atRANGmaAGHFIRULLA

2010

Ahlelbayt
Shias refuted
Imam Bukhari declared: I dont 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 Afaalul-Ibaad, p.14)

Cyber mujahid ham sa ho tou saamne aye 10/23/2010

Table of Contents
Imam Bukharis Fatwa on Befriending Shias ........................................................................................................................... 7 Prophets Wives are Ahlel Bayt ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Prophets Daughters are Ahlel Bayt ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Word Games With Verse 33:33 ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Verse 33:33 in the Quran is the Verse of Purification. ..................................................................................................... 19 How can Aisha possibly be infallible when she hated Ali and she went out to fight against him? .............................. 20 In verse 33:33, the Quran switches tenses and changes from feminine form to masculine form. .................................. 23 Half Hadith-ing (Zaid ibn Arqam) .......................................................................................................................................... 25 The Status of Ahlel Bayt ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 Foundation of Shiism is Nasibi ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Slander Against Prophets Wives .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Mothers of the Believers ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Al-Ifk: Quran Defends Aisha ( 24 .........................................................................................................................)

First Lady of Islam ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Verse 33:33 Does Not Make Anyone Infallible ..................................................................................................................... 49 The Wives of Prophet Nuh ( ) and Prophet Lut ( 25 .......................................................................... ) Shia Dua (Saname Quraish) Curses Two of Prophets Wives ............................................................................................... 54 Love for Ahlel Bayt and Sahabah .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Aisha ( ) Didnt Do Ghusl in Front of Men ........................................................................................................ 57

How the Shia Abandoned the Ahlel Bayt .............................................................................................................................. 61 Fatwa: Kufr to Slander Bibi Aisha .......................................................................................................................................... 62 Al-Islam.org says: Do not name your daughter with the name Aisha ............................................................................... 64 Who are the Ahlel Bayt? ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophets Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah .................................................................... 68 154 Wise Sayings of Sayyiduna Ali ........................................................................................................................................ 70 Sayyida Aisha is Part of Ahlel Bayt ........................................................................................................................................ 73 The Prophet Defends His Wife Aisha .................................................................................................................................... 77 The Status of the 12 Imams .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Grand Ayatollah al-Khoi Says Wife is Part of a Mans Ahl ................................................................................................ 79 Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33 ..................................................................................................................................... 82 The Quran Challenge............................................................................................................................................................. 87 The Quran Challenge, Part II ................................................................................................................................................. 92 The Quran Challenge, Part III: ............................................................................................................................................. 102

The Quran Challenge, Part IV .............................................................................................................................................. 108 Verses 11:17 and 46:12 ....................................................................................................................................................... 114 Verse 15:79 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Verses 36:12 and 17:71-72 ................................................................................................................................................. 117 Shiism is Kufr: Imams Superior to Prophets....................................................................................................................... 122 Infallibility = Shirk ................................................................................................................................................................ 128 Imamah and Shirk ............................................................................................................................................................... 135 Imam Knows the Hour of His Death.................................................................................................................................... 139 Imams Can See Al-Ghaib (the Unseen) ............................................................................................................................... 141 Al-Kafi or Al-Kufr?................................................................................................................................................................ 144 Ayatollah Khomeini ............................................................................................................................................................. 146 Imamah: the Antithesis of Egalatarianism .......................................................................................................................... 147 Turbulent History of Imamah .............................................................................................................................................. 150 Fraudulent Representatives of the Hidden Imam .............................................................................................................. 153 How Does the Current Imam Lead the Shia? ...................................................................................................................... 155 Some Questions for the Shia............................................................................................................................................... 159 Lets Say That I Wanted to Convert to Shiism ................................................................................................................. 162 The 12th Imam of the Shia is Dajjal?................................................................................................................................... 163 Fatwa: Ayatollah Khomeini is not Muslim .......................................................................................................................... 165 Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying? ......................................................................................................... 166 Quran (13:7): Not a Proof for Imamah ............................................................................................................................... 171 Shia Believe in Holy Books After the Quran ........................................................................................................................ 172 Saying Ya Ali Madad is Shirk ............................................................................................................................................ 177 Ali ( ) or Jesus ( 081 .......................................................................................................................... ?) ) in Nahjul Balagha ................................................................................................................. 182

Alis Message (

Turbah: Sajdah to the Imams .............................................................................................................................................. 184 Grave Worship .................................................................................................................................................................... 184 Who Invented Shirk?........................................................................................................................................................... 186 Shrines: the Need to Raze Them and Level the Graves ...................................................................................................... 187 Saqifah: A Sunni View ......................................................................................................................................................... 189 Battle of the Camel ............................................................................................................................................................. 221 Origins of the Shia Sect ....................................................................................................................................................... 232 Battle of Siffin...................................................................................................................................................................... 243 The Shia Killed Ali (R.A.), Hussain (R.A.), and Hussains Grandson (R.A.) ........................................................................... 246

Ali (R.A.), Hasan (R.A.), and Hussain (R.A.) Hated the Shia ................................................................................................. 254 Fatwa on Hussains Fighting Against Yazid ......................................................................................................................... 266 A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain .......................................................................................................................................... 278 Jewish Encyclopedia: Abdullah ibn Saba, Founder of Shiism............................................................................................. 280 Hadith About Muawiyyah: May Allah Not Fill His Belly *A Sunni Perspective+ ............................................................... 287 Fadak, Part I: Shia Hadith Confirms Abu Bakrs Justice (R.A.) ............................................................................................. 288 Fadak, Part II: Why Didnt Ali ( ) Return Fadak? .............................................................................................. 290

Fadak, Part III: Ahlus Sunnah is Not Abandoning the Quran .............................................................................................. 295 Fadak, Part IV: Shia Women Do Not Inherit Land Anyways ................................................................................................ 296 Fadak, Part V: Fatimas Anger (R.A.) ................................................................................................................................... 297 Fadak, Part VI: Fadak Was Not a Gift .................................................................................................................................. 311 Fadak, Part VII: Charity is Good........................................................................................................................................... 314 Fadak, Part VIII: The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance ................................................................................ 317 Fadak, Part IX: Umar (R.A.) Upheld Abu Bakrs Decision (R.A.) .......................................................................................... 319 Fadak, Part X: The Shia Who Deny Our Interpretation of the Al-Kafi Hadith ..................................................................... 325 Fadak, Part XI: Respect for Fatima (R.A.) ....................................................................................................................... 327 Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 329 What do shia books say about FADAK? ................................................................................................................... 330 Neither Abu Bakr Nor Umar Was a Liar, Sinful, Treacherous, and Dishonest ................................................................. 333 Four Caliphs and Prophet Related by Marriage .................................................................................................................. 341 Ali ( ) Gave His Daughter to Umar ( 443 ........................................................................................... )

Shia Websites Confirm Umm Kulthooms Marriage to Umar ............................................................................................. 362 Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar]................................. 367 Marriages of the Four Caliphs and the Prophet ( Abu Bakr ( 173 .......................................................................... )

,) the Second of the Two ............................................................................................................... 374

The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs ......................................................................................................................................... 396 Al-Islam.org Admits that Umar Married Alis Daughter ...................................................................................................... 402 Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophets Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah .................................................................. 406 Hadith About the (Non)Incident of the Pen and Paper [A Sunni Perspective] ................................................................... 409 Abu Bakr and Ali Related Through Marriage ...................................................................................................................... 458 The Prophets Praise of Abu Bakr ....................................................................................................................................... 459 The Ayatollahs Recommend Self-Flagellation..................................................................................................................... 459 Matam: Self-Flagellation ..................................................................................................................................................... 467 Pictures of Matam............................................................................................................................................................... 471

Matam Videos ..................................................................................................................................................................... 478 Black Clothes ....................................................................................................................................................................... 481 Why Sunnis Do Not Comemmorate Ashura........................................................................................................................ 482 More Pictures of Matam ..................................................................................................................................................... 487 Racism in Shiism ................................................................................................................................................................. 490 Mutah.................................................................................................................................................................................. 494 Al-Shia.com on "Rewards for Doing Mutah" ...................................................................................................................... 496 A Plea from a Muslim Sister ................................................................................................................................................ 503 More Shia Hadith on Mutah ............................................................................................................................................... 505 The Mutah Pimps ................................................................................................................................................................ 506 Mutah and Hypocrisy .......................................................................................................................................................... 508 Ayatollah and Mutah .......................................................................................................................................................... 508 The Fiqh of Mutah............................................................................................................................................................... 509 Legalized Whore-Houses in Iran ......................................................................................................................................... 513 Supreme Leader Khamenei on Mutah ................................................................................................................................ 514 In Mutah, Man Does Not Provide Support to Woman Nor Child ....................................................................................... 514 Mutah is Haram .................................................................................................................................................................. 515 Making a Living from Mutah Prostitution ........................................................................................................................... 523 Grand Ayatollah Sistanis Fatwa: Virgin Girls Can Do Mutah .............................................................................................. 524 Fatwas: Permission of Wali Not Required for Mutah; Shia Guy Can Take Sunni Girl in Mutah ......................................... 524 Misyar Marriage is Not Like Mutah..................................................................................................................................... 526 Grand Ayatollah Sistani on the Only Difference between Mutah and a One Night Stand .............................................. 528 Shia Hadith: Woman Who Does Mutah Twice Will Become Pure ...................................................................................... 529 Shia Website Al-Islam.org Says A Woman Who Enters Into Mutah is Rented ................................................................ 530 USA Today: Pleasure Marriages (Mutah) Regain Popularity in Iraq ................................................................................. 534 Marriage With the Intention to Divorce ............................................................................................................................. 536 Taqiyyah .............................................................................................................................................................................. 548 Realplayer Audio: Taqiyyah................................................................................................................................................. 554 Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophets Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah .................................................................. 555 Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting ...................................................................................................... 558 Al-Rajah *The Return+: Imams Reincarnated ..................................................................................................................... 561 Tahreef ................................................................................................................................................................................ 563 Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting ...................................................................................................... 565 Shaykh al-Mufid and Tahreef, Strike Two ........................................................................................................................... 569

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33 ................................................................................................................................... 572 Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 11:73 ................................................................................................................................... 578 The Quran Condemns Sects ................................................................................................................................................ 595 Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer ..................................................................................................... 597 Kindness Towards the Shia ................................................................................................................................................. 617 Mufti Taqi Usmani did NOT sign the Amman Message ................................................................................................... 619 Is AhlelBayt.com a Salafi Site? ......................................................................................................................................... 622 How Reliable is The History of at-Tabari?........................................................................................................................ 623 Why Prophet Muhammad Did Not Have a Wasi ................................................................................................................ 628 Imam Bukharis Fatwa on Befriending Shias ....................................................................................................................... 630 Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective] ................................................................................................................. 632 Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Who Killed Imam Hussain? (AS) ......................................................................... 679 Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Names of Imam Alis sons .................................................................................. 688 Abu Bakr ( ,) the Second of the Two ............................................................................................................... 690

Rebuttal of Shia Responses ................................................................................................................................................. 693 Hadith About Drinking Urine in Sahih Al-Bukhari ............................................................................................................... 706 Hadith About the Quran and Sunnah ................................................................................................................................. 712 Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things [A Sunni Perspective] ............................................................................... 715 A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Entitled Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government ............ 723 Saqifah: A Sunni View ..................................................................................................................................................... 724 Response to Chapter 1 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 747 Response to Chapter 2 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 749 Response to Chapter 3 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 750 Response to Chapter 4 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 764 Response to Chapter 5 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 776 Response to Chapter 6 of Answering Ansars Article on Saqifah.................................................................................... 793 Response to Chapter 7 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah ................................................................................... 811 Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective] ........................................................................................................... 833 Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying? ......................................................................................................... 844 Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyahs Love for Ahlel Bayt ......................................................................................................... 849 Response to Shia Accusation that Our Website Lied; Women Do NOT Inherit Land in Shia Hadith .................................. 851 Accusing the Prophets Wife of Murder: Kill this old fool (Nathal) ................................................................................ 856 Response to Rayats Article Entitled Imam Alis Sons ..................................................................................................... 868 Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective] ........................................................................................................... 891

Hadith About Shias Being Best of Creation [A Sunni Perspective] ..................................................................................... 902 Hadith About Aishas House and Satans Horns *A Sunni Perspective+ .............................................................................. 903 Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah ........................................................................................................................................ 908 Hadith as-Safinah (of Ahlel Bayt being like Noahs Ark) is a Forgery .................................................................................. 909 Hadith al-Manzilah [A Sunni Perspective]........................................................................................................................... 910 Hadith About the Quran and Sunnah ................................................................................................................................. 915 Hadith About Drinking Urine in Sahih Al-Bukhari ............................................................................................................... 918 Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things [A Sunni Perspective] ............................................................................... 924 Hadith About the City of Knowledge and Ali is its Gate [A Sunni Perspective] .................................................................. 932 Hadith About the Prophet Contemplating Suicide ............................................................................................................. 937 Hadith About No Sword Except Dhul-Fiqar [A Sunni Perspective] ..................................................................................... 950 Hadith About Dying With Hatred Towards Ali [A Sunni Perspective] ................................................................................. 951 Hadith About Shias Being Best of Creation [A Sunni Perspective] ..................................................................................... 952 No Sunnah Masjids in Tehran! ............................................................................................................................................ 953 Irans Sunnis, Saudis Shias; a Fair Comparison .................................................................................................................. 962

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/ahlelbayt.com/index.html

Imam Bukharis Fatwa on Befriending Shias

Imam Bukhari declared: I dont 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 Afaalul-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! Fatwa on shias: Praise be to Allah. Shi'ah are ignorant people who differ from muslims mostly because they cannot proove what they claim in religion. There is a science of hadith indicating if hadiths are real or false, weak or strong,but they do not have such science. In Sunnah (which is the way of the prophet, meaning the true path in English) the hadiths are carefully examined and not let to be used if the narrator chains are weak, broken, contain a bad person or a liar or someone who they dont know enough about. Also a chain of hadith has to be sound ,authentic and the message to be found in other hadith chains also...Muslims examine this through science of hadith and the islam through different sciences ,mostly because islam has real proof from Allah and from the prophet that it is the real religion, these proofs are the real mercy to mankind. Shi'ah do not have this science, cant proove their religion, and most of their hadith are examined and false or fabricated. Their religion is based on falsehood and their history is subjective and fake. Therefore they can not focus too much on history,since they have wrong information, full of hatred for true muslims who did not let innovations or betrayals in Islam The Shiah have many sects. Some of them are kaafirs who worship Ali and call upon him, and they worship Faatimah, al-Husayn and others. Some of them say that Jibreel (peace be upon him) betrayed the trust and the Prophethood belonged to Ali, not to Muhammad. There are also others among them, such as the Imamiyyah the Raafidi Ithna Ashari who worship Ali and say that their imams are better than the angels and Prophets. There are many groups among them; some are kaafirs and some are not kaafirs. The mildest among them are those who say that Ali was better than the three (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan). The one who says this is not a kaafir but he is mistaken, because Ali was the fourth, and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, Umar and Uthmaan were better than him. If a person prefers him over them then he is erring and is going against the consensus of the Sahaabah, but he is not a kaafir. The Shiah are of different levels and types. The one who wants to know more about that may refer to the books of the scholars, such as al-Khutoot al-Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen alKhateeb [available in English under the same title, translated by Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips], Manhaaj alSunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and other books that have been written on this topic, such as alShiah wal-Sunnah by Ihsaan Ilaahi Zaheer [also available in English translation] and many other books which explain their errors and evils we ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. Among the most evil of them are the Imamis, Ithna Asharis and Nusayris, who are called al-Raafidah because they rejected (rafadu) Zayd ibn Ali when he refused to disavow the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and Umar, so they

went against him and rejected him. Not everyone who claims to be a Muslim can be accepted as such. If a person claims to be a Muslim, his claim should be examined. The one who worships Allaah alone and believes in His Messenger, and follows that which he brought, is a real Muslim. If a person claims to be a Muslim but he worships Faatimah or al-Badawi or al-Aydaroos or anyone else, then he is not a Muslim. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.

Similarly, anyone who reviles the faith, or does not pray, even if he says that he is a Muslim, is not a Muslim. The same applies to anyone who mocks the faith or mocks the prayer or zakaah or fasting or Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or who disbelieves in him, or says that he was ignorant or that he did not convey the message in full or convey the message clearly. All such people are kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. Majmoo Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (28/257).

Prophets 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 ( ) and 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 ( ?)The answer to this question is quite simply that first and foremost the Prophets wives are Ahlel Bayt. The Prophets 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 himBayt 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 mans wives; in Arab culture, it is considered rude to call a mans wives by their actual names, and hence people will refer to a mans wives simply as his Ahl Bayt. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah thus take the wives of the Prophet ( )to be the Ahlel Bayt. This is in accordance with the dictionary definition of the word as shown above. The Prophets wives are part of the Prophets Ahl, and they live in his Bayt. Therefore, Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) are included in the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia The Shia Ayatollahs do not have a positive viewpoint of the Prophets wives. In fact, the Shia Ayatollahs possess baraa (hatred) for Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ,) and we shall examine this in later articles. It is because of this reason that the Shia Ayatollahs deny that the Prophets 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 ( ,) Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( .) We would like to question the basis upon which they make this claim. This is not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( ,)but rather this is the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( .) These were the four individuals who lived under the roof of Ali ( ), not the roof of Muhammad ( .)It is agreed upon by both the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia that Ali ( ) did not live in the Bayt of Muhammad ( )but rather had his own place of residence, in which Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( ) also 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 [ ,] Hasan [ ,] and Hussain [ )] lived in the time of the Prophet ( ,)let alone in the Bayt of Muhammad ( .) 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 Prophets 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 ( ) was, the first names they would mention would be the Prophets wives. The Quran Refers to the Prophets 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 Prophets wives as the Ahlel Bayt. Allah Almighty Himself negates all those who dare argue that Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) are 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 ( ,) Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) or Hussain ( ) 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 ( ,) Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,)or Hussain ( .) 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 ( ) let 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 Prophets 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 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: Qalat Ya Waylata Aalidu Wa Ana `Ajuzun Wa Hadha Ba`li Shaykhaan Inna Hadha Lashayun `Ajibun. Qalu Ata`jabina Min Amri Allahi Rahmatu Allahi Wa Barakatuhu `Alaykum Ahlul-Bayt-i Innahu Hamidun Majidun. (Quran, 11:72-73) In the verse above, Prophet Ibrahims wife asks the angels how can she have a son, and they respond back calling her and Prophet Ibrahim ( ) as Ahlel Bayt. And again, the collective pronoun is used to refer to the Prophet Ibrahim ( ) and his wife. Nobody else was in the room other than them, and the angels referred to them all as Ahlel Bayt, including Prophet Ibrahims wife. The Quran declares that Wives are Part of the Family Allah Almighty says that all of the members of Prophet Loots 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 ( .) Otherwise, why would Allah need to clarify that Loots wife was an exception to the rule that the family of Loot ( ) would 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Prophets wives are Ahlel Bayt. Certain Shia Ayatollahs will often take Hadith out of context in order to prove that the Prophets 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 Prophets wives are part of the Ahlel Bayt. It is narrated in Sahih Muslim by Zayd ibn Arqam ( ) that the Prophets 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 shallInsha-Allahexamine 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 Prophetthey are included among the members of the family of the Prophet ( .)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 ( )used 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 ( .) Neither Ali ( ,) Fatima ( ), Hasan ( ,) nor Hussain ( ) lived in the same house as the Prophet ( .)On the other hand, the Prophets wives most definitely did. If Allah was referring to the family of the Prophet ( ) that 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 Prophets wives. Any other explanation is nonsensical. Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( )

The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah holds the Ahle Bayt Ali ( ) in the highest regard. In fact, we believe that Alis family ( ) along with the families of Aqeel ( ) and Abbas ( ) are honorary members of the Prophetic Ahlel Bayt. Alis family ( ) is commonly referred to as Ahlel Kisa

(People of the Cloak) and they are highly regarded by the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. However, we disagree with those who exploit the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( ) to hurt and degrade the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( .)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 ( ) by saying that they are only honorary members of the Ahlel Bayt, but this is not true at all. The Shia declare that Salman AlFarsi ( ) was an honorary member of Ahlel Bayt. Is this insulting Salman Al-Farsi ( ?) No, it is in fact exalting him. Likewise, to say that Alis family ( ) is an honorary part of the Ahlel Bayt is likewise an exaltation and not an insult at all. The Shia have called Salman Al-Farsi ( ) to be an honorary member of the Ahlel Bayt; therefore, if they accuse the Sunnis of hating Ali ( ) for calling him an honorary member, then they are also guilty of hating Salman Al-Farsi ( .) Al-Islam.org says

The reference to Salman Farsi as a member of the Ahlul-Bayt is honorary. Salman Farsis conversion to

Islam left a great impression on the HolyProphet (S) and others. Throughout the years of the Holy Prophets 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 ( ) and not the Ahlel Bayt of the Prophet ( )has to do with how the faith of Shiism came into being. Indeed, the early ancestors of the Shia are the Sabaites, followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. These Sabaites excessively praised Ali ( ) and eventually even declared that Ali ( ) was superior to the Prophet ( ). Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet ( )is superior to Ali ( .) However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( ) and not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( ?)Is this not a remnant of the Sabaite origin of Shiism? 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 Prophets wives are part of Ahlel Bayt. Surely, the Prophets 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 ( .) Conclusion The Prophets wives are the Ahlel Bayt. Many Shia Ayatollahs slander Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) with 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 Jamaah 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. Prophets 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 ( ), from the slander uttered against her. The fact that the Prophets 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.

Prophets Daughters are Ahlel Bayt

The Shia accept Fatima ( ) as part of the Ahlel Bayt, but we must analyze on what basis they do this. Do they honor Fatima ( )because she is the Prophets daughter, or rather because she is Alis wife? The answer, we hope, shall be made obvious: it seems to us that they do not honor the daughters of the Prophet ( ,)but rather they only honor Alis wife. The Prophet ( )had four daughters, not just one. The Prophet ( )and Khadijah had five children: Qasim ( ,) Zaynub ( ,) Ruqayyah ( ,) Umm Kulthoom ( ,) and Fatima ( .) And yet, the Shia Ayatollahs will say that only Fatima ( ) is part of the Ahlel Bayt. Wed 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 ( ) had 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 Prophets daughters equally and it pains us to see that the rights of three of our noble Prophets daughters are neglected. We wonder how our Shia brothers would feel if we said that Fatima ( ) was not the daughter of the Prophet ( ,)or that Hussain ( ) was not the son of Ali ( ?) Every authoritative historical account affirms that the Prophet ( )had 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 ( )had 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 Shiism originates from Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers. Notive, how the Shia Ayatollahs do not care about the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( .)They only care about the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( .) Notice how the Shia Ayatollahs deny that the Prophets wives are part of the Ahlel Bayt, but Alis wife is part of the Ahlel Bayt. Notice how Alis childrenHasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) are considered by them to be in the Ahlel Bayt, but the Prophets three daughters are not. This again leads us to confirm the idea that Shiism originates from the Sabaites. These Sabaites excessively praised Ali ( ) and eventually even declared that Ali ( ) was superior to the Prophet ( ). Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet ( )is superior to Ali ( .) However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( ) and not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( ?) Is this not a remnant of the Sabaite origin of Shiism? Another reason why the Shia Ayatollahs must deny that the Prophet ( )had three daughters was because two of these daughtersnamely Ruqayyah ( ) and Umm Kulthoom ( ) married Uthman Bin Affan ( ,) 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 ( )marry two of his daughters to one of these three Caliphs? Again, this, in our opinion, questions the ideological foundation of Shiism. The Shia revere the Nahjul Balagha, which they claim are the sermons and letters of Ali ( .) It is one of the most sacred and authoratative of Shia books. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah 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 from the Nahjul Balagha to prove that Uthman ( ) married two of the daughters of the Prophet ( ). 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 (`Umar) 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 ( )had two daughters who married Uthman ( .) This revelation is troublesome the Shia Ayatollahs it would involve exalting the status of Uthmans family ( ). And most importantly, it shows that Uthman ( ) was such a pious person that the Prophet ( ) gave him two daughters. Al-Islam.org The popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, finally rescinded the Shia claim that the Prophet ( 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-Masudi) indicate that she [Khadaija] was the mother of all the

Prophets 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 Prophets 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 ( ) by using the honorific (A.S.) as well as Hazrat but you will notice no such respect for the other beloved daughters of the Prophet ( .) Nonetheless, we are pleased that they accept the Prophets daughters. We kindly ask Shia-Chat and AnsweringAnsar to follow suit and also rescind their claims that the Prophet ( )had only one daughter. How distressing it was to see an entire thread on Shia-Chat discussing how the Prophet ( ) had only one daughter. The Answering-Ansar moderator boldly declared: The Prophet ( ) had only one daughter, Bibi Fatima [A.S.]. The Shia website Al-Islam.org has definitively refuted those who claimed that the Prophet ( 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 Prophets 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 Khadijas 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. We are pleased that Al-Islam.org has accepted the truth on this matter, and has admitted that the Prophet ( ) had four daughters. However, we must ask then: if Fatima ( ) is to be included in the Ahlel Bayt, then why arent the other three daughters of the Prophet ( ?) Is this not unfair? Is 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 Kulthoom, Ruqayyah, and Zaynub are direct daughters of the Prophet ( :) Al-Shia.com says

: , , ) ( : ) ( . ((246)) , ) ( : ) ( : , , ((643)) . , , , : : : : ) ( , . ((446)) )) : : )) , , : , : . ((546)) , , : , , : : : : ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , : , ((646)) . : , , , , , , , )) ( . ))746 )

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/maws0014.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 ( )had 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 ( )really 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 Prophets 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 ( )had and who Abdullah Ibn Saba was? Such famous Shia scholars as Kulayni, Majlisi, Sadooq, Toosi, and Tabarsi have confirmed that the Prophet ( )had four daughters. Thus, when the modern day propagandists argue and say that the Prophet ( )had 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 Prophets daughters. To us this denial is an insult and we kindly ask the Shia Ayatollahs to refrain from insulting the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( )by 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 Prophets lovely daughters. It is clear that, contrary to much of what is disseminated, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah indeed loves the entire family of the Prophet ( ,)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 Baytnamely Ali, Fatima, Hasan,
Hussain, and the Infallible Imams including the Mehdiwere 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 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. 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) Allah Almighty clearly addresses the wives of the Prophet ( .) 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 ( ) and the rest of the Prophets 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 ( ) and 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 ( ) hated Ali ( .) It seems to us that, if anything, it is Aisha ( ) who is made infallible, and if indeed that is the case shouldnt the Shia side with her over Ali ( ?) There is actually not a single verse in the Quran which identifies Ali ( ,) Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) or Hussain ( ) 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 Prophets 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 ******** To: admin@ahlelbayt.com 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?

Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin Dear Brother Zain, Thank you again for writing and giving us the opportunity to further clarify our position.

Firstly, Aisha ( ) did not hate Ali ( ) nor did she leave her house to fight against Ali ( ). This is a myth and it is slander, very much like the slander against Ali ( ) when people accused him of killing Uthman ( .) Aisha ( ) went out to seek reconciliation with Ali ( ) in 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 ( ) was. 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, Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com From: To: admin@ahlelbayt.com 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? Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin Dear Brother Nabeel, The very ideological foundation of Shiism comes falling down when we read the Quran and find out that the Prophets 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.alislam.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 ones 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 ( ) and want so desperately to exclude her from the Ahlel Bayt. This is a very poor reason to destroy ones 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 dont 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 Prophets 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 ( ) when it commands to stay quietly in the house and not make a dazzling display. Rather this can only be referring to the Prophets wives. Sincerely, Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com From: To: admin@ahlelbayt.com 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
Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives from Ahlel Bayt, nothing prevented Him from saying this in the Quran; nobodynot even the supposedly evil Sahabahcould force Allah to reveal the Verse of Purification in the middle of the commands to the Prophets wives. The term Ahl is masculine, no matter if it is referring to men or women. When an Arab refers to a mans 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 Prophets 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 mans wives, and indeed, any time you refer to a mans 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 ( )and 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 Prophets 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: Qlat Y WaylatAalidu Wa An `Ajzun Wa Hadh Ba`l Shaykhan Inna Hdh Lashayun `Ajbun. Ql Ata`jabna Min Amri Allhi Ramatu Allhi Wa Baraktuhu `Alaykum Ahlul-Bayt-i Innahu amdun Majdun. (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 Allahs 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 Qurans 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 Prophets wives, and on the other hand claiming that this was Allah who was purposefully switching tenses to prove some point? Furthermore, wed 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 Prophets wives who are being referred to but in reality it is supposed to be Alis family ( ?) What 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 Prophets wives? Wouldnt 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 Prophets 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 ( ) since 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives? How come all of the Qurans warnings refer to the Prophets wives, but any praise about being pure and spotless automatically belongs to Alis family ( ?) Is 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 ( ), and every condemnation to Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( .)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 ( ) and Umar ( ) in the Quran, then nothing prevented Him from mentioning their names like He mentioned Abu Lahabs name. If Allah wanted to praise Ali ( ) in the Quran, then nothing prevented Him from mentioning him as the cousin of the Prophet like Allah mentioned the Prophets 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 Prophets 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: To: admin@ahlelbayt.com

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 Prophets 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. Response From: AhlelBayt.com Admin 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: 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) When we post the entire verse, numerous things become clear among which is the fact that the verse, in fact, is addressed to the Prophets wives ( !) Similar clarifications become apparent if we read the entire narration of Zaid ibn Arqam ( ,) namely what comes before and after it. If we do so we shall see that Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) categorically declares that the Prophets 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 Allahs 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? Arent 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 ( ) says:

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 Jafar and the family of Abbaas. All of these are forbidden to receive sadaqah. So of course the Prophets wives are part of the Prophetic family, but Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) was 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 childrentwo 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 ( ,) a group of Muslim soldiers had criticized Ali ( ) and the Prophet ( )reprimanded 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 doesnt Ahlel Bayt equal wives? And to this, Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) 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 ( )was 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) says: 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 ( ) 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 ( ) turned into the authorative source of the Islamic belief system? Since when has the word of Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) become superior to the speech of Allah, namely verse 33:32-34 in which Allah Almighty addresses the Prophets wives as Ahlel Bayt? Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) was not even narrating the word of the Prophet ( )when 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 ( ) said in the same narration that along with Ali ( ) and his family there are other families included in the Prophetic household, including the family of Aqil ( ,) the offspring of Jafar ( ,) and the offspring of Abbas ( .) 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 ( ) as part of the Ahlel Bayt and helps discredit the idea that they are somehow distinct from the Ahlel Bayt. The same Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) says 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 Allahs 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 Prophets wives ( ) as Ahlel Bayt. Not a million Hadith or Tafseer or Fatawa could change this fact. Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) was 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 ( ) in 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 ( .)Let us remember that the Prophet ( )was 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 ( .)It would thus not be necessary for the Prophets 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 ones 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 ( ,) and therefore she may need the Zakat if she has no other support.

The Prophet ( )did divorce some of his wives. These wives ceased being part of Ahlel Bayt upon divorce, and thus the Prophet ( )stopped providing for them financially. As such, the Prophet ( )could not promise their financial well-being and they may even need Zakat to maintain themselves as single divorced women. Furthermore, after the Prophets 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 ( )never divorced Aisha ( ) or Hafsa ( .) This should be something for our Shia brothers to ponder upon since it is a testament to how much the Prophet ( )loved these women and how loyal he was to themthe 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 Quranic 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: 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 Aisha 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 Salman Ahmad Younas Approved by Faraz Rabbani Allah knows best

We shall take the opportunity to quote another Hadith in Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet ( ) himself refers to Aisha ( ) as being Ahlel Bayt. Therefore, even if we accepted the Shia proposition that Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) denied that the Prophets wives were Ahlel Bayt, then his opinion would have to be rejected because nobodys word can be taken above that of the Prophet ( .) In Sahih Bukhari, we see a narration in which the Prophet ( )himself addresses 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Prophets wives ( ) from Ahlel Bayt is incorrect.

In conclusion, the Shia who use this Hadith of Zaid ibn Arqam ( ) to 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 Prophets wives the position of Ahlel Bayt? Do they really hate the beloved of the Prophet ( )so much? These are the women that the Prophet ( )was intimate with; not a single person alive today can claim this honor. So why this undying hatred for the women in the Prophets 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 Prophets descendants will be automatically granted a high rank and status based on their familial connection to the Prophet ( .)They believe that nobody can attain the rank of these Syedis simply because they were not born to the Prophets family, and this is why Abu Bakr ( ) to them is forever inferior to Ali ( .) 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 ( .)It seems to us that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia believe that the Prophets descendants are automatically superior to everyone else based on their lineage. The reality, however, is that a persons lineage and birth has no bearing on his rank and station on earth in the eyes of Allah. The only criterion which decides a persons rank and station is a persons Taqwa (piety). The

Prophet ( )spoke 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 ( ) knew them personally and he experienced their dedication to Islam first-hand. As such, the Prophet ( ) could vouch for them. The Prophet ( )also complimented his Sahabah (Companions), the Ansar (Helpers), Muhajiroon (Immigrants), and many other groups of people. When the Prophet ( )complimented 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 ( )used 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 ( ,)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 everyones 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 anotherAnd 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 ( )declared 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 Prophets 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 Prophets family will be judged by another criterion or by a special lenience simply because they are the Prophets family, or that they will be automatically exalted based on something other than merit. They argue that Ali ( )had more of a right to the Caliphate than Abu Bakr ( ) because he was related to the Prophet ( )and 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 ( )has condemned this attitude in no uncertain terms, calling it nothing less than a remnant of the pre-Islamic Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance). The Prophet ( )said: 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 ( )said 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 ( )said: 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 ( )said: 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 ( )was born of a family who were Mushriks (polythiests) so how can lineage possibly mean anything? Prophet Nuh ( ) had a son who was destined to Hell-Fire and his example is mentioned in the Quran, showing that not even if a persons father is a prophet does this mean anything. Prophet Ibrahims father was a Mushrik and Ibrahim ( ) will 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 Muhammads 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 ( ) was a slave, born to a slave woman, and today he is remembered as one of the noblest of Sahabahdespite his lowly birth. On the other hand, both Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were from the same bloodline as the Prophet ( ,)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 ones Taqwa which dictates a persons station and rank. This is why it is discomforting that the Shia trace Imamah via the Prophets bloodline just like a hereditary kingship. Why didnt 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 ( ) came 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 persons rank on this earth. The Ayatollahs will oftentimes retort that Prophet Ibrahim ( ) asked 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 Adams family () and exalted them as leaders, and then using this as evidence against the idea that Allah judges only upon merit. Furthermore, we should all make dua 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 ( )is 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 ( ) not because of their birth but because the Prophet ( )knew of their great Taqwa. Why should the Prophets 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 ( )should be exalted above all others, then why is one section preferred above all others? Uthmans father ( ) was the Prophets second cousin, making Uthman ( ) a nephew of the Prophet ( .)If the lineage of the Prophet ( )is to be exalted above all others, then why is Uthmans side of the family ( iht ni detcelgen ( s adulation? If this is countered by the fact that Ali ( ) was the husband of Fatima ( ,) the daughter of the Prophet ( ,)then what about Uthman ( ?) The Prophet ( )gave Uthman ( ) two of his daughters in marriage. Does that not mean that Uthmans lineage ( ) has twice the right to be exalted above Alis lineage ( ?) No, 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 ( )called one person to be Syed, this does not mean that all his progeny magically become Syed as well. The Prophet ( )gave the title of Siddeeq to Abu Bakr ( ;) 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 ( ) says: 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 Shiah, 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 sayyidThey 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 entitledThere 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 ( ) who was Arab? Their skin is not the same color as the Prophet ( ,)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 ( )! And 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 ( )and 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 ( )himself. 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 ( .)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 ( ,)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 alFarsi. They spoke of the inferiority of Salmans Persian ethnicity, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah ( )declared, Salman is from us, the Ahlel Bayt. And with that did the Prophet ( ) destroy the Jahiliyyah concepts of discrimination based on ones birth. Suddenly, the Persian Kisra (King) became the most despicable whereas the lowly Muslim slave Bilal ( ) became one of the highest in rank.

It was not the intent of the Prophet ( )to make a dynasty of rulers after him, nor did he mention this in any authentic report. On the contrary, the Prophet ( )stated that the most eligible to claim a right to the Prophet ( ) are the most pious, regardless of their descent or the place they lived in. The Prophet ( )turned 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 ( )condemns people of the future who would lay claim to power based on familial descent from the Prophet ( :)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 ( )has shown that the true relationship to him is that of piety and religion and not of biological descent. Had the Prophet ( )indeed set a dynasty of rulers from his offspring, this would have cast doubt to the Prophets truthfulness and sincerity in conveying Allahs word and then the Prophet ( )would have been like other kings who were after this Dunya (materialistic world) and founded kingdoms with dynasties from their offspring. Indeed, the Prophet ( ) even 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 ( ) himself 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 ( )or 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 Prophets 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 Sabaites, 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 Shiism 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 Shiism is Nasibi

We hope that, here, we have proven beyond a doubt that the Prophets wives are indeed part of Ahlel Bayt. The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet ( verse: )as Ahlel Bayt in the following

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) Thus we hope that it has become clear that whoever slanders the Prophets wives and talks ill of them can be considered a Nasibi (hater of the Ahlel Bayt). The most beloved of the Prophets wives was Aisha ( .) However, it, unfortunately, appears that a very important premise of Shiism is based upon slander against her, the Mother of the Believers and rightful member of the Ahlel Bayt. Aisha ( ) narrated a Hadith in which the Prophet ( )specifically appointed Abu Bakr ( ) to lead the prayers as Imam during the Prophets sickness at the end of his life. The Sahabah ( ) and the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah rightfully interpreted this appointment to mean that the Prophet ( )appointed Abu Bakr ( ) as his successor, not Ali ( .) The majority of the Shia admit that Abu Bakr ( ) was the Imam of the prayers during the Prophets last few days of life; however, they argue that the Prophet ( )had really appointed Ali ( ) to lead the prayers, but that Aisha ( ) lied to the people by claiming that the Prophet ( ) had appointed Abu Bakr ( ) to 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 ( ) never led the prayers as Imam; they again accuse Aisha ( ) of being a liar, and say that the Hadith about Abu Bakr ( ) leading the prayers were fabricated by Aisha (.) 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 Bakrs] 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 Prophets will for Ali (Then I was Guided, p.119-120) This book can be found referenced on the popular Shia website AlIslam.org, and it is at the forefront of the Shia dialogue with the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah; this viewpoint that

Aisha ( ) fabricated Hadith to prove her fathers 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 ( ) cannot be understated. It is the foundation block of Shiism that Aisha ( ) is a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. Without believing in this, the Shia would be forced to accept Abu Bakrs ( ) appointment as successor Imam and the entire belief of Ali ( ) being the first Infallible Imam becomes implausible. Thus, the Shia are faced with two options: either they slander Aisha ( ) and call her a liar, or they accept Aisha ( ) and then rescind their claims that it was Ali ( ) who was appointed as successor Imam by the Prophet ( ). 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 Prophets wives), then they would have accepted Abu Bakr ( ) as the successor Imam to the Prophet ( )and 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 Prophets wives. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah loves the entire Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophets wives, all his children, Ali ( ) and his family, etc., whereas the Shia only love one segment of the Ahlel Bayt and despise other parts of it.

Slander Against Prophets Wives

The Shia scholars slander the Prophets wives, Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( .) They do not have a good opinion of Aisha ( ) because she was the daughter of the first Caliph (Abu Bakr [ ,)] and they do not speak well of Hafsa ( ) because she was the daughter of the second Caliph (Umar bin Khattab [ .)] The Shia believe that Aisha ( ) was 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 ( ) is considered a Kaffir, and they say that Aisha ( ) is one of the leaders (along with Muawiyya [ )] in the opposition against Alis Imamah ( .) Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this: : ) 6 ( .

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 Mumineen [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 Mumineen 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: 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 ( ) is a disbeliever (Kaffir) destined for Hell-Fire. In fact, the Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha ( ) is 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 BaytAli 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 ( ) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha ( ,) Talha ( ,) and Zubair ( ) who 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 ( ) as 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 ones religion) when they debate with the Ahlus Sunnah, and they claim that they dont say that Aisha ( ) is a Kaffir. How is this possible when Aisha ( ) supposedly fought against the so-called Infallible Imam of the Shia? Not only this, but Aisha ( ) was the sole reason that the Ahlus Sunnah believe Abu Bakr ( ) to be the first Caliph and not Ali ( .) To the Shia, Aisha ( ) thus represents the leader of the enemies of Ali ( ,) 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 Prophets 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 devils 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 ( ,) they accuse her of hating to even mention the name of Ali ( ) and that she celebrated on the day that Ali ( ) died. Al-Tijani says: she [Aisha] did not like mentioning his [Alis] 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 ( ) of being an accomplice to murder. They say that Aisha ( ) advocated the murder of Uthman ( ,) and they quote her as saying Kill the old fool [Uthman]. Not only did she advocate the murder of Uthman ( ,) but the Shia also say that she then used the murder of Uthman ( ) as an excuse to wage war against Ali ( ) and 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 ( ) was responsible for the murder of Muawiyya ( .) There are even Shia scholars who argue that Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) attempted to murder the Prophet ( ) himself: 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 Aisha ( ) poisioned the Prophet ( ,)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 ( ) had attempted to poison the Prophet ( .) We hope it is becoming more and more apparent that the accusations levied at Aisha ( ) seem to stem more from emotions, rhetoric, and inherent bias rather than reliable and referenced historical facts. Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) are portrayed as being demonically bad people; these being two of the women whom the Prophet ( )remained 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-ehusainia, 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 ( ) and Hafsa ( ) were 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-Mumineen 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 Prophets 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 ( ) in 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 ( ) 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 Aisha ( ) was an imprudent, rude, and jealous woman. Stories will then be cited about how Aisha ( ) was so jealous and vengeful towards her co-wives and step-child Ibrahim ( ;) the 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 ( .) The Shia scholars will belittle Aisha ( ) by saying that she was barren and infertile, citing this as a reason that Aisha ( ) hated her co-wives and was jealous of Fatima ( .) The entire faith of Shiism is based upon calling Aisha ( ) a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. To the Shia, Aisha ( ) is the chief rejector of the Imamah of Ali ( ,) because of whom the entire Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah supposedly abandoned the Imamah of Ali ( .) We wonder why then the Shia scholars say that they are the followers of Ahlel Bayt since Aisha ( ) and 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 ( ) 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) We ask Allah to shower His infinite blessings upon Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ,) 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 ( )despite whatever they claim of the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( .) In future articles, we shall Insha-Allah refute this malicious slander against our beloved Mothers, Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( .)

Mothers of the Believers

The Quran bestows the title of Mother of the Believers (Umm Al Mumineen) to Aisha ( ( ,) and the rest of the Prophets wives:

,) Hafsa

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 ( ) and 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 Prophets wives as his mothers as decreed in the quoted verse. He must treat Aisha ( ) with the same respect that he treats his own mother with. Let us see what the Quran says about respecting ones 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) with contempt, who repel Aisha ( ,) 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 ( ) and Hafsa ( ) if 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 Prophets wives ( ) as Ahlel Bayt: 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) Allah bestowed upon Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) the 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 Prophets wives ( .) 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 ( ?) Al-Islam.org has a whole page dedicated to the charge that Aisha ( ) was a jealous woman. Answering-Ansar has a page dedicated on their site to condemning the Prophets wife. Would believers find it acceptable and within religious protocolto insult their own biological mothers? Yet, an insult against Aisha ( ) is a personal insult to all the believers. Recently, the Muslims rallied against the Denmark newspaper which insulted the Prophet ( ;)should 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 ( ,) the Mother of the Believers? Should we not, in fact, pray for her and the rest of the Prophets wives as mentioned in the Quran: My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy (Quran, 17:23-24)

Al-Ifk: Quran Defends Aisha (

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 ( ) unexpectedly ordered the army to continue the march again. Aisha ( ) noticed 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. Aisha ( ) waited 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 ( ,) who had fallen behind the army after taking a rest, reached the camp during the night and found her lying fast asleep. Safwan ( ) recognized her and escorted her back to the Muslim army and the Prophet ( .) Unfortunately, some hypocrites who had seen Safwan ( ) and Aisha ( ) arrive alone together began to gossip and spread slanderous lies about them. Eventually the story reached the Prophet ( ) himself 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 Prophets wife of engaging in an adulterous affair. Aishas Feelings ( ) are Hurt

The accusations against Aisha ( ) hurt her deeply and she soon fell so sick that she asked the Prophet ( ) if she could return to her parents house until the matter was cleared up. The Prophet ( ) then tried to vindicate Aishas honor ( ) by 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 ( )calmed them down and silenced them. The Prophet ( ) said 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] Ali ( ) Defends Aisha ( )

The Prophet ( )was 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 ( )was 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 ( ) saw how miserable the Prophet ( ) had become over this issue, and so it was that Ali ( ) said to him: O Allahs 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 ( ) told the Prophet ( ) to divorce Aisha ( .) 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 HalfHadith-ing [i.e. using half of a Hadith to prove ones point]. If we look at the other half of the Hadith, we see that it negates Al-Tijanis claim that Ali ( ) told the Prophet ( )to divorce Aisha ( .) 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 ithow 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) Ali ( ) did not in any way advise the Prophet ( )to divorce Aisha ( .) He merely said that the Prophet ( )could since nobody had greater rights than the Prophet of Allah, but that it would be better if the Prophet ( )just asked Aishas slave girl, who was with Aisha ( ) most of the time, on the matter of Aishas innocence. The slave girl was in the room, and Ali ( ) meant to say that all the believers knew Aisha ( ) was innocent, even a lowly slave girl. In any case, as we shall see soon, if Ali ( ) doubted Aisha ( ) and asked the Prophet ( ) to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk, then this would mean that Ali ( ) was one of the

Munafiqoon. Is this what the Shia are accusing Ali ( ) of? The Quran itself would declare anyone who doubted Aishas innocence ( ) to be a Munafiqh. So this is slander against not only the Prophets wife but also against Ali ( .) Allah Almighty Defends Aisha ( )

It would be none other than Allah Himself who would declare Aishas innocence ( ) and vindicate her of the slander levied against her. Allah revealed to the Prophet ( )the following verses, condemning those Munafiqoon who doubted Aishas innocence ( ) and slandered her honor: [24:11] Surely those who fabricate the lie are a group from among youEvery 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] AndDo 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 ( .) 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 ( ) in 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 Prophets 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 Burayrahs report the scandal was diffused. People may think it is an insignificant matter to speak lightly of something which damages a persons 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 ( ) innocent and warns everyone not to make any accusations or slander against Aisha ( .) 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 ( ) is still insulted and slandered. She is accused of hating Ali ( ) and 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) of being a Kaffir. In fact, the very same Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha ( ) is 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 BaytAli 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]

source: 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 ( ) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha ( ,) Talha ( ,) and Zubair ( ) who 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 ( ) as 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 ( ) 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 ( ) of being vile, then they are accusing the Prophet ( )of 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 ( ,) and stands as a refutation against all the slander made against her. This verse was revealed in regards to Aisha ( ) in 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 ( ) by the Ayatollahs are worse than those levied against her by the Munafiqoon in the incident of al-Ifk. The latter only accused Aisha ( ) of 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 [ .)] 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 ( )publically 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 ( ?)

