as many Muslims do today. Maybe one Umar could be a
chance, but Ali namedtwo of his sons Umar, and another two he named Uthman,
and another one he named Abu Bakr!
Let us look at the naming scheme chosen by Ali for his sons:
1. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafia

2. Muhammad al-Asghar
3. Muhammad il-Awsat
4. Abbas “abul-fazil”
5. Abbas al-Asghar
6. Jafar al-Akbar
7. Jafar al-Assghar
8. Abdullah il-Asghar
9. Abdullah il-Akbar
10. Abdullah “Abi Ali”
11. Uthman al-Asghar

12. Uthman al-Akbar
13. Umar al-Akbar

14. Umar al-Asghar.
15. Abu Bakr ibn Ali
16. Al-Hasan
17. Al-Hussain
18. Awn
Is it all coincidence that Ali named the majority of his sons with duplicate names,
with names of family and companions? Fourteen of the eighteen sons are named in
either duplicate or triplicate. This was not random! It would be an astronomical
coincidence. If Ali’s naming scheme was random, why can we not find other
common names of Arabia? Like Obaid, Zuhayr, Zubayr, Sufyan, Bilal, Amr, Yasir,
Miqdad, Abu Dhar, Faris, Abdul-Rahman, Abdul, and any other of the hundreds of
names…
Ali named three of his sons after the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is a common
name, and is in fact,the most common name amongst the Muslims. Would it be
justified then for someone to claim that perhaps it was another Muhammad after
whom Ali was naming his sons after? It is altogether too obvious that Ali named his
sons after the Prophet and nobody else.
Looking at the names of Ali’s sons, we find that all of the names are those of
Hashimites or prominent Sahabah (Companions). For example, there is the name
Abbas which was the name of the Prophet’s uncle, and then there is Jafar the name
of Ali’s brother, and the name Abdullah which is the name of the Prophet’s son. And
then we have the name Abu Bakr, two Umars, and two Uthmans. This is surely not a
random naming pattern, but rather it is very deliberate indeed.
Let us look at how astronomical the coincidence is that the Shia are asking us to
accept. Ali had eighteen sons. Naming one son, randomly, with the name of
someone he hates has a likelihood of happening 1/18 times, or a 5.6% chance.
Mathematically speaking, we see that the chance that five of his sons would have the
name of someone Ali hates is virtually nil.
(1/18)x(1/18)x(1/18)x(1/18)x(1/18) = 1/1,889,568 = <0.000001%
There is less than one percent of a one percent chance that the naming of his sons
was random. If the Shia are still not convinced and would like to live in the fantasy
world that this is just a coincidence, then there is nothing any rational person can do
to convince them.
When we hear the name Abu Bakr, do we stop and ask “which one?” When we hear
Umar, do we stop and ask “which one?” When we hear Uthman, do we stop and ask
“which one?” When we look into Shia books and read about how supposedly Ali was
oppressed by Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, do we then question which people we
are talking about? Suddenly, when Ali named five of his sons after the Three
Caliphs, then it doesn’t refer to that Abu Bakr, that Umar, or that Uthman! This is
the double standard of the Shia, and the myopic way in which he views history,
oblivious to facts and reality.
Answering-Ansar then makes the feeble argument that Ali named his sons in a
different order (i.e. not in the order of the Three Caliphs). But this argument is
impotent because Ali had these children before the completion of the first three
Caliphates. Therefore, there was no “order” of Caliphs as of yet. Furthermore, Ali
was friends with these three individuals and there is no necessity that he name his
children in the order of their rank, since most people do not even know how many
children they plan to have! How many Shia parents name their eldest son as Hasan
and a younger one as Ali? Does anyone stop them and say “oh, that’s out of order”
since Ali was the first Imam whereas Hasan was the second? Surely this is nonsense!
To completely negate this rather creative (yet insignificant) argument, we shall

provide an example very dear to the Shia: we call the reader’s attention to the
seventh Imam of the Shia, Imam Musa al-Kadhim, who named his elder son with
the name of the sixth Imam of the Shia and named his younger son with the name of
the second Imam of the Shia! Is this not “out of order” according to Answering-
Ansar’s argument? We give points to Answering-Ansar for their creativity, but in
reality it shows how the Shia propagandist will further any argument to score a
point regardless of if it is based in evidences or not.
In any case, the coincidence is too large, since Ali named three of his children after
all three of the Three Caliphs. We think the reader will appreciate the weakness of
Answering-Ansar’s claims, and this fact–namely that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr,
Umar, and Uthman–shows that the Shia paradigm cannot possibly be a true one
and rather it is based on Shia myths and fabrications. The Four Rightly Guided
Caliphs were good friends and Sahabah (Companions) to each other. Indeed, Ali was
the vizier and top aid of the Three Caliphs during their respective Caliphates. It is up
to the reader to either accept the less than 1% chance that it was a coincidence that
Ali named his sons with the names of the men who supposedly killed his wife and
unborn child, or to accept the more rational conclusion that Ali was on good terms
with them and named his sons after them.
Marriages of the Four Caliphs and the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬
Introduction
Nikah is an Arabic term used for marriage. It means “contract.” The Quran
specifically refers to marriage as “Mithaqun Ghalithun,” which means “a strong
covenant.”
“and they have taken a strong pledge (Mithaqun Ghalithun) from you” (Quran, 4:21)
The seriousness of this covenant becomes obvious when one finds the same term
(Mithaqun Ghalithun) being used for the covenant made between Allah and the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬before granting him the responsibility of the
Prophethood. (Quran 33:7)
The Quran also uses the Arabic word “Hisn” in reference to marriage, which likens
marriage to being a fortress of righteousness.
Allah Almighty also commands the Muslims to only marry righteous people:
“And marry such of you as are single and the pious” (Quran, 24:32)
Conversely, it is Haram for a Muslim to marry an unrighteous person. The Prophet (

‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬declared:
“You should marry the religious woman, otherwise you will be a loser.” (Sahih
Bukhari)
The responsibility of a woman is given to the father, who is the Wali. It is his duty to
find her a suitable match. It is Haram for a father to give his daughter to a sinful
man, and there Ijma (consensus) on this amongst both the Sunni and Shia scholars.
Uthman bin Affan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gave two of his daughters, Ruqayyah ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
and Umm Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, in marriage to Uthman bin Affan (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬first married Ruqayyah (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬but she died shortly
afterwards. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬then gave his other daughter to
Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, and Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬subsequently married Umm
Kulthoom (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ّ ‫)ر‬. Because he had the unique honor of marrying not just one
but two of the Prophet’s daughters, Uthman was given the title “the Man of Two
Lights.” The Shia will sometimes try to deny these historical facts, but I shall cite as
my source Al-Islam.org, which is the most reliable Shia website on the internet:
Al-Islam.org says
“Khadija, peace be upon her, was the first woman who believed in the Prophet’s
divine prophecy. She put all her wealth at his disposal to propagate and promote
Islam. [39] Six children were born of his marriage: two sons named Qasim and
Tahir who passed away as infants in Makkah and four daughers named Ruqiyah,
Zaynab, Umm Kulsum, and Fatima, who was the most prominent and honoured
of them all.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/glance/4.htm ”
Al-Islam.org says
“Ruqayya married the third caliph Ùthman ibn Àffan and migrated with him to
Ethiopia in 615 A.D., five years after the inception of the prophetic mission,
accompanied by no more than nine others. That was the first of two such
migrations. After coming back home, she died in Medina in 2 A.H. and was buried at
Jannatul Baqee`. Ùthman then married her sister Ummu Kulthoom in Rabi` al-
Awwal of the next (third) Hijri year. Ummu Kulthoom lived with her husband for
about six years before dying in 9 A.H., leaving no children.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/bios/khadija.htm ”
We have already accepted the fact that a father can only give his daughter in
marriage to a suitable match, one who is “pious” (Quran, 24:32), and who is not an
evil-doer. Therefore, the fact that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬gave his
daughters to Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬is proof enough of his good character. It is a
refutation against all of the accusations and slander levied against Uthman ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬by the Shia propagandists. In fact, if the Shia say that Uthman ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was
an evil person, then they are declaring that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬violated
the Quran and his own sayings by giving his daughter to an evil person. Indeed,
what noble character Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬must have had that he got the honor of
marrying not just one, but two of the Prophet’s daughters.

ّ ‫)ر‬
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, the first Caliph, was so close and dear to the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬that he gifted his daughter in marriage to the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬. Her name was Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, whom the Shia spread malicious slander
against. Would the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬really marry someone who was
sinful and an evil-doer? This is accusing the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬of sinning
and violating the Quran as well as his own sayings. By marrying Abu Bakr’s
daughter, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬showed his undying solidarity with Abu
Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, who was his best friend and top lieutenant.
Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬
Umar bin Khattab (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, the second Caliph, was also very close to the Prophet
ّ ّ
(‫ ;)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬he too gave his daughter, Hafsa ( ‫ضى هللا عنها‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, in marriage to the
ّ ّ
Prophet (‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬.
Ali ibn Abi Talib (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬gave his daughter, Umm Kulthoom bint Ali, in
marriage to Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. This very fact shatters the entire Shia paradigm, and
the false idea that the Three Caliphs were enemies of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The marriage
of Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to Umm Kulthoom is documented in Al-Kafi, which is
considered the most authentic book of Shia Hadith.
Conclusion

ّ ‫ )ر‬was on very good terms with the Three Caliphs, and they were
Sahabah (Companions) one to another. Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬served as vizier and top aid
to all three Caliphs; therefore, the Shia historical accounts of bad blood between the
House of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Three Caliphs is false.
As can be seen, all of the Three Caliphs (which the Shia insult and call the “three
fools”) were linked to Prophet Muhammad (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬through marriage,
blood, or both. That is how close companions the Three Caliphs and the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬were.
Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫)ر‬, the Second of the Two
A central tenet of the Shia doctrine is the rejection of the first of the Rightly Guided
Caliphs, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, who supposedly stole the Caliphate from Ali ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫)عنه‬. However, the Shia opinion of Abu Bakr’s character ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬does not match
up with the Quran (and the associated historical events) which actually mentions
ّ ‫ )ر‬in a very positive light.
When the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬fled Mecca (i.e. Hijra), he asked Ali ibn Abi
Talib (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to lay in his bed so that the Quraish infidels would think that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬was still asleep. He told Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ّ ‫ )ر‬not to worry
because no harm would come to him. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬then called
ّ
his closest companion, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, to accompany him on the dangerous
emigration to Medinah. So it was that the Prophet and Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬made
the Hijra together.
The Quraish disbelievers were giving chase, and the two men–the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫–)ر‬hid in a cave. But the Quraish disbelievers
tracked them to the cave and would have apprehended them had it not been for the
miracle of the spider’s web. The spider created a web in record time, and when the
Quraish disbelievers saw it, they reasoned that the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
couldn’t possibly be in the cave because the spider’s web extensively covered the
entrace, indicating that nobody had disturbed it in quite some time.
This was the miracle of the spider’s web, which saved the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. This story is mentioned in the Quran in Verse 9:40.
Allah says:
“If you will not aid him (the Prophet), Allah certainly aided him when those who
disbelieved expelled him; he (the Prophet) had no more than him, him being the
second of the two (i.e. Abu Bakr), when they were both in the cave, when he (the
Prophet) said to his companion (Abu Bakr): ‘Grieve not, surely Allah is with us.’
Then Allah caused His Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) to descend upon
him (Abu Bakr)” (Quran, 9:40)
The first knee-jerk reaction of every Shia lay-person is to deny that this verse refers
to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, but it should be noted that every Shia Tafseer available to
us confirms that this verse is referring to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬when the word
“companion” is used. I refer the reader to the “Pooya/M.A. Ali” English Tafseer of
the Quran, which is considered by the Shia to be the most authoratative English
commentary of the Quran. It is the Tafseer relied upon by Al-Islam.org and it is in
fact available on their website.
Al-Islam.org says
“Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary
Verse 9:40
As has been mentioned therein, inside the cave, the companion of the Holy Prophet,
Abu Bakr, was…
Shaikh Ali Rasheed, a Shia scholar, answered the following question on Al-
Islam.org:
Al-Islam.org says
“
QUESTION:
Salam…What is meant by (verse) 9:40…Some say that this is a testimony from

God in supporting Abu-Bakr…?
ANSWER:
No doubt that the verse 9:40 is a reference to Abu Bakr. It is a matter of

fact that he accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) and was in the cave with him.
As to whether it was some “support” for him, I’m not sure what you are
implying…This verse cannot prove anything beyond the
historical context in which it was revealed. Allah knows best.
Was-Salaam,
Shaikh Ali Rasheed
source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/Aalimnetwork/msg00594.html ”
Therefore, all sides–both Sunni and Shia–are agreed that the companion in the cave
with the Prophet was Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
This Quranic verse (9:40) honors Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in five ways:
Firstly: The Quran refers to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as the “second of the two” citing
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬as the sole partner of the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in this
miraculous event. This was indeed such a great honor that the Ansar forfeit their
right to Caliphate and gave it instead to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬based on this verse
alone. It could be said that during the Hijra, a spider’s web saved Islam, and Abu
ّ ‫ )ر‬was there to witness this miracle, Allah referring to him as the
“second of the two.” In fact, Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Prophet’s journey is so
monumental that it is the day we start our Hijri calender from.
Secondly: In this verse of the Quran, we see that Allah refers to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬using the term “sahib” (companion) showing the closeness of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. In fact, the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
chose his closest companion to accompany him on this very dangerous journey;
nobody other than Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was given the honor of escorting the
Prophet to Medinah. It could be said that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the personal
bodyguard of the Prophet of Islam, the one man trusted enough to handle the
delicate mission of transporting Allah’s Messenger (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to safety and
away from the clutches of the scheming infidels.
Thirdly: The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬lovingly reassures Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to
“grieve not.” This is the Prophet’s own personal solace and affection being given to
this man, and so how can it be then that the Shia would like to curse him? Did the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬curse him? No, instead he reassured him and told him:
don’t worry, everything will be alright. This sentence of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬proves his close relationship to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, showing that he cannot
see Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬being in grief.
Fourthly: Most importantly, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬continues and tells
ّ ‫ )ر‬that “Allah is with us.” This is the absolute negation of the
Shia paradigm. The Shia say that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is doomed by Allah, but here
we see that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬says that Allah iswith Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ّ ‫ر‬
ّ ّ
‫)عنه‬. And indeed it must be in a positive light since the Prophet ( ‫)صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬
included himself by using the word “us.” The Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is
reassuring Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬that no harm can come to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
because He has the special protection of Allah Himself. If it had been a Shia in the
cave with Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, then the Shia would have said to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬that “Allah is against you” and not “Allah is with you.”
Fifthly: Allah sent his Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) down upon Abu
ّ ‫)ر‬. Allah sends Sakinah down upon the believers; if Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬was an evil-doer as the Shia claim, then Allah would have sent his Wrath upon
him, not his Sakinah. The Shia consider Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to be an agent of
Satan. Would Allah send his Sakinah down upon Satan?
Rebuttal of Shia Responses
The Shia have a difficult time dealing with this verse in the Quran, and deep down in
their hearts they wish they could throw out this verse from the Quran because it so
destroys their polemical stance against the Sunni. In fact, some of the early classical
Shia scholars believed that verse 9:40 was added in the Quran by the Sahabah (i.e.
Tahreef, or tampering of the Quran). Of course, the modern day Shia scholars have
publically denied that they believe in Tahreef so they are forced to accept this verse
as sound. They (the modern day Shia propagandists) have thus come up with some
feeble responses to take away the honors that are given to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬in
verse 9:40.
The most popular response given by the Shia is that of Shaikh Mufid, who
apparently had a dream in which he met Umar bin Khattab ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬:
Najaf.org says
“Al-Karajaki has reported that once Shaikh Mufid saw a dream, and then dictated
it to his companions and disciples. He [Shaikh Mufid] said: I dreamt that as I was
passing through a street, I saw…Umar bin Khattab, the second Caliph…
source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784 ”
Then, Shaikh Mufid challenges Umar to explain why verse 9:40 praises Abu Bakr (
ّ ‫)ر‬. After Umar (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬explains the reasons this verse gives Abu Bakr (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬merit, Shaikh Mufid then replies and supposedly silences Umar ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬once and for all. After this, Shaikh Mufid wakes up from his dream and gleefully
narrates his hallucination to his comrades.
Let us now examine Shaikh Mufid’s responses.
Shaikh Mufid says
“When you say that Allah has mentioned the Prophet, peace be upon him and his
progeny, and then mentioned Abu Bakr as his second, I do not see anything
extraordinary in that. For if you ponder over it, you will find that Allah was only
revealing the number of persons present in the cave. They were two; there could
have been a Mo’min and a Kafir and they would still be two.
And when you talk of they being together at one place, it is again as simple as the
first case. If there was one place only, it could have been occupied by a Mo’min and a
disbeliever also. The Mosque of the Prophet is definitely a better place than the cave,
and yet it was a gathering place for the believers and the hypocrites. The Ark of
Prophet Noah carried the Prophet Noah, together with Satan and the animals. So
being together at one place is no virtue
Shaikh Mufid is missing the point here. We are not saying that anyone who is
physically close to the Prophet at any point in his life would become honored. What
we are saying is that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was present with the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬in the defining moment of Islam; in fact, it was around this time that the
Islamic calender would start. The Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took nobody other
than Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬on this epic journey and nobody else other than Abu
Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was present on this momentous and miraculous day. It is obvious
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬chose one of his closest companions to
accompany him on the emigration to Medinah. He could have chosen anybody else,
but he chose Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. This is the honor, and it is cemented by the
Quran which refers to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬alone as the “second of the two” on this
very historic and miraculous day in which Islam was saved by a spider’s web.
In fact, the Shia have a very hard time dealing with the fact that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬was the one who accompanied the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to Medinah.
Imagine if it had been Abu Bakr (instead of Ali) who the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬had told to lay in his bed for him; and imagine then that it was Ali (instead of
Abu Bakr) who the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took along with him to Medinah.
Then, we would hear the Shia chanting about how the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
left Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to die on his bed (i.e. Abu Bakr was expendable), and how
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬loved Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬so much that he could not
part with him so he took him along on the historic Hijra that marks our calender. In
fact, if this were the case, we would not hear the end of it from the Shia.
To deal with this “discrepancy” (i.e. why did the Prophet take Abu Bakr along with
him), the Shia have furthered the most absurd of arguments, which is narrated in
the Shia propaganda piece “Peshawar Nights.” The basic premise of this argument is
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬along with him
because he feared that if he left him in Mecca, then Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬would tell
the Quraish infidels where the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was and give them
information so that they could capture and kill the Prophet of Islam.
Al-Islam.org says
“Abu Bakr was taken on the journey for fear of his causing a disturbance and giving
information to the enemy…the Quraish unbelievers were railing at the Prophet’s
companions. The Prophet ordered Ali to sleep in his bed, and, fearing that Abu Bakr
would disclose this fact to the unbelievers, the Prophet took Abu Bakr with him.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/5.5.html ”
Let us momentarily accept this absurd proposition that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬had
the intention of divulging the Prophet’s whereabouts so that the Quraish infidels
could capture and kill him. Keeping this in mind, let us fast-forward to the moment
in which the Quraish infidels are gathering around the cave; they are merely a few
feet away from the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and it is only a spider web which
separates them. If Abu Bakr’s intentions (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬were to have the Quraish
infidels find the location of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬so that they could
ّ
capture him, tell me: wouldn’t this be a very opportune time to notify the Quraish
that the Prophet was right here? When the Quraish were gathering around the cave,
what prevented Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬from jumping out and informing them that
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was in there and they should go and capture him!
Surely, if this was the intention of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫–)ر‬as the Shia so claim–then
this is the only logical thing that would have happened. Instead, what does happen?
We see the story narrated in the Quran itself. Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is not gleeful
that the Quraish infidels have found the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, but rather he
is grieved by this fact and fearful for the Prophet’s life ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. And I say
the Prophet’s life (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and not his own because the Quraish infidels
had a warrant for the capture of the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and not Abu Bakr (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ ;)ر‬the bounty was on the Prophet’s head (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Abu Bakr
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬could simply turn him in to collect the reward.
Getting back to my point here: if it had been Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬who had accompanied
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬on the Hijra, then the Shia would be declaring that
this is a definitive proof for the fact that Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was superior to all the other
Sahabah. The Shia propagandists would use it like they do the incident of Ghadeer
Khumm, claiming it as a sign for who would be the successor of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫)عليه وآله وسلّم‬. To conclude, the Shia have no explanation as to why the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬took Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬along and nobody else. The only logical
explanation is that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was the Prophet’s top lieutenant,
bodyguard, and trusted friend. Nothing else makes sense. At minimum, however, we
have established the fact that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬could not possibly be all the bad
things that the Shia say he was; if even half of the things the Shia say are true, then
it is highly improbable that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would have taken him
along.
In fact, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬specifically asked Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to
accompany him. This is recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari. We read in “Ar-Raheequl
Makhtum”:
So some people emigrated to Medinah, and most of those people who previously
emigrated to the land of Ethiopia returned to Medinah. Abu Bakr also prepared to
leave for Medinah but Allah’s Messenger said to thim: “Wait for awhile, because I
hope that I will be allowed to emigrate also.” Abu Bakr asked: “Do you hope that?”
He (the Prophet) replied with yes. So Abu Bakr did not emigrate for the sake of
Allah’s Messenger in order to accompany him. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, no.3905)
Shaikh Mufid says
“And when you talk about the added quality of being ‘SAHIB’, the companion, this
indeed is a weaker point than the first two, because a believer and a disbeliever can
both be in the company of each other. Allah, Most High, used the word ‘SAHIB’ in
the following Ayah: ‘His “SAHIB” (companion) said to him while he was conversing
with him: Have you disbelieved in the One Who created you from soil and then from
a small quantity of sperm, then fashioned you harmoniously as a man?’ (al-KAHF V.
37). Further, we find in Arabic literature that the word “SAHIB” is used for the
accompanying donkey, and also for the sword. So, if the term can be used between a
Momin and a Kafir, between a man and his animal, and between a living and an
inanimate object, then what is so special in it about your friend?”
Shaikh Mufid has referred to verse 18:37 in which the word “sahib” is used for a
disbeliever. This point is extraneous, because a man can be friends with a
disbeliever. This does not change the fact that he has a strong bond between himself
and the other person. What we are establishing is simply that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
had a strong bond of closeness between himself and the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬. In verse 18:37, it is two friends who get in a mutual debate with each other.
The fact that one is a disbeliever does not change the fact that they are friends.
If we look up the word “Sahib” in the dictionary, we find that it means:
Sahib: n; friend, companion
Therefore, the word is not used to denote a person who is an enemy, since enemy is
the opposite of friend/companion. We should ponder on why Allah used this word
“companion” as opposed to something like “the hypocrite beside him” which the
Shia would have used had they written the Quran.
The term “Sahib”, “Sahabi”, and “Sahabah” is always used in the Islamic context to
denote a title of respect and closeness to the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Perhaps
these words could be used in a different context, but firstly: they could never be used
to denote an enemy, therefore the idea that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was an enemy of
ّ ّ
the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬or of Islam is totally out of the picture because the
term “sahib” was used. And secondly: Islamically, the word “Sahib” is used in a very
positive fashion, and therefore, because the Quran is an Islamic book, this is the
only understanding of it we should take. For example, the term “kaafir” was used
pre-Islamically to describe farmers buying seeds in the ground, covering them with
soil while planting. If we read the Quran, should we then interpret the word “kaafir”
to use this pre-Islamic meaning? Or should we use the Islamic context of the word,
which is “disbeliever?”
The Quran here refers to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬with the endearing term “sahabi” or
companion. This term denotes a level of affection and closeness. Now, the Shia
propagandists will argue that the word “companion” could be used for anyone, but
an unbiased reading of the above Quranic verse, as well as the context in which the
verse was revealed, shows nothing but a positive connotation. If this had been Ali (
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was being referred to as the “sahib” of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬, then you would see the Shia jumping up and down throwing this verse in our
faces. Such is the double-standard of the Shia.
Shaikh Mufid says
“And the words ‘Don’t grieve’ were not meant for any solace;. Because it was a
statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have ‘donts’ and ‘dos’ as imperative
verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Abu Bakr was either an act of obedience or
disobedience. If it was obedience, the Prophet would not have forbidden it, therefore
it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience
The Shia arguments are getting more and more ridicolous. Any unbiased outsider
who read the Quran would know that the words “grieve not” were meant as solace. I
cannot even think of a situation in which a person would use the terms “grieve not”
except as a means of solace. These words are commonly said when a close one is
grieving; for example, when a woman’s child dies, then people will tell her “grieve
not” as a means to console her.
But because I know that the Shia propagandists will never allow us to simply use
common sense, I will bolster my argument by quoting other verses in the Quran in
which the words “grieve not” are used. In none of these verses are the words used in
condemnation of a sin, but rather the words are used as a solace to cheer someone
up who is grieving. Allah Almighty says:
“But a voice cried to her [Mariam (‫ ])عليه السالم‬from beneath the palm-tree: ‘Grieve
not! For your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you.’” (Quran, 19:24)
These words are used for Mariam (‫)عليه السالم‬, the blessed mother of Prophet Isa ( ‫عليه‬
‫)السالم‬. She is grieving and worrying, and so it is said to her as a solace “grieve not.” It
should be noted that both Sunni and Shia revere Mariam (5‫ )عليه السالم‬and her status is
one of the highest women in Paradise. Therefore, should we use the Shia arguments
here, and say that she is being condemned for grieving? Let us insert Shaikh Mufid’s
arguments here and substitute Mariam ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬for Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and
then we will see how obnoxious his argument is.
It is like Shaikh Mufid saying to Mariam (5‫)عليه السالم‬:
“And the words ‘Don’t grieve’ were not meant for any solace because it was a
statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have ‘donts’ and ‘dos’ as imperative
verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Mariam ( ‫ )عليه السالم‬was either an act of obedience
or disobedience. If it was obedience, then Allah would not have forbidden it,
therefore it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience.”
And there are many other examples in the Quran in which the words “grieve not”
are used, and always they are used as a solace. We have the example of Prophet
Yousuf (5‫ ;)عليه السالم‬he tells his favorite brother to “grieve not.” This was the one
brother whom Prophet Yousuf (‫ )عليه السالم‬loved more than his other brothers who
were corrupt, so Prophet Yousuf (5‫ )عليه السالم‬separated this favorite brother and then
gave him solace. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:
“And when they went in to Yousuf, he (Yousuf) lodged his brother with himself,
saying: I am your brother, therefore grieve not at what they do.” (Quran, 12:69)
Can any unbiased person read this verse and say that it is a condemnation of a sin
(i.e. grieving)? No, surely that would not make sense; rather, this is an act of giving
solace to his favorite brother.
Then we have the example of Prophet Lut (5‫)عليه السالم‬, who was fearful for the life of
others, much in the same way that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was fearful for the
Prophet’s life. And so Allah sent angels down to Prophet Lut (5‫ )عليه السالم‬who
reassured him saying “fear not” and “grieve not.”
“And when Our messengers (i.e. angels) came unto Lut, he (Lut) was troubled upon
their account, for he could not protect them; but they said: ‘Fear not, and grieve
not! Lo! we are to deliver you and your household, (all) save your wife, who is of
those who stay behind.” (Quran, 29:33)
Prophet Lut (‫ )عليه السالم‬was worried and in grief when he saw the angels. The angels
replied “grieve not.” Was this a command and a condemnation of a sin committed
by Prophet Lut (5‫ ?)عليه السالم‬Surely not. This was an act of solace to reassure Prophet
Lut (5‫ )عليه السالم‬not to worry.
And then we have the example of Prophet Musa’s mother (5‫)عليه السالم‬, who was
grieving about losing her son. Allah reassured her in the Quran and told her to “fear
not” and “grieve not.”
“And We revealed to Musa’s mothers, saying: ‘Give him suck, then when you fear for
him, cast him into the river and fear not and grieve not; surely We will bring him
back to you and make him one of the messengers” (Quran, 28:7)
Notice how the Quran reassures her by saying: don’t worry, We will return your son
and make him a messenger. This is far from a condemnation.
And then we have the example of the Prophet Muhammad (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
himself who Allah asks to “be patient” and “grieve not.” Is this a condemnation of
the Prophet for a sin (i.e. not being patient and grieving)? It is interesting how the
Shia’s colorful reading of verses pertaining to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬are actually very
dangerous because if we use the same logic in other verses then we end up
condemning the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself. Allah says:
“And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of)
Allah, andgrieve not” (Quran, 16:127)
The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and the believers were saddened after their defeat
in the Battle of Uhud. And so it was that Allah sent down reassurance to the Prophet
(‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, saying in the Quran:
“So lose not heart and grieve not, for you will indeed be superior if you are truly
believers.” (Quran, 3:139)
Here, Allah reassures them with solace, and tells them: don’t worry, you will indeed
become victorious.
There is also the example in the Quran of Prophet Ibrahim (5‫ )عليه السالم‬when he was
confronted by angels. He and his wife had been grieving that they could not have a
son because he and his wife were so old. The angels reassure him telling him to
“despair not.”
“Inform them about Ibrahim’s guests. When they entered his quarters, they said:
‘Peace.’ He (Ibrahim) said: ‘We (my wife and I) are apprehensive about you.’ They
(the angels) said: ‘Do not be apprehensive. We have good news for you: an
enlightened son.’ He (Ibrahim) said: ‘How can you give me such good news, when I
am so old? Do you still give me this good news?’ They (the angels) said: ‘The good
news we give you is true; despair not!’” (Quran, 15:51-55)
Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was apprehensive of the Quraish infidels who were
surrounding the cave, and likewise was Prophet Ibrahim (5‫ )عليه السالم‬apprehensive of
these unknown visitors. When the angels told him “do not be apprehensive” was this
a condemnation or a reassurance? Surely when we factor in the greatness of Prophet
Ibrahim (5‫ )عليه السالم‬even the staunchest Shia can agree that it is reassurance and not
condemnation, for the Shia believe that Prophet Ibrahim (5‫ )عليه السالم‬was infallible!
And then the angels even tell him “despair not” in a similar manner that the Prophet
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬told Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬to “grieve not.” If the Shia would like
to argue that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was weak in faith for being in grief, then using
this same logic one would have to say that Prophet Ibrahim (5‫ )عليه السالم‬was weak in
faith for doubting the angels that he could have a child at so old an age.
When the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬first became the Prophet, he was worried that
he might forget verses of the Quran. To this, Allah said to him: Do not worry, We
shall enable you to recite this Word, then you shall not forget it. Was the Prophet
being condemned by Allah or reassured? Logic tells us it is the latter. I was reading a
biography written by Dr. Ali Shariati, a prominent Shia, who narrates that Ali’s
daughter (Umm Kulthoom [‫ضى هللا عنها‬ ّ ‫ )]ر‬reassured her mother (Fatima [ ‫ضى هللا‬
ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )]عنها‬and said: “It is nothing, mother, do not worry!”
(source: http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/ashariati/works/fatima_is_fa
tima4.php) Was this to give solace or as a condemnation of her mother for
worrying?
And there are so many more examples that I could give, but I fear that a person who
does not want to use common sense can never read a text with the intellectual
honesty needed to arrive at the truth. The Shia propagandist will try to further the
claim that the grief expressed by Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is showing his weakness in
faith; but a similar accusation could then be made about all the individuals
mentioned in the Quranic verses above.
Even the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had days when his mission became very
burdensome to him and he grieved because of this. The Quran contains verses which
were sent to the Prophet expressely to comfort him in times of distress–Surah an-
Nashrah is one of them. It is well-known that there was a year in the Prophet’s life
which was so full of grief that he referred to it as “Aamm-ul Huzn” which means “the
year of grief.” The Prophet himself named it this, so how can someone say that
grieving is a sin? It is actually insulting a great deal of pious believers and belitting
their faiths simply for the sake of trying to bolster one’s polemical stance in a
debate, in suggesting that people who are afraid or upset by life’s circumstances do
not have faith in Allah. This is a very dangerous territory to tread because the Quran
contains so many verses addressed to people who were grieving, and all of these
people are amongst those promised Paradise.
Shaikh Mufid says
“the Prophet replied: ‘Do not grieve, surely, Allah is with us’ meaning; with me and
my brother, Ali b. Abi Talib.’
This is has to be the most comical argument I have ever seen, and I do not know
how anyone can possibly take Shaikh Mufid seriously after reading this argument of
his. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said “Grieve not! Allah is with us!” The Shia
are in agreement that the first part refers to Abu Bakr (and they even say that it was
said out of condemnation of Abu Bakr’s fear and grief). A normal human being
would read this verse and say “Allah is with us” refers to the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬because nobody else was in the cave but these two.
It is obvious and a self-evident conclusion that the words “Allah is with us” refers to
the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and his companion who was with him in the cave.
But the Shia have a magical explanation for who it refers to, claiming that somehow
it refers to Ali ibn Abi Talib (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬. How any rational mind can accept this
rendering of the text, that I do not know. What would stop a third person from
reading this verse in the Quran and saying that “us” refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmed
(i.e. the Qadiani leader) or really anybody else? The sky is the limit if we allow
ourselves to have such open and non-sensical readings of the Quran.
One thing should be noted here: Shaikh Mufid has gone to great lengths to deny that
“Allah is with us” refers to Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, and he has reassured us that it
ّ ّ
refers to the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Therefore, one thing is
for certain: even the Shia have to admit that whoever it does refer to is a blessed
person. The fact that Shaikh Mufid wants this honor to be accorded to Ali ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬shows that whoever “Allah is with” can only be a just and upright individual;
hence, it will not be acceptable for the Shia to later just shrug their shoulders and
say that it is not a big deal when Allah says He is with someone. This approach has
been taken by Peshawar Nights in which “Well Wisher” says that it is no big deal
that Allah says He is with Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ;)ر‬but how can this be when Shaikh
Mufid himself found it incumbent that this actually refers to the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫?)ر‬
But Shaikh Mufid is not satisfied with his own explanation that “us” refers to the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, so he furthers another ludicrous
claim:
Shaikh Mufid says
“As for the assurance that ‘Allah is with us’, the pronoun ‘us’ was used by the
Prophet for himself. The use of plural pronoun for oneself is a sign of ones elevated
status.
Allah says: ‘Indeed, We are the One who has revealed the Quran, and We will most
surely preserve it.’ (Al-Hijr V.9).
And again: ‘We are the One who gives life and ordains death, and We are the
inheritor’ (al-Hijr V.23).
Unfortunately, Shaikh Mufid could not provide a single reference in the Quran in
which the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬uses the plural form to refer to himself.
Suddenly, just this once, the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬chose to use the plural
form for himself? This is quite a coincidence. The Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
would have easily said that ‘Allah is with me’ if he were excluding Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
ّ ّ
‫)عنه‬. The idea that “we” refers to the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬alone has no basis
whatsoever, and it is contradicted by Shaikh Mufid’s earlier claims that “we” refers
to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Really, which argument is it?
How can the “we” be a pronoun used in the singular for the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬alone when it also supposedly refers to the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and Ali
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The only reason Shaikh Mufid has to further two contradictory
arguments is that neither makes sense, and the only obvious reading of the text is
that “us” refers to the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and his companion in the cave.
Shaikh Mufid says
“Your claim that AS-SAKINAH (serenity) was sent down to Abu Bakr is indeed
outrageous…in this event of the cave, serenity was sent down to the Prophet alone,
excluding Abu Bakr. This may be a pointer to the fact that Abu Bakr was not among
the believers!
The Shia admit that it was Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was grieving and worried in
the cave. Therefore, logically it only makes sense that Allah would send down
reassurance and serenity to Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, since the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬was already serene and unworried. Let me give you an example:
I was really worried about my math test. My friend was not worried at all because he
was going to ace it. He told me “don’t worry, you will be fine!” And then my math
teacher also reassured me and calmed me down, telling me that I would do fine.
The math teacher here gave reassurance (Sakeenah) to me, because it is me who is
worried about the math test. My friend did not need any reassurance because he was
not worried to begin with. If we mix it up like the Shia do, then we would have
something nonsensical like this:
I was worried. My friend was not and told me not to worry. My math teacher
reassured and calmed my friend down.
It doesn’t make sense, but I guess this doesn’t matter to the Shia because the Shia
will always have magical intepretations and readings of the text that are simply
counter-intuitive. We have seen the epitome of this when we see that they can
further the brazen claim that “Allah is with us” refers to Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬somehow.
No ammount of reasoning will ever convince such a person of the truth. Perhaps
they could also claim here that the Sakeenah was sent to Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫!)ر‬
Najaf.org says
“Sheikh Mufid says that Umar made no reply to my arguments, and as people
around him scattered, he woke up from his sleep
Congratulations, O great Shaikh Mufid! You have defeated Umar bin Khattab ( ‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬in your imaginary dream, how brave you are. I will now go dream of Mike
Tyson and in my dream I will knock him out. That will just prove how great I am
and how weak Mike Tyson is.
Let us now refer to the Shia Tafseer of this verse.
Al-Islam.org says
“Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary

Verse 9:40
As has been mentioned therein, inside the cave, the companion of the Holy Prophet,
Abu Bakr, was frightened and had started crying in anguish when he heard the
voices of the enemy. Then the Holy Prophet said:
“Do not fear. Allah is with us.”
Compare this fear to the tranquillity of Ali described in the commentary of verse 207
of al Baqarah which was revealed to honour and glorify Ali.
”
The Shia version is very comical indeed. They attempt to do whatever they can to
color the event and make Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬look like a coward. Here, they say
that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was crying like a baby and that he was really frightened,
comparing this with Ali’s bravery ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. We wonder where this bravery went
when–according to the Shia–Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬ordered his men to break down
the door to Ali’s house (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, manhandled his wife, and killed Ali’s wife and
unborn child, dragging Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬through the streets by the collar? Where was
Ali’s bravery (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬then? (It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah rejects
such tales, but I am only bringing this up to respond to the outlandish claims that
Abu Bakr [‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ ]ر‬was cowardly. From where do the Shia get this idea from
except their own mouths and imaginations? No where in the Quran does it say that
Abu Bakr [‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ]ر‬was crying.)
There is absolutely no proof that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was crying. With no proof
that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬cried, how do the Shia simply assert this? What could
prevent someone else from saying that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬cried when the Quraish
infidels surrounded the Prophet’s bed (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Someone could claim
ّ ‫ )ر‬wet the bed because he was so frightened, or really anything
else; using the approach of the Shia, one can make up many inflammatory (and
imaginary) things. But it doesn’t make them true, especially without a shred of
evidence.
The key point to be remembered is that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬also told Ali
ّ ‫ )ر‬not to worry when he asked Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬to sleep in his bed.
Therefore, should we then say that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was fearful and this shows his
ّ ّ
lack of faith that the Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬had to reassure him? No. The only
thing that we can ascertain from the fact that the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
reassured Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬is that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬loved them both and this is why he gave them words of solace. Loved ones
always give words of solace, and this doesn’t mean that the one who is getting the
words of solace is un-necessarily fearful or cowardly. I have given many examples in
the Quran in which words of solace are given to an individual and it does not mean
that there is anything wrong with the said individual. Please see the above
discussion for this.
In fact, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬was the bravest companion of all that he risked his life
to accompany the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬on this very dangerous mission. The
Quraish were on high alert when they found out that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬left Mecca. Why would Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬choose to accept this risky
mission, if his life was in danger as the Shia claim?
The truth is that Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

ّ ‫ )ر‬was worried and grieving but he was not
fearful of his own life, but rather he was worried about the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬more than himself. In fact, many times in his life did Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬say
that he valued the life of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬above his own, and even he
valued the family of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬above his own family.
Therefore, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was worried about the Prophet’s life, and there is
nothing cowardly in this.
We read in “Ar-Raheequl Makhtum”:
[3] Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/516, 558: Abu Bakr was not afraid for himself, but as is
reported, he was worried about Allah’s Messenger saying: “If they kill me, then I am
only one man. But if they kill you (O Muhammad), they will have destroyed the
whole nation.” So it was then that Allah’s Messenger said, “Do not grieve, for Allah
is indeed with us.” (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.207)
And a similar thing is narrated in “Mukthasar Seeratir-Rasul” (p.168).
We read in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:
While in the cave, Abu Bakr was afraid the pagans might discover them for fear that
some harm might touch the Messenger . (Tafseer Ibn Kathir)
From a logical standpoint, we know that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was more worried
about the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬than himself for the simple fact that the
Quraish infidels had a warrant for the arrest and capture of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫)وآله وسلّم‬, not of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. The bounty was on the head of the Prophet (
ّ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬, not on Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. In fact, Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬was
immune from the persecution of the Quraish infidels because he had powerful tribal
connections to protect him. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had recently lost this
tribal protection with the death of Abu Talib and this was the impetus for the
eventual Hijra of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Therefore, if anyone was at risk, it
was the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬loved the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬so much that he feared that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would
be captured as the Quraish were interested in capturing the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫)وسلّم‬, not Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. There was a bounty on the Prophet’s head ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫)عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬could have simply jumped out of the cave
and told the Quraish that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was hiding in the cave,
thereby collecting the bounty.
Shia says
“Abu Bakr was crying out loud and sobbing, just so that he could attract the
attention of the Quraish Kufaar who were outside. Tell me: why was Abu Bakr crying
when he knew that the enemies of Islam might hear him?
”
I was about to finish this article, when I came across this reply on a discussion
forum. What surprises me is that the Shia can advance so many contradictory
responses to justify their faith. First, the Shia propagandist accuses Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬of deliberately crying out in order to give the location of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬away to the Quraish infidels. Then the Shia accuse Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬of crying out of cowardice, because he supposedly didn’t have true Iman (faith).
These two claims contradict each other. If Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to give away
the location of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, he would have no reason to be
scared and terrified. If he was scared and terrified, he would obviously not want to
give their location away.
And I have already dealt with the accusation that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to
reveal the location of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. If Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬
wanted to do this, then the most opportune time would have been when the Quraish
infidels were gathering outside the cave. What prevented Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬from
jumping out of the cave and saying “here he is, get him!”
To this, I was given the most absurd and outrageous of answers by the Shia
propagandists, who no doubt were getting desperate:
Shia says
“Allah silenced the voice of Abu Bakr so that he could not yell out to the Quraish
Kufaar. Abu bakr wanted to cry out to them but Allah prevented him from doing so.
”
I honestly do not think that anybody can take this view seriously, and I doubt that
anyone who was not born a Shia and brainwashed with such beliefs could actually
believe that “Allah silenced Abu Bakr in the cave.” There is absolutely no evidence to
support this claim, and it is a very convenient (and unproveable) claim which no
unbiased person can accept.
I think we should always ask ourselves if we believe what we believe simply because
we were taught to do so from birth. The problem with the “Allah silenced Abu Bakr
in the cave” story is that only a person born a Shia (and brainwashed throughout his
life) could accept such a tale. There is nothing in history to suggest that such a thing
ever occurred. And really, it is quite possible to view any event in history like this.
What could prevent the Nasibis (a group which hates Ali) from claiming that Ali (
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to jump out of the Prophet’s bed and tell the Quraish infidels
where the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was, but that Allah silenced him? Would the
Shia (or even the Sunnis) accept such a ludicrous claim? It would be a laughable
argument and easily brushed aside without further thought. So I do not know how
the Shia view themselves seriously when they bring up such arguments for Abu Bakr
(‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
I understand that religion is about faith and that there are times we can’t objectively
prove our beliefs. However, I also believe that Islam teaches us we can derive our
beliefs through reason and understanding. The idea that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬befriended a man whom he knew to be at best a hypocrite and at worst a
subversive Kaafir, and gave him a senior place in the Muslim community, does not
strike me as credible. Why in the world would the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬take
ّ ‫ )ر‬on the Hijra?
If the Shia would like to say that they know that Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬wanted to
give up the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬to the Quraish infidels, then didn’t the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬know this as well? If the Shia knew it, then surely the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew it, since as a basic principle, the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew more than anyone else. Unless the Shia would like to say that they
know more than the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, and only they knew Abu Bakr’s
intentions (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬and the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not know. If the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬knew, then why did he even accept to take Abu Bakr (
ّ ‫ )ر‬along in the first place?
If Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬really tried so blatantly to give the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬away during their flight, why would the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬have
continued to keep him in his confidences? I find the oft-given explanation that he
was “keeping his enemies near” to be lacking. Obviously people revere the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬so much that they scrutinize everything he did, including the
company he kept. What need had a man, who believed enough in his cause to risk
death and who never once compromised his mission or philosophy, of false friends?
It only makes logical sense that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would distance
himself from a man who tried to have him captured. It does not make sense then
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would continue to keep this man in his
company (to the extent of marrying his daughter Aisha) and to allow him to remain
in power amongst the Muslims.
Back to the ridicolous argument that Allah silenced Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, then why
didn’t Allah also silence Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬when he claimed the Caliphate over
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬Or perhaps the Nasibis could claim that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was
silenced by Allah and this is the only reason Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was not able to reveal
the Prophet’s whereabouts when the Quraish infidels surrounded Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
who was sleeping in the Prophet’s bed. There is really no limit to the possibilities
and fairy-tales one can concoct with such logic used by the Shia propagandist who
invents a whole slew of details which do not appear in the Quranic text at all. Why
didn’t the verse in the Quran say that the “sahib” wanted to reveal the Prophet’s
location but Allah silenced him? Perhaps this is written in the Shia version of the
Quran, which involves putting Ali’s name ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in brackets wherever anything
good is mentioned and putting the Three Caliphs’ names wherever anything bad is
mentioned.
Conclusion
The Quran mentions Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬on this historic day when the Prophet (
‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬made Hijra. If Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was even half of the bad
things that the Shia claim, then what logic would Allah have to honor him with this
verse in the Quran? It is, after all, this verse in the Quran which made the Ansar
realize the greatness of Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬. Why would Allah do such a thing?
What prevented Allah from condemning Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬in this verse? And
why did the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬say “Allah is with us” and not “Allah is
against you”? Certainly, I would not want to question the greatness of a man who
was mentioned in the Quran with such honor. And the truth is that the Shia who
criticize Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬are no way near his status, and they are nothings and
nobodies, who are so insignificant that they were not even mentioned in the Quran
at all.
The most important question for the Shia to ask themselves is how they can
reconcile the fact that it was Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬who the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬took with him on the Hijra. According to the Shia, Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬and
ّ ‫ )ر‬were enemies. Therefore, let me ask you: if it was Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬
who was doing the Hijra, would he take along Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬as his sole
partner? If the answer to this is no, then why wouldn’t Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬follow the
Sunnah of the Prophet (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Or, to give another example, what about
the exodus of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬from Medinah to Kufa; would Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬take Abu Bakr (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬along? If the answer is no, why isn’t Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا‬ ّ ‫ر‬
‫ )عنه‬following the Sunnah of the Prophet (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬The true answer is
ّ ‫ )ر‬and Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬had nothing against the first Caliph
and they would love to follow the example of the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬which
was to have a good relationship with Abu Bakr ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
I wish that our Shia brothers could look into their heart of hearts, and ask
themselves honestly: if it was Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬who was mentioned in verse 9:40 as
being the “second of the two”, then how would they interpret this verse? The
methodology of the true seeker of knowledge is that he first reads the Quran and
then makes up his mind after this based on what the Quran says. Meanwhile, the
methodology of the Ahlul Bidah wal Dalalah (The People of Innovation and of Hell-
Fire) is that they first make up their minds with their own ideas and the ideas of
their priests, and then they go into the Quran looking to generate “evidences” and
“proof” to back up these preconcieved beliefs, manipulating and twisting verses of
the Quran to make them mean really whatever they want them to mean.
The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs
Two misguided groups are the Nasibis (i.e. Nawaasib) and the Shia (i.e. Rawaafidh).
The Nasibis will take all the Hadith of praise in regards to Abu Bakr, Umar, and
Uthman, but then they will never mention those Hadith which praise Ali. The Shia,
on the other hand, will take all the Hadith in regards to Ali’s praises, but they will
ignore all of the Hadith in regards to Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman’s great
attributes. Both positions are biased and incorrect. The Prophet praised many
people and each of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs is on an elevated status of his
own.
By praising one of them, it does not mean that it lessens the value of the others. The
Prophet’s Companions were like the children of the Prophet; each child is valued by
the parent in his own unique way. For example, one child may be the smartest, while
another child may be the most religious of them, and another may be the funniest.
In fact, we see this in the following Hadith in which the Prophet said: “The most
compassionate of my Community towards my Community is Abu Bakr; the
staunchest in Allah’s Religion is Umar; the most truthful in his modesty is Uthman,
and the best in judgment is Ali.”
Therefore, we have hereby collected some Hadith which are in praise of Abu Bakr,
Umar, Uthman, and Ali. If the Prophet called Ali his “Mawla”, then this does not put
Ali over Abu Bakr, because the Prophet gave many honors to Abu Bakr that he did
not give to Ali. Each of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs (and many of the other
Sahabah including the Prophet’s wives and daughters) were given great titles of
respect and to isolate one of them without looking at the entire context is not
appropriate.
What the Shia do is that they accept all the Hadith in Sunni literature that is in
praise of Ali, without even looking at the Isnad of the Hadith at all! In fact, Mickey
Mouse himself could narrate a Hadith and the Shia would accept it if it helped prove
Shi’ism. On the other hand, the Shia reject all Hadith in favor of Abu Bakr, Umar,
and Uthman. We should remind them that if they want to use the Sunni Hadith in
favor of Ali, then we should always examine them in the proper context (i.e.
examining similar Hadith in favor of the Three Caliphs).
Furthermore, we can examine all of the Hadith in the Sunni collections which praise
Ali and this serves as proof that the Ahlus Sunnah is not Nasibi in any way.
Therefore, when we look at all the praise given to Àli by the Ahlus Sunnah, we find
that the Shia accusations that we hate Àli to be baseless.
Abu Bakr
Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, also known as Shaykh al-Islam, was the Prophet’s intimate
friend after Allah, exclusive companion at the Prophet’s Basin (hawd) and in the
Cave, greatest supporter, closest confidante, first spiritual inheritor, first of the men
who believed in him and the only one who did so unhesitatingly, first of his four
Rightly-Guided successors, first of the ten promised Paradise, and first of the
Prophet’s Community to enter Paradise.
Alone among the Companions, Abu Bakr repeatedly led the Community in prayer in
the lifetime of the Prophet. The latter used to call him by his patronyms of Abu Bakr
and Ibn Abi Quhafa, and he named him with the attributes “The Most Truthful” (al-
Siddîq) and “Allah’s Freedman From the Fire” (Atîq Allâh min al-nâr). When the
Quraysh confronted the Prophet after the Night Journey, they turned to Abu Bakr
and said: “Do you believe what he said, that he went last night to the Hallowed
House and came back before morning?” He replied: “If he said it, then I believe him,
yes, and I do believe him regarding what is farther than that. I believe the news of
heaven he brings, whether in the space of a morning or in that of an evening
journey.” Because of this Abu Bakr was named al-Siddîq: the Very Truthful, the One
Who Never Lies.
Ùmar said: “Abu Bakr’s faith outweighs the faith of the entire Ummah.”
Ùmar also said: “The best of this Community after its Prophet is Abu Bakr.”
Àli named him and Ùmar the Shaykh al-Islam of the Community and said: “The
best of this Community after its Prophet are Abu Bakr and Ùmar,”
Àli further said: “The most courageous of people is Abu Bakr,” and “The greatest in
reward among people for the volumes of the Qur’an is Abu Bakr, for he was the first
of those who gathered the Qur’an between two covers.” He was also the first to name
it mushaf.
Abu Bakr’s high rank is indicated, among other signs, by the fact that to deny his
Companionship to the Prophet entails disbelief (kufr), unlike the denial of the
Companionship of Ùmar, Ùthman, and Àli to the Prophet. This is due to the
mention of this companionship in the verse: “The second of two when the two were
in the cave, and he said unto his companion: Grieve not” (9:40) which refers, by
Consensus, to the Prophet and Abu Bakr. Allah further praised him above the rest
by saying: “Those who spent and fought before the victory are not upon a level (with
the rest of you).” (57:10)
The Prophet said: “Among those most dedicated to me in his companionship and
property is Abu Bakr. If I were to take an intimate friend other than my Lord, I
would take Abu Bakr. But what binds us is the brotherhood of Islam and its love. Let
no door [of the Prophet’s mosque] remain open except Abu Bakr’s.”
The Prophet said: “If I were to take an intimate friend, I would take Ibn Abi Quhafa
(i.e. Abu Bakr) as my intimate friend. Verily, your Companion is the intimate friend
of Allah!”
The Prophet said: “You (Abu Bakr) are my companion at the Basin and my
companion in the Cave.”
The Prophet said: “Call Abu Bakr and his son so that I will put something down in
writing, for I fear lest someone ambitious forward a claim, and Allah and the
believers refuse anyone other than Abu Bakr.”
Àmr ibn al-Às asked: “O Messenger of Allah, who is the most beloved of all men to
you?” He (the Messenger) replied: “Abu Bakr.”
The Prophet said: “It is impermissible for a people among whom is Abu Bakr, to be
led by other than him.”
The Prophet said: “Take for your leaders those who come after me: Abu Bakr and
Ùmar.”
The Prophet said: “OÀli! Abu Bakr and Ùmar are the leaders of the mature
inhabitants of Paradise and its youth among the first and the last, except for
Prophets and Messengers.”
The Prophet said: “The sun never rose nor set over anyone better than Abu Bakr.”
The Prophet said: “Jibril came to me, took me by the hand, and showed me the gate
through which my Community shall enter Paradise.” Abu Bakr said: “Would that I
were with you to see it!” The Prophet said: “Did you not know? You will be the first
of all my Community to enter it.”
The Prophet respected Abu Bakr’s Companionship so much that he would marry his
daughter, Aisha bint Abu Bakr. Therefore, Abu Bakr had the honor of being the
Prophet’s father-in-law.
Ùmar bin Khattab