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 ( )by 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 ( ,) 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 Prophets wife ( ) is insulting and harming the Prophet ( ) 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 ( .) 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 Ayatollahs 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 ( )will 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 ( )is the one with the most Gheerah (protective jealousy) in regards to his wives. If the Prophet ( )heard the things which the Shia say about Aisha ( ,) no doubt the Prophet ( )would be furious. Hurting the feelings of the Prophets wives ( ) is hurting the feelings of the Prophet ( ). In fact, this methdology of targetting the Prophets wives ( ) was used by the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to hurt the Prophet ( )in the incident of al-Ifk: they insulted Aisha ( ) in order to insult the Prophet ( ) by extension. The Quran The Prophet ( )was 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 Prophets 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 ( )was 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 Prophets wife, one should first allow others to insult ones 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 ( ) and the rest of the Prophets 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 ( )would 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 ( )of 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 ( ) is bad, then this means that the Prophet ( )is also bad! The Prophet ( ) is 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 ( .) Hence, there should be absolutely no confusion on the matter of Aishas noble character ( .) The Prophet ( )said: 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 ( )did 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 Allahs Mercy from such slander. Surely the Prophet ( )only married righteous women, and Aisha ( ) was 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 ( )was a covering for Aisha ( ,) protecting her from slander and insults. Indeed, if the Prophet ( )were alive today, he would defend Aisha ( ) and refute the malicious lies levied against her. In fact, Allah commands the Prophet ( )to be a protector and maintainer of his wives: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. (Quran, 3:34) The Prophet ( )loved his wife Aisha ( ) dearly. 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 ( )in front of them if they say that the Prophet ( )did 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 ( )loved Aisha ( ,) and if he loved her, then we should love her too. Aisha ( ) is 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 Allahs Beloved.

Verse 33:33 Does Not Make Anyone Infallible

Allah (

) says:

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 ( ) made 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 ( ,)Ali ( ), Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) Hussain ( ,) 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 Prophets wives ( ) to be infallible, since Allah () addresses the Prophets wives. Let us analyze the entire 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. 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. Allahs ( ) statement was not to assure the Prophets wives ( ) that 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 ( ) was giving the Prophets 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 ( Consider the following verse: ) has used this pattern of speech to address many people.

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 ( ) is talking about the believer; should we really conclude that that Allah () has now made the person completely clean and purified based on this? That is indeed missing the important conditional statement that Allah ( ) is making. In another verse, Allah Almighty ( ) says:

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 ( ) expressed 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 ( ) says:

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 ( ) so addresses His servants in many other Quranic verses in a similar vein. Therefore, if we claim that the aim of Allah Almighty ( ) in 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 ( ) so wills to purify them. As Allah Almighty ( ) told us of His wish to purify members of the Prophets family, He similarly informed us of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah () 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 Prophets 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 ( ) desired 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 ( ) and 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 Prophets wives ( ,) 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 ( ) for his sins; what sins, we ask, if he was born an Infallible Imam? We ask the Christians why Jesus ( ) asks Allah () for forgiveness in the Bible if he is infallible; there are many such Biblical verses in which Jesus () is 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 ( ) to purify the sincere wives of the Prophet ( .)The Prophet ( ) was 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 ( ) were promised. Likewise, he even included Salman al-Farsi ( ) in his Ahlel Bayt. And we ask the Shia: how many times did the Prophet ( )invoke Allah ( ) to make Alis 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 ( )did ask Allah ( ) multiple times to make Alis family pure and spotless. However, we wonder why there would be a need for the Prophet ( )to 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 ( ) again and again for this purification. Indeed, the Prophet ( )asking for his relatives to become pure and spotless was just one of the many duas that he would make to Allah ( .)It is what we would call an every day dua 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 ( :) O Allah, purify me of my sins and purify my family from sins. Each and every one of us should ask Allah ( ) this. How many of us make this same dua day after day, obviously indicating that we need Allahs 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 Prophets wives ( ) since they are the ones that verse 33:33 is addressed to. The Shia are thus faced with two options: they can accept Aisha ( ) as infallible. In this case, they must accept her statement that the Prophet ( ) appointed Abu Bakr ( ) to be the Imam of the prayers while he was sick; this would mean that Abu Bakr ( ) was the rightful first Caliph and not Ali ( .) Such a concession by the Shia would topple a very important foundation of Shiism which is rooted in the succession of Ali ( .) The second option for the Shia is to say that Aisha ( ) and 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 ( ) and Prophet Lut ( )

The Quran emphatically declares that the pure should only marry the pure. Allah (

)commands:

Marry those among you who are single and the righteous ones among yourselves, male or female. (Quran, 24:32) Allah ( ) further 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 ( ) must be pure, since the Prophet ( ) married her. The Prophet ( ,)after all, would not knowingly violate the Quran and marry someone who is impure. Since the Prophet ( )was pure, he must only marry the pure. The Shia revile Aisha ( ,) so to counter this argument, the Shia bring up the wives of Prophet Nuh ( ) and Prophet Lut ( .) 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 Shiism, 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 ( ) and Prophet Lut ( ) do so? The Ahlus Sunnah has a simple answer to this question: Prophet Nuh ( ) and Prophet Lut ( ) did not know about their wives sinfulness at the time that they were getting married. Hence, they did not violate Allahs 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 ( ) knew their eventual destination of Hell-Fire. To this, a Shia might respond that perhaps Prophet Muhammad ( )likewise married Aisha ( ) without 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 ( )and 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 ( )not to know the nature of Aisha ( ) sinceaccording to the Shiahe 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 persons 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 ( )did not know the nature of Aisha ( ) when he married her. If Aisha ( ) was impure and sinful, then the Prophet ( ) knew it (according to the Shia belief). If the Prophet ( )then knowingly married an impure and sinful person, then the Prophet ( )was 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 ( ) and Prophet Lut ( ) 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 ( ) and Prophet Lut ( .) The Shariah of these previous Prophets may have differed from the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad ( .)It is known, for example, that other Prophets were allowed to marry more

than four wives. So we cannot say anything about Prophet Nuh ( ) and Prophet Lut (;) what we do know is that this Ummahincluding our Prophet Muhammad ( )was forbidden to knowingly marry impure women. In regards to Prophet Muhammad ( ,)he never divorced Aisha ( .) This is acknowledged by the Shia. If the Prophet ( )ever knew that Aisha ( ) 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 ( ) was a Kaffir. Click here to read Shia Accuse Aisha ( ) of Being a Kaffir. The Prophet ( )never thought Aisha ( ) was a Kaffir; otherwise, he would have divorced her. Since he did not, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Prophet ( ) did not question the purity of his wife. If the Prophet ( )thought Aisha ( ) was 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 ( )divorced other women, and yet he remained married to Aisha ( ) to the last day. In conclusion, the Shia cannot bring up the issue of the wives of Prophet Nuh ( ) and Prophet Lut ( ) since 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 Qurans commandments. The Ahlus Sunnah trusts the opinion of Prophet Muhammad ( ;)if the Quran says to only marry the pure and the Prophet ( ) marries Aisha ( ,) 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 ( .)The Quran commands the Muslims, including the Prophet ( ,)to marry pure women; to say that Aisha ( ) was sinful is to say that either the Shia know more than the Prophet ( ( )i.e. the Shia know that Aisha is sinful but the Prophet did not), or that the Prophet ( )sinned by violating the Quran and married an impure woman. Neither option is acceptable. The only acceptable position is to say that the Prophet ( )married Aisha ( ) who was a pure woman.

Shia Dua (Saname Quraish) Curses Two of Prophets Wives

How is it that Shia missionaries can do Taqiyyah and deny that they hate the Prophets wives, when they have authentic duas which condemn Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ,) ask Allah to curse them, and to beat them. This is the depths of their hatred for the Prophetic Household, the Ummahatul Mumineen (Mothers of the Believers), and the Prophets lovers. A very famous Shia dua called Saname Quraish condemns Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar bin Khattab ( ,) as well as their two daughters: Aisha bint Abu Bakr ( ) and Hafsa bint Umar bin Khattab ( ,) the two lovely wives of the Prophet ( .)In this dua, Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) are 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 dont hate the Prophets wives. That dua 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 openand 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 trustBestow 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 ( ). The Sahabah refers to the friends of the Prophet ( .)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 (Prophets family) and the Sahabah (Prophets friends). Islam-qa.com says

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:

The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah 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 Prophets 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 wal-Jamaaah: 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 bidah (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 Prophets 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.

Aisha (

) Didnt 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 its in Sahih Bukhari, without actually showing us the entire Hadith in question. One such instance is the Hadith about Bibi Aisha ( ) teaching two men how to do Ghusl. The Shia will claim that the Sunnis believe that Bibi Aisha ( ) did Ghusl naked in front of two non-mehrem men. ShiaChat.com Moderator Aliya says

its 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, Narrated Abu Salmah: Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251:

Aishas 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 ( ) who regarded Bibi Aisha ( ) as his aunt by suckling because Aishas sister (Bibi Umm Kulthoom [ )] suckled Sayyiduna Abu Salmah ( .) And the other person was Aishas brother ( .) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) showing her brother and nephew ( ) how 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 ( ) taught her son, Sayyiduna Hasan ( ,) 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 ( ,)Bibia Aisha ( .) Allah ( ) has already warned the Muslims of spreading such slander against Bibi Aisha ( ) in the Quran and this is the famous incident of Al-Ifq in whichaccording to both Sunni and Shia sourcesAllah ( ) says about those who slander Bibi Aisha ( :) 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 http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/ifq Al-Ifk, please go to the following link:

ShiaChat.com Senior Member MOHIB E AHLAYBAIT says

Quran only cleared her of indecency in one specific case.

No, Allah ( ) condemned those people not to slander about Bibi Aisha ( ) in regards to the incident of Al-Ifk, but also about anything similar to it (i.e. the like of it)! Allah ( ) says about those who slander Bibi Aisha ( :) 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 Prophets wife ( ) of being sexually immodest. Surely, if the Shia would like to insinuate that Bibi Aisha ( ) 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 ( ) and 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) was immodest! And also notice how the Shia admit that if we could somehow malign Bibi Aisha ( ( ) in 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) was sexually immodest or the Hadith is false (in which case the Ahlus Sunnah is slandering Bibi Aisha [ .)] 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: Sahih Bukhari, Narrated Abu Salmah: Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251:

Aishas 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 ( ) left 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) 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 wasnt 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 doesnt 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 ( ) was 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 couldnt see?

When Bibi Aisha ( ) went 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 Aishas brother and nephew ( ) wanted to know how to do Ghusl. When they approached Bibi Aisha ( ) about 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 [ ] and about the nature of Sahih Bukhari) are baseless. This current slander of Bibi Aisha ( ) is similar to the way the Munafiqoon (the Hypocrites) saw Bibi Aisha ( ) and 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 ( ) teaching her brother and nephew ( ) how 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 Prophets 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 mans family as a means to hurt the man himself. The women in a mans 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 Prophets wives, warning the Muslims to respect them by not entering the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives were part of the Prophets 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 Sabathe founder of Shiismis 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 someones family down than to pit some members of that family against others? We ask Allah to send His Blessings down upon all of the Prophets wives, as well as all the 11 Imams.

Fatwa: Kufr to Slander Bibi Aisha

Question: Could you please answer my question about Sheeah (Shia) Islam? Is it permissible for one to think badly of the Prophets wife Aaishah? Answer by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid: Praise be to Allaah. The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Shareeah. The one who leaves Islaam will be asked to repent by the Shareeah 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 Aaishah for that of which Allaah has stated she is innocent is a kaafir, because he has rejected Allaahs 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 Aaishah should be killed. He was asked, Why do you say that concerning (the one who curses) Aaishah? He said, Because Allaah says concerning Aaishah, 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 Quraan, and whoever goes against the Quraan should be killed. Ibn Hazm said: This comment of Maaliks is correct, and it is complete apostasy to reject Allaahs words that clearly state her innocence. Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi said: Because the people who slandered Aaishah 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 Yalaa said: Whoever slanders Aaishah 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 Aaishah, 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 Aaishah al-Siddeeqah bint alSiddeeq, 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: Aaishahs innocence of that of which she was accused is stated definitively in the Quraan. 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 Quraan. Badr al-Deen al-Zirkashi said: Whoever slanders her is a kaafir, because the Quraan clearly states her innocence. The scholars based their ruling on the one who slanders Aaishah 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 Aaishah 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 Aaishah . . . 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 Aaishah 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 Aaishah 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 shari 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 Aaishah 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, Aaishah. 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 wal-Jamaaah fil-Sahaabah al-Kiraam by Naasir al-Shaykh, 2/781, and Itiqaad Ahl al-Sunnah fil-Sahaabah by Muhammad al-Wahaybi, p. 58). The Shia say: The verses in Soorat al-Noor apply only to the specific charges levied against Aaishah in the incident of Al-Ifk and not to any other accusations against her. Rebuttal: Allah ( ) says: 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 ( .) 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 ( )says 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 ( ,) meaning Allah ( ) has declared her to be good. Therefore, anyone who says that Aisha ( ) 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 Prophets 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 Aishasuch 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 Aisha. 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 Shia 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 ( ) never rebelled against Ali ( ) and 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 Aishas caravan and sought to blame her for that, and this tradition of slandering Aisha ( ) continues up until this day to the point that even some lay-person Sunnis erroneously start accepting the Shia version of history in which Aisha ( ) rebelled against Ali ( .) 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 ( ) as 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 Ayatollahs hatred for Aisha ( ) and 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 alKubra, 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-Jazairi [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 alRida. 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 alHadi. 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 Imams 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Shiism, 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives.

Follow-up Question:
Can you please clarify: who else is a part of the Ahlel Bayt?

Answer:
The Ahlel Bayt refers to the Prophets family. Yes, it is true that the Prophets 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 Prophets family, but that the Prophets 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 Prophets 2. The Prophets 3. The Prophets freed 4. Ahlel Kisa (People of the Cloak, i.e. Ali ibn Abi 5. The family of 6. The offspring of 7. The offspring of 8. Salman And perhaps some others we may have missed wives children slaves family) Aqil Jafar Abbas al-Farsi

Talibs

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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives after each prayer, five times a day. So how can the Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact that cursing the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Ayatollahs website: http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm (scroll down to questions 50 and 51)

 : 05 ) ( 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-Muminin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly with her name or implicitly? : ) ( ) ( ) . ( Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir al-Muminin (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.

) ( ) ( : 15 ( ) ) ( ( ( ) ( Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Duas 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? : ) ( . . 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 ones 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 mans 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 ones 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 mans glory from his virtue is greater than the glory of his pedigree. 31. No shelter is safer than piety. 32. A mans 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 tyrants 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 mans 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 ones 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 ones 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 `alaykum 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 (`Itra): `Ali, Fatima, and their Children.

This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary. In addition, it includes the zakt-forbidden Muttalibi families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and `Abbas; 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 `Arabi in his Futuhat (2:126127) 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 `iddat 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 `Itra, 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 `ankum 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 `Ali being among them... due to his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet (SAWS) and his close companionship with the Prophet (SAWS)." Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): "In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl alBayt. ... (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 Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas." Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shi`a's claim that verse 33:33 Is specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin (`ismat) 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 Ma`ani 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 `Itra or that they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas. 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] (`ankum)' because what is meant are both the men and women of his family (l) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tathran = 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 `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab alNuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima 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 `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata', al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id 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 Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada - it is also related from al-Kalbi - said that those meant are specifically `Ali, 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 `Itra]... 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 `Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] means the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and it was revealed in the house of `A'isha." Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm 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 `A'isha and, upon entering her house, said: "As-Salmu `alaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa rahmatullah." Whereupon she responded: "Wa `alayka 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 `A'isha. Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (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-Tha`alibi, 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 `Abbas: "This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)." Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur'an (p. 421 #1201) and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat alAqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur'an: "Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. l `Aqil, l `Ali, l Ja`far, and l al-`Abbas]." Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum 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 `Ali 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-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql 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 Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, 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 Prophets 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 Jamaah 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 Jamaah; 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 `Itr 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 alQurra: 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-Khoi Says Wife is Part of a Mans Ahl

Grand Ayatollah al-Khoi, 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 mans 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 ones Ahl as well as to forbid them from the evil things, so in this command, who is Ahl? And is ones wife included in this, and is this command (to convey the truth) applicable to ones wife? Answer by al-Koi: 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-Khoi, 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 mans wives! The Quran categorically addresses the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives as Ahlel Bayt, then nobodyno Ayatollah and no propagandistcould 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 Quran 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 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 should be understood that the Allamahs disclaimer that the Shia do not believe in Tahreef is as disingenuous as those who say I dont mean to be racist, but Whatever follows such a statement is always racist! Allamah Sharaf al-Din basically says: we dont believe in Tahreef but there may have been Tahreef. Utterly absurd! The Shia wish to pay lip-service to the claim that they dont 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:

:
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 prophets wives, to suit their religious needsEven 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 http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/index.html) The great Shia Mufassir, Tabatabai, writes: al-Anwar, pp.234-235,

Translation: The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of) revelation, was initially not a part of the verse about the Prophets 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, http://www.ahl-ul-bait.com/newlib/Quran/almizan/almizan16/f7-16.htm) p.321,

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

Prophets 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 Prophets wives. We have said this before and we will say it again and again: Shiism 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 Prophets 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 Imamahis 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 Jamaah 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 ( ) who are appointed by nobody except Allah ( ) alone 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 ( ) wishes 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. Maad (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 Shiism, 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 Shiism, I will quote the following tract from Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghitas book The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles (Asl ash-Shiah 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 Maad. [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 fundamentals of Islam (Usool-e-Deen), and that mans faith can never be complete without belief in it.
In similar fashion, the Shia scholar Muhammad Ridha Muzaffar states: 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 furooi (i.e. secondary) [Asl-ul-Shia wa Usuluha, p.221] Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.7; Download book here Thus, the importance of Imamah in Shiism 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 Sunnias 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

: . ) 6 (

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:

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 ( )that 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 Jamaah 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 Alis name ( ) is 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 ( ) are 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 ( )is divinely appointed as the the Messenger of Allah ( ) and that we should follow him. If there was another divinely appointed person we were supposed to follow after him, shouldnt 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 ( ) is 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 ( )and that we must follow them? We would argue that Allah ( ) should 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. Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.14; Download book here 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 (.) The Quran is complete in its guidance; Allah Almighty ( ) says: We have left nothing out of the Book. (Quran, 6:38)

In Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia believe are Alis sermons and letters, Ali ( ) says: The Quran is the Hujjat (Proof) of Allah for his servantsit is the basis of Islamand 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 Shiism in the Quran. Article Written Edited By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
Special thanks to the author of the following book Imaamah By: Abu Salih and the Quran: An Objective Perspective

By:

Owais

Muhammad

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 ( ) to 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 ( )says 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 ( ) for 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 ( ), 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 ( )? The 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 elses 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 Allahs ( )declaration: 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 ( ,) 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 ( ) explains 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 ( )expect 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 ( )did not expect people to become Hadith scientists and analyze all of these. Instead, Allah ( )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 Alis Divine Appointment ( .) As such, we do not need to find proof

for Imamah, but rather of Alis Divine Appointment ( .) Evidence for this can be seen in the Quran: Only Allah is your Wali (friend), and His Messenger, and the believersthose 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 ( ). The Quran is referring to Ali ( ) when it says the believers, those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, who humbly bow down. This is because Ali ( ) was 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 Alis 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 Alis Divine Appointment. Not a single time in the Quran is Alis name ( ) mentioned, 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 ( ). 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 ( ) when it talks about believers which is in the plural form. How can this verse refer to Ali ( ) when it is in the plural form? Yuqeemoona, yu-toona, hum, and rakioona 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 ( ) gave 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 ( ), 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 ( )is one of the Infallible Imams, since Allah ( )says 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 ( ), even though it is addressed to the Prophets wives. If the Quran uses the word Mawla, then the Shia say this is Ali ( ). The Quran calls Ibrahim ( ) ilA swohs siht taht mialc aihS eht os ,mamI na ( ) is an Imam. Even Qadiyanis can claim that Mawla means Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani. Or Hindus can claim that Imam means Rama or Kali Mata. AntiIslam 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 ( ) in 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 ( ) but that these verses were removed.

If Allah ( )thought 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 ( ) from 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 ( ). 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, well 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 ( )was worried about talking about Imamah explicitly.

Having said that, we have the name of Zaid ( ) in 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 ( ) in 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 ( ), so shouldnt he be mentioned in the Quran? The Prophet ( ) has 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 ( )would not reveal the names of the Imams; the name of the man we had to follow was mentioned explicitly (i.e. Muhammad [ ]) and 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 [ ]) has 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 ( )would 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 [ ]). Surely, if there was another divinely appointed person in the future, then that person is important enough to be named like Muhammad ( ) was. Ninety-nine different names for Allah ( )have 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 ( ) are 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 Alis name ( ) is not mentioned a single time in the Quran? If Ali ( ) and his divine appointment of Imamah are the fundamental part of faith, then where are the Quranic verses that mention Ali ( )? His name is not used a single time. If Allah ( )could mention the names of Zaid ( ), Muhammad ( ), Moses, Haroon ( ,)and such, then why didnt Allah Almighty ( )also mention the name of Ali ( )? 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 ( ,)deserves an F for failing to mention the crux of faith in a book which Allah ( )Himself declares to be a complete guide for humanity?
Shia Response #6

The Quran says follow the Prophet. There are Hadith from the Prophet ( ) that prove the

doctrine of Imamah and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet (.)

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 wont 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 ( )is 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 Allahs ( )intention 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 ( )has 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 ( )promises that He will keep the Quran safe. To argue that Allah ( )did not reveal the entire message in the Quran for fear of tampering is actually attributing Taqiyyah (lying to save ones religion) to Allah Himself ( ,)which is pure blasphemy. Allah

Almighty ( )declares: We have left nothing out in the Book. (Quran, 6:38) Did Allah Almighty ( )say We have left some stuff out of the Book because We are scared someone might change it?

Allah Almighty ( )has 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 ( )has promised that this wont be the case, this is either accusing Allah ( )of lying or of questioning Allahs ( ) 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 ( )couldnt 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 ( )possibly have to not include this precious information in the Quran but instead put it in Hadith? Furthermore, why was Allah ( )only 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 ( )shouldnt reveal verses against idolatry since the Munafiqoon might tamper with the Quran then. We could pretty much say anything and argue that Allah didnt 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 ( )promises that He will protect and safe-guard the integrity of the Quran. Allah Almighty ( )has 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 wasnt 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 ones faith by finding errors in someone elses 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 Jamaah. 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) was done through Shura of those people present at Saqifah. Someone could argue that Abu Bakr ( ) was 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 Shiism, whereas election or selection of Caliphate is just a routine and common socio-political practise. Its 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) doesnt 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 ( ,)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 ( ) was 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 ( ) and 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 ( )wants 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 ( )that what is a test and what is not a test? The prophethood of Muhammad ( ) was also a test but there are many verses in the Quran that directly tell people that Muhammad ( ) is a prophet. A test is different from a puzzle. Allah ( )says 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 ( )is 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 ( )makes 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 ( )is 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 ( )hasnt revealed to us? Allah ( ) makes it clear in the Quran that we need to believe in Him and His Prophet ( ) and to do good things and the test is whether we obey these commands. Allah ( )does 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 ( .)

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 ( ) about 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 Shiism 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 (aimmah) 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

Allah says in the Quran: 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 Allahs 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 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). 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 Allahs 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 sons 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 ( ) to 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 Mumin (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 ( ) who 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 ( ) simply states that Allahs 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 Ayatullahs 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 () was 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 ( ,) 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 ( ,) 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 kufrthen 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 ( ) is 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 doesnt 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 IIII 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, whichaccording to the Shiaare 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), Nabatukuma (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

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 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

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 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) Allahs covenants with the Nabis

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

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

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 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

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

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 anothers load, We never punish until we have sent a messenger. (Quran 17:15) Peoples rejecting Messengers 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

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

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)

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 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

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)

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

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

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

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

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 By: Sidi Abu Salih and the Quran: An Objective Perspective

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.

Verses 11:17 and 46:12

In Arabic, the word imam means a thing which is followed or a guide. This guide 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 verses 11:17 and 46:12, the word imam is used to refer to the book of Musa which is followed by the believers. Allah says in the Quran: Quran, 11:17: And before it was the book (imam) of Musa, a guide and a mercy 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. The unbiased observor is forced to come to the conclusion that these two verses refer a book that is a guide, not to a person that is a guide. There is no possible way that the Shia could claim otherwise, since their own Tafseer confirms this fact.

Ahlus Sunnah Tafseer of Verses 11:17 and 46:12

With respect to the first Ayah (11:17), Ibn Kathirs position with respect to the usage of the word imam is: This means that Allah, the Exalted, revealed the book of Musa to that Ummah as a leader for them and a guide for them to follow, as a mercy from Allah upon them. Therefore, whoever believed in it with true faith, then it would lead him to believe in the Quran as well. (Ibn Kathir) The Tafseers of Tabari and al-Qurtubi give a similar viewpoint, that the imam being referred to in here is the Tawrah that was revealed to Moses, as it was a Guide for the Banu Israel. With respect to the use of the word imam in Verse 46:12, at-Tabari in his Tafseer again puts forward the meaning by which the book of Musa is the guide for the Bani Israel. In the Al-Qurtubi Tafseer, virtually the same viewpoint is shown, although the additional point is made that it refers to only a part of the Tawrah, since there has been human manipulation of the original revelation.

Shia Tafseer of Verses 11:17 and 46:12

The most well-known English Tafseer of the Shia would have to be the Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary, available on Al-Islam.org. In regards to Verse 46:12, this commentary declares: The last revealed book which was a code of life (shari-ah) was the book of Musa, Tawrat; the Quran confirms the law of Musa in Arabic language. (Source: Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/)

In regards to Verse 11:17, the same Shia Tafseer refers to this as the book of Musa: The same testimony was borne by the book of Musa before. (Source: Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/) This position is held by all the major and classical Shia Tafseer. In Majma ul Bayan, Allamah Tabarsi presents the word imam in verses 11:17 and 46:12 to refer to the book of Musa being followed in the matters of religion. (Tafseer Majma ul Bayan, Volume 5, p.255) Allamah Tusi confirms this in Tafseer Tibbyan. (Tafseer Majma ul Bayan, Volume 9, p.143; Tafseer Tibbyan, Volume 9, p. 274)

Common Sense

Common sense and logic dictate that these two verses refer to the same thing as each other, and that this thing is an object, namely the book of Musa. The comparison is clearly made between some holy book in the past with the Quran. The Quran is the confirming book of that previous book which is referred to as imam since it is a guide. If any Shia youth arguing over the internet attempt to use this verse to prove the doctrine of the Infallible Imamah, it only underscores the absence of this concept from the Quran and the subsequent desperation of the Shia who is forced to play around with various verses of the Quran to prove himself, using these verses in ways that none of his own Ayatollahs and Imams ever did.

Verse 15:79

In Arabic, the word imam 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 verse 15:79, the word imam is used to refer to a road which is followed. Allah says in the Quran:

Quran, 15:79: So we took vengeance on them; And verily, the two (cities) are on a Clear Road (Imaamin Mubin). It is rather self-evident that the word imam here means a road or highway in the context that it is used. The word is used to denote an inanimate object that is followed and not a human; there is no way a person could say that this verse refers to a divinely appointed human. No scholar, neither from the Ahlus Sunnah nor the Shia, has ever claimed that this verse refers to a person. A brief look at the Tafseer of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia will reveal this fact.

Ahlus Sunnah Tafseer of Verse 15:79

In the Al-Qurtubi Tafseer, the only view put forward is that the Imaamin Mubin refers to a road that is clear in and of itself, the road being in the way of the Cities of Lut () and the People of Aikah (i.e. the people to whom Shuaib [ ] was sent). The Tafseer mentions that it serves as a reminder and warning to all those who pass through it. Ibn Kathir gives a similar view, quoting (among others) Ibn Abbas. According to Ibn Kathir, this is the reason why Shuaib ( ) when warning his people, said: nor are the people of Lut ( ) far off from you! (Quran 11:89). We again see a similar opinion from Tafseer at-Tabari, and other Tafseer echo the same general line of thinking with respect to the meaning of this verse.

Shia Tafseer of Verse 15:79

A look into the Shia Tafseers will show that Shia commentators also did not view verse 15:79 as a proof for Imamah. For example, in the Tafseer Al-Safi, Allamah Kashani says that the Imaamin Mubin refers to a Clear Road that is followed and leads (i.e. leads the people during their journeys). (Tafseer Al-Safi, Volume 3, p.119) Similarly, in Majma-ul-Bayan, a number of views are presented. The first two views are similar to the view expressed by Qurtubi, that the Cities of Lut ( ) and the Aikah were on a clear road that was followed by the people (and that this is why it was named as imam). In addition to this, another possibility is presented, namely that their cities (or the stories surrounding those cities) has been preserved in the LauhulMahfudh, the Great Book in which Allah has recorded all happenings of the World until the Day of Judgement. As a similar example, Verse 36:12 is presented, where Allah says: and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence). (Tafseer Majma ul Bayan, Volume 6, p. 127) Also, the Al-Mizan commentary by Allamah Tabatabai gives a similar assessment with respect to the meaning of the word imam in this particular case, saying that the imam refers to a clear path or road on which the peoples of Lut ( ) and Shuaib ( ) used to reside. (Tafseer Al Mizan, Volume 12, p. 185) Thus, with respect to verse 15:79, it can be concluded that the term Imaamin Mubin does not advance the Shia concept of Imamah in the least, as can be deduced from going through the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia commentaries with respect to this Verse.

Common Sense

Common sense itself demands that verse 15:79 refers to a road and not a human being. In this verse, Allah says that the two cities lie on it; do we mean to say that there are two cities which both reside on top of a divinely appointed human being? Does this even make logical sense? Surely it does not, and such an interpretation would render the Quran meaningless. The only proper translation of this verse would be that the two cities lie on a clear road. Indeed, it could only be Shia youth and lay-persons arguing over the internet that could ever advance such a preposterous idea that this verse refers to the Infallible Imamah.

Verses 36:12 and 17:71-72

Verse 36:12

In verse 36:12, the word imam is used to refer to Lauhul Mahfudh, the Preserved Tablet in which all deeds are recorded. Allah says: 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 (Ahssa) in a clear book (imam).

Ahlus Sunnah Tafseer of Verse 36:12

The critical phrase in here is Imaamin Mubin. Sunni Tafseers in general say that it refers to the Lauhul Mahfudh, the Preserved Tablet in which all deeds have been written. This is the view of at-Tabari in his Tafseer, as well as in the Tafseer of Al-Qurtubi.

Shia Tafseer of Verse 36:12

The top Shia commentaries of Majma ul Bayan by Allamah Tabbarsi and Tibbyan by Shaykh Tusi also echo this view, and do not present any human Imam as a possibility in this case. In Tafseer Al-Mizan, Allamah Tabatabai mentions this as the best possible meaning for this phrase. In addition, Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi in his commentary mentions the Preserved Tablet as his view of what Imaamin Mubin refers to in this verse. (Tafseer Tibbyan, Volume 8, p.447-448; Tafseer Al Mizan, Volume 17, p.66-68; Naser Makarem Shirazi Commentary, Volume 5, p.271-272)

Recording, Ahssa in the Quran

One of the words of interest is ahssa or recording, which is used in verse 36:12. It is important to see the instances in which this word is used, since it will shed light on how the Quran uses it in other circumstances. Indeed, every other time the word ahssa is used in the Quran, it is used to refer to writing in a book. Allah says: Everything have We recorded (ahssa) in a book. (Quran 78:29) The usage of the root word ahssa signifies writing and recording of matters, not on people or angels, but on tablets and books. Attempting to establish a connection between this term and Ali (or any other human being) is incorrect. The word ahssa is not used in the Quran even once to refer to writing on people, so it is very strange how it can suddenly refer to writing on an Infallible Imam.

Clear Book, Kitaabun Mubin in the Quran

Another topic that should be looked into is how the Quran addresses the fact that Allah has recorded everything. Is it in a person or a book? The following Quranic verses presented below give overwhelming weight to the argument that Allah always equates the recording of everything with a book. And with Him are the keys of the Invisible. None but He knows them. And He knows what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falls but He knows it, not a grain amid the darkness of the earth, naught of wet or dry but (it is noted) in a clear record (kitaabun mubin). (Quran 6:59) And not an atoms weight in the earth or in the sky escapes your Lord, nor what is less than that or greater than that, but it is (written) in a clear book (kitaabun mubin). (Quran 10:61) And there is not a beast in the earth but the sustenance thereof depends on Allah. He knows its habitation and its repository. All is in a clear record (kitaabun mubin). (Quran 11:6) And there is nothing hidden in the heaven or the earth but it is in a clear record (kitaabun mubin). (Quran 27:75) Those who disbelieve say: The Hour will never come unto us. Say: Nay, by my Lord, but it is coming unto you surely. (He is) the Knower of the Unseen. Not an atoms weight, or less than that or greater, escapes Him in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a clear record (kitaabun mubin). (Quran 34:3) The explicit phrase kitaabun mubin (clear book) has been used on a number of occasions in the Quran. Its purpose is to describe the recording of all details in a book, which all sides agree is the Lauhul Mahfudh. Therefore, it is difficult for the objective person to see how this general form of address would change suddenly for the verse under consideration (verse 36:12), especially since there is no further indication or hint in the verse that would lead the reader to believe that it refers to an Infallible Imam. Any unbiased observor would be forced to say that there is a general concept in Islam that Allah records all deeds in a book or record. This is a recurring theme in the Quran and it is obvious that verse 36:12 is talking about this same concept. It is indicative of the Shias weak position that they are forced to distort seemingly straight-forward verses in order to validate their beliefs.

Common Sense: How are things written on people?

It is also important to note the differences between the ways a thing is written in a book, and the way it would be stored in someones knowledge. It was already seen which words are used to describe the writing of something into a book or a record. In the case of giving knowledge to a human being, the case is entirely different. We have the example of Prophet Muhammad ( ) and the revelations and knowledge that came to him. Allah in these cases uses altogether different words, such as Nuheeh (inspired) or Nazal (revealed). The Quran states: This is of the tidings of the Unseen which We inspire in you (Muhammad). (Quran 11:49) And lo! it is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds, Which the True Spirit has brought down Upon your heart, that you may be (one) of the warners. (Quran 26:192-194) Numerous other examples, both in relation with Prophets as well as with other humans can be found in the Quran. In all these cases, the word Nuheeh (inspired) is used to describe how Allah sends knowledge to them, while Tanzil signifies a special revelation of a divine book, such as the Quran to Muhammad (

 .) If the real meaning of verse 36:12 was to show that Ali ( ) was the one in whom Allah had stored all knowledge, the more appropriate manner to mention it would be to say that such things had been inspired into his heart. Again, the structure of verse 36:12 does not conform to the established cases where Allah reveals and inspires things to His servants.

Conclusion for Verse 36:12

To sum up the discussion with respect to verse 36:12, the assertion by some Shia that the imam in this case refers to Ali ( ) is incorrect due to the following reasons: 1. It is clear that Sunni commentaries and most Shia commentaries have concluded that the Imaamin Mubin refers to the Preserved Tablet (the Lauhul Mahfudh) or to the individual record of every persons deeds. 2. The other instances of the word ahssa and the phrase kitaabun mubin all refer to writing and recording things in a physical book or register, not on a person. This is the general theme in the Quran and it is a stretch to suddenly switch this meaning. 3. The manner in which a person is given knowledge is quite different from the manner in which things are recorded in a book. Things are certainly not written on people nor are they recorded in people.

Verse 17:71-71

The word imam is used in the same manner in verse 17:71-72. It is used to refer to a persons book of deeds. Allah says: 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.

Ahlus Sunnah Tafseer of Verse 17:71-72

The Tafseer of Al-Qurtubi states that the word imam is used to refer to a book which contains every persons deeds. The Ibn Kathir commentary takes this viewpoint, as well as the Tafseer At-Tabari.

Shia Tafseer of Verse 17:71-72

Considering the passionate zeal with which many Shia lay-persons advance verse 17:71 as referring exclusively to the Infallible Imams, it is interesting to note that none of the major Shia commentaries took this to be the only possible interpretation. Indeed, there are prominent Shia commentaries that have listed some of the same views expressed by the Sunni commentators without criticizing such positions. For example, in the Tibbyan Tafseer by Tusi, it is explicitly mentioned that the scholars have differed on the meaning of imam in this verse. Tusi goes on to say that some took it as meaning the Prophet the people followed, others as the book of records, the book that was revealed unto the nation, the deities they worshipped, or the people they took as their leaders. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also gives the same possibilities, and adds that imam may also mean their mothers.

Good Imams and Bad Imams

Both the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia believe that a person will be raised on the Day of Judgment with the same people whom they loved and followed. The pious people will be raised up with Prophet Muhammad ( ) and the Muminoon. Meanwhile, the evil people will be raised up with the likes of Yezid and Firaon. The Shia believe that the evil Sunnis (i.e. Nasibis) will be raised up with the likes of Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) and Uthman ( .) These are the imams that the Nasibi Sunnis will be raised up with, and the Shia say that these evil imams are mentioned in the following two verses of the Quran: Quran, 9:12: Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr. Quran, 28:41: And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire. Thus, one of the opinions amongst the Shia commentaries is that the word imam in verse 17:71 actually does refer to a person. The Shia scholars say that the pious people will be raised up with a good imam whereas the evil will be raised up with an evil imam. The Shia commentaries made the distinction between a rightful imam by which the good servants of Allah will be called, and the evil imams (leaders) by which the sinners will be called. This can be seen from commentaries such as al-Mizan, where Allamah Tabatabai valiantly endeavors to show that the imam can only mean a human leader. Nonetheless, even he accepts that everyone will not be called by the Infallible Imam, and that the evil people will be called by their own leaders.

Common Sense

We have seen that Tafseer of verse 17:71 confirms that the word imam is in reference to a book. The truth is that even intuitive sense dictates this. The entire rest of verse 17:71, including the next verse (17:72), is talking about a book. Let us read the verses by creating a blank where the word imam appears: Quran, 17:71-72: One day We shall call together all human beings with their respective _________: 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. If we asked an unbiased observor to fill in the blank above with either Infallible Imam or Book of Deeds, which of the two would he pick? Which would make more sense intuitively speaking? Of course, the unbiased observor would pick Book of Deeds since this conforms with the rest of the sentence in which Allah is talking about a record given in the right hand which will be read. Surely an Infallible Imam will not be read, since we cannot read people. Al-Qurtubi points out that the phrase those who are given their record in their right hand will read it that comes immediately after the word imaamihim in effect strengthens the position of those who maintain that the imam in this verse refers to the Book of Deeds. In addition, the use of the word imam in verse 36:12 to refer to the Preserved Tablet further solidifies the arguments by this group. We were forced to conclude that verse 36:12 refers to a book, so we should also deal with verse 17:71 in a consistent manner.

Conclusion of Verse 17:71-72

It can be seen that there is no consensus among the Shia Tafseers as to the term imam signifying Infallibles only, or that this is the only meaning that can be given to the word imam. The classical Shia scholars and Tafseer have said that there are a variety of things that the word imam can mean, and it seems that the strongest of these opinions is that the word imam refers to a book. Hence, this verse cannot be used to answer The Quran Challenge; this verse cannot be used to prove that the Shia doctrine of Imamah exists in the Quran. How can the Shia convince the Ahlus Sunnah that this verse refers to Infallible Imams when there are

even Shia scholars and Tafseer of their own which do not agree with them and who say that the word imam means something else other than a human being? Not even the Shia Ulema are in a consensus as to the meaning of the word, so how can the Shia throw this verse in the face of the Ahlus Sunnah? And even the Shia scholars and Tafseer which state that the word imam refers to a human being say that this verse means that the good people will be raised with good imams and the evil people with evil imams. This is an admission that the word imam refers to the general term leader and does not denote a specific rank or a distinct position like Prophethood, since evil imams are not said to be divinely appointed. So even if the Ahlus Sunnah lets the Shia get away with saying that verse 17:71 refers to a human being, then we say that this does not prove Infallible Imamah since it refers to leaders in general and not specifically twelve Infallible Imams. Those of the Ahlus Sunnah look forward to being raised with their noble leaders such as Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) Uthman ( ,) and Ali ( .) Both verse 36:12 and 17:71 refer to the same thing and use the word imam in a similar manner, namely to reference a book. Indeed, anyone who has to use these two verses to prove his doctrine is obviously in a very desperate situation, and the very fact that he does such a thing is indicative of the weakeness of his position. This article was excerpted, with minor editions, from Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, authored by Abu Salih. This book is endorsed by the Ahlel Bayt website and can be downloaded here.

Shiism 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 ( ). They argue that Prophet Muhammad ( ) is 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.alislam.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 islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/8.html vs. Prophethood, Part 1, http://www.al-

In the book Peshawar Nights, the Shia scholar, Sultanul-Waizin Shirazi, says: Since the holy prophet was superior to all other prophets Ali was also superior to them. (Peshawar Nights, http://www.alislam.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 Shias 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 Shiite 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.5253) 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 prophetsthey are more knowledgeable than the prophetsthis 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 entrustedThat 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 entitledThe 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. Shiism 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 Shiism is monumental; the Shia believe in false prophets after Prophet Muhammad ( ) and thus there should no confusion that Shiism is Kufr. The difference between Sunni Islam and Shiism 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 ( ), 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 ( ), 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 Shiism 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 ( ) is the final Prophet. Anyone who believes in a Prophet after Muhammad ( ) is 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 ( ) died, 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 ( ) as 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 Caliphas 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 ( ), 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 ( ), 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 Shiah believe that the Imamate constitutes an extension of prophethood in its spiritual dimension. (Lesson Number 24: http://alislam.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 ( ) is 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: 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) What is the point of declaring Muhammad ( ) as the Last of the Prophets if there are people superior to Prophets that will come later? Why didnt 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 ( ), 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 Mullahism. 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 Shiism 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 Shiism is part of Islam

that it is just as one of the other four Madhabs which constitute the Ahlus Sunnah. Shiism 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 Shiism any closer to Islam than the religious and Islamic calls and slogans of religions such as Qadianism.

Like Qadianism, Shiism too believes in the extension and perpetuation of Nubuwwat (Prophethood) after Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). Although both religions (Qadianis and Shiism) 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. Shii religious literature abundantly clarifies the fact that Shias believe in the continuation of Nubuwwat after Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). The only cover presented by Shiism 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 Shii religion there is absolutely no difference between a Nabi or a Shii Imaam. In fact, Shiism 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 Shii religion. The Shii book, The faith of Shia Islam states, We believe that Imaamat is one of the fundamentals of Islam and that mans 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 formers necessity is the same that which prove the latters. 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 Shii Imaams) position in regard to Islam is the same as the prophets, and the reasoning which necessitates their infallibility is the same as that which necessitates the Prophets 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 Shiism 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

Shias 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 Shias. One who studies the religious literature of the Shias will not fail to understand that on only this one basis of Imaamat, the Shias 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 Shiah religion, belief in Imaamat is Fardh just as Fardh as it is to believe in Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). According to Shiism, one who denies any of the Shii Imaams one who does not accept any of the Shii Imaams is a Kaafir. Propounding this view, the Shii 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 Shiism categorically indicates that the Shii religion regards its Imaams as Ambiyaa. All those who do not subscribe to the Shiah doctrine of Imaamat are branded as Kaafirs by the Shiah religion. This is an indisputable fact in terms of Shiah theological writings. It is entirely another matter for Khomeini and the present Shia clergy to ostensibly claim that they regard Sunnis as Muslims. Such devious statements are based on the Shiah 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 persons Kalimah since it is implicit in the Kalimah that we mean to say that the Prophet ( ) 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 Allahs Attributes to Prophet Isa ( .) Prophet Isa ( ) himself would preach Tawheed, and yet his astray followers started attributing Prophet Isa ( ) to God! The Quran clearly says what the fate of such people will be: on the Day of Judgement, Prophet Isa ( ) himself will testify against these so-called followers. It should be noted that the story of Prophet Isa ( ) is 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 dont 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 Shiism, 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 Jafar 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 Shiite 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) Masoom (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 Masoom infallible from committing any disobedience, any mistake, and any forgetfulness, even an overcoming sleep such that they may the prayer timeWe 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 Shirazis 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 ( .) We cannot fathom how the Shia factor in the story of Adam ( .) Allah Almighty forbade Prophet Adam ( ) from going near a tree in Paradise. But Shaytan convinced Prophet Adam ( ) to 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 ( ) also 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 ( ) commited 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 ( )was 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 didnt 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 ( )decided 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 ( )in 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 ( )will reject those who dare elevate his status to that which is not befitting of a man. The Prophet ( )repeatedly told his followers that he is just a man and no more. Indeed, the Prophets 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 (kabaair) but not from minor sins (saghaair) 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, Tabieen 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 (Shiah), who say that they are infallible and protected even against forgetfulness and misunderstanding (Source: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4) Prophets as Role Models
Shia says

Islam-QA,

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: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4) Islam-QA,

In fact, the believers can imitate the Prophets in the manner in which they repent and seek Allahs Help. For example, the example of Prophet Adam ( ) touching 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 ( ) did. 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 ( )would never make a mistake when he was reciting the Quran. Angel Jibrael ( ) instructed the Prophet ( )to read to which the Prophet ( ) responded 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 ( ) would convey it correctly. The Prophet ( ) was 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 ( )conveys 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 ( ) is 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 ( )could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. On the other hand, it is not impossible for the Prophet ( ) to 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 Prophets ability to convey the Message. Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid declared: With regard to worldly matterswith 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: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7208&dgn=3) Islam-QA,

In a Hadith narrated by Muslim: The Prophet ( )came 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 ( )made 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-Daaimah, http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4) 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 3/194,

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 Shiism. Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/ Reference: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42216&dgn=4 Islam-QA,

Imamah and Shirk

Introduction

The major difference between the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah 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 ( o taht naht rehgih level a ot ( f 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, wouldnt 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, Gods 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 ( ) who 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-Ridayet another of the Shia Imamswas 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 forbearanceThe 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, AlKafi, 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 itWe are the administrators of Gods affair, the treasures of His knowledge, and the repository of His revealed mysteriesGods 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 Gods 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 (

The Shia indirectly slander Ali ( ) by attributing fallacious statements to him. If we were to believe these reports, then we would be forced to see Ali ( ) as having Khibr (arrogance). Hence, the Ahlus Sunnah categorically rejects these statements as fabrications. Ali ( ) is 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 mens 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 Gods gifts to me, so may praise be given to Him alone. (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )

The Shia originate from the Sabaites, followers of Abdullah ibn Saba. They praised Ali () excessively and eventually exalted his status to equal to the Prophet ( .) Today, the Shia deny that they originate from the Sabaites, yet the statements about Ali ( ) seem to verify the link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the Shia. Let us examine a statement attributed to Ali ( ) by the Shia, in which Ali ( ) is said to be equal in knowledge to the Prophet ( ;) according to the Shia, 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/ ) Not even the Prophet ( ) knew 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 ( ) knew all of the future, for it is denying this verse in the Quran in which the Prophet ( ) himself denies this ability. Imagine the reaction of the Shia if the Ahlus Sunnah declared that Umar bin Khattab ( ) was equal in knowledge to the Prophet ( !) According to the Shia, Ali ( ) said:

He [Allah] opened up for me channels of knowledge permitting me to know when every death occurs, when disasters descend, what are mens 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 Gods gifts to me (Source: http://alislam.org/leadership/ ) 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 persons 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 Creatornamely 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, AlKafi, 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 AlKafi, 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 ( ) knew 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 everyones time of death is decided by Allah and Allah alone:

And no soul can die except by Allahs 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 Judgmentonly 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 ( ) said 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) 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. (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 indirectlyand 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 Gods aid and support and thereby gain access to knowledge they need. (Source: http://alislam.org/leadership/ ) So the Imams are believed to be able to see Al-Ghaib , even though the Quran clearly says: None knows Allahs 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 ( ) or 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 ( ) since 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:

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)

Al-Kafi

Let us examine what the Imams say in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four books of Shia Hadith:

:
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:

() ) ( ( *)
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 AlGhaib (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 Gods 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 ( ,) 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 (.) The Prophet ( ) repeatedly 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) 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) 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 ( ) only 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 () 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 Allahs 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 ( ,) 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 Prophets 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 ( ) did 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. Allahs 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. Allah says in the Quran: 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 ( ) would appoint certain people to learn the languages of foreign nations so that they could be ambassadors to that nation; the Prophet () himself did not know any other language other than Arabic, and even in Arabic he was illiterate.

7. No one compiled the Quran 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 [] as opposed to that of Prophet Muhammad [)?]

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 Shiite 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 ( ) seized 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 Shiism 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 nameAyatollah Ruhallah Khomeiniis 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 mans 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 Imams 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 ( ) has no right to the Caliphate because he was not related to the Prophet ( ) and was not part of the Ahlel Bayt; they say that Ali ( ) must be Caliph because he was related to the Prophet ( .) Likewise, they scorn Muawiyyah ( ) because 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 (.) The Shia adamantly believe that the leadership of the Muslims cannot go outside one lineage, namely that of the Prophet ( .) 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 persons 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 anotherAnd 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 ( ) declared 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 Prophets Last Sermon as in Baihiqi) The Prophet ( ) said: 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 ( ) said 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 ( ) of being a hypocrite; after all, how could the Prophet ( ) praise 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 ( ) was a slave, born to a slave woman, and today he is remembered as one of the noblest of Sahabahdespite 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 ( ,) 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 ( ,) in which his own progeny died as a Kaffir? And what of Prophet Ibrahim ( ) whose own father was a Kaffir? Another interesting observation is that if Allah really wanted to exalt the lineage of Muhammad ( ) in such a manner as the Shia do, then why was Ali ( ) not the son of Muhammad ( ?)

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 ( ) was related to the Prophet ( ) and it does not boost his nomination to Caliphate over that of Abu Bakr ( .) The fact that Abu Bakr ( ) is not related to the Prophet

( ) cannot possibly even be mentioned as a criterion for his rejection as Caliph. The birthright of Ali ( ) or Abu Bakr ( ) cannot 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 persons 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) is vested in the Imam, who is appointed, like the Prophet ( ) himself, 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 [)] 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 [ )] left 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 ( ,) who was in turn succeeded by his brother Hussain (.) When Hussain ( ) 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 Hussains 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 alHadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi, they looked upon his son Hasan al-Askari as their newand 11thImam.

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 Shiism 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 ( .) 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 Hasans 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 Shiism. 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. Shiism 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 Shiism was never the predominant sect of Shiism 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 Shiism because he wanted to oppose the dominant Ottoman Empire which was Sunni. So Ismail I made Ithna Ashari Shiism the official state religion and forced the entire Persian population to convert to Shiism 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 cant 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 ( .) There is nobody after him, and anyone who claims this is a Dajjal. The last Prophet was Muhammad ( ) 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 empirea 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 selfappointed 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-Askaris own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan alAskaris 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-Askaris brother) as al-Kadhab (the Liar). Moojan Momen writes in An Introduction to Shii 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-girls 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 oneaside

from Uthman ibn Said and his cliqueknew 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-Tusis 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 Saids 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-Tusis 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 asSamarri. 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 Imams 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 wouldnt 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 Bakrs election, and say that only Allah can decide the leadership of the Ummah. The Shia further argueand this they do emphaticallythat 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, didnt 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 Shiism 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 Shiism 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 scholarsbut 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 ones 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 doesnt 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 Shiism 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 couldnt 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 mattersof 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 himand there should be someone who teaches those who dont 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 propertiesand 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 Prophets 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 dont 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 dont really need good cover-ups to be convinced. Any explanation will do, even the school child response of Im 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 Shiism; 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, couldnt it be asked why the other eleven Imams didnt 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

- : : : : - Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad from al-Hassan ibn Muawiya 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 Mahdis 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 ( ) and that electing Abu Bakr ( ) or any other person cannot be just of Allah, then shouldnt that logic continue to hold true? Dont 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? Wouldnt it make more sense then for the first Imam to have simply gone into occultation? Why didnt Ali ( ) go into occultation? Or for that matter, why not the Prophet ( ?) Surely, Ali ( ) would 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 didnt 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 representatives 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 doesnt Prophet Muhammad ( ) communicate 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 dont 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 ( .) The Sunnis believe that near the end of time, Prophet Isa ( ) will return. So couldnt we argue that the death of Prophet Muhammad ( ) was a test for the believers to see who was strong in the absence of a divine leader, until Prophet Isa ( ) returns? And in the meantime, the Muslims could select their own leader, such as Abu Bakr (?) 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 Mahdis 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 doesnt 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).

Lets Say That I Wanted to Convert to Shiism

Lets pretend that I became convinced that we need to follow Infallible Imams and I wanted to convert to Shiism. Now, as a potential convert to Shiism, every sect of Shiism is telling me that I must follow their set of Infallible Imams. There are at least 70 different sects of Shiism, 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 wouldnt that be important stuff to put in a book of guidance? The Quran clearly said to follow Muhammad ( ) who is the messenger of Allah, and yet I cant find a single verse about following any of these Imams, let alone with their names mentioned. So now Im 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. Im 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 cant simply follow the Ithna Ashari sect because it is the largest, namely because it wasnt always so. If you are part of the Ithna Ashari Imami Usooli sect, Im betting you were probably just born that way. Had Shah Ismail I converted to a different sect of Shiism and followed another set of Imams, then youd 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 Shiism, 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 sects 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 ( ,) 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 not fade away unless a person from us appears who will rule according to the rule of the family of David
Muhammad ibn Yahya-Ahmad ibn Muhammad-Muhammad ibn Sinaan-Abaan who reported:

I asked Abu Abdullah [as] : On what will you 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.
AhmadAhmad ibn MuhammadIbn MahboobHisham ibn SalimAmmar as Saabati who reported:

I asked him by 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.
Muhammad ibn AhmadMuhammad ibn KhalidNazr ibn SuwaidYahya al HalabiImran ibn OueiynJaeed al HamdaniAli ibn al-Hussein [as] said:

I asked Imam Abu Abdullah [as]: By what will you rule? He replied: By the rule of God, and by the rule of David.
Ahmad ibn Mahran[ra]Muhammad ibn AliIbn MahboobHishaam bin SalimAmmar as Saabati reported:

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 Mahdi calls out, he will supplicate to God in Hebrew. [Al-Ghaybaa of an Numani, p.326]
Ali ibnu Yusuf, from Sadaan ibnu Muslim, from rajaal, from al-Mufadhaal ibn Umar who said:

Jewish Followers

According to the Shia, the Jews will also be the followers of Imam Mahdi: There will appear along with Imam Mahdipeople from the tribe of Moses. [Al-Irshaad of al-mufeed at Tusi p.402]
Sheikh al-Mufeed has reported in his Al-Irshaad from al=Mufadhaal ibnu Umar that Imam Abu Abdullah [as] has reported:

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 Shias 12th Imam is actually the Jewish Dajjal that the Prophet ( ) warned 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 ( ) told 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? The Prophet ( ) said: To every Ummah there is a magian and the magian of this ummah are those who reject the Qadr [predestination]. If anyone amongst them dies, do not attend their funeral, and if anyone amongst them becomes sick dont 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 ( ) has 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. Shouldnt 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 ( ) has 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 Shiism was the Jewish Abdullah ibn Saba and the so-called savior of the Shia will be the Jewish Dajjal. Of course, we dont 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 `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim. Shaykh 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. al-Albaanee

Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying?

Subject: Was From: John Date: Thu, To: admin@ahlelbayt.com Asalaamu Alaykum brothers,

Ali May

Lying? ******* 10,

Was < 2007

Husayn Lying? *****@madinah.cc> 11:23 pm

I do not particularly consider myself either Shii 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 Shii Thought) People selfishly took away our rightGod 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 Quran, and the Truth and the Quran are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come upon me at Kawthar doesnt that make Alis claims to Imamate to be true? Just thoughts that have me worried, Thank Wa John you very much, salaam,

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 ( .) The Christians could challenge us by asking us: Was Jesus ( ) lying 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 ( ) never 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 ( ,) Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( ) did seek the office of the Caliphate, but so too did many other Muslims. For example, Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) sought 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 ( ) did 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 ( ) and Hussain ( ) 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 ( ) and distribute them amongst the Shia living in far off places. All of this went on underground without the knowledge of Ali ( ) himself; in fact, when Ali ( ) did find out, he burned many Sabaites to the stake! And this factthat Ali ( ) burned extremists within his own ranksis 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 ( ) and 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 notin essenceblow 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 Bushs 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 isnt 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 Shiism; Zurarah claimed to be the Wakeel of Imam Jafar asSadiq ( ) and he collected Khums money in the name of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( .) And yet, we find that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ) publically 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 ( ,) the Imami Shia claim that Imam Jafar ( ) was simply acting under Taqiyyah! These Shia claimed that the public condemnation and cursing of Zurarah was just some act designed to save Zurarahs 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 Shia Islam, by Dr. S.H.M. Jafri, p.306) So we see that Imam Jafar ( ) denounced 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 (

 ) claiming that Ali ( ) was opposed to Caliph Uthman bin Affan ( .) And these forged letters were the reason that many people assassinated Uthman ( ) because they thought that these were the orders of Ali ( ) himself, 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-Sadiqs 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 alKhattabbut (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 Imams 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 ( ) married his daughter off to Umar ibn al-Khattab ( .) 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 Mamoon appointed Imam Ar-Ridha ( ) as 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 ( .) 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 Mamoon give the Caliphate to Imam Ar-Ridha ( ) but 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 Shii Thought) People selfishly took away our rightGod 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 Prophets 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 ( ,) claimed that their right to authority was taken away by the Quraish; but does anyone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) or the rest of the Ansars were claiming to be Infallible Imams divinely appointed by Allah Himself? Surely not! Yes, at first Hussain ( ) held the erroneous view that the Caliphate should remain within the Prophets 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) was an Imami Shia who believed in the divine Imamah of Ali ( ( ?) In fact, the Shia not only reject the idea that Abu Sufyan ( ) was 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 ( ) was 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 ( .)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 ( ) believed that he was more fit to rule the Muslims due to the fact that he was the Prophets 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 Hashimincluding 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 ( )had chosen the Umayyads for he had married from amongst them. These arguments were based on politicaland not religiousrivalries between the two clans.

3. Further, with the Hadith (judged Sahih in Tirmidhi) that says Ali is with the Truth (haqq) and the Quran, and the Truth and the Quran are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come upon me at Kawthar doesnt that make Alis claims to Imamate to be true? Answer: There is no doubt in the minds of the Ahlus Sunnah that Ali ( ) was 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 ( ) never claimed to be divinely appointed by Allah at all. Yes, Ali ( ) did contest the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ) and Uthman ( ,) but this was merely a political matter, just as Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) had contested Abu Bakrs Caliphate and how Zubair ( ) contested the Caliphate during the electoral council after Umars death. Ali ( ) never 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 ( ) who was innocent from that. 4. I do not particularly consider myself either Shii or Sunni muslim Answer: Brother, there is no such thing as Shia Islam; Shiism 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 usto the Truth! Please feel free to ask any more questions. Fi Team Ahlel Bayt. Aman Allah,

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 Allahs plan is always executed and His will invariably takes effect Aqa Mahdi Puya saysThe 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 Alis 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 ( ) was 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-Jamia 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: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html) Al-Islam.org,

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-Jamia. What do they know what al-Jami is? I then asked, May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, what is al-Jamia? 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: 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-Jamia. 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. Al-Shia.com,

(Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm) Hadith 640, Ch. 40, h 6

Al-Shia.com,

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. (Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm)

Al-Shia.com,

Al-Jafr

Another Shia holy book includes Al-Jafr which is a parchment that contains the knowledge of not only Prophet Muhammad ( ,) 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. (source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html) Al-Islam.org,

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. (Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm) 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. (Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm) 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. Al-Shia.com, Al-Shia.com,

(Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm)

Al-Shia.com,

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 ( )died, Fatima ( ) took over the role of Prophethood by recieving divine inspiration. Fatima ( ) supposedly recieved divine inspiration, and she would then narrate these divine revelations to Ali ( ) who would write it down. It should be noted that this is slander against Fatima ( ,) 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. (source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html) 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-Muminin 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-Muminin 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. (source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html) Hadith 639, Ch. 40, h 5 Al-Islam.org, Al-Islam.org,

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.). (source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00357.html)

Al-Islam.org,

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 ( ) was 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 minestay 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. (Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm) Al-Shia.com,

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 faithin 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 dua 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 elses 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 Imams name in dua. 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 arent 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 IllalahThere is no God except Allah! None is equal to Him and no partners and no intermediaries does He need. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: 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). Allah Almighty says in the Quran: Call upon those whom you imagine beside Allah! They have not an atoms 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.

Ali (

) or Jesus ( ?)

At first glance, these pictures seem like they are of Jesus Christ ( ) as depicted by the Christians. However, all of the pictures on this page are actually of Ali ( .) Indeed, the Shia have done the same with Ali ( ) that the Christians have done with Prophet Isa ( .) The Shia claim that they love Ali ( ) and have thus exalted his status, but Ali ( ) himself will condemn them on the Day of Judgement, just like Prophet Isa ( ) will condemn the Christians for falsely exalting his position.

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) The Christians ascribe qualities of Allah to Prophet Isa ( ) in the name of loving him. So too do the Shia exalt the status of Imamah in order to praise Ali ( .) The Shia say that Ali ( ) is 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 ( ) as 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 ( ) the Son of God, but the Shia go one step even further and call Ali ( ) to be the Yadullah or the Hand of Allah. The Shia call Ali ( ) the Living Ism-i Azam or the Living Supreme Name of God. Ali ( ) was a person, just like the Prophet ( ) was 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 ( ) in 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 (.) 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 (.) 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 ( ?) Why then is it permissible to draw pictures of Ali ( ) and not of the Prophet ( ?) And 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 ( ;) we observe how dramatically similar they are to the Mushrik Christian depictions of Prophet Isa ( .) This is a mockery of Islam, and of the great Ali ( .) 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

Alis Message (

) in 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 ( .) Let us examine one of these sermons in particular, which is available on the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org:

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126 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 Allahs 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 ( ), 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 ( ) so 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 ( ,) calling him the Living Ism-i Azam of Allah, or the Living Supreme Name of Allah. They call Ali ( ) the Mazhar Al Aja-ib (The Executor of Wonders) and Mushkil Kusha (the Remover of Hardships) . They exaggerate so much that they call Ali ( ) to be the Yadullah (hand of Allah). They call him Asdadullah (unconquerable and ever-overpowering strength of Allah). They say Ali ( ) was too powerful for even the angels to stop him, that all the atoms in the world submit to Ali ( ,) that Ali ( ) is the speaking Quran, and is the Mirror of Allah. Look how loving Ali ( ) too much has caused them to exaggerate his status like the Christians did with Jesus ( ,) 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 ( .) Ali ( ) warned the Shia on this matter. And the source is the Shias 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 Allahs hand of protection is on keeping unity. Ali ( ) says 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 ( ) deeply, 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 (.) Ali ( ) says be with the majority of Muslims because Allahs 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 ( ) says 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 Shaitans 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 ( ) when 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 Shiat Ali (i.e. under the headband of Ali), he really is an enemy of Ali ( stces aihS lla fo noitanmednoc silA si sihT .tces suoigiler a fo noitaerc eht dna msinairatces rof sllac eh fi ( that have split away from the mainstream Muslims. Ali ( ) even 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 Hussains shrine. The Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussains shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Kaabah. 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. Shiism 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 dont 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 arent praying to the deceased, but that really doesnt 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 ( ) destroyed all the shrines in Mecca. This point cannot be stressed enough: the Prophet ( ) shed blood of the Sahabah in order that Mecca be cleansed of shrines, and this was one of the Prophets 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 ( ) who was sent to guide a shrine-worshipping people? The Prophet ( ) repeatedly 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 Allahs 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 ( .) 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 arent 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 dont 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 someones 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 (.) The Prophet ( ) does not want anyone to commit Shirk to him. Ali ( ) does 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 ( .) At that time, there were very few who could be called Mumin, or good-doers; when one of the Mumin passed away, Shaytan came to the remaining people and told them that they should never forget this Mumin. To this, the people agreed. Shaytan then convinced the people that they should mark the grave of this Mumin 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 peoplethen, he convinced them to go to their graves to worshipthen, Shaytan told them to ask Allah for things by invoking the names of these saintseventually, 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 peoplethe originators of Shirkthen 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 ( .) 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 ( .) The Christians say that they love Prophet Isa ( ) but the truth is that Prophet Isa () will condemn them on the Day of Judgment. Likewise will Ali ( ) condemn 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, etcbut 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 shareeah. 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-Shafii said: I saw the imams in Makkah ordering that what had been built (over graves) was to be knocked down. Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid says: 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 Abul-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. Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid says: Making a grave higher than the amount that is permitted is HaramThe 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 Prophets death, these two fools rushed to Saqifah in order to quickly bring Abu Bakr to power in a coup dtat 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 Prophets 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 didnt 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 Prophets funeral. Let us now narrate the story of Saqifah Grief Over the Prophets Death The Prophets death sent shock waves of grief throughout the Muslim Ummah. We read: The tragic news (of the Prophets death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah. Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of MedinahUmar was so stunned (by grief) that he almost loss consciousness. (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559)

Umars love for the Prophet ( ) was 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 lossThe 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 deadThis 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 deceaseds absencein spite of having seen the deceaseds body with ones own eyes[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceaseds 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 ones death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeralthe more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihoodof a flight from reality Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that the patient has deniedAnger 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 denialthese people require careful and appropriate grief counseling (Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association) Our Shia brothers often bring up Umars denial as some sort of proof against him, but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar ( ) loved the Prophet ( ) so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one.

And so, it was in the first stage of grief that Umar ( state of great emotion:

) reportedly said in a

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 ( ), he was in his home when he heard of the Prophets death, and immediately upon hearing this tragic news, he head towards the Prophets Mosque in haste. We read: Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophets) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allahs Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophets 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. (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 734) So quite contrary to the callous and diabolic view that the Shia are portraying, Abu Bakrs first action was not at all to rush for the Caliphate, but rather he made haste to visit the Prophets body. Abu Bakr ( ) was deeply affected by the Prophets death, so much so that he broke down in tears whilst kissing the Prophet ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) then 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) (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) Ibn Abbas ( ) said:

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). (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) Umar ( ) said:

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. (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) So great was Umars love for the Prophet ( ) that he fell down in grief when Abu Bakr ( ) made him come to terms with the reality. News of a National Emergency Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) stayed by the Prophets body. In some time, however, a man by the name of Mughirah bin Shubah ( ) approached Umar ( ) and 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 Prophets 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 Saidah, andas the situation was graveit 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) were devastated by the Prophets death and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet ( ). 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 ( ) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar ( ) first informed Abu Bakr ( ) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) refused to come out and disregarded Umar

( ); it was only when Abu Bakr ( ) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophets side. We read: Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet ( ) 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 AlMedinah 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 Prophets Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Saidah. (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 ( ) and Umar ( ) therefore 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 ( ) as Caliph. During the Islamic conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ( ) had given the standard to Saad ( ). However, when the Prophet ( ) saw Saads 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: Havent 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 ( ) took the standard away from Saad ( ) and 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 ( ) had 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 Saads condescending attitude towards the Meccansthat the Prophet ( ) stripped him of the standard and it was also the reason that the Shaikhayn rushed to prevent him from declaring his Caliphate. If Saad ( ) were 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 tribesnot only the Meccans but othersfrom similarly declaring their own leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the Caliphate. When Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) set 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 ( ), who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) took along with them Abu Ubaidah ( ), 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 ( ) were alive, he would not want Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) to 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 ( ). 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). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) Umar ( ) said:

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. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) Of course, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) were 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 ( Abu Bakr ( and Zubair ( ) Stayed Behind ) and Umar ( ) did not take along Ali ( ) ) because they were immediate relatives of the Prophet (

 ) and it would not be fitting to bother them with such a matter during their time of grief. We read in an authentic Hadith: A persons 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) (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) We read further: (They) left Ali and others (close relatives) to make arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274) It should be noted that Umar ( ) mentioned in detail during his Caliphate that Abu Bakr ( ) went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansar against taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr ( ) left for Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been the case, then surely Abu Bakr ( ) would have brought along more than two of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldnt Abu Bakr ( ) have 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 ( ): Abu Bakr ( ) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) had a whole gathering of Ansar to back him! Common sense dictates that if Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) of 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 ( ), Khalid bin Waleed ( ), Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan ( ), etc? If this was acoup dtat 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 Bayaah to one of their own men; if Abu Bakr ( ) wanted 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 Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), and Abu Ubaidah ( ) set 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) didnt find the need to bring along Ali ( ) or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matterbecause 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) were showing softness and sensitivity towards Ali ( ), 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 fathers funeral without any other extra worries or burdens to think about. And so it was that Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), and Abu Ubaidah ( ) head out towards Saqifahdespite their grief over the Prophets deathto 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 Prophets 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 lineagethat 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 ( ) debated with the Ansar, the perceptive reader will note that Abu Bakr ( ) 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 distinctionbetween religious and socio-political reasonsis 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 Kaabah: 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 ( ) who united all the various tribes together under the banner of Islam. It was the Prophets powerful personality which brought peace to the warring factions. First, the Prophet ( ) united 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 ( ) their 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 ( ) and 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 Muslimsand 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. (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.474) We read further: The destruction of idols installed in the Kaabah 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 thatdue to the socio-political structure of that timethe Arabians would have rejected Prophet Muhammad ( ) had 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 Statesby one way or the otheris seen as the leader, and the countries of the world would accept an American leader, not a Micronesian one.

When Prophet Muhammad ( ) had been ex-communicated from the leaders of the Quraish and banished to Medinah, the tribes of Arabia rejected the Prophet ( ) and his Message. When Prophet Muhammad ( ) converted the tribe of Quraish to Islam and became their leader, then all of the tribes of Arabia recognized him. The Prophet ( ) used 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 Prophets death, the unity of the Ummahthat the Prophet ( ) had worked so hard to achievewas 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 Medinahand 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) 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 Prophets death, many of the new converts to Islam apostasized; without the powerful leader of Muhammad ( ), 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 ( ) before 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 (jamaah). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195) 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 ( ) himself 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 ( ) respected 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 Prophets 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 ( ) was 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 Bayaah to

him; if the masses do not pledge their Bayaah to a person, then he cannot be Caliph over them as that would be tyranny. Qadhi Abu Yala 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 Caliphs 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 populationHad 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-determinationand not Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry)that the Prophet ( ) ordered that a man of the Quraish tribe become the first Caliph. The Prophet ( ) was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and in fact, the Prophet ( ) warned against such Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet ( ) was 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.

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.22) It is for these practical reasons that the Prophet ( ) said:

Our political authority shall remain with the Quraishas long as they follow Islam. (Bukhari: Kitabul-Ahkam) And the Prophet ( ) warned 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 ( ) clearly 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, Kitabul-Imarah) In fact, the Prophet ( ) trusted 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 ( ) showered the Quraish and all the other tribes of Arabia with gifts of war booty, but he left out the Ansar. We read: Abu Said Al-Khudri said: When Allahs 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, Allahs Messenger is ill-spoken of by his folks men! (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah)

Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ), the leader of the Ansar and the man whom the Ansar would seek to elect as Caliph at Saqifah, said to the Prophet ( ): 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. (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.485) 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 ( and the Ansar, saying: ) then reassured Saad ibn Ubaadah ( )

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? (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.486) This is therefore the crux of the matter: the Prophet ( ) was thinking only of the future of the Islamic state and how to unify the entire Arabian peninsula. He ( ) was 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 ( ) had 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 ( ) told Saad ibn Ubaadah

( ), explaining to him that it was actually a lofty status that the Ansar had obtained and that the Prophet ( ) used 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 Prophets death, therefore the Prophet ( ) said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). Saqifah After the Prophets death, the Ansar had gathered at Saqifah and were intending on nominating their own man as Caliph, namely Saad ibn Ubaadah ( )the same Ansar to whom the Prophet ( ) had 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? (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.486) 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 ( Ansar: ) conveyed the following message to his fellow

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 Allahs Cause, willingly or unwillinglythrough 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. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.2) When the Ansar said such sort of things (i.e. praising the Ansar and minimizing the Muhajirs), Umar ( ) was ready to respond. However, Abu Bakr ( ) 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 (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274) Abu Bakr ( ) said:

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) Abu Bakr ( ) explained:

(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religionbut the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraishwe (the Quraish) are in the center among the Muslims with respect to our position (The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193) Abu Bakr ( ) reminded the Ansar of the Prophets 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 selfdetermination and popular sovereignty, the leader of the Muslims should be from the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs). Umar ( ) warned 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 ( ) said: (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 ( ) declared 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 ( ) said: Now the Arabs found it most distressing that they should leave the religion of their forefathers; so from among his (the Prophets) 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 peoples) single-minded opposition to them, for they were

the first who worshipped Allah on the earth and who believed in Allah and the ApostleOh 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 yousoafter the Muhajirsthere 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) Abu Bakr ( ) then 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. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) 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 ( ) never sanctioned the idea of having more than one leader, something which would create confusion and disarray. Therefore, Umar ( ) 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 ( 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 ( ) explained that although he himself was well aware of the Ansars 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 Bayaah 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. Abu Bakr ( ) explained: The people of Arabia are not aware of anyones 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 ( ) repeated his proposal, asking the Ansar to accept either Umar ( ) or Abu Ubaidah ( ) as 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 Bayaah (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 Bayaah. As the news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.275) Neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) 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 ( ) does not himself seek the Caliphate but rather he asks the Muslims to choose between Umar ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( ). Meanwhile, Umar ( ) rejects the Caliphate himself, saying that Abu Bakr ( ) is more fit for it. And then Abu Bakr ( ) 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 ( ) was the most worthy! We can clearly see that neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) desired the Caliphate for themselves and neither furthered their own cause. It was in this manner that Abu Bakr ( ) became the first Caliph of the Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ) did not seek the Caliphate let alone steal it from Ali ( ). The Ansar were the cause of the gathering. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) were forced to proceed to Saqifah in order to prevent a civil war. The election of Abu Bakr ( ) was something un-premeditated and purely spontaneous. To this effect, Umar ( ) said: The pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an un-premeditated spontaneous affair which was (then only later) ratified. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) When Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), and Abu Ubaidah ( ) 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 didnt the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah ( ) suggest delaying the nomination of the Caliph until all of the Muhajirs (such as Ali) could be summoned? Umar ( ) himself 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 (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) In a slightly different version, Umar ( ) explained:

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 Prophets 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) Abu Bakr ( ) would later say to Ali ( ):

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? (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) When the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) arrived at Saqifah, the Ansar were only moments away from nominating Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ). The three Muhajirs were able to stop the Ansar from doing that but only momentarily, and if they left without first securing the Bayaah, they knew that the Ansar would once again proceed to elect their own man. But when the Ansar gave their Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ), 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 Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) was rushed in order to prevent double-mindedness on the part of the Ansar. It was less than ideal, as expressed by Umar ( ) himself, but it was born out of dire necessity and it was only with the Grace of Allah Almighty that it worked out. The Prophets Funeral

Although our Shia brothers imply that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on the Prophets funeral, this is actually not true at all. After he saved the Ummah at Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) rushed back to help with the Prophets funeral. In fact, the only thing that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on was washing the Prophets 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 ( ) miss out on? Not only did Abu Bakr ( ) help out with the burial, he was actually the one who is credited with deciding where the Prophet ( ) was 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 Prophets bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the spot. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246) General Bayaah The Ansars and a few of the Muhajirs had given Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) at Saqifah, but many of the Muslims had not. Therefore, a day after Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) ascended the pulpit of the Prophets Mosque and the masses (approximately 33,000 of the Sahabah) took Bayaah at his hand. We read: After the meeting at Saqifah Banu Saidah(and) the burial of the Prophet, Abu Bakr took the oath of allegiance from the general population and then rose to deliver his (inauguration) addressthat was the day when 33,000 Companions pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) This came to be known as the General Bayaah. Abu Bakr ( ) thus became the recognized leader of the Muslim empire. One is always astonished with the immense modesty of Abu Bakr ( ), which contrasts sharply with the monarchs and leaders of other empires. Abu Bakr ( ) said 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. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) And so it was that the most modest man of the Muslims became the Caliph of the emerging Islamic empire. Ali ibn Abi Talib ( )

Ali ( ) was not present at the General Bayaah; instead, he took Bayaah at the hand of Abu Bakr ( ) some time later: some sources seem to indicate that Ali ( ) took Bayaah 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 ( ) gave Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) twice, once on the second day and the other six months later. The tradition of the Muslims was to renew ones Bayaah periodically (i.e. the Muslims renewed their Bayaah to the Prophet on numerous occassions), and people may have expected Ali ( ) to renew his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) due to the conflict of Fadak which had created a situation in which some people questioned Alis loyalties to the Caliph. Whatever the case, whether it was two days or six months is largely immaterial. The fact is that Ali ( ) did in fact pledge his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ), something which does not sit well with the Shia paradigm; why would Ali ( ) pledge his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) at 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 ( ) gave his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ). For now, we shall suffice with a handful of such reports, and we will focus on those which indicate that in fact Ali ( ) gave this Bayaah on the second day after the General Bayaah. 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 Bayaah 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 Bayaah (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 Shia Islam by SHM Jafri. Establishing this books 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://alislam.org/index.php?sid=729406346&t=sub_pages_74&cat=74 The book The Origins and Early Development of Shia 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.karbalanajaf.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 Husayns sacrifices had on the minds of
the Muslims, see: Jafri, The Origins and early Development of Shia Islam. With salaams and duas

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 Shi`a 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 Bakrs 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-shiaislam/

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 dont 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 Bayaah at Saqifah Banu Saidah without consulting us? Had you called us there, we would have taken Bayaah 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 Saidah not for the taking of Bayaah but for putting an end to the disputeI did not seek their support (for Caliphate). Rather, they took their oath of allegiance to me on their ownHad 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 Prophets Mosque. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.275-276) In another account, Abu Bakr ( ) said:

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 ( ) said:

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 ( ) offered Ali ( ) the Caliphate, promising to back Ali ( ) with all his men and camels of war. Ali ( ) refused 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-Mumineen (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 Bayaah, but Ali declined(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: By Allah, you do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.199) So we see that Ali ( ) did 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 Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ), and he upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ). If Ali ( ) upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ), then why do our Shia brothers create Fitnah by rejecting the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( )? The fact that Ali ( ) abstained from pledging Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) cannot at all be used as a proof for the Imamah of Ali ( ); if this were the case, then could someone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) of the Ansar was an Infallible Imam because he refused to pledge Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( )? The opinion of Ali ( ) or Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) could not possibly overturn the collective decision of 33,000 Sahabah; Abu Bakr ( ) was the most popular candidate for Caliphate, and therefore it would not be justice to give the position to anybody else. In any case, Ali ( ) did give Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) eventually (be it after two days or six months), and this in and of itself negates the Shia claims. If Ali ( ) thought he was divinely appointed by Allah to be the Infallible Imam of the Muslim Ummah, then why would he ever pledge his Bayaah to a man who supposedly usurped a God-given position? Did the Prophet ( ) ever pledge his Bayaah to those who sought to deny his Prophethood? Why then would Ali ( ) pledge his Bayaah 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 ( ) which 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 ( ) and, in doing so, setting themselves apart from the great majority of the Muslims. It took Ali ( ) at most six

months to accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ), and yet it has been over a thousand years and our Shia brothers have still not accepted it! Eulogy of Abu Bakr ( On the death of Abu Bakr ( ) ), Ali ( ) said:

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. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.316) Therefore, we can see, that no matter the disagreements that Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) may have had, they both reconciled and respected each other deeply. Indeed, even Umar ( ) was impressed with the eloquence of Alis eulogy to Abu Bakr ( ). 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 ( )

Thirty-three thousand Sahabah pledged their Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ). The Muslim masses recognized the superiority of Abu Bakr ( ) above all the other Sahabah, and they came to this conclusion after reflecting on the words of the Prophet ( ) himself. We read in the following Hadith narrated by Amr ibn al-Aas ( ):

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) It was Abu Bakr ( ) who was chosen by the Prophet ( ) to be the Imam of the prayers in the Prophets sickness, and therefore this is indeed an indication that the Prophet ( ) saw Abu Bakr ( ) as 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 Prophets vote for Abu Bakr ( ) and it is therefore no surprise that 33,000 Sahabah pledged Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) and nobody else. As for Ali ( ), he himself did not view himself superior to Abu Bakr ( ). Although Ali ( ) may 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 ( ) later in life. Alis son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah ( ), 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 ( ) said:

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 ( ) was 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) Ali ( ) said:

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 ( ). This was the view of the Prophet ( ), 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 ( ) be declared the successor of the Prophet ( ). 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 Saida. It was reported to Abu Bakr that the Ansar were contemplating pledging their loyalty to Sad 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 Shii sources maintain that Ali did not in fact give his allegiance to the new Caliph until after Fatimas death, which occurred six months after the death of the Prophet. (An Introduction to Shii Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shiism; by Moojan Momen, pp.18-20) It should be noted that this book is on Al-Islam.orgs recommended reading list. Conclusion

Our Shia brothers make an issue out of nothing, creating an incident out of a nonincident, 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 ( ) 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 ( ) nor Umar ( ) 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) saved the Muslim Ummah from selfdestruction, 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 ( ) is that she left her house to fight Ali ( ) 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 ( ) and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali ( ) were 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 ithow 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.

Uthmans Assassination (

During the reign of Uthman ( ,) the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthmans policies ( ) were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman ( ;) they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement. In any case, the Beduins found a spokesman in Ali ( .) Ali ( ) prevented these Beduins 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 Beduins to the Caliph. Alis supporters ( ) were a myriad of disenchanted people, all of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman. A portion of these Shiat Ali were the Sabaites, the ancestors of the modern day Ithna Ashari Shia. Abdullah ibn Saba, leader of the Sabaites, began the villification of Uthman ( ;) many of the disenchanted Beduins in the Shiat Ali were receptive to this Fitnah. This sub-section of the Shiat 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 ( .) This was not sanctioned by Ali ( ,) who favored arbitration. In any case, Uthman ( ) heard of these Shiat Ali who were planning on rebelling against him [i.e. open treason]. So Uthman ( )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 ( ,) they decided to launch a pre-emptive strike and seige the Caliphs home in Medinah. This decision by the extremist members of the Shiat Ali was not supported by Ali ( .) When Ali ( ) heard that extremist members of his own party were plotting the murder of the Caliph, he immediately dispatched his own son to defend Uthman ( .) Ali ( ) sent a letter to Uthman ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ,) Hussain ( ,) Ibn Umar ( ,) Ibn Al-Zubair ( ,) and Marwan ( ) rushed to the house of Uthman ( )raising their swords. Uthman ( ) told them, I order you to go back home, put your swords in their sheaths, and stay at home. [Tareekh Khaleefah AlKhayyat, p.174] Kunanah, the slave of Safiyah, said: I witnessed the murder of Uthman. Four young men from Quraysh were taken out from Uthmans 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 AlZubair, Muhamed bin Hatib, and Marwan bin Hakam. [Aasr Al-Khilafah AlRashidah by Akram Diyaa Al-Umari, p.390. Al-Umari said that the Hadith was narrated in Al-Estiaab with a good authentication.] When Hasan ( ) entered upon Uthman ( ,) he said, O Commander of the Faithful! I am under your command, so order me as you wish. Uthman ( ) answered, My dear brothers 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 ( ) was slain by certain extremist members of the Shiat Ali, namely the Sabaites [the pioneers of modern day Shiism].

Alis Caliphate (

After Uthmans death ( ,) the Shiat Ali asked Ali ( ) to declare himself Caliph. Ali ( ) refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman ( .) Ali ( ) did 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 ( ) and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali ( ) condems his Shiaparticularly the Sabaitesfor their extremist actions. Nahjul Ali says to his Shia: Balagha, Sermon 191

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 peopleYou have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands! [source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm] Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91 When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-muminins 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 ( ) refused 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 ( ) of being an accomplice in the murder of Uthman ( ,) since it was well known that it was an element of the Shiat Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthmans house ( .) This accusation made against Ali ( ) is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha which is titled About those who accused Ali of Uthmans killing.

Qisas

There was a public outcry for Ali ( ) to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthmans killers], and no doubt Uthmans family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali ( ) decided 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 ( ,) so the last thing Ali ( ) could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shiat Ali. Because of this, Ali ( )decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali ( ) had the sincere intention of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthmans killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali ( .) As a consequence of Alis decision ( ) to 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 ( ;) for example, the governor of Syria Muawiyyah ( ) was Uthmans cousin ( ) and he was one of the people demanding Qisas. The Prophets widow, Aisha ( ,) 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 Uthmans family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to Uthman ( ,) who married two of Aishas half-daughters. Aisha ( ) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali ( ) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali ( .) This point cannot be emphacized enough: Aisha ( ) left 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 ( :) O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country? She answered: O son, to reconcile between people. So it was that Aisha ( ,) Talha ( ,) and Zubair ( ) met Caliph Ali ( ) to urge him to find the murderers of Uthman ( .) It should be noted that during Uthmans Caliphate, Ali ( ) also went to Uthman ( ) to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who opposed Uthman ( .) 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.

Uthmans Killers

The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shiat Ali, i.e. Sabaites] obviously did not want Aisha ( ) to be successful in convincing Ali ( ) to prosecute them. And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Sabaites] 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 Sabaiteswho were fearing of peacestarted throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camelAisha said: remember Allah and Judgment Day. But the Sabaites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Sabaites 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] Aishas contingent ( ) then returned fire in order to defend the Prophets wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict. And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali ( ) nor by Aisha ( ;) rather it was Uthmans killers who attacked Aishas envoy ( ) for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman ( .) Ali ( ,) Aisha ( ,) Talha ( ,) and Zubair ( ) found their contingents fighting each other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did they know that it was Uthmans killers who had initiated this entire operation, hoping that it would cause Aishas mission ( ) of negotiation to fail. The Sabaites would blame the entire matter on Aisha ( ,) and we see clearly today that their descendantsthe Ithna Ashari Shiahave continued this tradition of blaming Aisha ( .) This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophets wives and his companions.

Aishas Intention (

Aishas intention ( ) for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shiat Ali. This is 100% in line with Allahs 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 ( ) 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 peoplecomplained 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 Prophets widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophets 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 ( ,) most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali ( .) It is likely that Ali ( ) would have accepted her plea to find Uthmans killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthmans killers had to start the war. Aishas intentions ( ) were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha ( ) said: 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-Mumineen 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 ( ) did 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 ( ) of adultery in the incident of Al-Ifk and who were subsequently condemned in the Quran? We seek Allahs Mercy from

slandering the chastity of the Prophets own wife. Aisha ( ) left her house in complete Hijab and fully covered; thus, she did not in any way violate this verse of the Quran. Allahs command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophets 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 ones husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet ( ,) and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha ( ) to Hijjat Al-Widaa, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet ( ) of violating the meaning of this verse! Even after the Prophets death, the Prophets widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar ( ) gave Uthman ( ) or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf ( )the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophets widows. Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophets 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 ones Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophets wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha ( ) thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha ( ) thought 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 ( ) told Saudah ( ,) 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 ( ) did 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 ( .) For example, if Aisha ( ) could have hypothetically prevented the assassination of Ali ( ) by leaving her house and warning him of it, would the Shia still hold

to their statement that the Prophets 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 ( ) went out to fight Ali ( ,) then we cite the following verse in the Quran: If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between themmake 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 Mumins 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 ( ) and Ali ( ) had legitimate viewpoints. Aisha ( ) cannot be blamed for wanting Qisas for Uthmans murderers, a right granted by Shariah. And Ali ( ) cannot 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 ( ) or Umar Bin Khattab ( ) who had delayed enacting Qisas for Alis 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 ( ) does anything, then it is right. If Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) Uthman ( ,) Aisha ( ,) or Muawiyyah ( ) do anything, it is automatically wrong. Having said that, the truth is that it was not Aisha ( ) who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shiathe murderers of Uthman ( ) who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman ( ,) and they did not want Aisha ( ) to convince Ali ( ) to 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 ( ) was complicit in the murder of Uthman ( ,) and that she used his murder as an excuse to fight Ali ( .) In Nahjul Balagha, one of the sayings of Ali ( ) 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 Prophets wife of murder! According to the Shia, Aisha rejoiced when Uthman ( ) was killed. But then she heard the news that Ali ( ) was 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 ithow 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 Aishas hurt feelings ( ?) Let 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 Uthmans murder. Most of these were from the same tribe of Uthman ( .) For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah ( ,) was one such individual. There was also Talha ( ) and Zubair ( .) The question begs: if Aisha ( ) had publically advocated Uthmans murder and she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be allied with Muawiyyah ( ,) who also fought with Ali ( ?) This is truly a contradiction! Wouldnt Muawiyyah ( ) have fought Aisha ( ) to punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah ( ) murder his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the Shia scholars love to show Uthmans nepotism ( ) in relation to Muawiyyah ( .) Furthermore, if we switch Alis name with Abu Bakr and Aishas name with Fatima, then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima ( ) fought Abu Bakr ( ,) and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima ( ,) but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr ( !) We see this glaring double-standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to Fadak, then Fatima ( ) is 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 Bakrs position ( ) as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly compete with Fatimas position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes to the Battle of the Camel, then Aishas position ( ) as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that Aisha ( ) went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!

And is it really believable that hundreds of people would fight against the Shiat Ali, simply because Aishas feelings ( ) were hurt over an incident that took place years before? The Shia scholars taint Aishas image ( ) by saying that she did all this simply because Ali ( ) told the Prophet ( ) to divorce her. [It should be noted that this is another Shia fairy-tale that we shall expose in another article; Ali ( ) never told the Prophet ( ) to divorce Aisha ( ].) This reason for the Battle of the Camel does not explain why hundreds of people took to the streets against Ali ( .) Were they all angry at this comment made by Ali ( ?) Or was there something else they wanted?