Ùmar ibn al-Khattab was referred to by the Prophet as “Al-Farooq” meaning “one
who discriminates between right from wrong.” He was referred to by Ali as “Shaykh
al-Islam” and he was the first to be called by the general masses with the title of
“Amir al-Mu’minin” (Commander of the Faithful).
Ùmar had the special distinction of being a person whom the Prophet prayed for
that he become Muslim. The Prophet realized that Ùmar was a very strong and
brave man, necessary for the Islamic movement to thrive. It is narrated in Hadith
that the Messenger of Allah said: “O Allah! Strengthen Islam with Ùmar ibn al-
Khattab.” Indeed, the Muslims were greatly strengthened by Ùmar’s conversion to
Islam; before his conversion, they were hiding in fear and with Ùmar’s conversion,
the Muslims declared Islam openly. Where once the Muslims had been banned from
the Qaba, now the Muslims prayed therein. Abdullah ibn Masood said of Ùmar’s
conversion: “Ùmar’s conversion to Islam was a conquest, His Migration was a
victory, his period of rule was a blessing; I have seen when we were unable to pray at
‘the house’ (Qaba) until Ùmar converted; when he converted to Islam he fought
them [the antagonistic idolaters] until they left us alone and we prayed (inside the
Qaba).”
Ùmar was second only to Abu Bakr in closeness to and approval from the Prophet.
The Messenger of Allah said: “I have two ministers from the inhabitants of the
heaven and two ministers from the inhabitants of the earth. The former are Jibril
and Mika’il, and the latter are Abu Bakr and Ùmar.”
The Prophet said of Abu Bakr and Ùmar: “These two are [my] hearing and
eyesight.”
The Prophet instructed the Companions: “Follow those that come after me: Abu
Bakr and Ùmar.”
The Prophet said: “Allah has put the truth upon Umar’s tongue and in his heart.”
The Prophet also said: “If there were to be a prophet after me it would be Umar ibn
al-Khatab.”
Abu Bakr said of Ùmar: “There is not on the face of the earth a man more beloved
to me than Ùmar.”
Aisha bint Abu Bakr said: “He was, by Allah, skillful in managing affairs, absolutely
unique.”
Ùmar also had the unique distinction of having his views confirmed by the
revelation in the Holy Qur’an. It is narrated that Ùmar used to approach the
Prophet and give his opinion on matters, and then the Quran would descend upon
the Prophet confirming the opinion of Ùmar. And in other instances, Ùmar asked
the Prophet to ask Allah for Quranic verses on certain issues which Ùmar and the
people wanted clarification on; it would not then be long before Allah revealed
verses to the Prophet clarifying the matter brought up by Ùmar.
The Prophet respected Ùmar’s Companionship so much that he would marry his
daughter, Hafsa bint Umar. Therefore, Ùmar had the honor of being the Prophet’s
father-in-law. It should be noted that both of the Shaikhayn (Abu Bakr and Ùmar)
were given this honor of being father-in-law to the Prophet.
Ùthman bin Affan
Ùthman bin Affan was known as the “The Man of Two Lights” for the honor
bestowed upon him by the Prophet. Ùthman was reknowned for his generosity and
he thereby acquired the title of “Ghani” meaning “Generous.” He was the third of
the four Rightly-Guided Successors of the Prophet and third of the Ten promised
Paradise.
The Prophet said about Ùthman: “Every Prophet has an assistant, and my assistant
will be Ùthman.”
The Prophet appointed Ùthman with the great and noble task of being an emissary
to the Quraish infidels of Mecca. When Ùthman went to the Quraish, they detained
him for days without informing anyone of it. When the Muslims in Medinah did not
hear back from Ùthman, they thought he had been killed by the Quraish. This
outraged the Muslims and, without exception, all of the 1,400 Muslims present
pledged that they would stand firm together to avenge Ùthman’s murder. After
everybody had taken the pledge, the Prophet placed his own right hand on his left
hand and took the pledge on behalf of Ùthman.
Ùthman was extremely wealthy and generous. When he heard the Prophet say:
“Whoever equips the army of al-Ùsra, Paradise is for him,” he brought the Prophet
a thousand gold dinars which he poured into his lap. The Prophet picked them up
with his hand and said repeatedly: “Nothing shall harm Ùthman after what he did
today.” It is also narrated that equipped the army of al-Ùsra with seven hundred
ounces of gold, or seven hundred and fifty camels and fifty horses.
Ùthman provided two hundred camels for the impoverished army of the Muslims
complete with saddle blankets and reins. Moreover he distributed thousands of
dinars (currency at that time) for the welfare of Islam. Prophet Mohammad said of
this: “O Ùthman! Allah has forgiven you your previous sins as well as your future
sins, what you have hidden, as well as what you have made public and whatever is
until the Day of Judgment.”
The Prophet said: “The most truthful in his modesty is Ùthman.”
One day, Ùthman knocked on the Prophet’s door, to which the Prophet said to
another companion present: “Admit him and give him the glad tidings of entering
Paradise.”
The Prophet climbed Mount Uhud with Abu Bakr, Ùmar, and Ùthman. The
Prophet declared: “Be firm, O Uhud! For on you there are no more than a Prophet
and a Siddeeq (truthful person) and two Shaheeds.”
Àli said: “Ùthman was one of those who were ‘mindful of their duty and [did]
good works, and again [were] mindful of [their] duty, and [believed], and once again
[were] mindful of their duty, and did right. Allah loves those who do good.’”
referring to a verse in the Quran.
The Prophet said of Ùthman: “whoever is with him is on the side of rightfulness.”
The Prophet thought of Ùthman as having such good character that he gave two of
his daughters in marriage to Ùthman. First, the Prophet married Ruqayyah to
Ùthman, but she died of an illness, and thereafter, the Prophet gave Ùthman his
other daughter, Umm Kulthoom. For this honor of having married two of the
Prophet’s daughters, Ùthman was honored with the title of “the Man of Two
Lights.”
Àli ibn Abi Talib
Àli was lovingly referred to by the Prophet by the nickname of “Abu Turab.” He was
the Prophet’s standard-bearer in battle, the Door of the City of Knowledge, and the
most judicious of the Companions.
The Prophet declared that Àli was the “possessor of a wise heart and enquiring
tongue.”
In one battle, the Prophet said: “I shall give the standard to a man (Àli) who loves
Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah loves and also His Messenger.”
The Prophet likened Àli to Haroon, saying: “Are you not happy to stand next to me
like Haroon next to Musa, save that there is no Prophet after me?”
The Prophet said: “I am the city of knowledge and Àli is its gate.” Another version
states: “I am the house of wisdom and Àli is its gate.”
The Prophet said: “Anyone whose protecting friend (mawla) I am, Àli is his
protecting friend.” Ùmar said: “Congratulations, O Àli! You have become the
protecting friend of every single believer.”
The Prophet said: “Àli is part of me and I am part of Àli!”
Some people complained to the Prophet about Àli, whereupon he stood and said:
“Do not accuse Àli of anything!”
The Prophet said to Àli: “Verily Allah shall empower your tongue and guide your
heart.”
The Prophet said: “Whoever harms Àli harms me.”
The Prophet loved Àli so much that he honored him in the same manner that he
honored Ùthman, by giving Àli a daughter of his in marriage. Not only this, but
the Prophet loved Ali so much that he declared Àli’s family to be an honorary
member of his family (i.e. Ahlel Bayt) alongside his own family.
Conclusion
The Shia will bring up Hadith such as the one in which the Prophet calls Àli his
“Mawla” (protecting friend) but then they should also look for similar Hadith about
other Sahabah. For example, the Prophet said to Ùmar: “If there were to be a
prophet after me it would be Ùmar ibn al-Khatab.” And to take it one step further,
you will not find a Sunni who tries to use this Hadith about Ùmar to prove Ùmar’s
superiority to Abu Bakr. The reason we cannot do this is that we should look at all of
the Hadith instead of taking one out of context. Therefore, the Shia claim that such-
and-such Hadith proves Àli’s superiority to the other Three Caliphs is a very
myopic view of things and is easily refuted by looking at the other Hadith in which
other Sahabah are praised in a similar fashion.
Al-Islam.org Admits that Umar Married Ali’s Daughter
One of the most troubling events in history for the Shia propagandists to deal with
or rationalize is the marriage of Umm Kulthoom, Ali ibn Abi Talib’s daughter, to
Umar ibn al-Khattab. After all, why would Ali marry his daughter off to a man who
supposedly killed Fatima in the “Incident of the Door”? Does it make sense that any
righteous man would marry off his daughter to the very man who killed that girl’s
mother?
Because of this inconsistency, the modern Shia polemecist has adopted the policy of
simply denying that this marriage ever took place. Shia propaganda sites (including
Answering-Ansar, the Shia Encyclopedia, and Shia Chat) have toted this line,
claiming that the marriage between Umar ibn al-Khattab and Umm Kulthoom bint
Ali is simply a lie, a concoction of “Nasibi propaganda.” And yet, in two articles have
we refuted this idea: Ali Gave His Daughter to Umar and A Comprehensive Rebuttal
of Answering Ansar’s Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah. In both of those articles,
we showed how this “modern” view of Shia propagandists conflicts with the Shia
Hadith literature, the classical Shia texts, and the Shia scholarship throughout the
ages.
Shia Website, Al-Islam.org, Admits the Marriage
The most reliable and popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, has a section for fatwas
entitled “Aalim Network”. These Shia Aalims refute Answering-Ansar, the Shia
Encyclopedia, and Shia Chat by clearly stating that Ali ibn Abi Talib did in fact
marry his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh of
the “Aalim Network” stated:
Al-Islam.org says
“ [’Aalim Network QR] Silence of Imam Ali (AS)

Aalim: Mohammad Soleiman-Panah
Question:
…if Ali (s) was against Omar he would not have let his daughter marry Omar’s Son…
Is the above…TRUE?
ANSWER:
…As to the issue of marriage…if anyone wants to use this kind of events against
more basic idea he must know that first of all it was Omar himself who married Ali
and Fatemeh’ (AS) daughter, Ume Kulsum. Secondly When Omar asked Imam’s
(AS) permission to marry her, Imam (AS) refused and said she is too young for
marrying him. Omar swore ” wa Allah-e I do not seek her for what you may think, I
seek her because I heard the holy prophet (SA) saying ‘get closer to me by being
close to my family. I want to be closer to him by marrying his granddaughter.”
Whatever his true intentions were - perhaps a political gesture for the chilly political
climate of the time when everybody knew that Ali (AS) did not let them to be present
in the Salah to Fatemeh’s (SA) body and her burial, or making confusion among the
public and generation to come, or perhaps a call of conscience of guilt for what he
has done to Fatemeh (SA)- Imam (AS) must have had good reasons for
agreeing to the marriage.
source: Aalim Network, http://www.al-
islam.org/Organizations/Aalimnetwork/msg00166.html ”
So, Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh’s only explanation is that surely that
“Imam [Ali] must have had good reasons for agreeing to the marriage.” (What those
reasons are is unclear, but surely, they must have been “good reasons.”) And he also
states that Ali at first rejected Umar’s proposal, but then later accepted it out of
force. Again, the Shia scholars portray a very cowardly image of Ali, saying that he
was bullied into marrying his own daughter to a supposed murderer (i.e. the man
whom the Shia claim killed Ali’s wife and unborn child). If a Sunni were to kill a
Shia man’s wife and unborn child, then demanded that he be married to his
daughter, how many Shia men today would accept this? Even a man with the least
bit of courage and integrity would not allow this, so why would anyone accept this of
the Lion of Allah, namely Ali ibn Abi Talib?
It may be that some Shia propagandists and youths will refuse to accept that Al-
Islam.org, the Aalim Network, and such a respectable Shia Aalim, all accept this
marriage as a fact. They might protest to the words “I believe it is also wrong” which
were used in the fatwa. It should be noted that the Aalim is saying that he believes
using this event to prove something is wrong, not that this event didn’t take place.
Indeed, a follow-up question was asked to the same scholar, as follows:
Al-Islam.org says
“[’Aalim Network QR] Silence of Imam Ali(AS)- Follow-up

Aalim: Mohammad Soleiman-Panah
Salaamun alaykum,
The follow-up question below on the marriage of the daughter

of Imam Ali (AS) to Omar was answered by Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh.
Wasalaam,
Mustafa Rawji
Acting Moderator,ABDG-A
QUESTION:
I read in the Shia Encyclopedia that Omar did not marry Ume Kulsum. Now here a
Learned Aalim is giving a different Answer. Now I am confused what is right and
wrong. Could someone further elaborate this?
ANSWER:
…As far as the discrepancy between my reply and the Shia Encyclepedia - Which is a
respectful text- is concerned, I’d like you to know that what I said concerning the
marriage of Omar with Um-e Kulthum is not based on my personal historical
research , I relied on the work of Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi ” Life of Fatemeh
Zahra(SA)” Pp.263-265. Dr. Shahidi is in my opinion the most distinguished
contemporary Shia Historian, and I know of no contemporary Shia historian to be
more reliable than him, but at the same time we all may make mistake. I have no
basis to challenge Shia Encyclepedia, but if I have to choose between Dr. Shahidi’s
work and Shia Encyclepedia, I believe it is safer to choose former in the case of
discrepancy. However this by no means takes way from the value of the Shia
Encyclepedia which is a great work and I have relied on it in many cases (may God
rewards those responsible for it’s compiling).
Having said this, I like to call your attention to the fact that in my response I
intended to argue that even in the case of such marriage it cannot be used as a sign
of agreement of Imam Ali (AS) with Omar’s Khilafa.
source: Aalim Network, http://www.al-
islam.org/organizations/AalimNetWork/msg00168.html ”
Shaykh Mohammad Soleiman-Panah clearly states that the “the most distinguished
contemporary Shia historian” (Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi) said that the marriage
between Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar ibn al-Khattab did in fact take place.
Although he admits that the Shia Encyclopedia is generally a good tool, in this case
it is wrong, and that the more reliable opinion amongst the Shia scholarship is that
the marriage did indeed take place. Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Panah also states
that the Shia historian, Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi, is so reliable that “no
contemporary Shia historian [is believed] to be more reliable than him.” Is this not
in contradiction to what the Shia polemecist sites have claimed, namely that the
marriage is only “Nasibi propaganda”?
It should be noted that the Aalim Network of Al-Islam.org is one of the most
authoratative fatwa sites on the internet, comparable to Islam-QA, Ask-Imam, or
Sunni Path for Sunnis. Now it is upto the Shia lay-person to either accept the
authoratative word of his top scholars or to be fooled by the propagandists amongst
the Shia youth who themselves are lay-persons and change their faith if only to
strengthen their polemical stance.
A well-respected Shia scholar, Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Panah, answered this

question. Perhaps the Shia propagandists will try to question his authority by
quoting the scholar’s own modesty on the issue, but it should be noted that Al-
Islam.org itself calls him a “Shaykh” as well as an “Aalim”, such as here:
http://al-islam1.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00063.html
It is therefore an established fact, by both Sunni and Shia scholarship, that Ali
married his daughter to Umar. It is upto the reader himself to decide whether or not
he would like to accept the confusing Shia paradigm that Ali married her off to a
supposed murderer out of force and “for good reasons”, or rather to accept the more
sensical position of the mainstream Muslims which is that Ali married his daughter
to Umar because Ali thought of Umar as a God-fearing and honorable man. Not only
did Ali marry his daughter to Umar, but he named his son after Umar and also after
Abu Bakr and Uthman. Indeed, the marriage proves that Ali approved of the
Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) and refutes the imaginary tales of the Shia. We
implore upon our Shia brothers to cleanse their minds of the programming and
brain-washing of their Ayatollahs. No rational and fair-minded person could, in the
modern day and age, accept such non-sensical fairy-tales.
The following fatwa is found on the Official Website of Grand Ayatollah

Muhammad Shahroudi (http://www.shahroudi.net/) He is one of the Maraje’ (top
scholars) of the Shia, and he teaches at the Islamic Seminary at Qum. Not only this,
but here he admits that there are authentic Shia Hadith which prove that the
Infallible Imam of the Shia would curse the Prophet’s wives after each prayer, five
times a day. So how can the Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact that cursing
the Prophet’s wives is a part of their faith?
Please note how the Grand Ayatollah allows the cursing but it must be done in such
a way as not to reveal the Taqiyyah that is being done in front of the Sunni masses.
Perhaps this will wake up those Sunnis who are fooled by the Shia lies when they say
that they do not curse the Prophet’s wives or Sahabah. This comes from the mouth
of the Grand Ayatollah himself.
All of the quotes on this page are found on the following page off of the Grand
Ayatollah’s website:
‫ هل يجوز لعن بعض اُمهات المؤمنين مثل السيدة عائشة لمعصيتها للرسول ولخروجها على إمام زمانها وإلعالنها‬: 50 ‫سؤال‬
‫العداء ألميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب(عليه السالم) سواء بالتصريح باالسم علنا ً أو‬
Question 50: Is it permissible to curse some of the Mothers of the Believers, such as lady
Aisha for her disobedience of the Prophet, declaring war upon the Imam of her time, and
showing enmity towards Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly
with her name or implicitly?
‫ يجوز لعن ك ّل من أعلن العداء ألميرالمؤمنين أو الزهراء أو األئمة(عليهم السالم)فكيف بمن ظلمهم وحاربهم إالّ مع‬: ‫الجواب‬
‫خوف تلف النفس وقد ورد أنّ اإلمام الصادق (عليه السالم) كان يلعن ثمانية بعد ك ّل صالته (أربعة من الرجال وأربعة من النساء‬
).
Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir al-
Mu’minin (Ali), al-Zahra, or the Imams. And why not after the oppression (they faced) and
the fighting against them? Except (do not curse them) if there is fear of being harmed. And
it is also mentioned that Imam al-Sadiq (a.s.) used to curse eight (of them) after all his
prayers.
) ‫ أحببت السؤال عن مقطع اللعن الوارد في زيارة عاشوراء وأخص بالذكر هنا لعن األ ّول (أبي بكر ) والثاني ( عمر‬: 51 ‫سؤال‬
‫والثالث ( عثمان ) هل هو جزء من الزيارة وقد ورد عن المعصوم(عليه السالم) ؟ أم أنه خارج عنها ولم يرد على لسانه (عليه‬
‫السالم) ؟ وهل كان األئمة من آل البيت(عليهم السالم)يجيزون اللعن الثالثة ويعتبرونه أمراً يثاب المرء عليه ؟‬
Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Dua’s
of the Ziyarat of Ashura, and I talk in particular about the cursing of: the First (Abu Bakr),
the Second (Umar), the Third (Uthman). Is it part of the Ziyarat and has it been reported
by the Infallible (a.s)? Or has it been rejected? And did the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt allow
the cursing of these three and did they say the person who does it is rewarded?
‫ نعم اللعن جزء من زيارة عاشوراء ويكرر مئة م ّرة وقد صدر اللعن من األئمة (عليهم السالم) وليس لعن الظالمين‬: ‫الجواب‬
‫ نعم الب ّد أن يكون اللعن غير مناف للتقية‬. ‫ بل الروايات في ذلك متواترة‬، ‫مختصا ً بزيارة عاشوراء‬.
Answer: Yes, cursing is permissible in the Ziyarat of Ashura. Repeat it hundreds of times.

It has been reported that the Imams cursed and this was not just the cursing of the
oppressors of Ashura, but repeatedly (others as well). And this is found in a lot of similar
Hadiths. And yes, the cursing must not be done in a matter to reveal the Taqiyyah.
source: http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm# %‫أعداء‬20%‫من‬20%‫التبري‬
‫هللا‬20
Hadith About the (Non)Incident of the Pen and Paper [A Sunni Perspective]
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds.
Introduction
The Shia propagandists make a big fuss over the so-called “incident of the pen and
paper” or what they ominously refer to as “Black Thursday”. The Shia exaggerate
about the Hadiths on this topic, and use them as some sort of proof against Umar
ibn al-Khattab. However, the truth of the matter is that these claims are nothing but
the melodramatic antics of the Ghullat gossipers who seek to make a mountain out
of an anthill. In this article, we shall examine said event in an objective and
reasonable manner, after which we will respond to the Shia accusations.
An Overview of the Incident of the Pen and Paper
The Prophet’s last illness before his final departure from this world lasted around
two weeks. During this time, the Prophet’s condition gradually deteriorated and he
became bedridden. He experienced a high grade fever, severe headaches, and even
fainting spells, slipping into and out of consciousness. The so-called “incident of the
pen and paper” occurred four days before the Prophet’s death, on a Thursday.
The Prophet asked for a pen and paper in order to write down some religious advice
for the Muslims. However, immediately after asking for the pen and paper, the
Prophet fainted and became unconscious. While the Prophet lay unconscious, a man
got up to get the pen and paper, but Umar ibn al-Khattab called him away from
doing that. Umar felt that they should not bother the Prophet by asking him to write
down religious advice, but rather they should allow the Prophet to regain
consciousness, get some rest, and recuperate. Therefore, Umar said to the other
Muslims: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah
is enough for us.”
Umar ibn al-Khattab thought–and rightfully so–that the request for a pen and paper
no longer applied now that the Prophet had fainted. Instead of getting the pen and
paper, Umar felt that they should allow the Prophet to rest. However, some of the
Sahabah felt that they should get the pen and paper anyways, and that they should
implore the Prophet to write for them; these people said: “Bring him (the writing
material) so that Allah’s Messenger may write a document for you and you would
never go astray after him.”
Some of the Sahabah felt that they should let the Prophet rest and ask him for
religious advice later; others felt that they should have the Prophet write
immediately after he came back to consciousness. This led to a dispute amongst the
Sahabah, and they began arguing loudly. It was then that the Prophet awoke from
his state of unconsciousness, amid loud noises and great clamor. The Prophet had a
splitting headache, so this racket upset him greatly. It was due to this loud bickering
that the Prophet told those in the room to “go away” and to leave him alone.
Simple Explanation
It is amazing how much drama the Shia propagandists can create, and how easily
they can misguide people. The explanation to this event is so simple and
straightforward that it is very strange that the Shia do not understand this! All that
we must do is ask the Shia to correlate the event to their own lives, which more often
than not makes impotent their arguments. Ask a Shia for example if he would
tolerate a man cursing his wife, and he would say no; then we wonder why they
themselves curse the wife of the Prophet! Likewise, when it comes to the incident of
the pen and paper, we ask them to correlate the event to their own lives.
Let us consider the following scenario: a teacher is giving a lesson to his student,
and he asks his student to bring a piece of chalk to write with on the chalkboard. But
then the teacher faints and collapses. Now tell us: is the student going to walk
outside the room to find the piece of chalk? Would any sane person do that?
Instead, the student would quickly rush to the teacher’s side, try to resuscitate him,
bring him a pillow, raise his legs, etc. Now, when the teacher regains consciousness,
would the student immediately thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand and say
“teach us!” Surely not! Instead, the school nurse would be rushed into the room, the
teacher would be transported to the medical unit, and the teacher would be given a
medical leave for the day in order to rest. Even if the teacher insisted that he was
feeling better and that he could resume the lesson, the others would convince the
teacher that he should take the day off and rest instead.
Now then, let us say that one of the students in the classroom is worried about his
exam the next day, so he tries to thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand as soon as
the teacher is regaining consciousness. What would the other students say to such a
student, other than get angry at him and tell him to stop worrying about his own self
but rather worry about the condition of the teacher? The students would tell him not
to worry about the lesson and that “the textbook would be sufficient for us to study
from for the exam.”
Can anyone imagine a teacher fainting, then regaining consciousness, and

immediately writing on the chalkboard with a piece of chalk? Tullaab al-ilm
(students of knowledge) do not even approach their Shuyookh (scholars) when they
(the Shuyookh) are tired or sleepy, as this is considered rude to pester them at such
a time. Even if the Shaykh insists on teaching, the student will say out of courtesy
that “you should rest, Shaykh, and we can do the lesson tomorrow.” This is common
etiquette; now imagine the situation when a Shaykh would be lying on the bed
unconscious; would any student ask him to give a religious lesson in such a
condition?
After the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he immediately fainted and it is then
that Umar told the people not to get those things as the Prophet was in great pain. It
would be, in Umar’s opinion (and ours as well), criminal to pester the Prophet in
such a situation. The people were exhorting the Prophet for advice even as he was in
between fainting spells. Any doctor alive today would say that if a patient is in and
out of consciousness, then such a patient should be stabilized first and under no
circumstances should the patient be making speeches, straining himself, or taking
stress of any kind; such a patient should rest.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s final illness lasted eleven days during which he was
hospitalized. His Shia followers emptied out his hospital room and did not trouble
him with the concerns of the state. No man was allowed to disturb him or pester
him, even though the political situation at the time very much required the input of
the country’s leader. How is it then that the Shia would like their Ayatollah
Khomeini to be treated with more courtesy than the Prophet of Allah? Surely the
Prophet is superior to any Ayatollah, and if the Ayatollah should not be disturbed
during his final illness, then surely we are even more cautious with the Prophet of
Allah.
To give a simple everyday example, if a man asks his son to give him the T.V.
remote, but has a heart attack immediately after saying that, then the son would
think that the heart attack takes precedence over and cancels the request for the
remote. Instead of giving the remote, the son would rush to his father’s side.
Common sense dictates that the Prophet’s request for the pen and paper does not
apply any more, as the fact that he fainted takes precedence over that request. If the
Prophet was in good health, and asked for a pen and paper but the people refused
him, then that situation would be different. But here, the Prophet fainted after his
request and that changed the situation altogether.
This is such a straightforward matter that it sometimes boggles the mind how the
Shia can create so much outcry over this so-called “incident” of the pen and paper.
Anyone who was in Umar ibn al-Khattab’s shoes would have said the same thing as
he did, evidenced by the many everyday examples we have cited above.
Umar’s Concern for the Prophet’s Wellbeing
During his final illness, the Prophet suffered from severe pain, an intense fever,
splitting headaches, and fainting spells. In spite of his medical condition, the
Prophet of Allah was an altruistic individual who did not care about himself, but
rather his attention was still focused on guiding the Muslim Ummah.
From a medical standpoint, the Prophet was recommended strict bed-rest and a
tension free environment. Instead of following this, however, the Prophet was
adamant about helping the Muslim Ummah, even if it worsened his own condition.
We read:
Despite his illness, the Messenger of Allah was not distracted from his command of
Allah and the defense of His religion.
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.167)
In the same book, Tabari writes how the Prophet organized military expeditions
from his deathbed. There were times in the last few days when the Prophet was
barely able to talk but he would still instruct his generals, ordering them on military
campaigns against the false prophets (Tulayhah, Musaylimah, etc.) and apostate
renegades in Yamaamah, Yemen, etc. Not only did the Prophet provide military
instructions, but he also gave religious advice. The Muslims would come to the
bedside of the Prophet, asking him for advice, which the Prophet would give despite
his intense pain.
Umar ibn al-Khattab was the Prophet’s father-in-law, and as such, he too was very
worried about the Prophet’s health and wellbeing, more so than the Prophet was
worried about himself. In his final few days, the Prophet was having a difficult time
talking, for it caused a great deal of pain to do that. We read:
When the Apostle’s illness became severe, he (i.e. a Sahabi) and the men came down
to Medinah and he went into the Apostle(’s house) who was unable to speak. He (the
Prophet) began to lift his hand towards heaven and then bring it down upon him,
from which he (the Sahabi) knew that he (the Prophet) was blessing him (the
Sahabi).

A similar thing is narrated in Tareekh al-Tabari (Vol.9, pp.178-179), in which the
Prophet was unable to speak due to the unbearable pain associated with that. This is
the context which is missing from Shia narratives. It should be noted that it was on
Thursday when the Prophet’s condition worsened incredibly such that the people
said that the signs of death were manifest on his noble face. When a group of
Sahabah were gathering around the Prophet asking him for advice on matters, the
Prophet asked for a pen and paper so that he could dictate a few pieces of advice for
them.
The perceptive reader should consider that on Thursday the Prophet was in more
intense pain than ever before, and it is likely that the Prophet asked for a pen and
paper because he was having a hard time speaking loudly and instead he wished to
softly dictate what to write to the people closest to him so that they could convey the
written message to the others. We see that it was at this point in time that the
Prophet was having unbearable pain and could not talk without unbearable
discomfort; it was for this reason that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished that the Prophet
would not talk as it would cause him unnecessary pain. This was a sign of love and
affection, not of rebellion or opposition. We read:
Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to
leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, Umar ibn al-Khattab
being one of them. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: “Come, I may
write for you a document; you would not go astray after that.” Thereupon Umar
said: “Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply
afflicted with pain. You have the Quran with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient
for us.” Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: “Bring
him (the writing material) so that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) may
write a document for you and you would never go astray after him.” And some
among them said what Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense
and began to dispute in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him),
he said: “Get up (and go away)” Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: “There was
a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise, Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for
them.”
Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted the people to leave the Prophet alone because he was
very sick and talking was very painful for him.
Umar Did Not Dispute With the Prophet

When the Prophet asked Ali (may Allah be well-pleased with him) to erase
something during the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Ali refused to do so and disputed with
the Prophet about that. On the other hand, Umar did not dispute with the Prophet:
when Umar said what he said, the Prophet was actually unconscious. It was the
other Sahabah that Umar was addressing when he said: “The Prophet is seriously ill
and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”
Umar felt–and we agree with him on this–that the Prophet’s request was no longer
applicable due to the fact that the Prophet fell unconscious. This is not a matter of
disobedience but rather it is simply Umar’s Ijtihad that the request was no longer
applicable in this new situation (i.e. the Prophet was now unconscious).
Furthermore, Umar’s position was based out of his deep love for the Prophet, as
Umar hated to see him in pain and distress.
The Prophet Fainted According to Shia Sources
The point that most Shia propagandists never wish to mention is the fact that the
Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. Perhaps some of them would
try to deny this, but we find that it is written in their own books. Shaykh Mufid, the
classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:
He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow
which possessed him.
He remained unconscious for a short time while the Muslims wept and his wives
and the women and the children of the Muslims and all of those present raised great
cries of lamentation. The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at
them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after
which you will never go astray.”
Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.
“Go back,” Umar ordered him.
(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)
From this account it is very clear how dire the Prophet’s situation was. The Prophet
kept fainting and he was into and out of consciousness. Immediately after the
Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he fainted. This is a key point that the Shia
propagandists do not mention! It was only after the Prophet fainted that Umar ibn
al-Khattab said to the people (not to the Prophet) that bringing a pen and paper was
no longer appropriate. The Shia propagandists portray the matter as if the Prophet
said something and then Umar refused the Prophet on his face. Far from it! The
Prophet asked for the pen and paper, but then he fainted; it was after the Prophet
fainted that Umar felt that the Prophet’s request no longer applied in the changed
circumstances.
From Shaykh Mufid’s account of the event of the pen and paper, one thing is very
clear: the Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. When the Prophet
regained consciousness, he awoke to a room full of bickering and quarreling people.
When Umar told the man not to bring the pen and paper, this was during the time
the Prophet was unconscious. Therefore, Umar was not talking back to the Prophet
or anything of the sort. The Prophet was unconscious during this time and the
people did not at all refuse the Prophet’s order to his face. The Prophet awoke to the
noise and chaos of their arguments amongst each other, and this is what angered
the Prophet. When the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he was conscious, but
the situation and circumstance had–according to Umar ibn al-Khattab–changed
when the Prophet fainted and became unconscious.
Shia Slander Against Umar ibn al-Khattab
The Shia propagandists claim that Umar said that the Prophet was talking nonsense
or that he asked if the Prophet was delirious. Yet, this is a blatant and manifest lie!
In absolutely no Hadith did Umar ibn al-Khattab say these words. The event is
narrated in multiple Hadith, including in Sahih Bukhari (4.52.288, 5.59.716,
4.53.393, 7.70.573, 1.3.114) and Sahih Muslim (13.4014, 13.4015, 13.4016). Yet, not
in a single version–neither in the Sahihayn nor in any other Hadith compilation for
that matter–are any such words ascribed to Umar ibn al-Khattab. It is only the Shia
who make such claims that it was Umar who said that, but we demand them to show
us the proof, and they can never do that, namely because Umar never said such a
thing nor has such a thing ever been ascribed to him (aside from Shia books).
Umar’s only explanation for refusing the Prophet’s order was that the Prophet was
in a great deal of pain and that he (Umar) wished to ease the Prophet’s pain and
burden.
What Was Meant By “Delirious”?
It is the phrase “he is delirious” that the Shia propagandist will use against the Ahlus
Sunnah. Before we decide who said those words, let us be clear what was meant by
the words “is he delirious?” Some of the Shia get overly emotional over the word
“delirious”; in actuality, the meaning of the word “delirium” is simply “disturbance
of consciousness”. In the United States, psychiatrists rely on the DSM-IV-TR
classification scheme; we find that–according to DSM-IV-TR criteria–“disturbance
of consciousness” is the core feature of delirium. Delirium can–and oftentimes is–
associated with other symptoms such as hallucinations; however, this is not always
the case and in fact frequently is not the case. These other symptoms such as
hallucinations are merely associations, but they are not the core feature of delirium.
In fact, delirium does not have a psychiatric etiology, but rather it is classified as an
“organic” or “physiological” condition. One of the commonest causes of such a
disturbance of consciousness is a high grade fever. Patients who suffer from high
grade fevers will oftentimes have clouding of consciousness, and this is what is
known as delirium, irrespective of any other associations that may or may not be
present. In other words, the one who is in a state of delirium is not considered a
lunatic or a psychiatric nut, but rather a patient suffering from a severe medical
condition of a biological–not psychiatric–origin.
If we look at the definition of the word used in the Hadith, we find:
hajara; yahjuru; hajran; hijranan; ahjara :- To desert, forsake, leave, renounce,

abandon
tahajara; ihtajara :- To depart from one another, separate, or forsake one another;
become alienated
(source: Wortabet’s Arabic - English Dictionary)
In the context of the Hadith, the word was used in the sense of someone who leaves
or departs from his original state of mind; more specifically, it referred to a person
who is separating from the people and this world, as in losing consciousness. In
other words, the man who asked “is the Prophet delirious” did not mean that the
Prophet was talking nonsense or that he had gone crazy. Instead, the man was
simply asking if the Prophet was conscious or not, and we know from Shaykh
Mufid’s description of the event that the Prophet was unconscious.
The words “is he delirious” appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows:
…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).”
In the above narration, someone asked “is he delirious?” By this, he meant “is he in
a state of altered consciousness?” In Sahih Muslim, we read:
The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on
Thursday), and he said: “Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that
you may not go astray after me.” They (the Companions around him) disputed, and
it is not right to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: “How is
(Allah’s Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him
(this point).”
And once again:
…He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
“Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink pot), so that I write for
you a document (by following which) you would never go astray.” They said:
“Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of
unconsciousness.”
The man who asked this question was simply wondering if the Prophet was
conscious or not. He did not mean to imply any disrespect. And that is why the man
said “ask him (to understand his state of consciousness)” and “try to learn from him
(this point)”. This is a clear proof that the man did not mean that the Prophet was
talking nonsense, because if that were the case, then there would be no point in
asking the Prophet that. Medical practitioners and psychiatrists say that those who
suffer from psychosis (i.e. a break from reality, hallucinations, etc.) do not have
“insight” into their illness: they themselves will not admit that they are “crazy”. This
is common sense: one does not ask a person who is talking nonsense if they are
talking nonsense.
The man said “ask him” and “try to learn from him” which means that he wished for
them to see if the Prophet was conscious. In the medical world, doctors routinely
use the “Glasgow Coma Scale” (GCS exam) in order to test for the patient’s level of
consciousness. The GCS exam is done by asking the patient various questions to see
if he responds, and his responses confirm his level of consciousness. In plain
English that means that to check if a man is conscious or not, the best thing to do is
to ask him if he is OK. In fact, this is the first step of CPR: in order to check if the
patient is conscious or not, the first thing that is done is that the person is asked “are
you OK?” If he responds, all is well; if not, CPR maneuvers are begun.
To conclude the matter, the Shia should not get overly emotional over the word
“delirious”, because all that was meant by this is “consciousness” or lack thereof.
And it was Shaykh Mufid himself who said that the Prophet was unconscious during
this time. He wrote in his book (emphasis is ours):
He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow
which possessed him. He remained unconscious for a short time…The Apostle of
Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and
parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”
Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.
“Go back,” Umar ordered him. “He is delirious.”
The man went back. Those present regretted the dilatoriness (they had shown) in
bringing ink and parchment and rebuked each other. They used to say: “We belong
to God and to Him we will return, but we have become anxious about disobedience
to the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family.”
When he (the Prophet), peace be on him, recovered consciousness…
This narration found in one of the Shia’s most reliable books is the end of the debate
altogether. Based on this narration above, we find that the order of events was:
1) The Prophet asked for a pen and paper.

2) Next, the Prophet fainted.
3) After that, a man got up to get the pen and paper.
4) Umar ordered him not to. (This Shia book attributes the word “delirious” to
Umar but we know this part to be incorrect, as it was someone else who said that.)
5) The statement “he is delirious” is said.
6) The people bickered.
7) Only then did the Prophet recover consciousness.
From this account it becomes clear that the words “is he delirious” were said when
the Prophet was unconscious (i.e. before he recovered consciousness)! Does an
unconscious person talk? Surely not! This is the coup de grâce to the Shia argument,
and so whenever a Shia creates a ruckus about the words “is he delirious”, then we
direct him here. If the words “is he delirious” were said while the Prophet was
unconscious, then there is no issue of “nonsense talk” as an unconscious person
cannot talk let alone talk nonsense. On the other hand, understanding the word
“delirium” to be be a disorder in consciousness makes total sense; a man who is
slipping into unconsciousness is said to be “departing” (hajara) from the people and
this world.
To conclude the matter, the man who asked the question “is he delirious” meant to
ask about the Prophet’s level of consciousness, and nothing more. He did not say it
in a sarcastic or demeaning tone, but rather he was asking a sincere question. This
man cannot be blamed for that any more than the Shia’s own Shaykh Mufid can be,
for both of them were indicating that the Prophet had slipped into a state of
unconsciousness.
Who Asked If the Prophet Was Delirious?
In any case, it was not Umar who asked that question to begin with. The Ahle Ilm
say that the man who asked the question was a new convert to Islam. The Shia
would demand textual proof of this claim (i.e. that it was a new convert who asked
this), and to this, we would have to admit that there is no such proof that we can
provide. The reason we cannot provide such a proof is that the Hadiths do not
mention at all who said those words! Instead, they simply say that “some said”
without mentioning who these people were. However, this is a proof against the
Shia claims: there is no way they can claim that it was Umar who said that; if they
say that, then where is their evidence for that? There were so many people in that
room at the time, and it is unfair to accuse Umar of saying that.
In fact, the truth is that if it was Umar who said such a thing, then the narrator
would have mentioned this. Whenever the narrator mentioned something Umar
said, he did so by name. We read:
Umar said, “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of
Allah is enough for us.”
And yet, when the narrator mentions the Prophet being delirious, suddenly he
switches to using the term “some said”:
Some said, “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious?”
Had it been Umar who said that, then the narrator would have said that. It does not
make sense for a narrator to say “Umar said this, and then someone said this” if he
is talking about the same person. If it had been Umar who said that, then it would
have been clearly mentioned that he is the one who said that. The methodology of
the narrators and the compilers of Hadith was that they would note down the names
of important personalities (i.e. the row-echelon amongst the Sahabah) whereas they
would use general terms (i.e. “they”, “some”, etc) to describe lesser important
figures. Therefore, had it been Umar who said such a thing–or any other leading
Sahabi–-then he would have been taken by name.
The truth is that an unbiased reading indicates that it was not at all Umar who asked
if the Prophet was delirious, and nowhere–except in the Shia imagination–have
these words been attributed to him. Umar refused to bring the Prophet a pen and
paper for no other reason other than the fact that he felt that the Prophet was very
sick and it hurt him to speak; this was a mercy to the Prophet, and not at all an
insult as the Shia claim.
Ali Had Lost His Senses According to the Shia?
The Shia create a very big outcry over the words “is he delirious.” Let us analyze
whether or not their indignation is over those words or rather simply over who said
them. In the famous Sharh Nahjul Balagha, we read a Shia narration in which Ali
ibn Abi Talib was wounded and bleeding; Ali ordered his son, Abdullah, to rub his
cheek on the ground (i.e. in order to stop the bleeding). According to the Shia, when
Abdullah heard this request, he thought that his father had lost his senses and
he refused the request. We read the following Shia narration:
When the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) was wounded, people turned aside from him. He
(Ali) was spattered all over with blood and he had not offered his morning prayers
(yet). He was told: “Prayer, O Amir al-Mu’mineen!”
He (Ali) raised his head and said: “A person who missed his prayer has no share in
Islam!” Then he stood up with a jerk and blood gushed out of the wound. He said:
“Give me a piece of cloth.” He wrapped it around the wound, offered his prayer and
remembered Allah; then he spoke to his son Abdullah: “O Abdullah, rub my cheek
on the ground.”
Abdullah says:
“I did not do it. I thought he had lost his senses! He (Ali) repeated the same
thing: ‘My son, rub my cheek on the ground.’ I did not do it again. He (Ali) repeated
himself the third time, (saying): ‘Why don’t you rub my cheek on the ground?’ Now I
could see that he was in his senses. He himself could not do it out of pain and
weakness. I touched his cheek to the ground. I saw the outer hairs of his beard; they
were clogged with dust. He cried until the dust gummed onto his eyes.”
(Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn abi al-Hadid)
Is not the Shia anger over the word “delirious” a bit pretentious when we find that
Ali’s own progeny, one of the Ahlel Bayt, says that their first Infallible Imam “has
lost his senses?” It is clear from this narration that the meaning behind these words
was that Abdullah had thought that his father had gone crazy; Abdullah thought that
Ali was making an absurd and nonsensical request.
The Shia believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib was infallible just as the Prophet was; as such,
should they not create an outcry over one of Ali’s own sons asking if he had lost his
senses? Why do the Shia excuse Ali’s son, Abdullah, but then they spit their venom
at Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly saying something similar? In fact, the words
“is he delirious” are much less offensive than “he has lost his senses.” It should be
remembered that the Shia have a very high opinion of Abdullah who is the son of
their Infallible Imam; therefore, whatever excuse they come up for Abdullah for
what he said, then surely the same excuse can be applied to the man who wondered
if the Prophet was delirious.
The perceptive reader should note that the Sunnis never bring up this Shia Hadith
to malign Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him). It is not in the nature of the
Ahlus Sunnah to backbite and slander, especially not the great heroes of Islam. And
yet if this same narration was in reference to Umar instead of Abdullah, then we
would find the Shia using it as some sort of “proof” against Umar! We would find
the Shia propagandists poking at us with sticks and asking quizzically: “What did
Umar mean by saying that ‘he lost his senses?’” Such is the double-standard of the
Shia. This is the two-faced nature of the disingenuous Shia, a people who specialize
in being partisan and biased.
The Prophet’s Family Forced Him to Take Medicine
The Shia propagandists malign Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly “disobeying”
the Prophet’s orders, despite the fact that he (Umar) did so out of love for the
Prophet. And yet, it was around that same time period (i.e. during the Prophet’s
final days) that the Ahlel Bayt (including Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and the Prophet’s
wives) would also “disobey” the Prophet out of love for him. The similarities
between the two incidents will surely cause the Shia to rethink his position.
As the Prophet’s condition worsened, his family was gathered around him and
demanded that he take medication for his illness. But the Prophet categorically
refused to do so, and forbade his family members–including Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and
his wives–from giving him any sort of medication. And yet, these relatives of the
Prophet disobeyed his direct order and chose instead to forcibly administer
medication to the Prophet. It was their opinion that the Prophet was being negligent
in taking care of his own self, namely because his noble nature was to worry about
others without any care for himself. In any case, the Prophet was so angered by this
gesture that he punished them by making them drink the medication themselves.
Here, we narrate a few of the narrations about this incident:
All of his family–his wives, his daughter [Fatima], al-Abbas, and Ali–gathered
(round him). Asma said “This pain of his is nothing but pleuritis, so force him to
take medicine.” We did so, and, after he had recovered, he inquired who had done
that to him.
Then he (the Prophet) came down and entered his house and his pain increased
until he was exhausted. Then some of his wives gathered around him, Umm
Salamah and Maymoona–and some of the wives of the Muslims (among them
Asma)–while his uncle Abbas was with him, and they agreed to force him to take
medicine. Abbas said, “Let me force him,” but they did it (instead). When he
recovered, he asked who had treated him (with medication) thus. When they told
him it was his uncle…he (the Prophet) asked why they had done that..when he asked
why they had done that, his uncle said: “We were afraid that you would get
pleuritis.” He (the Prophet) replied: “This is a disease which Allah would not afflict
me with. Let no one stop in the house until they have been forced to take this
medication (i.e. as a punishment)”
They agreed to force him to take medicine. Al-Abbas said, “Let me force him,” and
the (the Messenger of Allah) was forced.
We (the Ahlel Bayt) forced the Messenger of Allah to take medicine during his
illness. He said not to force him, but we said that the sick man does not like
medicine. After he recovered, he (the Prophet) said: “Let not one remain in the
house until (everyone of you) has been forced to take this medicine…”
When they said that they were afraid that he (the Prophet) might have pleuritis, he
(the Prophet) said: “It is from Satan and Allah would not inflict it on me.”
If the Shia would like to take offense at the idea of the Prophet being called
“delirious”, then would they also like to take offense to the idea that he would be
afflicted by a disease from Satan? Would any Shia like to criticize the Ahlel Bayt for
disobeying the Prophet here? Instead, the Shia–like ourselves–say that those of the
Ahlel Bayt were simply worried about the Prophet’s wellbeing more than even the
Prophet was worried about himself. Their so-called “disobedience” was out of love
for the Prophet and there can be no blame on them for that. Likewise, Umar asking
the Prophet to rest cannot possibly be construed as something blameworthy.
What Was the Calamity?
Ibn Abbas referred to the incident of the pen and paper as a “calamity”, yet we must
analyze on what basis he did that. Did Ibn Abbas refer to the event as a calamity
because of Umar’s refusal to give the pen and paper? This is what the Shia claim, but
it is not based on an unbiased reading of the text. What we find is that Ibn Abbas
referred to the incident as a calamity not due to Umar’s refusal but rather due to the
fact that the Sahabah were bickering with each other in front of the Prophet. This is
a very important distinction to make; what the Shia do is conflate issues in order to
superimpose a Shia understanding to the text. We read:
Ibn Abbas came out saying, “It was most unfortunate (a great calamity) that Allah’s
Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their
disagreement and noise.
Ibn Abbas said himself:
“The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ
before a prophet.”
Why Did the Prophet Say “Go Away”
Similarly, the Prophet got angry and told the people to leave not because Umar
refused him a pen and paper, but rather because the people started arguing and
bickering in front of him (i.e. the Prophet). We read:
When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah’s Apostle said,
“Go away!” Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn Abbas used to say, “It was very unfortunate
that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because
of their disagreement and noise.”
Near the end of his life, the Prophet was having severe headaches, and the noise
from the disagreement of the people hurt the Prophet’s head. We read:
During his illness, the Prophet of Allah asked for a pen and paper. Since he was then
undergoing the intensity of his illness, Umar intervened to say that he must not be
put in any trouble for the Quran is enough for us all as he has already said. But some
of the companions were in favor of letting him dictate. The Prophet disliked the
clamor of voices and asked the people to leave. At the time, he was
suffering from a violent headache and this was the reason why Umar had
suggested not to trouble him in any way. When his (the Prophet’s) pain had
subsided a little, he called the people in and [narrated three things]”

And so it was the clamor of the voices which exacerbated the Prophet’s headache,
and this was what the Prophet became angry over, not Umar’s refusal. It was after
all, not Umar’s refusal which worsened his headache but rather the loud noise of
bickering which did that. We read:
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.”
The Prophet himself explains the reason why he got angry which was (in his very
own words): “Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should
quarrel in front of me.” Notice that the Prophet was angry at their bickering
with each other, not the fact that Umar refused to give him a pen and paper. The
Prophet did not say “go away” when Umar refused the pen and paper, but rather he
said “go away” when the people started quarreling amongst each other. It is
important to catch the Shia propagandist on this point. We read:
When they indulged in nonsense (talk) and began to dispute in the

presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: “Get up (and go
away)” Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: “There was a heavy loss, indeed a
heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise.”
The Muslims began to quarrel with each other even before the Prophet passed away.
Their ranks were already becoming disunited, and as soon as the Prophet died, there
would be even greater schisms and civil wars. Allah has warned this Ummah against
such a thing in the Quran, and this is what worried the Prophet: the people arguing
in front of him was a proof to him that his Ummah would schism into so many
groups and sects.
A very important point to ponder upon is that the Prophet said “go away” to
everyone in the room, not just to Umar or those who wished to deny him the pen
and paper. The Prophet said “go away” to even those who wanted to give the
Prophet a pen and paper. This is a very strong proof that the Prophet was angered
by them all, and he was angry at them for bickering amongst each other. Had the
Prophet been angry only at those who sought to deny him the pen and paper, then it
is nonsensical to think that the Prophet would say so angrily “go away” to those who
wished to fulfill his request.
Logically, if the Prophet had wanted to convey a message, then he should have said
“go away” to those who were preventing him from that, but he should say “stay” to
those who wished to fulfill his request. What prevented the Prophet from simply
saying “go away Umar” or “go away” to the group which was denying his request?
Instead, the Prophet said “go away” to both parties, condemning them all for
arguing with each other. Indeed, we find that both of the parties left the room, and
the Prophet did not end up writing for them those words. If the Shia paradigm were
true, then the Prophet should have been pleased with those who wished to fulfill his
request, but instead the Prophet was angry with them for bickering.
Was the Prophet Appointing Ali ibn Abi Talib as His Successor?
The Shia propagandists claim that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper so that he
could write his will in which he would supposedly appoint Ali as his successor. They
accuse Umar of preventing the Prophet from doing that.
Answering-Ansar says
“The Prophet requested writing materials near the end of his life to give his last
instructions to the Muslim Ummah, but was prevented from doing so by a group
among the Companions.
source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/index.php ”
If the Prophet was really going to write a will appointing Ali as his successor, then
why didn’t the Prophet do that before his death? The event of the pen and paper
happened on a Thursday, whereas the Prophet died on a Monday. The Prophet had
more than three days to write such a will, and yet he did no such thing; no Sunni or
Shia source indicates that the Prophet wrote this will in the three days after the
event of Thursday. The Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing
about Ali in his will, so we wish to ask: was Umar ibn al-Khattab with the Prophet
24/7 for three days straight? Of course not. We know that this is not the case, and
even Shia narratives tell about how Ali and a few close family members were with
the Prophet alone in his final days. And yet, the Prophet did not write any such
document in his last three days.
What prevented the Prophet from writing this will to Ali during those three days
after the event of Thursday? What is interesting–and a point that negates the Shia
claims completely–is that Ali himself never claimed that the Prophet was writing a
will for him. No reliable Sunni or Shia account exists in which Ali ever mentions the
“event of Thursday” as a proof for his Caliphate. Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu
Bakr as well as the Caliphate of Uthman, and in both instances he and his advocates
brought forth certain proofs as to why he (Ali) should be the Caliph over them (i.e.
Abu Bakr and Uthman). And yet, never did Ali mention the incident of the pen and
paper; surely if it is as the Shia claim it was, then Ali and his party would have
mentioned that day of Thursday as a strong proof for Ali’s claim to the Caliphate,
and yet the Hadith and historical literature is devoid of any such references in the
lifetime of Ali.
The truth of the matter is that the Prophet did not say what it was that he wished to
write on that day, and nobody knows what it was, so why and how do the Shia claim
that they know what it was? The matter is part of al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knowledge
of which is denied to humanity, so whoever claims to know with certainty what that
information was can only be a liar and/or fool. Today, we see how the Shia claim
that the matter was the appointment of Ali, and yet how can they know what the
matter was when the Prophet never mentioned it, nor did Ali, Abbas, Ibn Abbas,
Hasan, or Hussain ever claim to know what it was!
If Ali knew that the Prophet wrote a will in his favor, then why did he not use this as
a proof for his Caliphate? When Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and
Uthman, he (Ali) brought forth many proofs to bolster his claims against the two,
and yet never did he mention any will to be written in his name. We find that the
Shia narrative is based on pure guesswork: what basis do they have to claim that it
was the appointment of Ali? Why couldn’t we claim that that the Prophet wanted to
write down something else such as the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power) or
even the appointment of Abu Bakr? If the Shia insist that the Prophet was going to
write his will in favor of Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that in actuality it
was for Abu Bakr? There is no proof either way. If the Shia bring up proofs, then we
too have our proofs, such as the nomination of Abu Bakr as Imam of the prayers!
Another interesting point is that the Shia say that Umar sought to prevent the
Prophet from writing a will in favor of Ali. We wonder: how would Umar know what
the Prophet wished to write on that day when in fact this knowledge was part of al-
Ghaib (the Unseen)? Not even Ali knew what the Prophet wished to write on that
day, so how could Umar have known?
“the Prophet requested writing materials near the end of his life to give his last
source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/chap1.php ”
What prevented Ali from giving the Prophet a pen and paper in the last three days of
his life? The Prophet had the entire rest of Thursday to write that will, as well as the
next day (Friday), the next day after that (Saturday), and the day after that
(Sunday). And yet, where is that mysterious will? Why didn’t the Prophet write it?
Let us assume that the Prophet wished to write a will in favor of Ali so that the
people would never be misguided about that. Then wouldn’t the Prophet be
misguiding the people by not writing that will? A written will in favor of Ali would
have ended all debate on the issue of Caliphate and served as a strong proof for Ali’s
Imamah, and yet we find that no such will was ever written, so who should the Shia
blame other than the Prophet for not writing that will? If the duty was placed on the
Prophet’s shoulders to will the leadership to Ali, then it was the Prophet who failed
to do that, and it was Ali who failed to beseech the Prophet to write that will in the
last three days of his life. Indeed, the Prophet gave much advice in those three days,
and he advised many things on those three days–even up until his last breath–yet
the Prophet never returned to talk about the matter of Thursday. Why not?
Were Umar and some of the other Sahabah preventing the Prophet from writing this
will? Was the Prophet a prisoner of Umar and his associates for an entire three days
before his death? Were Umar and his associates standing guard over the Prophet
near the end of his times, such that he (the Prophet) could not write the will even
through the span of over seventy-two hours? And yet, we know that this is the not
the case, since the Prophet was alone with his family members many times during
the course of three days. What prevented the Prophet from writing the will in that
time, and then giving it to Ali? And yet we find that Ali never produced such a will,
nor claimed it, nor used it as a proof for his Caliphate. If the will was necessary to
ensure the Caliphate of Ali, then it was the Prophet’s fault for not writing it and Ali’s
fault for not beseeching the Prophet to write it. We seek Allah’s Mercy from such
blasphemy.
Was the Prophet living in fear of the Sahabah, who were preventing the Message
from being delivered by the Messenger? Again, we seek Allah’s Mercy from such
blasphemy. It is a central belief of Islam that the Prophet delivered the Message in
full, and that no human being could prevent him from doing his divine duty.
Throughout the Prophet’s life, his enemies from amongst the Kufaar and the
Munaafiqoon sought to prevent the Prophet from delivering his message, but Allah
commanded the Prophet to never fear them and to deliver the message in full. And it
is our Islamic belief that the Prophet was successful in his mission and he delivered
the message in full, and he dutifully discharged his mission as a Prophet and
Messenger.
At this point in time, it would be appropriate to discuss a very major inconsistency

in the Shia narrative. The Shia claim that Ali was nominated by the Prophet at
Ghadir Khumm, and they claim that verse 5:67 was revealed then:
Al-Islam.org says
“Prophet [s] was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where he and the crowd of
people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm…In this place, the following verse of
the Qur’an was revealed:
“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you
don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you
from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)
The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of
the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to
worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.
Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali as the leader of
the Muslim ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of ‘Ali and said:
“For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).”
source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm ”
Let us accept this fairytale of the Shia as being factual. In that case, we find that the
Prophet wished to appoint Ali at Ghadir Khumm, and yet the Sahabah (such as
Umar) were against that, but then Allah revealed verse 5:67 saying:
from the people …”
(Quran 5:67)
Al-Islam.org added to this that “the last sentence in the above verse indicates that
the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message
but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.”
And so, the Shia narrative goes, the Prophet pronounced Ali as the leader of the
Ummah despite the protestations of the people, for had he failed in that, then he
would not have delivered Allah’s Message at all.
In a very similar incident, the Shia say that the Prophet wished to write his will in
favor of Ali’s leadership on the event of Thursday, but he was prevented from that by
the people. We read:
What a major inconsistency! At Ghadir Khumm, Allah supposedly warned the
Prophet that if he did not appoint Ali, then he would have failed in his mission in
delivering the message, and that he should do this without care for the protestations
of the people. And yet, on the event of Thursday suddenly the Prophet fails to deliver
the message due to the protestations of the people! What happened? Does not the
same verse of the Quran apply? If the matter were the appointment of Ali, then
surely the same verse would apply as it did at Ghadir Khumm. If the Prophet was
appointing Ali in his will and the people tried to stop him from doing that, then how
is this any different than at Ghadir Khumm? Shouldn’t the Prophet have appointed
Ali in his will, despite the opposition of the people, as Allah has said that He would
“protect you (O Muhammad) from the people”?
“as (it) is unambiguously manifest by the Prophet’s (s) pointing out that the
instructions to be written would prevent the Muslim Ummah from ever going astray
after him if the instructions were obeyed.
We find that the Shia narrative is slander against the Prophet, as it is accusing him
of failing to deliver Allah’s Message because of the people’s protestations. If the
appointment of Ali was something which would have saved humanity from being
misguided, then why did the Prophet fail to do that just because a handful of people
such as Umar ibn al-Khattab wished to prevent that? Answering-Ansar has an entire
chapter entitled “the consequences of the pen and paper incident” and in it, these
Shia propagandists discuss how the Prophet’s failure to write the will was
responsible for misguiding the Ummah! It was the Prophet’s task to do that, and he
had at least three more days to do that (from Thursday to Monday), and yet he did
not do that. Therefore, based on the Shia logic, it is the Prophet who was–Allah
forbid–the reason for the misguidance of the Ummah, as he failed to deliver Allah’s
message.
Now let us read the words of the Shia scholar, Dr. Al-Tijani (emphasis is ours):
Dr. Al-Tijani says
“I found myself bewildered by Umar’s behaviour regarding the order of the