Conclusion

The reality is that Aisha ( ,) Talha ( ,) Zubair ( ,) Muawiyyah ( ,) and hundreds of other people wanted Ali ( ) to apprehend Uthmans killers who were in his camp. Ali ( ) always planned on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aishas request ( ) to speed up the process. Uthmans killers did not want this, and they attacked Aishas envoy ( ) on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the Camel and saving their own skin. It should be noted that both Ali ( ) and Aisha ( ) reconciled after the Battle of the Camel, and Ali ( )even escorted Aisha ( ) back home. This fact alone should be enough for anyone; if Ali ( ) did not hold a grudge against Aisha ( ,) 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 ( ) of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood. The Munafiqeen accused Uthman ( ) of using the Caliphate to empower his family. The Munafiqeen accused Ali ( ) of taking the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman. Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Kings 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 wholike Harmuzanswore 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 Jewbelonged 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 Bakrs 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-edin 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.
Ubaidallahs Revenge and Uthmans Decision

Umars 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, Uthmans 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 Aas-differed with Alis 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 Sabas father) viewed Uthmans 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 Ubaidallahs 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 Sabas 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 Sabaites (followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman.
Uthmans 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 Uthmans 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, Uthmans cousin Muawiyyah remained the governor of Syria.
Ali acts as Vizier of the Caliph

Many poor Bedouins felt that the Uthmans 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

Alis supporters were a myriad of disenchanted people, some of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman. These became the Partisans of Ali or the Shiat 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 Shiism 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 Shiat Ali was not used to denote a distinct religious sect; in fact, the partisans of Muawiyyah would be called Shiat 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 oftentimes they would mix Islam with pagan thought.
The Sabaites

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. Umars 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 Umars 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 Umars death; he also carried a grudge against Uthman who pardoned the killers of his fathers companions. Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during the time of civil unrest during Uthmans Caliphate. Ibn Saba converted to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Alis 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 Alis 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 Gods 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 Shiism in regards to the powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes. Ibn Sabas 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 Sabas antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Sabas followers (called Sabaites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Madain (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph. But the Sabaites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding ones faith); this allowed the Sabaites to avoid detection from the authorities, infiltrating the ranks of the Shiat Ali. Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in Mecca and Medinah, remained oblivious to the Sabaites who were mostly in Iraq (i.e. Kufa), Persia, and Egypt. With the practise of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Sabaites functioned much like a secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other clandestine organizations. The Sabaites 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 Sabaites due to their elusiveness, and the secret society continued to grow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shiat Ali, without even Alis knowledge. The Sabaites were the originators of the Shia faith. Generations later, these Sabaites 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.
Sabaites Organize Attack on Uthman

It should be noted that these Sabaite Bedouins were only one segment of the Shiat Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Sabaites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman. But news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shiat 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 Caliphs 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 Sabaite 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!
Alis Caliphate

In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Sabaite Bedouins. Once Uthman was slain, the Shiat 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 Shiat 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 Alis lectures. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91 When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-muminins 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 wasnt even going to be the Caliph until the people put him up to it? We see that Ali says the following in Nahjul Balagha. Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 205 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 Sabaites

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 Shiat 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 Prophets 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 Shiat Ali [i.e. the Sabaites] 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 Shiat Ali decided to attack Aishas 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. Aishas 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 didnt 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 Shiat 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 Mumineen Aisha and Amir al Mumineen Caliph Ali.
Battle of Siffin and the Sabaite Revolt Against Ali

However, Uthmans 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 Uthmans death. In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Alis forces met Muawiyyahs 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 Shias 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 [Muawiyyahs 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 Uthmans blood, and we are innocent from his murder. [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648] So it was that the Shiat Ali met the Shiat Muawiyyah. Caliph Alis forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali, but the Shiat Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shiat Ali. Muawiyyahs Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shiat Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran. The Shiat Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shiat 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 Sabaites, who did not agree that Ali should use arbitration. The Sabaites 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 Sabaites 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 Shiat 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 Sabaites, 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 Sabaites) 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 Sabaites, 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 Sabaites

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 Sabaites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shiism, 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 Alis death, the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding). Abdullah ibn Abbas, the Prophets 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 Sabaite 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 latters son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, would carry on his fathers 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 Sabaites) have spread Fitnah to every corner of the Muslim world. These Sabaites had killed Uthman, attacked Aisha, and killed Ali. They had also supported Umars assassin Abu Lula. They would betray Hasan and eventually they would lead Hussain to his death and then later Hussains grandson would also die from the betrayal of the Shia defectors. The ancestors of the Shia were a hatemongering 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 Siffinin which Ali ( ) faced off with Muawiyyah ( ) was 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 ( ) and Muawiyyah ( ) were adherents of the same faith, of the mainstream Islam. There was, however, a third group which would form in the Battle of SiffintheKhawaarijwho, via their relationship with the Sabaites, 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 ( ) demanded that Ali ( ) find and prosecute Uthmans killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shiat Ali. 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 Uthmans death ( .) In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Alis forces ( ) met Muawiyyahs ( ) 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 Shias 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 [Muawiyyahs 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 Uthmans blood, and we are innocent from his murder. [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

The Battle of Siffin

So it was that the Shiat Ali met the Shiat Muawiyyah. Caliph Alis forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah ( .) It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali ( ,) but the Shiat Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shiat Ali. Muawiyyahs Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shiat Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran. The Shiat Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shiat 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 Sabaites, who did not agree that Ali ( ) should use arbitration. The Sabaites 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 Sabaites 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 Shiat 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 Sabaites, 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 Salat, 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 diammetrically opposed to the very Ali ( ) they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali ( ,) much like the Khawaarij [former Sabaites] 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 Sabaites, 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 Sabaites

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 Sabaites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shiism, 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.
The Shia Killed Ali (R.A.), Hussain (R.A.), and Hussains 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 Jesuss 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, Origenconsidered 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 overturned, various times in history would religious Christians remind their bretheren that the holiday was of paganand not Christianorigins. The Puritans of New England outlawed Christmas, and this ban remained in effect from 1659-1681. The ritual of decorating ones 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, Italys 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 Rauhnchte (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 Years 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 ( ). Furthermore, the Shia of today dont realize that the rituals that they do during Ashura were invented by the very people who were responsible for the murder of Hussain ( ). 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 ( ) shifted the Caliphate from Medinah to Kufa in Iraq. The Kuffans were staunch Partisans of Ali (Shiat 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 Sabaites. When the Shiat Ali met the Shiat Muawiyyah on the battlefield, Muawiyyah ( ) convinced Ali ( ) to hold a cease-fire and to use arbitration to decide who will be the Caliph. Ali ( ) agreed to arbitration. This angered the Kuffan Sabaites because they held the erroneous belief that Ali had been divinely appointed by Allah, so they believed that Ali ( ) 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 Sabaites rebelled against Ali ( ), turning on him and calling him an apostate. These people would be known as Kharajites, and they would eventually assasinate their leader Ali ( ), 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 ( ). However, Hasan ( ) did not trust these Shia as they were very disloyal. In his book al-Ihtijj, 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. [Ab Mansr at-Tabars, al-Ihtijj vol. 2 p. 290-291 , Muassasat al-Alam, Beirut 1989] Distrusting his Shia, Hasan ( ) made peace with Muawiyyah ( ) and gave him the Caliphate, so long as Muawiyyah ( ) promised that Hussain ( ) would be made Caliph after Muawiyyahs death ( ). Hussains Shia protested at this, and Hasan ( )s 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 ( ) and Muawiyyah ( ), the Shiat Ali remained in Kufa. After the death of Ali ( ), the ranks of the Sabaites and their sympathizers amongst the Shiat Ali increased.

When Muawiyyah ( ) died, however, his son Yezid declared himself the new Caliph, in violation of the agreement settled with Hasan ( ) which stated that Hussain ( ) would 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 ( ) was staying after his flight from Medinah. The Kuffans assured Hussain ( ) of 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 ( ) in Kufa. Hussain ( ) decided to send his cousin Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) to investigate the situation in Kufa. Ibn Aqil ( ) arrived in Dhul Qada where he stayed with Ibn Awsajah al-Asadi. The Kuffans met Ibn Aqil ( ) and pledged the support of 12,000 Shiat Ali of Kufa. They promised to fight with and to protect Hussain ( ) with their lives and all they possessed. When the number who pledged support rose to 18,000 Kufans, Ibn Aqil ( ) felt confident enough to dispatch a messenger to Hussain ( ) informing 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 ( ) and 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 ( ) and kill him. When Ubaydullah arrived in Kufa, Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) called the Kuffans to defend him. It was at this moment of need that the Shia of Kufa deserted Ibn Aqil ( ), fearful of Ubaydullahs threats. Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) hid from Ubaydullah in the house of an old woman. The old womans son, a part of the Shiat Ali, notified Ubaydullah of Ibn Aqil ( )s location, hopeful that this act would prevent Yezid from punishing Kufa. Based on this act of treachory, the Shiat Ali left Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) to be captured by Ubaydullah. Later that daythe Day of Arafah, the 9th of Dhul HijjahMuslim ibn Aqil ( ) was 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 Hussains 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 Hussain ( ) in front of Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ). 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 ( ) had dispatched a mesenger by the name of Qais ibn Mushir to inform the Kuffans of Hussain ( )s arrival. The messenger was captured by Ubaydullah, who ordered him to mount the walls of the fort and publically curse Hussain ( ) and his father. Instead, Qais ibn Mushir praised Ali ( ) and Hussain ( ), telling the Shia of Kufa that Hussain ( ) was on his way, and he exhorted them to defend him. Upon that, Qais ibn Mushir was executed. Yet another representative of Hussain ( ) had 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 Yezids men. Yezid thereupon dispatched 4,000 soldiers to intercept Hussain ( ). 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 ( ). This would be the Kuffans last chance to honor the oaths of allegiance to Hussain ( ) which they had taken upon the hands of his cousin Muslim ibn Aqil ( ). 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 ( ) 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 ( ) at Karbala. Hussain ( ) would comment: Our Shia have deserted us. The Shia of Kufa outnumbered Yezids 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 ( ). Had they wanted to, the Shia of Kufa could have defeated Yezids men and protected Hussain ( ). 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 Yezids 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 ( ). They called themselves the Al-Tawwabun, which translates to the Penitents. This group went to Karbala to comemmorate Hussain ( ), 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 Imams 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 ( ), namely Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain ( ), led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik. Zayd ( ) recieved 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 ( ) en masse. On the departure of the defectors, Zayd ( ) remarked: I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain ( ).

Zayd ( ) and 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 Hussain ( ). The very reason that the Shia beat themselves is to punish themselves for this betrayal of the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia betrayed Ali ( ), Hasan ( ), Hussain ( ), and Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain ( ). 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 ( ), Hussain ( ), and Hussains grandson ( ).

Ali (

R.A.), Hasan (R.A.), and Hussain (R.A.) Hated the Shia

Ali ( ), Hasan ( ), and Hussain ( ) hated the Shiat 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 Shiat Ali that Ali ( ) was divinely appointed and had powers above that of a normal human being. Ibn Sabas followers were known as the Sabaites, the ancestors of the modern day Shia. Abdullah Ibn Saba knew that if Ali ( ) or the Caliph found out about this cult that was forming [i.e. the Sabaites] then the authorities would clamp down on them. So Ibn Saba taught his people to use Taqiyyah (lying to save ones religion) and Kitman (hiding ones faith). Due to this fact, both Ali ( ) and the Caliph had a hard time figuring out who exactly were the Sabaites. Additionally, most of Alis time ( ) was spent in Mecca and Medinah, far away from Kufa and Egypt where the Shiat Ali and the cultish Sabaites were growing. It is narrated that on more than one ocassion did Ali ( ) find out about a Sabaite and either kill him or expel him. But for the most part, Abdullah Ibn Saba was successful in getting the Sabaites to infiltrate the ranks of the Shiat Ali. Ali ( ), Hasan ( ), and Hussain ( ) would soon hate the Shiat Ali for their exaggerations, barbarism, and their cowardice on the battlefield. Ali ( ), Hasan ( ), and Hussain ( ) hated 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 ( ) 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. [Abdullh al-Mmaqn, Miqbs al-Hidyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Muassasat l alBayt li-Ihy at-Turth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijl al-Kashsh.]

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 ( ) 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 ( ) also condemns the Shia for being troublemakers 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 alIhtijj, 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. [Ab Mansr at-Tabars, al-Ihtijj vol. 2 p. 290-291 , Muassasat al-Alam, Beirut 1989] Distrusting his Shia, Hasan ( ) made peace with Muawiyyah ( ) and gave him the Caliphate. His Shia protested at this, and Hasans 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) Hussains cousin Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) was sold out to Yezids men by the Shia. Muslim Ibn Aqil ( ) sent a message to Hussain ( ) warning 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 ( ) said about the Shia:

O Allah, You be the Judge between us and our people. They deceived us and deserted us. Then, Hussain ( ) would be betrayed by the Shia of Kufa, who would feed him to Yezids men who slaughtered Hussain ( ) at Karbala. Hussain ( ) would 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 Hussains grandson, Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain ( ). The Shia would betray him on the battlefield, defecting against him. Before being martyred, Zayd ( ) said: I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain. Ali ( ) condemned 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 ( ) 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 25

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 youYour disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrians] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrians] 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 ( ) asks Allah to curse the looks of his Shia because they betray him in the Battle of Siffin. Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 183

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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/183.htm

Ali ( ) talked about how he knew that his supporters were really traitors. He mentions it in this next sermon. Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 4

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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/4.htm

How many times did the Shia betray the Ahlel Bayt on the battlefield? First, they betrayed Ali ( ) in the Battle of Siffin. Second, they betrayed Hasan ( ) who refused to even fight Muawiyyah ( ) after that. Third, they betrayed Hussains 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 ( ) on the battlefield, allowing Yezids men to chop him up. Fifth, the Shia betrayed Hussains grandson (Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain), defecting against him on the battlefield and leading to his death. Let us see what Ali ( Shia: Al-Islam.org says ) had to say about the treachorous and cowardly

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 29

Ali says to his Shia: 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 [Muawiyyahs 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?! source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/29.htm

In fact, Ali ( ) was completely exasperated with the Shia and he invoked Allahs curse upon them: Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 36

Ali says to his Shia: You are a group whose heads are devoid of wit and intelligence. May you have no father! Allahs woe be to you! source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/36.htm Ali ( repeatedly.

) could not stand his so-called Shia, and he disparaged them

Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 39

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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/39.htm

In this next sermon, Ali ( ) warns 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 57

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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/57.htm

When Ali ( ) was fighting Muawiyyah ( ), 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 68

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 [Muawiyyahs 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/68.htm Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 69

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 source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/69.htm

Ali ( ) repudiates the Shia of Iraq for saying that Ali ( ) shouldnt go to arbitration with Muawiyyah ( ). Ali ( ) declared that Shura is the way, and that he is not divinely appointed by Allah. He condemns the Shia for saying that Ali ( ) was lying when he denied being appointed by Allah. Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 70

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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/70.htm

Ali ( ) said 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 96

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 [Muawiyyahs 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/96.htm

Ali ( ) condemns 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 115

Ali says to his Shia: 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/115.htm And again Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 118

Ali says to his Shia:

[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 source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/118.htm And then again Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 124

Ali says to his Shia: 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/124.htm Again and again Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126

Ali says to his Shia: 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/126.htm Al-Islam.org says

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 130

Ali says to his Shia: 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. source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/130.htm The next of Alis sermons ( separate from him and Ali ( Al-Islam.org says

) very nicely discusses how the Shia will ) will have nothing to do with the Shia.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 179

Ali says to his Shia: 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 source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/179.htm

And perhaps the best of all to summarize with, Ali ( ) says 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

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191

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. 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 youYou have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands! source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm
Fatwa on Hussains Fighting Against Yazid Question:

[1] What is the ruling on rebelling against authority? [2] What is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussains 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 Shiat Ali of Egypt were fermenting a rebellion. When Caliph Uthman bin Affan attempted to quell the mutiny, the Egyptian Shia surrounded the Caliphs house and killed him. 3. This led to the election of their Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib. However, the Shiat 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 Hussains 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 Caliphs minister, AlAlkami (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 Jamaah 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 Shari`ah. Elaborating on this issue, wed like to cite for you the Fatwa issued by Dr. Ahmad Sa`eed 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 Shari`ah 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 `Akkam, professor of Shari`ah 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 `Imran: 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 `Ubadah 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 peoples 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 Shari`ah 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-`Aqd (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 Ahls-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 peoples 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-`Aqd (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 shareeah 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 Hussains 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 Yala 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 Ummas 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 nations 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 Muawiya (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 Muawiya (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 Yazids 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 Husains (Allah be pleased with him) stand with regards to Yazids 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 Husains 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 Yazids 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 Yazids 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 Tabaris Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk & Imam Ibn Kathirs 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, Jafar, 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

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: 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 ones 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-Aqaid 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. 123125). 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, Yazids 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 earths core open with his sword and the angels couldnt 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 ones Deen? The only thing insulting him does is make ones 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 Jamaah does not condone cursing Muslims. It seems that the Shia culture revolves around cursing Muslims. This includes the Three Caliphs, Sahabah, the Ansar, the Prophets 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. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: 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 didnt 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 Yazids 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-Mumineen 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 Shiism

Assalam o alaykum,

Existence of Abdullah ibn Saba is both accepted by Sunnis, Shias and the Westener historians. Today some Shias try their best to even deny his existence, let alone the role he played in the foundation of Shiaism. He is to Shiaism, what Saint Paul is to Christianity. 1. It says in Anwar-ul-Naumania, a Shia book, Abdullah Ibn-i-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the true God [Nauzubillah]. [Anwar-ul-Na'umania, Vol 2, Pg 234 - Published Iran] http://www.kr-hcy.com/references/shia/070.shtml 2. The name of Abdullah bin Saba figures in the most reliable book of Shias on Isma ur-Rijal, entitledRijal-iKashshi and it is related in it from Imam Jafar Sadiq (may Allah have mercy on him) that Ibne Saba believed in the divinity of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and, ultimately, he was burnt alive at his command. About Abdullah bin Saba, Rijal-e-Kashshi says, Many knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerated the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, and the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim he began to exalt the personality of Hadhrat Ali much beyond the due limit, and he was the first person to declare that it was obligatory to believe in the Imamate of Hadhrat Ali, and completely dissociated himself form his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels. [Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71]. 3. The earliest historian Tabri has sketched out the details in these words, Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew and lived in Sana. His mother was called Sauda. He embraced Islam during the period of Hadhrat Uthman. he roamed through the Muslim cities and tried to seduce the Muslims from the straight path. He launched his diabolical campaign from Hijaz and then visited Basra, Kufa and Syria. None of the Syrians cooperated with him. On the contrary, they drove him out of Syria. Thus he moved over to Egypt and settled down there permanently. He started drumming into the minds of the Egyptians that it was strange they believed in the return of Christ and denied the return of Hadhrat Muhammad [peace be upon him]. God himself had declared. Therefore he has a better claim to return to the world in comparison with Christ. He fabricated the concept of the return or resurrection and the Egyptians turned in into a hot debating issue. 4. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hafiz Ibn Athir (may Allah have mercy on him) have commented on it on similar lines and Allama Ibn Khaldun (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written about it, Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) for first turning Hadhrat Abu Zar (may

Allah have mercy on him) out of Syria into Madina and then for pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat Uthman was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him), out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a days ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Hadhrat Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) coaxed him a little and told him : Ill also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah. 5. Hafiz ibn Hajr (may Allah have mercy on him) has related on the authority of Tarikh Abi Asakir, He belonged to Yemen. He was a Jew, but he had donned the guise of Islam and roamed through the Muslim cities to lead the Muslims astray and dissuade them from the obedience of their Imams and to sow dissension among them. He also visited Damascus with this end in view. [Tarikh Damishq, 7:430] 6. Allama Asfaraini (may Allah have mercy on him) has also commented on it in a similar vein, Ibn Sauda was a Jew who had donned the gown of Islam to addle the faith of the Muslims. 7. Abu Muhammad Hassan bin Musa has unraveled these secrets. He is the earliest Shia historian who has given an account of the Shia sects. He is one of the most famous Shias of the third century A.H. He writes, Sabais are the companions of Abdullah bin Saba. Abdullah bin Saba made faces at Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disaffiliated himself from them and he imputed his acts to the command of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). When Hadhrat Ali caught hold of him and asked him about it, he confessed to it. After his confession, he ordered him to be executed. On hearing the order, [quite a few people] made a humble submission to Hadhrat Ali : O Amir-ul-Momineen ! You have ordered the execution of a person who professes your friendship and the love of your Ahl-i-Bait. Hadhrat Ali complied with the submission and exiled him to Madain. 8. The famous Shia biographer Istrabadi says, Abdullah bin Saba claimed that Hadhrat Ali is Allah and he is his Prophet. When the news reached the Amirul-Momineen, he sent for him and asked him about it. He owned it and insisted that he is really the one [who is the referee of his claim]. The Amir-ul-Momineen said : The devil has seduced you. Therefore you should repent at once. But he refused to repent and he put him behind the bars for three days. When he did not repent even after three days, he burned him alive. 9. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) says, The followers of Abdullah bin Saba are called Sabains. Ibn Saba relied on exaggeration about the status of Hadhrat Ali and claimed that he was a prophet. Then, relying on further exaggeration he claimed that he [Hadhrat Ali] was God and he invited a party of the Kufi rebels to adopt these beliefs. When the news reached Hadhrat Ali, he had some of these people thrown into two pits of fire, as has been hinted at by a poet . 10. All the Shia scholars have given an account of Ibn Saba, his views and beliefs and his party ; Sayyid Qummi [who died in 301 A.H.], Sheikh Taifah Tusi, Tastri in Qamus-ur-Rijal, Abbas Qummi inTohfat-ul-Ahbab, Khu

Ansari in Raudhat-ul-Jannat, Sabhani in Nasikh-ut-Tawarikh and the author ofRaudhat-us-Safa, have all mentioned him and his party. 11. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes under the heading of Sabaism, Sabais are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba who had told Hadhrat Ali [r.a]: you are you i.e., you are God, but he had extradited him to Madain The historians suggest that he was actually a Jew, but he had tacked on to himself the label of Islam. During the Jewish phase, he used to claim that Hadhrat Yosha bin Nun was the executor of Moses [a.h]. 12. Ibn Asakar has cited a tradition of Hadhrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) in his history, When the oath of allegiance was taken at the hand of Hadhrat Ali and he delivered his address, Abdullah bin Saba stood up and said: you are Dabat-ul-Ardh [Tarikh Damishq] 13. Allamah Baghdadi has touched the issue in his book Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq. Similarly, Isfaraini in his book Kitab ut-Tabsir and Ibn Hazam in Al-Fasl have also mentioned ibn Saba. 14. Famous Shia scholar Nau Bakhti writes, It is known as the Sabai sect because Abdullah bin Saba was its ring leader. [Khandan-i-Nau-Bakhti, page 275] 15. Historian Professor P.K Hitti writes, The enigmatic Abdullah ibn Saba who was convertered into Islamembarrased Ali with his excessive venertion [History of the Arabs, p.248 - London] 16. Famous historian Dweight M. Donaldon writes, Abdullah ibn Saba had travelled widely throughout the Empire, as Tabari says, seeking to lead the Moslems into errorAnother of his teachings that was more immediately, influential was that every Prophet has a wasi and that Ali was the wasi of Muhammed [The Sheit Religion of Islam, Part. 6 p.41] 17. Historian Dr. J. N. Hollister writes, [Abdullah ibn Saba] He was the native of Sans in YemenHe opened a campaign of behalf of Ali suggesting that Abu Bakar, Umar, and Usman were usurpers [Shias of Hind p.15] 18. Famous historian Dr. Walter C. Klein writes,

Abdullah ibn Saba had hailed Ali with the words, Thou art Thou. [Al-Ibanah alUsul al-Diyanah, p.7-8] 19 Historian Professor Nicholson writes, Now the Shiite theory of Divine Right certainly harmonised with Persian ideas, Abdullah ibn Sabawent from place to place, seeking to lead Moslems into error [The History of the Arabs, p.215] 20. Famous historian and former governer of U.P, India, William Moore writes, ibn Saba, a Jew from the South of Arabiahe became the setter forth of strange and startling doctrinesAli was his legate, Usmsn was a usurper [Al-Khilafat, Us ka Urooj, Inhetit aur Zawaal, p.217] 21. The Jewish Encyclopedia says, ABDALLAH IBN SABA By : Hartwig Hirschfeld Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othmans 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, Mohammeds 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 Abdallahs 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 Alis 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: Shahrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrckens translation, i. 200-201); Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir. 22. And it is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish and he [supposedly] accepted Islam during the time of Hazrat Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he urged the people of Egypt to kill Hadhrat Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he would show musch love for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have mercy on him). He was a khabis from inside and his only mission was to create fitna among the Muslims.

[Musnad Imam-i-Azam, p.158] 23. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani (may Allah have mercy on him) says, Sabain sect are attributed towards Abdullah ibn Saba and they said Hadhrat Ali is alive and will come back before Qiyamat. [Ghunyat al-Talibin] Scan:

24. Famous Shia scholar Allamah Kashi narrates in his book from one of the Shia Imam Abu Abdullah (may Allah have mercy on him), May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba, he said that Hadhrat Ali is God. But Hazrat Ali was a servant of Allah.

[Rijal-i-Kashi, p.100] [Qamus al-Rijal, 5:46] 25. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: Abdullah ibn Sabawas the first person who said that Imamat of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) is proven from nas. [Al-Milal wa al-Nahal, 1:174] 26. Saad Bin Abdullah Al Ashari Alqummi said: Sabians are companions of Abdullah Ibn saba, Abdullah bin Saba, was the first who slandered Abu Bakr [r.a], Omar [r.a], Othman [r.a] and the Companions and disowned them. [Al-Maqalat wal-Firaq, p.20] 27. Hadhrat Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written in details about ibn Saba in his book Izalat al-Khafa.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says: ABDALLAH By : Hartwig Hirschfeld IBN SABA

A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othmans 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, Mohammeds 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 Abdallahs 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 Alis 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 Haarbrckens 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 Englishspeaking police, they would probably laugh at him for misinterpreting English colloquialism. In the same manner do we laugh at the Shia who use the aforementioned 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 Bakrs 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 Jamaah does not focus on the story of Fadak, namely to prevent senseless Fitnah and out of respect for Abu Bakr ( ) and Fatima ( ,) 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 havent 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 ( .) We find that a fair analysis of Fadak not only absolves Abu Bakr ( ) of all wrong doing, but it also exposes the falsity of the Shia paradigm.

Fadak

Fadak was the name of a property that the Prophet ( ) personally owned. Upon the Prophets death ( ,) Fatima ( ) expected to inherit Fadak, but Caliph Abu Bakr ( ) refused to give it to her and he instead donated it to the state as charity. Based on this event, the Shia villify Abu Bakr ( ) for stealing land from the daughter of the Prophet. The reason Abu Bakr ( ) did notand Islamically could notgive Fadak to Fatima ( ) was because the Prophet ( ) had 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 ( ) got 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 ( ) said: We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49) We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462) This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia. The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith: The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, 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 Bakrs ( ) position? Do we not then see that the statement made by Abu Bakr ( ) about Prophets not giving inheritance is the same statement that was made by Imam Sadiq ( ) 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 ( ) is to be considered a liar for quoting this Hadith, then

would the Shia also accept that Imam Sadiq ( Ayatollah Khomeini are also liars by same logic?

,)Allamah Majlisi, and

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, http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part2/part2-ch4.htm) The Prophet ( ) is 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 AlKafi.
Fadak, Part II: Why Didnt Ali ( ) Return Fadak?

Previous (Continued)

Crux of the Matter

When Ali ( ) became Caliph, he did not revoke the decision of Abu Bakr ( ) on the propety of Fadak. What stopped Ali ( ) from doing this? So why are the Shia against Abu Bakr ( ) when Ali ( ) upheld 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 ( ) became the Caliph he was approached about returning Fadak. Alis reply ( )was:

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 didnt Ali ( ) return 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 ( ,) 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 [ ] forbade inheritance of his property, and that Abu Bakr [ ,] Umar [ ,] Uthman [ ,] and Ali [ ] upheld the decision of Fadak.) So again, we ask our Shia brothers: why didnt Ali ( ) return Fadak once he became Caliph? Why did he uphold Abu Bakrs decision ( ) if it was so wrong? Why dont the Shia hate Ali ( ) for failing to return Fadak? Why dont they hate Ali ( ) for reaping the gains of Fadak while he was Caliph? Why the double standard with Abu Bakr ( ?) The Shia say that Caliph Umar ( ) gave Fadak back to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ,)and they accuse Caliph Uthman ( ) of being a tyrant because he snatched it back from them. So then the question is: why didnt Ali ( ) return Fadak to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) when he became Caliph? Uthman ( ) is a tyrant but Ali ( ) is not? Indeed this is nothing short of an incredible double standard. What is also interesting is that Hasan ( ) who was also Caliph for a short durationalso did not return Fadak! He did not claim it for himself, nor did he distribute it to the other inheritors from Fatimas lineage ( .) So why did he too do nothing about Fadak? Surely, if blame is to be put on Abu Bakrs shoulders ( ,) and on the shoulders of Uthman ( ,) then fairness dictates that equal blame should be put on Hasan ( !)

Shia Rebuttal #1: Taqiyyah

According to the Shia, Fadak should have been rightfully distributed to the progeny of Fatima ( .) Then, why didnt Ali ( ) do what is right? The only response the Shia can give is their standard cop-out: why, of course Ali ( ) was doing Taqiyyah! The Shia will say that this is why he didnt 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 cant we claim then that Abu Bakr ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah and thats why he didnt return Fadak to Fatima? And why couldnt we say that Uthman ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah? It becomes comical when ones 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 () took Abu Bakr ( ) as a companion and even married his daughter is that the Prophet ( ) was of course doing Taqiyyah! The only way that the Shia can reconcile the fact that Ali ( ) didnt fight the Three Caliphs like Hussain ( ) fought Yezid is again of course Taqiyyah! Why didnt 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 ( ) didnt 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 ( ,) whose Meccan home had been usurped by the infidels; upon conquering Mecca, the Prophet ( ) did 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 AlBaqir 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 thats 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 ( .) Caliph Mamun 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 ( ) did not want to commit Fitnah (i.e. disunity, chaos, etc) and this is why he didnt return Fadak. We address this argument below.

Shia Rebuttal #3: Ali ( ) Didnt Want Fitnah

One could just as easily say that Abu Bakr ( ) didnt return Fadak for the exact same reason. Abu Bakr ( ) must 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 ( .) Abu Bakr ( ) was 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 ( ) was waging a war against those who refused to pay Zakat. Abu Bakr ( ) was 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) that the Shia portrayof a man who cannot stand up for what he thinks is rightis offensive to the Ahlus Sunnah. The Shia believe that Ali ( ) could 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 (

) Was Dead

Sometimes an E-Shia will try forwarding the argument that Fatima ( ) died six months into Caliph Abu Bakrs rule, and thus Fadak was a non-issue by the time Ali ( ) became Caliph. Unfortunately, this argument falls apart when we look at the Shia narrations which show that Ali ( ) approached Umar ( ) and asked him to return Fadak to Fatimas heirs, including Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( .) Thus, according to the Shia, Fadak was still a monumental issue and the land should be returned to the progeny of Fatima ( .) In fact, the Shia today still claim that Fadak should be returned to those whom they call Syedi.

Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) were the inheritors of Fatima ( ,) and thus Fadakaccording to the Shiawas their right. The Shia curse Uthman ( ) for taking Fadak away from Ali ( ) and giving it to Marwan ( .) As can be seen, the issue of Fadak did not then die with Fatima ( ) and this argument is weak.

Conclusion

The Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( ) are baseless, since he was following orders from Prophet Muhammad ( ) and this decision was upheld by Ali ( .) If the Shia want to lay blame on Abu Bakr ( )for using Fadak as a charitable property, then the Shia should also accuse Ali ( ) since he did the same thing during his Caliphate. The truth is that Ali ( ) did at first think that Fadak should be given to Fatima ( ;) however, he changed his mind after being presented with Abu Bakrs argument ( ,) and this is why Ali ( ) upheld the first Caliphs 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 ( ) went against the Quranic rules of inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets as clearly mentioned by the Prophet ( ) in 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 ( .) In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) 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 (Alis sword [ ,)] the Quran, the Prophets 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) of 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 Prophets family is not permitted to take Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the Prophets family could not ask for Zakat. This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophets family could not recieve Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve inheritance from the Prophet ( ?) Both 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 revelationof which many people happen to be uninformed ofis 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 ( ) to 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 Jafar 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 alAhkam, 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 Jafar 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 ( ) 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 ( )even 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: Fatimas Anger (R.A.)

Previous

(Continued)

Ali (

) angered Fatima (

The Shia will also bring up the following Hadith to condemn Abu Bakr ( ,)wherein the Prophet ( ) said: 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 dont 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 bringing up this Hadith. The Prophet ( ) addressed the above statement (he who makes her angry, makes me angry) to Ali ( ) who had angered Fatima ( ) in a very famous incident. This incident is narrated 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 AlShia.com: Al-Shia.com says

Majlisi

Bihar

43/201-202

: - - : : : . . : . : :

 : ] ( 1 )

. [

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 Fatimas anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night timeshe moved to her fathers 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 fathers 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 Dua 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 AlHassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthooms 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 Qummis 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 ( ) who had angered Fatima ( ,) and consequently, the Prophet ( ) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima ( ) angers him. According to the Shia narration above, the Prophet ( ) even put his foot on Ali and pinched him. Not only this, but the Prophet ( ) rounded up some of the Sahabah in order to publically chastise Ali ( ) on the matter. Hence, if the Shia would like to condemn Abu Bakr ( ) for angering Fatima ( ,) then what about this incident in which Ali ( ) does 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 ( ) as a chastisement of Ali ( !) And this was not the only time that Ali ( ) angered Fatima ( .) According to Shia sources, we see several other instances. On one occassion, she was angry with Ali ( ) because 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 fathers 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

) 1 ( : . : :

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 Fatimas house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girls 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 fathers house? He said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet. (source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis 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

185-186

( : ) : : :

 source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html Yasoob.com says

sharai

Shayh

Saduk

Ilal

esh

: source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html

The Shia say that Fatima ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( ) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali ( ) at the same time? We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusis 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-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusis Amali, p.295) Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali ( ) made Fatima ( angry on more than one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions: )

1) The Prophets saying whoever disturbs her, disturbs me is addressed to Ali ( ) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr ( ;) if this statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali ( ) before Abu Bakr ( .)

2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, AlErbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali ( ) angered Fatima ( .) What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali ( ,) then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr ( .)

No obedience In transgression

When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr ( ) by bringing up the Prophets words ( ) about making Fatima ( ) angry, we ask these mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith and Quranic exhortations about not making ones 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 ( ) 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 ( ) place the words of Fatima ( ) above that of the Messenger of Allah ( ) who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance?

Fatimas anger (

) in context

It should be noted that Fatima ( ) is not God. Her anger does not decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. Not even the Prophet ( ) is 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 Prophets uncle, Hamza ( .) Washu would later convert to Islam and repent for his crimes; even still, the Prophet ( ) could 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 ( .) 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, Fatimas anger ( ) is not the factor which decides who goes to Paradise and who burns in Hell-Fire. If Fatimas anger ( ) is based on something which is wrong from a Shariah standpoint [i.e. Fadak], then how can this be the reason for Abu Bakrs condemnation ( ?) Fatima ( )

was angry at Ali ( ) on at least one occassion: Ali ( ) greatly upset Fatima ( ) on many occassions, and even there were incidents in which she was so angry that she left Alis house ( ) and went to stay with her father. Do we condemn Ali ( ) as a Kaffir now? The truth of the matter is that peopleeven loved onesget 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 ( ) who lost patience with Khidr ( ,) 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) got in arguments, and yet we know that they were best of friends. Likewise, we believe that Ali ( ) got in arguments with Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( .) 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 ( ?) The Shia exploit the Hadith about whoever makes Fatima ( ) angry makes the Prophet ( ) angry. The Shia believe that the same is true of Ali ( ,) that whoever makes him angry also makes the Prophet ( ) angry. Likewise, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that whoever upsets the Sahabah makes the Prophet ( ) angry. Thus, the Hadith about angering Fatima ( ) must be taken into the appropriate context and cannot be taken in such simplistic and stark terms. Furthermore, Abu Bakr ( ) 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 ( .) As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr ( ) should have been careful about angering Fatima ( ,) an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima ( ) who 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 Fatimas position ( ) is higher due to the fact that she is leader of the women of Paradise, then we can also say that Aishas position ( ) is higher than that of Alis ( ) based 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 ( ,) unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize Fatima ( ;) we 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 Prophetwho was raised by himcould possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake.

By this same logic, one could defend all of the actions of Aisha ( ,) 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 ( ) made a mistake, we ask the Shia why they say Aisha ( ) made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia). The reality is that any human beingeven the greatest of Muslimsis 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 ( ) did not know of the Prophets 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 (

) reconciled with Abu Bakr (

In any case, it was only initially that Fatima ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( .) The Shia endeavour to capitalize on her feelings to convey the idea that because she was wronged, she had directed that Abu Bakr ( ) should 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 ( ) eventually became pleased with Abu Bakr ( .) Abu Bakr ( ) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Fatima ( ) in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, Abu Bakr ( ) frequently 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 ( ) was greatly saddened by Fatimas displeasure ( .) 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 ( ) to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt to placate and please Fatima ( .) 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 ( ) became pleased with Abu Bakr ( .) 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 Dalail alNubuwwa (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: Sahih Bukhari, Narrated by Aisha: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 325:

After the death of Allahs Apostle, Fatimathe daughter of Allahs Apostleasked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give to her what was her share of inheritance from what

Allahs Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 ( ) may not have known that Fatima ( ) had reconciled with Abu Bakr ( .) Aisha ( ) was not present at that moment, so she was unaware of it. This does not mean that the event did not take place. Furthermoreand this point cannot be stressed enoughthe Hadith narrated by Aisha ( ) really means that Fatima ( ) did not speak to Abu Bakr ( ) again about the issue of Fadak, not necessarily that she did not speak to him again at all. Even though Abu Bakr ( ) was in the right, he nonetheless had the nobility and chivalry to continue trying to please Fatima ( ,) despite the fact that she was in the wrong. The Shia propagandist will oftentimes show narrations that show that Abu Bakr ( ) regretted his causing Fatima ( ) to be angry. We find nothing wrong in this, and we give the Shia the example of Ali ( ) who sought the good pleasure of Aisha ( ) after the Battle of the Camel. In both situations, Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) were in the right, but they went to seek the good pleasure of the women, both of whom were close to the Prophet (.) Regarding the claim that Fatima ( ) was averse to Abu Bakr ( )attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali ( ) in 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 ( ) explained that she had seen one womans body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima ( ) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did. When Fatima ( ) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet ( .) She instructed Asma ( ) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali ( ) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma ( ) was

the wife of Abu Bakr ( ,) which serves as another evidence that Fatima ( ) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr ( ) before her death. (In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatimas grave [ .] 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 ( ) did not attend the burial of Fatima ( ,) Ali ( ) asked Abu Bakr ( ) on the basis that he was Caliphto conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr ( ) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab: Upon Hadhrat Alis 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 ( ) had said that Abu Bakr ( )should not lead the Janaazah, since Ali ( ) is the one who asked Abu Bakr ( ) to do it in the first place!

Three more refutations

The Shia will never agree with us that Fatima ( ) became pleased with Abu Bakr ( ,) and they will adamantly claim that Fatima ( ) was angry with Abu Bakr ( ) for the rest of her life. They will quote Aisha ( ) who said that Fatima ( ) remained angry with Abu Bakr ( .) Our response is three-fold. Firstly: If Fatima ( ) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr ( ,) but rather it looks bad for Fatima ( .) She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shias own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima ( ) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr ( ,) then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any manbut the Caliph of the Ummah. This makes Fatima ( ) look whimsical. The Sahabahincluding Abu Bakr ( ) used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima ( ) remained 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 ( ) and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr ( ) near the end of her life. Perhaps it was that Aisha ( ) did not know that Fatima ( ) became happy with Abu Bakr ( ) because he did not inform Aisha ( ) about each and everything (such as when he placated Fatima). We take this opinion since it makes Fatima ( ) look 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 ( ) made good with Abu Bakr ( ,) so why should we ignore these? Secondly: The Shia keep saying that Fatima ( ) carried a grudge her whole life, as if that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakrs grave mistake ( .) Fatima ( ) only lived six months after the Prophets death! So even if Abu Bakr ( ) made Fatima ( ) angry, her anger couldnt 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 Prophets death, Fatima ( ) was a highly emotional and distraught individual, since she loved the Prophet ( ) so much and missed him. Even the Shia say that Fatima ( ) was never happy for the rest of her life after the death of the Prophet ( ;) the Shia have exaggerated stories about how even Angel Jibraeel ( ) would comfort Fatima ( .) So obviously, Fatima ( ) was in a bad mood, and we cannot lay the entire blame on the shoulders of Abu Bakr ( ;) indeed, if the Shia want to lay the blame on someone, then lay it on Allah for taking away Fatimas 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 fathers position as leader of the Muslims. However, the most reliable position is that Fatima ( ) reconciled with Abu Bakr ( .) 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 ( ) died happy with Abu Bakr ( .) 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 Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442). Therefore, if the Shia would insist that Abu Bakr ( ) is to be criticized for angering Fatima ( ,) then based on this same logic, shouldnt 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 ( ) and Ali ( ) 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 ( .) If the Shia propagandists would like to narrowly apply such a Hadith with regards to Fatima ( ,) 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 Prophets 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 inevitableas 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) for angering Fatima ( ) over Fadak, then one could easily reply that Fatima ( ) hated Umar ( ) over Fadak and the Prophet warned against hating Umar ( .) 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 Fatimas 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 ( ) denied Fatima ( ) her inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, the Sunni position on Fadak is a slam-dunk because of the fact that the Shias 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 ( ) as an inheritance, but rather as a gift (hiba) from the Prophet (.) Every single authoratative narrative, both on the Sunni and Shia side, affirms that Fatima ( ) approached Abu Bakr ( ) seeking Fadak as her inheritance. The term inheritance is always used, and never gift. Even the Shia books accuse Abu Bakr ( ) of denying Fatima ( ) 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 ( ) fabricated 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 ( ) as 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 ( ) talks to Abu Bakr ( ) 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 Prophets death ( ) that Fatima ( ) came to claim Fadak. If it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ,) then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophets death ( ) and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr ( ) for it. Some Shia propagandists will then claim that the Prophet () gifted Fatima ( ) Fadak as inheritance that she would assume after his death. Do the Shia not realize that this is accusing the Prophet ( )of 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 portionaccording to the Shariahis to charity.) Fatima ( ) never sought Fadak as a gift: in every single narration about this incident, Fatima ( ) spoke about her inheritance. It was immediately after the Prophets death that Fatima ( ) came to claim Fadak, and if it

had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ,) then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophets death, and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr ( ) for it. It is impossible that the Prophet ( ) gifted Fatima ( ) the 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 ( ) wrongfully said that Abu Bakr ( ) lied and fabricated Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance. (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [ ] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. Neither does the Ahlus Sunnah accept the exaggerated tales of Fatima [ ] cursing Abu Bakr [ ] and 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) was infallible. If she was truly infallible, then why doesnt she know a Hadith that we have even proved from the Shia AlKafi? 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 ( ) wrongfully 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 ( ) accused Abu Bakr ( ) of fabricating Hadith, then she was wrong.
Fadak, Part VII: Charity is Good

Previous (Continued)

Abu Bakr (

) Gave Fadak as Charity

The Shia will make it sound as if Abu Bakr ( ) took Fadak and made it his own. Abu Bakr ( ) did 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 ( )did not buy a new car using the money from Fadak. In fact, Abu Bakr ( )was 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 ( ) 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 Bakrs Dilemma (

Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophets daughter, and Abu Bakr ( ) felt horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would think that perhaps Abu Bakr ( ) should 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 ( ,) 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 ( ) must 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 ( .) Abu Bakr ( ) was held accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.

Further Arguments

Fatima ( ) made a sincere mistake and she did not realize that she does not get inheritance from the Prophet ( .) Nobody, not Abu Bakr ( ) nor Ali ( ,) could place the words of Fatima ( ) above those of Prophet Muhammad ( ) which categorically forbade inheritance for Prophets. Additionally, if it was really to be inherited by the family of the Prophet ( ,) then Abu Bakr ( ) would have given the rightful share of it to Aisha ( ) but he did not. So why arent the Shia grieving for Aisha ( ) like they do for Fatima ( ?) And what about the other eligible relatives of the Prophet ( ?) Why is it that the Shia do not argue on behalf of these people for Fadak? It is reported that Aisha ( ) also asked her father Abu Bakr ( ) to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr ( ) refused on the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give inheritance. Why arent the Shia crying over Aishas loss ( ?) Abu Bakr ( ) did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the Prophet ( .) The Shia try to villify Abu Bakr, but what was Abu Bakrs only crime other than helping the poor? If the Shia want to make this a competition between Fatima ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ,)then let us remember that the former wanted it for her own personal usage, whereas Abu Bakr ( ) wanted 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 Fatimas ( ;) the Ahlus Sunnah does not discuss Fadak in its own circles for this very reason, out of reverence for Fatima ( .) The Shia meanwhile force our hand and make us continually prove that Fatima ( ) was in the wrong, in order that we may exonerate Abu Bakr (

 )from wrong doing. We ask Allah Almighty to accept Abu Bakr ( Fatima ( ) into the Highest Ranks of Paradise.

) and

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 ( ) who 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: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) It is sad that in an attempt to win a debate, the Shia will try to prove the Prophet ( ) wrong as a consequence. The Shia propagandists will quote Verse 27:16 in which the Quran says: And Sulaiman was Dawuds 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 Dawuds 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 ( ) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud ( .) It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman ( ) being Prophet Dawuds heir ( ,) 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 ( ) who 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-Muminoon, Allah says: Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise. (Quran, Surah alMuminoon) 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 ( ) to be asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob ( ) would continue. Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) was 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 ( ,) 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 ( ) mentioned as the soleinheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge. Otherwise, Prophet Dawud ( ) denied 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 ( ) nor to Sulaiman ( .) Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulaiman ( ) and 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 ( ) has 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 ( ) accused Abu Bakr ( ) of 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 ( :) are the Shia really saying that the Prophet () incorrectly stated that Prophets do not inherit?
Fadak, Part IX: Umar (R.A.) Upheld Abu Bakrs Decision (R.A.)

Previous (Continued)

The Shia propagandists will sometimes claim that Umar ( ) overturned Abu Bakrs decision ( ) and gave Fadak back to Ali ( .) They will use this as proof that Abu Bakr ( ) was wrong, implying that look, even your Umar gave Fadak back. This is a blatant lie. Umar ( ) upheld Abu Bakrs decision ( ,) and Umar ( ) repeated the Prophets Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) approached Umar ( ) in regards to Fadak, and Umar ( ) allowed them to take control of Fadak as trusteesnot as inheritors. As trustees, Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) 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 ( ,) Abu Bakr ( ,) and Umar ( ,) 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: Allahs 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 Allahs Cause. Allahs 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 Allahs Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it in the same way as Allahs 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 Bakrs successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allahs 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 nephews property, and this man (Ali) came to me asking for his wifes share from her fathers property. I told you both that Allahs 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 Allahs Pledge and Convention that you would manage it in the same way as Allahs 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 http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=53&translator=1) Bukhari,

Umar ( ) thus made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) 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 ( ) said in the above Hadith that if there is even a bit of doubt on this matter, then they should return Fadak to Umar ( )who can act as its trustee instead. The fact that Umar ( ) made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) the trustees of Fadak was a compromise of immense wisdom. Umar ( ) gauranteed the goodwill of Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ,) but also Umar ( ) remained strict on following the Shariah and doing with Fadak what Abu Bakr ( ) had done as well. During the Caliphate of Uthman, Marwan ( ) was made trustee of Fadak and it was he who distributed the revenue as charity. When Ali ( ) assumed power, he did not reclaim Fadak for himself nor did he give it to his sons, Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( .) Thereby, Ali ( ) maintained the position of Fadak as a charity, and he continued to allow Marwan ( ) to be its trustee. The Shia will claim that Ali ( ) was under Taqiyyah during his Caliphate and this is the reason he did not return Fadak. They say that Ali ( ) could

not restore Fadak to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) simply 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 didnt 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 ( ) did not return Fadak to Fatimas 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 ( ,) there was a lot of civil strife and people were ready to revolt against Uthman ( .) Had he given Fadak back to Fatimas sons, then people would have reacted against him with force, and this would have created Fitnah and hatred against Caliph Uthman ( .) On what basis can the Shia claim that their fairy-tale (about Ali [ ] doing Taqiyyah) is any different than the above fairy-tale and scenario we gave (i.e. about Uthman [ ] also 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 ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah! He was the grandfather-in-law of Fatima ( .) Perhaps, Fatima ( ) did not want the people to think that the Caliph was not using nepotism and favoring his relatives. One could even claim that Fatima ( ) was doing Taqiyyah by pretending to be mad at Abu Bakr ( .) 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 ( ) did not return Fadak to Fatimas sons, and nothing prevented him from doing so. He did not even make them trustees of Fadak, like how Umar ( ) made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) trustees of Fadak. In fact, one could argue that Umar ( ) was the first one to return Fadak to Ahlel Bayt and Ali ( ) didnt even do this. So shouldnt the Shia believe Umar ( ) to be the good guy and Ali ( ) to be the bad guy? Umar ( ) made the Ahlel Bayt the trustees of Fadak while it was a Waqf; Ali ( ) didnt 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 ( Fadak. ) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning

When Umar ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia do not love him even though he appointed Abbas ( ) and Ali ( ) as the trustees of Fadak. When Uthman ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for failing to return Fadak to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( .) When Ali ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he was doing Taqiyyah and thats why he didnt return Fadak. When Muawiyyah ( returning Fadak. )was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not

When Hasan ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he didnt return Fadak again because he was doing Taqiyyah and didnt 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 ( ) for not returning Fadak, then they should also hate Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ) for not returning Fadak during their respective Caliphates. And then these Shia should simply love Umar ( ) since he did something that neither Ali ( ) nor Hasan ( ) did [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 ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( ) and they said aha! They accepted the story of Fadak since it fit in their paradigm. Fadak may not even have been a part of Shiism prior to this discovery in Sahih Bukhari, but then suddenly it became a central part of Shiism since it helps their cause so much. It doesnt matter to the Shia whonarrates the Hadith, its Isnad, or anything. It becomes Sahih simply because it supports Shiism. [In fact, the Shia base the story of Fadak and Fatimas anger [ ] upon a Hadith narrated by Aisha [ ,] whom they call a liar and a fabricator. However, because Aisha [ ] 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 ( .) However, they failed to realize that they were also destroying their whole religion if they accepted the story of Fadak. They didnt realize that their own Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ) did not give Fadak to Fatimas descendants either. Thus, if any fault is to be put on the shoulders of Abu Bakr ( ,) equal fault should be placed on the shoulders of Ali ( ) and Hasan ( .) 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 ( ) and the incident of the paper and pen. So then the Shia invented the story about how this was when the Prophet ( ) was going to appoint Ali ( ) as successor. The Shia propagandists will then trumpet this Hadith about the paper and pen, only because to them it makes Umar ( ) look evil. In fact, if the Ahlus Sunnah had Sunni Hadith that said Umar ( ) 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 Shiism because the Shia claim that it was Ghadeer Khumm in which the Prophet ( ) appointed Ali ( !) In the incident of the paper and the pen, the Prophet ( ) said that he had something new to write, so how could it be the appointment of Ali ( ) if he was already appointed at Ghadeer Khumm? Suddenly, the pillar of Shiismnamely that Ghadeer Khumm proves that we must follow Ali ( ) falls down. Thats 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 ( ) and Hasan ( ) did not return Fadak; therefore, neither Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) Uthman ( ,)nor Muawiyyah ( ) can 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: 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 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-Azam, 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 antiSunni 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 ( ) of fabricating the Hadith. They even say that Fatima ( ) accused 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 ( ) cursed Abu Bakr ( ) and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and all sorts of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shias own Al-Kafi would prove Fatima ( ) wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [ ] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more.) We remind the reader thataccording to the ShiaFatima ( ) never claimed that Abu Bakr ( ) 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 Shias main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr ( )made 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 ( ) was wrong to question Abu Bakr ( ) regarding the existence of the Hadith which is in the Shias 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 Fadakanything 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 ( ) or Fatima ( .) 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 ( ) of 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 ( ) of 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 ( ) simply did not know that the Prophet ( ) said 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 beingseven Prophetsmake mistakes. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) got in arguments with each other. But they were the best of friends, and are known as the Shaikhayn. So too did Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ) get 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 ( ) and Fatima ( ,) namely when Ali ( ) planned on marrying another wife other than Fatima ( .) Both Fatima ( ) and the Prophet ( ) were upset at Ali ( ) for this. But the reality is that neither Ali ( ) nor Fatima ( ) nor the Prophet ( ) were wrong about the issue. They simply had different opinions and preferences. Nobody would say to pick between Ali ( ) and Fatima ( .) In any case, we cannot understand why we must pick between Abu Bakr ( ) and Fatima ( ;) we 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 Sunnahand this cannot be stressed enoughwe consider it Makrouh (detestable) to criticize Fatima ( ) for no reason. The Shia will raise their children on stories about how evil Abu Bakr ( ) was, and the bad things that Umar ( ) did. The Shia children will hear about the accounts of Umar ( ) murdering Fatima ( ,) and of Abu Bakr

( ) 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 ( .) In fact, the only time we discuss Fadak is when we argue with the Shia because they force our hand by condemning Abu Bakr ( .)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 ( ) and Fatima ( ) have 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, shouldnt 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 ( ) or Fatima ( ?) Furthermore, before the Shia condemns Abu Bakr ( ,) he should ask himself if in his heart he has even a shadow of doubt about Abu Bakrs guilt ( .) Do the Shia not see all the other differing accounts of Abu Bakrs actions ( ?) What if one of the alternate accounts of Abu Bakr ( ) is correct? Then what? Surely it is a possibility! Therefore, there is at least a shred of doubt and we should not condemn Abu Bakr ( ) lest 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 doesnt even have relevance to any non-religious aspect of our lives! Neither of the two parties involvedneither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Fatima ( ) commited 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 ( ,) 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 Prophets 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 Allahs 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 ( ) including 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 [ ] had four daughters!)

Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion

Previous (Continued)

Bias of the Shia

The Shia is clearly biased against Abu Bakr ( .) Let us imagine that it was not Fatima ( ) but rather Aisha ( ) in her place, and that it was Ali ( ) in the place of Abu Bakr ( .) Then, the Shia would be talking about how ungrateful, whimsical, and rebellious Aisha ( ) was being against the Caliph of the Ummah! They would say that Aisha ( ) 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 ( ) and Fatima ( ) are always right, and Abu Bakr ( ) and Aisha ( ) are always wrong. Simply switch a few names around, and suddenly, the Shia will switch arguments on the issue. To the Shia, Aisha ( ) is wrong for going against the Caliph on the issue of Qisaas against Uthmans murderers (a right granted by Shariah); and yet, paradoxically, Fatima ( ) 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 ( ) 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 Fadakor any issue for that matterbe 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 ( ) or Fatima ( ) did, the Shia would twist the events in some way or the other to make sure that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was in the wrong. Had it been Abu Bakr ( ) who gave the Prophets land to Aisha ( ) and had it been Fatima ( ) who was against thisthen it would be the Shia who would condemn Abu Bakr ( ) for violating the Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance.

In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima ( ) the infallible is wrong or Prophet Muhammad ( ) the infallible is wrong, since their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima ( .) The words of Prophet Muhammad ( ) as recorded by the Shia are 100% at variance with the words of Fatima ( .) 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 ( ) made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr ( ) was upholding the words of the Prophet ( ,) 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: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) 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 ( ) did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the exact same manner as Abu Bakr ( ) did. All of the Shia counterarguments to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali ( ) used Fadak as a Waqf, then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr ( ) doing this as well. These two facts completely nullify the Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( ,)which are nothing but slanderous lies.

This twelve part series on Fadak was paraphrased by Ibn al-Hashimi from an article byMuhammad al-Khider. What do shia books say about FADAK? Abu bakar(ra) said to fatima(ra): What was of your respected father is yours , Prophet(Saw) used to keep some portion from fadak and used to distribute the remaining in the way of Allah, I swear by Allah that I will do the same as prophet(Saw) used to do, hearing this Fatima(ra) was glad and took and oath from

hz abubakar regarding it.(sharah nahjul balagha, ibn meesum al bahrani vol 5, page 7) SIMILAR NARRATION IS RECORDED IN ALDurrah ALNajfia. (sharah nahjul balagha, ibn meesum al bahrani vol 5, page 331-332). From the earning of fadak abubakar used to give the share to ahle bayt that was sufficient for their needs, the remaining he used to distribute , after him umar used to do the same , even usman used to do the same and after him Ali used to do the same. (sharah nahjul balagha, ibn meesum al bahrani vol 5, page 107 ) (ALDurrah ALNajfia page 332) (Sharah al-Nahaj vol 5 page 960)[/b] It is narrated from imam abu al hasan that 7 gardens were dedicated for fatima (a.s). Those were 1. dalaal 2. aoof 3. hasni 4. saafiya 5.maalaami ibrahim 6. maseeb 7. barqa. (al furoo min al kafi, kitab al wasaya vol 7, page 47, 48) Now the person who had such property already, how would that person have been very poor or would have got financial problems? . When Abubakar(ra) saw that Fatima(ra) was unhappy so he said to her: I don't deny your virtues and your closeness to prohet(Saw) , I just obeying the command of prophet(saw) didn't give you fadak. I make Allah my witness that I have heard prophet(Saw) saying we prophets don't leave inheritance , but kitab wa hikma and knowledge. In this issue Im not alone , I have done this act on the agreement of muslims. If you want wealth then you can take as much as you want from my mine wealth, you are the leader of women , you are the shajra taiba for your children, No one can deny your virtues.(haq ul yaqeen page 201, 202 ) When the issue of denying fadak reached hz ali so he Ali's reply (ra) was: [/b] "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) When abu jafar mohammed baqar was asked by Kaiser alnawaal he said : May Allah sacrifice me over you, do you think that abubakar and umar seized your right which was oppression? He replied : not at all I vow by the one who revealed quran on his servant. Not even about a grain of oppression was done on us, I asked should I love those two? He said: yes , you love them , and even then you bear any problem then it will be on my neck. (sharah nahjul balagha ibn abi hadeed vol 4, page 82)

Zaid bin ali bin hussain did the same refarding fadak that this grandfather Ali (ra) did , when bahtari bin hasaan asked him he said: to degrade and insult Abubakar I said to zaid bin ali(as) , Abubakar snacked fadak from Fatima(ra), hearing this he said : Abubakar was a kind man he disliked that he changes the thing which prophet(saw) did. Fatima(ra) went to him and said: rasool Allah http://islamicforum...tyle_emoticons/default/image008.gif had given me fadak, he replied to her: Do you have any witness ? She brought Ali(as). He witnessed about this thing, after him umm ayman came and said : Don't you both witness that I'm from ahle jannah , both said why not, (abu zaid said: it means that she said to abubakar and umar) , she said that I bear witness that rasool allah(Saw) gave fadak to to her, On this Abubakar said : Do you consider any other male or female have the right to give decision regarding this dispute, On this abu zaid said: I vow by Allah that if this mater would have come to me then I too would have done the same thing which abubakar(ra) did.(sharah nahjul balagha , ibn abi hadeed, vol 4, page 82) Abu Abdullah jafar said: Maal ghanimat(battle booty) is which .that a nation haven't given by its own hands, the owner of every unfertile land and forest is prophet(Saw) and after him , the imam of that time can use it in the way he likes.(al usool min al kafi, kutub al hujjah, chapter al fi wa al anfaal, vol 1, page 539) Its clear that after prophet(Saw) the imam of the time has more right than others over it. Imam abu al hasan musa came to mahdi , saw that he was resolving the opressions, he said O ameer ul monineen, why aren't our oppression resolved? He asked abu al hasan which oppressions? He replied fadak. Mahdi said to him o abu al hasan tell the geographical location of fadak, he replied its one limit is jabal e ahad , one limit arsh e misr , one limit is saif albahar , one limit is al jandal .(al usool min al kafi, chapter al fi wa al anfaal vol 1, page 543) This narration is not less than a joke , because it covers half of the earth , what is the comparision between the small village of khaibar and half of the earth. Regarding prophets inheritance : Ibraheem bin ali rafei narrated from his father who narrated from his grandmother bint abi rafey that : During the final illness of prophet http://islamicforum...tyle_emoticons/default/image008.gif Fatima bin rasoll allah http://islamic-forum...tyle_emoticons/default/image008.gif along with her two sons hassan and hussain came to him , and said ya rasool Allah these two are your sons, give them some inheritance of yours, rasool allah(Saw) said : for hassan is my fear of allah and buzurgi. And for hussain is my saqawat .(kitab al khasal , sheikh sudooq, page 77).

Fatima(as) said ya rasool allah, these are your sons, please give them something, rasool allah(saw) said, I have given hassan my ra'ab and buzurgi and to hussain my saqawat and shujaat.( .(kitab al khasal , sheikh sudooq, page 77). "The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge." (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) 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 alAhkam, 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)
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 dishonestWhen 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: 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:

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

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).

In the version of Juwariyya, it says: Between this perfidious, deceitful, wrongdoing liar (Ali). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said regarding this Hadith: 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 nonissue, 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 manservant) Yarfa came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. Auf, Zubair and Sad (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, dont 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, dont 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: Wasnt 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 Umars arbitration in a dispute. In this dispute, Abbas was of the opinion that he should be given a portion of Fadak and the Prophets property as inheritance, whereas Ali thought that the property should be his based on his relation to Fatima, the Prophets 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 Abbass 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: FatherWhy did you start smoking? Daughter All my friends were doing it. Father- Youre 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-andsuch, 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 brothers 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 Prophets 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 (singlechained) 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 Abbass words to Ali, then what prevents the Ahlus Sunnah from disregarding Alis 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 ( ) before 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 ( ) has 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 ( ) and of the Ahlel Bayt. But how can the Shia reconcile the fact that the Prophet () gave two of his daughters in marriage to the third Caliph, Uthman bin Affan ( ?) Why would the Prophet ( ) give two of his daughters to a sinful and evil man? By questioning Uthmans character ( ,) the Shia are declaring the Prophet ( ) to 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 ( ) first gave his daughter Ruqayyah ( ) to Uthman ( ,) and then later, he also gave him his other daughter, Umm Kulthoom ( .) What noble character Uthman ( ) must have had based on the fact that the Prophet ( ) trusted him with his daughtersnot just one but two! Abu Bakr ( ,) the first Caliph, was so close to the Prophet ( ) that he gifted his daughter in marriage to the Prophet ( .) Her name was Aisha ( ,) 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 ( ) really marry someone who was sinful and

impious? This is accusing the Prophet ( ) of sinning and violating the Quran as well as his own sayings. By marrying Abu Bakrs daughter, the Prophet ( ) showed his undying solidarity with Abu Bakr ( ,) whoother than being the Prophets father-in-lawwas the Prophets best frend and top liuetenant. The Prophet ( ) also married Hafsa ( ,) the daughter of Umar bin Khattab ( ) who was the second Caliph. How could Prophet Muhammad ( ) make such catastrophic mistakes and marry the daughters of his supposed enemies? The Shia revile Umar ( ) and accuse him of being an enemy of Islam. But this is simply preposterous based on the fact that the Prophet ( ) married his daughter Hafsa ( !) And to deliver the knock-out punch, Ali ( ) gave his own daughter in marriage to Umar ( .) Her name was Umm Kulthoom (a different Umm Kulthoom than the Prophets daughter). It shatters the entire foundation of Shiism when we consider that Ali ( ) gave his daughter Umm Kulthoom ( ) in marriage to Umar ( .) The entire Shia paradigm of the Three Caliphs being enemies of Ali ( ) thus collapses. As can be seen, all of the Three Caliphs (which Shia insult and call the three fools) were linked to Prophet Muhammad ( ) through marriage, blood, or both. That is how close friends the Three Caliphs and the Prophet ( ) were. Furthermore, Ali ( ) gave his daughter in marriage to Umar ( ,) 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 ( ) was the vizier and top aid to all Three Caliphs. Whoever insults the first Three Caliphs is thereby insulting the relatives of the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( .) 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.

Ali (

) Gave His Daughter to Umar (

Introduction Ali ( ) gave his daughter, Umm Kulthoom ( ,) in marriage to Umar ( ). This is a fact which most Shia lay persons have no idea about. It is also a fact that topples the entire paradigm of Shiism. Because of this, many Shia nowadays will say that this marriage between Umar ( ) and Umm Kulthoom ( ) is a fairy-tale. However, the record of this marriage is in the Shias 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 ( ) to Umar ( ). 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 ( ) and 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 ( .) The truth is that the Shia abandoned Alis daughter, Umm Kulthoom ( ,) for they believe she has brought shame to the Ahlel Bayt by having married into the family of Umar ( ); they thus refer to her in a very insulting manner. It should also be noted that the Shia narrations refer to Umar ( ) in 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 Kulthooms Marriage. Al-Shia.com says

Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthooms Marriage source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html NARRATION 1 Al-Shia.com says

9536 - 1 -

( ) :

Translation: Ali ibn Ibrahimfrom his fatherfrom Ibn Abi Umayrfrom Hisham ibn Salim and Hammadfrom 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html (narrated in Furoo al-Kafi, vol.5, p.347) NARRATION 2 Al-Shia.com says

( ) :

: : : : : )4( Translation: Muhammad ibn Abi UmayrHisham ibn Salim, who narrates that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said:

When [Umar] proposed to Amir al-Muminin, 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 daughters 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html (narrated in Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117) NARRATION 3 Al-Shia.com says

1) (10902 1)

: :

Translation: Humayd ibn ZiyadIbn SamaahMuhammad ibn ZiyadAbdullah ibn SinanMuawiyyah ibn AmmarImam 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html (narrated in Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117) NARRATION 4 Al-Shia.com says

1) (10902 1)

: :

Translation: Humayd ibn ZiyadIbn SamaahMuhammad ibn ZiyadAbdullah ibn SinanMuawiyyah ibn AmmarImam 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html (narrated in Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117) Authenticity We have here four chains of narration up to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( .) An investigation into the authenticity of these chains of narration by Shiaand not Sunnistandards 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, mutamad, 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 alQummi. 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 atTabrizi, Mujam 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 Samaah is properly known as al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Samaah. 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 yutanu 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 waswajhan 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, wawajhuhum, 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). (arRijal, p.366; al-Khulasah, p.13) Al-Husayn ibn Said 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 ( ) to Umar ( ). 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 ( ) and Umm Kulthoom ( ) get married, but they also had two children together, namely Zayd ( ) and Ruqayyah ( .) Umm Kulthoom ( ) and Zayd ( ) died 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 ( ) with 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: 1Agha Burzug al-Tahranis al-Dhari`a (5:184). 2- Ali ibn Muhammad al-`Alawis al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17). 3Al-Fadil al-Hindis Kashf al-Litham (2:312). 4- Al-Hurr al-`Amilis Wasail al-Shi`a Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314). 5- Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadis al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301). 6Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabilis Majma` al-Faida (11:530). 7Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqis Mustanad al-Shi`a (19:452). 8Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawaris Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307). 9- Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhanis Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496). 10Al-Shahid al-Thanis Masalik al-Afham (13:270). 11Al-Shaykh al-Aminis al-Ghadir (6:136-137). 12Al-Shaykh al-Tusis al-Mabsut (4:272). 13Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363). 14- Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiris Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308). Did Umar ( ) Force Ali ( ) to Give His Daughter?

The classical position of the Shia has been that the marriage between Umm Kulthoom ( ) and Umar ( ) did in fact take place, although they say that it was done by force. As the story goes, Umar ( ) threatened Ali ( ) with physical harm to him and his followers, and this is why Ali ( ) succumbed and gave Umm Kulthoom ( ) to 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 ( ) was 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 ( ), with all his courage and bravery on the battlefield, would give his daughter in marriage to Umar ( ), the man who supposedly killed Alis wife (the Prophets daughter) and unborn child? Why didnt Ali ( ) fight Umar ( ) and defend Umm Kulthoom ( ,) who was the Prophets grand-daughter? For that matter, why didnt Ali ( ) raise his sword to defend Fatima ( ) and his unborn child? The Shia version of history portrays Ali ( ) as 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 ( ) is? The truth is that the Shia version of history is false. Umar ( ) was not a murderer nor was he a pervert or any of the other horrendous things they accuse him of. Umar bin Khattab ( ) was a man of excellent character, and the evidence is that Ali ( ) would never give his daughter to anyone who did not possess an excellent character. To think otherwise would demean the status of Ali ( ) to 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 Alis courage and bravery [ ,)]or the Shia version (which makes Ali [ ] appear cowardly and refers to his daughter as a furuj or vagina). The Misrepresentation of History A major part of the edifice upon which Shiism 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 ( ) and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar bin Khattab ( ) that Shiism 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 spiritof emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarshipthat 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 ( ) as a coward, his daughter as a vagina, and they even disgrace other members of the same Ahlel Bayt they claim to follow, including the Prophets wives. Whilst claiming to love the Ahlel Bayt, they deny the existence of three of the Prophets 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 ( ) and Fatima ( ) immediately after the demise of the Prophet. The Shia propagandists have invented the story that Umar bin Khattab ( ) hit Fatima ( ) so hard that her unborn child was killed, and that Fatima ( ) died subsequently six months later from the injuries. The Shia tales talk

about Ali ( ) being dragged through the streets by Umar ( and made to give Bayah to Abu Bakr ( ).

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 ( ) and Umar ( ) will 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 ( ) and Umar ( )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 Alis wife was killed by Umar ( ), and if he himself was persecuted by Abu Bakr ( ) and Uthman ( ), then why on earth 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. (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, 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://alshia.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 ( ) and Fatima ( ) by the Sahabah is the marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ,) the daughter of Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ,) to Umar bin Khattab ( ). This marriage, in which Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) gave this daughter borne to him by Fatima ( ,) in marriage to Umar bin Khattab ( )the very same man whom the Shia allege caused the death of Fatima ( ) assails the foundations of Shiism in a way that few issues can. This historical fact threw the house of Shiism 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 ( ), and demonstrates the embarrasment in the Shia camp to which this contradictory cacophony of responses eloquently testifies. The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( )

Umm Kulthoom ( ) was the second daughter of Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ,) and the youngest of their four children. She was born in about the year 6 AH. Umar bin Khattab ( ) asked for her hand in

marriage during his Caliphate. This is recorded by Ibn Sad in his work at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (vol.8, p.338, ed. Muhammad Ab al-Qadir Ata, Dar al-Kutub alIlmiyyah, 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. TheyAli, Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and Abd ar-Rahmanused 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-Muminin? He replied, With the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib. (source: Ibn Sad 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 ( ) and the esteemed Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ). 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-Ansars 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 Sad from a man called Anas ibn Iyad alLaythi, who reported directly on the authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ), 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 ( ) who 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 ( ) and Ruqayyah ( .) After the martyrdom of Umar ( ) Umm Kulthoom ( ) was married to her cousin Awn ibn Jafar ( ), and after his death to his brother Muhammad ibn Jafar ( ). Ultimately she died while married to the third of Jafars son, namely Abdullah ( ), during the first half of the fourth decade after the Hijrah. Umm Kulthooms son Zayd ( ) died on the same day as her, and the funeral prayer for mother and son was performed together. The marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ) has been unanimously accepted as a fact of history by all major biographers and historians. Its authenticity has never been contested by anyonenot even the staunchest Shiaduring the first four centuries after the Hijrah. It was only during the fifth century that ash-Shaykh alMufid (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 ( ) would 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 Alam an-Nisa al-Muminat (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 lengthand still continues. Those who regard this marriage as an authentic fact use it to prove the righteousness of her husband [Umar] and Alis 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 Kulthooms marriage ( ) changed dramatically after the 5th century AH. Prior to that, the Shia scholarship had sung to the tune that Umar ( ) had forced the marriage upon Ali ( ), 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 ( ) look 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 Yaqub al-Kulaynis 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-Dhariah, 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 Wasail ash-Shiah, 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-shiatina (This is sufficient for our Shia). As has been mentioned above, at least four narrations in Al-Kafi refer to Umm Kulthooms marriage ( ) to Umar ( ). Not only this, but AlKulayni decided to dedicate the 23rd chapter in the Book of Marriage (Kitab anNikah) 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 Kulthooms marriage ( ) to Umar ( ) when Al-Kulayni himself mentioned that these Hadith are in reference to Umm Kulthooms marriage ( ) to Umar ( )? The Shia reader can even read the Hadith for himself as posted on Al-Shia.com: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi5/213.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

Translation: [Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer alMumineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for her hand in marriage during his [Umars] 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]. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html

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 Alis 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 ( ,) 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 nothat 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 (Alis) 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 ( ) by inventing some flimsy excuses such as that Ali ( ) did 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 ( ) remained 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 ( ) and Fatima ( ,) the sister of Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ), 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 themthat 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 Qasims 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 ( ) and Umm Kulthoom ( .) 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 Shiism. This school took full advantage of the methods and techniques of the existing schools of theology, especially the rationalist approach of the Mutazilah. It adopted and appropriated Mutazili 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 ( ) did not escape this process of rationalization. When this issue was discovered to run against the grain of Shia theologya theology that has its roots in a particular perspective of historythere 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 ( ) as 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-Masail 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-Mufids) view regarding Amir al-Muminin 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-Muminin 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-Muminin. 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 BakkarThe hadith in itself is a forgery. At this point the benefit of investigating the authenticity of the four reports in alKafi will become apparent. It can be seen here that al-Mufid places the responsibility for inventing the marriage of Umm Kulthoom ( ) on 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 Sad (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 ( ). Al-Mufids protestations are thus completely bereft of substance. If anything, it shows the mans 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-Kulaynis 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 scholars 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-Mufids nonchalance failed to convince anyoneincluding himself. Therefore, two paragraphs after denying the occurrence of Umm Kulthooms marriage ( ) he 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-Muminin was coerced to marry his daughter to the man, because he was threatening and menacing him. There can thus be no argument against Amir alMuminin 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 ones 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 Imams daughter, and the Prophets grand-daughter. The first explanation produced by al-Mufidthat of denying the historicity of the marriagewas 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 teachers 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 ( ) in 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-Aimmah, 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-Aimmah) 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 Ilam al-Wara bi-Alam 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, Ilam al-Wara bi-Alam 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-Muminin 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 ( ,) 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 ( ) and his daughter. Year in and year out they wail and lament the death of Hussain ( ), but for the honor of his sister Umm Kulthoom ( ) they have not the slightest sympathy, blithely asserting that she was a vagina forcibly taken by Umar bin Khattab ( ). Wouldnt 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 Shiism. So it is better for them

to sacrifice the honor of the Prophets 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 ( .) Conclusion There is no doubt in the fact that Umm Kulthoom bint Ali ( ) married Umar bin Khattab ( ). The proof of this marriage can be found in Hadith found in Al-Kafi, the Shias 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 ( ) and Imam Al-Baqir ( ). 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 ( ) to Umar ( ) in 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 Kulthooms marriage ( ) is 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 ( ) is such a coward that he gives his daughter in marriage to his wifes murderer, or the mainstream version of this marriage in which Ali ( ) lovingly secures the future of his daughter by wedding her to the heroic Caliph of the Muslims.
Shia Websites Confirm Umm Kulthooms 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 Kulthooms Marriage. Al-Shia.com says

Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthooms Marriage source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html Narration 1 Al-Shia.com says

9536 - 1 -

( ) :

Translation: Ali ibn Ibrahimfrom his fatherfrom Ibn Abi Umayrfrom Hisham ibn Salim and Hammadfrom 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html Narration 2 Al-Shia.com says

( ) : : :

: :

 )4( Translation: Muhammad ibn Abi UmayrHisham ibn Salim, who narrates that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: When [Umar] proposed to Amir al-Muminin, 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 daughters 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. source: 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

Translation: [Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer alMumineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for her hand in marriage during his [Umars] 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]. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html Narration 3: Al-Shia.com says

1) (10902 1)

: :

Translation: Humayd ibn ZiyadIbn SamaahMuhammad ibn ZiyadAbdullah ibn SinanMuawiyyah ibn AmmarImam 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. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html Narration 4: Al-Shia.com says

2) (10903 - 2)

: : : Translation: Muhammad ibn Yahya and othersAhmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa al-Husayn ibn Saidan-Nadr ibn SuwaydHisham ibn SalimSulayman 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 651 )755 : : http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-8/a9.html 751 )855( : : : . http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-8/a9.html . : http://www.rafed.net/books/aam/aalam-nesa/014.html 41 )122( )1 : . http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-2/a9.html 4 ))7996(( )2 ) ( : ) ( : http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahzib-2/a9.html ) ( http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/booehar100/b19.htm

) ( : )1( . http://www.alhikmeh.com/arabic/mktbalkafi01/09.htm

Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar] If Alis 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 alIrshad, 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 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 Alis 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 Shiism which is centered around the supposed oppression of the Ahlel Bayt at the hands of the Sahabah.
Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Names of Imam Alis sons

is

viewable

here:

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, AnsweringAnsar 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 dont 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 Alis 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 Alis 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 Prophets uncle, and then there is Jafar the name of Alis brother, and the name Abdullah which is the name of the Prophets 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 doesnt 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, thats 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 readers 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 AnsweringAnsars 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-Ansars claims, and this factnamely that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthmanshows 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 (

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 ( ) before 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 ( ) declared: 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 ( )

The Prophet ( ) gave two of his daughters, Ruqayyah ( ) and Umm Kulthoom ( ,) in marriage to Uthman bin Affan ( ). Uthman ( ) first married Ruqayyah ( ) but she died shortly afterwards. The Prophet ( ) then gave his other daughter to Uthman ( ), and Uthman ( ) subsequently married Umm Kulthoom ( .) Because he had the unique honor of marrying not just one but two of the Prophets 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 Prophets
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 `Uthman ibn `Affan 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`. `Uthman then married her sister Ummu Kulthoom in Rabi` alAwwal 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 ( ) gave his daughters to Uthman ( ) is proof enough of his good character. It is a refutation against all of the accusations and slander levied against Uthman ( ) by the Shia propagandists. In fact, if the Shia say that Uthman ( ) was an evil person, then they are declaring that the Prophet ( ) violated the Quran and his own sayings by giving his daughter to an evil person. Indeed, what noble character Uthman ( ) must have had that he got the honor of marrying not just one, but two of the Prophets daughters. Abu Bakr ( )

Abu Bakr ( ), the first Caliph, was so close and dear to the Prophet ( ) that he gifted his daughter in marriage to the Prophet ( ). Her name was Aisha ( ,) whom the Shia spread malicious slander against. Would the Prophet ( ) really marry someone who was sinful and an evil-doer? This is accusing the Prophet ( ) of sinning and violating the Quran as well as his own sayings. By marrying Abu Bakrs daughter, the Prophet ( ) showed his undying solidarity with Abu Bakr ( ), who was his best friend and top lieutenant. Umar bin Khattab ( )

Umar bin Khattab ( ), the second Caliph, was also very close to the Prophet ( ); he too gave his daughter, Hafsa ( ,) in marriage to the Prophet ( ).

Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) gave his daughter, Umm Kulthoom bint Ali, in marriage to Umar ( ). This very fact shatters the entire Shia paradigm, and the false idea that the Three Caliphs were enemies of Ali ( ). The marriage of Umar ( ) to Umm Kulthoom is documented in Al-Kafi, which is considered the most authentic book of Shia Hadith. Conclusion Ali ( ) was on very good terms with the Three Caliphs, and they were Sahabah (Companions) one to another. Ali ( ) served as vizier and top aid to all three Caliphs; therefore, the Shia historical accounts of bad blood between the House of Ali ( ) and 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 ( ) through marriage, blood, or both. That is how close companions the Three Caliphs and the Prophet ( ) were.

Abu Bakr (

), 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 ( ), who supposedly stole the Caliphate from Ali ( ). However, the Shia opinion of Abu Bakrs character ( ) does not match up with the Quran (and the associated historical events) which actually mentions Abu Bakr ( ) in a very positive light. When the Prophet ( ) fled Mecca (i.e. Hijra), he asked Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) to lay in his bed so that the Quraish infidels would think that the Prophet ( ) was still asleep. He told Ali ( ) not to worry because no harm would come to him. The Prophet ( ) then called his closest companion, Abu Bakr ( ), to accompany him on the dangerous emigration to Medinah. So it was that the Prophet and Abu Bakr ( ) made the Hijra together.

The Quraish disbelievers were giving chase, and the two menthe Prophet ( ) and Abu Bakr ( )hid 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 spiders web. The spider created a web in record time, and when the Quraish disbelievers saw it, they reasoned that the Prophet ( ) couldnt possibly be in the cave because the spiders web extensively covered the entrace, indicating that nobody had disturbed it in quite some time. This was the miracle of the spiders web, which saved the Prophet ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ). 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 ( ), but it should be noted that every Shia Tafseer available to us confirms that this verse is referring to Abu Bakr ( ) when 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 source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/

Shaikh Ali Rasheed, a Shia scholar, answered the following question on AlIslam.org:

Al-Islam.org says

QUESTION: SalamWhat is meant by (verse) 9:40Some 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, Im not sure what you are implyingThis 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 sidesboth Sunni and Shiaare agreed that the companion in the cave with the Prophet was Abu Bakr ( ). This Quranic verse (9:40) honors Abu Bakr ( ) in five ways:

Firstly: The Quran refers to Abu Bakr ( ) as the second of the two citing Abu Bakr ( ) as the sole partner of the Prophet ( ) in 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 ( ) based on this verse alone. It could be said that during the Hijra, a spiders web saved Islam, and Abu Bakr ( ) was there to witness this miracle, Allah referring to him as the second of the two. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) and the Prophets 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 ( ) using the term sahib (companion) showing the closeness of the Prophet ( ) to Abu Bakr ( ). In fact, the Prophet ( ) chose his closest companion to accompany him on this very dangerous

journey; nobody other than Abu Bakr ( ) was given the honor of escorting the Prophet to Medinah. It could be said that Abu Bakr ( ) was the personal bodyguard of the Prophet of Islam, the one man trusted enough to handle the delicate mission of transporting Allahs Messenger ( ) to safety and away from the clutches of the scheming infidels. Thirdly: The Prophet ( ) lovingly reassures Abu Bakr ( ) to grieve not. This is the Prophets 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 ( ) curse him? No, instead he reassured him and told him: dont worry, everything will be alright. This sentence of the Prophet ( ) proves his close relationship to Abu Bakr ( ), showing that he cannot see Abu Bakr ( ) being in grief. Fourthly: Most importantly, the Prophet ( ) continues and tells Abu Bakr ( ) that Allah is with us. This is the absolute negation of the Shia paradigm. The Shia say that Abu Bakr ( ) is doomed by Allah, but here we see that the Prophet ( ) says that Allah iswith Abu Bakr ( ). And indeed it must be in a positive light since the Prophet ( ) included himself by using the word us. The Prophet ( ) is reassuring Abu Bakr ( ) that no harm can come to Abu Bakr ( ) because He has the special protection of Allah Himself. If it had been a Shia in the cave with Abu Bakr ( ), then the Shia would have said to Abu Bakr ( ) that Allah is against you and not Allah is with you. Fifthly: Allah sent his Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) down upon Abu Bakr ( ). Allah sends Sakinah down upon the believers; if Abu Bakr ( ) was an evil-doer as the Shia claim, then Allah would have sent his Wrath upon him, not his Sakinah. The Shia consider Abu Bakr ( ) to 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 ( ) in 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 ( ): 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 sawUmar 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 ( ). After Umar ( ) explains the reasons this verse gives Abu Bakr ( ) merit, Shaikh Mufid then replies and supposedly silences Umar ( ) once 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 Mufids 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 Momin 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 Momin 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 source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) was present with the Prophet ( ) in the defining moment of Islam; in fact, it was around this time that the Islamic calender would start. The Prophet ( ) took nobody other than Abu Bakr ( ) on this epic journey and nobody else other than Abu Bakr ( ) was present on this momentous and miraculous day. It is obvious that the Prophet ( ) chose one of his closest companions to accompany him on the emigration to Medinah. He could have chosen anybody else, but he chose Abu Bakr ( ). This is the honor, and it is cemented by the Quran which refers to Abu Bakr ( ) alone as the second of the two on this very historic and miraculous day in which Islam was saved by a spiders web. In fact, the Shia have a very hard time dealing with the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) was the one who accompanied the Prophet ( ) to Medinah. Imagine if it had been Abu Bakr (instead of Ali) who the Prophet ( ) had told to lay in his bed for him; and imagine then that it was Ali (instead of Abu Bakr) who the Prophet ( ) took along with him to Medinah. Then, we would hear the Shia chanting about how the Prophet ( ) left Abu Bakr ( ) to die on his bed (i.e. Abu Bakr was expendable), and how the Prophet ( ) loved Ali ( ) so 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 ( ) took Abu Bakr ( ) along with him because he feared that if he left him in Mecca, then Abu Bakr ( ) would tell the Quraish infidels where the Prophet ( ) was 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 enemythe Quraish unbelievers were railing at the Prophets 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 ( ) had the intention of divulging the Prophets 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 ( ) and it is only a spider web which separates them. If Abu Bakrs intentions ( ) were to have the Quraish infidels find the location of the Prophet ( ) so that they could capture him, tell me: wouldnt 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 ( ) from jumping out and informing them that the Prophet ( ) was in there and they should go and capture him! Surely, if this was the intention of Abu Bakr ( )as 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 ( ) is not gleeful that the Quraish infidels have found the Prophet ( ), but rather he is grieved by this fact and fearful for the Prophets life ( ). And I say the Prophets life ( ) and not his own because the Quraish infidels had a warrant for the capture of the Prophet ( ) and not Abu Bakr ( ); the bounty was on the Prophets head ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) could simply turn him in to collect the reward. Getting back to my point here: if it had been Ali ( ) who had accompanied the Prophet ( ) on the Hijra, then the Shia would be declaring that this is a definitive proof for the fact that Ali ( ) was 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 ( ). To conclude, the Shia have no explanation as to why the Prophet ( ) took Abu Bakr ( ) along and nobody else. The only logical explanation is that Abu Bakr ( ) was the Prophets top lieutenant, bodyguard, and trusted friend. Nothing else makes sense. At minimum, however, we have established the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) could 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 ( ) would have taken him along.

In fact, the Prophet ( ) specifically asked Abu Bakr ( ) to 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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? source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) had a strong bond of closeness between himself and the Prophet ( ). 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 ( ). 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 ( ) was an enemy of the Prophet ( ) or 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 ( ) with 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 ( ) who was being referred to as the sahib of the Prophet ( ), 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 Dont 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 source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 womans 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 ( ]) from 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 ( ,) the blessed mother of Prophet Isa ( .) 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 ( ) and 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 Mufids arguments here and substitute Mariam ( ) for Abu Bakr ( ), and then we will see how obnoxious his argument is. It is like Shaikh Mufid saying to Mariam ( :)

And the words Dont 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 ( ) was 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 ( ;) he tells his favorite brother to grieve not. This was the one brother whom Prophet Yousuf ( ) loved more than his other brothers who were corrupt, so Prophet Yousuf ( ) separated 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 ( ,) who was fearful for the life of others, much in the same way that Abu Bakr ( ) was fearful for the Prophets life. And so Allah sent angels down to Prophet Lut ( ) who 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 ( ) was 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 ( ?) Surely not. This was an act of solace to reassure Prophet Lut ( ) not to worry. And then we have the example of Prophet Musas mother ( ,) 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 Musas 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: dont 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 ( ) 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 Shias colorful reading of verses pertaining to Abu Bakr ( ) are actually very dangerous because if we use the same logic in other verses then we end up condemning the Prophet ( ) himself. 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 ( ) and the believers were saddened after their defeat in the Battle of Uhud. And so it was that Allah sent down reassurance to the Prophet ( ), 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: dont worry, you will indeed become victorious. There is also the example in the Quran of Prophet Ibrahim ( ) when 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 Ibrahims 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 ( ) was apprehensive of the Quraish infidels who were surrounding the cave, and likewise was Prophet Ibrahim ( ) apprehensive 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 ( ) even the staunchest Shia can agree that it is reassurance and not condemnation, for the Shia believe that Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was infallible! And then the angels even tell him despair not in a similar manner that the Prophet ( ) told Abu Bakr ( ) to grieve not. If the Shia would like to argue that Abu Bakr ( ) was weak in faith for being in grief, then using this same logic one would have to say that Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was weak in faith for doubting the angels that he could have a child at so old an age. When the Prophet ( ) first 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 Alis daughter (Umm Kulthoom [ )] reassured her mother (Fatima [ )] and 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) had 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 distressSurah anNashrah is one of them. It is well-known that there was a year in the Prophets 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 ones polemical stance in a debate, in suggesting that people who are afraid or upset by lifes 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. source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) said 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 Bakrs fear and grief). A normal human being would read this verse and say Allah is with us refers to the Prophet ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) because 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 ( ) and 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 ( ). 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 ( ), and he has reassured us that it refers to the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( ). 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 ( ) shows 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 ( ;) but how can this be when Shaikh Mufid himself found it incumbent that this actually refers to the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( )? But Shaikh Mufid is not satisfied with his own explanation that us refers to the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( ), 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). source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

Unfortunately, Shaikh Mufid could not provide a single reference in the Quran in which the Prophet ( ) uses the plural form to refer to himself. Suddenly, just this once, the Prophet ( ) chose to use the plural form for himself? This is quite a coincidence. The Prophet ( )

would have easily said that Allah is with me if he were excluding Abu Bakr ( ). The idea that we refers to the Prophet ( ) alone has no basis whatsoever, and it is contradicted by Shaikh Mufids earlier claims that we refers to the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( ). Really, which argument is it? How can the we be a pronoun used in the singular for the Prophet ( ) alone when it also supposedly refers to the Prophet ( ) and Ali ( )? The 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 ( ) and his companion in the cave. Shaikh Mufid says

Your claim that AS-SAKINAH (serenity) was sent down to Abu Bakr is indeed
outrageousin 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! source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

The Shia admit that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was grieving and worried in the cave. Therefore, logically it only makes sense that Allah would send down reassurance and serenity to Abu Bakr ( ), since the Prophet ( ) was 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 dont 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 doesnt make sense, but I guess this doesnt 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 ( ) somehow. 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 ( )! 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 source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

Congratulations, O great Shaikh Mufid! You have defeated Umar bin Khattab ( ) in 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 ( ) look like a coward. Here, they say

that Abu Bakr ( ) was crying like a baby and that he was really frightened, comparing this with Alis bravery ( ). We wonder where this bravery went whenaccording to the ShiaAbu Bakr ( ) ordered his men to break down the door to Alis house ( ), manhandled his wife, and killed Alis wife and unborn child, dragging Ali ( ) through the streets by the collar? Where was Alis bravery ( ) then? (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 [ ] was 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 [ ] was crying.) There is absolutely no proof that Abu Bakr ( ) was crying. With no proof that Abu Bakr ( ) cried, how do the Shia simply assert this? What could prevent someone else from saying that Ali ( ) cried when the Quraish infidels surrounded the Prophets bed ( )? Someone could claim that Ali ( ) wet 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 doesnt make them true, especially without a shred of evidence. The key point to be remembered is that the Prophet ( ) also told Ali ( ) not to worry when he asked Ali ( ) to sleep in his bed. Therefore, should we then say that Ali ( ) was fearful and this shows his lack of faith that the Prophet ( ) had to reassure him? No. The only thing that we can ascertain from the fact that the Prophet ( ) reassured Ali ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) is that the Prophet ( ) loved them both and this is why he gave them words of solace. Loved ones always give words of solace, and this doesnt 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 ( ) was the bravest companion of all that he risked his life to accompany the Prophet ( ) on this very dangerous mission. The Quraish were on high alert when they found out that the Prophet ( ) left Mecca. Why would Abu Bakr ( ) choose to accept this risky mission, if his life was in danger as the Shia claim? The truth is that Abu Bakr ( ) was worried and grieving but he was not fearful of his own life, but rather he was worried about the Prophet ( ) more than himself. In fact, many times in his life did Abu Bakr ( ) say that he valued the life of the Prophet ( ) above his own, and

even he valued the family of the Prophet ( ) above his own family. Therefore, Abu Bakr ( ) was worried about the Prophets 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 ( ) was more worried about the Prophet ( ) than himself for the simple fact that the Quraish infidels had a warrant for the arrest and capture of the Prophet ( ), not of Abu Bakr ( ). The bounty was on the head of the Prophet ( ), not on Abu Bakr ( ). In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) was immune from the persecution of the Quraish infidels because he had powerful tribal connections to protect him. The Prophet ( ) had recently lost this tribal protection with the death of Abu Talib and this was the impetus for the eventual Hijra of the Prophet ( ). Therefore, if anyone was at risk, it was the Prophet ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) loved the Prophet ( ) so much that he feared that the Prophet ( ) would be captured as the Quraish were interested in capturing the Prophet ( ), not Abu Bakr ( ). There was a bounty on the Prophets head ( ), and Abu Bakr ( ) could have simply jumped out of the cave and told the Quraish that the Prophet ( ) was 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 ( ) of deliberately crying out in order to give the location of the Prophet ( ) away to the Quraish infidels. Then the Shia accuse Abu Bakr ( ) of crying out of cowardice, because he supposedly didnt have true Iman (faith). These two claims contradict each other. If Abu Bakr ( ) wanted to give away the location of the Prophet ( ), 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 ( ) wanted to reveal the location of the Prophet ( ). If Abu Bakr ( ) 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 ( ) from 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 ( ) wanted to jump out of the Prophets bed and tell the Quraish infidels where the Prophet ( ) was, 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 ( ). I understand that religion is about faith and that there are times we cant 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 ( ) befriended 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 ( ) take Abu Bakr ( ) on the Hijra? If the Shia would like to say that they know that Abu Bakr ( ) wanted to give up the Prophet ( ) to the Quraish infidels, then didnt the Prophet ( ) know this as well? If the Shia knew it, then surely the Prophet ( ) knew it, since as a basic principle, the Prophet ( ) knew more than anyone else. Unless the Shia would like to say that they know more than the Prophet ( ), and only they knew Abu Bakrs intentions ( ) and the Prophet ( ) did not know. If the Prophet ( ) knew, then why did he even accept to take Abu Bakr ( ) along in the first place? If Abu Bakr ( ) really tried so blatantly to give the Prophet ( ) away during their flight, why would the Prophet ( ) have 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 ( ) so 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 ( ) would distance himself from a man who tried to have him captured. It does not make sense then that the Prophet ( ) would 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 ( ), then why didnt Allah also silence Abu Bakr ( ) when he claimed the Caliphate

over Ali ( )? Or perhaps the Nasibis could claim that Ali ( ) was silenced by Allah and this is the only reason Ali ( ) was not able to reveal the Prophets whereabouts when the Quraish infidels surrounded Ali ( ) who was sleeping in the Prophets 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 didnt the verse in the Quran say that the sahib wanted to reveal the Prophets location but Allah silenced him? Perhaps this is written in the Shia version of the Quran, which involves putting Alis name ( ) in brackets wherever anything good is mentioned and putting the Three Caliphs names wherever anything bad is mentioned. Conclusion The Quran mentions Abu Bakr ( ) on this historic day when the Prophet ( ) made Hijra. If Abu Bakr ( ) was 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 ( ). Why would Allah do such a thing? What prevented Allah from condemning Abu Bakr ( ) in this verse? And why did the Prophet ( ) say 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 ( ) are 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 ( ) who the Prophet ( ) took with him on the Hijra. According to the Shia, Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) were enemies. Therefore, let me ask you: if it was Ali ( ) who was doing the Hijra, would he take along Abu Bakr ( ) as his sole partner? If the answer to this is no, then why wouldnt Ali ( ) follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ( )? Or, to give another example, what about the exodus of Hussain ( ) from Medinah to Kufa; would Hussain ( ) take Abu Bakr ( ) along? If the answer is no, why isnt Hussain ( ) following the Sunnah of the Prophet ( )? The true answer is that Ali ( ) and Hussain ( ) had nothing against the first Caliph and they would love to follow the example of the Prophet ( ) which was to have a good relationship with Abu Bakr ( ).

I wish that our Shia brothers could look into their heart of hearts, and ask themselves honestly: if it was Ali ( ) who 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 HellFire) 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 Alis praises, but they will ignore all of the Hadith in regards to Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthmans 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 Prophets 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 Allahs 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 Prophets 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 Shiism. 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 `Ali by the Ahlus Sunnah, we find that the Shia accusations that we hate `Ali to be baseless. Abu Bakr Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, also known as Shaykh al-Islam, was the Prophets intimate friend after Allah, exclusive companion at the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 (alSiddq) and Allahs Freedman From the Fire (Atq Allh min al-nr). 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-Siddq: the Very Truthful, the One Who Never Lies. `Umar said: Abu Bakrs faith outweighs the faith of the entire Ummah. `Umar also said: The best of this Community after its Prophet is Abu Bakr. `Ali named him and `Umar the Shaykh al-Islam of the Community and said: The best of this Community after its Prophet are Abu Bakr and `Umar, `Ali further said: The most courageous of people is Abu Bakr, and The greatest in reward among people for the volumes of the Quran is Abu Bakr, for he was the first of those who gathered the Quran between two covers. He was also the first to name it mushaf. Abu Bakrs 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 `Umar, `Uthman, and `Ali 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 Prophets mosque] remain open except Abu Bakrs. 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. `Amr ibn al-`As 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 `Umar. The Prophet said: O`Ali! Abu Bakr and `Umar 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 Bakrs Companionship so much that he would marry his daughter, Aisha bint Abu Bakr. Therefore, Abu Bakr had the honor of being the Prophets father-in-law. `Umar bin Khattab

`Umar 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-Muminin (Commander of the Faithful). `Umar had the special distinction of being a person whom the Prophet prayed for that he become Muslim. The Prophet realized that `Umar 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 `Umar ibn alKhattab. Indeed, the Muslims were greatly strengthened by `Umars conversion to Islam; before his conversion, they were hiding in fear and with `Umars 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 `Umars conversion: `Umars 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 `Umar converted; when he converted to Islam he fought them [the antagonistic idolaters] until they left us alone and we prayed (inside the Qaba). `Umar 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 Mikail, and the latter are Abu Bakr and `Umar. The Prophet said of Abu Bakr and `Umar: These two are [my] hearing and eyesight. The Prophet instructed the Companions: Follow those that come after me: Abu Bakr and `Umar. The Prophet said: Allah has put the truth upon Umars 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 `Umar: There is not on the face of the earth a man more beloved to me than `Umar. Aisha bint Abu Bakr said: He was, by Allah, skillful in managing affairs, absolutely unique. `Umar also had the unique distinction of having his views confirmed by the revelation in the Holy Quran. It is narrated that `Umar used to approach the Prophet and give his opinion on matters, and then the Quran would descend upon

the Prophet confirming the opinion of `Umar. And in other instances, `Umar asked the Prophet to ask Allah for Quranic verses on certain issues which `Umar 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 `Umar. The Prophet respected `Umars Companionship so much that he would marry his daughter, Hafsa bint Umar. Therefore, `Umar had the honor of being the Prophets father-in-law. It should be noted that both of the Shaikhayn (Abu Bakr and `Umar) were given this honor of being father-in-law to the Prophet. `Uthman bin Affan `Uthman bin Affan was known as the The Man of Two Lights for the honor bestowed upon him by the Prophet. `Uthman 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 `Uthman: Every Prophet has an assistant, and my assistant will be `Uthman. The Prophet appointed `Uthman with the great and noble task of being an emissary to the Quraish infidels of Mecca. When `Uthman went to the Quraish, they detained him for days without informing anyone of it. When the Muslims in Medinah did not hear back from `Uthman, 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 `Uthmans 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 `Uthman. `Uthman was extremely wealthy and generous. When he heard the Prophet say: Whoever equips the army of al-`Usra, 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 `Uthman after what he did today. It is also narrated that equipped the army of al-`Usra with seven hundred ounces of gold, or seven hundred and fifty camels and fifty horses. `Uthman 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 `Uthman! 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 `Uthman. One day, `Uthman knocked on the Prophets 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, `Umar, and `Uthman. 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. `Ali said: `Uthman 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 `Uthman: whoever is with him is on the side of rightfulness. The Prophet thought of `Uthman as having such good character that he gave two of his daughters in marriage to `Uthman. First, the Prophet married Ruqayyah to `Uthman, but she died of an illness, and thereafter, the Prophet gave `Uthman his other daughter, Umm Kulthoom. For this honor of having married two of the Prophets daughters, `Uthman was honored with the title of the Man of Two Lights. `Ali ibn Abi Talib `Ali was lovingly referred to by the Prophet by the nickname of Abu Turab. He was the Prophets standard-bearer in battle, the Door of the City of Knowledge, and the most judicious of the Companions. The Prophet declared that `Ali was the possessor of a wise heart and enquiring tongue. In one battle, the Prophet said: I shall give the standard to a man (`Ali) who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah loves and also His Messenger. The Prophet likened `Ali 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 `Ali is its gate. Another version states: I am the house of wisdom and `Ali is its gate.

The Prophet said: Anyone whose protecting friend (mawla) I am, `Ali is his protecting friend. `Umar said: Congratulations, O `Ali! You have become the protecting friend of every single believer. The Prophet said: `Ali is part of me and I am part of `Ali! Some people complained to the Prophet about `Ali, whereupon he stood and said: Do not accuse `Ali of anything! The Prophet said to `Ali: Verily Allah shall empower your tongue and guide your heart. The Prophet said: Whoever harms `Ali harms me. The Prophet loved `Ali so much that he honored him in the same manner that he honored `Uthman, by giving `Ali a daughter of his in marriage. Not only this, but the Prophet loved Ali so much that he declared `Alis 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 `Ali his Mawla (protecting friend) but then they should also look for similar Hadith about other Sahabah. For example, the Prophet said to `Umar: If there were to be a prophet after me it would be `Umar ibn al-Khatab. And to take it one step further, you will not find a Sunni who tries to use this Hadith about `Umar to prove `Umars 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 suchand-such Hadith proves `Alis 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 Alis 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 Talibs 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 girls 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 Ansars Article on Umm Kulthooms 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 Omars SonIs the aboveTRUE? ANSWER: As to the issue of marriageif 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 Imams (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 Fatemehs (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-Penehs 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 Umars 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 Alis wife and unborn child). If a Sunni were to kill a Shia mans 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 AlIslam.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 didnt 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 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, Id 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 Jafar 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. Shahidis 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 its 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 Omars Khilafa. source: Aalim Network, http://www.alRawji

islam.org/organizations/AalimNetWork/msg00168.html

Shaykh Mohammad Soleiman-Panah clearly states that the the most distinguished contemporary Shia historian (Dr. Sayyed Jafar 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 Jafar 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 scholars own modesty on the issue, but it should be noted that AlIslam.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.
Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophets 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 Prophets wives after each prayer, five

times a day. So how can the Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact that cursing the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Ayatollahs website: http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm (scroll down to questions 50 and 51)

: 05 ) ( 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-Muminin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly with her name or implicitly?

 ) ( : ) ( . ) ( Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir alMuminin (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.

( : 15 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Duas 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? : . ) ( .

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# 02%02% %20

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 Prophets last illness before his final departure from this world lasted around two weeks. During this time, the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 thoughtand rightfully sothat 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 Allahs 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 teachers 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 teachers 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 teachers 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 Umars 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 Khomeinis 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 countrys 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 fathers side. Common sense dictates that the Prophets 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-Khattabs shoes would have said the same thing as he did, evidenced by the many everyday examples we have cited above.
Umars Concern for the Prophets 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 Prophets father-in-law, and as such, he too was very worried about the Prophets 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 Apostles 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). (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680)

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 Prophets 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 Allahs 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. Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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, Allahs 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 feltand we agree with him on thisthat the Prophets 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 Umars Ijtihad that the request was no longer applicable in this new situation (i.e. the Prophet was now unconscious). Furthermore, Umars 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 Prophets 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 Prophets request no longer applied in the changed circumstances. From Shaykh Mufids 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 Prophets 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 hadaccording to Umar ibn al-Khattabchanged 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 versionneither in the Sahihayn nor in any other Hadith compilation for that matterare 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). Umars only explanation for refusing the Prophets order was that the Prophet was in a great deal of pain and that he (Umar) wished to ease the Prophets 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 thataccording to DSM-IV-TR criteriadisturbance of consciousness is the core feature of delirium. Delirium canand 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 biologicalnot psychiatricorigin. 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: Wortabets 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 Mufids description of the event that the Prophet was unconscious. The words is he delirious appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows: The ailment of Allahs 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). (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716) 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 Allahs 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

(Allahs Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point). (Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4014) And once again: He (the narrator) said that Allahs 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: Allahs Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness. (Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4015) 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 patients 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 timeThe 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 (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130) This narration found in one of the Shias 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 grce 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 Prophets 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 Shias 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 thingor 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 nowhereexcept in the Shia imaginationhave 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-Mumineen (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-Mumineen! 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 dont 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 Alis 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 Alis own sons asking if he had lost his senses? Why do the Shia excuse Alis 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 Prophets Family Forced Him to Take Medicine

The Shia propagandists malign Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly disobeying the Prophets 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 Prophets final days) that the Ahlel Bayt (including Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 membersincluding Ali, Abbas, Fatima, and his wivesfrom 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 familyhis wives, his daughter [Fatima], al-Abbas, and Aligathered (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. (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178) 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 Maymoonaand 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 unclehe (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) (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680) They agreed to force him to take medicine. Al-Abbas said, Let me force him, and the (the Messenger of Allah) was forced. (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178) 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 (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.177) 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. (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p.178) 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 Shialike ourselvessay that those of the Ahlel Bayt were simply worried about the Prophets 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 Umars 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 Umars 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 Allahs Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114) Ibn Abbas said himself: The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716)
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, Allahs Apostle said, Go away! Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn Abbas used to say, It was very unfortunate that Allahs Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573) Near the end of his life, the Prophet was having severe headaches, and the noise from the disagreement of the people hurt the Prophets 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 Prophets) pain had subsided a little, he called the people in and [narrated three things] (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.244-245)

And so it was the clamor of the voices which exacerbated the Prophets headache, and this was what the Prophet became angry over, not Umars refusal. It was after all, not Umars 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 Allahs Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114) 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 Allahs 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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4016) 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 didnt 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 interestingand a point that negates the Shia claims completelyis 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 Alis 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 couldnt 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 alGhaib (the Unseen)? Not even Ali knew what the Prophet wished to write on that day, so how could Umar have known? 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/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 didnt 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 wouldnt 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 Alis 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 Prophets 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 dayseven up until his last breathyet 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 Prophets fault for not writing it and Alis fault for not beseeching the Prophet to write it. We seek Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Prophets 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 KhummIn this place, the following verse of the Quran was revealed: O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 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: O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you 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 Allahs Message at all. In a very similar incident, the Shia say that the Prophet wished to write his will in favor of Alis leadership on the event of Thursday, but he was prevented from that by the people. We read: 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/chap1.php

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? Shouldnt 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? Answering-Ansar says

as (it) is unambiguously manifest by the Prophets (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.

source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/chap5.php

We find that the Shia narrative is slander against the Prophet, as it is accusing him of failing to deliver Allahs Message because of the peoples 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 Prophets failure to write the will was responsible for misguiding the Ummah! It was the Prophets 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 wasAllah forbidthe reason for the misguidance of the Ummah, as he failed to deliver Allahs 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 Umars 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 doubtthe 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:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you 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: 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/chap1.php

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 peoples 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 anyonebe it by intimidation or forcefrom 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): Answering-Ansar says

Surah al Maidah verse 92 Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned thatthe Prophets duty is only to deliver the message clearly Allah commands the Muslims in the Quran to obey Allah - unconditionally - and furthermore to obey the Prophet - once more, unconditionally. source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/chap1.php

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 wouldnt 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 believers anger will not deviate him from the right path. (Chechel Hadith, ahlulbayt/) p.123, http://smma59.wordpress.com/tag/hadithguidence-of-

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 Didnt the Prophet Write the Document?

The idea that the Prophet didnt 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: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 32, Number 240: 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: Allahs 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-Nasaai) 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 thatlike the date of Laylat al-Qadrthe 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 Allahs 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. Adams 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 doesnt 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 teachers 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: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 130 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 Allahtruthfully from his heartexcept that Allah will forbid the Fire to him. Muadh 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 alIslam 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 Allahs 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Allahs 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 Bakrs 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 Bakrnot Aliwho 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 couldnt 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 Nawawis 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 sensesNeither 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 existedHad 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: Dont 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 Muttalibs 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 Prophets 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 incidentof Abbas asking the Prophet who will get the Caliphateis 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. (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131) This event took place immediately after the incident of the pen and paper. It is clear from this quote that Abbas, the Prophets 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 haveaccording to his own wordsasked 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. (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131) The Prophetaccording to Shia sourcescalled 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 hadaccording to the Shiasettled 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 didnt 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 Prophets 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 (Quran, 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-Murajaat. 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-Murajaat, 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 knowfrom Shia sourcesthat 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. (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.175-176) And so, after the incident of the pen and paper, the Prophet did recover. So why didnt 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 didnt 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. (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.132) 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 AlMurajaat 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 didnt 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 whyto this dayno 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 doesnt explain why the Prophet didnt 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-Murajaat: 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: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left 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 Sunnahs explanation makes more sense, namely that the Prophet did not write a will because he had no need to do that.
Ali Refuses the Prophets 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: Answering-Ansar says

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 Prophets request was no longer applicable now that the Prophet had fainted. And even if we accept the idea that Umar refused the Prophets 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: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 408: 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 Allahs Apostle said, By Allah, I am Muhammad bin Abdullah, and, by Allah, I am Apostle of Allah. Allahs 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! Allahs 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 Prophetaccording to Shaykh Mufidgave 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 didnt erase these words because that would be disobedience; but then on the Prophets 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 Allahs 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 Prophets 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, Umarthroughout his lifestressed the importance of obeying the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 shouldnt 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 wouldnt 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, http://smma59.wordpress.com/tag/hadithguidence-of-ahlulbayt/) p.117,

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! Umars 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 Rezas 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 Prophets 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 Saads 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 Prophets speech is recorded as: O people, I praise God, the only God, unto you. Now then: Your rights are dear to mewhomever I have reviled, here is my honorlet 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. (Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.170-171)
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 Bukharis collection and another three in Imam Muslims collection. Let us examine these eight Hadiths, and comment on each of them. Our comments are in brackets: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288: 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 Allahs 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, Allahs 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 Umars rebellion against the Prophets 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 Abbass 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. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716: Narrated Ibn Abbas: Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allahs 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 Prophets 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 Apostles 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 Prophets 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 factsnamely that (a) the Prophet could not speak without intense pain and (b) Abbas and Ali had contradicted the Prophets

wishes when he was in a better condition than he was on Thursdaywe 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. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393: Narrated Said bin Jubair that he heard Ibn Abbas saying: When the condition (i.e. health) of Allahs 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 subnarrator 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. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573: Narrated Ibn Abbas: When Allahs 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] Allahs Apostle said, Go away! Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn Abbas used to say, It was very unfortunate that Allahs 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 Umars 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 Prophets 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. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114: 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Prophets 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 Prophets head (as he had a headache) and which the Prophet found inappropriate. Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4014: Ibn Abbas said: The illness of Allahs 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 (Allahs 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. Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4015: 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 Allahs 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: Allahs Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness.

Nothing new here. Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4016: Ibn Abbas reported: When Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, Umar ibn alKhattab being one of them. [15] Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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] Allahs 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 Umars 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 Umars love for the Prophet which enticed him to refuse the Prophets orders, and nothing else. This is therefore commendable and not something to criticize Umar about. [17] The Prophet had not been angered by Umars 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 Umars 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 Prophets 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 didnt 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 Alis real brother, Jafar ibn Abi Talib. When he died, she was married to Abu Bakr. She also gave birth to Abu Bakrs 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) (2) Haqq Kitab al-Yaqeen, al-Irshad, by by Majlisi Mufid

(3) Jila ul-Uyoon, (4) Majalis-il-Mumineen, by Shoshtri (ash-Shia Wa Ahlul-Bayt, p. 121)

The Prophets Praise of Abu Bakr

by

Majlisi

Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 244: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Allahs 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 ones 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 Shiism, but rather it is encouraged.

Let us refer the reader to Ayatollah Shirazis 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-Khoi, 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 readers 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 Ayatollahs website, so that he can see it for himself. We simply copied and pasted it all below. Al-Imam al-Sheikh Abdul Kareem al-Haery, 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 TAZIAH 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-Marashi al-Najafi Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Hassan al-Tabatabae 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-Naaini, 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-ShariatMadari Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abd-el-Ala al-Sabzewary Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoi 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-Khoi, 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 ones 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-Khoi: 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 Shaaer signs of Allah and sympathy with the Ahl-ul-Bayt, peace be upon them? Answer by Ayatollah al-Khoi: 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 Shaaer of Allah Almighty. [This is a reference to the Quranic 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 Shaaer, 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? Answer by Ayatollah al-Shirazi: 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 TAZIAH for Imam Hussain (AS), and goes on to serve the program of TAZIAH but does not do TATBIR (shedding of blood), is he regarded as a sinner, who deserves to be humiliated? Answer by Ayatollah al-Shirazi: 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 Mumin, 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? Answer by Ayatollah al-Shirazi: Yes that is proven. (Source: Ayatollah Shirazis 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 Shirazis 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. official website,

(Source: Ayatollah Shirazis http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm#ashuramisuse)

official

website,

On Ayatollah Sistanis 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 Sistanis 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 Lankaranis http://www.lankarani.org/eng/adv/06.html) official website,

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 Shirazis 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 Shia 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 Shirazis official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm) As Ayatollah Shirazi mentioned, Irans 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 Shiism. 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 (Source: Ayatollah Shirazis official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm) Ayatollah Shirazi then answered the following question. Question: Is Tatbir allowed? Is the practice of TATBIR, hitting ones 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 Shaa'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. (Source: Ayatollah Shirazis official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm) 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

http://imamshirazi.com/tatbir%20fatawa.html 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 ( .) 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 ( ) forbade barbaric practises like such, and he said: No harm may be inflicted on oneself. Do the Shia really think that Hussain ( ) would appreciate people engaging in self-flagellation and self-mutilation? If Hussain ( ) were 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 ( ) 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 ( ) forbade 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 ( ) than 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. .

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

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 : BEATING IS PROHIBITED IN SHIAISM ITSELF!

. : " 172/4 : " "] 272 4/167 2/915 .[884/3 Muhammad Bin Al-Hussein Bin Babavi Al-Qummi whom the shia gave the title of Sadooq (truthful) said: "Lamenting is act of Jahiliya (ignorance)." (Sadooq narrated in Mein La Yahzarhu Al-faqih 4/271-272 and Hur Al-Ameli narrated in Wasael Al-shia 2/915, and Yousuf Al-Bahraini in Al-Hadaiq Al-Anazera 4/167 and Haaj Hussein Al-Brujardi in Ja'me Ahadeeths Al-

Shia

3/488)

82/103[. ]" Majlisi also narrated the same hadeeths "Lamenting (Bihar Al-Anwar

" : is from Jahiliya (ignorance)." 82/103)

: " "] .[273/3 Messenger of Allah said: "I forbade you from lamenting and Bewailing" (Al-Brujardi in Ja'me Ahadeeths Al-Shia 3/372) : " 88/31 "] 3/226 .[384/3 619/2 Kulaini said it is useless to cry on dead and also not allowed, but most of the people know not." (Kulaini in Al-Kafi 3/226 and Mulla Muhsin well known as Faiz Al-Kashani in Al-wafi 13/88 and Hur in Wasael Al-Shia 2/916 and Al-Brujardi in Ja'me Ahadeeths Al-Shia 3/483)

Shirazi said: "In essence of (Al-Fiqh

call,

" : the absolute forbiddance of

15/260[. ]" walloping and bewailing. 15/260)

] 12/92 4/168 18/139 .[501/28 884/3 And when Imam Al-Musa was asked about lamenting on dead he dislike it. (Hur Al-Ameli narrated in Wasael Al-shia 12/92 and told that dislike here means Tahrim (forbiddance), Bahraini in Hadaiq 4/168 and in 18/139 and Al-Brujardi in Ja'me Ahadeeths Al-Shia 3/488 and in Bihar AlAnwar 82/105)

Description: This video shows a Shia procession beating their chests.

Matam Video Shia Beating Themselves, Part II

Description: Same as above.

#2:

Matam Video Walking on Fire; Islamic or Zoroastrian?

#3:

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 Matam; Contains graphic footage

Description: Click this link to download the video

#4:

Matam Video Ayatollah al-Hakim Loses His Sanity

#5:

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 Shiism.

Matam Video Worship or Rap Music?

#6:

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 Tatbir (Shedding Blood Using Swords)

#7:

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 facultiesTATBIR is a desirable actTatbir (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 Shirazis official website, http://www.shirazi.org.uk/ashura.htm#ashuramisuse)

Matam Tatbir, Part II

Description: Same as above.

Video

#8:

Matam Video Well Cut Your Head For You

#9:

Description: This ritual is simply bizarre. One man is cutting other peoples heads for them.

Matam Video Well Cut Your Head For You, Part II

Black Clothes

#10:

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-muminin said: . : Do not wear black clothes, that is the dress of Pharaoh (Source: Al-Shia.com, http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/faqih/faqih1/a41.html) Imam As Sadiq was asked about pray in the black clothes, he said: : Dont pray in it, that is dress of people of fire (Source: Al-Shia.com, 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 ( ) and Imam As-Sadiq ( ) declared 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 Lankaranis 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 Shiism is full of such discrepencies. Hence, we can only conclude that Shiism is not true Islam.
Why Sunnis Do Not Comemmorate Ashura

Shia says

 Why do the Sunnis not comemmorate the death of Hussain (

Prophets grandson?

), the

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 ( ). 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 ( ) is 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 ( ) was a tragic event, it is a Bidah (evil innovation to Islam) to commemorate his death because the Prophet ( ) did not do so. How could the Prophet ( ) comemmorate his death when the Prophet ( ) himself died many years before the death of Hussain ( )? Additionallyand this point cannot be stressed enoughthere were many Sahabah who were killed in the Path of Allah, but the Prophet ( ) never mourned their deaths in the manner in which the Shia mourn Hussain ( ). The Prophet lost his own dear uncle, his own wife, and many of his dearest companions, but do we see that the Prophet ( ) ever resorted to self-flagellation or excessive mourning? The Shia can never provide such an example from the life of the Prophet ( ), 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 rightlyguided 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 bidah 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 Sad, not Abu Haneefah, not al-Oozaai, not al-Shaafai, 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 bidah 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 ( ), Uthman ( ), or Ali ( ). The reason is that we find all this to be Bidah, and forms of exaggeration like the Christians who comemmorate the death of Isa ( .) We find it interesting that the Shia do not celebrate the death of Ali ( ) or any of their other heroes. Ali ( ) was 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 ( ) but not of Ali ( )? Ali ( ) is in fact considered superior to Hussain ( ) by the Shia. So why the death of Hussain ( ) and not of Ali ( )? The reason is obvious: the Shia celebrate Ashura to spite the Sunni Muslims. The Shia attest that it was Yezid who killed Hussain ( ), and they say that Yezid was a Sunni. This is the reason that they mourn Hussain ( ), 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 ( ), 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 ( ) or Hamza ( )? The truth is that Ali ( ) was 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 ( ) since it was a man from their own party who killed him. It is much better instead to make great fan-fare about Hussains death ( ), 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 ( ). 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

deedNor 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 Shi`a 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 ( ) would not be the first, and there would be many before him. For example, we would comemmorate the wrongful deaths of Umar ( ), Uthman ( ), and Ali ( ). 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 Prophets 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 ( ?) Should we also celebrate Christmas and Easter like the Christians do to celebrate the birth and death of Isa ( ?) 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 Muhammads birthday ( ) and comemmorate Hussains death ( ), 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 Prophets grandson because they do not comemmorate Ashura, based on this logic cant we also infer that the Shia do not love Prophet Isa ( ) since 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 selfflagellation, 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 ( ) himself. We will not exploit the death of the Prophets 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 ( ) was the fault of the Shia of Kufa. If the Shia want us to remember tales of Yezids debauchery, then let us also remind them of the Shia of Kufa whose cowardice, back-stabbing, and deciet led to the demise of the Prophets grandson.

More Pictures of Matam

Racism in Shiism

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 fireworshipping Persians had the notion that they were racially superior to all other races. The faith of Shiism found many supporters in Persia, and slowly the fireworshipping 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: Al-Shia.com says

)1 - : ) ( ( ): 1(. 9562 - : ) 3659 - 2 :) ( )3 : ) ( 2( (. - ) 4659 - 3 : ) ( 4. : ( ___________________________________ ) : 1() ( . : . ) -: . ( 2() .14) : (3 ) . :- 4()*( . :- - .] [ ) ( .

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 Masadah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mumineen 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 Negronever 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 Jafar, from Amr bin Saeed, 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 Qindhnot 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, Shiism 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 Prophets 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 nonPersian 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. Shiism) 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 hourenough 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 Jamaah). 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. Shiism 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 Shiism not only allows Mutah, but it actively encourages it and even forbids anyone from saying that Mutah is wrong. According to Shiism, 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 AlHussain. 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. (AlKafi) 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-Rajah] 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 Shiism? 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"

. hosnwonthsqhgiswlilSwhasytSssthS hi naStlhitiwaaihnqhwhnqqnhaqyhqah woSiiwlhiaiS nihw nhKSsuw hilSnS ni hstisbSwaaihS Shia websites in English usually do a good job of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding), especially in regards to Mutah. lsh .tiswrS nhWstsso sot-ilSwhsoihsqhnqa iawihgiswlhysbwitshSshnSisthslsuhwhywnhSuwnshS haoq shqahi naStl The Shia try to downplay Mutah because it gives them a bad image in front of English-speaking Westerners. qasiso hslshilSwhasytSssth S hiowySbhw nhhwotShnqh qshlwishsqhswrshslshtwushiosbwisSq thw nhbw hS tsswnhyshuqoshqis hw nhaow rhwyqishslshilSwhysaSsah .qahgiswl 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.

Sosh yqqrh q hilSw.bqu h lwth w h iowySbh tsbsSq ;h S h Ss h slsh tSssh lwth S bainsnh w h s s- lsh iqiiawoh ilSwh asytSss h ia giswl h sSsasnh itwoowsSq th iyqish slsh sawonth aqoh MqS nh giswl.sh lSth yqqrh bq swS th wisls sSbh ilSwh wnSslh .wyqishgiswl 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. .i sosh wosh tqush wnSslh aoquh slwsh yqqrh S h slsh qoSnS wah iowySbh iwatqh iSsawyash q h slwsh asytSss Here are some Hadith from that book in the original Arabic (also viewable on that website). tlSw.bqu/lsua/wow/S ns..ili-lssi://aaa.wah: lshilSwhasytSsshbw hyshaqi nhlsos The Shia website can be found here: Http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/index.php qu/lsua/wow/aSy/aSy.ili/Snm4liwnsm5tlSw.b-lssi://aaa.wah :ith asaah wth lsos As well as here: http://www.alshia.com/html/ara/lib/lib.php?id=4&page=5 .nioS nhlSthaSassSush taeoatsael tah lwsighsbwos qbhuiuS Suhsowyhswhnaiqlth wuhiih.1 1. "A man should at bare minimum contract Mutah at least once during his lifetime. s "

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhihihhhhhh h h h h 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 that you come out of this world until he gets a fun time and if
.2 2. .nsttsayhsyhaaSahiqih lwsighn Sqnhossawhsrwshiqihosaqlthiosishoqhi "For every shower you take after doing Mutah, you will be blessed. shqahosawon.shqohsisoihgiswlhiqihnq hiqihaSaahnsshwhaq For every Mutah you do, you will get a lot of reward. "

hhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh And 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. Ssh Sth iwosh qah slsh ii wlh sqh s nwnsh S h giswl.sh aqoslih sqh wiqSnh nqS nh giswlh ysbwits-suwayh tSh sIi "It is blame-worthy to avoid doing Mutah because it is part of the Sunnah to engage in Mutah."

hhhh:hhhhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhh And 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. lwish giswlh aSslh q sh slqitw nh aqus .sh iwuh wuh ii "A man may have Mutah with one thousand women."

hhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhh And 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. .ihaquw halqhassthwhuw hnqhgiswlhaSslhlsohaSaahlwishwaahlsohtS thiwonq sn A woman who lets a man do Mutah with her will have all her sins pardoned. IshSth woowssnhyihIuwuhowoSohslwshslshqoqilsshtwSn hiWls hIhawth sS nh swrs h sqh swis h nioS nh slsh gSowah iwtbs tSq i h JSyowssah ussh ush w nh sqanh us h udh gilwuuwn h iaawlh lwth y ioquStsnh sqh aqonSish waah slsh tS th qah slqtsh aqus h alqh iowbsStsh giswl.us 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. '"

hhhhhihhhhihhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h 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
.6 6. hlwsighnSqiwhqlahstqlshsiyhnsttsayhsowhlwsighqnhqlahsaiqsihsl h:lwsighn Suoqaosqhsqthoqahs sultS iqi Jinnsus s.shwoshbiotsnhi sSahslshMwihqa "Punishment for Not Performing Mutah: The people who do Mutah are blessed but those who avoid Mutah are cursed until the Day of Judgement."

hhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh And 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. s.tSlsh oqah qSswt siuqbh slsh tSh lwsigh ;wSlih slsh qsh ts wbS.qs Sh tnSyoqah bSstsawgh n wh nssaw.ih slsh lwaaii "Allah the Exalted and Majestic forbids intoxicants to the Shia; Mutah is the compensation for this."

hihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhi - 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

hhhhhihhhhihhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhh .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 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. iyihiyniaawlhiwtihtwSn:hi lsoshSth qhgiswlhaSslqishsaqhuwsssothnsaS sn:hsSushw nh wusnhawns.s hIuwu Imam Abu Abdullah (as) said: "There is no Mutah without two matters defined: time and named wage."

.9 9. dhgilwuuwn hiaawlhuh:h lshgstts nsohqahiaawlhtwSn hiWls hlshsqqrhushsqhslshtrSst hJSyowssahiwtihtwSn iauSnlsih twSn:h iuq ntsh slsh aqus h Ih aSaah aqonSish slqtsh alqh uwrsh giswlh saSbs.us 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.'"

hh:hihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .h h h h h h h h h h 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.
.. osaqahwosh43h woowsSq thq hslshitwoowsSq thiyqishslsh sawonthaqohMqS nhgiswls waahaoquhslshtwushyqqrh .ilSw.bqu hslshiqiiawohilSwhasytSss-wiwSawyashq hia 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.

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-1hhhhh-1hhhh hhhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh-2h.hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhhhhhihihhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-3h.hhhihhhhih .hhhhhhhhhhhh:hhhhihih 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.
hhihihhhhhh:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-h4 h hhhh - 4 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? .hihhhhihhhhhhhhhhhh:h.hhhhhhhhh:h 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).

/hhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-5 5 - 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? .hh:h I said: Yes. .hhhhh:h He said: I do not mean fun pilgrimage. /hhhhh:h I said: What fun, said women? .hhhhhh:h He said: I said at the ongoing barbaric luxury. .hhhhhhhhhhh:h He said: "O Ismail said the enjoyment of what it found and if Sendip. hhh:hhihihhhhhh:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-6 /hhhhhhhhh - 6 and this attribution Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Issa from Ali bin h 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? .hh:h He said: no. hhh:h / He said: and why? h.hhhhhhhhhhhhhh:h.hhhhhhhh:h .hh: 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. hihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h -7 /h h h h :h - 7 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? hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh;hhhhhhhhhh hhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Said, 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 h:hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhh-h8 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 8 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 hhhhhhhihhhhihhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhh h-9 .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 9 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 . hhhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-10 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .hhh - 01 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-11 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhhhhhh hh:hh

hhhh hhhhhhhhihhhhihhhhhhhhhhhhh .h h h h h h ih ih h h h h h h h h h h - 11 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. hhhihihhhh:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-h12 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 21 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhh .h He said to me, a promise to God that does not obey him and God, although not their claim to Tasinh. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-13 hhhhihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhh .hhhhhhi - 31 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. h:hihihhhhhhhhhhihihhhhhhh hhhhhhh-14 .hhhhhhhhhh - 41 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. hhh .hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhihihhhh 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. hhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhh h -15 .hhhhhhhh - 51 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. hhhhhhhh:hhhhhhhhihihhhhhhhhhh h-h16 16 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 .h h h h h h h h h h h :h ih ih h h h h h h h h h h h -17 17 - 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. .hhhh:hhhhhhihihhhhhhh h -18 18 - and from Hisham ibn Salim al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) for the lowest in the fun said: except you bite it.

.hhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhh-19 19 - and from Abu Basir al-Sadiq (peace be upon him): At the pleasure above are sufficient for DRAM. .hhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhh -20 20 - Abu Basir and for him (peace be upon him): a palm of food or flour or Soiq or pass. hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhh h -21 .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 12 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-22 hh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihh h .h - 22 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. hhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh-h23 .hhhhhhhhhhhh: 23 - 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. h:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h-24 .hhhhhhhhh - 42 Ibn Qolouet from his father from Ibn Saad Issa Mohammed bin Khalid alQasim 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. hhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhh hhhhh-25 25 - 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.hhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhh -26 26 - and from Abu Basir said that Sadiq's (peace be upon him): Is it the pleasure of the four of them married, said Alpha. hhh:hihihh hhhhihihhhhhhhhhhh-27 27 - 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 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhh -28 .hhhhhhhh - 82 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhihihhhhh:hhhhhh h-29 .hhhhhhhhh - 92 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhh -h 30 .hhhhhhhhhhhh - 03 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. .hhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhhh h-31 31 - 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhh h-32 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh - 23 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 hhhhhhh hhhhhhhh:hhihihhhhhhhhh h -33 hhhhhhhh - 33 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 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhihihhhhhh h-34 .h - 43 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhh h-35 .hhhhhhhhh - 53 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhhhhh h-h36 .hhhhhhhhh - 63 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhhh h-37 .hhhhhhhh - 73 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. hhhhhhhhhhhhihihhhh:hhhhhhhhhhh h-38 .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhihihhh - 83 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. hhhhhhhhhhhihihhhh:hhhhhhhhhhhh h-39 .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 93 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 . hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hhhhihihhhhhhhh h-40 .hihihh - 04 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). hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:hihihhhhhhhh h -41 .hhhh - 14 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. hhhhhhhhhh:hhhihihhhhhhhhhhhhh h -h 42 hhhhhhhhhhhh.hihihhhhhhhhhhhh hhh hhhhhhhihihhhhhhhhhhh:hhhhihih hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .hhhhhhhhihihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 24 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. hhhhhh:hhhhhhhhihihhhhhhhhhh h-43 .hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - 34 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 Shiism encourages, then wed 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 A Concerned Muslim Sister Truly,

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 [Allahs] 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 Womens 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 Irans 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, Hezbullahia veteran member of that sitesays: Im asking this question out of curiosity because the other day a sheikh was telling my friend how good muta is and how society needs it etc.. but when my friend asked him (just to test) if he could do muta 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 ones 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: Matbah 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 hes 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. (AlKafi) 17. Mutah A Savior 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 Miraj (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) from Shirk:

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. (AlKafi) 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 Allahs 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 [Allahs] 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 brocadeAnd 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 whorehouses, 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 Irans 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 womens 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 mutah 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=3 9)
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, http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage2.html) Al-Islam.org,

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 husbands 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, http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage2.html) Al-Islam.org,

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 husbands 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 Lankaranis http://www.lankarani.com/eng/index.html) official website,

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 ( ) did Mutah, and he not only allowed it, but actively encouraged it! We must obey the Prophet ( ) in all matters, and we cannot disagree with him based on our own opinions. If the Prophet ( ) did it, then surely we should do it. Whoever says that Mutah is disgusting is saying that the Prophet ( ) is 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 ( .) Then, the Shia will procure Sunni Hadith which say that the Prophet ( ) allowed 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 ( .) This is very similar to wine, which was at first permissible in Islam, and it was only later in time that the Prophet ( ) forbade 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 ( ) completely forbade wine. Why did the Prophet ( ) first 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 ( ) had not banned wine in stages, and instead had he ( ) simply 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 ( ) 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 ( ) initially 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 ( ) did 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 ( 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 ( ) banned Mutah: The Prophet ( ) said:

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

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels. [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafii, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy] Ali ( ) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar. [Muslim and Bayhaqy] A man called Rabee Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage. [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad] According to Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban] When Ali ( ) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said: O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger had permitted it after forbidding it. [Ibn Majah] 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, Allahs Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards. [Sahih Muslim] Narrated Ali ( :)

Allahs Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar. [Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari] Narrated Ali ( :)

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-Nasai, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]

It was narrated from Ali (

) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.] It was narrated from al-Rabee ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said: O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them. [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.] 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 ( ) also 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 (

) Did Not Invent the Ruling on Mutah

The Shia claim that it was Umar ( ) who forbade the practice of Mutah and that Mutah was openly practiced during the lifetimes of the Prophet ( ) and Abu Bakr ( .) In fact, Sunnis acknowledge that Umar ( ) 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 (.) Umar ( ) was elected Caliph just two and a half years after the Prophets death ( .) Present around him were the respected family members and noble companions of the Prophet ( .) Had Umars declaration ( ) been contrary to the Prophets practice ( ,) 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 ( ) was later succeeded by Uthman ( )and then by Ali ( ,) had Umars statements ( ) been contrary to the ruling of the Prophet ( ) at 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 ( ) left 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 ( ) been wrong in forbidding Mutah, nothing would have prevented Ali ( ) from condemning it in his writings. After the Prophets death ( ,) there were some people who were unaware of the prohibition of Mutah and thus allowed it. Ibn Abbas ( ) was one such individual, but he later recanted on this position after Ali ( )corrected him. The Shia bring up Ibn Abbas ( ) to somehow prove that Mutah is Halal. How can this lone opinion of one Sahabah go against the sayings of the Prophet ( ?) Ibn Abbas ( ) made a sincere mistake, and the reliable reports indicate that he corrected his position later on. The fact is that in the end the Prophet ( ) forbade Mutah. Perhaps some people might not have been aware of its prohibition and subsequently

contracted it after the Prophets death; however, when Umar ( ) found 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 ( ) demanded the people to give Zakat when he became Caliph; does any rational mind claim that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who invented the obligation of Zakat? There were even some Companions who were of the opinion that Abu Bakr ( ) should be lenient towards those Zakat evaders, and yet Abu Bakr ( ) rejected 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 fastgrowing empire, but Umar ( ) rejected 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 ( ) who forbade Mutah, and not the Prophet ( .) As is typical with the Shia, such obscure sources suddenly become the authoratative Sunni bookdespite 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 Jamaah. It is possible that the disagreement surrounding temporary marriageboth back then after the Prophets death ( ) and now with our debates with the Shiarevolves 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 ( ) allowed 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 AlHajj. 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 ( ) 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) 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 ( .) It is upto the Shia follower to slander the Prophet ( ) by 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 ( ) encouraged 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 Imams 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 Muta 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 (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00476.html)
Grand Ayatollah Sistanis Fatwa: Virgin Girls Can Do Mutah

Question : I know a virgin girl can I do the Mut`ah with her? Answer : Any relationship with girl with out[side] legal marriage contract is haram and impermissible, while Mut`ah is permissible provided her guardians permissionlike her father or her grandfather (source: Grand Ayatollah Sistanis official website, http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=93&page=1)
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 Fadlullahs official website, http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/1a.htm#Conditions%20of%20temporary%20mar riage) 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 Fadlullahs official website, http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/1a.htm#Conditions%20of%20temporary%20mar riage) 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 Rohanis 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 Rohanis official http://www.imamrohani.com/fatwaar/viewtopic.php?t=1585&sid=636359d0ff787b20f81975c855c2c475) website,

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 girls 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 eShia 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 Misyar = permanent = marriage = prostitution

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.
: ) ( ( )

(source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/index.php, http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/lib/lib.php?id=4&page=5)

Al-Shia.com,

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 mans 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 muta 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 (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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.

(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm) 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 maam? 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 doesnt 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 Jafar and said: I concluded a contract of muta 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. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm) The price the man pays the woman (i.e. the dower) goes down if she doesnt 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, AlIslam.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. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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 muta is enjoyment, not the production of offspring. [10] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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 Jafar: That [semen] belongs to the man: he may expend it as he wishes. [9] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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 muta, the child belongs to the husband, even if he performed coitus interruptus. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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 necessarysworn allegation is unnecessary in mutahis 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 muta does not hold the same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by muta is a rented woman. [13] On this point two hadith have been recorded. [14] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) 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. Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

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 mutaa only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife. Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third mutaa, 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 wont 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 womens rights activists are complaining that the contracts have becomean 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 (mutaa) 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 mutaa 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 Iraqs new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give mutaa 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. Im advising parents to watch their sons very carefully, particularly those who are in the colleges and universities. Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddams ruling Baath Party in the 1970s and 80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association. Mutaa 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 Shiiteshave 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 mutaa 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 mutaa 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 cant enter a mutaa, although a married man can. Men can void the contract at any time; women dont have that option unless its 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. Womens rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for womens rights, calls the reemergence of mutaa an unhealthy phenomenon A woman who practices mutaa does not usually feel comfortable about it, AlKhafaji 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 theyve finished with the woman, theyve 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 mutaa with him, even though at first she refused. To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in Gods 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. Its to eradicate moral corruption (Source: USA http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasuremarriage_x.htm)
Marriage With the Intention to Divorce

Today,

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 isnt 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 Shafiis 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 Shafiis all permit this sort of marriage, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah whom we call Shaykh al-Islam. If this is true, then arent 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:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. 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 dont 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 Shariah. 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 writingand 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 someones 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 husbands intention? There is no way to look inside the mans heart and reveal his true feelings and intentions. Or what of an angry mother-in-law who wishes to invalidate her sons 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 pandoras 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: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 91:

Ali said, Allahs Apostle forbade the Mutah marriage on the Day of the Battle of Khaybar and he forbade the eating of donkeys 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 mutah (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 wifes 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 ones 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 mutah (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 Mutah 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 Mutah because the definition of Mutah 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 Khidaa (betrayal) Haraam, and because if the woman was aware of the fact that this man didnt want to marry her except for this particular duration she would not marry him. And likewise, her family wouldnt marry her to him. Just like he wouldnt 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 Shari`ah 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 Shari`ah 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 Mutah. 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 alaihiwasallam) 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:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you 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-`Amwaawi, 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 Shafiis

Imam an-Nawawi quoted Imam Malik as well as Imam al-Awzaaee, 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 Shaykhs 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 Allahs 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 Khidaa (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) wont 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 HaramAnd 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 wasnt 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 alTaimi 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 Shiism 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 opiniona viewpoint that has been rejected as invalid by the consensuscannot 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 Bazs ruling on the matter was stated, I turned to the very next page to find that Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen had overruled Shaykh Bin Bazs 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-`Ilm. And Allah is the Source of all Strength.
Taqiyyah

Modern day Shiism is a branch of the Sabaite cult which was founded by Abdullah Ibn Saba. The Sabaites 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: Shiism would not have spread if it wasnt for Taqiyyah. (Tarikhush Shiah by Muhammad Husain Jafari Sahiwal, p.230) Taqiyya ( ) is translated literally as speaking contrary to ones 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 ones life is in danger. However, this is not the only time in which Taqiyyah is observed by the Shia! We read on Grand Ayatollah Sistanis 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 Sistanis official website, http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=36&page=1) In other words, Taqiyyah is permitted to: 1. Save oneself (mandatory) 2. Reconciliatory mandatory) Taqiyyah: Softening hearts (permissible, not

3. To escape an obligation such as speaking out against oppression or infidelity (forbidden) 4. To preserve ones 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 ones life) but they do not discuss the second type of Taqiyyah mentioned. It is the second type of Taqiyyahreconciliatory Taqiyyahwhich interests us. It can better be explained by none other than the Infallible Imam of the Shia. According to the Shias 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 enemys defenses against an imminent and clandestine attack by the Shia.

The claim by the Shia propagandists that Taqiyyah is only permissible to save ones life is false. It is also permissible to do Taqiyyah in order to save ones religion, as this is considered more sacred than ones life. In order to further Shiism, it is permissible to lie. This falls under the category of softening hearts (i.e. softening their hearts to the call of Shiism). 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 dont 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 dont 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 ones religion is especially heinous but it is a must for the Shia. The Shia also believe in the concept of Kitman. Kitman means hiding ones faith from non-Shias. It is considered necessary in the Shia doctrine to hide certain aspects of ones faith from non-Shias, as well as ignorant Shia who dont 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, Shiism has the characteristics of a secret cult, no doubt a reflection of its Sabaite origins.

Taqiyyah is considered obligatory on the Shia up until the day Imam Mehdi (al Qaim) returns. According to Shaykh Saduq ibn Babawayhi, who is considered one of the foremost authorties of Shiism: 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 prayerNow until the Imam al-Qaim appears, taqiya is obligatory and it is not permissible to dispense with it. He, who abandons it before the appearance of the Qaim, 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 Jafar 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 Shia 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 AlKafi, 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 doesnt have Taqiyyah doesnt 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 Sunnione who abstains from Taqiyyah has commited an unforgiveable sinA believer who does not do Taqiyyah is like a body without a headTaqiyyah is the best amongst all deedsA 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 Shiism 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 ones head and says to eat pork, then it becomes permissible to eat in order to save ones 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.

Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophets 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 Prophets wives after each prayer, five times a day. So how can the Shia have the audacity to dismiss the fact that cursing the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Ayatollahs website: http://www.shahroudi.net/aghayeda/aghayedj1.htm (scroll down to questions 50 and 51)

 : 05 ) ( 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-Muminin Ali ibn Abi Talib, either (cursing her) explicitly with her name or implicitly? ) ( : ) ( . ) ( Answer: It is permissible to curse all those who showed enmity towards Amir alMuminin (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.

 ( : 15 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( Question 51: My Habibi, my question is regarding the cursing that is found in the Duas 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? : . ) ( .

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# 02%02% 02%

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 ones 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 Prophets Companions) who sought to prevent the rule of Ali ( ) and 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 Allahs 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 denyingeven to their own followersthe 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 theologyare 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 ( ) who completed the compilation of the Quran into what became known as the Mushaf. Shaykh alMufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman ( ) did 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-Mumineen Ali ( ) was 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 Taala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beingsAuthentic 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 subtractionThey (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers. Source Book Title: Author: ash-Shaykh Publisher: Dar al-Mufid Editor: Saib Page(s): 78-81 Masail in Lebanon, `Abd as-Sarawiyya al-Mufid Beirut [1993] al-Humayd

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: All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Taala 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 Taala 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-Mumineen (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 Taala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mumineen (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 Book Title: Author: ash-Shaykh Publisher: Dar al-Mufid Editor: Saib Page(s): 78-81 Masail in Lebanon, `Abd as-Sarawiyya al-Mufid Beirut [1993] al-Humayd

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 ( ) did 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 ( ). 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 dont 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-Rajah [The Return]: Imams Reincarnated

The Shia believe in this strange concept of Al-Rajah, 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 [ ,] Umar [ ,]Uthman [ ,] Aisha [ ,] Hafsa [ ,] and the Sunnis) and then he will flog them and punish their reincarnated selves. According to Al-Rajah, 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-Rajah 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 ( .) 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-Rajah 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-Rajah 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-Rajah] and does not consider our Mutah to be Halaal is not from us. (alBihar, 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 dont 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-Rajah mentioned in the Quran? We have verse after verse about the Day of Judgement. Where is this strange concept of Al-Rajah? 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-Rajah! 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-Rajah. 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 ( ) will also be resurrected: we wonder why the Prophet ( ) would 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-Rajah, 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-maarif, 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-Rajah 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 Rajah, 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-Rajah. 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-Rajah, 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

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 ones 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 Prophets Companions) who sought to prevent the rule of Ali ( ) and 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 Allahs

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 denyingeven to their own followersthe 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 theologyare 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. 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 ( ) did 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 alMumineen Ali ( ) was 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. Qaim) willon 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 Prophets 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-Ansars Guru Says Current Quran is Incomplete and Not Enough

In this article, we expose Answering-Ansars guru, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq. We reveal the link between Answering-Ansar and then we examine the Allamahs 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.