Messenger of Allah. And what an order it was! “To prevent the nation from going
astray”, for undoubtedly that statement would have had something new in
it for the Muslims and would have left them without a shadow of doubt…the
Messenger wanted to write the name of Ali as his successor, and that Umar realized
this, so he prevented it.
”
We agree with Dr. Al-Tijani and the Shia propagandists on the idea that whatever
the Prophet wished to write was indeed something “new” and that this knowledge
was withdrawn just as the knowledge of the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of
Power) was withdrawn. Well, if this information was “new” as Dr. Al-Tijani claims,
then we ask: what would be “new” about appointing Ali as Caliph? The Shia claim
that Ali was appointed as Caliph of the Muslims at the event of Ghadir Khumm,
which preceded the event of Thursday. If the original appointment of Ali was at
Ghadir Khumm, and if the Shia believe that he was to be appointed again by the
Prophet during the pen and paper incident, then how is this a statement that “had
something new in it for the Muslims” as Dr. Al-Tijani claimed, for it had nothing
new but was the exact same thing which was supposedly revealed at Ghadir
Khumm.
This leads us to another interesting question, which is: what was the significance of
Ghadir Khumm, which the Shia say was witnessed by hundreds of thousands? Was
this not sufficient as an appointment? Herein lies another gaping Shia
inconsistency: the Shia claim that Ghadir Khumm was the greatest proof for Ali
since the Prophet nominated Ali in front of over a hundred thousand Muslims. They
argue that this event would make it impossible to deny the Imamah of Ali or to be
misguided about that, yet now the Shia claim that without the piece of paper to be
written on Thursday, the people would forever be misguided about this matter.
Dr. Al-Tijani says
“I think the majority of the Companions were with Umar, and that is why the
Messenger of Allah found it useless to write the document, because he knew that
they would not respect him and would not abide by the command of Allah by not
raising their voices in his presence, and if they were rebellious against the command
of Allah, then they would never obey the order of His Messenger.
”
The idea that the Prophet thought it “useless” to convey the Message is
blasphemous. Allah says in the Quran:
“If you (o people) shall turn away (from the Message), then the sole duty of the
Messenger is to deliver the Message.”
(Quran, 64:12)
And Allah says further:
“But if they are averse (to the Message), We have not sent you (O Muhammad) as a
watcher over them. Your duty is only to convey (the Message).”
(Quran, 42:48)
The Prophet would be sinning if he were to fail to deliver the message due to the
protestations of the people, for Allah warns:
from the people …”
(Quran, 5:67)
The Shia propagandists say that the Prophet did not write the document for one of
two reasons (and both reasons are furthered by them): (1) The people prevented him
from doing that; and (2) The Prophet was angry at them for their insubordination.
Let us analyze each of these claims individually. The first position means that the
Prophet was in violation of verse 5:67 (and others as well) for he failed to deliver the
Message for fear of the people (i.e. that they physically prevented him from
conveying the Message), despite the fact Allah reassured the Prophet that he would
be protected from the people. And we know from the Seerah of the Prophet that he
never failed to deliver any religious message out of fear or intimidation: when the
Prophet declared the Message of Islam, the Quraysh Mushrikeen persecuted him
and even tried to have him killed. Yet, this did not deter the Prophet from delivering
the Message. So how can the Shia say that our dear Prophet failed to write some
religious advice for fear or due to physical intimidation? The Shia say:
How can the Shia claim that the Prophet failed to complete his mission because
people prevented him from doing that? Do these Shia not realize how blasphemous
of a thing this is to say? Ironically, this is saying something similar to the accusation
that the Prophet was talking nonsense in his delirium; just as it violates the Quran
to claim that the Prophet spoke nonsense, likewise it flouts the Quran to claim that
the Prophet failed in delivering the Message because of the people’s protestations.
As Muslims, we believe that the Prophet was infallible when it came to delivering
the Message, and this means that he could never talk nonsense when delivering that
Message nor could he be prevented by anyone–be it by intimidation or force–from
delivering the Message without fail.
It is interesting to see that Answering-Ansar has quoted a verse of the Quran which
damns them (emphasis is ours):
“
Surah al Maidah verse 92 “Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be
warned thatthe Prophet’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly” …
Allah commands the Muslims in the Qur’an to obey Allah - unconditionally - and
furthermore to obey the Prophet - once more, unconditionally.
In that very verse quoted by Answering-Ansar, we find that Allah commands the
Prophet that his only task is to deliver the Message clearly. It is not proper for a
Prophet to hide information from the people simply out of fear of them or because
he is angry with them, for then he would not be fulfilling his duty of conveying the
Message clearly, but rather the Prophet would be guilty of having “not delivered His
Message (at all).” (Quran, 5:67) Dr. Al-Tijani has argued that it would have been
“useless” for the Prophet to deliver his Message, and yet the Quran has repeatedly
said that even if the people reject the Message, then it does not affect the Prophet
whose only job is to deliver the Message, even if “they are averse (to the Message).”
(Quran, 42:48)
The Prophet could not at all be prevented by anyone from delivering the Message
and we fear Allah from uttering such blasphemy; now then, let us move on to the
next claim, which is that the Prophet did not write the message out of anger towards
the people for their insubordination. Once again, we find that the Quran condemns
such a thing, not only for Prophet Muhammad but for all Prophets. Let us recall the
story of Prophet Yunus (Jonah), who was commanded to convey the Message to his
people, but he got frustrated by his people because they wouldn’t heed his religious
advice. And so, Prophet Yunus decided not to convey the Message to them any more
as he thought it useless, and instead he stormed off in anger. Yet, we find that Allah
chastised him in the Quran for this. We read:
“And remember Yunus, when he went off in anger; he imagined that We had no
power of him! But he (Yunus) cried out in the darkness: ‘There is no God but you;
glory be to You. I was indeed wrong!’”
(Quran, 21:87)
So we find that it is not right for the Prophets to fail to deliver the Message to the
people, no matter how frustrating the people are. When Prophet Yunus did that,
Allah chastised him and punished him. And the Shia say that Prophet Muhammad
was infallible and above any mistakes (and they even go to the extreme in this), so
how can the Shia claim that the Prophet failed to deliver the Message out of anger?
The eighth Imam of the Shia, Imam Reza, said in an authentic Shia Hadith:
“The believer’s anger will not deviate him from the right path.”
(Chechel Hadith, p.123, http://smma59.wordpress.com/tag/hadithguidence-of-

ahlulbayt/)
How is it then that the Shia accuse the Prophet of having deviated from the right
path which was to deliver the Message? We find that it does not befit the Prophet to
say that he failed to write the document out of fear, or by force, or due to anger.
Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Document?
The idea that the Prophet didn’t write the document because the Sahabah prevented
him is false; nobody could prevent the Prophet from delivering his Message.
Instead, the reason the Prophet did not write the document was that the people were
bickering amongst themselves and because of that, Allah removed the Baraqah
(blessing) from that. This is similar to what happened when the Prophet was about
to inform the people about the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power). We read:
Narrated Ubada bin As-Samit:
The Prophet came out to inform us about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but
two Muslims were quarreling with each other. So, the Prophet said, “I came out to
inform you about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but such-and-such persons
were quarreling, so the news about it had been taken away; yet that might be for
your own good, so search for it on the 29th, 27th and 25th (of Ramadan).”
It should be remembered that the date of Laylat al-Qadr is considered something

that would have led Muslims into Paradise, and the knowledge of that would have
saved many people from Hell-Fire. Imam Malik said:
Allah’s Messenger looked back at the previous communities and saw that his
community lived for a much shorter period in comparison to them. He was
concerned about how his community would be able to gain as many rewards as
those of the previous communities. So when Allah the Exalted saw the concerns in
the heart of His Beloved, then he (the Messenger) was given Laylat al-Qadr, which is
more virtuous than a thousand months.”
(Muwatta of Imam Malik)
An entire chapter of the Quran is entitled “Al-Qadr”, in which Allah says:
“We have indeed revealed this (Message) on the Night of Power. And what will
explain to you what the Night of Power is? The Night of Power is better than a
thousand months.”
(Quran, 97:1-3)
The Prophet said:
“Whoever stood in prayer on Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power), in faith and
hoping for a reward from Allah, he will have all of his previous sins forgiven.”
(Narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)
The Prophet said:
“In it (the holy month) is a night better than a thousand months; whoever loses the
benefits of it has lost something irreplaceable.”
(Narrated by Imam Ahmad and An-Nasaa’i)
So we see that this matter is very similar to the issue that the Prophet wished to
write down on the event of Thursday. The words “whoever loses the benefits of it has
lost something irreplaceable” are similar to the words “after which you will never go
astray.” And yet, in both instances, Allah withdrew the knowledge from the people.
When the Prophet saw two people bickering, Allah withdrew the knowledge of
Laylat al-Qadr because by that time, the Baraqah (blessing) in that knowledge had
passed. Similarly, during the incident of the pen and paper, the time for that
knowledge had passed and the Baraqah (blessing) had been removed from it.
Because of that, the Prophet did not write for them the document.
It should be noted that–like the date of Laylat al-Qadr–the denial of this knowledge
“might be for your own good”, and this is based on our understanding that Allah
does all things for the betterment of humanity. When Prophet Adam violated Allah’s
Command by nearing the tree, Allah banished him and his wife from Paradise. The
Christians argue that this was a punishment from God, and yet this is not an Islamic
belief; Muslims believe that Allah forgave Prophet Adam and his wife, and that the
banishment from Paradise was not a punishment but a necessary chain of events
through which Allah wished to enact His Divine Plan. In the longterm, the
banishment of Prophet Adam from Paradise was a mercy upon him and was for his
own betterment.
Ibn Kathir says:
Some people believe that the reason why mankind does not dwell in Paradise is that
Adam was disobedient and that if it had not been for this sin, we could have been
there all along. These are naive fictions because when Allah wanted to create Adam,
He said to the angels, “I shall make a vicegerent on the earth.” He did not say, “I
shall make a vicegerent in Paradise.”
Adam’s descent on earth, then, was not due to degradation but rather it was
dignified descent. Allah knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree and descend
to earth. He knew that Satan would rape their innocence. That experience was
essential for their life on earth; it was a cornerstone of their vicegerency. It was
meant to teach Adam, Eve, and their progeny that it was Satan who had caused
them to be expelled from Paradise and that the road to Paradise can only be reached
by obedience to Allah and enmity to Satan.
(Qisas al-Ambiya, Ibn Kathir)
On its surface, the banishment from Paradise seems like something negative, but in
the longterm there was great benefit in this. It gave Prophet Adam the opportunity
to seek repentance, and in that is a great reward. The Shia commentators of the
Quran have even said that the Paradise that Prophet Adam and his wife were
banished from was not the “true Paradise”, and that by being banished, Prophet
Adam and his wife were given the opportunity to work hard to enter the “true
Paradise”. We read:
Pooya/Ali Commentary 2:35
According to many a tradition, it was not the perpetual heavenly garden. The garden
referred to here was an area of expansion, comfort and ease, everything that was
needed and desired was available without toil and effort…
Pooya/Ali Commentary 2:38
Now to enter the real paradise, going back to the land of eternal bliss, man must
use his intelligence, and make a choice of the right path shown by Allah through the
guidance He has made available to man in this world of opposite forces.
It should be noted that the strongest opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah is to refrain
from commenting on the nature of the Paradise from which Prophet Adam was
banished from. But all sides agree that what happened was for the longterm benefit
of Prophet Adam who was able to reach a higher status thanks to his “dignified
descent” to earth. By seeking repentance and attaining good deeds in this worldly
life, Prophet Adam would reach a higher status on the Day of Judgment. In other
words, Allah “banished” Prophet Adam for two reasons: (1) to teach Prophet Adam a
lesson, and (2) for his own betterment in the longterm.
To put forth an everyday analogy, if a teacher assigns extra homework to a student

because he failed his exam, then perhaps the student would perceive this as a sort of
a punishment. However, the reality is that the teacher is actually assigning extra
homework to the student for his own benefit so that the student can get more
practice and become a more successful person in life. “Punishing” the student with
extra homework will serve two functions, both of which benefit none other than the
student himself: firstly, the student will study harder for his next exam so that he
doesn’t fail that, and secondly, he will get much needed practice from the extra
homework. To bring this analogy even closer in line with the Hadith of the pen and
paper, let us assume that the teacher is going to give the students an answer to one
of the questions in their homework; but the students are rowdy so the teacher tells
them that she will not give them the answer to that question any more. The students
might think that they will now lose out on this information, but the teacher knows
that there is a great benefit in this, because the students will be forced to go through
their books in order to find the answer for themselves. In that process, the students
will acquire much more knowledge than if the teacher had simply blurted out the
answer to them. Additionally, the students will not be rowdy in the future, which
will help them pay attention to the teacher’s future lessons.
The same is the case with the date of Laylat al-Qadr. Allah withdrew the knowledge
of it to teach the people a lesson (which was to refrain from bickering and disunity);
additionally, it was for their own benefit that this knowledge was withdrawn. The
benefit was of course that the people would pray all night long on many nights as
opposed to just one, and therefore it was for their own betterment. If the Prophet
had disclosed the date of Laylat al-Qadr, then the people would only pray all night
long on that one day, instead of praying all night long on many days. Despite the
fact that knowledge was withdrawn from us, it was for our own benefit, since man
has been made weak; had we known the date of Laylat al-Qadr, we would have
harmed ourselves with that knowledge, in the sense that we would abandon prayer
on other nights.
Likewise, we believe that it was for our own betterment that Allah and His
Messenger withdrew knowledge during the incident of the pen and paper. It is
written in Fath al-Bari by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar that it is likely that the
knowledge in that document would have been too burdensome on the Muslims, and
caused many of them to apostatize. And so it was for the betterment of the Muslims
that the Prophet refrained from conveying this to them. Something similar has been
narrated in Sahih Bukhari, in which knowledge was withdrawn from the people for
fear that they would become too lax in their ways:
Anas bin Malik narrates:
…the Prophet said: “There is no one who testifies that none has the right to be
worshiped except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah–truthfully
from his heart–except that Allah will forbid the Fire to him.” Mu’adh said: “O
Messenger of Allah, shall I not inform the people and give them the glad tidings?” So
he (the Prophet) said: “No! For they will then depend solely upon it.”
What the Prophet wished to write in the incident of the pen and paper was similar in
the sense that there was some benefit in not writing it. Perhaps it was as Shaykh al-
Islam Ibn Hajar said, that it would have been too much of a burden on the people;
or perhaps it was that the people would have relied too much upon it as the Hadith
above mentions. An alternate view is given in Fath al-Bari that perhaps the
knowledge in that document would have closed the doors of Ijtihad, and so it was a
mercy upon the Muslims that this was not done. Whatever the case, we believe that
there was some benefit in the withdrawal of this knowledge; we do not know the
exact reason why and we can only speculate as to the benefit in that, but we trust in
Allah in that, and we know that Allah does all things for our betterment, and we
know further that Allah’s Messenger would not have denied us such knowledge
unless it was for our good. The Prophet was sent to guide, and he would never have
failed in that.
In conclusion, the Prophet decided against writing the document to (1) teach the
Muslims a lesson, and (2) for their own longterm benefit. The lesson he taught the
Sahabah was very important, namely that they should not bicker and quarrel
amongst themselves. This was a very necessary lesson to convey to the Muslims at
this point in time, because it was immediately after the Prophet’s death that the
Muslim ranks became disunited. It is therefore not all impossible that what the
Prophet wished to write in the document “after which you will never go astray”
could have been about abstaining from bickering and quarreling with each other.
Truly, if the Muslims had not done that after the Prophet’s death, the Muslim nation
would have remained strong and powerful, but instead the Muslims have become
disunited and have thus been led astray.
Additionally, we believe that the prohibition of this knowledge was for the longterm
benefit of the Muslims, much like the date of Laylat al-Qadr was restricted for our
own longterm benefit. Such knowledge may have caused many Muslims to
apostatize. To give a modern day example, the Saudis scholars have chosen to
restrict the knowledge of certain historical sites in Mecca and Medinah. Admittedly,
the knowledge of such places could be of benefit to many Muslims, but many other
Muslims would be led astray by such knowledge, as they would then go to such
places and commit Shirk, as the Shia do. So we see that there is great benefit in
restricting knowledge from the people, and if the Prophet did that, then he had his
reasons and we trust in that.
Playing the Shia Game
On what basis do the Shia say that the Prophet wished to write about Ali in his will?
If the Shia were to claim that, then we Sunnis could easily claim that it was
actually Abu Bakr that the Prophet wished to appoint on that day. How easy is that!
In fact, Imam Nawawi states in his Sharh that Sufyan ibn Uyana said that some of
the people of knowledge stated that the Prophet intended to appoint Abu Bakr as
the Caliph. And then Imam Nawawi states that the Prophet chose to withdrew this
knowledge because Allah’s decree would be fulfilled in a better way. If the Prophet
had appointed Abu Bakr as Caliph over the Muslims, then the masses would have
felt that this was an act of tyranny, as the Arabs of that time were used to
nominating their own leader through mutual consultation and popular sovereignty.
Therefore, argued some scholars, the withdrawal of the knowledge of Abu Bakr’s
appointment was for the benefit of the people, so that they would nominate their
own leader themselves as is more just.
If the Shia claim that the document was about Ali, then what prevents us from
claiming that it was for Abu Bakr? And we have greater proof, because after this
incident, it was Abu Bakr–not Ali–who was nominated by the Prophet as Imam of
the prayers. And we know that it was Umar who began to lead the prayers, when the
Prophet stopped him from that, in order that he (the Prophet) could nominate Abu
Bakr alone to do that. So if the Shia would like to paint the fictitious story that Umar
was preventing the nomination of Ali, then why couldn’t another person claim that
Umar was preventing the nomination of Abu Bakr? The truth of the matter is that
one can claim just about anything. We read in Imam Nawawi’s Sharh:
Qadhi Iyad said: Bakr, the nephew of Abdul Wahid, differed and claimed that he
(the Prophet) specified Abu Bakr, and Ibn Al-Rawandi said that he specified Abbas,
Shia and Rafidhis said he specified Ali; and these are (all) false claims! (These
claims are) impudent forger[ies], and (to say such things is) an audacious obstinacy
against the senses…Neither Ali, nor Abbas, nor Abu Bakr claimed that there was a
will (i.e from the Prophet regarding one of them being a successor) at any point in
time. Ali and Abbas have agreed upon all of this (i.e. that there was no will) without
any obstacle preventing them from mentioning the will had it existed…Had it
happened (i.e. any of the Sahabah claiming a will), it (such a thing) would have been
reported, for it is one of the important matters.
(Sharh of Imam Nawawi)
Some people used this event of Thursday to claim that the Prophet was about to
appoint Abu Bakr, others said it was to appoint Abbas, and others said it was to
appoint Ali. And all of these are baseless claims, because they are all without proof.
What is interesting is that the Qadianis use the event of the pen and paper as a
“proof” for their leader, claiming that this was the document in which the Prophet
was about to appoint Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as his successor. The reality is that one
can claim pretty much anything. The point is that we can easily play the Shia game,
and claim that it was actually Abu Bakr who was to be appointed in that document
the Prophet wished to write. However, the Ahlus Sunnah are an honest people, and
we do not speak about al-Ghaib (the Unseen) with certainty. The strongest position
is that we do not know what the Prophet wished to write in that document, as that
knowledge was denied to us, and everything else is guesswork.
Ali Himself Did Not Know
Tabari writes what happened after the incident of the pen and paper:
Ali ibn Abi Talib went out from the Messenger of Allah during his illness in which he
died. The people asked him: “O Abu Hasan, how did the Messenger of Allah wake
up?”
“By the Grace of Allah he woke up [and he had] recovered [from his illness]”, he
replied.
Al-Abbas held him by his hand and said: “Don’t you see that in three days you will
be an ‘abd al-’asa [i.e. a lowly despicable person]? It seems to me that the
Messenger of Allah will die from this sickness of his, for I know how the faces of
Abdul Muttalib’s sons look at the time of death. So return to the Messenger of Allah,
and ask him who will get this authority (i.e. the Caliphate). If it is to be with us, we
shall come to know that (from him); if it is to be with others, he will command
accordingly and entrust (that person) with us.”
Ali replied: “By Allah, if we asked the Messenger of Allah and he denied it to us, the
people will never give it to us. By Allah, I will never ask the Messenger of Allah.”
(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.175-176)

A few things about this narration. First of all, it is clear that the Prophet recovered,
and yet the Prophet still did not write the document despite the fact that he lived for
at least three more days. Secondly, Abbas attempted to convince Ali to ask the
Prophet who will be entrusted the Caliphate, and he was not sure who the Prophet
would give it to. How then can the Shia claim that the document was to be for Ali,
when not even Abbas and Ali knew who the Prophet would appoint? Thirdly, there
is no correlation between the document and the appointment of the Caliphate.
Abbas asked Ali to inquire about the Caliphate but nowhere does he correlate this
with the document.
The Shia narrative is that the Prophet appointed Ali at Ghadir Khumm, so therefore
if we accept this, then there should be no doubt at all in the minds of Ali or Abbas as
to who the Caliphate would be entrusted to. It is perplexing then that three days
before the Prophet’s death, Ali and Abbas are not sure who the Prophet will appoint.
Perhaps the Shia will not accept the narration from Tabari as a proof, but this same
incident–of Abbas asking the Prophet who will get the Caliphate–is narrated by
Shaykh Mufid in Kitab Al-Irshad:
“If this matter [of leadership] is to be given to us after you, then tell us,” Al-Abbas
asked him. “If you (O Prophet) know that we are to be overcome, then give us the
decision.”
This event took place immediately after the incident of the pen and paper. It is clear
from this quote that Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle whom the Shia revere, is not sure
who will get the Caliphate and has to ask the Prophet about that. This destroys the
Shia argument that Ali was nominated at Ghadir Khumm; if that were the case, then
why is Abbas asking the Prophet who he will appoint after him? And Ali himself was
not sure who the Caliphate would be entrusted to; if he had known that it was to
himself, then he would have–according to his own words–asked the Prophet to
announce that in the three remaining days of his life. The fact that Ali did not press
the Prophet on this matter makes it clear that Ali was not sure if the Prophet would
appoint him or not; if Ali himself was not sure about this, how then can the Shia be
so certain about this?
In fact, the Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing his will in
favor of Ali. But, according to Shia sources, immediately after the incident of the pen
and paper, the Prophet in fact first asked Abbas to be the Caliph! Shaykh Mufid
writes:
When they (the people) had left (the room), he (the Prophet) said: “Send back to me
my brother (Ali) and my uncle (Abbas).”
They sent for someone to call them and he brought them. When he had them sitting
close, he (the Prophet) said: “Uncle of the Apostle of Allah, will you accept my
testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promise, and carry out my religion?”
“Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large
family,” answered Al-Abbas. “You vie with the wind in liberality and generosity. You
have made promises which your uncle could never fulfill.”
Then he (the Prophet) turned to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and said: “Brother, will you accept
my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my religion on my
behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?”
“Yes, Apostle of Allah,” he (Ali) replied.
The Prophet–according to Shia sources–called Ali and Abbas into his room and he
asked Abbas to be the Caliph. So why do the Shia say that Umar wished to prevent
the Prophet from writing the will in favor of Ali? The Prophet gave priority and
preference to Abbas, so the Shia should say that Umar wished to prevent the
Caliphate of Abbas. What a predicament and mess for the Shia! What happened to
Ghadir Khumm, where the Prophet had–according to the Shia–settled the matter of
Caliphate and had entrusted it to Ali? We read various Shia websites saying things
such as:
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says
“Ghadeer Khumm represented the formal appointment and proclamation of ‘Ali as

“leader of the Muslims.” The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his
progeny) went through great lengths to ensure that all the Muslims knew he had
appointed ‘Ali as his successor, and ‘Ali was even congratulated afterwards by some
prominent Companions for his newly announced rank. Once the declaration was
made, Islam had became perfect and complete. With all this evidence from
undisputed Sunni texts, it is impossible to conclude that the Prophet (peace be upon
him and his progeny) did not appoint a successor.
source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf ”
So then why is Abbas confused about the matter even after Ghadir Khumm? How
come he has to ask the Prophet about who will inherit the leadership, even after the
formal appointment of Ali? If the Prophet went to great lengths to ensure the
Caliphate of Ali, then why did he first offer it to Abbas? When the Prophet offered
the Caliphate to Abbas, why didn’t Abbas look at the Prophet incredulously and say
“but you already gave it to Ali!” From this discussion, it becomes clear that the
Prophet had never appointed Ali as his successor, that Abbas and Ali were not sure
what the document was about or who the Prophet would appoint, and that the
Prophet offered the Caliphate to Abbas over Ali.
It should be noted that the Sunnis reject the idea that the Prophet offered the
Caliphate to Abbas or Ali; we are simply establishing the fact that there are too
many holes in the Shia historical narrative, and the holes are so large that jumbo jets
could fly through them.
Where is the Prophet’s Mysterious Will?
It is true that the Prophet exhorted the believers to write their wills in order to
distribute their property amongst their inheritors. To this, the Shia ask us: how is it
possible that the Prophet would command the Muslims to write a will and yet never
write one for himself? We read:
Al-Islam.org says
“Allah has said in His Glorious Book, addressing His revered Messenger (pbuh), “It
is prescribed unto you when death approaches someone to leave something good, a
will (Qur’an, 2:180 and 5:106).”
…There is no doubt in my mind that she [Aisha] must have heard him [the Prophet]
saying: “No believer who knows that he is leaving something behind him should
sleep even two nights without having his will written…”
It does not fit him or any other Prophet, blessings of Allah be upon all of them, to
bid something without doing it himself, or forbid something while doing the
opposite thereof; Allah is above selecting such individuals for conveying His
message.
source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/74.htm ”
The above was written in the famous Shia book, Al-Muraja’at. Hereby the Shia has
shot himself in the foot. The Sunnis believe that the document the Prophet wished
to write on Thursday was not his will at all but rather it was a piece of paper with
religious advice on it. In order to prove their side, the overzealous Shia brings forth
various proofs in order to convince the reader that the Prophet must have wished to
write his will. To back this claim, they provide the Quranic verses and Hadiths about
writing wills. One of the Hadiths they quote, as shown above, is the one in which the
Prophet says:
“No believer who knows that he is leaving something behind him should sleep even
two nights without having his will written…”
And this is what we meant by the Shia shooting himself in the foot! In this Hadith
quoted by the Shia in their famous book Al-Muraja’at, the Prophet says that one
should not sleep even two nights without having a will. Then, O Shia, please explain
why the Prophet slept three nights without writing a will? After the event of
Thursday, the Prophet had three more days to write that will, and yet he never did
that! Why not? If this was truly a Command of Allah to write a will, then was the
Prophet not sinful for abstaining from doing that? Fine, we can excuse the day of
Thursday using the explanation that Umar prevented the will from being written.
But what about Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?
Who was preventing the Prophet from writing the will for those three days? In fact,
we know–from Shia sources–that the Prophet made a recovery during those three
days and also that he was alone with Ali and Abbas during that time. We read:
Ali ibn Abi Talib went out from the Messenger of Allah during his illness in which he
died. The people asked him: “O Abu Hasan, how did the Messenger of Allah wake
up?”
“By the Grace of Allah he woke up [and he had] recovered [from his illness],” he
replied.
And so, after the incident of the pen and paper, the Prophet did recover. So why
didn’t he avail that time in order to complete his obligation to Allah, as the Shia say?
The Shia propagandists are the ones who insist that it was Wajib (mandatory) on the
Prophet to write a will, so why didn’t the Prophet write it in those remaining days
when he recovered?
On Thursday, after the incident of the pen and paper, the Prophet called Ali and
Abbas back into the room, according to Shaykh Mufid. So that was one opportunity
for the Prophet to have written the will and given it to Ali. Then, the very next day
(i.e. Friday), the Prophet had another opportunity to write the will for Ali; the Shia
cannot claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing the will because Ali was
alone with the Prophet throughout the day of Friday! Shaykh Mufid writes:
On the next day [Friday], the people were denied access to him (the Prophet) as he
was seriously ill in bed. The Commander of the Faithful (Ali) did not leave him
except to fulfill some necessities. Then he had to go to attend some of his affairs. The
Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and he missed Ali. His wives were around
him and he said: “Call my brother and my companion.”
…The Commander of the Faithful was summoned. When he was close to him, he
indicated to him to bend down to him. Then the Apostle of Allah spoke privately to
him for a long time. Then he rose and sat down beside him until the Apostle of Allah
fell asleep.
During all this time, the Prophet could have dictated to Ali a will in his name. Then,
Ali could have presented the will to the people as a strong proof for his Caliphate.
And yet, no Sunni or Shia account attests to such a thing. The Shia author of Al-
Muraja’at continues to shoot himself in the foot, saying:
Al-Islam.org says
“He [the Prophet] is above abandoning the will especially after having received
instructions in its regard from his Lord and thus strongly commanded his nation to
do so. Reason does not listen to the claim that no will was made, even if such a claim
comes from a highly respected person.
source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/74.htm ”
This is the weak point in the Shia argument: if Allah had commanded the Prophet to
write a will and he had “received instructions in its regard from his Lord”, then why
didn’t the Prophet use the last three days of his life to fulfill these instructions?
According to the Shia, the Prophet attempted to write the will on Thursday but was
prevented to do so by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Then why did the Prophet simply
abandon his intention after this event, especially since “he [the Prophet] is above
abandoning the will”? If the Shia claims are true, then the Prophet should not have
abandoned the will after what happened, but rather he should have continued with
the plan to write the will in the next three days of his life.
The Shia argument is actually not self-consistent. The Shia claim that written wills
are Wajib (obligatory) therefore the Prophet must have been writing his will on
Thursday. The very basis of their claim is the idea that it is Wajib to have a written
will. But when we ask the Shia where is this mysterious will, then they say that the
Prophet only made a verbal will for Ali. Now then, if this is the case, then the
question is: did the Prophet complete the Wajib requirement? If the Shia say ‘no’,
then the Shia have maligned our Prophet as a sinner. If the Shia say ‘yes’ and if they
claim that a verbal will would fulfill the Wajib requirement, then this collapses their
argument for the need for the written will in the first place! We must remember the
basis of the Shia argument which is that the Prophet must have been writing a will
in that document in order to fulfill the Wajib requirement. Yet suddenly, the Shia
does a complete one hundred eight degree turn by claiming that a written will is no
longer Wajib but a verbal one is sufficient.
The Shia cannot provide any good explanation for why the Prophet never wrote a
will, and why–to this day–no human being alive has seen a will written by the
Prophet. The Shia have been relying on the argument that the Prophet was
prevented from fulfilling this obligation by Umar ibn al-Khattab; but unfortunately,
this argument falls apart when one considers that the event of the pen and paper
took place on Thursday and there were three more days for the Prophet to write
such a will. The Shia explanation can only explain why the Prophet failed to write
the will on Thursday, but it doesn’t explain why the Prophet didn’t write it on
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
On the other hand, the Sunnis rely on a quite simple and straightforward
explanation as to why the Prophet did not write a will: the Prophet did not need to
write a will because he had nothing to give as inheritance. The writing of a will is
only necessary on the one who has something to give as inheritance, as clearly
mentioned in the Prophetic Hadith quoted by the Shia book Al-Muraja’at:
“No believer who knows that he is leaving something behind him should

sleep even two nights without having his will written…”
In fact, Sahih Bukhari has an entire section about how those who do not have
anything to give do not need to write a will. The reason that the Prophet did not
have anything to give as inheritance is because the property of Prophets is given
away as charity. This is based on the principle that the Prophets are a very noble
group and it is above them to hoard wealth but rather it is fitting their nature to give
away their material possessions to charity. The Prophet said:
“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.”
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)
This is confirmed in Shia Hadith:

knowledge.”
(al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
If Allah truly commanded the Prophet to write a will as the Shia say, then the
Prophet was sinful for not doing that. One cannot place the blame on Umar since
that would only explain Thursday, but it does not explain away Friday, Saturday, or
Sunday. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah’s explanation makes more sense,
namely that the Prophet did not write a will because he had no need to do that.
Ali Refuses the Prophet’s Command
The Answering-Ansar website (a Shia propaganda site) has entitled its article
“Obedience to the Prophet” and then writes page after page about the importance of
“unconditional obedience” to the Prophet. We read:
“obedience to the Prophet is unconditional in all circumstances

”
However, we contend that this cannot apply to the given scenario, because Umar did
not directly disobey the Prophet. Instead, he felt that the Prophet’s request was no
longer applicable now that the Prophet had fainted. And even if we accept the idea
that Umar refused the Prophet’s request, then we say that it was done out of sincere
love for the Prophet and nothing else. To give an analogy, would it be appropriate
for a soldier to disobey his commanding officer? Of course not. Yes, we say that a
soldier must unconditionally obey his commander. But let us take into consideration
the following scenario: the commander is heavily injured in the battle, and the
enemy is in hot pursuit. The soldier, however, refuses to leave his injured
commander behind. The commander orders the soldier to leave him behind and go
without him. However, the soldier refuses the order and stays behind with his
commander. The commander repeatedly orders the soldier to leave him behind, but
the soldier says “No, this is a command I cannot fulfill!” In such a scenario, would
anyone accuse the soldier of insubordination or treachery? Far from it! Instead, we
would wish to award such a soldier with a gold medal for his bravery and loyalty.
Likewise, when the Prophet was signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, the Prophet
ordered Ali to erase something, but Ali refused to do that. It was a direct order from
the Prophet, but Ali categorically refused and said that he could not fulfill the
command; Ali put his foot down and said bluntly: “By Allah, I will never erase it!”
Would the Shia now accuse Ali of disobedience to the Prophet, or of
insubordination? Certainly not. The Shia, like the Sunnis, say that Ali refused the
Prophet out of love and respect for him. We read:
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408:
…So Ali bin Abi-Talib started writing the treaty between them. He wrote, “This is
what Muhammad, Apostle of Allah has agreed to.” The (Meccans) said, “If we knew
that you (Muhammad) are the Apostle of Allah, then we would not have prevented
you and would have followed you. But write, ‘This is what Muhammad bin Abdullah
has agreed to..’” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “By Allah, I am Muhammad bin
Abdullah, and, by Allah, I am Apostle of Allah.” Allah’s Apostle used not to
write, so he asked Ali to erase the expression of “Apostle of Allah”. On
that Ali said, “By Allah, I will never erase it!” Allah’s Apostle said (to Ali),
“Let me see the paper.” When Ali showed him the paper, the Prophet erased the
expression with his own hand.
Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction of the e-Shia would be to deny this narration; to deal
with such a claim, we refer the reader to a source considered very reliable to the
Shia. Shaykh Mufid, the eminent Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:
Other things connected with (the expedition to) al-Hudaybiyya are (as follows):
When Suhayl ibn Amir saw them and came towards their position, he begged the
Prophet for peace. Inspiration came down on the Prophet in answer to that, and that
he should make the Commander of the Faithful (Ali) his writer on that day and the
one who would take down the peace treaty in his handwriting.
The Prophet said to him: “Ali, write down: In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the
Compassionate.”
“This is something which is being written between us and you, Muhammad,” Suhayl
ibn Amir intervened. “Therefore begin with something which we accept and write:
‘In your name, O God.’”
The Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful: “Remove what you have written
and write: ‘In your name, O God.’”
“If it was not for the fact that I obey you, O Apostle of Allah, I would not remove: ‘In
the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,’” the Commander of the
Faithful replied. Then he removed it and wrote: “In your name, O God.”
Then the Prophet told him: “Write: This is what the Apostle of Allah and Suhayl ibn
Amir have agreed upon.”
However, Suhayl ibn Amir again intervened, saying: “If I accepted this description
of you in this document which being made between us, I would have admitted
Prophethood to you; otherwise by agreeing to that I would be witnessing against
myself or at least expressing with my tongue. Remove this name and write: ‘This is
what Muhammad ibn Abdullah has agreed upon.’”
“Indeed, by Allah, he is truly the Apostle of Allah despite your arrogance,” said the
Commander of the Faithful (Ali).
“Write his name as the condition which must be carried out,” retorted Suhayl.
“Suhayl, woe on you, cease from your obstinate behavior,” the Commander of the
Faithful said to him.
“Remove it, Ali!” the Prophet ordered him.
“Apostle of Allah,” he said, “my hand will not move to remove your name from
association with Prophethood.”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.81)
Shaykh Mufid says, in no uncertain terms, that “the Prophet ordered him.” It was a

direct order, and Ali ibn Abi Talib refused this command. And to completely end any
doubt about this, the Prophet–according to Shaykh Mufid–gave two orders to Ali.
On the first order (i.e. to remove the words “the Merciful” and “the
Compassionate”), Ali said: “If it was not for the fact that I obey you, O Apostle of
Allah, I would not remove (it).” So Ali didn’t erase these words because that would
be disobedience; but then on the Prophet’s second command (i.e. to erase the words
“Apostle of Allah”), Ali refused to do that. Based on this, it is clear that this is
“disobedience” according to the Shia understanding. The Shia must rethink their
position on “unconditional obedience” to the Prophet. Obviously, “refusal” of a
command out of sincere love for the Prophet is not real refusal nor can it be
construed as real disobedience.
If this Hadith had been about Umar, then the Shia would have been using it as a
proof against him. Should we Sunnis now be like the Shia and refer to this “event” of
Hudaybiyya as the “Hadith of the Eraser” and go on Wikipedia to create an entire
article about it in order to slander Ali? May Allah save us from such misguidance!
Truly, it is clear as daylight that Ali refused to use the eraser out of love for the
Prophet, just as Umar refused the pen and paper out of love for the Prophet. It is
strange how the Shia condemn Umar ibn al-Khattab for the very same action! Umar
said out of deep love for the Prophet: “Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon
him) is deeply afflicted with pain.” This cannot be construed as a proof against
Umar but rather it is a proof for Umar and his sincere love and concern for the
Prophet. Only a biased fool can interpret it any other way.
To this, the Shia propagandist might say that the Prophet was pleased with Ali when
he (Ali) refused to erase those words, whereas he was displeased with Umar after
the incident of the pen and paper. First of all, there is no proof for the latter claim,
as the Prophet never singled Umar out for that. However, even if we accept this
fallacious argument, we then direct the Shia to the incident just before the event of
Thursday, when Ali and Abbas disobeyed the Prophet’s instructions and forcibly fed
him medicine. We have narrated this incident earlier in our article, so the reader is
advised to scroll up for that. Should we Sunnis refer to this event as “the event of the
forced medicine”? In that incident, the Prophet ordered something, Ali and Abbas
disobeyed his command, and the Prophet was so infuriated that he punished those
in the room by forcing them to drink the same medicine.
Based on these two events (the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the force-feeding of
medicine), we find that the Shia have no leg to stand upon when they slander Umar
ibn al-Khattab. Yes, Umar refused a command of the Prophet, but just as Ali and
Abbas did that. This was nothing but a sign of love, and Allah is well-pleased with
them!
The Quran is Sufficient for Us
The Shia propagandists will then criticize Umar ibn al-Khattab for what he said (i.e.
“the Quran is sufficient for us”). The Shia will say that Umar meant by this that
obeying the Sunnah was not necessary. However, this is not a proper understanding
of what Umar was saying. In fact, Umar–throughout his life–stressed the
importance of obeying the Prophet’s Sunnah, so it would be impossible to accuse
Umar of being one of the so-called “Quraniyyoon” or “Munkar-e-Hadith” (i.e.
Hadith rejectors).
The people were pestering the Prophet to give them religious advice, despite the fact
that the Prophet was having a difficult time talking without pain. So Umar was
calling them away from that; in other words, Umar was saying “leave him alone and
let him rest”. And he told them that “the Quran is sufficient”. The Shia imply that by
this Umar meant that the Prophet’s words were useless or not worthy because the
Quran was “sufficient”. However, this is an incorrect definition of the word; the
word “sufficient” means “adequate, enough, meeting the requirement, etc.” What
the Prophet would have told them would definitely be beneficial, and Umar was not
saying otherwise. He was simply saying that the people had enough to survive with,
to make do, etc, such that they shouldn’t bother the Prophet in his time of pain.
A proper analogy of this is if a man wants to give his sons some money. But one of
his sons knows that his father is running low on money, so he says to the rest of his
brothers: “Leave father alone; what we have earned from work is sufficient for us.”
This does not mean that he is scorning the money from his father or that this money
wouldn’t be beneficial; it simply means that what they already have is enough to get
by, such that they should not bother their father for any more.
Of course, the Shia will never be silent until and unless we quiet them ourselves.
They will continue to pester us, criticizing Umar for why he said that the Quran is
sufficient. And they will say “what did Umar mean by that” and other such things.
To end such a discussion, we refer the Shia reader to a Hadith from their own books,
in which their Infallible Imam said the exact same thing that Umar did. We read:
Rayyan says I said to Imam Reza (A.S.) “What do you say about the Quran?” So he
replied “It is the speech of Allah; do not exceed and move ahead of it, and do not
seek guidance from other than it; otherwise, you would go astray.”
(Bihar al-Anwar, Vol.92, p.117,

http://smma59.wordpress.com/tag/hadithguidence-of-ahlulbayt/)
So if the Shia would like to criticize Umar for saying that the Quran is sufficient,
then let them take even more criticism towards their Infallible Imam who said that
we should not seek guidance from any other than the Quran! Umar’s comment was
not exclusive, as in it did not exclude other sources of knowledge; instead, Umar
simply stated that the Quran was enough to survive on. On the other hand, Imam
Reza’s statement is exclusive, stating that whoever seeks a source other than the
Quran has gone astray. Again, whatever blame the Shia put on Umar for his
comment, let them put double blame on their Imam (may Allah be pleased with
him)!
The Prophet’s Anger in Context
Before his death, the Prophet said:
“If I abused any person of my people, or cursed him in anger, then I am one of the
children of Adam: I become angry as they do. He, Allah, has sent me as a mercy to
the worlds. And O Allah, make my anger and abuse a blessing for them on the Day
of Judgment!”
(Sunan of Abu Dawood, narrated from Amr ibn Abi Qurran)
The same speech is mentioned in Ibn Saad’s al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, with the addition
of:
“I am only a human being.”
(al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Saad)
In Tareekh al-Tabari, the Prophet’s speech is recorded as:
“O people, I praise God, the only God, unto you. Now then: Your rights are dear to
me…whomever I have reviled, here is my honor–let him retort! Malice is neither my
nature nor characteristic of me. Indeed, the most loved of you to me is the one who
claims his right from me [if he is the aggrieved party], so that he should absolve me
[from it] so that I shall meet the Lord while I am content. I see that this is not
enough until I stand before you several times [i.e. to emphasize the point] ” …The
Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “Umar is with me and I am with him.”
Referring to that man, the Prophet said: “Follow Umar after me, wherever he might
be.”
Appendix
Having thus discussed the event in detail, let us now analyze the Hadiths in
question, one by one. The event of Thursday has been mentioned in the Sahihayn,
five times in Imam Bukhari’s collection and another three in Imam Muslim’s
collection. Let us examine these eight Hadiths, and comment on each of them. Our
comments are in brackets:
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
Ibn Abbas said, “Thursday! What (great thing) took place on

Thursday!” [1] Then he started weeping till his tears wet the gravel of the ground.
Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah’s Apostle was aggravated and he
said, “Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after
which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter
and people should not differ before a prophet. [2]They said, “Allah’s Apostle is
seriously sick.” The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is
better than what you are calling me for.” The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three
orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts
to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third
(order)”
[1] The Shia wish to indicate that the “great thing” or calamity was because of
Umar’s “rebellion” against the Prophet’s orders. And yet this is not the case, and the
text does not at all indicate this. Ibn Abbas never criticized Umar ibn al-Khattab for
refusing to bring the pen and paper; instead, Ibn Abbas’s complaint was [2] “people
should not differ before a prophet.” It was the disagreement, bickering, and
quarreling that was the tragedy. Both sides had legitimate arguments: on the one
hand, there were those who wished to get advice from the Prophet, and there were
others who felt that it would inconvenience the Prophet to do that (i.e. because he
was sick and it hurt him to speak). These were both valid arguments, and the two
sides should have calmly discussed the matter instead of bickering about it.
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became
worse (on Thursday) [3] 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. [4] Some
said [5], “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask
him (to understand his state).” [6] 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.”
[3] Notice that the Prophet’s health turned worse on this day, worse than it had ever
been before. And we know that the Prophet was even having a difficult time talking:
When the Apostle’s illness became severe, he (i.e. a Sahabi) and the men came down
to Medinah and he went into the Apostle(’s house) who was unable to speak. He (the
Prophet) began to lift his hand towards heaven and then bring it down upon him,
from which he (the Sahabi) knew that he (the Prophet) was blessing him.
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680; a similar narration in Tareekh al-Tabari,

Vol.9, pp.178-179)
So the Prophet’s condition had deteriorated to its worst at this point in time, worse
even than when Abbas and Ali had attempted to force-feed the Prophet medicine
against his will. So based on these two facts–namely that (a) the Prophet could not
speak without intense pain and (b) Abbas and Ali had contradicted the Prophet’s
wishes when he was in a better condition than he was on Thursday–we find that the
Shia have really no leg to stand upon when they attack Umar who only wished that
the people not burden the Prophet by causing him the pain of talking in a time when
his condition was the worst it had been yet.
[4] Notice that Ibn Abbas says that it was not right to argue in front of the Prophet;
this was what angered the Prophet, not the actual positions of the two sides.
[5] Once again, it says “some said”, not “Umar said.”
[6] The important point here is that the person who did ask if the Prophet was
delirious was asking if this was the case, not saying that this was indeed the case. He
was genuinely asking, not saying this in a sarcastic or demeaning fashion. And what
he meant by delirious was if the Prophet was conscious or not.
Narrated Said bin Jubair that he heard Ibn Abbas saying:
When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, “Bring me a
bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go
astray.” The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in
front of a prophet. [7]They said, “What is wrong with him? Do you think he is
delirious? Ask him (to understand).” The Prophet replied, “Leave me as I am in a
better state than what you are asking me to do.” Then the Prophet ordered them to
do three things saying, “Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show
respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.” (The sub-
narrator added, “The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn Abbas
did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.”)
[7] Again, quite clearly, the “calamity” was that it was “improper to differ in front of
a Prophet” (i.e. bickering with each other), and it was not that Umar refused to give
the paper and pen. The refusal of Umar was no more of a calamity than it was a
calamity when Abbas and Ali refused to obey the Prophet by forcing him to take
medicine against his will.
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When Allah’s Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people
among whom was Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, “Come, let me write for
you a statement after which you will not go astray.” Umar said, “The Prophet is
seriously ill [8] and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”
The people present in the house differed and quarreled. Some said “Go near so that
the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray,” while
the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the
Prophet, [9] Allah’s Apostle said, “Go away!” Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn
Abbas used to say, “It was very unfortunate that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from
writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.”
[10]
[8] Notice that Umar ibn al-Khattab only said that the Prophet was “seriously ill”,
which proves that Umar was worried about the well-being of the Prophet, nothing
else.
[9] It was only “when they caused a hue and cry” that the Prophet said “go away”
which shows that it was the disagreement and bickering which angered the Prophet.
He was angry at both sides, not just the side which opposed giving him the pen and
paper. The Prophet used to have splitting headaches during his final illness, and so
it is no wonder that it would annoy him when the people created “a hue and cry”. A
very key point here is that the Prophet ordered both sides out of the house, not just
those who opposed the writing; the Prophet could have simply scolded Umar and
told him alone to leave, but instead he sent everyone out of the room. Had it been
Umar’s refusal that angered the Prophet, then he would not have sent those out who
wished to give the Prophet a pen and paper! The reality is that the Prophet was
merely disappointed with his followers for falling into argumentation and disunity,
no doubt a precursor of things to come after the Prophet’s death. On numerous
occasions, the Prophet would warn against division, and even up until this day the
Muslim Ummah remains fragmented and disunited.
[10] Once again, it was the “disagreement and noise” which was the calamity Ibn
Abbas was referring to.
Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah (that) 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 [11] the Prophet said to them, “Go away
(and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of
me.” [12] 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. [13]
[11] It was “on that” (referring to the “hue and cry”) that the Prophet said “go away”.
He did not say “go away” when Umar said what he said, but rather only after the
people fell into argumentation.
[12] It could not get clearer than this! The Prophet’s very own words in which he
specifically says why he got upset. It was because “you should not quarrel in front of
me” and it was not because of anything Umar ibn al-Khattab said. The Prophet did
not say “I am angry with you because you refused to bring me a pen and paper” but
rather said “it is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” The Prophet did
not show anger towards those who refused to bring him a pen and paper, just as he
did not show anger towards Ali when he refused to erase certain words in the Treaty
of Hudaybiya.
[13] It was the “disagreement and noise” which hurt the Prophet’s head (as he had a
headache) and which the Prophet found inappropriate.
Ibn Abbas said:
The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on
Thursday), and he said: “Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that
you may not go astray after me.” They (the Companions around him) disputed, and
it is not right to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: “How is (Allah’s
Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point).”
[14] He (the Holy Prophet) said: “Leave me. I am better in the state (than the one in
which you are engaged). I make a will about three things: Turn out the polytheists
from the territory of Arabia; show hospitality to the (foreign) delegations as I used
to show them hospitality. He (the narrator) said: He (Ibn Abbas) kept silent on the
third point, or he (the narrator) said: But I forgot that.
[14] Notice that the person said “try to learn from him (this point)”, in the sense
that he was sincerely wondering about this point and not trying to insult the Prophet
in any way.
Saeed b. Jubair reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: “Thursday, and what about
Thursday?” Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as it they were
the strings of pearls. He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be
upon him) said: “Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink pot), so
that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray.”
They said: “Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of
unconsciousness.”
Nothing new here.
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to
leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, Umar ibn al-
Khattab being one of them. [15] Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said:
“Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that.”
Thereupon Umar said: “Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)
is deeply afflicted with pain. [16]You have the Quran with you. The Book of
Allah is sufficient for us.” Those who were present in the house differed. Some of
them said: “Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah’s Messenger (may peace
be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after
him.” And some among them said what Umar had (already) said. When they
indulged in nonsense and began to dispute [17] in the presence of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: “Get up (and go away)” Ubaidullah
said: Ibn Abbas used to say: “There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due
to their dispute and noise, [18] Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)
could not write (or dictate) the document for them.
[15] Notice here that the narrator always mentions Umar ibn al-Khattab by name,
singling him out from all the rest. If it had truly been Umar who had asked if the
Prophet was delirious, then the narrator would have mentioned that (i.e. taken
Umar’s name), but the narrator did no such thing which is a strong proof that it was
not Umar who said that.
[16] Umar was worried about the Prophet being “deeply afflicted with pain.” This is
Umar’s love for the Prophet which enticed him to “refuse” the Prophet’s orders, and
nothing else. This is therefore commendable and not something to criticize Umar
about.
[17] The Prophet had not been angered by Umar’s refusal, but rather he only later
got angry when the people “indulged in nonsense (talk) and began to dispute.”
[18] Again, it was the “dispute and noise” that caused the Prophet to ask them to
leave, not Umar’s refusal.
Conclusion
The truth of the matter is that the Shia take the event of the pen and paper
dramatically out of context in order to further their sectarian agenda. They have
turned an anthill into a mountain, and we know that the Shia are well-known for
their exaggerations, something quite peculiar about their sect. Umar ibn al-Khattab,
the Prophet’s father-in-law, cannot be blamed for what he did because he did that
out of love for the Prophet. The Prophet was in a great deal of pain, and Umar didn’t
want the people pestering him (the Prophet).
Furthermore, there is no proof at all that the Prophet wished to nominate Ali in that
document; on the contrary, Ali never claimed such a thing and this is a strong proof
against the Shia claims. The Prophet lived for three more days after the event, and
he gave much advice on those three days. If the matter on Thursday had been about
the nomination of Ali, then surely the Prophet would have returned to that topic in
those three days, but he never did that.
May Allah save us from misguidance and those who misguide!
Abu Bakr and Ali Related Through Marriage
The Shia propagandists accuse Abu Bakr and Umar of being Nasibis (enemies of
Ahlel Bayt). In reality, however, Abu Bakr and Umar were lovers of Ahlel Bayt, and
they were similarly loved by Ahlel Bayt. The Shia claim that Abu Bakr and Umar
usurped the Caliphate of Ali. And yet, as is well-known, a point that completely
destroys the Shia paradigm is that Ali wed his own daughter, Umm Kulthoom, to
Umar. This is confirmed on the Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which admits that Ali
wed his daughter to Umar.
But a point that many laypersons are not aware of is that not only were Umar and
Ali thus related by marriage, but similarly were Abu Bakr and Ali related by
marriage. Shaykh Ehsan Elahi Zaheer writes:
Asma bint Umais, as is already mentioned, was the wife of Ali’s real brother, Jafar
ibn Abi Talib. When he died, she was married to Abu Bakr. She also gave birth to
Abu Bakr’s son named Muhammad. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed
him the governor of Egypt. After the death of Abu Bakr, Ali ibn Abi Talib married
her. A son named Yahya was born out of the marriage.
Shia References:
(1) Haqq al-Yaqeen, by Majlisi