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 ones 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 Prophets Companions) who sought to prevent the rule of Ali ( ) and 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 Allahs 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 denyingeven to their own followersthe 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 theologyare 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 ( ) who completed the compilation of the Quran into what became known as the Mushaf. Shaykh alMufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman ( ) did 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-Mumineen Ali ( ) was 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 Taala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beingsAuthentic

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 subtractionThey (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers. Source Book Title: Author: ash-Shaykh Publisher: Dar al-Mufid Editor: Saib Page(s): 78-81 Masail in Lebanon, `Abd as-Sarawiyya al-Mufid Beirut [1993] al-Humayd

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: All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Taala 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 Taala 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-Mumineen (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 Taala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mumineen (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 Book Title: Author: ash-Shaykh Publisher: Dar al-Mufid Editor: Saib Page(s): 78-81 Masail in Lebanon, `Abd as-Sarawiyya al-Mufid Beirut [1993] al-Humayd

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 ( ) did 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 ( ). 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 dont 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, Masail as-Sarawiyya; our article on this topic can be found here: Shaykh al-Mufid, Tahreef, Taqiyyah, and Half-Quoting 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. Qaim) willon his returnteach people the real Quran. Shaykh al-Mufid writes: (Imam al-Baqir) said: When the Qaim 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) Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid Publisher: Balagha Books in conjunction with The Muhammadi Trust [1981] Translated by: I.K.A. Howard Page: 553 Thats strike two for Shaykh al-Mufid. Attached Scan:

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 mans wives! The Quran categorically addresses the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives as Ahlel Bayt, then nobodyno Ayatollah and no propagandistcould 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 Quran 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 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 should be understood that the Allamahs disclaimer that the Shia do not believe in Tahreef is as disingenuous as those who say I dont mean to be racist, but Whatever follows such a statement is always racist! Allamah Sharaf al-Din basically says: we dont believe in Tahreef but there may have been Tahreef. Utterly absurd! The Shia wish to pay lip-service to the claim that they dont 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 alAnwar:

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 prophets wives, to suit their religious needsEven 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, http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/index.html) pp.234-235,

The great Shia Mufassir, Tabatabai, writes:

Translation: The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of) revelation, was initially not a part of the verse about the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets wives. We have said this before and we will say it again and again: Shiism 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 Prophets 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.

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 11:73

This

is

in

continuation

to

our

previous

article:

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33 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 mans wives. However, because this conflicts with the Shia doctrineand because it exposes them as the haters of Ahlel Baytthe 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 Ibrahims 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 Allahs 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 Ibrahims wife Sara as Ahlel Bayt, and so we know from this that a mans wives are included in the term Ahlel Bayt. Therefore, Prophet Muhammads 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. (source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 11:73) 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 Muhammads 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 Prophets 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 Ibrahims 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 Prophets 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 Shiism 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 mans wives, and both times the Shia scholars have claimed that there was Tahreef.

Answering-Ansars 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 Shiite Islam and its Principles (Asl ash-Shiah 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 Maad. (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. (Wasail 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

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 Prophets 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 beliefthat 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 Shiism, 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 Shiism know the truth, and we continue to expose them and reveal their true beliefs, hidden under the cloak of Taqiyyah.
Answering-Ansars 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-Ansars 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-Ansars website wherein they praise the Allamah and detail their relationship with him: Answering-Ansar says

These one hundred questions are from the pen of Allamah Abdul Kareem
Mushtaq, a name that needs no introduction for Urdu readers. A former Sunni scholar that converted to Shia Islam in the late 1960s, 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 Shia, and he managed to silence many leading lights of Muawiyas 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 Mullahs 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 Ahlul Sunnah Ulema to refute and Chodha Masalai (replies to 14 questions typically raised against the Shia). 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 Muawiya 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 Shia, and the Answering-Ansar.org team have been heavily influenced by his excellent texts. These questions form the second portion of Abdul Kareem Mushtaqs book, Usule-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.answeringansar.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 timehonored tradition of Taqiyyah. Elsewhere, Answering-Ansar says: 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 Shiaism and was his achievements will always remain in our minds. Whilst the followers of Muawiya 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 Ahlul 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 Allamahs 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 Mehdis 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 dont 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) dont 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 Allahs 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 dont believe in that part which is invisible. However, they admit that a large part of the Quran went wasted but they dont 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 Qurans 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 Mushtaqs 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 AnsweringAnsars 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 Shiism, 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 thisQuranthe one we have in our handswas 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 Quranthe present day Quran of the Muslimssays 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: O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont 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 Shiism: I could not find Shiism in the Quran! This absence of Shiism 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) The transliteration reads: 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) The transliteration reads: 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) The transliteration reads: 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 sectit 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 Shiism, all of which follow a different line of Imams. The Ithna Ashari sect only recently emerged. The doctrine of Ithna Ashari Shiism, in particular the concept of Imamah, was not even fully elaborated until the tenth century. The Prophet ( ) was not consulted. We must reject all sects all of which were created years after the death of the Prophet ( ) which 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 arent 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 ( ) as 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 ( that book, we find Ali ( ) 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 Allahs 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 Jamaah) 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 Jamaah. This is not a sect, but rather this is the main group (Jamaah). Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah 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 ( ). We must destroy all false beliefs that were added into Islam after the death of the Prophet ( ). 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 ). In

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 questionabout whether or not the Imami Shia are Muslimis 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 Shias: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)shias that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute KufrSuch Shias 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 Sh`ah are unbelievers. On the other hand, there are many sects of the Sh`ah 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 Shiah depends on the situation. The innovated beliefs of the Shiah 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: Islamqa.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: Shi`ah fall into three categories:

1. ghli (ghult): 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 womanall of them seem to profess the aforementioned beliefsexcept Allh willingotherwise. source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=598&CATE=10 Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan has hereby stated thataccording to himmost 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 Shiism, 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 statein no uncertain termsthat their twelve Imams are superior to the Prophets (aside from Prophet Muhammad). However, the lay-persons, commoners, and masses of Shiaespecially in the Westmay 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 Shiism 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 Shiism 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 Shiism holds that Imams are superior to Prophets. But now I have shown him

that indeed this is what Shiism 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 persons 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 AllahIncluded 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 Shia 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 source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?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 Prophets 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 Desais 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 Mumineen 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 Taala knows best Was Salaam E. 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 Vawda

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 Quraan, 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 Quraan 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 multifactorial 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 scholars 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 http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=6020&CATE=3400 Path,

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 AlSunnahthere is no madhhab in addition to the four madhhahib of Ahl AlSunnah that is permissible for Muslims to followCan one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a? 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 Jamaah 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 doneDo 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 thatThe 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 dawah 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 peoples 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:

Shias 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 Shiism 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 Shiism; 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 Rabanis disciple, Sidi Salman Younas, clarified: Shaykh Farazs position is that a Shi`a 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 Shias: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)shias that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute KufrSuch Shias 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 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 KaafirIf 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, wholike Mufti Ebrahim Desaiis 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 Shiism 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 Majmooul-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 themand 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 Shiism is Kufr, all of the scholars of Shiism 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 Shiism 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 Shiism. 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 Jamaah 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

Shiism is Kufr, and that some Shia are not Kufaar simply because they are ignorant of the beliefs of Shiism 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 Shiism is Kufr and call the people away from it and those who propagate such Kufr. The principle of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah is to pass condemnation in general terms, refraining from passing condemnation on people in specific. Therefore, we should make the general statement that Shiism 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 bidah 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 Shiism 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) didnt 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 Shareeah, 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 persons 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 Shareeah fulfilling this obligation, sincerely for Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Taaala) 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 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: Baaz

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. Student Darul Iftaa M. Jawed Iqbal,

Checked and Approved by: Mufti Ebrahim Darul Iftaa, Madrassah Inaamiyyah Desai

source: Ask-Imam, http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=b51e3af653960ec458e93c62c bbad9c8 In conclusion, we say that Shiism 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 onesincluding their propagandistsare 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 Shiism 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 or violently 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 thingsno matter if they insult the Three Caliphs or the Prophets wives with the most abusive of languagewe 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 patienceand your patience is attainable only with Allahs 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 thosewho 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 mans 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 Sahebs 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 `alaykum 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 Inaamiyyah Source: Ask-Imam, http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=71f8b28ea8cba8ea3f470a10fe 0ced7c 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 `alaykum 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, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shii 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 Uthmanis 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 Madhahb 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 Qadyns; or they hold firmly that the Noble Quran which we have today is changed, AlIyaazubillah. And that our Quraan is not the real on, like what some of the extremists among the Shas 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 Inaamiyyah

Source: Ask-Imam, http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=f0b6d2cd17596f47da86f0aa9c 99404f

Is AhlelBayt.com a Salafi Site?

Weve 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

by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Salih Ibn Uthaymeen

Bissunnah

From his [the Prophets] 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, Mutazilah, Jahmiyyah, Sheeah, 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 assalih 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 dont censure this, if they deserve it, but we censure handling this bidah 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 doesnt 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 Fatimas house to be attacked. Can you please tell me: how authentic or reliable of a source do we Sunnis view Tabari?
Answer:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. 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 thisnot 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 disregardedThe 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-Tabaris book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabarilike Ibn Ishaqdid 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-Tabaris book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam atTabaris book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulaynis book. In AlKafi 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-Tabaris 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 Hanbaliswhom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding fathers of the Wahabisrioted outside Imam at-Tabaris 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 Shiah sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the HanbalitesThey [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shiah extremist and, ultimately, a hereticEnraged 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 mattersHe 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-Tabaris decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam atTabari 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 atTabari 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 didnt 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 thisand the manner in which they exalt this position of Wasiis 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 Shias 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 Bukharis Fatwa on Befriending Shias

Imam Bukhari declared: I dont 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 Afaalul-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!
Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]

Introduction

It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet ( )said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said.

For example, the Quranic verse slay them wherever you find them is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation. Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet ( ,) who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally different (and misleading) picture. The Prophets intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali ( ) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali ( ) against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was said. The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia The Shia claim that the Prophet ( )divinely appointed Ali ( ) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should set the stakes: (1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali ( appointed by the Prophet ( )and the Shia creed is correct. ) was divinely

(2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet ( )appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali ( ) was never appointed at all by the Prophet ( )and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid. The reason we need to make this very clear from the outset is that the Shia propagandists have this uncanny ability to move the goalposts whenever they lose a debate. They will jump from one topic to another; if they lose the debate over Ghadir Khumm, then they will bring up the Incident of the Door, or Saqifah, or Fadak, or who knows what else. The entire foundation of Shiism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that the Prophet ( ) supposedly nominated Ali ( ) to be his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet ( )never appointed Ali ( ) and the Shia must abandon all of their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr ( ) usurped the God-appointed Caliphate of Ali ( .) Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia paradigmand so important to the Shia theology that the Shia masses have a yearly celebration known as Eid-e-Ghadir.
Amaana.org says

Eid-e Gadhir is celebrated with great rejoicing by Shia Muslims where they remember Prophet Muhammads last

instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Alis vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage

source: http://www.amaana.org/gadhir/gadhir1.htm

Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ,) split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali ( ) was the first of the divinely appointed Imams. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, refers to Ghadir Khumm as a momentous event and the basis for the Imamah of Ali ( .) The reason it is neccessary to strongly emphasize the importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia is that we will show how the supposedly strongest weapon in the arsenal of the Shia propaganda is actually very weak. If this is the very basis of Shiism, then indeed Shiism is a very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet ( ) appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm but simple logic dictates otherwise. What the Shia Claim Happened
Al-Islam.org says

After completing his last pilgrimage (Hajjatul-Wada), Prophet *s+ was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where he

and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is close to todays al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from different provinces used to greet each other before taking different routes for their homes.

In this place, the following verse of the Quran was revealed: O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 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). Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Quran was revealed: Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Quran 5:3)

The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophets immediate successor.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

Why It Just Doesnt Make Sense The Shia claim that the Prophet ( )completed his last Hajj, said his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Mecca, and then afterwards appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm. Let us analyze this claim: Ghadir Khumm is located between Mecca and Medinah, near the city of Al-Juhfah, as mentioned by the Al-Islam.org website. It is a watering hole in the middle of the desert. The coup de grce to the Shia argument is the fact that Ghadir Khumm is located approximately 250 km away from Mecca. This simple fact is enough to shatter the entire premise of Shiism. As we all know, the Prophet ( )delivered his Farewell Sermon in Mecca during his last Hajj. This was in front of the great majority of the Muslims, who had come from all of the various cities to do Hajj. If the Prophet ( )wanted to appoint Ali ( ) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable explanation why the Prophet ( )did not do this during his Farewell Sermon to all of the Muslims. The entire Muslim Ummah was gathered there to hear his parting words, so surely this would be the most appropriate time and opportunity to appoint a successor. The Prophet ( )and the Muslims completed their Hajj after which everyone went back to their respective home cities. The people of Medinah went back to Medinah, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Syria went back to Syria, and the people of Mecca stayed put in Mecca. It was only the group that lived in cities in the North of the Arabian Peninsula that passed by Ghadir Khumm. This would consist of only those who were heading towards Medinah and the minority of Muslims that lived in places such as Syria. Therefore, when the Prophet ( )stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great number of the Muslims were not present including those living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. After the Hajj, the Meccans stayed behind in Mecca, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, etc. Only the group going to Medinah (or passing through/near it) accompanied the Prophet ( )to Ghadir Khumm. Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet ( )did not appoint Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims, but rather what happened at Ghadir Khumm happened in front of just the handful of Muslims who were heading back to Medinah (or passing through/near it). Let us look at what one Shia website claims:
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

On the 18th of Dhul-Hajjah, after completing his farewell pilgrimage (Hajjatul- Widaa), the Messenger of Allah

(peace be upon him and his progeny) had departed Makkah en route to Madinah. He and the entire Muslim caravan, numbering over 100,000, were stopped at Ghadeer Khumm, a deserted-yet-strategically situated area that lies between Makkah and Madinah (near todays Juhfah). In those days, Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the

various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage from neighbouring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

The Shia website claims that Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgramage from neighboring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home. A simple look at any map would show how utterly absurd this is. The following map comes from Al-Islam.org:

Source of map: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/route.jpg

Is there any rationale as to why the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. would travel towards Ghadir Khumm on the way back to their home cities in the completely opposite direction? We hope that the reader can understand how truly absurd this proposition is. To give an analogy, let us assume that the President of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) lives in San Francisco and that he wishes to nominate his replacement in front of all the ISNA members. Each year, ISNA holds its largest conference in Chicago, in which thousands of ISNA members from ever city in America congregate. They come from San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., etc. Their flight to Chicago would look like this:

Now that all the ISNA members are present at the yearly conference in Chicago, would it not seem fairly selfevident that this would be the most fitting place for the ISNA president to nominate his successor? After the conference, everyone heads back to their respective home cities, so the ISNA president heads back towards San Francisco with a stop-over in Cheyenne. Would it make any logical sense that the other ISNA members pass through Cheyenne on the way back to their home cities in the opposite direction? This truly would make no sense. It would look something like this:

No rational mind could accept such a thing. It would make little sense for the ISNA president to nominate his successor in Cheyenne as opposed to Chicago during the yearly conference. A person who lives in Washington D.C. would not travel West to go to Cheyenne, but rather he would travel in the opposite direction towards his home. A person who lives in Chicago certainly wouldnt accompany the ISNA president to Cheyenne after the conference, but rather he would stay behind in Chicago where he lives. Indeed, the more sensical return paths of the ISNA members would look something like this:

In this analogy above, San Francisco is Medinah, Chicago is Mecca, and Cheyenne is Ghadir Khumm. It is clear that the only people passing through Cheyenne are those that are headed towards San Francisco or the West Coast. Therefore, it would not be wise for the ISNA president to deliver his nomination speech in Cheyenne because the Muslims from all the other cities would not be present. It would instead make much more sense that he deliver such a speech in Chicago, where the conference is held. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad ( ) would have appointed his successor in Mecca during his Farewell Sermon, not in the middle of nowhere on the way back to Medinah. When the Muslims embarked on the Hajj, let us assume that these were the routes they took:

Now that the Muslims from all the cities have assembled in Mecca, would this not be the most appropriate time to declare the Prophets successor? The Shia propagandist would have us believe that the Muslims going to Taif and Yemen would travel an extra 500 km (round trip) to the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm and then head back in the opposite direction. As stated by the Shia themselves, Ghadir Khumm was a watering hole and a resting point for those travellingthe only thing they fail to mention is that it is a resting point for those passing through it, not those heading in the opposite direction altogether! The Shia would have us believe that the return trip of the Muslims would look like this:

This is nothing short of nonsense. After the Hajj, everyone heads back to their home cities and the Meccans would stay put since they lived in Mecca. Why would they have head out towards a watering hole in the middle of nowhere? Considering the fact that the Muslims were on foot in the desert, this journey back and forth of 250 km to Ghadir Khumm and back would have added a few extra weeks in transit time. Does this not flout logic and rational thinking? Indeed, the more sensical image would be the following:

Therefore, the conclusion we reach is that the Shia claim that the Prophet ( )appointed Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Prophet ( ) did not address this point in his Farewell Sermon at all. As for the incident of Ghadir Khumm, we have seen how unlikely it is that this would be the place that the Prophet ( )would appoint Ali ( ) as the next Caliph; indeed, the mainstream Muslim version of Ghadir Khumm just makes more sense. What Really Happened at Ghadir Khumm Nobody denies the incident of Ghadir Khumm; however, what we deny are the exaggerations of the Shia with regards to said event. First off, the Shia exaggerate as to how many people were present at Ghadir Khumm, often giving numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As we have shown above, only the Muslims heading towards Medinah were present at Ghadir Khumm, which means that the Meccans were not present, nor were any of the people of Taif, Yemen, etc. In fact, the Shia often quote that 100,000 people were present at Ghadir Khumm but this is likely an over-exaggeration, and rather this is the number of people present in Mecca for the Hajj from all of the cities, not only those who were returning to Medinah (which was only a fraction of that number). Whatever the case, no matter what number the Shia use, this can only be a fraction of the Muslims because it would not include the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. The context of Ghadir Khumm must be taken into consideration. What happened at Ghadir Khumm was that the Prophet ( )was responding to certain individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib ( .) The background behind this was that a few months earlier, the Prophet ( )had dispatched Ali ( ) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the Shia website, www.najaf.org: Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen. (http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm)

The army led by Ali ( ) was very successful in Yemen and they captured a lot of war booty. It was over this war booty that a dispute began between Ali ( ) on the one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathirs al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah: Amongst the states fifth of the spoils there was enough linen to clothe the whole army, but Ali had decided that it must be handed over to the Prophet untouched. After the victory in Yemen, Ali ( ) placed his deputy commander in charge of the troops stationed in Yemen, while he himself head out towards Mecca to meet the Prophet ( )for the Hajj. We read: In his (Alis) absence, however, the man he left in charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for nearly three months. The troops stationed in Yemen then set out to Mecca to complete the Hajj with the Prophet ( ):

When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from entering the city (of Mecca), Ali rode out to meet them and was amazed to see the transformation that had taken place (in regards to their clothing). I gave them the garments, said the deputy commander, that their appearance might be more seemly when they entered in among the people. The men all knew that everyone in Mecca would now be wearing their finest clothes in honor of the Feast, and they were anxious to look their best. But Ali felt he could not countenance such a liberty and he ordered them to put on their old clothes again and return the new ones to the spoils. Great resentment was felt throughout the army on this account, and when the Prophet heard of it, he (the Prophet) said: O people, blame not Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of Allah to be blamed. But these words were not sufficient, or it may be that they were only heard by a few, and the resentment continued. On the way back to Medina one of the troops bitterly complained of Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed color. Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves? he said; and when the man assented, he added: Whomsoevers beloved friend I am, Ali is (also) his beloved friend. Later on in the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking Ali by the hand he repeated these words [i.e. whomsoevers beloved I am, this Ali is (also) his beloved friend], to which he added the prayer: O Allah, be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his foe; and the murmurings against Ali were silenced. The soldiers under Alis charge were not only perturbed over the change of clothes but also over the distribution of the spoils of war in general. The Muslims, thanks to the great leadership of Ali ( ,) had conquered many camels, but Ali ( ) forbade them from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed that Ali ( ) prevented them from riding the camels of the war spoils that they had acquired. But when Ali ( ) had left for Mecca, his deputy commander had succumbed to the pleas of the people and allowed them to ride these camels. When Ali ( ) saw that, he became angry and he blamed the deputy commander. Abu Saeed ( ) said: When we were on the way back to Medinah, we mentioned to the Prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali; the Prophet said: StopBy Allah, I have known that he (Ali) has done good for the sake of Allah. A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah; we read: When Ali came (back) from the Yemen to meet the Apostle in Mecca, he hurried to him and left in charge of his army one of his companions who went and covered every man in the force with clothes from the linen Ali

had. When the army approached, he (Ali) went out to meet them and found them dressed in the clothes. When he asked what on earth had happened, the man (his deputee) said that he had dressed the men so that they might appear seemly when they mingle with the people. He (Ali) told him to take off the clothes before they came to the Apostle and they did so and put them back among the spoil(s). The army showed resentment at their treatmentwhen the men complained of Ali, the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed. (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650) Ibn Katheer narrates that the people in the army (i.e. the contingent sent to Yemen) started to criticize Ali ( ) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they had acquired. It was these men that accompanied the Prophet ( )to Medinah via Ghadir Khumm, and it is they who were being addressed in the famous Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. In fact, in Tareekh al-Islam, the event of Ghadir Khumm falls under the heading The Consolation of Ali. We read: The Consolation of Ali During the Hajj, some of the followers of Ali who had been with him to Yemen complained to the Prophet about Ali. Some of the misunderstandings of the people of Yemen had given rise to misgivings. Addressing the Companions at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet of Allah said admiring Ali: The one who is my friend is the friend of Ali Following the address, Umar congratulated Ali saying: From this day on you are a very special friend of mine. The Prophet then came back to Al-Medinah and his son Ibrahim passed away. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.241) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm To summarize the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: The soldiers in Alis army were very upset with Ali ( ) for denying them linen and camels from the spoils, and they were not pleased with the fact that Ali ( ) himself was accorded a special share of the Khums (i.e. the fifth of war booty). Of course, Ali ( ) cannot be blamed for this privilege of taking an extra share of the Khums, which is a right accorded to the Prophets family in the Quran. Nonetheless, the people had anger in their eyes, so they took special offense when Ali ( ) took a slave girl for himself from the Khums; the soldiers wrongfully accused Ali ( ) of being a hypocrite for denying the clothes and camels to the men but for himself taking a slave girl. It was for this wrongful criticism of Ali ( ) that the Prophet ( )defended Ali ( ) in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.
ShiaChat Member says

You sick Saudi perverts can believe whatever filth you want about anyone at your own personal leisure but dont

dare bring this up here

That accusation [that Imam Ali slept with a slave girl] is blatantly ummayyad propaganda to make our Mawla (A.S.) look bad


First of all, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm as recorded in Sahih Bukhari was not intended to make Ali ( ) look evil at all. In fact, the Prophet ( )defended Alis actions. It should be noted that even the Prophet ( )himself took a slave girl and this has been narrated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Slavery was the cultural norm back then and the Prophet ( )urged the Muslims to treat their slave girls as their wives. On other occassions, the Prophet ( )would encourage emancipating slaves and marrying them. In any case, there are many lengthy articles that defend the Islamic position on this matter, and the reader is free to search the internet for them. Secondly, it should also be noted that Buraida ( ) was not criticizing Ali ( ) because he thought having a slave girl was immoral. Instead, Buraida ( ) was only criticizing Ali ( ) for taking part of the Khums while denying it to his men; to Buraida ( ,) it would have been immaterial what Ali ( ) took from the Khums whether it be a slave girl, linen, or camels. Thirdly, the fact that Ali ( ) took a slave girl is narrated in the Shia Hadith, so why should the Shia react so violently when a similar narration is in the Sunni Hadith? Is this not hypocrisy? Indeed, just as Buraida ( ) was angry at Ali ( ) for taking a slave girl in the Sunni Hadith, similarly was Fatima ( ) angry at Ali ( ) for taking a slave girl in the Shia Hadith. This Shia Hadith was narrated by one of the fore-fathers of Shia theology, namely Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, and it is available on YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website:
YaZahra.org says

Majlisi Biharul anwar 43/147

) 1 ( : . : : . : [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 Fatimas house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girls 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 fathers house? He said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.

(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on How her life with Ali was)]

source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html

Fourthlyand this ends the debate altogetheris the fact that this incident is mentioned in Shia sources as well. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar, writes: (Earlier) the Commander of the Faithful had chosen a slave-girl from among the prisoners. Now Khalid sent Buraida to the Prophet. He said: Get to (the Prophet) before the army does. Tell him what Ali has done in choosing a slave-girl for himself from the Khums and bring him dishonor Buraida went to the Prophet. He (Buraida) had with him the letter from Khalid with which he had been sent. He began to read it. The face of the Prophet began to change. Apostle of Allah, said Buraida, if you permitted the people (to act) like this, their booty would disappear. Woe upon you, Buraida, the Prophet told him. You have committed an act of hypocrisy. Ali ibn Abi Talib is allowed to have what is allowed to me from their bootyBuraida, I warn you that if you hate Ali, Allah will hate you. Buraida reported: I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I could be swallowed into it. Then I said: I seek refuge in Allah from the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of him. The Prophet forgave him. (Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.111-112) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (volume 5, Book 59 Number 637): Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, Dont you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the Prophet, I mentioned that to him. He (the Prophet) said, O Buraida! Do you hate Ali? I said, Yes. He said, Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus. This is the version of Ghadir Khumm narrated in the Sahihayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim), with no mention at all of the word Mawla. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: As for his saying If I am someones mawla then Ali is his mawla too, this is not in the books of Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim), but it is one of the reports which were narrated by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed. Therefore, we see that the Shia have created much ado about nothing. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a far cry from a nomination to Caliphate. The Shia scholar, SHM Jafri, writes: The Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated the Prophets exhortation [at Ghadir Khumm] in that some people were murmuring against Ali due to his harsh and indifferent treatment in the distribution of the spoils of the expedition of Al-Yaman, which had just taken place under Alis leadership, and from where he, along with his those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join the Prophet at the Hajj. To dispel these ill-feelings against his son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner.

(The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22) The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context The Sunnis say that the Prophet ( )was forced to make his declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali ( ) and his soldiers in Yemen. The Shia approach this in one of two ways. The first response is to deny the event in Yemen altogether, claiming that it was merely Umayyad propaganda that Ali ( ) would ever take a slave girl like that. Of course, this response is quickly refuted by pointing out that these narrations are available in Shia sources as well, including Shaykh Mufids book Kitab Al-Irshad. Therefore, the Shia propagandist must fall back on another explanation, as offered by Taair-al-Quds below, which is to admit that the event in Yemen did take place but that it has nothing to do with Ghadir Khumm.
Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says

The Hadiths mentioning this incident *of Alis soldiers getting angry at him+have nothing to do with the incident of

Ghadeer Khumm.

The entire episode [of Alis soldiers getting angry at him] took place in Madinah in the Mosque around the Hujrah of the Prophet (s) and finished there and thus has nothing to do with the incident of Ghadir Khumm! The prophet (s) had already clarified this matter/issue which the Wahabi / Nawaasib aim to present as the context in the incident of Ghadir, which took place at a latter time in history. The incident of Ghadeer took place on 18th DhilHajj while the incident of Yemen took place in Rabbi ul Aakhir (Thaani) or Jamaadi ul Ulaa according to historians. There is no compatibility or possibility of mixing both these incidents as one of them took place on return from Meccah after Hajj while the other took place in Yemen earlier on and got resolved earlier as well in Masjid e Nabavi, Medinah, before the Prophet (s) even left for Hajj!

In fact, both events (what happened in Yemen and Ghadir Khumm) occurred in the final year of the Prophets life. According to the classical Shia scholar, Shaykh Mufid, the expedition in Yemen was coming to an end in the last five days of Dhu al-Qadah (the 11th Islamic month) and the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred right thereafter in Dhu al-Hijjah (the 12th Islamic month). What Taair-al-Quds has deceptively done is claim that the expedition of Yemen took place in Rabi al-Thani (the 4th Islamic month) or Jumada al-Awwal (the 5th Islamic month), whereas Ghadir Khumm took place in the 12th month; this is a horrible half-truth. The Yemen campaign lasted many months and into the 11th month! So whereas the Yemen expedition may have started a few months back, it definitely did not end before the last five days of the 11th month, after which Ali ( ) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet ( )in Mecca to do Hajj. As for Taair-al-Quds claims that the incident of Yemen was resolved in Medinah, then this is a horrible blunder on his part. After what happened in Yemen (i.e. the dispute over Khums), Ali ( ) rode out to meet the Prophet ( )in Mecca, not Medinah. Ali ( ) and his men performed Hajj

with the Prophet ( )and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali ( ,) which led to the pronouncement at Ghadir Khumm. Taair-al-Quds refers to it as Wahabi / Nawaasib propaganda to claim that the dispute between Ali and his soldiers happened right before Ghadir Khumm. We would like to ask Taair-al-Quds if he considers Shaykh Mufid to be one of the Nawaasib? Shaykh Mufid, in his epic book Kitab al-Irshad mentions the dispute in Yemen (between Ali and his soldiers) in the same heading as the section entitled The Prophets Farewell Pilgramage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm! We read: The Prophets Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, had sent him (Ali), peace be upon him, to Yemen to collect the fifth share (khums) of their gold and silder and collect the breastplates and other thingsThen the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, decided to go on the pilgrimage and to carry out the duties which God, the Exalted, had decreed He, may God bless him and his family, set out with them with five days remaining in (the month of) Dhu alQada. He had written to the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, about going on the pilgrimage from Yemen Meanwhile, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, set out with the soldiers who had accompanied him to Yemen. He had with him the breastplates which he had collected from the people of Najran. When the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was nearing Mecca on the road from Medina, the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, was nearing it on the road from Yemen. He (Ali) went ahead of the army to meet the Prophet, may God bless him and his family, and he left one of their number in charge of them. He came up to the Prophet as the latter was looking down over Mecca. He (Ali) greeted him (the Prophet) and informed him (the Prophet) of what he (Ali) had done and what he (Ali) had collected [in Khums] and that he had hurried ahead of the army to meet him. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was pleased at that and delighted to meet him The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, said farewell to him (the Prophet) and returned to his army. He (Ali) met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He (Ali) denounced them for that. Shame on you! he (Ali) said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. Whatever made you give them breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family? I did not give you permission to do that. They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me, he replied. The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion When the Apostle of God carried out his rituals of the pilgrimage, he made Ali his partner in the sacrifice of animals. Then he began his journey back to Medina. (Ali) and the Muslims went with him. He came to a place known as Ghadir Khumm

(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.119-123)

Who Was Angry With Ali (

?) ) and Buraida ( ) who were

The Shia propagandists then claim that it was only Khalid ( upset with Ali ( .)
Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says

None of the hadiths mention any third individual besides Khalid bin Walid and Burayda (or Bara as in Tirmidhi) to be

the complainers or the ones who initiated this BUGHZ (hatred) campaign towards Imam Ali (a.s) as reported through this incident.

This is another blatant lie by Taair-al-Quds. In fact, it was all (or at least most) of Alis soldiers who were upset with him, not just one or two soldiers. Shaykh Mufid writes: The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them (the breastplates) off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion (Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.121-122) The complaints against Ali ( ) were numerous and it was the people who were discontented (not one or two individuals), and the Prophet ( )ordered the call to the people in general. It is clear that the vast majority of Alis soldiers were discontented with him because he refused to allow them to wear the breastplates from the Khums. Therefore, it is improper to pinpoint the blame on one or two individuals; instead, the truth of the matter is that Ali ( ) had angered all of his soldiers, and we seek Allahs refuge from laying the blame on anybody, especially since the Prophet ( )himself forgave Buraida ( ) and the others. The bottom line point, however, is that many people were angry at Ali ( ) and this is was the reason why the Prophet ( )had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm, to exonerate Ali ( ) not to nominate Ali ( ) as his successor. Fabricated Additions The common Shia tactic to fool the Sunni layperson is to first state that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is in Bukhari and the most trusted books of the Sunnis (oftentimes impressing Sunnis with long references), and then they go about quoting the variant versions from obscure and unreliable sources that depict Ghadir Khumm in a very different manner than is actually stated in the authentic books. This tactic of fooling people is called acceptance by association. In fact, there are only two additions to the Hadith which are considered authentic and that too only by some scholars. For the purpose of debate, however, we shall accept them as authentic. Again, these two additions are not in the Sahihayn but rather they are in the variant narrations in other books. As the student of Hadith knows, Hadith have various gradings; as for the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, what is most authentic is that which is in Sahih Bukhari as reproduced above. However, there are other variant versions which have two additions: 1) The first addition is: Man Kuntu Mawla fa `Ali Mawla. (Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.)

2) The second addition is: Allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah. (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.) The first addition is generally accepted, and the second one is weaker but some scholars do consider it authentic. As far as any other additions are concerned, these are not contained in the authentic books and are mawdoo or fabricated. Generally, the Shia are content in basing their arguments upon these first two additions, but no doubt after they are refuted, they will oftentimes then resort to using obscure sources to produce further additions such as the Prophet ( )saying Ali ( ) is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam, etc. These are all fabrications, and historically the Shia have been manufacturers of fabricated Hadith. The Shia are able to produce lengthy lists of obscure references about Ghadir Khumm because they themselves have been responsible for the multitude of forgeries in regards to Ghadir Khumm. We have already seen the version of Ghadir Khumm in Sahih Bukhari and how it does not contain the addition of Mawla. However, this addition of Mawla can be found in this variant of the Hadith: Buraida narrated: I invaded Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; so when I came (back) to the Messenger of Allah and mentioned Ali and criticized him, I saw the face of the Messenger of Allah change and he said: O Buraida, am I not closer to the believers than they are to themselves? I said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He (then) said: Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. (Musnad Ahmad [v5 / p347 / #22995] with a Sahih chain of transmission and all trustworthy [thiqa] narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Nisai in Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in alMustadrak [v3 / p119 / #4578]; Abu Nu`aym; Ibn Jarir and others) In a slightly different version: Buraida narrated: The Prophet sent me to Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; when I returned and complained about him to the Messenger of Allah, he (the Messenger of Allah) raised his head towards (him) and said: O Buraida! Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. (Sunan al-Kubra, v5, p130, #8466; a similar report can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba [v6, p.374]) In other narrations, the Prophet ( )said: allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah, which translates to: O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him. Some scholars have doubted the authenticity of this statement, but we shall hereby accept this second addition as authentic. These are the only two additions to the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm that can be considered authentic, and therefore these are the only two we will deal with. The Shia propagandists will often add various narrations from weak and obscure sources, but this is not a valid methodology of debating. Oftentimes, these references are impossible to verify and many times they do not exist at all or are dramatically taken out of context. What is odd and a bit amusing is that the Sunnis oftentimes quote from Al-Kafi, the most authentic book of Shia Hadith, and yet the Shia will outright reject these Hadith as a basis for argumentation. If this is the attitude of the Shia towards their most authentic book of Hadith, then why do the Shia expect us to accept narrations from obscure and unreliable sources? In any case, in order to be fair, the only two additions we will discuss will be: (1) This Ali is also his Mawla, and (2) befriend whosoever befriends him The Definition of the Word Mawla The Shia claim that the word Mawla here means master. It is based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the Prophet ( )nominated Ali ( ) as his successor. In fact,

the word Mawlalike many other Arabic wordshas multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word mawla is actually servant and not master. A former slave who becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah. One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various definitions of the word Mawla. Ibn AlAtheer says that the word Mawla can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord, owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant, brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc. Now let us examine the Hadith again: Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him. The word Mawla here cannot refer to master, but rather the best translation of the word Mawla is a beloved friend. It is clear that Mawla here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word Mawla makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet ( )immediately says O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him. The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means beloved friend but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that. Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah: The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned. Imam Shafii said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam. Allah says in the Quran: So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is. (Quran, 57:15) No translator on earthnot even the staunchest Shiahas ever translated this to mean Imam or Caliph, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word Mawla comes from Wilayah and not Walayah. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership. Allah says in the Quran:

That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them. (Quran, 47:11) This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the second part of this verse in which Allah says: the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them. Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of course the disbelievers have a leader, such as today the American disbelievers have George Bush as their leader. This fact is mentioned in the Quran itself: Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr. (Quran, 9:12) And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire. (Quran, 28:41) And so when Allah says the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them, this refers to a protector of extreme closeness, not that they dont have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla to mean Imam or Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet ( ) was advising the people to love Ali ( ) and be close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ,) and Uthman ( ) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar ( ) was so beloved to Ali ( ) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali ( ) served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was the mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali ( .) In other words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet ( )nominating Ali ( ) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to stop criticizing Ali ( ) and to love him. Allah says in the Quran: Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends) are Allah and His Messenger and the believersthose who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly. As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be triumphant. (Quran, 5:55-56) In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as being Mawla. How then can the Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are suddenly Caliphs or Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this verse refers to Ali alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers in the plural. No doubt, Alilike many other righteous believerswas included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and exclusively to him since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word Mawla here refers to love, extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a single instance in the Quran in which the word Mawla is used to refer to Imamah or Caliphate. In another verse of the Quran, Allah says: No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment. Does this mean that no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of Judgment? Surely this makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of the Quran that Allah refers to two people and calls both to be Mawla; if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the leader of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could be Mawla of each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer to both of them as Mawla as Allah does in the Quran.

The word Mawla is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let us examine Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715). The Prophet ( ) says: The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja are my beloved helpers (Mawali), and they have no protector except Allah and His Apostle. Does the word Mawla here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph or Imam over the Prophet ( ?)Of course not. It makes more logical sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet ( )and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla). It is also important to point out that the Prophet ( )did not say after me in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the Prophet ( )had meant whomsoevers leader I am, this Ali is also his leader, which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a very big problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs in the same land at the same time, and there are many Hadith in which the Prophet ( )warns against having two Caliphs. Without the words after me, it would become a very confusing sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of course, the Prophet ( )did not mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla (beloved friend) at the same time. One can love the Prophet ( )and be close to him, and at the same time love and be close to Ali ( .) If the Prophet ( )meant to nominate Ali ( ,) then why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying something vague such as whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla, why didnt the Prophet ( )say something clearer such as I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I die or Ali is my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after me. Surely, this would have cleared up the matter. The Prophet ( )was commanded to be clear in delivering the Message, and none of the Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm to mean that Ali ( ) was nominated as Caliph. To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows:
ShiaChat Member says

The prophet (SAW) did in fact say clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) was his successor and the next Caliph and many other

clearer things but these hadeeth were not transmitted by the sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla hadeeth because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.).

Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more direct and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would think that it is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would then take it out. In fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW) did in fact say it clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the next Caliph but the Sunnis reject those.

This argument is actually conceding the entire debate. Here, the Shia is saying: 1) The clear sayings of the Prophet ( )were removed by the Sunnis. 2) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm about Ali ( ) being Mawla was not removed because it was not as direct and clear about the matter of Imamah or Caliphate. Well then, isnt the entire debate over? Was it not the Shia who was arguing this entire time that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a clear and definite proof for the Imamah and Caliphate of Ali ( ?) Indeed, this argument is admitting the fact that the Hadith about Ghadir Khumm does not talk clearly about Imamah/Caliphate; the Prophet ( )saying that Ali ( ) is Mawla of the believers does not in any way prove that Ali ( ) was to be Caliph. In fact, had it been clear, then the Sahabah would not have transmitted it, correct? Therefore, we seebased on this line of thinkingthat the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm could not have been clear about the Imamah of Ali ( ,) otherwise it wouldnt have been narrated by the same Sahabah who sought to usurp his Caliphate. Indeed, this Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was never interpreted to mean that Ali ( ) was Caliph and instead it was simply in reference to the virtues of Ali ( .) If the Prophet ( )praises somebody, this does not automatically make this person the Caliph of the Ummah. As for the Shia Hadith on the matter, those are irrelevant to us because the Shia are known to be liars and mass fabricators when it comes to Hadith. Conclusion Contrary to the Shia claims, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with Caliphate or Imamah. Instead, the Prophet ( )was merely refuting a group of people under the command of Ali ( ) who were criticizing Ali ( ) with very harsh words. Based on this, the Prophet ( ) urged people that Ali ( ) was the Mawla (beloved friend) of all the Muslims, just like the Prophet ( ) was. Had the Prophet ( )wanted to nominate Ali ( ) as the Caliph, then he ( )would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Mecca instead of on his journey back to Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Mecca and the rest of the Muslims. Playing Games with the Quran
Al-Islam.org says

In this place (of Ghadir Khumm), the following verse of the Quran was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 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.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

This is an oft-repeated claim of the Shia, namely that this verse (5:67) was revealed in regards to Alis nomination to Caliph; in other words, the Prophet ( )should not worry about the awful reaction of the Sahabah to the declaration of Alis Imamah and Caliphate. As is usually the case, the Shia propagandists have no qualms with playing legoes with the Quran and using the Quran as their own personal jigsaw puzzle. In fact, verse 5:67 could not possibly have been revealed in regards to Alis nomination, namely because it was directed towards the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). The Shia take the verse out of context, without considering the verse that comes right before it and the verse that comes right after it. Let us take a look: [5:66] And if they (the Jews and the Christians) had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. [5:68] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians)! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people. So we see that the verse before and after is talking about the People of the Book, and it is in this context that the verse 5:67 was revealed, reassuring the Prophet ( )that he should not fear the Jews or the Christians and that he ( ) should clearly deliver the Message of Islam which will be made supreme over Judaism and Christianity. The Prophet ( )is told in verse 5:67 that he should not fear these men who mean mischief, and in the very next verse (5:68) Allah says that the Message of Islam will only increase them in inordinacy and disbelief. It is exceedingly clear that we are talking about the same group of people, namely the disbelievers from amongst the People of the Book who mean to make mischief and who become obstinate in inordinacy and disbelief. In fact, that entire section of the Quran is referring to the People of the Book, starting from verse 5:59 and going all the way to 5:86. Let us reproduce the verses below: [5.59] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians)! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors? [5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path. [5.61] And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows best what they concealed. [5.62] And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do. [5.63] Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work. [5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out,

and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers. [5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss [5:66] And if they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. [5:68] Say: O People of the Book! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people. [5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. [5.70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of Israel and We sent to them apostles; whenever there came to them an apostle with what that their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they slew. [5.71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do. [5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust. [5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. [5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away. [5.76] Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah He is the Hearing, the Knowing. [5.77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. [5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. [5.79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. [5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. [5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors. [5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. [5.83] And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth). [5.84] And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people? [5.85] Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide

in them; and this is the reward of those who do good (to others). [5.86] And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame. It is very clear that all of these verses are about the Jews and the Christians, and it is absurd that the Shia could just cut and paste the Quran as they wish. This is manipulating the Word of Allah and a very big sin that leads to the path of the Kufr. And yet, you will find that the Shia universally make the claim that this verse was revealed with regards to the Ghadir Khumm address and the nomination of Ali ( .) So this is the length that the Shia propagandist will go to in order to twist Quran and Hadith in order to create the imaginary tale that the Prophet ( )nominated Ali ( ) to be Caliph.
Al-Islam.org says

In this place, the following verse was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you 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, under commentary of verse 5:67, v12, pp 49-50, narrated on the authorities of Ibn Abbas, al-Bara Ibn Azib, and Muhammad Ibn Ali. (2) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, p50, narrated on the authorities of Atiyyah and Abu Said al Khudri. (3) Nuzul al-Quran, by al-Hafiz Abu Nuaym narrated on the authorities Abu Said Khudri and Abu Rafi. (4) al-Fusool al Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki al-Makki, p24 (5) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, under commentary of verse 5:67 (6) Fathul Qadir, by al-Shawkani, under commentary of verse 5:67 (7) Fathul Bayan, by Hasan Khan, under commentary of verse 5:67 (8) Shaykh Muhi al-Din al-Nawawi, under commentary of verse 5:67 (9) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p301 (10) Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by al-Ayni (11) Tafsir al-Nisaboori, v6, p194 (12) and many more such as Ibn Mardawayh, etc

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to describe them. They have become notorious for their half-quotes. Here the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them one by one. The first one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool the Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse 5:67 was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact opposite in his book!

Imam Razi mentions that various people have claimed that the verse was revealed on different occassions. He lists ten possibilities of when the verse could have been revealed. It is wellknown that the style of the scholars was to list the most important view first and the least important view last. It should interest the deceitful Shia to know that Imam Razi did mention Ghadir Khumm but as the absolute last one, meaning in his eyes it was the weakest possible view. We will now provide the commentary of Imam Razi word for word: Scholars of Tafseer have mentioned many causes of revelation: (1) The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of stoning and retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the Jews. (2) The second cause is that it has been revealed because of the Jews criticism and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet had remained silent about them, thus this verse was revealed. (3) Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is O Prophet! say to thy wives: (i.e 33:28), the Prophet did not deliver this verse to them out of fear that they may choose this world, and thus it (i.e 5:67) was revealed. (4) Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint Jahsh. Aisha said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah concealed part of what was revealed to him, then he has committed a great lie against Allah, for Allah has said: O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) and was the Messenger of Allah to conceal part of what was revealed to him he would have concealed His saying: And you hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light [33:37] (5) Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites hated it, so he used to withhold from urging them for Jihad. (6) Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling their gods, so this verse was revealed, and He said: Proclaim i.e the faults/criticism about their gods and do not hide it, and Allah will protect you against them. (7) Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims, because in the Last Pilgrimage after he had declared the rulings and rituals of Hajj, he said: Have I not declared (it to you)? They said: Yes. He said: O Allah be my witness. (8) Eighth: It has been narrated that he rested under a tree in one of his journeys and hung his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he was sleeping and snatched the sword saying: O Muhammad, who will protect you against me? He said: Allah, so the hand of the Bedouin trembled, the sword fell from his hand, and he banged his head against the tree until his brains burst, so Allah revealed this verse and explained that He will protect him against people. (9) Ninth: He used to fear Quraysh, the Jews and the Christians, so Allah removed this fear from his heart with this verse. (10) Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress Alis excellence, and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet caught hold of Alis hand and said: One who has me as his mawla has Ali as his mawla. O Allah, Be his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy. (Soon) after this, Umar met him (Ali) and

said: O Ibn Abi Talib! I congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the mawla of every male and female believer. This is the saying narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas, Baraa ibn Aazib and Muhammad bin Ali. You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is more fit to explain the verse as Allah assuring him (the Prophet) of protection against the cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and ordered him to announce the proclamation without having fear of them. This is because the context before this verse and after this verse is addressing the Jews and Christians; it would not be possible to throw a verse in the middle (of other verses) making it foreign to what is before it and after it. (source: Tafseer al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of the verse 5:67, volume 12, pp.49-50) In other words, Imam Razi did mention ten possibilities but he stated that the only strong opinion was that the verse was revealed about the Jews and Christians and this is why he mentioned this possibility first. Is it any wonder that the deceitful Shia Encyclopedia did not mention that Imam Razi mentioned ten possibilities and stated that the only reasonable one was the first? Instead the Shia rely on half-quotes; indeed, they are a people who love Taqiyyah and deception. We warn the Sunni laypersons not to be impressed by their lengthy lists of references; whenever the Shia give a list of references but no exact quote, it is a good sign that they are twisting the text just like they twist the Quran and play legoes with it. As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows: My father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn Zakariya told us: Ali Ibn Abis told us: from AlAmash from Atiya Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri. The Isnad is weak. If we analyze the narrators, we find: (1) Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: He is weak. Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: He is not strong. (2) Ali Ibn Abis Yahya Ibn Maeen said: He is nothing. And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai, and Abu AlFath Al-Azdi. Ibn Hibban said: His mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted. (3) Al-Amash He is Mudalis. (4) Atiya Al-Awfi: Ahmad said: He is weak. Al-Nasai said: He is weak.