(2) Kitab al-Irshad, by Mufid
(3) Jila ul-Uyoon, by Majlisi
(4) Majalis-il-Mu’mineen, by Shoshtri
(ash-Shia Wa Ahlul-Bayt, p. 121)
he Prophet’s Praise of Abu Bakr
Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 244:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
…Allah’s Messenger added, “No doubt, I am indebted to Abu Bakr more than to
anybody else regarding both his companionship and his wealth. And if I had to take
a Khaleel (friend) from my followers, I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr, but the
fraternity of Islam is sufficient. Let no door of the Mosque remain open, except the
door of Abu Bakr.”
The Ayatollahs Recommend Self-Flagellation
The Shia will oftentimes use Taqiyyah (lying to save one’s religion) when asked
about Matam. We often hear Shia, particularly in the West, saying that beating
oneself during Matam is actually forbidden in the Shia religion, and that it is only
ignorant and “extremist” Shia who do that. This is a bold-faced lie, and we shall
prove it here. In fact, the opposite is true: any Shia who claims that self-flagellation
is notMustahabb (highly recommended) is either lying or ignorant of his religion.
All of the Shia Maraje’ (high scholars) are agreed that beating oneself is not only
allowed in Shi’ism, but rather it is encouraged.
Let us refer the reader to Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website. Again, this is his own
website, where he cites his as well as the opinion of other Shia Maraje’ (high
scholars), including Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah al-Kho’i, and many other leading
Shia figures. Ayatollah Shirazi is one of the most revered scholars of the Shia, and
nobody could question his credentials. His official website can be viewed
at www.shirazi.org.uk . In particular, we would like to draw the reader’s attention to
his fatwa in regards to Matam, which can be found
here: http://www.shirazi.org.uk/tatbir%20fatawa.htm We strongly urge the reader
to visit the Ayatollah’s website, so that he can see it for himself. We simply copied
and pasted it all below.
Al-Imam al-Sheikh Abdul Kareem al-Ha’ery, the Founder of the current

Hawzah in the holy city of Qum, said:
“The hitting of swords on the heads causing bleeding is allowed provided there is no
harm to the person doing this. Furthermore no one has the right to prohibit this
(hitting the head with sword). In fact all kinds of TA’ZIAH – mourning – for
SEYYED AL-SHUHADA’ – Imam Hussain – may our souls be sacrificed for him, are
MUSTAHAB (highly recommended)– desirable deeds.”
The above Fatwa was endorsed and signed by the following eminent Maraje’:
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Sheikh Muhammad al-Araki

 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Ridha al-Gulpaygani
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Shahab-el-Deen al-Mar’ashi al-Najafi
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Hassan al-Tabataba’e al-Qummi
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad al-Waheedi
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Mirza Jawaad al-Tabrizi
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Saadiq al-Rouhani
 Ayatollah al-Udhma Muhammad Mahdi al-Lankaroudi
 And many other Maraje’ and eminent scholars…
Al-Imam al-Sheikh Muhammad Hussain al-Naa’ini, the teacher of the Maraje’

of the holy city of Najaf, said:
“There is no doubt as to the permissibility of the beating of the chest and the face
with the hands to the point of redness or blackness (of the chest or the face). This is
also extended to the lashing of the shoulders and the back with chains to the extent
mentioned (above), and even if this led to bleeding. As for causing the bleeding of
the head by sword beating, this is also allowed provided it does not lead to
endangering harm, such as unstoppable bleeding or harm to the scull, etc. as it is
known amongst the experts in doing this (hitting on the head).”
The above Fatwa was endorsed and signed by the following eminent Maraje’:
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Mohsen al-Hakim

 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Kaadhem al-Shari’atMadari
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abd-el-A’la al-Sabzewary
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abul-Qassim al-Kho’i
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Ridha al-Gulpaygani
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Ali al-Hussaini al-Seestani
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Muhammad Saadiq al-Rouhani
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Mirza Jawaad al-Tabrizi
 Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Sheikh Hussain al-Waheed al-Khurasani
 And many other Maraje’ and eminent scholars…
Ayatollah al-Kho’i, the former leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of

Najaf, was asked the following question.
Question:
Is there any problem with causing the bleeding of the head – TATBIR – as it is
practiced, to express one’s grief about the martyrdom of our Imam Hussain peace be
upon him, assuming there is going to be no permanent harm?
Answer by Ayatollah al-Kho’i:
“There is no problem with that, given the assumption made in the question, and
Allah knows best.”
Question:
You stated that there is no problem in causing the bleeding of the head – known as
TATBIR – if it does not lead to harm. It is said that it is not more than a permissible
act, then can TATBIR be MUSTAHAB (highly recommended) – desirable – if the
intention was the upholding and honouring the Sha’a’er – signs of Allah – and
sympathy with the Ahl-ul-Bayt, peace be upon them?
Answer by Ayatollah al-Kho’i:
“Most probably Allah Almighty would give thawab – reward (the individual) – for
sympathising with the Ahl-ul-Bayt if the intention is sincere.”
Ayatollah al-Sistani, the current leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of
Najaf, was asked the following question.
Question:
What is the ruling regarding the lashing with chains, chest beating, and walking on
fire on the occasion of mourning the martyrdom of Imam Hussain peace be upon
him?
Answer by Ayatollah al-Sistani:
“If (these are) not associated with extreme harm or loss of limb, there is no
objection.”
Question:
What is the ruling regarding wearing black, and chest beating when commemorating
the martyrdom of Imam Hussain peace be upon him, as well as other infallible
Imams peace be upon them?
Answer by Ayatollah al-Sistani:
“This is permissible, and in fact this is regarded as one of the best means of seeking
nearness to Allah, since it is upholding and honouring the Sha’a’er of Allah
Almighty.” [This is a reference to the Qur’anic Ayah 22:32. – translator.]
Ayatollah al-Shirazi was asked the following question.
Question:
Some individuals say that I do not see shedding my tears as enough to express my
grief for Imam Hussain (AS), his household and his followers on the day of Ashura.
So is hitting myself with sword and injuring myself is allowed?
Answer by Ayatollah al-Shirazi:
“The Hussaini Sha’a’er, including TATBIR, are some of the RAAJIH issues. TATBIR
is a MUSTAHAB (highly recommended) deed, unless it leads to death, loss of limb,
or loss of faculties.” (RAAJIH means MUSTAHAB that could become WAJIB
depending on the circumstances - translator)
Question:
What is your opinion regarding hitting the head with sword – TATBIR – on the day
of Ashura whether or not it harms the individual?

“The most common and widely known opinion of the Fuqaha (scholars) is that the
desirability (of TATBIR) is in it not being extremely harmful.”
Question:
If one engages in the program of TA’ZIAH for Imam Hussain (AS), and goes on to
serve the program of TA’ZIAH but does not do TATBIR (shedding of blood), is he
regarded as a sinner, who deserves to be humiliated?
“TATBIR is a desirable act, and a MUKALLAF – i.e. one who has reached the
adolescence age and is duty bound – may forsake a desirable act. It is not allowed to
humiliate a Mu’min, and also one who does not do TATBIR may not humiliate or
insult others, or accuse them (of false things).”
Question:
What is your opinion regarding the reports that Lady Zaynab (AS), when she saw
the head of her brother Imam Hussain peace be upon him, being paraded in public
hit her forehead on the bar of the carriage she was travelling in, causing bleeding to
flow from beneath her veil, which was visible to onlookers who witnessed the event?
“Yes that is proven.”
(Source: Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/tatbir%)
Ayatollah Shirazi further said:
“Tatbir (shedding blood using swords) has always been recommended as Mustahab
(highly recommended) by the overwhelming consensus of the ‘ULAMA and there
has rarely been any, if at all, high-ranking ‘Aalim ever to have declared otherwise.”
(Source: Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website,

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm#ashuramisuse)
He also said:
“The shedding of blood during Muharram for Imam Hussain, peace be upon him, is
not only Halal, but it is also very Mustahab indeed, and all PROMINENT scholars
and religious authorities - Maraje’ - always encouraged it throughout the history of
Islam. This included the Tatbir or Qamah-Zani - which is the hitting of the head
with swords. The Maraje’ have even decreed that it is acceptable and permissible if
one is harmed in this process, provided of course the injuries sustained do not
constitute permanent injuries or endanger the life of the individual.”
(Source: Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website,

http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm#ashuramisuse)
On Ayatollah Sistani’s official website, www.sistani.org, we find:
Question:
What is the ruling on beating our backs with chains only during Muharram rituals?
Answer:
“It is permissible.”
(Source: Ayatollah Sistani’s official website,

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=77&page=1)
We find the following responses by Ayatollah Lankarani on his official website:
Q2: It so happens that people beat their chests and their backs with chains and their
bodies turn red and even start bleeding. Is it permissible?
A2: It is permissible and even preferable provided that it does not cause significant
harm to the body.
(Source: Ayatollah Lankarani’s official website,

http://www.lankarani.org/eng/adv/06.html)
Thus, there can be no question about the practise of self-flagellation in the Shia
faith: it is Mustahabb (highly recommended), and this is the opinion of all of the
ranking Shia Maraje’.
It is only a modern trend amongst the Shia youth living in the West to deny the acts
of Matam, and this is usually done out of ignorance of the faith. We found one Shia
youth who asked the following question to Ayatollah Shirazi:
I had a fellow brother at the Mosque mention one of the teachings of Imam Shirazi.
The teaching in question deals with Ashura and the beating of swords and chains.
This brother mentioned that Imam Shirazi says that it is allowed to use swords and
chains and the drawing of blood, while someone else has said it is not allowed.
Please enlighten me on Imam Shirazi’s teachings regarding this. I personally do not
agree with violence in Ashura. I dare to say that I could not imagine Imam Hussain
(AS) would even want us to hurt ourselves. In fact I would think he died to keep real
Islam alive and keep us from going the deviant path of innovators.
In response to this question, Ayatollah Shirazi said:
“As with the issue of hitting the head with swords (Tatbir in Arabic or Qamah-Zani
in Farsi) Imam Shirazi is not exceptional in any way to permit, and encourage, this
action in Ashura. In fact ALL high-ranking ‘ULAMA and AYATOLLAHS not only
have allowed this, and continue to do so, but for the entire history of the Shi’a over
the past fourteen centuries, they have always encouraged this, declaring Tatbir or
Qamah-Zani as very Mustahab indeed.”
“…Tatbir has always been recommended as Mustahab by the overwhelming

consensus of the ‘ULAMA and there has rarely been any, if at all, high-ranking
‘Aalim ever to have declared otherwise.”
“As for Iran, significant number of devotees, just as in many other countries, have
always performed Tatbir for many years (or rather centuries), and in recent years
despite its prohibition being enforced by the authorities, people continued to
perform this duty. In the last couple of years even the authorities there have started
to turn a blind eye to such programs given the insistence and eagerness of the
people to perform Qamah-Zani.”
(Source: Ayatollah Shirazi’s official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm)
As Ayatollah Shirazi mentioned, Iran’s official government policy is that such public
displays of Matam are forbidden but only because they give a bad image to the Shia
faith, not because these acts are forbidden in Shi’ism. As such, the prohibition of
public displays of Matam is Taqiyyah. It is a policy which is not enforced, and in
fact, the authorties “turn a blind eye to such programs.”
Ayatollah Shirazi was asked the following question.
Question:
Is shedding of blood on Ashura allowed? What is your position of Zanjeer and the
use of knives, blades, and hooked chains to shed your own blood during Muharram
… Is this sort of act Haram, Halal or Makruh? Is this the Sunnah of the Ahl-ul-Bayt
at all?
Answer:
“The shedding of blood during Muharram for Imam Hussain, peace be upon him, is
not only Halal, but it is also very Mustahab [highly recommended] indeed, and all
PROMINENT scholars and religious authorities - Maraje’ - always encouraged it
throughout the history of Islam. This included the Tatbir or Qamah-Zani - which is
the hitting of the head with swords. The Maraje’ have even decreed that it is
acceptable and permissible if one is harmed in this process, provided of course the
injuries sustained do not constitute permanent injuries or endanger the life of the
individual”
Ayatollah Shirazi then answered the following question.
Question:
Is Tatbir allowed? Is the practice of TATBIR, hitting one’s head by sword to cause
bleeding, allowed in Islam?
Are there any other Marje’, alongside Grand Ayatollah Imam Muhammad Shirazi,
who considers TATBIR as Halal in Islam or even MUSTAHAB?
There are people who do TATBIR on Ashura in Bahrain, is it practiced anywhere

else in the Muslim world?
Answer:
“Practicing TATBIR is highly encouraged by Islam, as can be seen from the decrees
of the most prominent MARAJE’ of Islam. Ayatollah al-Udhma Imam Muhammad
Shirazi is not the only one who has allowed the Sha’a'er al-Hussaini, but in fact all of
the most prominent MARAJE’ have also allowed these.”
“…It should be interesting for you to know that TATBIR is not only practiced in
Bahrain, but it is also practiced in many countries around the world such as Saudi
Arabia - al-Ihsaa’, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan,
Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Scandinavian
countries, United States of America and Canada.”
There can thus be no more Taqiyyah or ignorance on the issue of self-flagellation in

the Shia faith. We have provided the proof from the official websites of all of the top
Shia scholars.
Matam: Self-Flagellation
Because the faith of Islam is perfect, it does not allow for any innovations to the
religion. However, the Shia have added many innovations to the faith, and this is
why they are called Ahlel Bidah (the People of Bidah). One such Bidah (innovation)
is the practise of Matam, in which the Shia beat themselves in Muharram on the day
of Ashura. The Shia will slap their chests, beat their backs, and involve themselves in
other practises in order to “commemorate” the dead.
.
As for the Ahlus Sunnah, they are saddened by the wrongful death of Hussain ( ‫رضّى‬
‫)هللا عنه‬. He is one of the many great heroes of Islam that died in the Name of Allah.
However, the Ahlus Sunnah does not engage in self-flagellation or self-mutilation,
which are both considered strictly Haram (forbidden). The Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬forbade barbaric practises like such, and he said: “No harm may be inflicted on
oneself.”
Do the Shia really think that Hussain (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬would appreciate people engaging
in self-flagellation and self-mutilation? If Hussain ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬were alive today, he
would think that these people have lost their minds. We ask the reader if he would
want his family to commemorate his own death in such a manner? No sane person
would want his death commemorated in such a manner, no matter how unfair or
how violent his own death was. So why do the Shia assume that Hussain ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
would want his death to be remembered in such a barbaric way?
To bring up a more relevant example, let us assume for the moment that a boy likes
a certain girl. In order to impress her, he decides to beat himself up for her to show
his undying love for her. Do we think that she would actually be impressed with a
boy who beats himself up? Surely not! Rather, the girl would be frightened out of
her wits and she would likely call the police to control this boy. Indeed, only
mentally insane people beat themselves up. It is a recognized psychological disorder,
and there is much medical literature on this topic.
We can find no sane person on this earth who would want people to beat themselves
up. It is completely abnormal and barbaric to beat oneself up even if to mourn the
loss of a close one. This was a practise of the Jahiliyyah Arabs and the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫ )هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬forbade it, as well as the Quran. Allah Almighty condemns the pagans
for the barbaric way in which they would worship:
“Their [pagan] prayer at the House (of Allah) was nothing but whistling and
clapping of hands; therefore taste the punishment because you used to
disbelieve!” (Quran, 8:35)
The Quran looks down on these barbaric and native ways of prayer which make the
Muslim look like a wild tribesman and nothing more. In any case, there are better
avenues of channeling grief, including reading Quran and being a good Muslim.
What better way to commemorate the loss of Hussain ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬than by trying to
rid the world of evil and barbarity? A person could donate money to the poor, create
a trust fund in the name of the deceased, etc etc….the options for channeling grief
are almost infinite, so why beat oneself up? What does it accomplish? We can only
wonder why the Shia follow a faith that advocates such barbarity.
.

Pictures of Matam

Matam Videos
Click the links below in order to see what the Shia practise of Matam entails. As can
be seen, the Shia are giving Islam a bad name; the non-Muslims will see this and
think that Muslims are nothing but uncivilized barbarians. This is
definitely not Islam. Such ridicolous practises are reminiscent of pagan rituals of
the most crude design!
Matam Video #1:

Shia Beating Themselves
Description: This video shows a Shia procession beating their chests.
Matam Video #2:

Shia Beating Themselves, Part II
Description: Same as above.
Matam Video #3:

Walking on Fire; Islamic or Zoroastrian?
Description: This video shows the Shia walking on fire, which according to the Shia
scholars, is considered Mustahabb (highly recomended). The origin of fire-walking
is Zoroastrian, and its introduction and infusion into the so-called Islam of the Shia
is a major Bidah (evil innovation).
Matam Video #4:

Matam; Contains graphic footage
Description: Click this link to download the video
Matam Video #5:

Ayatollah al-Hakim Loses His Sanity
Description: This is a video of Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim during Muharram. He was
one of the most revered of the Shia Maraje‘ (high scholars). In this video, we see
him losing complete control of himself and beating himself
irrationally. Such ridicolous antics make Muslims look crazy. This video was put up
by Kuffaar on many of their anti-Islam sites in order to make Islam look ridicolous;
thanks to the Shia, they are able to do just that. Little do the masses know that this
is not part of Islam, simply part of Shi’ism.
Matam Video #6:

Worship or Rap Music?
Description: Does this really look Islamic? We hope that the Shia viewer realizes
how “funny” these Shia rituals are so that he can wake up to the reality of his faith.
The Prophet of Allah used to mock the Jahiliyyah practises of the Arab pagans, and
this coerced many of them to realize the baseness in their ways. We hope that we
can have this same effect on the Shia.
Matam Video #7:

Tatbir (Shedding Blood Using Swords)
Description: Tatbir refers to the Shia practise of cutting themselves with swords.
Ayatollah Shirazi declared: “TATBIR is a MUSTAHAB (highly recommended) deed,
unless it leads to death, loss of limb, or loss of faculties…TATBIR is a desirable act…
Tatbir (shedding blood using swords) has always been recommended as Mustahab
(highly recommended) by the overwhelming consensus of the ‘ULAMA and there
has rarely been any, if at all, high-ranking ‘Aalim ever to have declared otherwise.”
(Source: Ayatollah Shirazi’s official
website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm#ashuramisuse)
Matam Video #8:

Tatbir, Part II
Description: Same as above.
Matam Video #9:

We’ll Cut Your Head For You
Description: This ritual is simply bizarre. One man is cutting other people’s heads
for them.
Matam Video #10:

We’ll Cut Your Head For You, Part II
Black Clothes
Traditionally, the Shia wear black clothes in the month of Muharram. In fact, during
this month, it is considered Mustahabb (highly recommended) to do so. We find
most Shia do wear black in certain parts of the year, including the
Shia Ulema (scholarship) and Maraje’ (high scholars). In fact, the Shia Ayatollahs
tend to wear black year-round, and very rarely do we see them not wearing black
cloaks.
Herein we find a contradiction in the Shia faith. According to the authentic Shia
Hadith, wearing black clothes is actually Haram (forbidden)! We see the following
Hadith referenced on the reliable Shia website, Al-Shia.com:
Amir-ul-mu’minin said:
‫ السواد فإنه لباس فرعون‬5‫ ” ال تلبسوا‬:‫ فيما علم أصحابه‬5‫“ وقال أمير المؤمنين عليه السالم‬.
“Do not wear black clothes, that is the dress of Pharaoh”
(Source: Al-Shia.com, http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/faqih/faqih-
1/a41.html)
Imam As Sadiq was asked about pray in the black clothes, he said:
‫ ال تصل فيها فإنها لباس أهل النار‬:‫ ” عن الصالة في القلنسوة السوداء؟ فقال‬5‫ الصادق عليه السالم‬5‫وسئل‬
“Don’t pray in it, that is dress of people of fire”
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/faqih/faqih-1/a41.html)
There is obviously nothing wrong with wearing black clothes, and the Ahlus Sunnah
has nothing in their books which forbids it. However, the Shia Hadith declare that
Amir Al-Mumineen Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬and Imam As-Sadiq (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬declared it
Haram. And yet, we find the Shia scholars wearing black, as well as the Shia masses
who do so out of a sense of religious obligation.
In fact, the Shia Maraje’ have declared that wearing black is Mustahabb. On his
official website, Grand Ayatollah Lankarani was asked if wearing black was
Mustahabb, to which he replied: “Since it [wearing black] is considered respecting
the signs (of Allah), it has legal preference. Moreover, prominent scholars such as
late Ayatollah al-Uzma Broujardi used to wear black…” (Source: Ayatollah
Lankarani’s official website, http://www.lankarani.org/eng/adv/06.html)
This is truly an inconsistency in religion. The Faith of Allah should not have
inconsistencies in it, and yet we find that Shi’ism is full of such discrepencies.
Hence, we can only conclude that Shi’ism is not true Islam.
Why Sunnis Do Not Comemmorate Ashura
Shia says
“ Why do the Sunnis not comemmorate the death of Hussain (‫)ر ّضى هللا عنه‬, the
Prophet’s grandson?
”
Answer by the Ahlel Bayt Admin:
There is no doubt in the minds of the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the
great qualities of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. We ask Allah Almighty to accept him into the
Highest Ranks of Paradise with the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. Anyone who
denies the greatness of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫ )ر‬is deviant, and has gone away from the
accepted creed of the Ahlus Sunnah. There is not a single reputable scholar of the
Ahlus Sunnah that has ever said otherwise.
Having said this, true Muslims must not take part in the Shia rituals on the day of
Ashura. Although we recognize that the death of Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬was a tragic
event, it is a Bidah (evil innovation to Islam) to commemorate his death because the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not do so. How could the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬comemmorate his death when the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬himself died
many years before the death of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫?)ر‬
Additionally–and this point cannot be stressed enough–there were many Sahabah

who were killed in the Path of Allah, but the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬never
mourned their deaths in the manner in which the Shia mourn Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬.
The Prophet lost his own dear uncle, his own wife, and many of his dearest
companions, but do we see that the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬ever resorted to
self-flagellation or excessive mourning? The Shia can never provide such an
example from the life of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, probably not even from
Shia sources. Therefore, we find that it is not part of the Sunnah to mourn in such
an uncivilized manner and we shall never take part in it because of this.
Islam-qa.com says
“Neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor his rightly-
guided successors (the khulafa’ al-raashidoon) did any of these things on the day of
‘Aashooraa’, they neither made it a day of mourning nor a day of celebration.
all of this is reprehensible bid’ah and is wrong. None of it has anything to do with
the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
or the way of the Khulafa’ al-Raashidoon. It was not approved of by any of the
imaams of the Muslims, not Maalik, not al-Thawri, not al-Layth ibn Sa’d, not Abu
Haneefah, not al-Oozaa’i, not al-Shaafa’i, not Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not Ishaaq ibn
Raahwayh, not any of the imaams and scholars of the Muslims.
The religion of Islam is based on two principles: that we should worship nothing
besides Allaah Alone, and that we should worship Him in the manner that He has
prescribed, not by means of bid’ah or reprehensible innovations.
source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=4033&ln=eng&txt=ashoora ”
There have been many other great heroes of Islam who have been killed in the Path
of Allah, and we do not find the Ahlus Sunnah comemmorating any of these days.
The Ahlus Sunnah does not comemmorate the martyrdom of Umar ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬,
Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, or Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. The reason is that we find all this to be
Bidah, and forms of exaggeration like the Christians who comemmorate the death of
Isa (5‫)عليه السالم‬.
We find it interesting that the Shia do not celebrate the death of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬or
any of their other heroes. Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was stabbed to death, and he suffered a
horrendous death. So what is the reason that the Shia make such a big deal about
the death of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬but not of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬is in fact
considered superior to Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬by the Shia. So why the death of
ّ ‫ )ر‬and not of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The reason is obvious: the Shia
celebrate Ashura to spite the Sunni Muslims.
The Shia attest that it was Yezid who killed Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, and they say that
Yezid was a Sunni. This is the reason that they mourn Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, because
they blame the Ahlus Sunnah for this tragic event. The Shia mourning on Ashura is
therefore a spiteful fist in the air against the Sunni majority. The Shia leave no stone
unturned in their defamation of the Ahlus Sunnah, and thus they want everyone to
remember that it was “Yezid the big bad Sunni” who was responsible.
As can be seen, the Shia mourning on Ashura has little do with their love for
Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ّ ‫)ر‬, but rather has more to do with their hatred of the Sunnis. Why
else do they not comemmorate the martyrdoms of their other heroes, such as Ali (
ّ ‫ )ر‬or Hamza (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ ?)ر‬The truth is that Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was killed by
the Khawarij, a group of the Shia! This is why the Shia today do not make a big fuss
about the death of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬since it was a man from their own party who
killed him. It is much better instead to make great fan-fare about Hussain’s death (
ّ ‫)ر‬, since the Shia blame the Sunnis for this death.
Sometimes the Shia of today will encourage the Sunnis to comemmorate Ashura,
using and exploiting the fact that the Ahlus Sunnah also loves Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬.
We strongly urge our Muslim brothers not to fall into this trap of the Shia! They
want us to take part in rituals that were designed to defame the Ahlus Sunnah, and
nothing more. We cannot accept the Shia way of life.
Additionally, comemmorating Ashura with any special ritual would be adding to the
faith of Islam, and this is Bidah. Bidah is considered part of Hell-Fire, and whoever
invents a Bidah is promised Hell-Fire as well.
SunniPath.com says
“[It is a] delusion that such innovation [commemorating Ashura] is a pious deed…

Nor has such commemoration been Sunni practice at all - even for the death of the
Holy Prophet, whose passing from this world is a much greater loss - whether on
Ashura or any other time of the year…
As for love of Ahl al-Bayt it is an integral of Sunni belief but in a Sunni way, not a
sectarian way chock-full with ill feelings fanned by fabrications. Ibn Kathir said in
al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (8:201-202):
Al-Tabarani mentioned in this chapter very strange reports indeed and the Shià
went overboard concerning the day of Ashura, forging many hadiths that are gross
lies such as the sun being eclipsed on that day until the stars appeared, no stone was
lifted except blood was seen under it, the celestial region became red, the sun and its
rays seemed like blood, the sky seemed like a blood clot, the stars were hurling
against one another, the sky rained red blood, there was never redness in the sky
before that day, and the like… among other lies and forgeries of which not one
report is sound.”
Success is from Allah, may He keep us on the path of His Prophet and his
Companions, away from sectarianism and bad adab posing as love of Ahl al-Bayt.
Hajj Gibril
source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4949&CATE=1 ”
From a logical standpoint too, we wonder if the Shia expect us to comemmorate the
death of all the great heroes in Islam? If this were the case, then there would not be
a single day left in the year in which the Muslims could be happy! Surely, in the
great long history of Islam, there has been a martyrdom on every day of the year.
And even if we began the practise of comemmorating the deaths of martyrs, then
there would be a long list of people whose death we would begin to comemmorate.
On this list, Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬would not be the first, and there would be many
before him. For example, we would comemmorate the wrongful deaths of Umar (
ّ ‫)ر‬, Uthman (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫)ر‬, and Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. Let us also not forget to give
precedence to the deaths of past Prophets and Mesengers. So the Shia cannot accuse
us of not loving the Prophet’s grandson; this is a childish accusation, and we refute
it by asking the Shia why they do not mourn the other 364 days of the year in which
other great heroes died.
And what about Prophet Isa ( ‫ ?)عليه السالم‬Should we also celebrate Christmas and
Easter like the Christians do to celebrate the birth and death of Isa ( ‫?)عليه السالم‬
Would it not be a great Bidah to take part in these Christian comemmorations? Can
the Shia provide even one difference between these Christian holidays and the Shia
holidays? Why do the Shia find it permissible to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s
birthday (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and comemmorate Hussain’s death (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬, but
then they would look down on a Shia who took part in Christmas and Easter? If the
Shia say that the Sunnis do not love the Prophet’s grandson because they do not
comemmorate Ashura, based on this logic can’t we also infer that the Shia do not
love Prophet Isa (‫ )عليه السالم‬since they fail to comemmorate his birth and death?
Surely this is faulty logic.
In regards to the actual rituals of the Shia, these are barbaric practises of self-
flagellation, violence, and paganism. How can the Shia actually ask us to partake in
such displays? We shall do no such thing and rather we shall distance ourselves
from them. Instead, we shall continue to call our Shia brothers to the path of true
Islam of the Ahlus Sunnah, as followed by Hussain ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬himself. We will not
exploit the death of the Prophet’s grandson for sectarian agenda, as the Shia have
done. And the truth of the matter, as we shall see in future articles, is that the death
of Hussain (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was the fault of the Shia of Kufa. If the Shia want us to
remember tales of Yezid’s debauchery, then let us also remind them of the Shia of
Kufa whose cowardice, back-stabbing, and deciet led to the demise of the Prophet’s
grandson.
More Pictures of Matam
.
.
.
.
Racism in Shi’ism
Shia Hadith
When the Prophet sent ambassadors to Persia and called them to accept Islam, the
Persians responded with haughtiness. They rebuffed the “lowly” Arab ambassador
and categorically declared that the “great” Persian race could never submit to the
“lowly” Arabs. Indeed, racism in Zoroastrian Persia was rampant; the fire-
worshipping Persians had the notion that they were racially superior to all other
races.
The faith of Shi’ism found many supporters in Persia, and slowly the fire-
worshipping ideologies of the Persians was fused into the Shia faith. The racism of
‫‪the Persians eventually seeped into the Shia canon. The following are some Shia‬‬
‫‪Hadith that blatantly teach racism, all recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the‬‬
‫‪four Shia books of Hadith. They are also available on Al-Shia.com, a very‬‬
‫‪authoratative website of the Shia.‬‬
‫‪These Hadith (shown below) are Sahih according to the Shia, as they are narrated‬‬
‫‪by Ali bin Ibrahimwho is considered to be of the utmost reliability according to‬‬
‫‪the Shia. He was one of the most prominent sources in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of‬‬
‫‪the Shia books of Hadith.‬‬
‫‪We see that the Shia religion is very much against black people, and these Hadith‬‬
‫‪use the term “Zunj” which is a common Arabic word used to refer to all black‬‬
‫‪people. The Arabic of the Hadith can be found on the Al-Shia.com website:‬‬
‫“‬
‫باب من كره مناكحته من االكراد والسودان وغيرهم‬
‫علي بن إبراهيم‪ ،‬عن هارون بن مسلم‪ ،‬عن مسعدة بن زياد‪ ،‬عن أبي عبدهللا (ع) قال‪ :‬قال أمير المؤمنين (ع)‪ :‬إياكم ‪)1 -‬‬
‫ونكاح الزنج فإنه خلق مشوه‪9562 - 1(.‬‬
‫علي بن إبراهيم‪ ،‬عن أسماعيل بن محمدالمكي‪ ،‬عن علي بن الحسين‪ ،‬عن عمروبن عثمان‪ ،‬عن الحسين بن خالد‪ ،‬عمن ذكره‪- ،‬‬
‫عن أبي الربيع الشامي قال‪ :‬قال لي أبوعبدهللا (ع)‪ :‬التشتر من ‪ ” ) 9563 - 2‬أما إنهم سيذكرون ذلك الحظ وسيخرج مع‬
‫القائم‪ )3‬فإنهم من الذين قال هللا عزوجل‪ ” :‬ومن الذين قالوا إنا نصارى أخذنا ميثاقهم فنسوا حظا مما ذكروابه(‪2‬السودان أحدا‬
‫(‪.‬فإن كان البد فمن النوبة( ع) مناعصابة منهم والتنكحوا من االكراد أحدا فإنهم جنس من الجن كشف عنهم الغطاء‬
‫عدة من أصحابنا‪ ،‬عن سهل بن زياد‪ ،‬عن موسى بن جعفر‪ ،‬عن عمرو بن سعيد‪ ،‬عن محمد بن عبدهللا الهاشمي‪ ،‬عن أحمد بن ‪-‬‬
‫يوسف‪ ،‬عن علي بن داود الحداد‪ ،‬عن أبي عبدهللا (ع) قال‪ ) 9564 - 3 :‬فإن لهم أرحاما تدل على غيرالوفاء قال‪ :‬والهند‬
‫(والسند والقندليس فيهم نجيب يعني القندهار‪4.‬التناكحوا الزنج والخزر‬
‫___________________________________‬
‫الشوه‪ :‬قبح الخلقة وهو مصدر من باب تعب ورجل اشوه قبيح المنظر وامرأة شوهاء و الجمع شوه مثل أحمر وحمراء )‬
‫وحمر‪ .‬وشاهت الوجوه تشوه‪ :‬قبحت وشوهتها قبحتها‪( .‬المصباح)(‪1‬‬
‫النوبة ‪ -‬بالضم ‪ :-‬رهط من بالد الحبش‪( .‬القاموس)(‪) 2‬‬
‫المائدة‪.14) 3( :‬‬
‫الزنج بالفتح ‪ :-‬صنف من السودان واحدهم زنجى‪ .‬والخزر هو ضيق العين وصغرها كانه ينظر بمؤخرها والخزر جيل من )‬
‫الناس‪( .‬الصحاح) وفى بعض النسخ [الخوذ]‪ .‬وهو ‪ -‬بالضم ‪ :-‬صنف من الناس‪4()*( .‬‬
‫‪source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/index.html‬‬ ‫”‬
‫‪Translation:‬‬
1. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Mas’adah bin Ziyad,
from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mu’mineen Ali [as] said:
“Beware of marrying the Negroes (Zunj) for they are an ugly creation.”(al-Kafi, fil Furoo’:
Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 1)
2. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Ismael bin Muhammad al-Makki, from Ali bin
al-Husain, from ‘Amr bin Othman, from al-Husain bin Khalid, from whom he
entioned from Abu Ar-Rabi’ al-Shami said:Imam Abu Abdullah [as] said:
“Do not [even] buy anyone who is a Negro…never marry anyone of the Kurdish (people)
for they are part of the Jinn (demons)…” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter:
Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 2)
3. (Narrated) Several of our fellows from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Musa bin Ja’far,
from ‘Amr bin Sa’eed, from Muhammad bin Abdillah al-Hashimi, from Ahmad bin
Yousuf, from Ali bin Dawood al-Haddaad said: Imam Abu Abdullah [as] said:
“Marry not from the Negroes (Zanj) nor the Khazar, for they have near relatives whom are
unfaithful.” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for
Marriage, Narration 3)
He further said:
“India, Sindh and Qindh–not a single one of them [from there] is intelligent.” (al-Kafi, fil
Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 3)
India of course refers to India, Sindh to Pakistan, and Qindh refers to Afghanistan.
Khazar refers to the northern areas near the Black Sea. And the Negroes are of
course from the West of Persia in Africa.
If we notice, Shi’ism is racist towards everyone other than the Persians. People of
every region surrounding Persia are considered inferior, including Africans, Kurds,
Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Indians.
The racism is also levied against Arabs and Arab culture. It is written in the Shia
book “Tareekh-al-Islam” that when Allah becomes happy, then He talks in Persian,
and He only speaks Arabic when He becomes annoyed. (Tareekh-al-Islam, p.163)
Another interesting point is that although the Shia believe in the superiority of the
Prophet’s descendants, they only trace it (i.e. the Ahlel Bayt) through the progeny of
Hussain. They ignore the progeny of his brother, Hasan. It does not take much
thought to realize why this is the case. Hussain married a Persian, and thus his
progeny was Persian. Therefore, the Shia found it prudent to abandon the non-
Persian progeny of Hasan and instead they only trace their Imamah through the
descendants of Hussain.
Ahlus Sunnah Rejects Racism
Whereas the Shia Hadith advocate racism, the Hadith of the mainstream Muslims
completely rejects racism. Here are some Hadith considered authentic by the Ahlus
Sunnah.
The Prophet said:
“An arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor has a non-Arab any superiority
over an Arab, nor has a black man any superiority over a white man or a white man
over a black man except by the criterion of taqwa (righteous practice). All of you are
from Adam, and Adam is from dust.” (As-Sunan)
The Prophet also said:
“Allah does not look at your shapes or your colors but He looks at your hearts
(intentions) and your deeds. Creatures are the dependants of Allah and the closest
among them to Allah are indeed the most useful to His dependants.”
Assabiyyah (nationalism/tribalism/bigotry) is strictly Haram (forbidden) based on

the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah.
The Prophet said:
“He is not one us who calls for Assabiyyah or who fights for Assabiyyah or who dies
for Assabiyyah.” (Abu Dawood)
The Prophet said about Assabiyyah:
“Leave it. It is rotten.” (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim)
We ask our Shia brothers to look inside their hearts and ask themselves wether they
would rather follow an Islam that preaches racism (i.e. Shi’ism) or an Islam that
preaches racial equality (i.e. Ahlus Sunnah)?
Mutah
“Mutah” translates literally to “pleasure” in Arabic. In the Shia context, Mutah refers
to a “temporary marriage.” A man pays a woman a sum of money (i.e. a so-called
“dowry”) and he can have sexual relations with her for however long they agree for
in the Mutah contract. The Mutah time period can be as little as one night, or even
one hour–enough time for the man to do the sexual act. For all intents and
purposes, Mutah is prostitution: a man pays a sum of money in order to have sexual
relations with a woman.
Mutah is considered permissible in the Shia faith. It is completely rejected by the

mainstream Muslims (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah). The Shia Ayatollahs
slander the Prophet by arguing that he encouraged Mutah, whereas the Ahlus
Sunnah valiantly rejects such blasphemy and adamantly holds that the Prophet
categorically forbade Mutah.
Shi’ism not only allows Mutah but actively encourages it. Naturally, many Shia
apologetics have a hard time accounting for this; oftentimes, the Shia laity
themselves (especially the women) are in denial as to their own beliefs. The fact is
that Shi’ism not only allows Mutah, but it actively encourages it and even forbids
anyone from saying that Mutah is wrong. According to Shi’ism, the more Mutah a
man engages in, the more reward he supposedly gets. Any person who does not
believe in Mutah is considered to be a Kaafir (disbeliever) by the Shia Ulema. There
is no debate on this amongst the Shia Ulema, and there is Ijma (consensus) amongst
them on the Kufr of denying Mutah.
Al-Kafi is one of the four Shia books of Hadith; of the four, it is considered the most
authoratative and authentic. We read one such Sahih Hadith, in which the Imam
says:
“One who engages in Mutah once in his lifetime reaches the status of Imam Al-
Hussain. One who engages in it twice becomes equal in status to Imam Al-Hasan.
The one who performs it three times reaches the position of Imam Ali. And he who
practices it four times acquires the level and position of the Prophet Muhammad.”
(Furoo al-Kafi)
This is pure blasphemy to say that all a man has to do to get to the level and position
of the Prophet is to have Mutah with four women. To say that a man who engages in
prostitution can in any way, shape, or form be compared to the Prophet is heresy.
Here are some more Shia Hadith from Al-Kafi (narrated in al-Kulaini, Furoo al-Kafi,
Volume 2, p.196):
1. Abaan Ibn Tulugh related that he said to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, “Often during my
travels I come across a very beautiful woman and I am not sure if she has a husband
or if she is an adultress or if she is one of dubious character.” The Imam
responded, “Why should you worry about all of these things? Your duty is to believe
what she says, and if she says that she has no husband then you should engage in
Mutah with her.” (Al-Kafi)
2. Zanaarah said, “I asked the Imam: ‘with how many girls can one do Mutah
with?’ He replied, ‘with as many as you like; they are like hired girls.’” (Al-Kafi)
3. “If a man contracts Mutah once in his lifetime, Allah will grant him paradise.” (Al-
Kafi)
4. “If a man does Mutah, he is saved from shirk.” (Al-Kafi)
Let us examine another Shia Hadith on the matter of Mutah:
Imam al-Sadiq (as) said: “The one who does not believe in our return [Al-Raj’ah]
and does not consider our Mutah to be Halal is not from us.” (al-Bihar, al-Majlisi,
v53, p92, Hadith #101)
And another interesting Shia Hadith:
Imam as-Sadiq (as) said: “He who believes in seven things is regarded as a believer:
the disavowal of idols and tyrants, the declaration of the divine leadership of the
Imams, the belief of Rajaa, legality of Mutah, the illegality of the flesh of eel, and
the illegality of passing the wet hands over the slippers (during the ritual
ablutions).” (Narrated by Ali bin Ahmed bin Abdullah who narrated to us from his
father from his grandfather from Ahmed bin Abi Abdullah al-Barqi from his father
from Amr bin Shemr from Abdullah)
These are very peculiar beliefs indeed. How is it that Mutah is considered
commendable in Shi’ism? Mutah is nothing other than prostitution. To believe that
Mutah is permissible is to negate all the Islamic exhortations in regards to chastity,
sexual modesty, and righteousness. Furthermore, it is complete blasphemy against
our Prophet to say that he encouraged prostitution. Mutah is Zinnah (fornication); it
is immoral and reprehensible.
Al-Shia.com on "Rewards for Doing Mutah"
Shia websites in English usually do a good job of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding), especially in regards to Mutah.
Shia websites in English usually do a good job of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding), especially in regards to Mutah. The
Shia try to downplay Mutah because it gives them a bad image in front of English-speaking Westerners. The Shia try to
downplay Mutah because it gives them a bad image in front of English-speaking Westerners. However, the Shia websites
in Arabic and Farsi do not have to take the same precautions and can instead be more open and frank about the Shia
belief of Mutah. However, the Shia websites in Arabic and Farsi do not have to take the same precautions and can
instead be more open and frank about the Shia belief of Mutah.
The popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has an Arabic section; in it, the site has included an entire book on
Mutah, titled “Narrations About the Rewards for Doing Mutah.” This book contains authentic Shia Hadith
about Mutah. The popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has an Arabic section; in it, the site has included an entire
book on Mutah, titled "Narrations About the Rewards for Doing Mutah." This book contains authentic Shia
Hadith about Mutah.
Here are some Hadith from that book in the original Arabic (also viewable on that website). Here are some
Hadith from that book in the original Arabic (also viewable on that website).
The Shia website can be found here: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/index.php The Shia website can be found
here: Http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/index.php
As well as here: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/lib/lib.php?id=4&page=5 As well as here: http://www.al-

shia.com/html/ara/lib/lib.php?id=4&page=5
1. “A man should at bare minimum contract Mutah at least once during his lifetime. 1. "A man should at bare
minimum contract Mutah at least once during his lifetime. ” "
‫عن أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه عن أبيه عن سعد بن عبد هللا عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن ابن أبي عمير عن هشام‬
‫ يستحب للرجل أن يتزوج المتعة و ما أحب للرجل منكم أن يخرج من الدنيا حتى‬: ‫بن سالم عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫ يتزوج المتعة و لو مرة‬Abu Qasim Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Qolouet from his father, from Sa'd bin
Abdullah Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Isa Ibn Abi Amir Hisham bin Salim Abu Abdullah (peace be
upon him) said: is recommended for a man to marry the fun and what I love for a man that you
come out of this world until he gets a fun time and if
2. 2. “For every shower you take after doing Mutah, you will be blessed. "For every shower you take after doing
Mutah, you will be blessed. For every Mutah you do, you will get a lot of reward.” For every Mutah you do,
you will get a lot of reward. "
‫ ما من‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد عن موسى بن علي بن محمد الهمداني عن رجل سماه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫رجل تمتع ثم اغتسل إال خلق هللا من كل قطرة تقطر منه سبعين ملكا يستغفرون له إلى يوم القيامة و يلعنون متجنبها إلى أن تقوم‬
‫ الساعة و هذا قليل من كثير في هذا المعنى‬And this attribution from Ahmad bin Muhammad Musa bin Ali
bin Mohammed Al-Hamdani about a man called Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said: "What a
man, then bathed only enjoy God's creation of every drop of it towing seventy angels ask
forgiveness for him until the Day of Resurrection and the curse Mottagnnbha to that time and that
few of the many in this sense
3. 3. “It is blame-worthy to avoid doing Mutah because it is part of the Sunnah to engage in Mutah.” "It is
blame-worthy to avoid doing Mutah because it is part of the Sunnah to engage in Mutah."
‫ تمتعت قلت ال‬: ‫و باإلسناد عن ابن عيسى عن ابن الحجاج عن العالء عن محمد بن مسلم عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) أنه قال لي‬
‫ قال ال تخرج من الدنيا حتى تحيي السنة‬And attribution from Ibn Isa Ibn Ala pilgrims from Muhammad ibn
Muslim from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) that he said to me: I enjoyed not said do not go
out of this world until the year marks
4. 4. “A man may have Mutah with one thousand women.” "A man may have Mutah with one thousand
women."
‫ المتعة هل هي من األربع فقال تزوج منهن ألفا‬: )‫ و عن أبي بصير أنه ذكر للصادق (عليه السالم‬And from Abu Basir said
that Sadiq's (peace be upon him): Is it the pleasure of the four of them married, said alpha
5. 5. A woman who lets a man do Mutah with her will have all her sins pardoned. A woman who lets a man do
Mutah with her will have all her sins pardoned. It is narrated by Imam Baqir that the Prophet said, “When I was
being taken to Heaven during the Miraj (ascension), Jibraeel met me and told me, 'O Muhammad, Allah has
promised to forgive all the sins of those women who practise Mutah.'” It is narrated by Imam Baqir that the
Prophet said, "When I was being taken to Heaven during the Miraj (ascension), Jibraeel met me and told me, 'O
Muhammad, Allah has promised to forgive all the sins of those women who practise Mutah. '"
‫ قال رسول هللا (صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم) لما أسري بي إلى‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن علي كذا عن الباقر (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫ السماء لحقني جبرئيل فقال يا محمد إن هللا عز و جل يقول إني قد غفرت للمتمتعين من النساء‬And this attribution of
Ahmed Bin Ali, as well as on-Baqir (peace be upon him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and
blessings be upon him) for my family to heaven to Hakni Gabriel said, O Muhammad, Allah
Almighty says, "I have been forgiven for enjoying women
6. 6. “Punishment for Not Performing Mutah: The people who do Mutah are blessed but those who avoid Mutah
are cursed until the Day of Judgement.” "Punishment for Not Performing Mutah: The people who do Mutah are
blessed but those who avoid Mutah are cursed until the Day of Judgement."
‫ ما من‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد عن موسى بن علي بن محمد الهمداني عن رجل سماه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫رجل تمتع ثم اغتسل إال خلق هللا من كل قطرة تقطر منه سبعين ملكا يستغفرون له إلى يوم القيامة و يلعنون متجنبها إلى أن تقوم‬
‫ الساعة و هذا قليل من كثير في هذا المعنى‬And this attribution from Ahmad bin Muhammad Musa bin Ali
bin Mohammed Al-Hamdani about a man called Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said: "What a
man, then bathed only enjoy God's creation of every drop of it towing seventy angels ask
forgiveness for him until the Day of Resurrection and the curse Mottagnnbha to that time and that
few of the many in this sense
8. 8. “Allah the Exalted and Majestic forbids intoxicants to the Shia; Mutah is the compensation for this.”
"Allah the Exalted and Majestic forbids intoxicants to the Shia; Mutah is the compensation for this."
- ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن عن موسى بن سعدان عن عبد هللا بن القاسم عن عبد هللا بن سنان عن الصادق (عليه‬
‫ إن هللا عز و جل حرم على شيعتنا المسكر من كل شراب و عوضهم عن ذلك المتعة‬: ‫ السالم) قال‬- And this cross from
Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Musa bin al-Hasan from monkey Abdullah bin Qasim Abdullah bin
Sinan from al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: Allah Almighty has forbidden the Ciatna intoxicants
of all drink and have fun for Awwadhm
9. 9. The Messenger of Allah said, “When he took me to the skies, Jibraeel (as) said : 'O Muhammad, Allah
Almighty said: Amongst the women, I will forgive those who make Mutah twice.'” The Messenger of Allah
said, "When he took me to the skies, Jibraeel (as) said: 'O Muhammad, Allah Almighty said: Amongst the
women, I will forgive those who make Mutah twice.'"
‫ السماء لحقني جبرئيل فقال يا محمد إن هللا عز و جل يقول إني قد غفرت للمتمتعين من النساء‬. And this attribution of
Ahmed Bin Ali, as well as on-Baqir (peace be upon him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and
blessings be upon him) for my family to heaven to Hakni Gabriel said, O Muhammad, Allah
Almighty says, "I have been forgiven for enjoying women.
15. 15. Imam Abu Abdullah (as) said: “There is no Mutah without two matters defined: time and named wage.”
Imam Abu Abdullah (as) said: "There is no Mutah without two matters defined: time and named wage."
‫ قال‬: )‫و باإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى رواه عن ابن محبوب عن جميل بن دراج عمن رواه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
‫ ال يكون متعة إال بأمرين أجل مسمى و أجر مسمى‬. And attribution from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa
narrated from Ibn Mahbub Jamil bin rider who narrated from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him):
"I do not have fun but two things indefinitely and pay indefinitely.
..
Below are 43 narrations on the “Narrations About the Rewards for Doing Mutah”…all from the same book
available on Al-Shia.com, the popular Shia website. Below are 43 narrations on the "Narrations About the
Rewards for Doing Mutah" ... all from the same book available on Al-Shia.com, the popular Shia website.
‫ عن أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه عن أبيه عن سعد بن عبد هللا عن‬- 1 ‫ بسم هّللا الرحمن الرحيم‬-1 ‫روايات في فضل المتعة‬
‫ يستحب للرجل أن يتزوج‬: ‫أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن ابن أبي عمير عن هشام بن سالم عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫ و بهذا اإلسناد عن ابن عيسى المذكور عن بكر‬-2 . ‫المتعة و ما أحب للرجل منكم أن يخرج من الدنيا حتى يتزوج المتعة و لو مرة‬
‫ أكره للرجل أن يخرج من الدنيا و قد بقيت خلة من خالل رسول‬: ‫بن محمد عن الصادق (عليه السالم) حيث سئل عن المتعة فقال‬
‫ و باإلسناد عن ابن عيسى عن ابن الحجاج عن العالء عن محمد بن مسلم عن أبي عبد‬- 3 . ‫هللا (صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم) لم تقض‬
‫ تمتعت قلت ال قال ال تخرج من الدنيا حتى تحيي السنة‬: ‫ هللا (عليه السالم) أنه قال لي‬. Accounts of the virtue of fun 1 -
the name of Allah the Merciful 1 - Abu Qasim Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Qolouet from his father,
from Sa'd bin Abdullah Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Isa Ibn Abi Amir Hisham bin Salim Abu
Abdullah (peace be upon him) said : is recommended for a man to marry the fun and what I love
for a man of you to come out of this world until he gets a fun, even once. 2 - and this reference
from Ibn Isa said that Bakr bin Muhammad al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) when he was asked for
fun, he said: I hate for a man to come out of this world and have remained trait through the
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not spend. 3 - and attribution from Ibn
Isa Ibn pilgrims Ala Muhammad ibn Muslim from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) that he said
to me: enjoyed I said no he does not even come out of this world salutes the year.
4 - ، )‫ قال لي أبو عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن أشيم عن مروان بن مسلم عن إسماعيل بن الفضل الهاشمي قال‬
4 ‫ تمتعت منذ خرجت من أهلك ؟‬- and this cross from Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Achim Marwan Ismail ibn Muslim
ibn al-Fadl al-Hashemi said: "I said Abu Abd Allah (peace be upon him), have enjoyed since I came out of your
family?
)‫ و إن كنت مستغنيا فإني أحب أن تحيي سنة رسول هللا (صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬: ‫قال‬. ‫ لكثرة من معي من الطروقة أغناني هللا عنها‬: ‫ قلت‬. I
said: to me from a multitude of Ductile Ognani by God. He said: And if you are able to do without, I would like
to revive the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
5- 5 ? ‫ يا إسماعيل تمتعت العام‬: )‫و باإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد عن سعد بن سعد عن إسماعيل الجعفي قال قال أبو عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
- and attribution of Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Khalid bin Saad Al Saad, Ismail Aljafee said: Abu Abd Allah
(peace be upon him): "O Ismail enjoyed a year?
‫ نعم‬: ‫ قلت‬. I said: Yes.
‫ ال أعني متعة الحج‬: ‫ قال‬. He said: I do not mean fun pilgrimage.
‫ فما قال متعة النساء‬: ‫ ? قلت‬I said: What fun, said women?
‫ قلت في جارية بربرية فارهة‬: ‫ قال‬. He said: I said at the ongoing barbaric luxury.
‫ قد قيل يا إسماعيل تمتع بما وجدت و لو سندية‬: ‫ قال‬. He said: "O Ismail said the enjoyment of what it found and if Sendip.
6- ‫ يا أبا‬: ‫ دخلت على أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) فقال‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن علي بن أبي حمزة البطائني عن أبي بصير قال‬
6 ? ‫ محمد تمتعت منذ خرجت من أهلك بشيء من النساء‬- and this attribution Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Issa from Ali bin
Abi Hamza Bataini from Abu Basir said: "I entered upon Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said: O Abu
Muhammad, has enjoyed since your family came out of Abeche, patching women? ‫ ال‬: ‫ قال‬. He said: no. ‫ و لم‬: ‫قال‬
? He said: and why? ‫ فأمر لي بدينار و قال أقسمت عليك إن صرت إلى منزلك حتى تفعل‬: ‫قال‬. ‫ ما معي من النفقة يقصر عن ذلك‬: ‫قلت‬
‫ ففعلت‬: ‫قال‬. . I said: What with me from spending limit for that. Said: "He ordered me a penny and he swore that
you become to your home until you do. He said: I did.
7- )‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن محمد بن الحسن عن محمد بن عبد هللا عن صالح بن عقبة عن أبيه عن الباقر (عليه السالم‬
7 ? ‫ قلت للتمتع ثواب‬: ‫ قال‬- and this cross from Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Isa from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan
Muhammad ibn Abdullah Saleh bin obstacle from his father from al-Baqir (peace be upon him) said: I said to
enjoy the reward? ‫ إن كان يريد بذلك هللا عز و جل و خالفا لفالن ; لم يكلمها كلمة إال كتب هللا له حسنة و إذا دنا منها غفر هللا له بذلك‬، ‫قال‬
‫ ذنبا فإذا اغتسل غفر هللا له بعدد} ما مر الماء على شعره قال قلت بعدد} الشعر قال نعم بعدد الشعر‬Said, if he wants to do God Almighty
and contrary to the person; did not speak to her word, but Allaah has good and if the DNA of which Allah will
forgive him this sin if bathed forgive him as the number over the water on his hair I said, the number of hair
said yes, the number of hair
8 - : ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن عن موسى بن سعدان عن عبد هللا بن القاسم عن عبد هللا بن سنان عن الصادق (عليه السالم) قال‬
8 ‫ إن هللا عز و جل حرم على شيعتنا المسكر من كل شراب و عوضهم عن ذلك المتعة‬- and this cross from Ahmed bin Mohammed
bin Musa bin al-Hasan from monkey Abdullah bin Qasim Abdullah bin Sinan from al-Sadiq (peace be upon
him) said: Allah Almighty has forbidden the Ciatna intoxicants of all drink and have fun for Awwadhm
9- ‫ قال رسول هللا (صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم) لما أسري بي إلى السماء لحقني‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن علي كذا عن الباقر (عليه السالم) قال‬
9 . ‫ جبرئيل فقال يا محمد إن هللا عز و جل يقول إني قد غفرت للمتمتعين من النساء‬- and this attribution of Ahmed Bin Ali, as well
as on-Baqir (peace be upon him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for my
family to heaven to Hakni Gabriel said, O Muhammad, Allah Almighty says, "I have been forgiven for enjoying
women .
10- ‫ ما من رجل تمتع‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد عن موسى بن علي بن محمد الهمداني عن رجل سماه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
‫ثم اغتسل إال خلق هللا من كل قطرة تقطر منه سبعين ملكا يستغفرون له إلى يوم القيامة و يلعنون متجنبها إلى أن تقوم الساعة و هذا قليل من كثير‬
10 . ‫ في هذا المعنى‬- and this cross from Ahmad bin Muhammad Musa bin Ali bin Mohammed Al Hamdani, a man
called Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said: "What a man, then bathed only enjoy God's creation of every
drop of it towing seventy angels ask forgiveness for him until the Day of Resurrection Mottagnnbha and cursing
that you and this time few of the many in this sense.
11- ‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن ابن قولويه عن محمد بن يعقوب عن محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن علي بن الحكم عن بشر بن حمزة عن رجل من‬
‫ قد عرفت كثرة من يخطبني من الرجال و لم أزوجهم نفسي و ما بعثت إليك رغبة في الرجال‬: ‫ بعثت إل ّى ابنة عمه لي لها مال كثير‬: ‫قريش قال‬
‫غير أنه بلغني أن المتعة أحلها هللا في كتابه و سنها رسول هللا (صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم) في سنته فحرمها عمر فأحببت أن أطيع هللا و رسوله و‬
11 . ‫ أعصي عمر فتزوجني متعة فقلت لها حتى أدخل على أبي جعفر (عليه السالم) فأستشيره فدخلت فاستشرته فقال افعل‬- and this
attribution of'm Qolouet from Muhammad, son of Jacob from Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmad ibn
Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam ibn Hamza preached for a man from Quraish said: "sent to his cousin have a
lot of money to me: I have known many of the men Iktabni and did not Ozojhm myself and what I sent you
desire in men is that I have heard that fun Allaah has permitted in his book, and enacted the Messenger of Allah
(peace and blessings be upon him) in the year of Vahramha age and I wanted to obey Allah and His Messenger
and disobey age Wiczuginy fun I told them even enter the to Abu Jafar (peace be upon him) entered Vostchireh
Fastcherth said to do.
12 - ‫ قلت ألبي الحسن (عليه السالم) إني كنت‬: ‫و بهذا اإلسناد إلى ابن يعقوب عن علي بن إبراهيم عن أبيه عن ابن محبوب عن علي السائي قال‬
‫أتزوج المتعة فكرهتها و سئمتها و تشأمت بها فأعطيت هللا عز و جل عهدا بين الركن و المقام و جعلت علي كذا نذرا و صياما أن ال أتزوجها ثم إن‬
12 . ‫ ذلك شق علي و ندمت على يميني و لم يكن بيدي من القوة ما أتزوج في العالنية‬- and this reference to the son of Jacob from
Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Mahbub Ali Alsaii said: I said to Abu al-Hasan (peace be upon him) I
was married fun Vltha and Simtha and Chomt it was given God the Almighty a covenant between the corner
and place and Ali made the vow as well as fasting and not to marry her then that I regretted and the incision on
my right and my hand was not strong enough to get married in public. ‫قال فقال لي عاهدت هللا أن ال تطيعه و هللا لئن لم تطعه‬
‫ لتعصينه‬. He said to me, a promise to God that does not obey him and God, although not their claim to Tasinh.
13- ‫و روى بإسناده إلى ابن قولويه عن علي بن حاتم عن أحمد بن إدريس عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن السري عن الحسن بن علي بن يقطين‬
‫ أدنى ما يجزي من القول أن يقول أتزوجك متعة على كتاب هللا و سنة نبيه (صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬: )‫قال قال أبو الحسن موسى بن جعفر (عليه السالم‬
13 . ‫ وسلّم) بكذا و كذا إلى كذا‬- and he narrated that al Qolouet to Ibn Ali ibn Hatim Ahmed bin Idris from Ahmad bin
Muhammad bin Issa secret for Hasan bin Ali bin Pumpkin said: Abu al-Hasan Musa bin Jafar (peace be upon
him): a minimum reward of what to say to say marry fun on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet
(Allah bless him and his family) as well as to such and such and such.
14- : )‫و باإلسناد إلى أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن رجاله مرفوعا إلى األئمة (عليه السالم) منهم محمد بن مسلم قال قال أبو عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
14 . ‫ ال بأس بتزويج البكر إذا رضيت من غير إذن أبيها‬- and attribution to Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Issa for his men is
attributed to the Imams (peace be upon him) including Muhammad ibn Muslim said: Abu Abd Allah (peace be
upon him): There is nothing wrong if she agrees to marry virgin without the permission of her father. ‫و جميل بن‬
‫ دراج حيث سأل الصادق (عليه السالم) عن التمتع بالبكر قال ال بأس أن يتمتع بالبكر ما لم يفض إليها كراهية العيب على أهلها‬. And Jamil
rider he asked al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said to enjoy the oldest not quite have the oldest what did not lead
to hatred of the defect on its people.
15- ‫ قال ال يكون‬: )‫و باإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى رواه عن ابن محبوب عن جميل بن دراج عمن رواه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
15 . ‫ متعة إال بأمرين أجل مسمى و أجر مسمى‬- and attribution from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa narrated from Ibn
Mahbub Jamil bin rider who narrated from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): "I do not have fun but two
things indefinitely and pay indefinitely.
16 - 16 ‫ ما تراضيا عليه إلى ما شاءا من األجل‬: ‫ و عن محمد بن مسلم الثقفي عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) حيث سأله كم المهر في المتعة قال‬-
and from Muhammad ibn Muslim Thaqafi from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) where he was asked how
much dowry in a fun, said: "What they both agree upon to Haoua of term
17- 17 . ‫ ما أدنى ما يتزوج به المتمتع قال بكف من بر‬: )‫ و عن محمد بن نعمان األحول قال قلت ألبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬- and
Muhammad bin Noman Ahwal I said to Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): What is the minimum to get
married he enjoys the palm of righteousness.
18- 18 . ‫ سواك يعض عليه‬: ‫ و عن هشام بن سالم عن الصادق (عليه السالم) عن األدنى في المتعة قال‬- and from Hisham ibn Salim
al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) for the lowest in the fun said: except you bite it.
19- 19 . ‫ في المتعة يجزيها الدرهم فما فوقه‬: )‫ و عن أبي بصير عن الصادق (عليه السالم‬- and from Abu Basir al-Sadiq (peace be
upon him): At the pleasure above are sufficient for DRAM.
20- 20 . ‫ كف من طعام أو دقيق أو سويق أو تمر‬: )‫ و عن أبي بصير عنه (عليه السالم‬- Abu Basir and for him (peace be upon
him): a palm of food or flour or Soiq or pass.
21- ‫ في الرجل يلقى المرأة فيقول لها تزوجيني نفسك شهرا و ال يسمى الشهر بعينه ثم يمضي‬: )‫و عن ابن بكار عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
21 . ‫ فبلغها بعد سنين فقال له شهره إن كان سماه فإن لم يكن سماه فال سبيل له عليها‬- And Ibn Bakkar narrated that Abu Abdullah
(peace be upon him): Women in a man who meets her says Marry yourself months and is not called a particular
month, then goes Vbulgha years later he said to him if he called a month if he is not no way he called him on it.
22- ‫و عن ابن قولويه عن علي بن حاتم عن أحمد بن إدريس عن ابن عيسى عن ابن محبوب عن محمد بن الفضل عن الحارث بن المغيرة أنه سأل‬
‫ هل يجزي في المتعة رجل و امرأتان قال نعم و يجزيه رجل واحد و إنما ذاك لمكان البراءة و لئال تقول في نفسها هو‬: )‫أبا عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
22 . ‫ فجور‬- and all I'm Qolouet Ali ibn Hatim Ahmad ibn Idris Ibn Isa Ibn Mahbub from Muhammad ibn al-Fadl
al-Harith bin invasive for that he asked Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): Do you reward in a fun, man and
two women said yes, and reward him with a man one, but rather that the place of innocence and, lest you say in
itself is immoral.
23 - )‫و بهذا اإلسناد عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن علي بن الحكم و محسن عن أبان عن زرارة عن حمران عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
23 . ‫ قلت أتزوج المتعة بغير شهود قال ال إال أن تكون مثلك‬: ‫ قال‬- and this cross from Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Issa from
Ali ibn al-Hakam and improved from Aban from Zurara for Hamran from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him)
said: I said get married without witnesses said fun not only be like you.
24- : ‫و عن ابن قولويه عن أبيه عن سعد عن ابن عيسى عن محمد بن خالد عن القاسم بن عروة عن عبد الحميد عن محمد بن مسلم في المتعة قال‬
24 . ‫ ليس من األربع ألنها ال تطلق و ال ترث‬- Ibn Qolouet from his father from Ibn Saad Issa Mohammed bin Khalid al-
Qasim ibn loop for Abdul Hamid Muhammad ibn Muslim in a fun, said: It is not the four she is not divorced
and does not inherit.
25- 25 ‫ عن المتعة هي من األربعة قال ال و ال من السبعين‬: )‫ و عن حماد بن عيسى قال سئل الصادق (عليه السالم‬- and from Hammad
bin Isa said he was asked al-Sadiq (peace be upon him): for fun is one of the four said no, and not from the
seventy-
26- 26 . ‫ المتعة هل هي من األربع فقال تزوج منهن ألفا‬: )‫ و عن أبي بصير أنه ذكر للصادق (عليه السالم‬- and from Abu Basir said
that Sadiq's (peace be upon him): Is it the pleasure of the four of them married, said Alpha.
27- 27 ‫ أنها من األربع‬: )‫ و عن عمر بن أذينة قال قلت ألبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) و البزنطي عن أبي الحسن (عليه السالم‬- and Umar ibn
al-auricula I said to Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) and Albzenti from Abu al-Hasan (peace be upon him):
it is one of the four
28- ‫ في المرأة الحسناء الفاجرة هل يجوز للرجل أن يتمتع بها يوما أو أكثر قال إذا كانت‬: )‫و عن محمد بن فضل عن أبي الحسن (عليه السالم‬
28 . ‫ مشهورة بالزناء فال يتمتع بها و ال ينكحها‬- and that Muhammad ibn Fadl Abu al-Hasan (peace be upon him): In the
beautiful women, promiscuous Is it permissible for a man to enjoy a day or more if he was famous Balzina not
enjoy it and do not marry.
29- ‫ سألت أبا عبد هللا (عليه السالم) في المرأة تزنى عليها أ يتمتع} بها قال أ رأيت ذلك قلت ال و لكنها ترمى به قال‬: ‫و عن الحسن بن جرير قال‬
29 . ‫ نعم يتمتع} بها على أنك تغادر و تغلق بابك‬- and al-Hasan ibn Jarir said: I asked Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) in
adultery by a woman enjoyed a said I saw it I said no, but they are thrown by said yes, enjoyed that you leave
and lock the door.
30 - ‫ في المرأة الفاجرة هل يحل تزويجها قال نعم إذا هو اجتنبها حتى تنقضي عدتها باستبراء‬: )‫و عن الحسن أيضا عن الصادق (عليه السالم‬
30 . ‫ رحمها من ماء الفجور فله أن يتزوجها بعد أن يقف على توبتها‬- and also from al-Hasan al-Sadiq (peace be upon him): In
women, promiscuous Is it permissible to marry her if he said yes Ajtenbha Bastbra until her womb from the
water of debauchery, he can marry her after standing on her repentance.
31- 31 . ‫ قال من شهر بالزناء أو أقيم عليه حد فال تزوجه‬: )‫ و عن محمد بن مسلم عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي (عليه السالم‬- Muhammad
ibn Muslim from Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Ali (peace be upon him): He who Balzina month or held by the
extent not marry him.
32- ‫ الرجل يتزوج متعة إلى شهر فهل يجوز أن يزيدها في أجرها و يزداد في األيام قبل‬: )‫و عن أبان بن تغلب قال قلت ألبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
32 ‫ أن يقضى أيامه فقال ال يجوز شرطان في شرط قلت و كيف يصنع قال يتصدق عليها بما بقي من األيام ثم يستأنف شرطا جديدا‬- and from
Aban ibn beat I said to Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): A man marries a fun-to-month is it permissible to
increases in wages and increases in the days before he spends his days he may not be conditions in the condition
I said and how to make said charity by including Left of days and then resumes a new condition
33- ‫ أتزوج المرأة شهرا فتريد مني المهر كامال و أتخوف أن تخلفني قال احبس ما‬: ‫و عن عمر بن حنظلة عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
33 ‫ قدرت فإن هي أخلفتك فخذ منها بقدر ما تخلفك‬- and Umar ibn al-cartoonist from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him)
said: "Women marry months she wants me to pony full and I fear that he withhold the Tkhalafni What is the
estimated Okhalaftk thigh which as far as posterity
34- ‫ قلت له رجل إلى أن قال إنك ال تدخل فرجك في فرجي و تلذذ} بما شئت قال ليس له منها إال ما‬: ‫عن سماعة عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال‬
34 . ‫ شرط‬- headset from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said: "I told him that the man said that you do not
enter your chastity in vulval and zest not said what you want him to do only what condition.
35- ‫ في رجل تكون في منزله امرأة تخدمه فيكره النظر إليها فيتمتع} بها و الشرط أن‬: )‫و عن عيسى بن يزيد قال كتبت إلى أبي جعفر (عليه السالم‬
35 . ‫ ال يفتضها فكتب ال بأس بالشرط إذا كانت متعة‬- and for Isa ibn Yazeed said I wrote to my father, Jafar (peace be upon
him): In a man to be served by a woman at his home makrooh viewed pleasent and the condition is not Evtdha
wrote there is nothing wrong if the condition was fun.
36 - ‫ قال ال بأس أن يتمتع بالمرأة على حكمه و لكن ال بد أن يعطيها شيئا‬: )‫و عن ابن أبي عمير عن بعض أصحابه عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
36 . ‫ ألنه إن حدث بها حدث لم يكن له ميراث‬- And Ibn Abi Amir for some of his companions Abu Abdullah (peace be
upon him): "I do not quite have the women on his rule, but do not have to give something to them that if this
happened was not his legacy.
37- ‫ في المرأة الحسناء ترى في الطريق و ال يعرف أن تكون ذات بعل أو عاهرة فقال ليس‬: )‫و عن أبان بن تغلب عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
37 . ‫ هذا عليك إنما عليك أن تصدقها في نفسها‬- and overcome from Aban ibn Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): In the
beautiful women you see on the road and not known to be a married or a prostitute, said this is not you but you
have to believe in themselves.
38- ‫ سألت أبا الحسن (عليه السالم) عن تزويج المتعة و قلت أتهمها بأن لها زوجا يحل لي‬: ‫و عن جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد األشعري عن أبيه قال‬
38 . ‫ الدخول بها قال (عليه السالم) أ رأيتك إن سألتها البينة على أن ليس لها زوج تقدر على ذلك‬- and from Ja'far bin Mohammed bin
Obaid al-Ash'ari that his father said: I asked Abu al-Hasan (peace be upon him) on the marriage of fun and I
said that her husband accused her of not lawful for me to enter the said (peace be upon him) a saw that I asked
her evidence that her husband is not estimated on it.
39- ‫ كتب أبو الحسن (عليه السالم) إلى بعض مواليه ال تلحوا في المتعة إنما عليكم إقامة‬: ‫و عن سهل بن زياد عن محمد بن الحسن بن شمون قال‬
39 . ‫ السنة و ال تشتغلوا بها عن فرشكم و حالئلكم فيكفرن و يدعين} على اآلمرين لكم بذلك و يلعنونا‬- and from Sahl ibn Ziyad from
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Hmon said: Books Abu al-Hasan (peace be upon him) to some disloyal not
importune you in a fun, but a year and not for the _iglua Frckm and Hlailkm Vikvrn and claiming two things
you do and Ilanon .
40- ‫ و ما أنت و ذاك قد أغنى هللا عنها قلت إنما أردت أن أعلمها قال هي في‬: ‫و عن علي بن يقطين عن أبي الحسن (عليه السالم) في المتعة قال‬
40 . )‫ كتاب علي (عليه السالم‬- and Ali ibn Abi al-Hasan for Pumpkin (peace be upon him) in a fun, "said: and what
you are and that the richest may Allah be pleased but I said I wanted to teach her is said in the book of Ali
(peace be upon him).
41- ‫ يقول في المتعة و نحوها أ ما يستحي أحدكم أن يرى في موضع العورة فيدخل بذلك على‬: )‫و عن الفضل أنه سمع أبا عبد هللا (عليه السالم‬
41 . ‫ صالح إخوانه و أصحابه‬- and all the credit that he heard Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him): he says in a fun and
so embarrassed by what one of you in a position to see the private parts so intrinsic to the benefit of his brothers
and his companions.
42 - ‫ هبوا لي المتعة في الحرمين و ذلك أنكم تكثرون‬: ‫و عن سهل بن زياد عن عدة من أصحابنا أن أبا عبد هللا (عليه السالم) قال ألصحابه‬
‫قال جماعة من أصحابنا رضي هللا عنهم العلة في نهي أبي عبد‬. )‫الدخول علي فال آمن من أن تؤخذوا فيقال هؤالء من أصحاب جعفر (عليه السالم‬
‫ أن أبان بن تغلب كان أحد رجال أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) و المروي عنهم فتزوج امرأة بمكة و كان كثير‬: ‫هللا (عليه السالم) عنها في الحرمين‬
‫المال فخدعته المرأة حتى أدخلته صندوقا لها ثم بعثت إلى الحمالين فحملوه إلى باب الصفا ثم قالوا يا أبان هذا باب الصفا و إنا نريد أن ننادي عليك‬
42 . ‫ هذا أبان بن تغلب أراد أن يفجر بامرأة فافتدى نفسه بعشرة آالف درهم فبلغ ذلك أبا عبد هللا (عليه السالم) فقال لهم و هبوها لي في الحرمين‬-
and from Sahl ibn Ziyad from several of our companions said that Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) said to
his companions: endowed me comfort in the Holy and that you are Tktheron access to not secure the Twkzu
said to those of the owners of Jafar (peace be upon him). Said group of our companions, may Allah be pleased
with them reason for the prohibition of Abu Abd Allah (peace be upon him) than in the Holy: The Aban bin
overcome was one of the men of Abu Abd Allah (peace be upon him) and irrigated them married a woman in
Mecca and had many women Fajdath money until you entered, and then fund written to the porters carried him
to the door of Safa and then said, "O Aban this section Safa and surely you want to call this showed bin around
a woman who wanted to blow himself Vavcdy ten thousand dirhams, bringing that Abu Abdullah (peace be
upon him) said to them, and me in the Holy Hboha.
43- ‫ حرمت عليكما المتعة من قبلي‬: ‫و روى أصحابنا عن غير واحد عن أبي عبد هللا (عليه السالم) أنه قال إلسماعيل الجعفي و عمار الساباطي‬
43 . ‫ ما دمتما تدخالن علي و ذلك ألني أخاف تؤخذا فتضربا و تشهرا فيقال هؤالء أصحاب جعفر‬- Roy and our companions for more
than one from Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) that he said to Ammar and Ismail Aljafee Alsabati: both of
you denied me the pleasure of what Dmtma coming on and because I am afraid Twkma Vtdharba Tchehra and
said to those owners of Jafar.
A Plea from a Muslim Sister
I was fourteen years old and my relationship with my parents was on the edge just
like any other teenager. I started to become interested in boys. I felt as if no one
understood me, not even my friends. I especially didn’t feel pretty with my braces.
It all changed when I met him. It was fascinating to know that a college student
would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me
like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything.
As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He
had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued
upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound bettter than what they
were. Soon I became very confused.
One day he mentioned the idea of Mutah. He told me that it was a type of temporary
marriage, which was Halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn’t believe him, but he
used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I
realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mutah for four years. As time went by, I
learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several
other girls.
I hope to inform and educate the people about the disease of Mutah, which is
spreading rapidly in the Sunni community. It is the goal of certain Shia individuals
to do Mutah with innocent girls, who lack knowledge of religion and experience of
life. They convince them with their beliefs, and create confusion in their minds. I
beg every sister, brother, father, mother, and friend to take a closer look at their
dear ones, and make sure they do not become victims to the concept of Mutah.
Mutah is a form of temporary marriage whereby a man can “marry” a woman for an
agreed amount of time and money (mahr). In Mutah, the husband is not financially
responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shia.
According to Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed
(the Sunni father does not believe in Mutah), and there is no limit on the number of
times one can do Mutah.
Also, the time period can be as little as one hour to as long as sixty years. In
addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mutah as he feels like,
even with married women. This is very similar to prostitution indeed.
Every day, more and more girls in our community are falling victim to this idea of
Mutah presented by the Shia individuals. These girls are helpless in asking anyone
for help, especially their parents. Please, teach and inform one another about the
idea of Mutah, and our beliefs regarding it. Please do it for the honor and dignity of
our Islam and for the love of Allah!
If everyone practised Mutah, which is what Shi’ism encourages, then we’d all
probably die of STDs. There are Shia hadith which say that a man should perform
Mutah with a thousand women. The medical implications of the implementation of
these Shia beliefs would mean an epidemic of diseases. It is well-known that Shia
guys are engaging in Mutah, oftentimes preying on innocent Sunni and Shia girls.
This has become a major problem on university campuses world-wide.
Yours Truly,
A Concerned Muslim Sister
More Shia Hadith on Mutah
Mutah refers to “temporary marriage”, in which a man pays a woman a set amount
of money in order to “marry” her for as long as he wants. This “marriage” can last as
little as one hour. By the dictionary definition, this is nothing but prostitution: a set
amount of money is paid for sexual services.
Mutah is not only allowed in the Shia religion, but it is actually actively encouraged.
Al-Kafi is the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. Here are some Hadith
from that book; it should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah rejects these Hadith as
Shia fabrications:
1. The Prophet said, “The man who contracts Mutah once will be saved from the
Hellfire. One who contracts it twice will be in the company of virtuous men [in
Paradise]. And the one who contracts it three times will be my companion in the
highest level of Paradise.” (Al-Kafi)
2. The Prophet said, “The men and women who die without performing Mutah even
once in their lives will appear on the Day of Judgment with their ears and nose cut
and [their faces] deformed.” (Al-Kafi)
3. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq narrated from the Prophet that “one third of the body is
saved from the Hellfire if one contracts mutah once. Two thirds of the body is saved
if one contracts Mutah twice, and the whole body is saved from Hell if one contracts
Mutah three times.” (Al-Kafi)
4. It is narrated that once the Prophet was sitting among his companions and the
discussion came to the topic of mutah. The Prophet said, “Do you know what is the
reward of mutah?”The companions answered, “No,” The Prophet then
said, “Jibraeel just came to me and said, ‘0 Muhammad, Allah sends His blessings to
you and commands you to instruct your Ummah to engage in the practice of Mutah
since this is the practice of [Allah’s] virtuous servants.”(Al-Kafi)
The Mutah Pimps
Adapted from an article written by Dr. Donna M. Hughes who is a Professor and
holds the Carlson Endowed Chair in Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode
Island.
According to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in
the number of teenage girls in prostitution, or rather, Mutah. The magnitude of this
statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. In Tehran, there are an
estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the streets,
others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the city. The trade is also
international: thousands of Iranian women and girls have been been “contracted in
Mutah” to foreigners abroad. The head of Iran’s Interpol bureau believes that the
Mutah trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today.
High unemployment – 28 percent for youth 15-29 years of age and 43 percent for
women 15-20 years of age - is a serious factor in driving restless youth to accept
Mutah. The Mutah “pimps” take advantage of any opportunity in which women and
children are vulnerable. For example, following the recent earthquake in Bam,
orphaned girls have been contracted out in Tehran where Iranian and foreign
traders meet.
Popular destinations for girls sent for Mutah are the Arab countries in the Persian
Gulf. According to the head of the Tehran province judiciary, Mutah traffickers
target girls between 13 and 17, although there are reports of some girls as young as 8
and 10, to send to Arab countries. The number of Iranian women and girls who are
deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the magnitude of the trade.
Police have uncovered a number of Mutah rings operating from Tehran that have
sold girls to France, Britain, Turkey, as well. One network based in Turkey bought
smuggled Iranian women and girls, gave them fake passports, and transported them
to European and Persian Gulf countries. In one case, a 16-year-old girl was
smuggled to Turkey, and then sold in Mutah to a 58-year-old European national for
$20,000.
In the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan, local police report that girls are
being sold in Mutah to Pakistani men. The Pakistani men temporarily marry the
girls, ranging in age from 12 to 20; they are also sent to Mutah brothels called
“Kharabat” in Pakistan. One network was caught contacting poor families around
Mashad and offering to temporary marry girls. The girls were then taken through
Afghanistan to Pakistan where they were sent to Mutah brothels to work. In the
southeastern border province of Sistan Baluchestan, thousands of Iranian girls
reportedly have been sold in Mutah to Afghani men. Their final destinations are
unknown.
One factor contributing to the increase in prostitution and the sex slave trade is the
number of teen girls who are running away from home. As a result of runaways, in
Tehran alone there are an estimated 25,000 street children, most of them girls.
Mutah “pimps” prey upon street children, runaways, and vulnerable high school
girls in city parks. In one case, a woman was discovered selling Iranian girls to men
in Persian Gulf countries; for four years, she had hunted down runaway girls and
sold them. She even sold her own daughter for US$11,000.
In cities, shelters have been set-up to provide assistance for runaways. Officials who
run these shelters are often corrupt; they run prostitution rings using the girls from
the shelter. For example in Karaj, the former head of a Revolutionary Tribunal and
seven other senior officials were arrested in connection with a Mutah prostitution
ring that used 12 to 18 year old girls from a shelter called the Center of Islamic
Orientation.
Other instances of corruption abound. There was a judge in Karaj who was involved
in a network that identified young girls to be sold in Mutah abroad. And in Qom, the
center for religious training in Iran, when a Mutah prostitution ring was broken up,
some of the people arrested were from government agencies, including the
Department of Justice.
Officials of the Social Department of the Interior Ministry are worried about the
increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Unlike other Muslim countries which have
a relatively low HIV rate in comparison to the rest of the world, Iran is facing a long
and hard battle with HIV due to the institution of Mutah, which is not permissible in
the Sunni school of thought. At least 500,000 women make their living from Mutah
in Iran, and at least 1.7 million women in Iran have engaged in it on a regular basis,
according to sources in Tehran.
Mutah and Hypocrisy
The following question was asked on the Shia Chat forum:
Would you give your daughter, sister, or widowed mother for Mutah?
On that site, Hezbullahi–a veteran member of that site–says:
I’m asking this question out of curiosity because the other day a sheikh was telling
my friend how good mut’a is and how society needs it etc.. but when my friend asked
him (just to test) if he could do mut’a with his daughter he refused and got angry.
(Hypocricy if you ask me)
There is a poll on that site, asking whether or not these Shia would give their
daughter or widowed mother in Mutah. An astonishing 40% of them said “YES.”
(The other 60% are hypocrites of course.) This thread can be found
here: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17012&st=0
Ayatollah and Mutah
Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual head of Iran, declared:
“It is permissible to engage in Mutah with a fornicator but with a disliking in one’s
heart, especially if she is a well known and professional fornicator. When a person
contracts Mutah with her, he should advise her to quit the profession of
fornication.”
(source: Tahreer al-Waseelah, Najaf: Matb’ah al-Adab)
The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, backs this opinion and says:

“If a man should contract a temporary marriage with a fornicatress, it is his duty to
command her not to perform adultery. But this is not a necessary condition of the
marriage…”
(source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm)
The moral implications of this statement are astonishing. In other words, a man can
have sex with a fornicatress. After he’s done having sex with her, he should advise
her not to have sex too much? The sheer hypocrisy of this is not lost on the unbiased
observor.
The leaders of a religion should be the most pious and righteous amongst the
people. Ayatollah Khomeini is considered the Wilayat Mutlaqah, or the Absolute
Authority from Allah. He is the sole representative of the Hidden Imam. Our
question is simple: would the Absolute Authority from Allah actually say such
immoral things?
The Fiqh of Mutah
Mutah is Arabic word which means “enjoyment” or “pleasure.” It refers to the Shia
belief in “temporary marriage” in which a man pays a woman and it becomes
permissible for the man to have sexual relations with her for a fixed period of time.
The following are Shia Hadith from the most important of the four Shia books of
Hadith, Al-Kafi. It is abundantly clear that these so-called Hadith advocate
prostitution and Zinnah, and go against the chastity that is a central tenet of true
Islam.
1. No Divorce or Inheritance Involved in Mutah:

The narrator asked Imam Baqir about the women of Mutah. The Imam said, “She is
not among those four [women classified as wives] because she neither needs a
divorce, nor is [a child born of her] entitled to any inheritance. She is like a hired
woman.” (Al-Kafi)
2. No Need for Witnesses or Open Declaration of Mutah:

“There is no need for witnesses or any open declaration in Mutah.” (Al-Kafi)
3. The Price of Mutah:
The narrator asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, “What should be the minimum
compensation for Mutah?” The Imam said, “Anything that the two parties agree
upon.” (Al-Kafi)
4. The Inexpensiveness of Mutah:

The narrator asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq what the minimum compensation for
Mutah could be, and he answered, “One fistful of wheat.” (Al-Kafi)
5. The Least Costly Mutah:

“Mutah is a marriage that may last for a very short time. It needs no witnesses, and
it has no period of ‘iddah. The minimum compensation that could be paid to the
woman for sexual relations is one dirham.”(Al-Kafi)
6. The Convenience of Mutah:

Aban bin Tughlaq related that he said to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, “Often during my
travels I come across a very beautiful woman and am not sure if she has a husband
or if she is an adulteress or if she is one of dubious character,” The imam
responded, “Why should you worry about all of these things? Your duty is to believe
what she engage in Mutah with her.” (Al-Kafi)
7. Mutah is Allowed with Women of Dubious Character:

The narrator asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, “In al-Kufa there is a woman known for
her dubious character. Can I engage in Mutah with her?” The imam said, “Yes, you
may engage in Mutah with her.” (Al-Kafi)
8. Mutah with Numerous Women:

Zararah said, “I asked the Imam with how many different girls one can contract
Mutah. He answered, ‘with as many as one likes. These women are like hired
girls.’” (Al-Kafi)
9. Numerous Sexual Gratifications in Mutah:

“One my have sexual relations with the woman contracted for Mutah any number of
times he desires.”(Al-Kafi)
10. An Open License with All Women:

“Mutah is allowed with all types of women. She may be a virgin, married, widowed
or may belong to any sect, group or religion. She may be a Christian, Jew or Muslim.
However, Mutah with a Majusi (Magian) woman is permissible only when one is
helpless.” (Al-Kafi)
11. Mutah with One Thousand Women:

“If one desires, he may have Mutah with one thousand women since these are like
hired women.” (Al-Kafi)
12. Mutah with a Young Girl:
Jameel bin ad-Dari said that he asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq if Mutah was
permissible with a virgin girl. The Imam said, “There is no harm in it if the girl is not
too young. However, all of the collectors of hadith agree that a nine-year-old girl is
not considered too young.” (Al-Kafi)
13. The Commission of Mutah:

Ali asked the Prophet: “What is the reward of the person who participates in the
virtuous deed of arranging the mutual meetings of a man and woman?” The Prophet
said, “He will receive the same reward as the two who engage in Mutah.” (Al-Kafi)
14. Blessings of Mutah:

The Prophet said, “The man who contracts Mutah once will be saved from the
Hellfire. One who contracts it twice will be in the company of virtuous men [in
Paradise]. And the one who contracts it three times will be my companion in Firdos
[the highest level of Paradise].” (Al-Kafi)
15. Mutah - A Blessing from Allah:

No one can close the door of blessings which Allah opens for His servants, Imam
Jafar as-Sadiq said,“Mutah is one of the blessings of Allah.” (Al-Kafi)
16. Mutah - A Security for Paradise:

“If a man contracts Mutah once in his lifetime, Allah will grant him Paradise.” (Al-
Kafi)
17. Mutah - A Savior from Shirk:

“He who contracts Mutah is saved from Shirk.” (Al-Kafi)
18. Mutah - A Pardon from All Sins:
“When a person engages in Mutah, all of his private talking to the woman is
recorded as virtues. When he extends his arms towards the woman, this is also
written as virtue. When he engages in the sexual act with the woman, Allah forgives
all of his sins. When the two take a bath, Allah showers His blessings upon them and
forgives their sins equal to the amount of hair [on their bodies].” The narrator
inquired in surprise,“Equal to the amount of hair on their bodies?” The imam
replied, “Yes, for every one single hair [wet by the water]. But their reward is
reduced by the amount of hair that may not be wet.” (Al-Kafi)
19. Mutah - A Pardon of Sins for Practicing Women:

It is narrated by Imam Baqir that the Prophet said, “When I was being taken to
Heaven during the Mi’raj (ascension), Jibraeel met me and told me, ‘0 Muhammad,
Allah has promised to forgive all of the sins of those women who practice
Mutah.’” (Al-Kafi)
20. Denying Belief in Mutah:
“One who does not believe that we (i.e., the Infallible Imams) will reappear and rule
and one who does not believe in the sanctity of Mutah is not from among us.” (Al-
Kafi)
21. Punishment for Not Performing Mutah:

The Prophet said, “The men and women who die without performing Mutah even
once in their lives will appear on the Day of Judgment with their ears and nose cut
and [their faces] deformed.” (Al-Kafi)
22. Mutah - A Safeguard Against the Hellfire:

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq narrated from the Prophet that “one third of the body is saved
from the Hellfire if one contracts Mutah once. Two thirds of the body is saved if one
contracts Mutah twice, and the whole body is saved from Hell if one contracts
Mutah three times.” (Al-Kafi)
23. Mutah - A Deed of Allah’s Virtuous Servants

It is narrated that once the Prophet was sitting among his companions and the
discussion came to the topic of Mutah. The Prophet said, “Do you know what is the
reward of Mutah?” The companions answered, “No,” The Prophet then
said, “Jibraeel just came to me and said, ‘0 Muhammad, Allah sends His blessings to
you and commands you to instruct your ummah to engage in the practice of Mutah
since this is the practice of [Allah’s] virtuous servants.’” (Al-Kafi)
24. Mutah - A Ladder to the Stages of Piety:

“One who engages in Mutah once attains the status of Imam al-Hussain. One who
engages in it twice becomes equal in status to Imam al-Hasan. The one who
performs it three times reaches the position of Imam Ali. And he who practices it
four times acquires the level and position [equal to that] of the Prophet.” (Al-Kafi)
25. Great Reward for Women Who Does Mutah For Free:
“For the woman who donates back her compensation to the person who contracts
Mutah with her and for the woman who foregoes her dowry, Allah will reward her
with 40,000 cities of light and 70,000 dresses of velvet and silk brocade…And Allah
will reward her with 70,000 more dresses from Heaven for each quarter of a dirham
she donates back… And for each quarter of a dirham Allah will also assign 1,000
angels who will continue writing virtues in her account until the Day of
Judgment.” (Al-Kafi)
Legalized Whore-Houses in Iran
The Iranian government recently passed legislation which created legal whore-
houses, brothels which would be officially liscensed under law as “Chastity Houses.”
Such a name is of course the epitome of Orwellian terminology, and the irony of the
name should not be lost to anyone.
The Iranian clerics argued that the only way to solve the problem of prostitution is
to bring it under state control. In recent weeks, several prominent conservative
clerics have proposed that prostitutes be placed in government-run shelters for
destitute women to be called “Chastity Houses,” where male customers could briefly
“marry” them under the Shia belief of Mutah. These brothels would then be run by
the Iranian religious clerics, who would ensure that the couples use contraceptives
and protective measures. Proponents of the idea argue that it would “eradicate
social corruption” by legitimizing sexual relations between the men and women.
Under the plan, the couples would register for a temporary marriage under Iran’s
Shia law.
One cleric backing the plan, Ayatollah Mohammed Mousavi Bojnurdi, recently told
a newspaper: “We face a real challenge with all these women on the street. Our
society is in an emergency situation, so the formation of the Chastity Houses can be
an immediate solution to the problem.” He added that the plan “is both realistic and
conforms to Sharia [Islamic] law.”
The Cultural Council for Women, a women’s rights group, argue back that such
houses would be a “deceitful and thinly disguised” form of prostitution. Reuters
recently quoted Shahrbanou Amani, a female parliamentarian, as calling the
Chastity Houses “an insult and disrespectful to women.” Particularly discomforting
is that there are hundreds of thousands of prostitutes in Tehran alone, and many of
them are girls who are poverty-striken and forced into the now legalized prostitution
that is so rampant in Iran.
Supreme Leader Khamenei on Mutah
Sayyid Ali Khamenei is the current ruler of Iran, and is considered the Supreme
Leader by the Shia. There is no person on the earth who is equal in rank to him,
according to the Shia. Recently, this Supreme Leader of Iran launched his official
website (www.leader.ir), wherein he answers questions and gives Fatwas.
In response to a question about Mutah, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei responded and

declared that Mutah (temporary marriage) is not only permissible but rather it
is Mustahabb (highly recommended). Ayatollah Khameini said:
“Although mut‘ah marriage is permissible, or rather mustahabb [highly

recommended] in our view, it is not obligatory in shar‘[iah].”
(Source: http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/tree/39/view.php?
parent=n6986&catid=39)
In Mutah, Man Does Not Provide Support to Woman Nor Child
According to the Shia Fiqh, a man who has Mutah with a woman is not obligated to
provide for her at all. In fact, even if she gets pregnant, the man still does not need
to provide! We find the following Fatwa issued by Ayatollah Sistani on Al-Islam.org:
“2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to

subsistence even if she becomes pregnant.”
(source: Ayatollah Sistani, Al-Islam.org,

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage2.html)
Even if the woman thought she would be provided for, she still has no right to claim
any subsistence from the man. We find the following statement by Ayatollah Sistani
(emphasis is ours):
“2435. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that
she was not entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband’s conjugal bed, still
her marriage will be valid, and inspite of this lack of knowledge, she has no
right to claim anything from her husband.”
(source: Ayatollah Sistani, Al-Islam.org,

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage2.html)
Both of these religious edicts are confirmed by Grand Ayatollah Lankarani on his
official website:
“2569. A woman, with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to

subsistence even if she becomes pregnant.
“2571. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that
she was not entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband’s conjugal bed, still
her marriage will be valid, and in spite of this lack of knowledge, she has no right to
claim anything from her husband.”
(source: Grand Ayatollah Lankarani’s official website,

http://www.lankarani.com/eng/index.html)
So we wonder how in the world this is a marriage at all? The reality is that the
woman is nothing more than a prostitute who is provided a small fee at the start of
the Mutah period, and that is it. It defies logic and common sense that anybody
would refer to this as a marriage at all. A man can literally have sex with a woman,
and even if she gets pregnant as a consequence, the man does not need to provide
for her or the child! The manner in which Shia law allows men to enjoy sexual
relations surpasses even the civil laws of the Westerners who at least demand that a
boyfriend pay child support in case his girlfriend gets pregnant.
Mutah is Haram
 Shia Claims
Most Shia of today have a hard time self-justifying the concept of Mutah. In fact, it is
a point which causes many of them to doubt their faith, and rightfully so. It is sad
that the Shia elders use false rhetoric to demand that their followers reject logic and
morality, to instead blindly accept the idea that prostitution is part of Islam. These
Shia leaders will make emphatic arguments such as this:
“The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did Mutah, and he not only allowed it, but actively
encouraged it! We must obey the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬in all matters, and we
cannot disagree with him based on our own opinions. If the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬did it, then surely we should do it. Whoever says that Mutah is disgusting is
saying that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬is disgusting.”
And some Shia will even go a step further and falsely claim:
“Mutah is even allowed in Sunni Hadith. The only reason Sunnis do not do Mutah is
because the second Caliph, Umar, banned Mutah against the orders of the Prophet (
‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.” Then, the Shia will procure Sunni Hadith which say that the
Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬allowed Mutah.”
 Mutah Forbidden in Stages
The reality is that Mutah was permissible in the early days of Islam, but was
eventually banned categorically by the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. This is very
similar to wine, which was at first permissible in Islam, and it was only later in time
that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬forbade it. The prohibitions against wine were
expounded slowly over a period of time. In the beginning, drinking wine was
permissible and many of the Sahabah did it. Then, the Quran declared that wine was
harmful and bad. After some more time, the Quran forbade approaching prayer
whilst drunk. After the people had become accustomed to this, it was only then that
they were ready so that Allah and His Messenger (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬completely
forbade wine.
Why did the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬first allow wine and then later forbid it?
This was only because Islam was revealed in stages, and the faith was going through
a transitional period, with the Shariah being expounded during the life-span of the
Prophet. If the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬had not banned wine in stages, and
instead had he (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬simply banned wine immediately, it would have
been very hard for the early Muslims who were accustomed to wine-drinking, which
was a hobby of the pagan Arabs. Many of them were early converts and their faith
was weak. They had an addiction to wine, and many of them would become
apostates if wine was suddenly banned outright. So, the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
banned wine in gradual stages so that it was easier on the people.
Likewise, Mutah was a hobby of the pagan Arabs. Hence, it was not forbidden in the
beginning. This is because Islam was in a transitional stage. The Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬initially allowed Mutah on a few occassions because there were many new
converts to Islam who had weak faith. They were often in times of war away from
their wives, in which their desires got the best of them since they were not
accustomed to the chastity of Islam. In order to prevent the apostacy of these new
converts over the issue of Mutah, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬did not forbid
Mutah immediately. (And these are the Hadith which the Shia quote to “prove” that
Sunnis believe in the permissibility of Mutah.)
Once the Muslims became stronger in faith, the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬
categorically banned the practise of Mutah.
 Hadith Forbidding Mutah
The Hadith forbidding Mutah are considered Mutawattir, meaning that they have
been transmitted so many times and by so many people that there is no doubt as to
their authenticity. We are but a few of the many Hadith in which the Prophet (‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬banned Mutah:
“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, Nasaì, and Darimi]
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬said:
“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, Nasaì, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]
Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬said 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 هللا عنه‬was 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]
Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Numayr
who said:
“My father had narrated to us according to Ubaidullah according to Ibn shahab

according to Alhassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad bin Ali according to
their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn Abbas being lenient towards
temporary marriage, so he said, ‘wait Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had
forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic
camels.’” [Sahih Muslim]
Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:
“In the year of Autas, Allah’s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three
nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.” [Sahih Muslim]
Narrated Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬:
“Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.” [Sahih
Muslim and Sahih Bukhari]
Narrated Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬:
“At the battle of Khaybar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mutah)
of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.” [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih
Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa’i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]
It was narrated from Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬that:
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.]
Sabrah bin Ma’ bad al-Jihani reported:
“I went forth with the Prophet for the conquest of Mecca, and he allowed us Mutah
with women. But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the
Messenger of Allah.”
 The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam
The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam also states that Mutah was a common practice
among Arab travelers and goes back to the fourth century:
“When a stranger came to a village and had no place to stay, he would marry a
woman for a short time so that she would be his partner in bed and take care of his
property.”
Caetani also concluded that Mutah in the pagan period was religious prostitution
that took place during the occasion of pilgramage.
Thus, Mutah was a loose sexual practice during the pre-Islamic days of ignorance in
Arabia. Being an old and established institution, it continued during the early days
of Islam. The Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬also allowed it temporarily on two other
occasions, but only under strict, exceptional conditions during the conquest of
Khaybar and during the conquest of Mecca - fearing that those Muslims whose faith
was not yet strong might commit adultery during Jihad.
The Shia widely quote Hadith in relation to these events to support their continued
belief in Mutah. Sunnis accept these Hadith but add that they happened before all of
the revelations of the Quran were revealed and the religion completed. Historians
and commentators on the Quran and Hadith agree that Islam eradicated most social
evils in a gradual way. It is well known that practices like gambling, drinking, and
the eating of pork and blood were common during the early days but were gradually
prohibited. Likewise, it seems probable that Mutah was first forbidden to those at
Khaybar in the year 7 A.H. and was then completely prohibited to all upon the
conquest of Mecca in 8 A.H.
 Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬ Did Not Invent the Ruling on Mutah
The Shia claim that it was Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who forbade the practice of Mutah and
that Mutah was openly practiced during the lifetimes of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه وآله‬
‫ )وسلّم‬and Abu Bakr (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬. In fact, Sunnis acknowledge that Umar (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
again declared Mutah to be illegal, but they also state that he did not make the
ruling from himself. He was merely reiterating the words of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫)وآله وسلّم‬.
Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was elected Caliph just two and a half years after the Prophet’s
death (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Present around him were the respected family members
and noble companions of the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. Had Umar’s declaration (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬been contrary to the Prophet’s practice (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, a number of
these noble people would have objected to it. Yet, nowhere in Islamic history is
recorded a single protest against his announcement.
Furthermore, since Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was later succeeded by Uthman (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
and then by Ali (‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬, had Umar’s statements (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬been contrary to the
ruling of the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬at least one of them would have
reestablished the sanctity of Mutah. Again, there are no records of such abrogation.
Oddly enough, the Shia believe that Ali (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬left behind a voluminous book,
Nahjul Balagha, wherein he presented various aspects of Islam and the Muslim
state. However, not a single word in favor of Mutah is mentioned in it. Had Umar (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬been wrong in forbidding Mutah, nothing would have prevented Ali (
‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬from condemning it in his writings.
After the Prophet’s death (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬, there were some people who were
unaware of the prohibition of Mutah and thus allowed it. Ibn Abbas ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬was
one such individual, but he later recanted on this position after Ali ( ‫)رضّى هللا عنه‬
corrected him. The Shia bring up Ibn Abbas (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬to somehow prove that
Mutah is Halal. How can this lone opinion of one Sahabah go against the sayings of
the Prophet (‫ ?)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬Ibn Abbas (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬made a sincere mistake, and
the reliable reports indicate that he corrected his position later on.
The fact is that in the end the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬forbade Mutah. Perhaps
some people might not have been aware of its prohibition and subsequently
contracted it after the Prophet’s death; however, when Umar ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬found out
about it, he made another public declaration against it and enforced the ruling as
the Caliph and head of the Islamic state. Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬demanded the people
to give Zakat when he became Caliph; does any rational mind claim that it was Abu
Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬who invented the obligation of Zakat? There were even some
Companions who were of the opinion that Abu Bakr ( ‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬should be lenient
towards those Zakat evaders, and yet Abu Bakr (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬rejected these calls for
lenience. Likewise, there were some people who were lenient towards Mutah,
especially in light of the fact that there were many new converts in a fast-growing
empire, but Umar (‫ )رضّى هللا عنه‬rejected these calls for lenience and instead called for
the rigid implementation of the Shariah.
 Shia Propaganda
The Shia will produce obscure sources to “prove” their claim that it was Umar ( ‫رضّى‬
‫ )هللا عنه‬who forbade Mutah, and not the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. As is typical with
the Shia, such obscure sources suddenly become the “authoratative Sunni book”–
despite the fact that these are obscure and unreliable sources, and oftentimes these
are books written by Shia scholars and have absolutely nothing to do with the Ahlus
Sunnah wal Jama’ah.
It is possible that the disagreement surrounding temporary marriage–both back

then after the Prophet’s death (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬and now with our debates with the
Shia–revolves around people confusing two homonyms in the Arabic language.
“Mutah” is used in two ways:
1) Mutah Al-Nisa: temporary marriage with women

2) Mutah Al-Hajj: A type of religious pilgramage in which one performs a modified
version of Umrah and Hajj. The more common name for this type of pilgramage is
tamattu’ (and hence the confusion).
Mutah Al-Nisa translates to “pleasure of the women” and this needs no explanation.
As for Mutah Al-Hajj, this refers to the pleasure of this modified form of pilgramage.
In Mutah Al-Hajj, the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬allowed relaxation of the Ihram
and other duties, thereby making the pilgramage more enjoyable and pleasurable to
the believer. It is for this reason that it is referred to as Mutah Al-Hajj.
Many of the Hadith that the Shia bring up that use the word “Mutah” are actually
referring to Mutah Al-Hajj, and have nothing to do with Mutah Al-Nisa. Thus, a
Sunni follower should not be caught off-guard when the Shia propagandists take
Hadith out of context, pretending it refers to Mutah Al-Nisa when it really refers to
Mutah Al-Hajj. In any case, there are an overwhelming number of Hadith which
forbid Mutah Al-Nisa, and the lone opinion of a Sahabah cannot possibly change
this opinion. And even this lone opinion stated that Mutah is Makrouh (highly
detestable) and only permissible in dire situations of need, unlike the Shia opinion
which is that Mutah is Mustahabb (highly recommended) at all times.
We wonder why the Shia even try to justify Mutah by showing that it is even allowed
in Sunni Hadith? How does this in any way change the situation? Temporary
marriage is immoral. If the Sunnis also believe in Mutah, then it simply means that
the Sunnis are immoral too. It does not absolve the Shia from the immoral nature of
his own religion which allows Mutah. We hope that the Shia can understand this:
proving the Ahlus Sunnah incorrect does not automatically prove the Shia correct. If
we agree with the fallacious argument that Sunni Islam also allows Mutah, then we
are simply agreeing that both Sunni and Shia religions are immoral. Generally
speaking, in the adult world, proving someone else wrong does not prove oneself
correct. For example, if the Shia said that 2 plus 2 equals 8, the Shia would not
prove themselves correct by showing that the Sunnis were wrong by claiming that 2
plus 2 equals 30.
Furthermore, at most the Shia would be able to say that the Sunni Hadith allows for
Mutah only in dire situations of need and that it is Makrouh (highly detestable). (To
say even this is a stretch from the truth, since the Ahlus Sunnah forbids Mutah in all
circumstances.) On the contrary, the Shia Fiqh encourages Mutah and believes it to
be Mutahabb (highly recommended), promising sins to be forgiven to the one who
practices it and other such things. Thus, no matter what, the Shia propagandist
must explain why his Shia Imams would glorify this hideous institution to the point
that they claim that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬said:
“The man who contracts Mutah once will be saved from the Hellfire. One who
contracts it twice will be in the company of virtuous men [in Paradise]. And the one
who contracts it three times will be my companion in the highest level of Paradise.”
(Al-Kafi)
And there are many more Shia Hadith in this regards. It should be noted that there
is a world of difference between accepting Mutah as a dire necessity on the one hand
and on the other saying that it is a great deed of piety. At the most the Shia could
claim that the Sunnis allow Mutah but consider it Makrouh (highly detestable)
whereas the Shia believe it to be Mustahabb (highly recommended). Thereby,
proving Mutah from Sunni sources does not absolve the Shia from explaining the
moral lapse in the Shia Imams who would declare such an act to be highly
recommended.
 Conclusion
The fact of the matter is that the Ahlus Sunnah considers Mutah to be Haram
(forbidden), and believes this prohibition to be from the Prophet (‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
It is upto the Shia follower to slander the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬by saying that
he would allow such a practise to continue. As for the Shia trying to prove that
Mutah is Halal even in Sunni Fiqh, we could just as easily prohibit Mutah in the
Shia Fiqh by playing around with their Hadith; if one tries hard enough, it is
possible to declare anything Halal or Haram with enough word games and singular
Hadith out of context. The bottom line, however, is that the Ahlus Sunnah forbids
Mutah and the Shia allow it. Now it is upto the Shia to deal with the reprocussions of
this, and so they should not be surprised when we question the moral nature of the
institution they believe in.
The position of the Ahlus Sunnah on the illegality of Mutah is very clear and
definitive: nonetheless, we will be forced to endure the broken record players that
incessantly repeat that the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬encouraged Mutah. No
matter how many times the Shia claim this, it simply is not true. The fact of the
matter is that this argument by the Shia is simply a smoke-screen to hide their guilt
over the abundance of their Imam’s sayings which advocate prostitution.
Making a Living from Mutah Prostitution
Using the institution of Mutah, it is very possible for a woman to gain a living by
doing Mutah with one man and then immediately marrying another man, and so on
and so forth. To the unbiased observor, this woman would be nothing more than a
prostitute.
The following question was asked on Al-Islam.org, the authoratative Shia website.
The scholar passed the following Fatwa. No comments necessary, as it speaks for
itself.
Making a living from Mut’a Marriage
Question:
Is it haram for a woman to make a living at mutah by marrying a man for a short
period, receiving a mahr, then observing iddah and marrying another man for a
short period and so on so that she is married to say half a dozen men in the year? If
it is haram what makes it haram if she is observing the rules for mutah properly?
And if it is not haram, does she deserve to be condemned as immoral (or do the men
who marry her deserve that)?
Answer:
It is not haram for her to make a living in this way if she follows the rules of Sharia
properly. Nor does she deserve to be condemned. This also applies to the men who
marry her.
Wasalaam
Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa: Virgin Girls Can Do Mutah
Question : I know a virgin girl… can I do the Mutàh with her?
Answer : Any relationship with girl with out[side] legal marriage contract is haram
and impermissible, while Mutàh is permissible provided her guardian’s
permissionlike her father or her grandfather…
(source: Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s official website,

Fatwas: Permission of Wali Not Required for Mutah; Shia Guy Can Take Sunni Girl in
Mutah
Ayatollah Fadlullah is the spiritual leader of Hizbollah, revered by the Shia in

Lebanon and worldwide. We find the following fatwa on his official website:
Conditions of temporary marriage
Q: What are The Conditions of Temporary marriage and what is the wording of the
contract?
…It is allowed to conclude a temporary marriage with a virgin if she is an

adult, since she has the right to wed herself without the permission of
her guardian, but other considerations should be taken into account – like bad
reputation the girl might acquire or that she might put herself in a dangerous
situation, since it is illegal to endanger oneself in Islamic law even if it were in
marriage…
(source: Ayatollah Fadlullah’s official website,

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/1a.htm#Conditions%20of%20temporary
%20marriage)
He was also asked the following question, to which he answered:
Temporary Marriage
Q: Is it permissible to conclude a contract with a girl that is 18 years old and that
supports herself financially?
A: It is permissible, in case she is rational.
(source: Ayatollah Fadlullah’s official website,

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/1a.htm#Conditions%20of%20temporary
%20marriage)
There has been an increasing number of older Shia men who prey on young Sunni
girls and get them to enter into Mutah. This is sanctioned by the Shia scholars who
say that the permission of the girl is not required to take her in Mutah! Truly, the
Sunni masses should be made aware of this threat.
We read the following fatwa on Imam Rohani’s official website:
Question:
I know a virgin Sunni girl. Is it permissible to perfom Mutah with her without
permission of her Wali? To have a talk (with her) without sex?
Answer:
It is permissible without permission of the Wali, with or without penetration. (i.e.
sex)
(source: Imam Rohani’s official website,

http://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?
t=1585&sid=636359d0ff787b20f81975c855c2c475)
This is a truly dangerous religion, and parents should be made aware of this Shia
threat to the honor of Sunni girls. May Allah protect our women, as well as the
women of the Shia who are also susceptible to being exploited by their Shia men.
These Shia men can literally take away girls and have Mutah with them, without
even the permission of the girl’s parents. And not only this, but these men believe
themselves to be rewarded for this act of Mutah.
Misyar Marriage is Not Like Mutah
Question:
As-Salam Alaykum,
What is the difference between “Mutah” of the Shia and “Misyar” of the Sunnis? I
have heard many Shia defending Mutah by accusing Sunnis of believing in Misyar
which they say is a very degrading institution. Can you please tell me what is the
difference between the two, and how do we respond to a Shia person who says this?
Answer by Team Ahlel Bayt:
Firstly, the Shia scholars believe in the permissibility of Misyar. So all these silly e-
Shia propagandists are making fools of themselves by demonizing Misyar. The
permissibility of Misyar marriage has been stated on the official website of Grand
Ayatollah Sistani. We read:
Question:
Is it permissible to do Misyar Marriage ? What is opinion of Sayed Sistani regarding

this?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Assalamu Alaykum
The rules of the marriage are stated in the fatwaa books; hence, if the required
conditions are satisfied then it is permissible.
Wa Alaykum Assalam
(source: The Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani)
Secondly, Mutah is temporary and so it is like prostitution. Instead, Misyar

is permanent and is therefore a marriage. So this is the fundamental and
monumental difference between Mutah and Misyar. In Mutah, a Shia man pays a
few dollars to have sex with a whore, and they are “married” for less than one hour.
On the other hand, Misyar is permanent and lasts forever. In fact, it is Haram to
contract Misyar if you have the intention of divorce. So it is the same as Nikah (i.e. it
is Haram to have the intention to divorce when you marry that person).
So what is Misyar? Misyar is simply when the woman voids her right to be
financially supported by her husband. This makes common sense: how many of
university students today can relate to this? The man is still in university and can
therefore not support a girl financially. Instead of getting into a life of sin, the two
get married and the woman voids her right to maintenance so that they can get
married.
That is all. That is it. Nothing at all similar to Mutah.
Mutah = temporary = prostitution

Misyar = permanent = marriage
This craze to equate Mutah with Misyar is one of the desperate attempts of the Shia
propagandists to conflate simple issues, just like they conflate abrogation with
Tahreef. This is to hide their embarrassment over their filthy religion which allows
women to be rented by the hour.
Another major difference between Misyar and Mutah is that the Sunni scholars have
stated that Misyar isdiscouraged whereas the Shia scholars
actively encourage Mutah, claiming that a woman who whores herself out in
Mutah to two men will be forgiven all her sins and enter Paradise.
Once again, there is absolutely no comparison between Misyar (which
is permanent) to Mutah (which istemporary and can last for even one hour or
one day).
Grand Ayatollah Sistani on the Only Difference between Mutah and a “One Night
Stand”
Shia Hadith: Woman Who Does Mutah Twice Will Become Pure
The Shia book “Mugni”, written by the esteemed Shia scholar Ali ibn Husayn ibn
Babaveyh Al Qummi, contains the following narration:
From Rasool-Allah: Jibraeel told me, “Ya Muhammad, Allah said: ‘I will forgive a
woman from your Ummah who has engaged in Mutah twice.’” (”Mugni”, Ali ibn
Husayn ibn Babaveyh Al Qummi, see scan above)
The popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has included an entire book on Mutah,
entitled “Narrations About the Rewards for Doing Mutah.” This book contains
authentic Shia Hadith about Mutah.
In it, we find the following Shia Hadith:
A woman who lets a man do Mutah with her will have all her sins pardoned. It is
narrated by Imam Baqir that the Prophet said, “When I was being taken to Heaven
during the Miraj (ascension), Jibraeel met me and told me, ‘O Muhammad, Allah
has promised to forgive all the sins of those women who practise Mutah.’”
‫السماء لحقني جبرئيل فقال يا محمد إن هللا عز و جل يقول إني قد غفرت للمتمتعين من النساء‬
(source: Al-Shia.com,
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/index.php,
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/lib/lib.php?id=4&page=5)
Logic tells us that any man who believes in this would then give his daughters or
sisters in Mutah, in the hopes that they be forgiven and be made pure. Yet, we will
not find a single Shia who debates with us that is willing to give his daughter in
Mutah. This question seems crude, but perhaps it is the only way to test a man’s
belief. The truth is that the Shia masses have a hard time swallowing the concept of
Mutah, and they force themselves to rationalize it just so that they can hold onto the
belief system they were born with. But when it comes time to “walk the walk”, few
are willing to put these beliefs into action. This proves their latent disbelief. Anyone
who truly believed in this Shia concept would love to give his daughters or sisters in
Mutah, and yet we will never find anyone willing to do this.
It seems that the Shia religion is immoral, and it advocates the exploitation of
women via the institution of prostitution. Here, we see the deviant idea that women
who give themselves in sexual pleasure to men (the definition of Mutah is literally
“pleasure”) will be made pure and forgiven their sins. We wonder: how could
fornication and prostitution make anyone pure? Logic tells us that it is nothing but
an immoral act.
Shia Website Al-Islam.org Says A Woman Who Enters Into Mutah is “Rented”
The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says:
“On this point there are specified hadith as well as the general hadith which state
that a woman who enters into mut’a is ‘rented’.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm)
In another place, Al-Islam.org continues:
“In other words, she has been ‘rented’ for the purpose of sexual intercourse”
If one reads Shia Hadith, it becomes very clear that the woman is treated as “rented”
property. In fact, the Shia books of Fiqh contain a section entitled “The Loaning of
Vaginas.” It is perplexing that the Shia scholars of Hadith would use terminology
(i.e. “renting women by the hour”) that perhaps only a street hoodlum would use.
The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says the following about Mutah:
“If the role of the time period is to contain a stipulated number of sexual acts,
whenever the number is finished, the woman is free of any further obligation to the
man.”
Mutah is very similar to prostitution: after the woman does a certain number of
sexual acts on the man, then she is free from him after that. Is this not the attitude
of the Kufaar who have the vulgar philosophy of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am”?
Subhan-Allah, can this really be the religion of guidance which allows such a thing?
According to Shia Fiqh, a man “rents” a woman for a specified number of hours or
days during which he can have sex with her. But if on certain days she doesn’t have
sex with him, then the price he pays for her goes down. The exception is her
menstruation days since it is impermissible to have sexual relations on those days.
The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says:
“A man came to the Imam Ja’far and said: ‘I concluded a contract of mut’a with a
woman for one month for a given amount, But the woman only came to me for part
of the month, and part she stayed away.’ The Imam replied: ‘An amount should be
held back from her dower equivalent to the amount she stayed from you, except for
the days of her menstruation, for those belong to her.’”
The price the man pays the woman (i.e. the dower) goes down if she doesn’t have
enough sex with him; it would not be a stretch to say that the Shia scholars are
nothing but pimps who closely regulate the institution of prostitution under the
guise of religion.
In the Shia Mutah, the man can regulate when he wants to see the woman; it is very
common, for example, for the man to stipulate that he only wants to see her at
night-time. In other words, he simply wants to have sex with her and does not want
to have anything else to do with her for the rest of the day. The Shia website, Al-
Islam.org, says:
“It is permissible for the contract to stipulate as a condition a particular time for
meetings between the husband and wife, such as daytime or night-time. As already
mentioned, it is also permissible for a given number of sexual acts for a given period
to be stipulated, as for example, during one day or over the whole period of the
marriage.”
The Shia Ulema make it clear that Mutah is done for sex, and that this is the basic
aim. We read:
“In contrast to permanent marriage, the basic aim of mut’a is

enjoyment, not the production of offspring.” [10]
In a marriage, the basic aim is to create a family bonded by love and affection for all
time. On the other hand, the Shia Mutah is just for enjoyment, whereby a man can
enjoy renting out women, without any responsibilities on the man. He can, for
example, practice ‘Azl (coitus interruptus, i.e. removal of the penis from the vagina
just prior to ejaculation) in order to prevent a pregnancy. We read that there is:
“…a consensus of the ulama’ on this point. They say the consensus derives from a
hadith reported from the Imam Ja’far: ‘That [semen] belongs to the man: he may
expend it as he wishes.’” [9]
The right of coitus interruptus is reserved with the man, who can engage in this
without the consent of the female, even if she wishes to conceive. On the other hand,
the woman has been given no such right. Grand Ayatollah Sistani says:
Q146: [Is it permissible for women to practice] Coitus interruptus (’azl), by which
they prevent their husbands from depositing the semen in the vagina during
intercourse.
A: They do not have the right to do that. (FM, p.429)
If the woman becomes pregnant during Mutah, then the husband has the option of
seizing custody of the child:
“If the woman becomes pregnant such that the pregnancy derives from the period of
mut’a, the child belongs to the husband, even if he performed coitus interruptus.”
So the man has the right to seize the custody of the child, but in Shia Fiqh, the man
can have his cake and eat it too. If he simply wants to deny the child, then he can
also do that. In other words, the man has the right to either seize the custody of the
child or simply abandon the child, based upon his own whim. We read:
“However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the
‘sworn allegation’ required in permanent marriage is not necessary…sworn
allegation is unnecessary in mut’a…his word alone will be accepted and there is no
need for him to make a sworn allegation (i.e. that the child is not his)…in the case of
denying parentage, by a consensus of the ulama’ it is unnecessary for the man to
make the sworn allegation.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm
In other words, a man can have sex with a woman by “renting” her, but absolve
himself of all responsibilities; if the woman should get pregnant as a result of the
Mutah, he can simply deny it and the Shia court would not even require the man to
take an oath to God about the matter! In fact, the Shia Fiqh is very specific on this
point, namely that the man is excused from swearing to God about such a matter.
The consequence is that the poor woman would be forced to take care of the child as
a single mother without support from the father.
Even the Kufaar living in the West have better morals than this, for they force a man
to pay child support if he engages in fornication that results in a pregnancy. On the
other hand, the woman who does Mutah has no such rights; to explain this, we read
what Al-Islam.org says:
“Al-Shahid al Thani, al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claim

consensus on this question. They point out that the ‘bed of mut’a’ does not hold the
same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by mut’a is a
‘rented woman’. [13] On this point two hadith have been recorded. [14]”
The man can demand sex whenever he pleases and this is stipulated in the Mutah
contract, which is binding on the woman after that. This is a right granted only to
the man, and the woman has no right in that. We read:
“Moreover, the woman cannot demand a right to sexual intercourse in temporary

marriage, a demand which is essential in the establishment of forswearing in
permanent marriage. The only thing the woman may demand is the dower, to
which she is entitled as a ‘rented’ woman. [18]”
After reading this it really shocks me that any girl would remain Shia. May Allah
save us from such a religion which exploits and defiles women for “pleasure” and
“enjoyment”.

USA Today: ‘Pleasure Marriages’ (Mutah) Regain Popularity in Iraq
‘Pleasure marriages’ regain popularity in Iraq
By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would
whisper details of his muta’a only to his closest confidants and the occasional
cousin. Never his wife.
Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta’a, or “pleasure marriage,” with a
green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish.
Even so, he says, he probably still won’t tell his wife…
Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to
flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally
stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now
some Iraqi clerics and women’s rights activists are complaining that the contracts
have become…an outlet for male sexual desires.
The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite
traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has
accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in
the new National Assembly.
“Under Saddam, we were very scared,” says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a
sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. “They would punish people [for
contracting Mutah]. Now, all my friends are doing it…”
Shiites, Sunnis split
“Clerics who blessed them were hounded by security during the previous regime,”
he says. “I can assure you, these (muta’a) marriages are flourishing in (Shiite cities)
Najaf, Karbala and Kadhamiya in an amazing way. There are a lot of hotels
(patronized) by Shiites who approve of such marriages.”
Shiites and Sunnis both permit men to take more than one permanent wife, but the
rival branches of Islam are deeply split over pleasure marriages.
Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and
obligations for muta’a on his Web site. (“A woman with whom temporary marriage
is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not
inherit from him …”)
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want
Iraq’s new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give
muta’a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni,
oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.
Sunni scholars fear that giving official sanction to pleasure marriages —

many of which are only verbal agreements between the couple — are
little more than legalized prostitution that could lead to a collapse of
moral values, especially among young people.
“We have reports about one-hour pleasure marriages that are flourishing

among students,” says Sheik Ali Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni imam at the Ibn Taimiya
mosque in Baghdad. “I’m advising parents to watch their sons very carefully,
particularly those who are in the colleges and universities.”
Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddam’s ruling Baath Party in

the 1970s and ’80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association.
Muta’a were punishable by fines or prison, he says. Couples took the practice
underground, meeting in out-of-the-way apartments and hotels — and rarely telling
even family members.
Pleasure marriages began to resurface after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. One reason
is that Shiites…have a greater ability to shape social mores than they did under
Saddam, a Sunni Arab whose top aides were also Sunnis.
Payments to women vary
A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time

encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta’a that runs
longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can
depend on whether she has children.
Zeinab Ahmed, 31, lost her husband in a car accident five years ago. She says she has
considered entering into a muta’a contract with a man, but the stigma attached has
kept her from doing so.
“All my friends who have done this have told me they got married in this way just to
meet their sexual desires,” Ahmed says, “but later on they started to love that man,
and he does not accept to get married permanently. … Most of the men, at the end of
the contract, they feel contempt towards the woman.”
Contracts for pleasure marriage strongly favor men.
Married women can’t enter a muta’a, although a married man can. Men can void the
contract at any time; women don’t have that option unless it’s negotiated at the
outset. The couple agrees not to have children. A woman who unintentionally gets
pregnant can have an abortion but must then pay a fine to a cleric.
Women’s rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who
supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women’s rights, calls the re-
emergence of muta’a an “unhealthy phenomenon…”
“A woman who practices muta’a does not usually feel comfortable about it,” Al-
Khafaji says. “People these days are creating excuses to practice these acts.”
Al-Mousawi, the Shiite cleric, says the practice of pleasure marriages is open to
abuse and misinterpretation. He says he is particularly troubled by kiss-and-tell
men. “After they’ve finished with the woman, they’ve told their friends about her
beauty and given a description of her body, which is something absolutely
unacceptable in Islam,” he says.
Al-Zaidi, the Sadr City lawyer, says his motivations are spiritual. In 2002, he says he
persuaded a Sunni widow to enter into a one-year muta’a with him, even though at
first she refused.
To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in God’s eyes. They bring responsibility
and formality to what would otherwise be squalid and sinful, he says. “There is a
noble goal in this kind of marriage,” says Al-Zaidi, still married to his first wife and
has five children. “It’s to eradicate moral corruption…”
(Source: USA Today,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-
marriage_x.htm)
Marriage With the Intention to Divorce

Question:
Anonymous says
“ We Sunnis oftentimes criticize the Shias for their belief in Mutah, and we refer to
it as immoral. But one Shia girl responded to this by pointing out that the Sunnis
believe in the permissibility of “marriage with the intention to divorce.” In other
words, a man can marry a woman with the secret intention that he will divorce her
after some time. So isn’t this like Mutah, or even worse than Mutah? At least in
Mutah the woman knows and agrees to a temporary arrangement, but in this Sunni
version, the woman is in the dark and one day the man will come home and tell her
that he divorces her after he has enjoyed her. Therefore, my question is: do we
Sunnis actually believe in the permissibility of marriage with the intention to
divorce?
The Shia girl showed me a fatwa written by Shaykh Bin Baz, and she also pointed
out that Shaykh Bin Baz is the biggest Salafi scholar in recent history. She also said
that the Hanafis and Shafi’is hold the same position as well. And she also said that
allowing this sort of marriage was “one of the two opinions” held by the Hanbali Ibn
Taymiyyah. In other words, according to her, the Salafis, the Hanafis, and the
Shafi’is all permit this sort of marriage, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah whom we call
Shaykh al-Islam.
If this is true, then aren’t we Sunnis hypocrites for accusing the Shias of being
immoral because they practice Mutah, but we allow the exact same thing under the
guise of marriage with the intention to divorce?
”
Answer:
I am not a scholar, but I did have a face-to-face discussion on this matter with
Shaykh Suhail Hasan, the son of the late Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar Hasan. For those
who don’t know who that is, then it should be stated that Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar and
Shaykh Bin Baz were very close friends and advisers to each other. I have also
discussed the matter with other scholars and students of knowledge, so I will relate
to you what I have learned.
The dominant opinion amongst the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is that marriage with
the intention to divorce is valid but impermissible. At first, this sounds like a
contradiction: how can something valid be impermissible? Yes, at first, these two
words (validity and permissibility) seem to be synonymous, but this is not the case
in the Islamic lexicon. We say that the Nikah (marriage) contract would be valid,
and by this we mean that it is a legally binding document as per the laws of the land.
However, it is an impermissible action in the eyes of Allah.
This is like all other contractual agreements under the Islamic Shari’ah. A marriage
contract requires two witnesses. Similarly, a business contract involving loans also
requires two witnesses. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:
“O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing…
and call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses.”
(Quran, 2:282)
Let us imagine that a debtor enters into a contractual agreement with a lender. The
two men prepare a written document in which the debtor promises to pay back two
hundred dirhams to the lender. If the debtor signs the document but secretly
harbors the intention to default on the loan, then we say that the contractual
document itself is still valid and binding, but we say that the action of the debtor
was impermissible. If six months down the line the debtor confesses to his friend
that he never planned to pay back the money, and then this friend informs the
authorities about this, then would the state declare the contract null and void?
Would the state say that the contract is invalid and that the debtor does not owe the
lender any money? No government would operate in this manner. The state would
back the validity of the contract and would demand of the debtor that he should
change his intention and pay back the loan. In other words, the contract is valid in
the eyes of the state, but the action done by the debtor is impermissible and sinful in
the eyes of Allah. This is the difference between validity and permissibility.
The same is the case with a man who wishes to marry a woman with the secret
intention to divorce her. The Nikah contract would still be valid and legally binding
on both parties. In the eyes of the government, man and wife are married. However,
the act (i.e. entering a marriage with the intention of divorce) is impermissible in the
eyes of Allah, and the scholars have said that it is sinful. If the man confesses to his
friend that he married the woman with the intention of divorcing her, and if that
friend informs the authorities of that, then the state would insist on the validity of
the Nikah contract. The man would be urged to change his intention and to fulfill his
vows.
Imagine if the state would suddenly have declared that the Nikah contract was now
invalidated. This would certainly make the situation very beneficial to womanizers,
who could simply marry women, enjoy them sexually for a few days, and then
confess that they had married with the intention of divorce; suddenly, such men
would no longer be married and they would be absolved of any obligations to the
women at all!
Indeed, invalidating a Nikah contract based on someone’s secret intention poses

serious problems. How is it possible to look into peoples’ hearts and judge what
their intentions are? For example, a married woman who is having an affair can
simply tell the judge that her husband married her with the intention to divorce and
thus her Nikah contract is invalid and she should be allowed to marry the other
man. How could the judge verify the husband’s intention? There is no way to look
inside the man’s heart and reveal his true feelings and intentions. Or what of an
angry mother-in-law who wishes to invalidate her son’s marriage by claiming that
her son married with the intent to divorce? Or how about an evil-doer who wishes
that the punishment of Zinnah be levied on another man by declaring his Nikah
contract invalid on the grounds of his alleged secret intention? How could such
claims be verified or negated by the state? We find that this is opening up pandora’s
box!
This is why the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah have stated that the Nikah contract is
valid in the eyes of the state, but the action is impermissible in the eyes of Allah
Almighty. Only Allah the Most Glorious can look into the hearts of people and judge
by intention. In this world, men will be judged by the law based on their outward
actions, whereas in the next life men will be judged by their inner feelings and
intentions. It is quite impossible for human beings to make rulings on what people
intend or feel. For example, if a man intends to donate money to a certain charity
but he does not end up doing it for some reason, then the government will not be
able to reward him for that; he would not be given any tax deduction for that. On the
other hand, such a man would get reward from Allah Almighty for his noble
intention. This is the difference between limitations of man and the greatness of
Allah Almighty.
Two Opinions
The scholars are split into two groups over this issue. Some of them say as I said
above, i.e. valid but impermissible. But others hold an even stricter opinion, and
they say that marriage with the intention of divorce is both invalid and
impermissible. It seems that this difference in opinion existed for a very long time,
and I base this on the following Hadith:

…Ali said, “Allah’s Apostle forbade the Mutah marriage on the Day of the Battle of
Khaybar and he forbade the eating of donkey’s meat.” Some people said, “If one, by
a tricky way, marries temporarily, his marriage is illegal.” Others said, “The
marriage is valid but its condition is illegal.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/086.sbt.htm
l#009.086.091
There are therefore two valid opinions on the matter, and neither one of these two
views support the permissibility of marriage with the intention of divorce.
Rulings of the Scholars
Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Rida said:
The fact that the scholars of the earlier and later generations emphatically forbade
mut’ah (temporary marriage) implies that marriage with the intention of divorce is
haraam, even though the fuqaha’ said that a marriage contract is valid if the
husband intends it to be temporary but did not state that as a condition in the
marriage contract; but his concealing that is regarded as a betrayal and deceit, and
this contract deserves to be annulled more than one in which he stipulated the
condition that it be temporary with the agreement of the husband, the wife and the
wife’s guardian. This (marriage with the intent to divorce) leads to many evil
consequences as it is abusing this great bond which is the greatest of human
relationships, and going along with one’s whims and desires. When this condition is
not stated clearly, that is cheating and betrayal which leads to other bad
consequences such as enmity, hatred and loss of trust even of sincere people who
want to get married in the real sense, which means protecting the chastity of both
partners and cooperating in establishing a righteous home…
(Fiqh al-Sunnah by al-Sayyid al-Saabiq, 2/39)
islam-qa.com
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, one of the three great Shaykhs, said:
With regard to my opinion on this matter, I say that this marriage contract is a valid
contract, but it involves deceit and betrayal, so it may become haraam because of
that.
It is deceit and betrayal because the wife and her guardian, if they knew the
intention of this husband, and that his intention is to enjoy intimacy with her and
then divorce her, they would not adept this marriage. So in that sense he is
deceiving and betraying them.
If he tells them that he wants her to stay with him for the duration of his visit to that
country, and they agree to that, then this marriage is mut’ah (temporary marriage).
Hence I think that it is haraam, but if anyone goes ahead and does it, then the
marriage contract is valid, but it involves sin.
(Liqa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, Question 1391)
islam-qa.com
And the Shaykh said:
Marriage with the intention to divorce
Answered by: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen
Question:
A man wished to travel abroad because he is a researcher and he desired to maintain

his chastity by marrying there for a specified duration of time, then afterwards
divorce this woman without informing her that he will soon do so. So what is the
ruling regarding this action?
Answer:
This is marriage with the intent to divorce and it is not free from one of two
situations; either it will be stipulated in the contract that he will marry her for the
duration of a month or a year or until his studies are finished, and this is the
marriage of Mut’ah and it is Haraam (Forbidden). Or either he will make intentions
to do this without it being stipulated. And that which is well known from the
Mathhab of (those who follow) Imaam Ahmad is that it is Haraam (Forbidden) and
that the marriage contract is null and void. That is because they say the intention is
just like the stipulation and that is based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw) :
“Indeed actions are based upon intentions and everyone will have that which he
intended…” (Bukharee and Muslim)
…it is not Mut’ah because the definition of Mut’ah is not applicable to this type of
marriage but it is Muharram (forbidden) from the angle that it is deception upon the
wife and her family and the Prophet (saw) has made Ghish (Deception) and Khida’a
(betrayal) Haraam, and because if the woman was aware of the fact that this man
didn’t want to marry her except for this particular duration she would not marry
him. And likewise, her family wouldn’t marry her to him. Just like he wouldn’t be
pleased with someone marrying his daughter and his intention is to divorce her once
his need (for her) has been fulfilled. So how is it that he is pleased for himself to deal
with someone else with the likes of that which he would not be pleased with? This
opposes Eemaan! Based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw):
“None of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself”
(from the hadeeth of Anas ibn Maalik found in Bukharee and Muslim)
(Fatawah for the Woman, p.114)
madeenah.com
Shaykh Faisal Mawlawi, Deputy Chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and
Research, stated:
Marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible. However, if one has this
intention at the time of contracting the marriage then the marriage itself is valid but
the intention is invalid and corrupt and one should renounce it. I find no reason for
this intention as the Shariàh gives the husband the right to divorce the wife if there
is a valid reason for terminating the marriage whether he had this intention to
divorce from the very beginning or not.
There is no need for or benefit in this intention and I advise any Muslim living in the
West to abide by the Shariàh rulings and do not have the intention of divorce at all
as long as he can end the marriage if there is a valid reason for doing so.
islamonline.net
FatwaIslam echoes this view:
Question:
A person is going abroad to study and he wants to protect his chastity there by
getting married for a specific period of time. Afterwards, he will divorce his wife
although he does not inform her that he is planning on divorcing her after a specific
time period. What is the ruling concerning such behaviour?
Answer:
Marriage with the intention of divorce must fall into one of two cases.
First, it is explicitly stipulated in the marriage that the marriage is for a month, a
year or until he finishes his studies and so forth. This is known as Mut’ah. This is
forbidden.
The second case is where the person has that as his intention [in his heart] but it is
not put as a stipulation in the contract. The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis
is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void. They say that what is intended
is equivalent to what is actually stipulated, since the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-
wasallam) said, “Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what
he intended.”
fatwaislam.com
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
It is incorrect to state that Shaykh al-Islam permitted marriage with the intention to
divorce. On the contrary, he forbade it. The Shia girl you know said it was “one of
the two views” of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is a typical deception of the Shia
propagandists, and they use this tactic frequently. For example, we read:
Al-Islam.org says
“ In this place [Ghadir Khumm], the following verse was revealed:
from the people …” (Quran 5:67).
Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse of Quran
was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum:
(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm ”
And yet, if we open up this book by Fakhr ar-Razi, then we find that he first lists
nine opinions on the matter. He provides nine different possibilities of when this
verse was revealed. After first stating the various opinions, he then gives his final
verdict on the matter. The opinion that it was revealed about Ali ibn Abi Talib was
actually listed by Fakhr ar-Razi as the weakest of the nine opinions, and he
discredited it.
What I mean to say here is that the methodology of the classical scholars was that
they would first list the various possible opinions, and then they would state their
final verdict after having done that. Just because a scholar lists something as a
possible opinion, it does not mean that he agrees with it. In fact, this is a very
beautiful methodology used by the scholars: it is as if they are thinking aloud. They
will narrate to the reader the various views, and then they will explain how they
themselves graded each of them and came up with their final verdict on the matter.
As for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, then he stated that there were two
possibilities with regards to marriage with the intention to divorce, i.e. permissible
or impermissible. He then established his own final opinion on the matter which
was that such marriages were forbidden. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said:
And Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad Al Luhaydaan who is the president of the high
judiciary committee of major scholars in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) mentioned in his
introduction to the book: “Marriage with the intention to divorce,” that the final
opinion of Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymeeyah supports that fact that this type of
marriage is prohibited.
madeenah.org
The Hanbalis
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said:
“The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the
contract is void.”
fatwaislam.com
The Malikis
We asked Shaykh Muhammad al-Àmwaawi, a Maliki scholar, and he stated that

the relied upon position of the Malikis is that such a marriage is valid but
impermissible, which is the same view that I have outlined above.
The Shafi’is
Imam an-Nawawi quoted Imam Malik as well as Imam al-Awzaa’ee, another Maliki
scholar, declaring that although the Nikah contract was valid, the act itself was
detestable and hated.
The Hanafis
Mufti Ebrahim Desai said:
If a temporary marriage is conducted without any statement of time limit, the

marriage will be (considered by the law) a permanent one. However, the parties will
have to change their intention and be committed to a permanent marriage. They
cannot deliberately enter into a marriage with the intention of being temporary
partners. If they do so, they will be abusing the sacred institution of Nikah against
the purpose it was established for.
Ask-Imam.com
Shaykh Bin Baz
There is no doubt that Shaykh Bin Baz was one of the most eminent scholars of the
Ahl as-Sunnah. And yet that does not mean that he (or any other scholar) was
infallible. With regards to the Shaykh’s opinion about marriage with intention to
divorce, then it is known that his opinion on the matter is considered Shaadh (i.e. an
anomaly). An opinion that is considered Shaadh is worse than a weak opinion but
rather it is lower than that and considered invalid. A Shaadh opinion is not within
the realms of valid ikhtilaf; therefore, it is not a permissible opinion to take by
anyone. We love and respect the Ulema as-Sunnah, but we should not be shy to
disassociate ourselves from opinions that go against the Quran and Sunnah. One
Shaadh opinion cannot possibly overcome the majority opinion of the rest of the
Ulema. So we say that Shaykh Bin Baz made a sincere mistake and there is no blame
in that.
It is important to remember that the Sunnis do not have popes or ayatollahs with
the ability to declare Halal and Haram; that is something we believe only Allah
Almighty can do. If someone contradicts Allah’s Laws, we are free to reject those
opinions, and in fact, we must do that. At the same time, we should not attack
Shaykh Bin Baz, because we know that all great scholars in the past had mistakes
and nobody was perfect. Indeed, it is a truism that what defines a good scholar is
that out of one hundred rulings, ninety-nine of them will be good and only one of
them will be Shaadh. This differs from the poor “scholar” who out of one hundred
rulings will have ninety-nine or a hundred Shaadh opinions. We say that Shaykh Bin
Baz was of the former group; just because he had a Shaadh opinion on this issue,
this does not mean that we can condemn him for that, and if we did that, then we
would have to condemn all the great scholars of the past, since so many of them had
one or two Shaadh opinions. I truly believe that Allah Almighty showing us the
imperfection of even the greatest scholars is His Way of reminding us of His Own
Perfection and Supreme Nature.
Yes, we admit that Shaykh Bin Baz did hold this view, but we believe he made a
sincere mistake and as such, it is not a proof against Ahl as-Sunnah. The truth is
that the Shaykh did not know what the ramifications of his ruling would be, and had
he known it, then it is likely that he would not have passed this fatwa. Shaykh Bin
Baz only intended his fatwa to be used by a man who was traveling to a far off land
for studies for a few years. Bin Baz thought that a man could marry one woman
whilst he was there in that land, and after he was done with his studies and left that
country, then he could divorce her. Had the Shaykh known that people would abuse
his ruling by traveling to various countries for the sole intent of marrying women
and doing this multiple times for sexual pleasure, then he would have never passed
such a fatwa. This view was alluded to by Shaykh Uthaymeen:
Because I have heard that some of the people have taken this (i.e. fatwa of Shaykh
Bin Baz) as a means to another affair which no one (from the people of knowledge [a
reference to Shaykh Bin Baz]) has supported and that is they travel to different
countries for marriage only! They go to these countries for the sake of marriage and
they remain there masha Allaah with this woman whom he has made intentions, in
his marriage to her, to be appointed, then return to his homeland. This is also a
major prohibition and closing the door in this issue is what is more appropriate and
that is because of what it entails of Ghish (deception) and Khida’a (deceit) and
Taghreer (seduction with vain hopes) and because it opens the likes of these doors.
And because the people are ignorant and most them, their Hawah (desires) won’t
prevent them from transgressing the prohibitions of Allaah. And Allaah knows best.
madeenah.com
Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan, president of the high judiciary

committee of major scholars in Riyadh, told Shaykh Bin Baz that his opinion on the
matter was incorrect, as we read in the book “Marriage With Intention to Divorce”:
The fatawas given in support of the permissibility of this type of marriage are not
based upon any proof (Daleel), and they have nothing (in them) that would remove
this type of marriage from its characteristic of being Haram…And I pointed to the
fact, on numerous occasions, of that which occurred between me and His eminence
our shaykh ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn Baaz and His Eminence ‘Abdur Razzaq
Al ‘Afifi in reference to this issue and he wasn’t successful in his response nor in his
justification may Allaah pardon him and Have mercy upon him…
madeenah.com
Imam Ahmad explicitly forbade one to look for Rukhas (i.e. exemptions to make life
easy) by seeking the Shaadh opinions from amongst the scholars. Sulayman al-
Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be
gathered in you.” In other words, every scholar has something wrong, and this is the
result of being a human being. But what would be evil would be to compile all the
wrong points from the various scholars and then follow them, and this is the way of
Ahl al-Bidah. So you will find that Ahl al-Bidah will seek to collect all the Shaadh
opinions in order to find Rukhas, thereby taking the opinion of one scholar who said
that music is Halal, and another opinion of a different scholar who permit shaking
hands with women, and another opinion of a scholar who said that Shi’ism is an
acceptable fifth Madhab, and another opinion from a scholar who declared that we
need to pray three times a day only instead of five. And by doing this, a person
would have destroyed his religion.
What the Shias do is look for the Shaadh opinions from amongst the thousands
upon thousands of Sunni scholars, and then they say “see, you believe in that too!”
This is not, however, a proper way to look at things, especially since Ahl as-Sunnah
places such a large importance on the concept of Ijma (consensus). No scholar, no
matter how big he is, can compete with the Ijma once it has been established.
Likewise, a Shaadh opinion–a viewpoint that has been rejected as invalid by the
consensus–cannot be taken as valid, even if it is Shaykh Bin Baz himself who held
that view.
The Salafis
The Salafis take the view of either Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (valid but impermissible)
or the view of the Hanbalis (both invalid and impermissible). After Shaykh Bin Baz
passed his ruling on the matter, there were many Salafi scholars who criticized this
opinion, as did Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan above. In fact, when I
opened up the fatwa book in which Shaykh Bin Baz’s ruling on the matter was
stated, I turned to the very next page to find that Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen had over-
ruled Shaykh Bin Baz’s opinion. And it is this opinion, that of Ibn Uthaymeen, that
has become the dominant opinion amongst the Salafis, and to state otherwise is
completely dishonest.
Shaykh Saalih Ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan endorsed a book which rejected the
permissibility of such marriages:
I have examined the book called “Marriage with the intention to divorce” and its
essentials and its principals and its impact by the Noble shaykh the Doctor Ahmad
Ibn Musa As Sihli. And I found it to be very beneficial in its subject matter and it will
treat this dangerous problem that has emerged between the youth and the people of
Ahwah (desires). And I hope that Allaah will benefit with this book and that it will
be the reason for those who have involved themselves in problems to return to
guidance. And since the emergence of this problem I used to warn against falling
into it and I see, marriage with the intent to divorce, to be Haraam and with Allaah
is the Tawfeeq and may the Salat of Allaah and His Salaam be upon our Prophet
Muhammad and his family and his companions.
madeenah.com
As a strong proof that the Salafis do not hold this type of marriage to be permissible,
we remind the reader that the Institute of Islamic Religious Law (based in Mecca)
banned marriage with the intent to divorce, because it involves “deception and
fraud.” We see that the Institute did not take the Shaadh opinion of Shaykh Bin Baz,
but rather took the stance of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. Is there any doubt then on
what the Salafi opinion is on the matter?
Conclusion
We conclude with the words of Shaykh Haitham Hamdan, professor at the

American Islamic University:
“The majority of contemporary scholars from Ahl us-Sunnah are of the opinion that
marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible.”
The Muslim World League (MWL), which enjoys a category A observer status in the
United Nations, was founded by members from over twenty-two Sunni countries.
The MWL banned marriages with the intent to divorce. So how is it then that the
Shias can even claim that we Sunnis accept this sort of marriage? No, we
vehemently reject it! Marriage with the intention to divorce is immoral, and we of
the Ahl as-Sunnah reject it like we reject Mutah. The man who marries a woman
with the intention of divorce has committed a grave sin, of deceit and of treachery.
This act is Haram and sinful in the eyes of Allah.
I hope that I have shed some light on the matter and that I have not erred in any
way. I tried with the best of my abilities to transmit to you what I heard from Shaykh
Suhail Hasan and others from amongst the Ahl al-Ìlm.
And Allah is the Source of all Strength.
Taqiyyah
Modern day Shi’ism is a branch of the Saba’ite cult which was founded by Abdullah
Ibn Saba. The Saba’ites used the tactic of Taqiyyah in order to avoid persecution
and to avoid detection from the authorities. They were a secret society much like the
Free Masons, Illuminati, and other such cults. Throughout history, the Shia have
used Taqiyyah in order to avoid persecution and to avoid detection. The practise of
Taqiyyah allowed the Shia cult to spread and grow. According to one Shia scholar:
“Shi’ism would not have spread if it wasn’t for Taqiyyah.” (“Tarikhush Shi’ah” by
Muhammad Husain Jafari Sahiwal, p.230)
Taqiyya (}‫ )التقية‬is translated literally as “speaking contrary to one’s inner beliefs.” It is
often translated by the Shia propagandists as “dissimulation” and in fact this
definition of Taqiyyah is a sort of Taqiyyah in and of itself! The Shia use the word
“dissimulation” only because nobody really knows what the word means, and it is a
euphemism for the word “deceit.” The Shia propagandists are hiding behind the
word “dissimulation” in the hopes that nobody will take the time to look up this
word in the dictionary.
According to http://www.dictionary.com/, the word “dissimulation” translates to:
Dissimulation: n., the act of deceiving [Synonyms: deception, deceit, dissembling]
Thus, let us be honest when we discuss Taqiyyah and use words that the common
man will understand. Taqiyyah translates to “the act of deceiving.” An explanation
of Taqiyyah was given by the Infallible Imam of the Shia as recorded in Al-Kafi, the
most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith: The Imam said that Taqiyyah is to say one
thing outwardly but to believe another inwardly. There is another term for this:
lying.
It is a very odd faith that allows for lying, and not only allows for it, but commands
it! The Shia have gone on to say that Taqiyyah is a virtuous act and a highly
encouraged act. It is classed as Mustahabb (highly recommended).
The Shia propagandists will use Taqiyyah when they explain what Taqiyyah is. They
will argue that Taqiyyah is allowed when one’s life is in danger. However, this is not
the only time in which Taqiyyah is observed by the Shia! We read on Grand
Ayatollah Sistani’s official website the following Fatwa:
Question:
What are the kinds of Taqiyah (dissimulation) and when is it obligatory?
Answer:
There are different types of Taqiyah:

1) Taqiyah is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be
killed or harmed, if he does not observe Taqiyah. In this case, it is obligatory to
observe Taqiyah.
2) Reconciliatory Taqiyah. This type of Taqiyah is done when a person intends to

reconcile with the other side or when he intends to soften their hearts. This kind of
Taqiyah is permissible but not obligatory.
3) Sometimes, Taqiyah may cause a more important obligation to be lost or missed,

if so it is forbidden…
4) Sometimes, Taqiyah may lead to the death of an innocent person. If so, it is not
permissible. It is therefore haram (forbidden) to kill another person to save your
own life.
(source: Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s official website,

In other words, Taqiyyah is permitted to:
1. Save oneself (mandatory)
2. Reconciliatory Taqiyyah: Softening hearts (permissible, not

mandatory)
3. To escape an obligation such as speaking out against oppression or infidelity

(forbidden)
4. To preserve one’s life if it means someone else may die (forbidden)
Firstly, we see that there are different types of Taqiyyah. What the Shia

propagandists do is that they simply talk about the first type mentioned above (i.e.
to save one’s life) but they do not discuss the second type of Taqiyyah mentioned.
It is the second type of Taqiyyah–reconciliatory Taqiyyah–which interests us. It can

better be explained by none other than the Infallible Imam of the Shia. According to
the Shia’s Al-Kafi, Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in an authentic narration:
“Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9,
p.116)
Thus, there should be no confusion as to the intent of Taqiyyah. Softening the hearts
is an attempt to weaken the enemy’s defenses against an imminent and clandestine
attack by the Shia.
The claim by the Shia propagandists that Taqiyyah is only permissible to save one’s
life is false. It is also permissible to do Taqiyyah in order to save one’s religion, as
this is considered more sacred than one’s life. In order to further Shi’ism, it is
permissible to lie. This falls under the category of “softening hearts” (i.e. softening
their hearts to the call of Shi’ism). Thus, the Shia are allowed to lie when they
discuss their faith with others.
For example, we will see that that the Shia will oftentimes avoid insulting the
Sahabah and Wives of the Prophet in front of the followers of the Ahlus Sunnah. If
we ask them why they hate the friends and wives of the Prophet, they will feel no
qualms in lying to us and saying that they don’t hate them at all. But when they are
alone with their fellow Shia, they will insult and degrade the Sahabah and the Wives
of the Prophet. The Shia will raise their children with malicious fairy-tales designed
to malign these people, calling them murderers and fabricators.
According to the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah, Taqiyyah of the Shia is none other
than Nifaq (hypocrisy). The Imam of the Shia has said that Taqiyyah is to:
“Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9,
p.116)
Allah describes the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) in the Quran:
“When they [hypocrites] meet those who believe, they say: ‘We believe.’ But when
they are alone with their evil ones, they say: ‘We are really with you, we (were) only
jesting.’” (Quran, 2:14)
When the Shia meet with the mainstream Muslims, they will say “We don’t hate the
Sahabah and the wives of the Prophet;” but when they are in their own Shia circles,
they spend all their time spewing forth hatred and slander against them.
Taqiyyah is a most peculiar institution. No other religion in the world advocates its
followers to lie. Lying is considered a sin in all other religions. Lying about one’s
religion is especially heinous but it is a must for the Shia.
The Shia also believe in the concept of Kitman. Kitman means hiding one’s faith
from non-Shias. It is considered necessary in the Shia doctrine to hide certain
aspects of one’s faith from non-Shias, as well as ignorant Shia who don’t really know
their faith. Taqiyyah and Kitman are one of the reasons that the Shia have so many
beliefs (presented in this site) that the Shia masses are ignorant about. They are
purposefully hidden and kept secret; as can be seen, Shi’ism has the characteristics
of a secret cult, no doubt a reflection of its Saba’ite origins.
Taqiyyah is considered obligatory on the Shia up until the day Imam Mehdi (al
Qa’im) returns. According to Shaykh Saduq ibn Babawayhi, who is considered one
of the foremost authorties of Shi’ism:
“Our belief concerning taqiya (permissible dissimulation) is that it is obligatory, and

he who forsakes it is in the same position as he who forsakes prayer…Now until the
Imam al-Qa’im appears, taqiya is obligatory and it is not permissible to dispense
with it. He, who abandons it before the appearance of the Qa’im, has verily gone out
of the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, and the religion of the Imams, and disobeys
Allah and His Messenger and the Imams.
“Imam Ja’far was asked concerning the Word of Allah, Mighty and Glorious is He:
‘Verily the noblest among you, in the sight of Allah, is the most pious’ [49, 13]. He
said: ‘(It means) he who adheres most scrupulously to the practice of taqiya.‘”
(source: “On The Beliefs of the Shi’a Imamiya“, as reproduced on the official

website of the “Shia Ithna Ashari Community of
Middlesex”, http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk39)
The importance of Taqiyyah cannot be understated. The Infallible Imam of the Shia
has said:
“He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed
it.”
The Shia scholars have written about the many virtues of Taqiyyah so that their
followers can use this weapon to the utmost. They say: “He who conceals his religion
has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed it.”
In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, it is narrated:
“From ten parts of Deen, nine parts depend upon Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2,
Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 5)
We wonder: if 90% of the Shia religion is based on lies, what else do we expect from
them than being chronically lying deviants? In another troublesome narration in Al-
Kafi, we read:
“The Imam mentioned that the most beloved thing on the surface of earth is
Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 12,
Riwayah 4, p.217)
“The Imam has mentioned that Taqiyyah is the coolness of his eyes.” (Usool-e Kafi,
part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 1, Riwayah 14, p.217)
The fifth Infallible Imam of the Shia, Abu Jafar, says:
“Taqiyyah is from my religion and the religion of my fathers; whoever doesn’t have
Taqiyyah doesn’t have Iman.” (Al-Kafi, Chapter Taqiyyah, Vol. 2, p.219)
The corollary of this would be that the one who prefers to always stick to the truth
cannot have Iman, and thus must be a disbeliever. This is a truly troublesome belief,
and completely counter-intuitive. Imam Abu Abdullah is narrated to have said:
“O Sulaiman, you are on a religion that he who hides it is honored by Allah, and the
one who propagates it [openly] will be humiliated!” (Al-Kafi, Vol. 2, p.217)
This is in direct contradiction to what Allah says in the Quran:
“Surely those who hide from people the clear proofs and guidance, which We
clarified in the Book (the Quran), will be cursed by Allah…” (Quran, 2:159)
In Tafseer al-Askari which the Shia adhere to, we read the following commentary:
“Taqiyyah is a distinguishing factor between a Shia and a Sunni…one who abstains

from Taqiyyah has commited an unforgiveable sin…A believer who does not do
Taqiyyah is like a body without a head…Taqiyyah is the best amongst all deeds…A
Shia, acting upon Taqiyyah, performed Salah behind a hypocrite (Sunni) Imam
upon which the Imam commented that the angels of the seven planets and skies are
sending salutations upon you and curses upon the Imam behind whom you
performed Salah. A reward of 700 Salah will be recorded for the one Salah which
you performed through Taqiyyah.” (Tafseer al-Askari)
In Tafseer-e Safi, we read:
“He who does not act upon Taqiyyah is void of faith.” (Tafseer-e Safi, Part 1, Faiz
Kashani, p.253)
A confusing aspect of Shi’ism is that their Infallible Imams even would answer with
Taqiyyah when asked questions by their followers. We read in Al-Kafi:
“Three people questioned Imam Baqir about an issue and the Imam replied to each
person differently acting upon Taqiyyah and he said that if any person hears from us
[Imams] such a thing which is against the Law of Allah then he should remember
that we have acted upon Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi)
This really destroys the foundation of the belief: how does one determine which
sayings of the Imams are correct and which were simply said under Taqiyyah?
Perhaps every saying of the Imam against the first Three Caliphs was Taqiyyah?
 Conclusion
Lying is a big sin in Islam, and the best believer is the one who always tells the truth.
The Shia faith is a deranged ideology, one which advocates cussing (Tabarra),
prostitution (Mutah), self-flagellation (Matam), and deceit (Taqiyyah). It is not
possible that the Deen of Haqq (the Religion of Truth) would advocate deceit, lying,
and hiding. Taqiyyah is a practise of a cult or a secret society, and it is not used by
those who follow the Religion of God. Declared one Imam of the Shia: “…Taqiyyah is
the distinctive feature of the Shia.” We would have to agree with him on this point.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/
Realplayer Audio: Taqiyyah
The following is an audio clip of Shaikh Damashqia on the topic of Taqiyyah:
Click here to OPEN the Realplayer file.
Click here to DOWNLOAD the Realplayer file.
Shaikh Damashqia likens Taqiyyah to pork. Pork is Haram normally. However, if a

person put a gun to one’s head and says to eat pork, then it becomes permissible to
eat in order to save one’s life. However, nobody says that pork is nine tenths
of Deen or that the one who does not eat pork is not a believer, or any other such
stuff that we see in the Shia Hadith about Taqiyyah. In this speech, the Shaikh
rejects the claims that the Ahlus Sunnah also believes in the Shia concept of
Taqiyyah.
« Return to the main Articles page or the Taqiyyah subsection.

The following fatwa is found on the Official Website of Grand Ayatollah

Muhammad Shahroudi (http://www.shahroudi.net/) He is one of the Maraje’
(top scholars) of the Shia, and he teaches at the Islamic Seminary at Qum. Not
only this, but here he admits that there are authentic Shia Hadith which prove
that the Infallible Imam of the Shia would curse the Prophet’s wives after each
prayer, five times a day. So how can the Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact
that cursing the Prophet’s wives is a part of their faith?
Please note how the Grand Ayatollah allows the cursing but it must be done in
such a way as not to reveal the Taqiyyah that is being done in front of the Sunni
masses. Perhaps this will wake up those Sunnis who are fooled by the Shia lies
when they say that they do not curse the Prophet’s wives or Sahabah. This comes
from the mouth of the Grand Ayatollah himself.
All of the quotes on this page are found on the following page off of the Grand
Ayatollah’s website:

‫ هل يجوز لعن بعض اُمهات المؤمنين مثل السيدة عائشة لمعصيتها للرسول ولخروجها على إمام زمانها وإلعالنها‬: 50 ‫سؤال‬
‫العداء ألميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب(عليه السالم) سواء بالتصريح باالسم علنا ً أو‬
Question 50: Is it permissible to curse some of the Mothers of the Believers, such as lady
Aisha for her disobedience of the Prophet, declaring war upon the Imam of her time, and
showing enmity towards Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly
with her name or implicitly?
‫ يجوز لعن ك ّل من أعلن العداء ألميرالمؤمنين أو الزهراء أو األئمة(عليهم السالم)فكيف بمن ظلمهم وحاربهم إالّ مع‬: ‫الجواب‬
‫خوف تلف النفس وقد ورد أنّ اإلمام الصادق (عليه السالم) كان يلعن ثمانية بعد ك ّل صالته (أربعة من الرجال وأربعة من النساء‬
).
Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir al-
Mu’minin (Ali), al-Zahra, or the Imams. And why not after the oppression (they faced) and
the fighting against them? Except (do not curse them) if there is fear of being harmed. And
it is also mentioned that Imam al-Sadiq (a.s.) used to curse eight (of them) after all his
prayers.
) ‫ أحببت السؤال عن مقطع اللعن الوارد في زيارة عاشوراء وأخص بالذكر هنا لعن األ ّول (أبي بكر ) والثاني ( عمر‬: 51 ‫سؤال‬
‫والثالث ( عثمان ) هل هو جزء من الزيارة وقد ورد عن المعصوم(عليه السالم) ؟ أم أنه خارج عنها ولم يرد على لسانه (عليه‬
‫السالم) ؟ وهل كان األئمة من آل البيت(عليهم السالم)يجيزون اللعن الثالثة ويعتبرونه أمراً يثاب المرء عليه ؟‬
Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Dua’s
of the Ziyarat of Ashura, and I talk in particular about the cursing of: the First (Abu Bakr),
the Second (Umar), the Third (Uthman). Is it part of the Ziyarat and has it been reported
by the Infallible (a.s)? Or has it been rejected? And did the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt allow
the cursing of these three and did they say the person who does it is rewarded?
‫ نعم اللعن جزء من زيارة عاشوراء ويكرر مئة م ّرة وقد صدر اللعن من األئمة (عليهم السالم) وليس لعن الظالمين‬: ‫الجواب‬
‫ نعم الب ّد أن يكون اللعن غير مناف للتقية‬. ‫ بل الروايات في ذلك متواترة‬، ‫مختصا ً بزيارة عاشوراء‬.
Answer: Yes, cursing is permissible in the Ziyarat of Ashura. Repeat it hundreds of times.

It has been reported that the Imams cursed and this was not just the cursing of the
oppressors of Ashura, but repeatedly (others as well). And this is found in a lot of similar
Hadiths. And yes, the cursing must not be done in a matter to reveal the Taqiyyah.
source: http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm#%‫من‬20%‫التبري‬
‫هللا‬20%‫أعداء‬20
Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting
One of the most troublesome points for the Shia faith is the fact that its central
tenet, the concept of Imamah and the designation of the twelve Infallible Imams,
is altogether missing from the Quran. To the Shia, the belief in the twelve Imams
is central to one’s faith and the one who denies the Imamah of these twelve men
does not die a complete believer. Therefore, it is mysterious that Allah did not
include this belief in the Quran, even though much lesser important matters were
in fact mentioned therein.
The classical Shia scholars rectified this discrepancy by claiming that the Quran
was tampered with by the Sahabah (the Prophet’s Companions) who sought to
prevent the rule of Ali (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬and the line of Imams after him; according to
these Shia, the Sahabah removed verses and even entire Surahs from the Quran
(including the so-called Surah al-Wilayah) in order to hide Allah’s
Commandments to follow the twelve Imams. This belief in Tahreef (corruption or
manipulation) of the Quran became a central part of the classical Shia theology.
However, when the mainstream Muslims heard of this deviant belief, they
reacted by burning to the stake the heretics who claimed such a thing. It was thus
that the Shia scholars decided upon using Taqiyyah (lying to save oneself) in
order to save the Shia masses from extinction. These classical Shia scholars
feared that the welfare of the Shia masses was far too important and it was best to
hide this view using Taqiyyah.
In the modern day, the Shia scholars have continued this tradition of Taqiyyah,
publically denying–even to their own followers–the belief in Tahreef. The Shia
propagandists have taken Taqiyyah one step further by simply denying that this
was ever a Shia belief to begin with. Unfortunately, the classical Shia books–
written by the founding fathers of Shia theology–are evidence to the contrary: the
prevailing view of the men who founded the Shia theology, whose books form the
basis for modern day Shia scholarship, was that Tahreef of Quran did in fact
happen.
In this article, we will examine the view of ash-Shaykh al-Mufid, one of the most
well-respected Imami scholars of theology; he is cited by the Shia as being one of
the pivotal thinkers who contributed to the development of Imami doctrine. It
would not be an overstatement to say that the Shia hold Shaykh al-Mufid in
higher regard than all of the contemporary Ayatollahs combined.
As we all know, it was Caliph Uthman bin Affan ( ‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬who completed the
compilation of the Quran into what became known as the Mushaf. Shaykh al-
Mufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman ( ‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬did not
properly compile the Quran and that parts of the Quran were left out (i.e.
omitted) from the Mushaf, in particular those verses in the Quran in which the
names of the twelve Imams were mentioned. Shaykh al-Mufid claimed that Amir
al-Mu’mineen Ali (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬was the only one who compiled the entire Quran and
that this edition was currently being held by Al-Qaem (i.e. Imam Mehdi) who
would reveal this complete version when he would return from his occultation.
And yet, in the typical tradition of Taqiyyah, the Shia propagandists provide a
half-quote to make it appear as if Shaykh al-Mufid did not believe in Tahreef.
This is the half-quote that is commonly propagated by the Shia:
All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala
and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings…Authentic
Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read
what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in
addition or subtraction…They (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran
contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.
Source
Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993]
Editor: Sa’ib Àbd al-Humayd
Page(s): 78-81
And we find this misleading half-quote dutifully reproduced by many Shia

propagandists and even by many Shia lay-persons who have never actually
opened this book in their lives. It is altogether stunning at how deceptive this
half-quoting is. Let us then turn to these same pages from that same book and
expose the Shia deception by reading the entire passage in lieu of this cut and
spliced version. Shaykh al-Mufid says:
and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is
most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has
revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of
Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even
though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as
present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to
reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts
about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir
al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and
collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before
Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it
is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad
as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you
would have found our names as those before us were named”…
Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered
(us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any
other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would
read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by
Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is
mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the
Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through
individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and
whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers
he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us
(i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would
expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the
Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.
Source
Page(s): 78-81
How dramatically different is the truth from what the Shia try to portray! The
very quote that the Shia use to defend Shaykh al-Mufid is the very proof that we
use to damn him. Let us summarize what Shaykh al-Mufid said in the above
quote:
1) Yes, everything in the Quran that we have now is from Allah and nothing in it
is from humans. So there are no additions to the Quran.
2) However, there are deletions (i.e. omissions) from the Quran! These missing
parts of the Quran are with Imam Mehdi (i.e. Al-Qaem). Uthman (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬did
not include these parts in the Mushaf we have today for a variety of reasons (and
he names those reasons).
3) The names of the twelve Imams are actually mentioned in the complete Quran
which is with Al-Qaem, and these verses were omitted by Caliph Uthman ( ‫ر ّضى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬. Al-Qaem will reveal the missing verses when he returns from his occultation.
4) Yes, we know for sure that there are missing parts to the Quran, but we cannot
be sure what exactly those missing parts are; we don’t know which of those
Hadith which tell us the missing verses are correct and which are not. We will
have to wait for Al-Qaem to come and inform us which are the true additions to
the Quran.
5) Taqiyyah: We should deny that anything is missing from the Quran for fear of
the Sunni reaction and backlash against the Shia masses.
May Allah guide us to the Truth!
Al-Raj’ah [The Return]: Imams Reincarnated
The Shia believe in this strange concept of Al-Raj’ah, which translates to “The Return.” They believe that when Imam
Mehdi appears, he will first ressurect all of the enemies of Ahlel Bayt (including Abu Bakr [ ‫]رضّ ى هللا عنه‬, Umar [‫]رضّ ى هللا عنه‬,
Uthman [‫]رضّ ى هللا عنه‬, Aisha [‫]رضّ ى هللا عنها‬, Hafsa [‫]رضّ ى هللا عنها‬, and the Sunnis) and then he will flog them and punish their
reincarnated selves. According to Al-Raj’ah, Imam Mehdi will ressurect all the Prophets, Imams, and pious Shia from their
graves who will then live again on this earth a second time for one primary purpose: to view the humiliation of the
enemies of Ahlel Bayt as justice is meted out on them.
According to the Shia, the Imams will be in reincarnated so that they can punish their enemies and rule the earth in a
second life. Al-Raj’ah is a fundamental of the Shia faith. Orthodox Muslims [i.e. those of the mainstream Ahlus Sunnah]
abhor this pagan and Hindu-like belief in reincarnation. It is absurd and an obvious exaggeration of the Shia who simply
wishes beyond wish that one day that the “dirty Nasibi Sunnis” will be punished; it is indicative of their obsession with the
Sunnis, in particular with their obsessive hate of the Three Caliphs and Aisha ( ‫)رضّ ى هللا عنها‬. They created this ridicolous
belief in a second life just so that they have this dream of one day meeting and humiliating the objects of their obsession.
This belief in Al-Raj’ah is Kufr (disbelief) because it is denying the verses in the Quran which say that Allah and Allah
Alone will mete out justice to the disbelievers on the Day of Judgement. See how the Shia exaggerate with their Imams? It
is their Imams who will deliver punishments to the disbelievers, instead of Allah on the Day of Judgement. We have seen
so many verses in the Quran about how Allah will punish the disbelievers on the Day of Judgement; where are these
mysterious and hidden verses about Imams raising up the disbelievers from the dead and punishing them?
The Infallible Imams have stressed the importance of holding this belief of Al-Raj’ah and considered it an essential part of
faith. Let us examine an authentic Shia Hadith on the matter.
Imam al-Sadiq said:
“The one who does not believe in our return [Al-Raj’ah] and does not consider our Mutah to be Halaal is not from us.” (al-
Bihar, al-Majlisi, v53, p92, Hadith #101)
This Hadith, which is considered Sahih by the Shia, is of course indicative of the baseness of the Shia faith: reincarnation
and prostitution (Mutah). The Imam is telling the Shia that if they don’t believe in reincarnation and prostitution, then
they are not from the believers but rather they are Kuffaar!
Here is another “interesting” Hadith of the Shia.
Imam as-Sadiq (as) said:
“He who believes in seven things is regarded as a believer: the disavowal of idols and tyrants, the declaration of the divine
leadership of the Imams, the belief of Rajaa, legality of Mutah, the illegality of the flesh of eel, and the illegality of passing
the wet hands over the slippers (during the ritual ablutions).”
Isnad [Chain of Transmission]: Ali bin Ahmed bin Abdullah narrated to us from his father from his grandfather from
Ahmed bin Abi Abdullah al-Barqi from his father from Amr bin Shemr from Abdullah that Imam as-Sadiq said the
following…
This Hadith is a bit strange, to say the least. These are indeed an odd seven things to believe in. In any case, the
mainstream Muslims deem this to be a repugnant belief; reincarnation is a Mushrik belief. Is “Al-Raj’ah” mentioned in the
Quran? We have verse after verse about the Day of Judgement. Where is this strange concept of Al-Raj’ah? Now, to
respond to this, we will find the Shia dissecting verses of the Quran and inserting different possible meanings and brackets
here and there, taking verses about the Day of Judgement out of context and then saying we have to look at Shia Tafseer,
then look at the verse with x-ray goggles, and then Subhanallah the Quran mentions Al-Raj’ah!
The Shia have made a joke of the Quran. If a Shia leader told his people that monkeys and apes are sacred, we will find the
Shia then dissecting the Quran to find proof for this, or rather, to engineer the proof. The Shia can pretty much prove
anything from the Quran, because to them, the Quran is an intricate puzzle. Why is this so? It is because the Quran never
mentions their claims! So they have to play word games to cover it up. We ask the Shia to show us where the Quran says
that the Twelvth Imam will go into hiding, and then he will raise up the dead. We do not see the Shia claims to be true
when they cannot find the evidence in the Quran. We ask the Shia to show us where it says that the enemies will be flogged
in this second life, and all of this fairy-tale? Why is it that the Shia fundamentals of faith can never be found in the Quran
(without playing word games, that is)?
If the Shia Imams say that we get three lives on this earth, or four, or five, you will find that the Shia will always be able to
engineer proof for this in the Quran using their handy-dandy Tafseer. They will use long and complicated proofs and then
satisfy themselves that the Quran says what their Imams say. The Shia will use mental and liguistic acrobatics to find
meanings that are not only not apparent but are really counter-intuitive. Instead of the Shia Imams being forced to say
what the Quran says, the truth is that the Quran is forced to say what the Shia Imams want them to say. This is how the
Shia have exalted the speech of their Imams above the speech of Allah.
We will find that the Shia are the most adept people on earth when it comes to engineering Daleel(evidence). They will
even justify their Shia beliefs using Sunni sources. We will see Al-Islam.org and other Shia websites citing Sunni sources
saying that they can prove Mutah, Taqiyyah, Imamah, etc from the Sunni sources. Subhanallah! The Shia can play word
games with anything, and this is why it does not matter to the Shia what their texts say. Any text will say what they want it
to say. Not unlike the Jews who manipulated their scriptures to their desires, the Shia will manipulate their scriptures to
the desires of their Imams.
The Imams of the Shia needed an outlet to vent their anger towards the Nasibis [i.e. Sunnis] so they invented this fantasy
of Al-Raj’ah. One observor noted that it reminded him of the “revenge of the nerds.” Is it not disturbing that the Shia want
people to be raised from the dead to witness the flogging of the wife of the Prophet? The Shia say that the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا‬
‫ )عليه وآله وسلّم‬will also be resurrected: we wonder why the Prophet (‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬would allow the Mehdi to raise his
own wife to flog her? These are beliefs designed by the Shia leaders to let their minions know that they beat us Sunnis in
the end. Let us look at some of the Shia narrations about Al-Raj’ah, a fundamental of Shia faith.
Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes in Haqqul Yaqeen: “When Imam Mahdi arrives, Aisha will be resurrected so that she may be
given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.” (Haqqul Yaqeen: 347)
When Imam Mehdi comes he will hang Abu Bakr and Umar at the holy grave of Hazrat Muhammad. (Majma-ul-ma’arif,
page #49)
Ali will come back to life. [Hayatul Quloob (urdu translation) by Basharat Husain, part 1, page 204, Imamiyah kutub
khana Edition, Lahore]
Before Qiyaamah all the Ambiya (A.S) will be back to life and assist Ali (A.S.). [Zamimah Maqbool by Maqbool Husain
Dehlvi, page 46, Maqbool press Edition, Dehli].
People mourn on the grave of Hussein (A.S.) because he was murdered and the angels were unable to assist him. But when
Mehdi comes and people will return to life, the angels will help Mehdi. [Aqida-e-Raj’ah Ash shafi by Zafar Husain, part 2,
page 196, chapter 60, Shameem book depot Edition, Nazimabad Karachi, New Edition]
Before Qiyaamah, Nabi, Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Hussein (A.S.) and a few other sincere Muslims and some kuffar will be
brought back to life. [Anwar-e-Naumaniyah by Naimatullah Jazairi, part 2, page 87, Bab: Nur Fi Kayfiyyatir Raj’ah, New
Iranian Edition]. .
When the Twelvth Imam returns, he will bring Aisha to life so as to torment her. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 139)
Imam Mehdi will punish Aisha with stripes. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 901)
Imam Mehdi will order to hang the dead bodies of Abu Bakr and Umar. (Basair-ud-Darajat, Page No. 81)
Imam Mehdi will exhume the bodies of Abu Bakr & Umar. (Basair-ud-Darajat, Page No. 80)
What is interesting to note is that the average Shia has no clue about this concept of Al-Raj’ah. His first instinct is to deny
that such a concept exists. Then, he goes to more knowledgeable Shia who explain to him that the Shia do indeed believe
in Al-Raj’ah, and then most likely said Shia will look him straight in the face and say “so what is the big deal?” It is indeed
strange how people will accept such outrageous fabrications in faith simply because they are unwilling to switch from the
ideology they were born into.
Tahreef
prevent the rule of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬and the line of Imams after him; according to
happen.
Please read the following articles on the topic:
 Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting

Shaykh al-Mufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬ ّ ‫ )ر‬did
not properly compile the Quran and that parts of the Quran were left out (i.e. omitted)
from the Mushaf, in particular those verses in the Quran in which the names of the
twelve Imams were mentioned. Shaykh al-Mufid claimed that Amir al-Mu’mineen Ali
( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫ )ر‬was the only one who compiled the entire Quran and that this edition was
currently being held by Al-Qaem (i.e. Imam Mehdi) who would reveal this complete
version when he would return from his occultation.
 Shaykh al-Mufid and Tahreef, Strike Two

Shaykh al-Mufid of the Shia needs no introduction. He was the classical Shia scholar
of the tenth century, and is credited as being one of the founding fathers of Shia
theology. Shaykh al-Mufid is to the Shia who Imam Abu Hanifa is to the Sunnis. In
Kitab al-Irshad, he writes about how the Imam Mehdi (i.e. Qa’im) will–on his return–
teach people the “real” Quran.
 Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33

The classical scholars of the Shia claimed that there was Tahreef (tampering) of the
Quran. They claimed that the “evil” Sahabah changed the Quran, and that the Mushaf
we have today is not the real Quran (at least not in its unaltered form). The
contemporary Shia scholars, however, completely deny that they believe in Tahreef or
that this belief was ever a part of their sect. Nonetheless, despite this denial, many of
the Shia Ulema hold onto the belief known as Tahreef bit Tarteeb (tampering in the
order of the verses of the Quran such that the meaning of it is changed). Many Shia
scholars claim that verse 33:33 was altered in such a manner.
 Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 11:73

It should also be known that the Shia do not love Ahlel Bayt as they claim but rather
they hate it, as they scorn the Prophet’s wives. To justify their claim of being the lovers
of Ahlel Bayt, the Shia try to use aggressive word games with Verse 33:33, but these
same “grammatical” games fall apart when they are applied to Verse 5:73, forcing the
Shia to adopt the opinion of their classical Ulema, namely that the Sahabah tampered
with the Quran!
 Answering-Ansar’s Guru Says Current Quran is “Incomplete”

and “Not Enough”
In this article, we expose Answering-Ansar’s guru, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq.
We reveal the link between Answering-Ansar and then we examine the Allamah’s
views. Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq believed that our current Quran is incomplete
and insufficient. He claimed that Imam Mehdi would bring the entire Quran, and that
this true Quran would be complete, unlike our “weak” Quran. The Allamah even
claims that the Quran of Imam Mehdi has the name of Pakistan in it! This is an article
that will deliver a blow to the credibility of Answering-Ansar that they cannot
possibly recover from.
prevent the rule of Ali (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬and the line of Imams after him; according to
happen.
In this article, we will examine the view of ash-Shaykh al-Mufid, one of the most
well-respected Imami scholars of theology; he is cited by the Shia as being one of
the pivotal thinkers who contributed to the development of Imami doctrine. It
would not be an overstatement to say that the Shia hold Shaykh al-Mufid in
higher regard than all of the contemporary Ayatollahs combined.
As we all know, it was Caliph Uthman bin Affan ( ‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬who completed the
compilation of the Quran into what became known as the Mushaf. Shaykh al-
Mufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman ( ‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬did not
properly compile the Quran and that parts of the Quran were left out (i.e.
omitted) from the Mushaf, in particular those verses in the Quran in which the
names of the twelve Imams were mentioned. Shaykh al-Mufid claimed that Amir
al-Mu’mineen Ali (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬was the only one who compiled the entire Quran and
that this edition was currently being held by Al-Qaem (i.e. Imam Mehdi) who
would reveal this complete version when he would return from his occultation.
And yet, in the typical tradition of Taqiyyah, the Shia propagandists provide a
half-quote to make it appear as if Shaykh al-Mufid did not believe in Tahreef.
This is the half-quote that is commonly propagated by the Shia:
and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings…Authentic
Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read
what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in
addition or subtraction…They (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran
contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.
Source
Page(s): 78-81
And we find this misleading half-quote dutifully reproduced by many Shia

propagandists and even by many Shia lay-persons who have never actually
opened this book in their lives. It is altogether stunning at how deceptive this
half-quoting is. Let us then turn to these same pages from that same book and
expose the Shia deception by reading the entire passage in lieu of this cut and
spliced version. Shaykh al-Mufid says:
and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is
most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has
revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of
Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even
though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as
present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to
reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts
about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir
al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and
collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before
Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it
is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad
as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you
would have found our names as those before us were named”…
Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered
(us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any
other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would
read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by
Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is
mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the
Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through
individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and
whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers
he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us
(i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would
expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the
Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.
Source
Page(s): 78-81
How dramatically different is the truth from what the Shia try to portray! The
very quote that the Shia use to defend Shaykh al-Mufid is the very proof that we
use to damn him. Let us summarize what Shaykh al-Mufid said in the above
quote:
1) Yes, everything in the Quran that we have now is from Allah and nothing in it
is from humans. So there are no additions to the Quran.
2) However, there are deletions (i.e. omissions) from the Quran! These missing
parts of the Quran are with Imam Mehdi (i.e. Al-Qaem). Uthman (‫ )ر ّضى هللا عنه‬did
not include these parts in the Mushaf we have today for a variety of reasons (and
he names those reasons).
3) The names of the twelve Imams are actually mentioned in the complete Quran
which is with Al-Qaem, and these verses were omitted by Caliph Uthman ( ‫ر ّضى هللا‬
‫)عنه‬. Al-Qaem will reveal the missing verses when he returns from his occultation.
4) Yes, we know for sure that there are missing parts to the Quran, but we cannot
be sure what exactly those missing parts are; we don’t know which of those
Hadith which tell us the missing verses are correct and which are not. We will
have to wait for Al-Qaem to come and inform us which are the true additions to
the Quran.
5) Taqiyyah: We should deny that anything is missing from the Quran for fear of
the Sunni reaction and backlash against the Shia masses.
May Allah guide us to the Truth!
Shaykh al-Mufid and Tahreef, Strike Two
Shaykh al-Mufid of the Shia needs no introduction. He was the classical Shia
scholar of the tenth century, and is credited as being one of the founding fathers
of Shia theology. Shaykh al-Mufid is to the Shia who Imam Abu Hanifa is to the
Sunnis.
Shaykh al-Mufid wrote about Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran in his book,
Masa’il as-Sarawiyya; our article on this topic can be found here:
So that was strike one against Shaykh al-Mufid; he strikes out again in his famous
book, Kitab al-Irshad. In Kitab al-Irshad, he writes about how the Imam Mehdi
(i.e. Qa’im) will–on his return–teach people the “real” Quran. Shaykh al-Mufid
writes:
(Imam al-Baqir) said: When the Qai’m from the family of Muhammad, may Allah
bless him and his family, arises, he will set up encampments and he will teach the
people the Quran as it was revealed by Allah, the Mighty and the High. The
greatest difficulty will be for those who have learnt it as it is today, because it
differs from its original composition.
Source
Book Title: Kitab al-Irshad (The Book of Guidance)
Publisher: Balagha Books in conjunction with The Muhammadi Trust [1981]
Translated by: I.K.A. Howard
Page: 553
That’s strike two for Shaykh al-Mufid.
Attached Scan:
The Shia claim to be the Madhab of Ahlel Bayt, and the center of their religious
sect is their belief in the divine appointment of the twelve Imams from this Ahlel
Bayt. And yet, the Shia cannot provide a single verse in the Quran which
mentions any twelve Imams of Ahlel Bayt. In fact, the term “Ahlel Bayt” is only
used twice in the Quran and the irony is that the word is used both times to refer
to a man’s wives! The Quran categorically addresses the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel
Bayt; this is the same group that the Shia despise and curse! How then can the
Shia claim to be the lovers of Ahlel Bayt when in fact they accuse the Prophet’s
wife of murder, Fisq, and heresy? In fact, it is the Ahlus Sunnah which
categorically loves the Ahlel Bayt, not the Shia. It is the Sunnis who are
the true lovers of Ahlel Bayt, because we love the Prophet’s wives.
The most oft-repeated Quranic verse in Shia literature is 33:33, which the Shia
quote again and again. The importance of this verse to the Shia faith cannot be
overstated; a simple gander of Shia texts confirms that this verse is not only
repeated over and over, but it is used as a basis and justification of the Shia sect.
What is interesting, however, is that most Shia laypersons have only heard half of
this verse; they commonly think of the verse as simply:
“Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of
the House), and to make you pure and spotless.”
But few of them know that this is simply a half-quote; indeed, the entire passage
reads:
“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will
be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a
disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make
not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish
regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And
Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt
(People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.And recite
what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom:
for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).”
(Quran, 33:32-34)
In fact, Allah addresses the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel Bayt. This would of course
include Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Hafsa, daughter of Umar. And yet we
find that the Shia have an intense hatred for Aisha and Hafsa, and it is on this
basis that we Sunnis say that the Shia are not the lovers of Ahlel Bayt as they
claim. In fact, the Shia are the most ardent opponents and enemies of Ahlel Bayt.
Nobody can deny that if Allah Almighty refers to the Prophet’s wives as Ahlel
Bayt, then nobody–no Ayatollah and no propagandist–could claim otherwise. We
would indeed take the Word of Allah above that of the Shia.
Tahreef
It was on this basis that the classical scholars of the Shia claimed that there was
Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran. They claimed that the “evil” Sahabah changed
the Quran, and that the Mushaf we have today is not the real Quran (at least not
in its unaltered form). The contemporary Shia scholars, however, completely
deny that they believe in Tahreef or that this belief was ever a part of their sect.
Nonetheless, despite this denial, many of the Shia Ulema hold onto the belief
known as Tahreef bit Tarteeb (tampering in the order of the verses of the Quran
such that the meaning of it is changed). Many Shia scholars claim that verse
33:33 was altered in such a manner.
The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of
the Quran along with commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by
Answering-Ansar here, and hence there should be no question about its
authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 33:33, this Shia
Tafseer reads:
Translation: “If we take out this verse (of purification) from the middle, and then
we read the verse (addressed to the wives) from the beginning to the end, we then
find no fault in it and it looks better in this form. From this, it is clear that this
verse (of purification) does not belong to this place and it was added deliberately
for some special purpose.”

The Shia scholar, Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, in the Shia book “Imamate and
Leadership” quotes Allamah Sharaf al-Din (Kalimat al-Ghurra’, p.213) as follows:
“Although we are convinced that no distortion has taken place in the verses of the
Noble Qur’an and that our heavenly Book has not been tampered with in any
way, it is by no means clear that the arrangement and recension of the verses is
precisely that in which they were revealed. For it is quite possible that the
‘purification verse’ concerning the People of the House was revealed separately
and then, when the verses of the Qur’an were being assembled, was placed in the
middle of the verses relating to the wives of the Prophet, either in error or
deliberately.”
(Al-Islam.org, Lesson 19, http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/)
It should be understood that the Allamah’s disclaimer that the Shia do not believe
in Tahreef is as disingenuous as those who say “I don’t mean to be racist, but…”
Whatever follows such a statement is always racist! Allamah Sharaf al-Din
basically says: we don’t believe in Tahreef but there may have been Tahreef.
Utterly absurd! The Shia wish to pay lip-service to the claim that they don’t
believe in tampering of the Quran, and yet they further various hypothesis that
allude to textual tampering of a dramatic proportion.
The “Khateem al-Muhhaditheen” al-Majlissi says a similar thing in “Bihar al-

Anwar”:
‫ أو أدخلوها في سياق مخاطبة الزوجات لبعض مصالحهم‬، ‫فلعل آية التطهير أيضا وضعوها في موضع زعموا أنها تناسبه‬
‫الدنيوية‬
‫ فلعله سقط مما قبل اآلية‬، ‫ سيأتي أخبار مستفيضة بأنه سقط من القرآن آيات كثيره‬: ‫ولو سلم عدم التغيير في الترتيب فنقول‬
‫وما بعدها آيات لو ثبتت لم يفت الربط الظاهري بينها‬
Translation: “It is possible that the purification verse was added (by the
Companions) at this part (of the verse) claiming that it was referring to the wives,
or they added in the verses addressing the prophet’s wives, to suit their religious
needs…Even if we accept that there was no tampering (by the Companions) in the
order (of the verses), we say there are many narrations which discuss the
removal/canceling of Quranic verses. [Maybe there were verses before and after
the verse of purification and they were removed]; if these verses were not
removed before and after the verse (of purification), we would see the apparent
link between them.”
(source: Bihar al-Anwar, pp.234-235,

http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/index.html)
The great Shia Mufassir, Tabatabai, writes:
‫فاآلية لم تكن بحسب النزول جزء اً من آيات نساء النبي وال متَّصلة بها و إنما وضعت بينها إ ّما بأم ٍر من النبي أو عند التأليف‬
‫بعد الرحلة‬
Translation: “The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of)

revelation, was initially not a part of the verse about the Prophet’s wives and had
no link to these verses, but rather it was later added between these verses either
by the Prophet, or after his death when the Quran was compiled.”
(source: al-Mizan, Vol.16, p.321,

http://www.ahl-ul-bait.com/newlib/Quran/almizan/almizan16/f7-16.htm)
Conclusion
Is it not interesting that the most famous verse to the Shia causes him so much
trouble? Various Shia scholars have become utterly confused when they read this
verse in its entirety and they have to invent various plausible explanations,
anything to “explain away” a gaping hole in their faith, namely that Allah Himself
addressed the Prophet’s wives as “Ahlel Bayt”, that same group that the Shia
writers malign with the most malicious of words!
The utter confusion of the Shia scholars is evidenced by the colorful explanations
they provide. They seek to somehow explain how the verse about purifying Ahlel
Bayt is addressed to the Prophet’s wives. We have said this before and we will say
it again and again: Shi’ism cannot be found anywhere in the Quran, but rather
they have to take certain verses, splice them in half, distort them, add their own
commentary, and mix in their own fabricated Hadith. If we simply pick up any
Shia text, we will find the repeated reference to the Ahlel Bayt, but if we open the
Quran, we find no such vibe, and even if we look up the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the
Quran, we find that it refers to the Prophet’s wives!
The methodology of the mainstream Muslim is that he first reads the Quran and
then makes up his mind after this based on what the Quran says. Meanwhile, the
methodology of the Ahlul Bidah wal Dalalah (The People of Innovation and of
Hell-Fire, i.e. the Shia) is that they first make up their minds with their own ideas
and the ideas of their priests, and then they go into the Quran looking to generate
“evidences” and “proof” to back up these preconceived beliefs, manipulating and
twisting verses of the Quran to make them mean really whatever they want them
to mean.
May Allah save us from those who seek to butcher the Quran with their lies.
This is in continuation to our previous article:
Please read that article before proceeding forth here.
In summary, the Quran mentions the term “Ahlel Bayt” twice, once in verse 33:33
and another time in verse 11:73, both times for a man’s wives. However, because
this conflicts with the Shia doctrine–and because it exposes them as the haters of
Ahlel Bayt–the Shia scholars must resort to the belief that there was Tahreef
(tampering) of these two Quranic verses. We have already discussed what the
Shia scholars say about Verse 33:33, so let us now move onto the second
occurrence of the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the Quran:
She (Prophet Ibrahim’s wife) said: “O wonder! Shall I bear a child, seeing as how
I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a
strange thing!” They (the angels) said: “Do you wonder at Allah’s Decree? The
Grace of Allah and His Blessings be upon you, O You Ahlel Bayt, for surely He is
indeed worthy of all praise, Glorious!”
(Quran, 11:72-73)
It is clear that the angels referred to Prophet Ibrahim’s wife Sara as “Ahlel Bayt”,
and so we know from this that a man’s wives are included in the term “Ahlel
Bayt”. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad’s wives, Aisha and Hafsa, are similarly
included in the Ahlel Bayt, and whoever hates them such as the Shia, are haters of
Ahlel Bayt.
The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of
the Quran along with commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by
Answering-Ansar here, and hence there should be no question about its
authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 11:73, this Shia
Tafseer reads:
Translation: “…In the verse before this one, Hadhrat Sara (as) was addressed
with the present feminine singular form and in this verse she was addressed with
the singular masculine present form, which clearly shows that the people who are
addressed in this verse are not the same people and this verse was inserted here
(by the Sahabah) without any (justifiable) reason.”
Right off the bat, we should mention that this Shia Tafseer exposes the weakness
of the arguments made by the Shia propagandists when they claim that there are
grammatical reasons that Prophet Muhammad’s wives were not addressed as
Ahlel Bayt in Verse 33:33. These Shia claim that the masculine tense was used
when referring to Ahlel Bayt instead of the feminine which was used for the
Prophet’s wives in the verse before. To this, we bring up the example of Verse
11:73 in which the masculine tense is used for Prophet Ibrahim’s wife, even
though she was only one single woman who was being addressed as “Ahlel Bayt.”
And we find that the Shia Mufassireen such as Farman Ali had no other option
but to counter this by saying that there was Tahreef (tampering) of Verse 11:73!
It should be known that the Quran is a toy for the Shia which they can play
around with; the verses of the Quran are to them lego blocks which can be
assembled and jumbled up in any which way it suits them. Despite their
vehement denials, the belief in Tahreef is found in their most important books,
and in fact, this belief in Tahreef is the only way in which they can justify their
main doctrines which conflict with the present version of the Quran.
It should also be known that the Shia do not love Ahlel Bayt as they claim but
rather they hate it, as they scorn the Prophet’s wives. To justify their claim of
being the lovers of Ahlel Bayt, the Shia try to use aggressive word games with
Verse 33:33, but these same “grammatical” games fall apart when they are
applied to Verse 11:73, forcing the Shia to adopt the opinion of their classical
Ulema, namely that the Sahabah tampered with the Quran!
Most importantly, we come to the conclusion that Shi’ism cannot be found in the
Quran, the holy book of the Muslims. The Shia claim to be the Madhab of Ahlel
Bayt, but in fact the Quran does not point to their definition of Ahlel Bayt. The
Quran uses the word “Ahlel Bayt” twice and both times it is for a man’s wives, and
both times the Shia scholars have claimed that there was Tahreef.
Answering-Ansar’s Guru Says

Current Quran is
“Incomplete” and “Not
Enough”
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Merciful.
Background
The Shia belief centers around the Imamah of Ali and the line of Imams after
him. This belief is considered by the Shia to be one of the five Usool-e-Deen
(fundamentals of religion), and in fact they claim it to be the most important of
them. Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghita writes in his book “The
Origin of Shi’ite Islam and its Principles” (Asl ash-Shi’ah wa Usuluha):
“Those matters which concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen

(fundamentals of religion) and they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl,
and Ma’ad.”
(“The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles”, Part II: Fundamentals of the
Religion, Part II: The Fundamentals of the Religion, Section The Fundamental
Beliefs, p.218)
Wilayah (i.e. the designation of the Imam) is considered a more important pillar
than prayer, fasting, zakat, or hajj:
“Islam is founded on five pillars: prayers (salat), zakat, hajj, fasting (sawm), and
wilayah.” Zurarah asked the Imam: “Which one is the most important?” The
Imam answered: “Wilayah is.”
(Wasa’il al-Shia, Vol.1, p.40; Usool al-Kafi, Vol.1, p.462)
Denial of this doctrine (i.e. Imamah of the twelve) is considered by the Shia to be
Kufr (disbelief) and one of the reasons that the Sunnis will be damned to eternal
Hellfire in the next life. Shaykh Mufid declared in no uncertain terms:
Shaykh Mufid says
““ ‫اتفقت االمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من االئمة وجحد ما أوجبه هللا تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر‬
‫”ضال مستحق للخلود في النار‬
Translation: “The Imamiyyah [Shia] are in agreement (’Ijma) that the one who
rejects the Imamah of one Imam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah
ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar23/a39.html ”
And yet, despite the overriding importance of this doctrine, we find absolutely no
mention of the Imamah of the twelve in the Quran. None of the twelve Imams are
mentioned in the Quran, nor is the doctrine even alluded to. How is it then that
the central doctrine of the Shia cannot be found in the central book of the
Muslims, i.e. the Quran? In the early times of Islam, this was the question that
the Sunnis would ask the Shias. To this, the classical Shias responded by accusing
the Prophet’s Companions (the Sahabah) of tampering the Quran, claiming that
the Sahabah had removed entire verses and chapters from the Quran, including
the Surah al-Wilayah which declared the Imamah of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This was
the Shia belief of Tahreef (tampering/corruption) whereby they claimed that the
present Quran we have today was incomplete and the complete Quran was
hidden away with their Imam Mehdi who would reveal it at the End of Times.
This belief of the Shia was a direct violation of the Quranic verses which clearly
said that (1) the Quran is complete and (2) that Allah would protect it from
corruption. This belief that the current Quran was incomplete was of course
considered by the mainstream Muslims to be Kufr (disbelief) and the Sunnis
thereby declared the Shias to be apostates to be executed for grand heresy. And
this was when the Shias invoked another one of their blasphemous beliefs, i.e.
Taqiyyah. The Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) agreed that the belief that the Quran is
incomplete would be too dangerous a position to pronounce publicly, and that it
would threaten the very existence of the Shia. They feared that the Shias would be
executed by the state on charges of grand heresy, and it was thus that for
thousands of years the Shias would publicly deny that they believed that the
current Quran with us today was incomplete.
And yet, despite this denial, the belief–that the current Quran was incomplete–
persisted in their books. Even though the Shia scholarship hid this belief from
their own awwam (masses), they themselves held onto it, and today we find this
belief of Tahreef in many of their classical books. It remains a belief held by the
Grand Ayatollahs of Shi’ism, but something which they do not declare publicly.
The Shia propagandist has become so adept at denying the very existence of this
belief that he has successfully fooled the Muslim masses. Most Sunni laypersons
today do not believe us when we warn them of the Shia belief, and instead they
are fooled by the Taqiyyah of the Shias. And yet, all the experts on Shi’ism know
the truth, and we continue to expose them and reveal their true beliefs, hidden
under the cloak of Taqiyyah.
Answering-Ansar’s Guru: Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq
One of the most popular Shia propaganda sites, Answering-Ansar, has led the
charge in denying the belief in Tahreef. The Answering-Ansar website has
become the flagship of the Shia propaganda juggernaut in the English language.
How many dozens of Sunni laypersons have been led astray by their half-quotes,
misquotes, and blatant lies? So it is today that we expose Answering-Ansar and
reveal their true colors, and warn the mainstream Muslims of what lies
underneath the facade. It is our sincere hope that this will once and for all
convince those ignorant Sunnis who call to unity with the Shias, who refer to
them as fellow Muslims, and who say such silly things as “the Shia only differ
with us on very minor things.” No, these Shia scholars say that our Quran is
incomplete and not enough, and they are on the same position as the Qadianis! In
fact, not even the Qadianis dared to utter such things against the Quran; we will
see how the Shias have gone so far as to say that the real Quran has a verse in it in
which the name of Pakistan is mentioned. This is a claim that not even the leader
of the Qadianis made.
The Answering-Ansar website was inspired by the Shia scholar, Allamah Abdul
Kareem Mushtaq. He was a contemporary scholar who lived in Pakistan and
preached throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It was Allamah Abdul Kareem
Mushtaq who was a heavy influence on Answering-Ansar’s work, and for all
intents and purposes, he is seen by them as their guru. Answering-Ansar has
spent a lot of its time translating his works. Let us read a few quotes from
Answering-Ansar’s website wherein they praise the Allamah and detail their
relationship with him:
“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.
Unfortunately this fact, coupled with the spectacular inability of the Nasibi to
refute his books, made him a direct target, and they silenced him in the only way
that followers of Mu’awiya can, by fatally shooting him in Lahore in the mid
nineties. Despite this tragedy his memory lives on, his writings
continue to act as a huge source of inspiration and guidance for the
Shi’a, and the Answering-Ansar.org team have been heavily
influenced by his excellent texts.
These questions form the second portion of Abdul Kareem Mushtaq’s book, Usul-
e-Deen. Although we have translated this book, it was felt that these one hundred
questions are best placed as a separate document under the challenge section.
Whilst the Allamah had cited Urdu editions of books, we changed the text,
referring to English editions, to ensure that these references can be located more
easily.
May Allah (swt) reward Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq for his
efforts and grant him Paradise with the Imams (as). May his legacy
(his books) continue to act as source of guidance for us all. May Allah
(swt) also accept our intention, and bless Prophet Muhammad and his
purified family.
Illahi Ameen.
source: http://www.answering-
ansar.org/challenges/100questions/en/index.php ”
(Note: It should be known that when the Shias say the word “Nasibis”, then they
mean us Sunnis. Is it any wonder that these rejectors of the Quran have any basis
to attack the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah, and have the gall to refer to us as
“Nasibis”?)
We urge our readers to save screen-shots of Answering-Ansar lest they resort to

their traditional strategy of making these articles disappear, all in the time-
honored tradition of Taqiyyah.
Elsewhere, Answering-Ansar says:
“Abdul Kareem Mushtaq proved himself a prolific writer and wrote at least 40
other books that refuted all the lies churned out by the Nasibi propaganda
machine. He was responsible for converting scores of people to Shi’aism and was
his achievements will always remain in our minds. Whilst the followers of
Mu’awiya sought to silence him by banning some of his books and then killing
him, the writings of this great martyr are still readily available in the Indian
Subcontinent and continue to bring people to the path of truth. We pray that his
wonderful book act as a means of approach in the next world, and that Allah
(swt) grants him Paradise in the company of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) – Ameen..
source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/usool_al_deen/en/index.php ”
One of the famous books written by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq is “Hazaar
Tumhari Dus Hamari”, a book in which the Allamah attempts to refute Sunni
allegations and give many replies to the Sunnis. We have taken the liberty of
opening this book, considered by the Shia to be a masterpiece work. Let us now
expose the beliefs of this Allamah, and show to the world what these people
believe! Let us unmask Answering-Ansar and shatter their reputation. Let us
warn and advise those who believe in the Quran, who believe that the Quran is
complete and sufficient for the Muslims.
When we open up the Allamah’s book and turn to pages 553-554, then we find
that the Allamah claims that the Quran we have today with us (i.e. the Quran in
its present form) is incomplete andinsufficient. He says that the Shia belief is
that the complete Quran is not with us but it is with Imam Mehdi who will
return at the End of Times to reveal it. The Allamah then explains why our
current Quran is incomplete and insufficient, claiming that the complete Quran
with Imam Mehdi meanwhile has everything in it, including the name of
Pakistan! Subhan-Allah, do we not see what heretics the Shias are; this is that
sect which claims that the real Quran has the name of Pakistan in it! Then finally,
Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq attacks the Sunnis for not believing in this
complete Quran, and he accuses the Sunnis of only believing in the incomplete
Quran (i.e. the present Quran) and not the invisible one with Imam Mehdi.
We are afraid that this is a blow that Answering-Ansar cannot recover from! Let
us proceed forth and expose them. Without further ado, we present to the reader
the words of Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, the guru of Answering-Ansar:
Scan and Translation Provided Courtesy of A. Ansari
Translation
Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq says: “They (Shias) also accept this (present
Quran) as the Word of Allah, whereas you (Sunnis) only accept that (Quran)
which is present and deny the one that is absent. So whose Quran is intact: yours
or ours?”
(Sunni) Objection 874:
“In Tafseer Safi, (you Shias claim that) Hadrat Umar asks Hadrat Ali: do you also
know when the real Quran will be revealed? Hadrat Ali said: Yes, when from
my children, Imam Mehdi will rise, he will present that Quran. (Tafseer Safi,
10/33) So from this, we find out that Hadrat Mehdi’s Quran is one thing and our
present Quran is another; therefore, the one (Quran) that you (Shias) believe in is
not present and the one that is present you don’t believe in it!”
Answer 874 (by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq):
No doubt the Quran that is with Imam Mehdi is complete. It has in it all Mansukh
verses as well as the present verses in the same order they were revealed and all
explanatory notes and explanations are present in it. It has the complete
interpretation of the Prophet. It has in it all the issues of past, present and future.
And in that complete book everything wet or dry is mentioned in it. And you
people (Sunnis) don’t believe in that properly ordered Quran and only believe in
this present Quran which according to you has lost a large part of it. That means
that your (Sunni) belief is weak, whereas we (Shias) believe in that complete
Quran which was never separated from the Ahlel Bayt.
That is why in the Times of Justice (i.e. the End of Times) this Quran would
appear and will defeat falsehood, and it will prove Allah’s Promise that this Quran
has explanations of everything dry and wet in it and then not even any impure
person can corrupt it. But only the pure can touch it. When Imam (Mehdi) will
reveal this Quran to the world, falsehood will vanish from this world and Truth
will rule.
The Holy Quran we have now with us (i.e. the present Quran) contains verses of
that same Quran (that is with Imam Mehdi) but its order of verses is not the
same, and it also does not contain the explanations given by the Prophet. When
we accept the present Quran as the Word of Allah, then how can you doubt our
belief? The weakness of belief is present in your (Sunni) religion who
only believe the present Quran to be enough, and don’t believe in that
part which is invisible. However, they admit that a large part of the Quran
went wasted but they don’t believe this lost part as the Word of Allah, but
rather by denying it, they (the Sunnis) believe in a weak Quran.
Our belief is on both the visible (verses) and invisible (verses). So we (Shias) are
complete in beliefs, whereas you (Sunnis) believe in the visible (verses), and deny
the invisible (verses). That is why you (Sunnis) are incomplete in faith when you
proclaim that you believe in the total Quran which is the present Quran.
Even the claim of Quran is that it has everything dry or wet mentioned in it,
whereas in the total Quran in which you (Sunnis) believe in (i.e the present
Quran), you cannot find the mention of the existence of Pakistan in it, but the
total Quran in which we believe in, it has everything of the past and the future
mentioned in it. And that complete Quran is present under the protection of a
guardian in this world (i.e. Imam Mehdi) which impure people cannot corrupt.
The situation of your Quran’s protection is such that every pure or

impure person in whatever condition can touch it. There exists the
possibility of mistakes and errors in its manuscript. You cannot even
show the name of the republic of Pakistan in it, whereas our claim is
that the manuscript of the Holy Quran is safe under the guardianship
of our Imam (Mehdi). It has all those things which have happened (in
the past) or will happen (in the future). Hence, our belief is complete
and your belief is faulty because you believe in the partial Word of
Allah and deny the rest of it, whereas we are the believers of both the
partial and total Word of Allah.
(“Hazaar Tumhari Dus Hamari”, by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, p.553-554)
What more can we say? The Shias say that our present Quran is not complete nor
is it enough for the believers. Meanwhile, their Shia Quran with Imam Mehdi has
all things in it, dry and wet, past and future. It is a much better book than our
present day Quran! The Allamah refers to our present day Quran as a “weak
Quran”. And let us not forget to mention that their Shia Quran cannot be
corrupted like our present Quran can be; notice his reference to the Sahabah:
“not even any impure person can corrupt it”, by which he means to imply that the
“impure” Sahabah cannot tamper it.
Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq’s assertion that the complete Quran with Imam
Mehdi contains the name of Pakistan would be humorous if it were not outright
blasphemous. Do the Shia scholars think that the Quran is some sort of
encyclopedia or world almanac with an endless list of pointless facts and figures?
Does the Quran of the Shia also contain information about who won the world
cup in soccer, or if the Pakistani team beat the Indian team in cricket? How many
volumes is this Quran? Surely there is not enough paper in the world to write
such a voluminous book that contains every single pointless fact from the past
and future! How are the Muslims who live in that time (i.e. the Times of Justice)
supposed to read it all? Today, we read the Quran at least once during Ramadan;
imagine how many lifetimes would be needed to read the Quran of the Shia! It
will take a few industrial trucks to ship even one copy of this book. If this book is
currently with the Shia Mehdi, then surely we could detect where he is simply by
satellite image: we would only need to look for that large book that would be
more visible than the Great Wall of China. What an utter mockery of our noble
book! It is about time for the Shia laypersons to admit how utterly ludicrous the
beliefs of their religion are. That website that they so strongly support
(Answering-Ansar) is inspired by heretics. We can only imagine Answering-
Ansar’s team running around right now trying to do damage control, and
thinking of ways to spin the story. Surely there is now panic in their camp, and
they are utterly exposed for all to see.
Conclusion
We urge the open-minded truth-seekers from amongst the Shia awwam (masses)
to reject the heretical belief of Shi’ism, and to instead embrace true Islam. We are
Muslims and we proclaim loudly and clearly that our Quran is complete and it is
sufficient for all guidance. Nothing is missing from it; what we have in our hands
(i.e. the present Quran) is the guide for all time. O Shia, ponder: how is it that
Allah would deny the complete Quran to humanity for thousands of years? If the
Quran of Imam Mehdi would bring the Truth and vanquish falsehood, then why
did Allah deny it to the people for thousands of years, when He Himself promised
to give the Quran as a guide to the people? What function is a holy book that is
incomplete, and what use is a book that is not accessible to us? The Shias say that
the complete Quran is not present, and the one that is present is not complete!
Allah says in the Quran that the Book was sent as a guide for humanity and
through it we will be guided, and yet the Shia scholars claim that it is incomplete
and only their complete version will bring the Truth and destroy falsehood.
Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq repeatedly says that their Quran with Imam
Mehdi “would appear (in the Times of Justice) and will defeat falsehood”. But we
Muslims say that thisQuran–the one we have in our hands–was already sent
down to do that! Allah says about the Quran:
“The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished!”
(Quran, 17:81)
Yet, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq claims: “When Imam (Mehdi) will reveal
this Quran to the world, falsehood will vanish from this world and Truth will
rule.” But our Quran–the present day Quran of the Muslims–says quite clearly
that the truth has already come! Why did not Allah say clearly in the Quran that
“the truth will come with Imam Mehdi”? Instead, Allah said that the
truth has come. Indeed, we true Muslims believe that the entire Truth was
brought by Prophet Muhammad, whereas the Shias accuse the Prophet of being a
failure, and they place their Imam Mehdi over and above the Prophet, by
claiming that the Imam Mehdi will succeed in delivering the complete message
whereas the Prophet only succeeded in delivering the partial Message.
Did not Allah say in the Quran:
don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all)!”
(Quran 5:67)
The Quran repeatedly says that the duty of the Messenger was to deliver the
Message, so how is it then that the Shia accuse him of failing in this task and they
say that Imam Mehdi will succeed in it?
Lastly, we would like to reflect on the Words of Allah, in which He says:
“The Word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”
(Quran, 6:115)
Allah did not say that the Word of your Lord is partial or incomplete, or that the
rest would come later. Rather, Allah said that the Word of your Lord is complete.
He did not say will be completed, but rather stated emphatically that it had been
completed and perfected. Allah says:
“Today I have perfected your religion and completed My favor upon you.”
(Quran 5:3)
The Book of Allah was perfected back then, and to claim otherwise is to condemn
the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims, and the center of our religion. The
reason that the Shia scholars need to make such claims about the incompleteness
of the Quran is simply because their Shia doctrines cannot be found in the Quran.
In the words of one brother who converted to true Islam from Shi’ism: “I could
not find Shi’ism in the Quran!” This absence of Shi’ism from the Quran is what
propelled the classical scholars of the Shia to claim that the Quran was
incomplete, and this belief persists to this day, shielded from public view by the
curtain of Taqiyyah.
The Quran Condemns Sects
Few Shia actually realize that the term “shia” is used in the Quran in multiple places, and almost every single time in a negative light.
The Quran declares:
“As for those who divide their religion and break up into shias (sects), you have no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He
will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.” (Quran, 6:159)
The transliteration of the Arabic reads:
Inna allatheena farraqoo deenahum wakanoo shia’ an lasta minhum fee shay-in innama amruhum ila Allahi thumma yunabbi-
ohum bima kanoo yafAAaloona
Shia means “sect” and all sects are forbidden in Islam based on this verse as well as many other verses:
“…and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become shias (sects) - each party rejoicing
in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32)
Muneebeena ilayhi waittaqoohu waaqeemoo alssalata wala takoonoo mina almushrikeena. Mina allatheena farraqoo deenahum
wakanoo shia an kullu hizbin bima ladayhim farihoona
“Then shall We certainly drag out from every shia (sect) all those who were worst in obstinate rebellion against (Allah) Most Gracious.”
(Quran, 19:69)

Thumma lananziAAanna min kulli shia tin ayyuhum ashaddu AAala alrrahmani AAitiyyan.
“Truly Pharaoh elated himself in the land and broke up its people into shias (sects) … for he was indeed a maker of mischief.” (Quran,
28:4)
Inna firAAawna AAala fee al-ardi wajaAAala ahlaha shia an yastadAAifu ta-ifatan minhum yuthabbihu abnaahum wayastahyee
nisaahum innahu kana mina almufsideena
The common theme in Islam is that sectarianism and the creation of sects is Haram (forbidden):
“[Ironically] they broke up into sects only after the knowledge had come to them, due to jealousy and resentment among themselves.”
(Quran, 42:14)
We learn from the Quran (the verses cited above) that dividing religion into sects is akin to joining partners with Allah, an unforgivable
sin. The reason that creating a religious sect is considered associating partners with Allah is because it is playing the role of Allah since
Allah alone has the right to create a Deen (faith). These people who create sects are trying to take over this role of Allah and put
themselves on par with Him.
It does not matter what a person calls his or her sect–it is not authorized by Allah. Allah condemns all sects, and those who break away
from the main group. This is exactly what the Shia have done. They have broken into many small sects; in fact, there are dozens upon
dozens of various branches of Shi’ism, all of which follow a different line of Imams. The Ithna Ashari sect only recently emerged. The
doctrine of Ithna Ashari Shi’ism, in particular the concept of Imamah, was not even fully elaborated until the tenth century. The Prophet
(‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬was not consulted.
We must reject all sects all of which were created years after the death of the Prophet ( ‫ )صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬which were for the most part
created for mere political gain. Each of these sects created new Bidah(innovations) in the Deen of Islam and adultered it with false
practises.
The Quran warns us not to be “shia” again and again. And yet, so many Shia will refuse to follow the commandment of Allah, and
instead choose to close their eyes to these verses. Indeed, it is almost as if Allah Almighty could send an angel down to these stubborn
Shia and command “do not be Shia” but these Shia will always justify themselves: “Surely, they aren’t talking about us.” What more
evidence does one need not to be a Shia than the Quran repeatedly warning not to become Shia?
We must follow only “Allah and His Messenger.” We have the Speech of Allah in the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى هللا عليه‬
‫ )وآله وسلّم‬as our Sunnah. We must base all our laws on these two sources, not the sayings of the Imams or anyone else. This entire
concept of Imamah has facilitated sectarianism within Islam.
The Nahjul Balagha is one of the most important books of the Shia, which they claim are the letters and sermons of Ali ( ‫ضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ‫)ر‬. In
that book, we find Ali (‫رضى هللا عنه‬
ّ ) delivering the following speech:
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126:
“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 keeping unity. 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. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be
under this headband of mine.”
(Source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/126.htm)
Based on this, we know that a Muslim must stick with the main group of Muslims (i.e. the Jama’ah) and not break away by joining the
small sects. Could it be any clearer than this? The “great majority of Muslims” belong to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. This is not a
sect, but rather this is the main group (Jama’ah). Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah functionally translates to “orthodoxy of the Muslims” and
it is merely a term used to differentiate the main group from the smaller sects that have broken away after the death of the Prophet ( ‫صلّى‬
‫)هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬.
We must destroy all false beliefs that were added into Islam after the death of the Prophet ( ‫)صلّى هللا عليه وآله وسلّم‬. We must be of
the Muwahiddoon (the Unitarians of Islamic faith), who are the rejectors of sects. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “This Day I have
perfected your Deen for you and chosen Al-Islam to be your Deen.” (Quran, Surah Maidah) Nothing can be added or subtracted to Islam
after this proclamation, and yet this is exactly what these various sects have done. Allah says in the Quran:
“And hold fast, all of you together, by the Rope of Allah and be not divided amongst yourselves.” (Quran)
Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer
This question–about whether or not the Imami Shia are Muslim–is a very
emotional one. The humble author of this article is not qualified to pass verdicts
on such matters; however, this article will merely serve as a purview of all the
various opinions cited by qualified Sunni scholarship, and to hopefully make
sense of it all in a constructive manner.
The truth of the matter is that the answer to this question cannot be a simple
“yes” or a “no.” Unfortunately, some “conservative” Sunnis will jump to
declare all Shia to be Kufaar (disbelievers) and engage in Takfeer of all Shia they
come in contact with. On the other hand, some “liberal” Sunnis will reflexively
defend all Shia no matter how odious or deviant their beliefs are, including even
their Ayatollahs and leaders. Indeed, to draw a hasty conclusion is not
appropriate; Imam Ibn Abidin states:
“It is difficult to make a general statement and judge all the Shia to be
disbelievers.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453)
Some Shia are considered Muslims, and some Shia are considered Kufaar.

Various Shia have different beliefs: some have beliefs which constitute Kufr,
whereas others do not. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:
According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are
two types of Shi’as:
a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such
beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam.
b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be
termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely
deviated and transgressors (fisq).
source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?

HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164
Shaikh Abdul Wahab al-Turayree, a professor of Al-Imam University, says:
We cannot say that all the Shîàh are unbelievers. On the other hand, there are
many sects of the Shîàh who advance claims that are tantamount to unbelief.
Anyone who believes such things would be an unbeliever.
source: IslamToday.com,
http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?
q_id=274&main_cat_id=37
Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says:
What we say about interacting with the Shi’ah depends on the situation. The
innovated beliefs of the Shi’ah vary. If it [their belief] is something that does not
put them beyond the pale of Islam…[it] is rather regarded [merely] as drifting
away from the right path [as opposed to Kufr]…[in such a case] they are Muslims
who have committed acts of innovation and sin that do not put them beyond the
pale of Islam.
source: Islam-qa.com, http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?
ref=48984&ln=eng&txt=shia
Therefore, depending on his beliefs, a Shia person can be Muslim or Kaafir. What
then are the beliefs which constitute Kufr? There are quite a few beliefs which
constitute Kufr that would take one outside the folds of Islam, but we shall herein
only discuss those relevant to the Sunni-Shia dialogue.
(1) The superiority of the Imams over the Prophets.
This is perhaps the most important issue. It is in fact the crux of the debate
between Sunni and Shia. The doctrine of Imamah (i.e. belief in twelve Infallible
Imams) is what separates the Shia from mainstream Islam. Too often than not,
Sunnis will argue that Shia are disbelievers because they curse the Sahabah or
something else along those lines, but in reality, the focus of the debate should be
around the issue of Imamah.
Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan quoted by Sunni Path states:

Shiàh fall into three categories:
1. ghâli (ghulât): they repudiate the necessities of religion…[They are Kaafir

because they] elevate Sayyiduna Ali and other Imams above the Prophets…[They
are Kaafir even] if these Imams are held to be higher than even ONE prophet….
Those who hold the above and other such statements that amount to disbelief are
Kaafirs by Ijma (consensus). All dealings with them are similar to those with
apostates. It is in fatawa Dharhiriyyah, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Hadiqatun Nadiyyah:
they are to be dealt with as apostates.
Nowadays, most of the Rafidhis (i.e. Shia) fall into this category. Their scholars
and commoners, men and woman–all of them seem to profess the
aforementioned beliefs–except Allâh willing–otherwise.

HD=1&ID=598&CATE=10
Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan has hereby stated that–according to him–most of the
Shia alive today possess this belief and are therefore Kufaar. The author of this
article agrees with him, but would like to point out that this may not be the case
in the West: it seems that most Shia commoners living in North America and
Europe have a more “filtered” version of Shi’ism, so whereas most Shia
worldwide may hold such a belief, the Western Shia may differ in this. In any
case, what we have established thus far is the fact that the belief that any of the
Imams are superior to even one Prophet is Kufr.
It should be noted that this concept is not peculiar or particular to the Shia, but
rather to any person in general. If, for example, a Sunni were to claim that Abu
Bakr was equal to or superior to Prophet Musa, then this would be grounds for
Kufr. Muslims believe that the Prophets and Messengers are the highest in ranks
amongst humanity, and that no person can rival them in this honor, neither can
they be superior to them nor can they even equal them in status. It is, after all, for
this reason that the Ahmadis are declared to be Kufaar, namely because they
believe in a person who has a rank equal to or higher than the Prophets.
It should be noted that all the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) are agreed upon the fact
that the Imams are superior to the Prophets, aside from Prophet Muhammad.
For an indepth analysis of this Shia belief, please read this article: Imams
Superior to Prophets.
However, although the Shia scholarship is agreed upon this doctrine, the laity
amongst the Shia (i.e. the masses) may be unaware of this. In fact, it has been my
observation that most Shia lay-persons and commoners in the West have no idea
at all about this belief. Many of them are even shocked if someone were to claim
that the Imams are superior to Prophets. It has happened on numerous
occassions that a Shia lay-person would accuse a Sunni of lying if the latter were
to state that the Shia believe that Imamah is superior to Prophethood. Indeed, I
have no doubt that most Shia lay-persons who read this article will themselves
deny this fact, and therefore I strongly urge them to read the link above so that
they can have the definitive proof of the beliefs of the Shia scholarship.
In conclusion, the Shia scholars are Kufaar because they believe that their Imams
are superior to the Prophets. This includes their Ayatollahs, such as Khomeini,
Khameini, Sistani, etc. It should be noted that these Shia scholars base this
position on the Shia religious texts, which are very clear on this matter. The Shia
Hadith literature and classical books state–in no uncertain terms–that their
twelve Imams are superior to the Prophets (aside from Prophet Muhammad).
However, the lay-persons, commoners, and masses of Shia–especially in the

West–may not be aware of these religious texts, nor are they aware of the
position of the scholars whom they supposedly do Taqleed upon. In a way, this
ignorance is understandable. The masses of any faith are oftentimes not in tune
with the actual beliefs written in the religious texts and held by the classical
scholars. This holds true for Sunnis as well. For example, most Sunni lay-persons
are completely unaware of the fact that music is Haram. However, the Sunni texts
are clear on this matter and clearly state that music is Haram, and this is the view
held by the Sunni scholars.
In other words, just because the Sunni masses believe one thing, this does not
mean that this conforms to what the Sunni religious texts say or what the Sunni
scholars believe. Likewise, just because the Shia masses in the West may not
believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets does not mean that this is
what Shi’ism itself says. Most Muslim lay-persons may say one thing, but Islam
can say another thing. Like I mentioned earlier, most Muslim lay-persons would
say that music is Halal, but Islam actually says that music is Haram. Similarly,
most Shia lay-persons would say that their Imams are not superior to Prophets,
but Shi’ism actually says otherwise.
Any Shia person who understands this belief and adheres to it (i.e. the superiority
of Imams over Prophets) is a Kaafir. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say
that a Shia lay-person could become a Kaafir simply by reading this article and
the one I gave the link to. The reason I make such a bold claim is that prior to
reading these two articles, a Shia person may not have been aware of the fact that
Shi’ism holds that Imams are superior to Prophets. But now I have shown him
that indeed this is what Shi’ism says about this matter. If such a Shia reader were
to now adopt this viewpoint, then indeed he would become a Kaafir.
In other words, a Shia person’s ignorance of his own faith could serve as a
protection in the sense that such a person is not a Kaafir because he does not
believe in those parts of his religion which constitute Kufr. I would say that the
masses of Shia in the West are unaware of this belief of theirs, and are therefore
considered to be Muslims. It is only those who are aware of such a belief and
adhere to it that would be outside the folds of Islam. The Shia scholarship are
Kufaar but we do not say that the Shia masses are.
(2) Claiming that a person after Prophet Muhammad received revelation from
Allah like a Prophet.
This is another belief which constitutes Kufr. Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi was asked what
were the agreed upon acts which would constitute exiting the faith. To this, he
stated:
“Claiming that a person after the time of Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a
real Prophet from Allah…Included in this is claiming that one has received
revelation from Allah like a Prophet.”
source: Guiding Helper, www.guidinghelper.com
The reality is that the Shia believe that their Imams received revelation from
Allah like Prophets. However, they will not readily admit this fact and will in fact
seek out loopholes to defend their beliefs, playing word games, and such stuff.
Hence, I do not find any need to dwell on this matter, since it is much easier to
prove the first belief above. The only reason I am mentioning this here is that it
should be established firmly that it is a belief of the Muslims that no divinely
appointed figure exists after Prophet Muhammad, and the belief in Imams is in
contradiction to this.
(3) The Quran is incomplete.
Publically, the Shia will vehemently deny that they believe that the Quran is
incomplete. The truth of the matter is that many of the Shia Maraje’ (top
scholars) do believe in Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran, but they hide this fact
due to Taqiyyah and Kitman. And there may be many Shia people who do indeed
hold such a belief but they hide this fact. If this is the case, then we cannot
declare them to be Kufaar, as we were not sent to judge what is in the hearts and
only Allah knows what are the true intentions of people. Shaikh Muhammad ibn
Adam al-Kawthari says:
It should be remarked here that some members of the Shi’a community display
outwardly not to have believes that constitute Kufr, but keep these beliefs in their
heart, which they call Taqiyya.
The case with such people is that if they did have such beliefs that constitute Kufr
in their heart but outwardly denied them, then even though according to Allah
and in hereafter they will be regarded as non-Muslims, but we will judge them
according to their outward statements and actions.
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is reported to have
said:
“I have been ordered to judge people according to their outward condition”

HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164
In common discourse, the Shia polemicists will vehemently deny such a belief,
and it is only through a very tiresome process that we prove to them that Tahreef
is a part of their faith. Therefore, once again, I would not advise bringing up this
topic when discussing whether or not Shia are Muslim or not. Since the vast
majority of Shia do not adhere to this belief, discussing this issue will only cause
digression and tangential argumentation.
(4) Cursing the Sahabah.
Many hold the belief that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. However, this is
an oversimplification of the issue, one which in fact weakens the position of the
Ahlus Sunnah. A Shia propagandist would be very quick to show that in fact the
Sahabah did fight amongst each other and one Sahabah would sometimes call
another by a name, or the Prophet’s wives might do such a thing, etc. Therefore,
we should be clearer and more specific instead of simply saying that cursing the
Sahabah constitutes Kufr.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai’s student says the following:
The issue of abusing the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) takes on various forms.
Hereunder follows some related points.
1. It is Haraam to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum)
2. Normally, a person who does so is sinning, but would not be a Kaafir.
3. If, Allah forbid, a person falsely accuses Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiyallahu anha)
or any of the other Ummahaatul Mu’mineen of Zinaa, he is a Kaafir.
4. If, Allah forbid, a person says that most or all of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu
anhum) became murtad (renegade) after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam), or become sinners after him, such a person is a Kaafir.
5. If one considers it permissible to abuse the Sahabah(Radhiyallahu anhum),

such a person is Kaafir.
6. If one regards it as a light matter to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum),

such a person is a kaafir.
We trust this answers your question.
And Allah Ta’ala knows best
Was Salaam
E. Vawda
for Daarul Iftaa
CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
source: Ask-Imam, http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14285
Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says:
Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah.
They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is
not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the
companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then
undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
If a person slanders them [i.e. the Sahaabah] in a way that does not impugn their
good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being
stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then
he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir
because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs
by the scholars are to be understood.
If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of
scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere
feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they
apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so
individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that
such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one
place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them.
Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because
this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or
evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You
are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 –
interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and
hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first
generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the
evidence for which is quite clear.
Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or
later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has
punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports
that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled
such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd
al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he
narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.
In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah
concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be
judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding
that.
source: Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591.
Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:
… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders
all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he
slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is
demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who
does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is
kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is
undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi
but for some personal reason…
The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific
person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly
reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates
one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the
Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a
companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also
definitely kufr.
source: Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575.
In fact, this has always been the position of the Ahlus Sunnah on the matter.
Therefore, we should not misrepresent ourselves when we state that cursing the
Sahabah is Kufr, but rather we should clarify this position and make it clear.
Based on the above, we see that it is Kufr to hate the Sahabah if any of the
following conditions are met:
(a) One hates all of the Sahabah or at least the vast majority of them. (This could
apply to the Shia, many of whom claim that the vast majority of the Sahabah
apostatized.)
(b) One hates a Sahabi for the fact that he is a Companion of the Prophet. (This
could apply to Non-Muslims, such as Abu Jahl, who would hate anyone who
became one of the Prophet’s friends.)
(c) One hates a Sahabi for some religious reason such as believing that he
usurped the divinely appointed role of Imamah. (This no doubt applies to the
Ithna Ashari Shia. Notice how the Zaidis believe that Ali was better suited to be
the Caliph than Abu Bakr, but they do not believe that this is
a religious difference but rather a political one. Therefore, we do not pass a
verdict of Kufr on them for this. The Ithna Ashari, on the other hand, claims that
this is a religious issue, one decided upon by Allah Himself.)
(d) One who curses a Sahabi is sinning, but the one who thinks that it
is permissible to curse Sahabah is Kaafir irrespective of if he himself does that
or not. (This most definitely applies to the Shia, who believe that it is permissible
to curse the Sahabah.)
The reason that these things constitute Kufr is because they are disbelieving in
the verse in the Quran in which Allah says “You are the best of peoples ever raised
up for mankind” (Quran, 3:110) and “And the first to embrace Islam, of the
Muhajirs and the Ansars, and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith).
Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has
prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever.”
(Quran, 9:100) And many other such verses. Because these verses are stated in
the general sense, we only say that it is Kufr to make general condemnations of
the Sahabah. However, Abu Bakr and Aisha were mentioned in the Quran
specifically, in verse 9:40 and verses 24:11-26 respectively. Abu Bakr was
declared the companion of the Prophet, and Aisha was declared innocent of
adultery.
Imam Ibn Abidin states:
“There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of
Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him)…”
And some scholars extend these verses to encompass other beliefs, such as
negating those who say that Abu Bakr was evil or sinful (as the Prophet says in
that verse that “Allah is with us”) or accusing Aisha of other things (because Allah
says “Allah warns you not to repeat the like of it again”).
This debate is beyond the scope of this article and the abilities of this humble
author. Indeed, I am simply trying to prove the point that it is a much more
involved topic than simply saying “whoever curses the Sahabah is Kaafir.” Having
said that, realistically the Shia scholars would be Kufaar based on their slander of
the Prophet’s wives and Sahabah based on the above conditions. However, it is
unclear as to what the average Shia lay-person believes on such a matter and
whether or not he understands the gravity of his belief. It is likely that the average
Shia lay-person will deny having hatred for the Sahabah in general, and
therefore, this is a dead-end issue to debate.
(5) Other strange beliefs.
Historically, various Shia sects have held many strange beliefs, such as that Ali is
God, or that Angel Jibraeel made a mistake, or that Allah lies, etc. However,
because the mainstream Shia do not believe in these things any more, it serves no
point to dwell on these matters. And there are many other beliefs which the
Shia do believe in which commonly come up in this debate. However, I strongly
believe that none of them are important to discuss except the first issue which I
stated, namely the superiority of Imams over Prophets.
The Ruling
The question about Shia and their position as Muslims (or not) is a multi-
factorial issue. The crux of the issue, however, is the matter of Imamah and its
superiority over Risalah (Prophethood). This is the one issue that the Shia
scholars do not shy away from. They will do Taqiyyah when it comes to Tahreef of
the Quran, they will obfuscate when it comes to Imams receiving revelation, they
will become catty when it comes to hating the Sahabah, play word games on other
issues, etc. But the issue about Imamah is one that the Shia scholarship has
clearly stated, and it is this issue which casts out the Shia scholars into the realm
of Kufr. Having said that, the bulk of the Shia lay-persons (at least in the West)
are unaware of this belief and therefore do not believe in it. As such, they are not
disbelievers and we should regard them as Muslims.
Fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot
There is one fatwa that has become notorious in the Sunni-Shia dialogue, namely
the religious edict passed by Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot of Al-Azhar who claimed
that the Jaffari Madhab was an acceptable “fifth Madhab.” Invariably, this fatwa
will be recycled in the Sunni-Shia debates. However, this fatwa has absolutely no
value because it was categorically denounced by the Sunni scholarship en masse.
One scholar’s errant opinion cannot refute the Ijma (consensus) of the scholars,
but rather it is disregarded as baseless. Shaikh Faraz Rabbani responded to this
claim of a “fifth Madhab” by saying:
“Jafari fiqh is not accepted as a sound school of law by Sunni scholarship.”
souce: Sunni Path,

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=6020&CATE=3400
Sidi Musa wrote a refutation of this bogus fatwa entitled “Myth of the Fifth
Madhab”, saying:
“There is no fifth madhhab in addition to the four madhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah…

there is no madhhab in addition to the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah that is
permissible for Muslims to follow…Can one, for example, follow the madhhab of
Twelver Shià? …The answer is, quite clearly, no.”
In the second introduction to “The Reliance Of The Traveler” it is stated in
regards to any so-called “fifth Madhab”:
“Ibn Salah reports that there is scholarly consensus on its [sic] being unlawful to
follow”
The Shia propagandists will chime in that the fatwa advocating the “fifth
Madhab” was passed by the prestigious Al-Azhar University. What they fail to
mention is that after that errant fatwa passed by that one Shaikh, Al-Azhar
University passed another fatwa many years later rebuffing the earlier fatwa. In
fact, it is well-known that Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot was influenced by a Shia
lobbyist of Dar al-Taqrib named Muhammad Taqi al-Qummi; although we
respect the scholars, everyone makes mistakes and it is not acceptable to follow a
scholar who has an errant opinion on a matter. Shaikh Nuh Keller called it
“madness” to follow such a fatwa advocating a “fifth Madhab”.
Disbelievers or People of Deviation
There is no valid opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah that would
place the Shia in any fifth Madhab, but rather there are only two opinions on the
matter. Each and every Shia person is either part of the :
1) Kufaar (disbelievers)
or
2) Ahlul Bidah (People of Innovation or Deviation)
There is no other option. It should be noted that Ahlul Bidah can be broken down
further into two arbitrary groups, namely:
1) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are simply ignorant.
and
2) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are obstinate in their deviation.
The second group should be shunned. As for the first group, however, we should
seek to soften their hearts so that they educate themselves about the Straight
Path and they abandon the Deviated Path. Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid
of Islam-qa.com says:
Softening the hearts of some people is more effective than shunning… shunning
may make a person more rebellious and stubborn, and prevent further
opportunities to advise and call him; in that case it should not be done…Do not
forget to advise him (the sinner or innovator)…Seeking to soften his heart with
gifts, smiling at him and speaking kindly to him may be more effective than
shunning him, so do that. If he refuses that from you, and does not respond to
you, then there is no sin on you and you are not to blame for that…The believer
looks at what is in the best interests (of Islam). This does not contradict the idea
of hating the kaafirs, innovators and sinners for the sake of Allaah and loving the
Muslims for the sake of Allaah. Attention must be paid to what is in the general
interest; if shunning is better then they should be shunned, but if the objectives of
Islam dictate that ongoing da’wah efforts should be made rather than shunning,
then that is what should be done, following the teaching of the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And Allaah is the Source of strength.
Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said:
Softening people’s hearts may be more beneficial in some cases than shunning.
And shunning is more beneficial in some cases then softening hearts. Hence the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) softened the hearts of some
people and shunned others.
source: Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/206
Therefore, the former group (the ignorant) should be softened and the second
group (the obstinate) shunned.
Clarification
Amongst the Ahlus Sunnah, three opinions exist amongst the scholarship:
1) Those who say: “The Shia are Kufaar.”

2) Those who say: “The Shia are Muslim.”
3) Those who say: “Some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar.”
However, the reality is that all three opinions are basically saying the same thing,
and the difference in opinion is only lexical. It depends on how one defines the
word “Shia.”
For example, Opinion 1 is held by Mufti Ebrahim Desai of Darul Iftaa who says:
“Shi’as are not Muslims.” (www.ask-imam.com)

Mufti Ebrahim Desai defines the word “Shia” as a hypothetical and conceptual
entity, as one who followsthe beliefs of Shi’ism based upon their texts and the
opinions of their classical scholars. In other words, XYZ beliefs are Kufr, and XYZ
beliefs are a part of the faith of Shi’ism; therefore, anyone who does not accept
the XYZ beliefs is not a real Shia.
Opinion 2 is held by Shaikh Faraz Rabbani:
“Notwithstanding the known disagreements between Sunnis and Shia, traditional

Sunni scholarship has considered the Shia to be Muslim” (www.SunniPath.com)
Shaikh Faraz Rabbani is defining the “Shia” in a practical and worldly sense,
referring to anyone who calls himself a Shia. This particular fatwa was “politically
correct” and in fact Shaikh Faraz Rabani’s disciple, Sidi Salman Younas, clarified:
“Shaykh Faraz’s position is that a Shià is a disbeliever if he denies any of the

necessary aspects of the religion, without sufficient shubha. Otherwise, he will
not be considered as such.” (Sidi Salman Younas)
In fact, the Sunni Path website clarifies elsewhere:
According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are
two types of Shi’as:
a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such
beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam.
b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be
termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely
deviated and transgressors (fisq).

HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164
In other words, the difference of opinion is simply lexical, revolving around how
the term Shia is used. Even those who declare that “Shia are Kufaar” are simply
using a different definition of the word “Shia.” For example, above we have seen
how the Ask Imam site says that “Shia are Kufaar” in one fatwa, but we find in
another fatwa on the same site that the clarification is given:
“All the Shiites are not regarded as Kaafir…If a Shiite does not believe in the
above (beliefs) and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a
Kaafir.
source: Ask Imam, http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=8649
And this is also the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who–like Mufti Ebrahim
Desai–is Deobandi. Mufti Taqi Usmani is quite explicit in his fatawa Uthmani
that the way of the scholars of Dar ul Uloom is to consider a Shia to be Muslim
unless he holds certain beliefs which constitute Kufr.
Therefore, the most appropriate way to phrase the position of the Shia is the third
way, which is to refrain from blanket statements and to say that some Shia are
Muslim and others are Kufaar. This removes ambiguity and is most precise.
Blanket statements such as “the Shia are Kaafir” or “the Shia are Muslim” cause
confusion; even though the person who says such statements might know what
he is really saying, the reader will be confused into thinking something else.
Furthermore, such a person risks the chances of being misquoted.
Some people mistakenly bring up quotes from past scholars and take them out of
context in order to somehow prove that certain classical scholars passed blanket
Takfeer on the Shia. Indeed, these quotes are using the word “Shia” in the same
way as Mufti Ebrahim Desai used it, namely as one who adheres to the tenets of
Shi’ism which includes XYZ beliefs. Oftentimes, when the context of the quote is
shown, then this will clear up the matter. Many people have falsely claimed that
all four Imams have passed Takfeer on the Shia, but this is not a blanket Takfeer
and is only in regards to those who hold XYZ beliefs. Indeed, Ibn Abidin stated in
his Radd Al Muhtar, which is the central reference for fatwas in the Hanafi
Madhab, that none of the four Imams passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia.
Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is known as being one of the harshest against the
Shia, and indeed he did justifiably criticize those Shia who have beliefs which
constitute Kufr. And yet, Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah refrained from doing
blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Unknowingly, many persons pass around the
following quote:
Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Raafidah, “They are more evil
than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed
than the Khawaarij.” [Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (28/482) of Ibn Taymiyyah]
And yet, this is taking the quote out of context, because what Shaikh Ibn
Taymiyyah said is not in regards to all Shia or even all Rafidhis, but only those
who have specific beliefs which he mentions:
“Whosoever claims that the Sahabah became apostates after the Messenger of
Allah (except for a small group that did not reach ten odd people in number) or
that they majority of them were disobedient sinners, then there is also no doubt
about the Kufr of this one.”
It is not a blanket Takfeer of all Shia but rather of “this one” with those beliefs.
Indeed, in no uncertain terms, Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“And regarding the Salaf and Imams, they did not sway from their rejection of
Takfeer upon the Murjiah and Shia and others like them. Nor do the texts of
(Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) differ in that he did not make Takfeer upon them…
and regarding the Khawarij and the (Shia) Rawafid, there is dispute and
hesitation regarding Takfeer upon them from (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and
others besides him.”
source: Majmoo` Fatawa
Sidi Salman Younas, a disciple of Shaikh Faraz Rabbani, says the following when
someone asked if Shia are Muslim or Kaafir:
“We asked Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf about this question and he pointed
out the things Shias do that make them Kaffir, and he followed up with how we
have Shias here in the U.S who are utterly unaware of major Shia beliefs (such as
cursing the Khulafa); thus this fatwa (of Kufr) will not apply to them. Whether
you label this Taqiyya or not, the point still remains that we do not judge their
inner (selves).”
The Dangers of the First Way
The First Way, which is to make general statements like “the Shia are Kufaar”, is
dangerous because it hardens the hearts of the Shia lay-persons, many of whom
are genuinely good people and may just be ignorant. They need Dawah and
Naseeha, which require softness. Condeming them as Kufaar will only make their
hearts turn harder and they will turn away from us. The truth is that they are not
Kufaar, but rather only misguided by their Kaafir scholars. We should
differentiate between the ignorant masses and the evil Shia leaders.
By distinguishing the masses from their Ayatollahs, we are driving a wedge

between the two groups. And this is what we want to do: our Shia bretheren have
been under the brain-washing and programming of their Ayatollahs, and we have
to save them from that. If we group them both together as Kufaar, then we are
increasing the love between the two and increasing the power and status of the
Ayatollahs. In reality, we should create disunity and disharmony in their ranks,
driving the people away from the Shia leaders. It is the Shia leaders, not the
masses, who propagate such deviant beliefs, who hate the Sahabah, who organize
Shia death squads in Iraq, etc.
Many people have criticized the Ahlel Bayt website for the fact that we refer to the
Shia as “brothers” but there is nothing wrong in this, because we are addressing
the lay-persons and the commoners from amongst them, not their leaders. We
seek to soften their hearts so they harken to the truth and reject their
blasphemous leaders.
The Dangers of the Second Way
The Second Way, of making general statements like “the Shia are Muslim”, is
obfuscation of the truth. It denies the reality that in fact we believe that Shi’ism is
Kufr, all of the scholars of Shi’ism are Kufaar,and that even the remaining group
are Ahlul Bidah. This confusion will cause problems, such as Sunnis marrying
Shia, or Sunnis thinking that they can adopt Shi’ism as a possible “Fifth
Madhab”, or the Shia feeling that their way is approved by the Muslims. On the
Day of Judgement, these same Shia will point fingers at us and ask us why we did
not warn them of the Kufr of their beliefs.
Furthermore, it is very necessary to expose the Kufr of the leaders of Shi’ism.

They have declared war on the true Islam, both by pen and by sword. Unity with
them is not possible, and it is a part of their creed to accept the Ahlus Sunnah
externally but to oppose us internally. If we allow ourselves to be fooled by false
slogans of “Muslim unity”, we will only be left to one day deal with the Shia
leaders stabbing us in the back, as has been the case historically and even today
in Iraq.
The Third Way
There is much confusion as to the correct position of the Ahlus Sunnah wal
Jama’ah with regards to the Shia, and a lot of this has to do with the lexical
distinctions made by various scholars. However, despite the seemingly
contradictory statements, almost everyone (apart from some exceptions) is
saying the same thing. I believe that the third way is the best way, and that the
first two ways cause confusion. The third way, of saying that some Shia are
Muslim and others are Kaafir, is the best methodology. One should be clear that
Shi’ism is Kufr, and that some Shia are not Kufaar simply because they are
ignorant of the beliefs of Shi’ism which constitute Kufr. In “Hayate Shaikh” by
Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanfuri, we read:
“Hazrat Gangohi used to say that because of the ignorance of the masses, they are
(only) faasiq (sinful), (even though) their Ulama are kaafir.”
Yet, despite our lenience towards the masses, we should be very clear in saying
that Shi’ism is Kufr and call the people away from it and those who propagate
such Kufr.
The principle of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is to pass condemnation in

general terms, refraining from passing condemnation on people in specific.
Therefore, we should make the general statement that “Shi’ism is Kufr”, but we
should refrain from saying “that Shia person is Kaafir.” This is stated by Shaikh
Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah:
“With regard to a specific evildoer, we should not curse him, because the Prophet
forbade cursing ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Himaar who used to drink wine, even though he
had cursed the wine-drinkers in general; however cursing a specific person if he
is an evildoer or promoter of bid’ah is a point of dispute among the scholars.”
Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said:
The difference between cursing a specific person and cursing those who commit
sin in general is that the former (cursing a specific person) is not allowed, and the
latter (cursing the people who commit sin in general) is allowed. So if you see an
innovator, you do not say, ‘May Allaah curse you,’ rather say, ‘May the curse of
Allaah be upon those who introduce innovations,’ in general terms. The evidence
for that is the fact that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) cursed some people among the mushrikeen and followers of jaahiliyyah and
said: “O Allaah, curse So and so, and So and so, and So and so,” he was told not to
do that when Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):
“Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allaah) is the decision; whether He turns in
mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zaalimoon
(polytheists, disobedients and wrongdoers)”
[Quran, 3:128]
source: al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/226.
Therefore, we should say that “Shi’ism is Kufr” (general statement) instead of

pointing to individual Shia lay-persons and saying “you are Kaafir” (specific
statement). The exception to this, of course, are those Shia leaders who propagate
their views; it becomes necessary to condemn them publically so that people are
warned to stay away from them. This condemnation would also apply to those
non-scholars who become their foremost propagandists and who debate with us
in an obstinate way, exceeding the limits. Mufti Mohammad Sajjad stated:
Q. Is there any difference between scholars of Imami Shias and their laymen, as
Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhanvi (rahimuhullah) didn’t distinguish between
them?
A. If they, the laymen, hold the same beliefs as their scholars then there is no
difference between them and their ruling is the same [i.e. they are disbelievers].
Therefore, it is important to notify the people of the Kufr of these Shia scholars,
leaders, and self-appointed propagandists. We read:
Question: Is it permissible to mention peoples’ names and characters when one

wants to criticise them and their thinking?
Response: If someone writes something that contradicts the pure Sharee’ah, and
distributes that material, or if he propagates that view in the media, it becomes
compulsory to refute him and expose the falsehood of what he says. There is
nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him
if he calls to innovation, shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited
or to disobedience. Until this day, there are knowledgeable and believing people
from the callers to the truth and bearers of the Sharee’ah fulfilling this obligation,
sincerely for Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala) and for the benefit of His servants,
rebuking the wrong, inviting to the truth, warning others against those who
propagate falsehood and destructive rhetoric.
And Allaah is the Expounder of (all) success.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz

Fataawa Islaamiyyah - Volume 4, Page 279
Conclusion
A very clear explanation of the status of the Imami Shia has been given by a
student of Mufti Ebrahim Desai, who said:
Question:
Are all shia Kafir? If not what makes them kafir or how can i identify if he is
kafir?
Answer:
Firstly, hereunder are the criteria for declaring someone a non-Muslim:
–When a person openly calls himself a non-Muslim, i.e. he accepts that he is a

Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc.
–When a person negates, through his words or actions, something unanimously

proven through Quran and Hadith. He will not be regarded a Muslim even
though he claims to be one.
Jawahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:23 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi)
Secondly, although the Shias claim that they are Muslims, most of them have
beliefs that negate the clear cut principles of Islam…[such as] they regard the
status of their twelve Imams to be higher than the status of the Ambiya (Alaihim
Assalaatu Wassalaam).
Aaapke Masaail aur Unka Hal Vol:1 Pg:188 (Maktabah Bayyinat)
Thereafter, Shias are categorised into three groups in regards to the ruling they
fall under:
(1) Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam. Such
Shias will be regarded as non-Muslims even if they do claim otherwise…
(2) Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of
opinion with the Muslims on saying that Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) was the most
superior amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum). Such Shias will not be
regarded as non-Muslims, but they will still be regarded as fasiqs (those who
transgress the laws of Islam openly)…
(3) Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed. They will not be regarded as
Muslims nor will they be regarded as non-Muslims. As a matter of precaution,
inter-marriages with them will not be permissible and the meat from the animals
slaughtered by them will not be Halal.
Jawaahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:59-63 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi)
As far as ties with Shias are concerned, it is not permissible to have close

friendship with them. However, Islam encourages Muslims to have good conduct
with them, and show good character.
And Allah knows best

Ml. M. Jawed Iqbal,
Student Darul Iftaa
Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah
source: Ask-Imam,
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?
askid=b51e3af653960ec458e93c62cbbad9c8
In conclusion, we say that Shi’ism is Kufr, and there is no doubt about this; if one
properly follows Shia doctrine, then such a person is a Kaafir. Based on this, we
say that the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones–including their
propagandists–are Kufaar. As for the Shia lay-persons, then we generally refrain
from passing Takfeer on them as a matter of precaution due to their ignorance
which oftentimes saves them from Kufr. Therefore, we should make general
statements such as “Shi’ism is Kufr” and “the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned
ones (including their propagandists) are Kufaar” but refrain from specifically
condemning individual lay-persons who are ignorant of certain Shia doctrines.
We should shun the former (i.e. the learned ones) but we should soften the latter
(i.e. the ignorant ones).
Kindness Towards the Shia
Although we wholeheartedly disagree with the Shia, this does not mean that we
should become abusive orviolently disagreeable. Unfortunately, the Sunni-Shia
divide is a very sensitive issue for both sides, emotions become heated, tensions
rise, and we often become abusive towards each other. This is not acceptable at
all: no matter how much we disagree with the Shia, we should do so in a kind and
courteous manner, as is the Sunnah of the Prophet. Allah says in the Quran:
“You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment,
and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has
strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.” (Quran,
16:125)
Oftentimes, Sunnis will resort to hate speech and abusive language in response to
some of the inflammatory statements of the Shia propagandists. However, even if
they say the vilest of things–no matter if they insult the Three Caliphs or the
Prophet’s wives with the most abusive of language–we must still reply with
kindness and courtesy. Allah says in the Quran:
“And remain steadfast in the face of their utterances, and disregard them in a
nice manner.”(Quran, 73:10)
And Allah says:
“So leave them alone to indulge in their false discourses and to sport until they
come face to face with that Day…” (Quran, 70:42)
When the Shia propagandists say such inflammatory things against everything
we hold dear, let us remember the Words of Allah and show patience as opposed
to taking revenge on the Shia. We may feel that one abusive statement is the
justifiable revenge for another abusive statement, but is not patience better than
revenge? Allah says:
“But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better” (Quran,

16:126)
And Allah says:
“You shall resort to patience–and your patience is attainable only with Allah’s
help. Do not grieve because of them, and do not be annoyed…” (Quran, 16:127)
As for those Shia who reject the Call to true Islam, we should realize that they
have been raised their entire lives with such beliefs, and it will take time for them
to shake that off. The People of Taif stoned the Prophet, and Arch-Angel Jibraeel
was so incensed by the People of Taif that he told the Prophet that he could
destroy the People of Taif and remove them off the face of the earth, if the
Prophet so wished. But the Prophet did not give Arch-Angel Jibraeel the
permission to do that, and instead gave the People of Taif some time, rightfully
believing that they might still come to Islam, and if not them, then their children.
And eventually the kindness of the Prophet paid off as the People of Taif
converted to Islam and became the most ardent supporters of Islam. Therefore,
based on this, we see that we should be kind and courteous towards the Shia, give
them time even if they reject true Islam, and pray that one day they come to true
Islam. Allah says in the Quran:
“And let Me deal with those…who reject (the Call); just give them a little
time.” (Quran, 73:11)
Prophet Musa addressed Pharaon with kindness and courtesy in spite of his
rejection of the Call. None of us Sunnis are close to the greatness of Prophet Musa
and none of the Shia are close to the wickedness of Pharaon! So let us give the
Shia their rights accorded to all the Children of Adam. Allah says in the Quran:
“Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil
will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man’s most
ardent enemy.” (Quran, 17:53)
Let us discourse with the Shia in “the best possible manner”, to call them with
kindness and courtesy to the Path of Islam. This does not mean that we shall not
continually reject and refute the Shia propagandists, but only that we hope to do
this in the appropriate manner as is the Sunnah of the Prophet. May Allah forgive
us if we have ever overstepped the bounds.
Mufti Taqi Usmani did NOT sign the “Amman Message”
Many people have been falsely claiming that Mufti Taqi Usmani was a signatory
to the so-called “Amman Message.” Nothing could be further from the truth;
Mufti Taqi Usmani in fact holds the view that it is a necessity and a must to
declare Takfeer of certain Shia. We read from the official Deobandi
website,www.ask-imam.com :
Question:
Please clarify the status of Mufti Taqi Saheb’s endorsement of “Amman Message”
especially regarding the a person who associates himself to be “Jafari, Zaydi,
Ibadi, and Tahiri”. According to this Amman message, all these are muslims and
declaring such a person an apostate is imposible and impermissible. Thereafter
the website also shows his signature of endorsement on the website.
Answer:
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu àlaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh
The question was posed to Mufti Muhammad Taqi Uthmani Saheb himself. His
reply is as under:
Muhtaram,
Assalamu alaikum,
Thank you for your email. I am not a signatory of the Amman message
sent by you. Instead, Prince Ghazi had sent to me a question that I answered in
detail. The text of my answer was then published by them in a book which has my
Fatwa as separate from Amman Message. Later I found that my fatwa is also
available on the same site under the heading of “Fatwa of Ulama” .
Wassalam
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Madrassah In’aamiyyah
Source: Ask-Imam,
askid=71f8b28ea8cba8ea3f470a10fe0ced7c
——
Question:
Please comment on the endorsement of Mufti Taqi Uthmani Saheb of the Amman
Message wherein all Shias are endorsed as muslims and there being no possibility
of Takfir against them.
Answer:
Assalaamu àlaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Recently we have received a couple of queries regarding the views of Respected

Hazrat Mufti Taqi Uthmani Saheb daamat barakatuhum about “Amman
Message”. It states:
“Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic

jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiì and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of
Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic
jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim.
Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible”
The website promotes that more than 500 reputable authorities have endorsed
this declaration. Many laymen have accepted it as a unanimous consensus of the
Ulama. (Ijmaa). We wish to say that this is indeed not the case and even Mufti
Taqi Uthmani’s endorsement is not in its totality of this “Amman Message”.
The same website which has posted the endorsement of Hazrat Mufti Taqi Saheb
has also posted his seven page fatwa in this regard. We are surprised as to why
has this fatwa not been translated into English for the common readers. This
Fatwa shows the accurate stance of Mufti Saheb. On page 3 of this fatwa Hazrat
Mufti Saheb categorizes those Madhahîb who claim to be Muslim into 3 distinct
groups. In the first of these three groups Hazrat Mufti Saheb says,
“First type: Are those who claim to be Muslim, but reject something which has
been necessarily known to be from the religion. They hold firmly, for example,
that the Prophethood is continued after Nabi Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) and they believe in the prophethood of one of the Dajjals who has
claimed prophethood after our Noble Prophet, seal of the prophethood sallallahu
alayhi wasallam, like the Qadîyânîs; or they hold firmly that the Noble Quran
which we have today is changed, Al’Iyaazubillah. And that our Quraan is not the
real on, like what some of the extremists among the Shîas say; or they hold firmly
(in the aqeeda of ) Aloohiya or some of the specific attributes of it being in one of
the humans, like what is attributed to Alawiyeen(Alawis) and others besides
them. Then these all are not Muslims and it is necessary to make Takfir of them.”
From the above we understand adequately that Mufti Saheb has not
endorsed the Amman Message in its totality, though he has elaborated
the Sharii stance of Takfeer. This first category includes those upon
whom takfeer can be made, rather it is necessary.…That is to say, takfir
will be necessary upon them as well.
Madrassah In’aamiyyah
Source: Ask-Imam,
askid=f0b6d2cd17596f47da86f0aa9c99404f
Is AhlelBayt.com a “Salafi” Site?
We’ve been asked this question a lot. To answer this, we refer the reader to a
statement passed by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, one of
the Muwahiddoon (Unitarians of Islam):
Alaykum Bissunnah
by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Salih Ibn Uthaymeen
From his [the Prophet’s] statement:
“Whoever lives amongst you will see much differing, so adhere to my Sunnah”,
It can be learnt that if parties (ahzaab) within the ummah emerge in increasing
numbers then one should not affiliate himself to a party (hizb). In the past, many
groups have appeared; Khwaarij, Mu’tazilah, Jahmiyyah, Shee’ah, even Raafidah.
Then there appeared, later on Ikhwanis, Salafis, Tablighis, and all those like
them. Put all of them to one side and take [the path] ahead. Which is
what the Prophet guided to, “Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly
guided caliphs.” No doubt, it is obligatory for all Muslims to adopt the
way of the salaf [i.e. the first generations of the Muslims] as their
madhhab, not affiliation to a specific party (hizb) named, “The
Salafis”. It is obligatory for the Islamic Ummah to adopt the way of the salaf as-
salih as their madhhab, not bigotry to those called “the salafis”. Pay attention
to the difference: There is the way of the salaf, and there is a party
(hizb) called “the salafis”.
What is the objective? Following the Salaf. Why? The salafi brothers are the
closest sect to that which is right, no doubt, but their problem is the same as
others, that some of these sects declare others as being misguided, they declare
them to be innovators and as being sinners. We don’t censure this, if they deserve
it, but we censure handling this bid’ah in this way. It is obligatory for the leaders
of these sects to get together and say, “Between us is the book of Allah, and the
Sunnah of His messenger, so lets us judge by them and not according to desires,
opinions and not according to personalities. Everyone makes mistakes and
achieves correctness no matter what he has reached with regards to knowledge
and worship. Infallibility is [only] in the religion of Islam.”
In this hadeeth the Prophet guided to the way in which a person secures himself.
He doesn’t affiliate him to any sect, only the way of the salaf as-salih, to the
Sunnah of our Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs.
How Reliable is “The History of at-Tabari”?

Question:
I noticed a few troubling quotes in Tabari, such as a narration about Abu Bakr
ordering Fatima’s house to be attacked. Can you please tell me: how authentic or
reliable of a source do we Sunnis view Tabari?
Answer:
All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the worlds.
Tareekh at-Tabari was a voluminous text compiled by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari
(may Allah be pleased with him). Imam at-Tabari followed the classic
methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from
modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the
known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable
each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of
transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of
Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and
which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the
historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.
Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a

collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate,
whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad
(chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators,
then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people,
then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of
the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in
Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni
scholar ever accepted this–not even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari
clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book
are only as good as the people who narrate them. If the compiler of the book does
not view all of the narrations as authentic, then it is indeed absurd for the Shia to
assume that we accept each and every single narration in Tareekh at-Tabari.
Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:
I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional
information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission
(of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose
transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The
reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a
condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports
which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely
only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no
knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is
attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their
time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and
transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by
internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information
mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader
may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find
nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is
not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who
transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.
(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)
Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a

chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative;
therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first
books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari
only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he
claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith
which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and
Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered
reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for
Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of
Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi,
then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this
is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can
be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six?
For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower
than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith
would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak
narrations.
The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni,
i.e. “Thiqat al-Islam”. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths
found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands
of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is
the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every
narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam at-
Tabari’s book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulayni’s book. In Al-
Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how
Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will
claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk
when we say that not every narration in Imam at-Tabari’s book is authentic?
What we have stated above applies to books written by Islamic historians in

general; as for Imam at-Tabari in particular, then it should be known that he was
specifically criticized for his over-reliance on weak and unauthentic narrators.
Imam at-Tabari wished to create a well-balanced book, which would contain both
Sunni and Shia narrations. He felt that his book would be incomplete if he only
included one side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, Imam at-Tabari used so
many Shia narrators and included so many Shia narrations that he was accused
of being a Shia Rafidhi. Furthermore, the rumors that Imam at-Tabari did not
recognize the jurisprudential superiority of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal further
fueled the discontent towards Imam at-Tabari amongst the ranks of the Sunni
orthodoxy. The Hanbalis–whom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding
fathers of the “Wahabis”–rioted outside Imam at-Tabari’s home in protest. Franz
Rosenthal of Yale University writes:
He [Tabari] was denounced by Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawood to the influential

chamberlain of al-Muqtadir, Nas al-Qushoori. He [Tabari] was accused of
Jahmite inclinations and extremist [Shia] Rafidhi views and was forced to issue a
denial…[of the] general accusations of dogmatic heresy and extremist Shi’ah
sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the
Hanbalites…They [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shi’ah
extremist and, ultimately, a heretic…Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his
residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.
(Franz Rosenthal, General Introduction to “The History of al-Tabari”)
According to some sources, Imam at-Tabari issued a formal apology to the

Hanbalis before his death; we read:
Tabari secluded himself in his house and produced his well-known book
containing his apology to the Hanbalis. He mentioned his own legal views and
dogmatic beliefs. He declared unreliable those who thought differently about him
with respect to those matters…He extolled Ahmad ibn Hanbal and mentioned his
legal views and dogmatic beliefs as being correct. He continued to refer to him
constantly until he died.
(Irshad, Vol.6, p.437)
Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Tareekh at-Tabari would contain some
narrations that the Shia would use against us; this was a consequence of Imam
at-Tabari’s decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without
commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam at-
Tabari that he was a Shia Rafidhi were one hundred percent incorrect; there is no
doubt that Imam at-Tabari was a very respectable Imam of the Sunnis. He merely
included Shia narrations/narrators based on the tradition of Islamic historians to
simply compile Hadiths and to leave the authenticating to the Muhaditheen. So
while we do not question the “Sunni-ness” of Imam at-Tabari, we bring up the
point that people accused him of being a Shia Rafidhi to prove that the narrations
found in Tareekh at-Tabari were never accepted by the mainstream Muslims as
being one hundred percent authentic, and whoever would claim such a thing is a
liar. The Shia narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were rejected back then, as
they are now.
Not only did Imam at-Tabari include Shia narrations in his book, but he also
included Christian and Zoroastrian accounts. This was in line with his belief of
compiling a “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a
variety of segments of the society. It is for this reason that some of the narrations
in his book with regards to the story of Creation are not in line with the Islamic
belief. Indeed, as we have stated repeatedly, not all the narrations in Tareekh at-
Tabari can be accepted.
The Shia are allied with the other enemies of Islam when they use weak
narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari in order to attack the mainstream Muslims. It
was, after all, Salman Rushdie who used a narration in Tareekh at-Tabari to
prove the story of the “Satanic verses.” And yet, we know that even though this
narration is found in Tareekh at-Tabari, it is unauthentic as mentioned by Ibn
Katheer and others. The methodology the Shia use to attack the mainstream
Muslims is very similar to that employed by the apostates and avowed enemies of
Islam. If the Shia propagandist would mock us when we doubt the authenticity of
Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us mock them when they doubt the authenticity of
their most authentic book of Hadith (i.e. Al-Kafi). If they insist that we accept
every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari, then we insist that they accept every
narration in Al-Kafi, that book which is full of Shirk, Kufr, and utter blasphemy.
If they seek to weaken the Sunni position by bringing up narrations in Tareekh
at-Tabari, then let us respond by toppling the Shia position by bringing up
narrations in Al-Kafi.
To conclude, we say as Ibn Katheer said:
In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were

transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and
worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of
many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject
and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.
(Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)
As for the narration in Tareekh at-Tabari that the questioner mentioned, it is

undoubtedly unauthentic. We will expound on this in a later article, Insha-Allah.
And Allah is the Source of all Strength

Why Prophet Muhammad Did Not Have a Wasi
Question:
A Shia person wrote:
Every Rasool (Messenger) sent by Allah had a Wasi: the Wasi of Prophet Ibrahim
was Prophet Ismaeel, and the Wasi of Prophet Moosa was Prophet Haroon, etc.
How is it then that the best of them, Prophet Muhammad, was not given a Wasi?
End quote.
What is our response to this?

Answer:
The word “Wasi” refers to successor/legatee.
One Messenger succeeded another Messenger. Prophet Adam was the first
Messenger, and after him, Allah sent another Messenger, and after him then
Allah sent another, and after him then Allah sent another, etc. This process
continued up until Prophet Muhammad who was the last of the Prophets and no
divinely appointed figure succeeded him. How can the Prophet be succeeded
when the Quran itself testifies that the Prophet is the final seal of the divinely
appointed Messengers?
The Shia give the example of Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismaeel; do they not
know that both of these are Prophets? The same is the case with Prophet Moosa
and Prophet Haroon. In essence, the Shia are asking us: if all the Messengers had
Messengers that came after them, then why didn’t the best of them have a
Messenger after him?
The answer therefore is that Prophet Muhammad was without a doubt the best of
them and this is why there is no divinely appointed figure after him. Indeed, the
fact that the Shia believe in this–and the manner in which they exalt this position
of Wasi–is why we call them to be disbelievers outside the folds of Islam. After
the death of the Prophet, there were many groups of people who claimed that
there were divinely appointed figures after Prophet Muhammad, but these groups
of people became disbelievers and enemies of Islam.
We believe in the Shahadah of the Muslims which is:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his (Last) Messenger.
It seems that the Shia propagandists are using a point that goes against them!
They seek to score a polemical point by using this “Wasi” argument, but in reality
it is the damnation of their entire sect. Those who believe in divinely appointed
figures after Prophet Muhammad have become disbelievers by disbelieving in the
finality of the Prophethood. Therefore, the one who claims that the Prophet had a
Wasi and who exalts this position in the manner the Shia do is a disbeliever. The
Prophet does not have any such thing as a “Wasi” because he is the last
Messenger and nobody came after him.
It should also be noted that the concept that “every Messenger had a Wasi” is
simply false; the Shia have simply named two Messengers who were alive at the
time of two other Messengers. Let them back up their claim: there are twenty-five
Messengers mentioned in the Quran; how many of them had any such “Wasi” and
if so what were their names? Simply naming two Messengers who were
coincidentally alive at the same time as two others, does not at all prove the Shia’s
doctrine. Where in the Quran is the word “Wasi” mentioned? In fact, the entire
concept of “Wasi” is alien to Islam and it was brought into Islam by the likes of
Ibn Saba whose purpose was to destroy the Finality of Prophethood. There was
no concept of “Wasi” in Islam, and it was Ibn Saba who brought this blameworthy
innovation into the faith of Islam.
But even if we were to accept the fallacious idea that every Messenger had a Wasi,
then we respond to the Shia by saying that Prophet Muhammad had no Wasi
because he was the final seal and nobody came after him. The Quran mentions
that the Prophet is the Final Seal, and nowhere does it mention any Wasi that is
to come after him. The one who believes in such a thing as Wasi and who exalts
the position of Wasi over and above Nubuwwah and Risala is a disbeliever and
outside the folds of Islam. How is that such a fundamental belief of the Shia is
missing from the Quran? If a Wasi was to come after the Prophet, then surely this
would be noteworthy enough to mention in the Quran! Instead, we find
absolutely no mention of this concept in the Quran and instead it is an invention
of the disbelievers.
What is interesting is that so many of our own Sunni laypersons get stumped by
this question that the Shia propagandists pose, but in reality the answer is
extremely intuitive and obvious: nobody came after Prophet Muhammad and he
is the last in the divinely appointed figures sent by Allah. This difference between
the mainstream Muslims and the Shia is actually the crux of the difference
between the two groups: the mainstream Muslims believe in the absolute finality
of Prophethood and feel that the belief in a Wasi after Prophet Muhammad is
therefore blasphemous.
Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias
Imam Bukhari declared:
“I don’t see any difference between praying Salah behind a Jahmi or a (Shia)
Rafidhi and a Christian or a Jew. They (Jahmis/Rafidhis) are not to be greeted,
nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their testimony to be
accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.”
(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)

When the matter is so severe that we should not send our greetings to them nor
befriend them nor even visit them, then how deviated is the Manhaj of those who
call to unity with the Shias!

Ahlebayt

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ahlebayt

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Table of Contents

Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias.........................................................................................................................6

Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias

Imam Bukhari declared:

(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)

Prophet’s Wives are Ahlel Bayt

Dictionary Definition of “Ahlel Bayt”

Bayt: noun; house; place of residence

The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah

Common Usage of the Term “Ahl-Al-Bayt”

Logic and Common Sense

The Quran Refers to the Prophet’s Wives as Ahlel Bayt

The transliteration reads:

Second Time the Quran Uses the Word “Ahlel Bayt”

The transliteration reads:

The Quran declares that Wives are Part of the Family

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316

Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”

Ahlel Bayt of Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

source: http://al-islam .org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00450.html ”

Prophet’s Daughters are Ahlel Bayt

Allah says in the Quran:

Why The Ayatollahs Deny Three Daughters of the Prophet

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 163

‫‪source: http://www.al-islam.org/gracious/5.htm‬‬ ‫”‬

(source: al-shia.com, http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/lib/)

Authority of Shia Historical Accounts

Word Games With Verse 33:33

Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin

Dear Brother Zain,

Thank you for your correspondence.

RE: from Zain ********

Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin

Dear Brother Zain,

Firstly, Aisha (‫ضى هللا عنها‬

From: Nabeel ***********

Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin

Dear Brother Nabeel,

“Indeed, it is a glorious Quran, in a preserved master tablet.” (Quran, 85:21-22)

Surely, the Quran is not referring to Ali (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

From: Zain *********

Response From AhlelBayt.com Admin

Dear Brother Zain,

Half Hadith-ing (Zaid ibn Arqam)

From: Zain ********

Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin

Thank you for writing to us.

(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5923)

Let us now look at Hadith 5920 which is the un-abridged version:

(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920)

This Hadith narrated by Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

Zaid (‫ى هللا عنه‬5‫)رض‬

The same Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

Zaid ibn Arqam (‫ضى هللا عنه‬

Let us read what Sunni Path has to say:

Book 031, Number 5923:

Salamu ‘Alaykum wa Rahmatullah

‫قال نساؤه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة‬

And Allah knows best

Approved by Faraz Rabbani

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316

Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.”

The Status of Ahlel Bayt