Ibn Hiban said:He heard from Abu Saeed hadiths and when he died he used to sit with Al-Kalbi, so if Al-Kalbi said: The Messenger of Allah said such-and-such, he would memorize it and he gave him the kunya of Abu Saeed and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: Who narrated this to you? He would say: Abu Saeed narrated this to me. So they (i.e those who inquired) would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi. He further stated: It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about them. And then he related from Khalid Al-Ahmar that he said: Al-Kalbi told me: Atiya told me: I have given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say: Abu Saeed narrated to us. Accordingly, Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the Prophet, i.e. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri. (5) Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Saeb Al-Kalbi Al-Suyuti said in Al-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas: And the weakest of its chains is the way of AlKalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn Marwan Al-Sadi, the young, is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi and Al-Wahidi narrate through it. Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mujam Al-Udaba of Tafseer at-Tabari: And he (Tabari) did not make reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did not include in his book anything from the book of Muhammad Ibn Al-Saeb Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi for they create suspicion (athina) in his view, and Allah knows best. Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tareekh Al-Kabeer: Muhammad Ibn Al Saeb Abu Al- Nadhir Al-Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed. Ibn Mahdi and Ali told told us: Yahya Ibn Saeed told us: from Sufyan: AlKalbi told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies. Al-Nasai said: He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written. Ahmad Ibn Haroon said: I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer Al-Kalbi. He said: Lies. I said: Is it permissible for me to look into it? He said: No. CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all. The other books cited by the Shia contain this same chain, such as Asbab Al Nuzul by Imam Wahidi al Naysaburi: : : : : : ( : ) In the Tafseer Dar al-Manthur of Imam Suyuti, we find that the same chain is cited: #6609 : And the same is the case with Imam al-Shawkani in Fath Al Qadir.

The point is that none of the sources actually prove the Shia argument. If they did, then you would have seen the Shia providing complete quotes, but they cannot do that because that would expose the weakness in their arguments! To conclude the matter, no reliable Sunni source says that the verse was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. As is well known, the incident of Ghadir Khumm occurred near the Prophets death when all of Arabia had already been subdued by the Muslims under the guidance of the Prophet; this included the Christians in Najran and the Jews in Yemen. What is there for the Prophet to fear from proclamation when his followers have increased a hundred-fold? It would not make sense for this verse to have been revealed at the time of the Prophets peak of power. Rather, this verse was revealed at a much earlier stage of the Prophetic era when Islam was still struggling for its survival, surrounded by many enemies.
Al-Islam.org says

Revelation of Quranic Verse 5:3

Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Quran was revealed: Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Quran 5:3) The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophets immediate successor.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

This is another Shia fabrication: the Quranic verse 5:3 (this day I have perfected your religion) was revealed at the end of the Farewell Sermon on top of Mount Arafat. This fact is reported in Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Sunan, and others: It (i.e. the verse This day I have perfected your religion) was revealed on a Friday, the Day of Arafat It was, after all, the Farewell Sermon of the Prophet ( )and it is therefore natural to assume that this was the appropriate place for the religion to be sealed. In fact, it is for this very reason that we deny that Ghadir Khumm could possibly be in relation to the Imamah of Ali ( .) The verse This day I have pefected your religion had already been revealed and nothing else could be added to the faith after this. If the Shia insist that something as major as the Imamah of Ali ( ) was added after this, then where are these verses in the Quran about such a thing? Why is the Quran completely silent in regards to the nomination of Ali ( ?) Surely, Allah would have mentioned this in the Quran if it was a divinely ordained matter? Why is it that Allah supposedly revealed verse 5:67 and 5:3 all about Ali ( ) and his Imamah, but Allah did not choose to simply include Alis name in those verses and make it clear to the Muslims that Ali ( ) was the next divinely appointed leader of the Muslims? To add more confusion to the matter, neither of these verses talks about Imamah or Caliphate at all. It is truly amazing how the Shia always say this and this Quranic verse refers to the Imamah of Ali ( ) and yet Allah never just says so Himself.

Rebuttals
ShiaChat Member says

Ghadir Khumm was a central location, a source of water that represented the last place where the people from

different locations were together before splitting up on their separate ways to go home. It was the last moment during the hajj when indeed EVERYONE was present.

Ghadir Khumm was a central location only for those Muslims heading north, either to Medinah or those passing through Medinah to places such as Syria. As we have discussed earlier, Ghadir Khumm is located midway between Mecca and Medinah; Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Mecca. It may indeed be a common pit-stop for that fraction of the Muslims heading to the North, but it is not, however, a central location for the Muslims heading in the other directions, such as those heading South of Mecca to Taif or Yemen. Does it make logical sense that the people of Mecca would find any need to pass through Ghadir Khumm on their return trip to Mecca after Hajj? Are they not already in Mecca, their home city? The Meccan Muslims would have ended their Hajj in Mecca, and the Muslims of Medinah would have left for their home city, stopping at Ghadir Khumm without the company of the Meccan Muslims whom they had left behind in Mecca. The same can be said of the People of Yemen, of Taif, etc. Indeed, all of these major Muslim cities were not included in the speech at Ghadir Khumm, and this is very odd: had the Prophet ( ) wanted to nominate Ali ( ) as Caliph, then surely he would have done this in front of all the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. In fact, the Shia polemicists have been accutely aware of this fact and it is for this reason that they insist to the masses that Ghadir Khumm was the place where all the Muslims went before parting for home and that therefore the Ghadir Khumm address was to all the Muslims. This fact is only believable to the ignorant masses who do not care to take out a map and really find out where Ghadir Khumm is. Once a person takes out a map, it becomes quite clear how bugus the Shia claims are; in fact, only a fraction of the Muslims were present at Ghadir Khumm (i.e. those heading towards Medinah). It is based on the distance from Mecca to Ghadir Khumm that we ascertain that it is much more believable that the Prophet ( )was correcting a specific group of Muslims (i.e. the soldiers from Medinah who had been dispatched to Yemen) rather than addressing the general masses of the Muslims. The speech of Ghadir Khumm was addressed primarily to the group that had been criticizing Ali ( ,) and it was for this reason that the Prophet ( )did not include this in his Farewell Sermon of the Last Hajj in front of the Muslim masses.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

An Appeal to Common Sense:

Allah, the All-Knowing, describes the sublime character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) as follows:

Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate [9:128] The Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was an extremely kind-hearted and compassionate. He always took every effort to ensure the well-being and comfort of his followers, and was never known to impose any extra burden or hardship upon others. He was even known to shorten his prayers upon hearing the voice of a baby crying. It is impossible to infer that the Prophet, who was sent as a mercy unto the worlds had ordered his followers to sit in the burning heat of the Arabian desert, without any shade, for several hours, only to announce to them that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf ShiaChat Member says

why do you think Muhammad stopped 60 000 people in the middle of the desert months before he knew he was

going to die? To say, ya know, Ali is my buddy?!

In fact, the Shia here have brought up a point which works against them, not for them. We would like to ask the exact same question: why indeed would Prophet Muhammad ( )senselessly force the Meccans to march out 250 km to the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm which is located in the middle of the desert? Why indeed would the Prophet ( )force the People of Taif to travel in the exact opposite direction (North as opposed to South)? The Shia living in Taif today travel to Mecca, complete Hajj, and then they return to Taif. They do not find it necessary to travel 250 km to Ghadir Khumm and then turn around to travel another 250 km back to Mecca and then to Taif in the South, a detour that would have added a few weeks in extra travel time! Instead, what is more probable is that the Prophet ( )and the Muslims heading towards Medinah stopped at the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm in order to refresh themselves. It was over there that the Prophet ( )heard people again criticizing Ali ( ) despite what the Prophet ( ) had earlier warned them about. Therefore, the Prophet ( )addressed them all at Ghadir Khumm, urging them to take Ali ( ) as a beloved friend. It should be noted that the Muslims heading towards Medinah would generally stop at Ghadir Khumm as it was a watering hole; it was a pit-stop on the way to Medinah, where the Muslims would rest for awhile and it was during that rest that the Prophet ( ) addressed them after a group of Muslims had criticized Ali ( .)

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Laudation from the Muslims

After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of allegiance to Ali () and congratulate him. Among the first Muslims to congratulate Ali were Umar and Abu Bakr, who said: Well done, O son of Abu Talib! Today you have become the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women. [Found in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhrudeen al-Razi, Kitabul Wilayah by at-Tabari, and many others]

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

This is typical and classical Shia propaganda; they will say things like its in your own books and then offhandedly quote our books but meanwhile injecting their own meanings into them. What is found in the texts is only that Umar ( ) congratulated Ali ( ) on becoming Mawla (a beloved friend) to all the Muslims, not that Umar ( ) pledged his allegiance to Ali ( .) Ali ( ) was being severely criticized by his men and it was in this atmosphere that the Prophet ( )defended Ali ( ) and informed the Muslims that they shouldnt hate Ali ( ) but rather love him. In fact, the Shia argument makes no sense. If Umar ( ) and the rest of the Muslims pledged Bayaah to Ali ( ) and said today you have become the leader, then what about the Prophet ( )? The key words here are today and you have become, meaning that Ali ( ) is currently Mawla. If we take the definition of Mawla to be Imam or Caliph, then this means that Ali ( ) is the leader of the Muslims now and not Prophet Muhammad ( .)Surely, the Muslims cannot have two rulers at the same time, and this is stated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Indeed, if Umar ( ) were really congratulating Ali ( ) for his nomination as the next Caliph, then he would have said something like this: Well done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You will soon become the Caliph of all the Muslims. Or maybe: Well done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You were nominated to one day become (future tense) the Caliph of all the Muslims. But he certainly would not have said: Congratulationstoday you have become the leader. The proper understanding of this congratulations given by Umar ( ) is that Umar ( ) was congratulating Ali ( ) on becoming the beloved friend of all the Muslims. The atmosphere was such that the people had been criticizing and hurting Ali ( ,) so the noble Umar ibn al-Khattab ( ) went to comfort him and say kind words to him. The perceptive reader would note that Umar ( ) was very kind in his praise of Ali ( ,) and this is diametrically opposed to the Shia paradigm which paints a portrait of conflict between Umar ( ) and Ali ( ,) casting Umar ( ) as an oppressor of Ali ( .) Do these kind words seem to be said by someone who hates Ali ( ) as the Shia claim? If we translate the word Mawla here to mean leader, then why would Umar ( ) pledge his Bayaah so lovingly by congratulating Ali ( ?) The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet ( )to nominate Ali ( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67) The Shia say that these men (who mean mischief) refer to the Sahabah especially Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( .) If this verse was truly revealed about Umar ( ) and if Umar ( ) was truly seeking to usurp the Caliphate of Ali ( ) then why does Umar ( ) congratulate Ali ( ) on his nomination? At most, we would expect such a person to grudgingly give the Bayaah, if at all. But here, we see that Umar ( ) is the first to congratulate Ali ( ) with regards to being Mawla. The bottom line point is that if the word Mawla meant leader, then Umar ( ) would not have congratulated him on it. This praise said by Umar ( ) was transmitted widely to the people, so why should Umar ( ) do that favor to Ali ( ) if he was truly against him or if Mawla really meant leader? Umar ( ) interpreted Mawla to be beloved friend and not leaderand this is the meaning understood by the people back then.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

The Meaning of Mawla

The schools of thought differ on the interpretation of the word Mawla. In Arabic, the world Mawla has many meanings. It can mean master, friend, slave, or even client. If a word has more than one meaning, the best way to ascertain its true connotation is to look at the association (qarinah) and the context. There are scores of associations in this hadith which clearly show that the only meaning fitting the occasion can be master. Some of them are as follows.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

We definitely agree with this Shia author that there are many different meanings for the word Mawla and we are glad that they at least admit this much. It is our hope that the Shia lay-persons at least acknowledge this fact in debate, instead of being obstinate and pig-headed with regards to the idea that Mawla can only mean master. Although we quoted the above from a Shia propaganda article, we no doubt agree with this introduction, namely that: 1) Mawla has many different meanings. 2) We must look at the context in which the word was said to ascertain the meaning. However, we disagree with this article which states that Mawla here is to be translated as master. Let us refute this article point by point, Insha-Allah:
SalamIran.org says

In addition, there is also what (the Prophet), peace be on him and his family, said on the day of Ghadir Khumm. The

community had gathered to listen to the sermon (in which he asked):

Am I not more appropriate for authority (awla) over you than yourselves? Yes, they answered. Then he spoke to them in an ordered manner without any interruption in his speech: Whomsoever I am the authority over (mawla), Ali is also the authority over.

source: http://www.salamiran.org/Religion/Imam1/index.html The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

First: The question which the Holy Prophet asked just before this declaration: Do I not have more authority (awla)

upon you than you have yourselves? When they said: Yes, surely, then the Prophet proceeded to declare that: Whoever whose mawla I am. Ali is his mawla. Without doubt, the word mawla in this declaration has the same meaning as awla (having more authority upon you).

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

Without a doubt, no. Awla and Mawla are two different words! Describing himself, the Prophet ( ) says: Am I not more appropriate for an Awla (authority) over you than yourselves? And describing Ali ( ,) suddenly the Prophet ( )switches to:

Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. If anything, this sudden switch in wording completely negates the Shia claims! The Prophet ( ) should simply have said that Ali ( )was Awla over the people, but instead he was very keen to say Mawla instead. The Prophet ( )first states that Allah has authority over the people, then he says that he himself has authority over the people, but then suddenly he switches and uses the word Mawla for Ali ( ,) even though he had used the word Awla for Allah and himself. The Prophet ( )mentioned that he had authority over the believers so that they would listen to him and befriend Ali ( ) as was his wish. The Muslims under Alis command hated him, so the Prophet ( )was using his influence to cause them to love Ali ( ) and take him as a beloved friend. An analogy to this is if a mafioso was about to hurt a baker, but that baker turned out to be a good friend of the mafia don. So the mafia don asks the mafioso: Are you loyal to me and do you obey my commands? The mafioso replies in the affirmative. So the mafia don says: If you obey my command, then be

nice to this baker. This baker is my good friend, and if you are my good friend, then you should also be friends with this baker. It seems that the Shia are grasping at straws trying to inject the meaning of Imamah or Caliphate into the word Mawla. In order to build their claim, they will borrow Quranic verses that are on totally unrelated topics; whatever sounds good can work for the Shia, no matter how true it is. Here, the Shia want us to just believe that Awla is the same as Mawla. The Shia are just one step away from claiming that Ali ( ) must be Wali since the words Ali and Wali are so similar.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Second: The following prayer which the Holy Prophet uttered just after this declaration: O Allah! Love him who

loves Ali, and be the enemy of the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali.

This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a friendship?

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf Al-Islam.org says

Glitters of Ahadith Relevant to the Ghadir Incident

To whomsoever I have been a master, this `Ali is [henceforth] his master; O Lord! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.

source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm

The Shia author of the article has clearly stated that in order to find out what Mawla means, we need to use context clues. And he shows us the very next sentence in which the Prophet ( )says: O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him. This is a great Hujjah (proof) against the Shia claims! The word used is befriend or love which means that Mawla here is being used to refer to a beloved friend. It is clear from this that Mawla here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word Mawla makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet ( ) immediately says O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.

How can it be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that? It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliphate and Imamah when the context has nothing to do with that. And it is even more unbelievable that the Shia can bring forth proof that is in fact the proof against their own arguments! As for this part:
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would make

some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

This is merely Shia guesswork and conjecture; the Shia imagination knows no bounds and he (the Shia) can read into the text amazing things. It is almost as if the Shia has some sort of special power or perhaps super goggles with which only he can read what is in between the lines that normal human beings cannot read, and it is this pair of goggles he uses when reading into both Quranic verses and Hadith. Perhaps aliens from Mars were about to attack and they would hate Ali ( ,) so this is why the Prophet ( )said this! And look, the word aliens even has the word Ali in it! There is no need for this Shia guesswork and conjecture when we already know why Ali ( ) had many enemies. There have been multiple narrations about how Ali ( ) had angered his soldiers by taking back their spoils of war and these people were complaining about Ali ( .) It was in this atmosphere of unrest that the Prophet ( )wanted to defend Ali ( ) and urged these men to be friends with Ali ( ) because Ali ( ) should be loved by the entire Muslim Ummah, as indeed all of the Ahlus Sunnah loves Ali ( ) to this day. As far as the absurd idea that friends are not helpers, we wonder what kind of friends that Shia author has? A very key part of friendship revolves around helping, lending support, etc. The Prophet ( ) said in numerous Hadith that Muslims should help out their brothers, friends, neighbors, etc.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Third: The declaration of the Holy Prophet that: It seems imminent that I will be called away (by Allah) and I will

answer that call. This clearly shows that he was making arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

How is it clear? It is not clear at all. If the Prophet ( ) meant that, then why didnt he ( ) just say that? Why does the Shia have to become the spokesperson for the Prophet (

 ) always telling us that the Prophet ( )meant such-and-such even though he just said such-and-such? Surely, the Prophet ( )could have said I am about to die and therefore I am worried about who will be my successor and this is why nominate Ali to be the Caliph after me. Instead, we have to guess and trust the Shia that this is what the Prophet ( )really meant to say, and we all know how creative the Shia imagination is. The complete negation of this Shia claim is the fact that the Prophet ( ) said something similar in his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat, starting his speech by saying: O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. (Bayhaqi) And yet, the Prophet ( ) did not mention the leadership of the Muslims at all in this speech. So we see that the Prophet ( )was prefacing everything he said with the fact that he was about to die, and this does not mean that he was talking about leadership. In fact, the Prophet ( ) was worried about his family after his death; this is a normal human emotion and worry. Each and everyone of us would be worried about what would happen to our children, wife, or near relatives after we die. This is a common worry when people are on their deathbed. And this worry in the case of the Prophet ( ) was increased because there were certain Muslims who were criticizing and (emotionally) hurting his cousin.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Fourth: The congratulations of the Companions and their expressions of joy do not leave room for doubt concerning

the meaning of this declaration.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

We have already addressed this point earlier. The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet ( )to nominate Ali ( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people: O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67) And the Shia say that the Sahabah were the ones foremost against the nomination of Ali ( .) And yet now, the article is claiming that the Sahabah had expressions of joy. Is this not a contradiction? If the people and the Sahabah were against Alis nomination so much so that Allah had to reveal a verse in the Quran about this, then why would they congratulate Ali ( ) and have expressions of joy? This is indeed a very big contradiction, but no doubt it is the inevitable result of furthering any argumentno matter how spuriousin order to bolster ones argument. What happens is that the Shia propagandist does this so frequently that he forgets his earlier arguments and accidentally furthers two contradictory claims. The people were congratulating Ali ( ) because he had just been declared the beloved friend of all the Muslims. If some childs parents told him to be friends with so-and-so person, what is the first thing this child

would do after his parents said that? No doubt the child would go and introduce himself to that person and say kind words to him. This is the case at Ghadir Khumm: there had been people who were criticizing Ali ( ), but then the Prophet ( )declared that Ali ( ) was the beloved friend of the Muslims, and so the people went to Ali ( ) to say kind words to him and congratulate him on this honor. Again, it has nothing to do with leadership, Imamah, or Caliphate. If that were the case, thenat least according to the Shia paradigmwouldnt the Sahabah have been sullen and depressed, instead of joyful and elated? It is strange how the Shia try to downplay the greatness of being declared a beloved friend: we will often see Shia who say things like surely it couldnt mean just a friend. We do not understand what they mean by just a friend. First of all, it is not any old friend, but rather it is a beloved friend, indicating deep affection and love. Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was referred to as Khaleel-Allah which means friend of Allah and this title is bestowed to him by Allah. This is a great title, and nobody would say just a friend here. To be declared the friend of Allah is no small thing, and neither is it any small matter being referred to as the beloved of the Ummah.
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

only to announce to them that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.

Such a claim is yet more absurd when one considers the fact that Ali already had an exalted status in comparison with the other Muslims.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

Yes, Ali ( ) already had an exalted status, but this is silly nonsense to say that the Prophet ( ) can only praise a person once or twice. The Prophet ( )exalted the status of Umar ( ) on numerous occasions, yet we will never find any of the Sunnis who doubt the authenticity of something only because he has already been praised before. The Prophet ( )continually heaped praise upon those worthy of praise, and Ali ( ) was one such individual. And although the Prophet ( )had exalted Ali ( ) in numerous ways in the past, it was here that he gave him the honor of being the beloved of the Ummah. Furthermore, this event must be viewed in the appropriate context. The Prophet ( )was responding to a certain group of people who hated Ali ( ) and who were becoming his enemies. In response to this time specific event, the Prophet ( )urged the Muslims to love Ali ( ). Therefore, what was said at Ghadir Khumm must be taken into context: had it been another Sahabi who was being insulted and hated upon, then it is likely that the Prophets speech would have been in regards to that other Sahabi instead. This can hardly be construed as a proof for Imamah or Caliphate.
Al-Islam.org says

Number of Companions in Ghadir Khumm

Allah ordered His Prophet [s] to inform the people of this designation at a time of crowded populous so that all could become the narrators of the tradition, while they exceeded a hundred thousand. Narrated by Zayd b. Arqam: Abu al-Tufayl said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah [s], and there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.

source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm

The Shia often bring up this narration in order to prove somehow that all the Muslims were present at Ghadir Khumm. However, we urge the unbiased reader to look at the text which only says: there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears. This simply says that everyone present at Ghadir Khumm heard the Prophet ( )say what he said about Ali ( .) We are already agreed that those at Ghadir Khumm were addressed by the Prophet ( ,)but the issue is that only a fraction of the Muslims passed through Ghadir Khumm on that day. The Position of Alis Grandson, Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib ( It is narrated in Ibn Saads Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra: A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla? He (Al Hasan) replied, By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, Oh people! This is your leader after me. The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning). (Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5) Similar Praise for Other Sahabah The fact that the Prophet ( )referred to Ali ( ) as Mawla (beloved friend) cannot be used as a proof for any Prophetic nomination of Ali ( ) as Caliph. Many other Sahabah were praised in a similar fashion, and yet nobody understands these texts to mean that these other Sahabah are divinely appointed Infallible Imams. Let us for, example, take the example of the Hadith in relation to Umar ibn al-Khattab ( .) The Prophet ( Abbas) )said: The truth, after me, is with Umar wherever he is. (Narrated ibn )

And yet, nobody uses this Hadith to say that the Prophet ( )was nominating Umar ( ) as his successor; not even Umar ( ) himself interpreted it in this way, and it was he himself who nominated Abu Bakr ( ) to be Caliph instead. In yet another Hadith, we read: The Prophet ( )said: If a prophet were to succeed me, it would have been Umar ibn alKhattab. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)

Had this been a Hadith in regards to Ali ( ,) then the Shia would have been quoting it left, right, and center; but a cool-headed understanding by the Ahlus Sunnah takes into account all of the various Hadith in which the Prophet ( )praised many Sahabah in various ways. These are all proofs for the exaltation of Sahabah definitely but they do not entail Prophetic nomination to Caliphate and they definitely do not convey any sense of divine appointment by Allah. In another Hadith, we read: The Prophet ( (narrated Ubay ibn Kaab) )said: The first one whom the Truth will shake hands with is Umar

And in yet another Hadith, we read: The Prophet ( )said: There were in the nations before you people who were inspired, and if there is one in my Ummah it is Umar. (narrated Abu Hurrairah) Therefore, based on these Hadith and many other similar Hadith said to other Sahabah, we see that the Prophet ( ) calling Ali ( ) to be Mawla (beloved friend) was not a Prophetic nomination for Caliphate because others were praised in a similar fashion. What the Shia do is reject all the Hadith in regards to those they dislike and then accept only those in relation to Ali ( ;) what is a bit amusing is that the Shia does not care to look at Isnad, but to the Shia a Hadith is authentic if it praises Ali ( ) and it is forged if it praises other Sahabah. This is the Shia science of Hadith; indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia would accept a narration on the authority of Mickey Mouse if it praised Ali ( ,) and they would reject a Hadith narrated through Ali ( ) himself if it meant praising Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) etc. Now let us look at the second addition to the Hadith, namely the following: The Prophet ( )said: Befriend whoever befriends him (i.e. Ali), and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him. The Shia will then use this Hadith to criticize those Sahabah who argued with Ali ( ,) and yet do they not know that the Prophet ( )also said similar things of other Sahabah? For example, we read the following Hadith: The Prophet ( loves me. (At-Tabarani) )said: Whoever is angry with Umar is angry with me. Whoever loves Umar )said this not only about Ali ( ) and Umar ( ,) but

In fact, the Prophet ( about all of his 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, alBayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442). Parting Words The Shia have taken the event of Ghadir Khumm way out of context. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate, and if it did, then nothing prevented the Prophet ( ) from clearly stating that instead of using the word Mawla which is known by everyone to mean

beloved friend. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Mecca: if the Prophet ( )had intended on nominating Ali ( ) then he would have done that at the larger gathering atop Mount Arafat during his Farewell Sermon in front of all the Muslims from every city. The entire Shia paradigm is based on the flimsy and easily refutable idea that Ghadir Khumm was a central location in which all the Muslims would gather together in before parting ways and going to their respective homes. Indeed, only those Muslims heading towards Medinah would pass through Ghadir Khumm, not the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. A couple hundred years ago, the Shia masses could easily have been misled because many of them would not have had the availability of a map to check where Ghadir Khumm is and they would merely have accepted the commonly held myth that it was a meeting place for Muslims before they parted ways. But today, in the age of information and technology, accurate maps are at our fingertips and no reasonable person should be fooled by the Shia myths. We have shown that the Prophet ( )did not (and could not have) nominated Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm as the Shia claim. This is the very foundation block of Shiism, without which their faith has no basis whatsoever: if the Prophet ( )did not nominate Ali ( ) to be Caliph, then the Shia can no longer claim that Abu Bakr ( ) or the Sunnis usurped the divinely determined designation of Ali ( .) And with that, the whole of Shiism collapses in on itself, all because of an unaccountable 250 km separating Ghadir Khumm from Mecca and separating Shiism from the truth.

Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Who Killed Imam Hussain? (AS)

The Shia propagandists feel the heat when the Sunnis remind them that it was the Shia of Kufa who betrayed Hussain, and that it was this betrayal that led him to his death. To counter this, Answering-Ansar wrote an article defending Shiism by claiming that the Kuffans were not really Shia. The basic premise of Answering-Ansars article is that while the Kuffans were called Shia, they were not the Shiat Ali but rather the Shiat Umar, Shiat Uthman, or the Shiat Muawiyyah. Anything other than the Shiat Ali.

However, this is a ridicolous interpretation of history, and no historian would claim that Kuffans were anyone other than the Shiat Ali. But let us provide you with a historical source that the Shia considers authoratative. I kindly refer the reader to The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam by SHM Jafri. Establishing this books 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://alislam.org/index.php?sid=729406346&t=sub_pages_74&cat=74 The book The Origins and Early Development of Shia 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.karbalanajaf.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 Husayns sacrifices had on the minds of the Muslims, see: Jafri, The Origins

and early Development of Shia Islam.

With salaams and duas Liyakatali Takim

source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00706.html

Let us now look at Chapter 5 of this book which is entitled Kufa: Stage of Shii Activities. When we read this chapter, it clearly refers to these individuals as Shia, and followers of Shia Islam. It is not possible to interpret it any other way. This is definitive proof against Answering-Ansar and the end of the debate. I have bolded the relevant parts.
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 5 Kufa: Stage of Shi`i Activities From the time `Ali moved to Kufa in 36/656, or even earlier, the city became the main centre of Shi`i movements, aspirations, hopes, and sometimes concerted efforts. It was in and around Kufa that so many of the stormy events which make up the early history of Shii Islam took place: events such as the mobilization of forces by `Ali for the battles of Al-Jamal and Siffin the election and abdication of Hasan, the uprising of Hujr b. `Adi al-Kindi, the massacre of Husayn and his companions, the movement of the Tawwabun, and the revolt of Mukhtar. Yet Kufa also proved to be a source of setbacks, disappointments, frustrations, and even treachery and failure in the Shi`i desire to see the house of `Ali in command of the affairs of the Muslim community.

This chapter, therefore, endeavours to examine in brief the nature and composition of the city of Kufa and the characteristic tendencies of its people.
source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

SHM Jafri, the well-reputed Shia scholar and historian, declares that Kufa became the center of the Shia movement and characterized the history of Shia Islam. Is there any doubt now which Shia we are talking about here? The clear distinction is made that it is Shia Islam, and not Sunni Islam. Therefore, how can Answering-Ansar claim that these were Shiat of anyone other than Ali? Answering-Ansar has tried very hard to deny the fact that it was the Shiat Ali who betrayed Hussain, but here we read that SMH Jafri says treachery and failure in the Shi`i desire to see the house of Ali in command of the affairs of the Muslim community. Clearly, the treachoury is from people who had a desire to see the house of Ali in power. Therefore, it is painfully obvious that we are talking about the Shia here (yes, those Shia).
Answering-Ansar says

Kufa was a city that was founded by the second khalifa, Arab tribes settled there. No doubt they were loyal to him.

They deemed him to be the legitimate khalifa, so much so that Umar deemed Kufa to be the head of IslamThe Kufan Arabs accepted the concept of khilafath that had been established at Saqifa, and expanded by Hadhrath Umar. The Kufans were those that deemed Ali (as) to be the fourth khailfa, which is not the belief espoused by the Shia who deem him (as) to be the rightful khalifa after Rasulullah (s).

Yes, Kufa was definitely founded by Caliph Umar bin Khattab who also adored the city. But this was in 638 AD. After many years, there was a great influx of the Shiat Ali into Kufa, many of whom came with Ali himself. By 656 AD, Kufa had become the center of the Shia movement. This is recorded in the same Shia historical text written by SHM Jafri.
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 5 Kufa: Stage of Shi`i Activities

The city of Kufa was founded in the year 17/638, about three years after `Umar b. al-Khattab assumed the caliphate at Medina It is against this background that the third and most critical phase of Kufan history began. The first phase had seen the citys foundation in 17/638 and extended until the death of Umar in 24/644; the second ended with the death of`Uthman in 35/655; this ushered in the third phase, which was dominated by the rise of `Ali to the caliphate in the same year The Kufan contingent was the first to pay homage to `Ali under the leadership of Malik al-AshtarAli was thus left with no choice but to leave Medina for Iraq and count on the support of the Kufans, who had shown their inclinations towards him When Ali came to Kufa, there was another influx of newcomers to the city, those who came with Ali himself, and he treated them with equality irrespective of their early domicile He arrived in the neighbourhood of Kufa with about 1,000 men who accompanied him from Medina, and was readily joined by about 12,000 Kufans. They formed the main part of his army at the battle of Al-Jamal. The Meccan-Basran alliance was defeated, and Ali was able to bring Basra well under his control and appointed Abd Allah b. Abb~s as his governor. Ali then entered Kufa, not to make it his capital, but only to mobilize further support and organize the Kufans for another much more serious encounter with Muawiya In order to consolidate his power in Kufa, All had to establish a purely Islamic socio-political systemLeaders such as Al-Ashtar, Hujr, and `Adi, together with their following, especially from the newcomers of their tribes, formed the backbone of `Alis supporters and were the nucleus of the Shi`i of Kufa. From the time `Ali moved to Kufa in 36/656, or even earlier, the city became the main centre of Shi`i movements, aspirations, hopes, and sometimes concerted efforts.
source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

There should thus be no doubt that the city of Kufa went through various phases, and the fourth phase according to SHM Jafriwas the establishment of the Shia movement in Kufa. Therefore, Answering-Ansar showing us that Umar bin Khattab founded the city or that the Kuffans supported the first three Caliphs is all extraneous and we already accept this as a fact. It was during the time of Uthmans assassination that Abdullah ibn Sabas followers began their propaganda in Kufa. Thereafter the beliefs of the Kuffans would shift from the mainstream and many would adopt the Sabaite beliefs which are the basis of the modern day Shia followers. Letters to Hussain Answering-Ansar has tried to imply that it was the Sunnis who sent letters to Hussain to come to Kufa and that they would support him once he got there. However, the truth is that it was the Shia of Kufa who sent him letters asking him to come to Kufa.

Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 7 The Martyrdom of Husayn This was emphasized by the leaders of the movement when they wrote: In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate; to al-Husayn b. Ali, from his Shi`a, the faithful Muslims: Further make haste, for the people are awaiting you, as they have no Imam other than you! So haste, and again haste! Peace. This last letter was signed by a number of people and was sent with a delegation consisting of Hani b. Hani asSabii and Said b. Abd Allah al-Hanafi, the two most trusted Shi`is of Kufa.
source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

In fact, SHM Jaffri recounts so many different letters written by prominent Shia of Kufa that I think the reader should just read this chapter for himself: http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/174-221.htm Clearly, we see after reading this, that it was the Shia of Kufa who enticed Hussain to leave his safety in Mecca and come to Kufa instead. The Tawwabun There can be no doubt that the Tawwabun were the penitent Shia of Kufa. Answering-Ansar has tried to claim that these were actually Sunnis. However, the truth is that the predominant element in the Tawwabun were radicalized Shia many of whom had Sabaite-oriented beliefs. We again use as proof SHM Jafris book, in which he clearly says that the Tawwabun helped consolidate Shia Islam:
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 8 The Reaction after Karbala

The martyrdom of Husayn was of great religious significance and had a deep heart-searching after-effect upon the Shiis, giving a new turn to the mode and nature of the Shii movement. The tragic fate of the grandson of the Prophet stirred religious and moral sentiments, particularly among those of the Kufan followers of the House of the Prophet who had so zealously asked Husayn to come to Iraq to guide them on what they considered to be the path of God. But when Husayn came to Iraq they did not or could not stand with him in the hour of trial. Soon afterwards, however, they realized that their inability, or rather weakness, had been the cause of the tragedy. A deep sense of repentance set in, provoking their religious conscience; and in order to expiate their negligence and obtain Gods forgiveness, they thought they must make similar sacrifices. They believed that they could only prove their real repentance by exposing themselves to death while seeking vengeance for the blood of Husayn. Hence they named themselves the Tawwabun (penitents) and are known in Islamic history by this self-imposed title. This movement, as will be seen below, proved to be an important step forward in the consolidation of Shii Islam.
source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

In a desperate attempt to deny that the Tawwabun were Shia, Answering-Ansar has made the following argument:
Answering-Ansar says

The Sahabi Sulayman bin Surad and al Mussayab bin Najabah led the Tawabun

Answering-Ansar is trying to say that the Tawwabun were led by Sunnis. But there can be no doubt that Sulayman bin Surad is considered a staunch Shia, according to the Shia themselves. In fact, he is called Shaikh as-Shia (the Shaikh of all Shias). Mussayab bin Najabah was also a Shia. SHM Jafri makes this abundantly clear in his book:
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri

Chapter 8 The Reaction after Karbala The (Tawwabun) movement began under the leadership of five of the oldest and most trusted associates of Ali, with a following of a hundred diehard and devoted Shiis of Kufa, none of whom was below sixty years of age. This age factor should particularly be noted, as it indicates the maturity of their religious thinking and behaviour. The five leaders of the movement: 1. Sulayman b. Surad al-Khuza`i, 2. Al-Musayyab b. Najaba al-Fazari; 3. `Abd Allah b. Sa`d b. Nufayl al-Azdi 4. Abd Allah b. Walin at-Tami, 5. Rifa`a b. Shaddad al-Bajali) had always been in the forefront of all Shii activities in Kufa, and were highly respected by the Shia for their sincerity of purpose and unshaken devotion to the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt. Similarly, the other hundred who joined these leaders of the movement are described as the most select from among the followers of Ali. Towards the end of 61/680 they held their first meeting in the house of Sulayman b. Surad. Rifa`a b. Shaddad al-Bajali, another senior member of the five leaders, then spoke, appealing passionately to the religious sentiments of those present. After emphasizing further what Al-Musayyab had said, he proposed: Let us give command of our affairs to Shaykh ash-Shi`a, the companion of the Prophet, possessor of priority in Islam, Sulayman b. Surad, the one praised for his intrepidity and for his religion and the one who has been dependable and reliable in his judiciousness and prudence (Hazm). The other three leaders named above spoke in the same vein and seconded the proposal to choose Sulayman as their leader on the same grounds as mentioned by Rifa`a. It is important to note that the qualifications for the leadership of the movement, which was indeed dedicated to the Shii cause, were companionship with the Prophet and priority or precedence in Islam (sabiqa). This, like many other instances, means that the main emphasis of the Shiis was to enforce the Islamic ideal, which they thought could only be achieved through the Ahl al-Bayt, the people nearest to the Prophet. Sulayman b. Surad, accepting the responsibility of leading the movement, made a forceful speech in which he laid down the severest standards required of those who wanted to participate and emphasized that they should be ready to sacrifice their lives for the noblest task ahead of them. Circumstances took a sudden turn in favour of the movement with the unexpected death of Yazid in 64/683, encouraging the Tawwabun to come out in the open. Some of the leading members urged Sulayman to rise publicly, Oust `Amr b. Hurayth, deputy of Abd Allah b. Ziyad, from the city, pursue those responsible for the blood of Husayn, and call the people to support the Ahl al-Bayt. They said that they would follow only Shaykh ash-Shia Sulayman b. Surad

source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

It therefore abundantly clear that Sulayman bin Surad and Mussayab bin Najabah were Shia, according to the Shia scholarship. Therefore, Answering-Ansars attempts to pass them off as Sunni is sophomoric at best. The Tawwabun movement was clearly a Shia movement with Shia ideals. In fact, SHM Jafri clearly says just this, that the Tawwabun movement possessed the ideals of Shiism.
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 8 The Reaction after Karbala In all the preceding chapters dealing with the developments from the time of the death of the Prophet till the death of Husayn, the Shii doctrinal stand and their religio-political aspirations have repeatedly been pointed outmission was the same as that of the Tawwabun insofar as the revenge for the blood of Husayn and establishing the rights of the Ahl al-Bayt
source:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

The Tawwabun were definitely Shia because they believed in the concept of Imamah which is distinct to the Shia faith.
Al-Shia.com says

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri Chapter 8 The Reaction after Karbala

there are strong indications that they [the Tawwabun] believed that the rightful Imam was now Husayns surviving son Ali, later known as Zayn al-Abidin. There are many factors that support this view. source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/

To completely end the debate about wether or not the Tawwabun were Shia, let us refer you to Al-Islam.org which categorically declares that they were indeed Shia movements.
Al-Islam.org says

Question: how did Islam change for the majority of the Muslims, did they still follow Yazid and his companions, or did

they realize that Imam Hussain(A.S) was the true calipha?

Answer: There were 2 main revolts which challenged the Umayyad regime soon after the events in Kerbala - the Tawwabun movement led by Sulayman b. Surad and Mukhtars revolt against those who had perpetrated the crimes in Kerbala

source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00706.html

Conclusion The bottom line is that it was the Shia who pledged support to Hussain, which caused him to leave Mecca for Kufa. At the last minute, the Shia of Kufa betrayed Hussain and allowed Yezids men (who were much fewer in number than the Kuffans) to attack and defeat Hussains contingent. The ceremony of Matam can be traced to the Tawwabun, who were the penitent Shia who felt guilty for leading their Imam to his imminent death. This, my friends, is the illustrious history of the Shia. Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar]
If Alis 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 Alis 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 Shiism which is centered around the supposed oppression of the Ahlel Bayt at the hands of the Sahabah.

Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Names of Imam Alis 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 dont 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 named two 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 Alis 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 Alis 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 Prophets uncle, and then there is Jafar the name of Alis brother, and the name Abdullah which is the name of the Prophets 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 doesnt 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, thats 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 readers 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-Ansars 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-Ansars claims, and this factnamely that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthmanshows 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.

Abu Bakr (

), 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 (,) who supposedly stole the Caliphate from Ali ( .) However, the Shia opinion of Abu Bakrs character ( ) does not match up with the Quran (and the associated historical events) which actually mentions Abu Bakr ( ) in a very positive light.

When the Prophet ( )fled Mecca (i.e. Hijra), he asked Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) to lay in his bed so that the Quraish infidels would think that the Prophet ( )was still asleep. He told Ali ( ) not to worry because no harm would come to him. The Prophet ( )then called his closest companion, Abu Bakr ( ,) to accompany him on the dangerous emigration to Medinah. So it was that the Prophet and Abu Bakr ( ) made the Hijra together. The Quraish disbelievers were giving chase, and the two menthe Prophet ( )and Abu Bakr ( ) hid 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 spiders web. The spider created a web in record time, and when the Quraish disbelievers saw it, they reasoned that the Prophet ( )couldnt possibly be in the cave because the spiders web extensively covered the entrace, indicating that nobody had disturbed it in quite some time. This was the miracle of the spiders web, which saved the Prophet ( ). This story is mentioned in the Quran in Verse 9:40. Allah says: )and Abu Bakr (

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 ( ,) but it should be noted that every Shia Tafseer available to us confirms that this verse is referring to Abu Bakr ( ) when 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

source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/

Shaikh Ali Rasheed, a Shia scholar, answered the following question on Al-Islam.org:
Al-Islam.org says

QUESTION:

SalamWhat is meant by (verse) 9:40Some 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, Im not sure what you are implyingThis 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 sidesboth Sunni and Shiaare agreed that the companion in the cave with the Prophet was Abu Bakr ( .) This Quranic verse (9:40) honors Abu Bakr ( ) in five ways:

Firstly: The Quran refers to Abu Bakr ( ) as the second of the two citing Abu Bakr ( ) as the sole partner of the Prophet ( )in 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 ( ) based on this verse alone. It could be said that during the Hijra, a spiders web saved Islam, and Abu Bakr ( ) was there to witness this miracle, Allah referring to him as the second of the two. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) and the Prophets 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 ( ) using the term sahib (companion) showing the closeness of the Prophet ( )to Abu Bakr ( .) In fact, the Prophet ( )chose his closest companion to accompany him on this very dangerous journey; nobody other than Abu Bakr ( ) was given the honor of escorting the Prophet to Medinah. It could be said that Abu Bakr ( ) was the personal bodyguard of the Prophet of Islam, the one man trusted enough to handle the delicate mission of transporting Allahs Messenger ( )to safety and away from the clutches of the scheming infidels. Thirdly: The Prophet ( )lovingly reassures Abu Bakr ( ) to grieve not. This is the Prophets 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 ( )curse him? No, instead he reassured him and told him: dont worry, everything will be alright. This sentence of the Prophet ( )proves his close relationship to Abu Bakr ( ,) showing that he cannot see Abu Bakr ( ) being in grief. Fourthly: Most importantly, the Prophet ( )continues and tells Abu Bakr ( ) that Allah is with us. This is the absolute negation of the Shia paradigm. The Shia say that Abu Bakr ( ) is doomed by Allah, but here we see that the Prophet ( )says that Allah is with Abu Bakr ( .) And indeed it must be in a positive light since the Prophet ( )included himself by using the word us. The Prophet ( )is reassuring Abu Bakr ( ) that no harm

can come to Abu Bakr ( ) because He has the special protection of Allah Himself. If it had been a Shia in the cave with Abu Bakr ( ,) then the Shia would have said to Abu Bakr ( ) that Allah is against you and not Allah is with you. Fifthly: Allah sent his Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) down upon Abu Bakr ( .) Allah sends Sakinah down upon the believers; if Abu Bakr ( ) was an evil-doer as the Shia claim, then Allah would have sent his Wrath upon him, not his Sakinah. The Shia consider Abu Bakr ( ) to 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 ( ) in 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 ( :)
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 sawUmar 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 ( .) After Umar ( ) explains the reasons this verse gives Abu Bakr ( ) merit, Shaikh Mufid then replies and supposedly silences Umar ( ) once 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 Mufids 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 Momin 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 Momin 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

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) was present with the Prophet ( )in the defining moment of Islam; in fact, it was around this time that the Islamic calender would start. The Prophet ( )took nobody other than Abu Bakr ( ) on this epic journey and nobody else other than Abu Bakr ( ) was present on this momentous and miraculous day. It is obvious that the Prophet ( )chose one of his closest companions to accompany him on the emigration to Medinah. He could have chosen anybody else, but he chose Abu Bakr ( .) This is the honor, and it is cemented by the Quran which refers to Abu Bakr ( ) alone as the second of the two on this very historic and miraculous day in which Islam was saved by a spiders web. In fact, the Shia have a very hard time dealing with the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) was the one who accompanied the Prophet ( )to Medinah. Imagine if it had been Abu Bakr (instead of Ali) who the Prophet ( )had told to lay in his bed for him; and imagine then that it was Ali (instead of Abu Bakr) who the Prophet ( )took along with him to Medinah. Then, we would hear the Shia chanting about how the Prophet ( )left Abu Bakr ( ) to die on his bed (i.e. Abu Bakr was expendable), and how the Prophet ( )loved Ali ( ) so 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 ( )took Abu Bakr ( ) along with him because he feared that if he left him in Mecca, then Abu Bakr ( ) would tell the Quraish infidels where the Prophet ( )was 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 enemythe

Quraish unbelievers were railing at the Prophets 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 ( ) had the intention of divulging the Prophets whereabouts so that the Quraish infidels could capture and kill him. Keeping this in mind, let us fastforward to the moment in which the Quraish infidels are gathering around the cave; they are merely a few feet away from the Prophet ( )and it is only a spider web which separates them. If Abu Bakrs intentions ( ) were to have the Quraish infidels find the location of the Prophet ( ) so that they could capture him, tell me: wouldnt 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 ( ) from jumping out and informing them that the Prophet ( )was in there and they should go and capture him! Surely, if this was the intention of Abu Bakr ( ) as the Shia so claimthen 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 ( ) is not gleeful that the Quraish infidels have found the Prophet ( ,)but rather he is grieved by this fact and fearful for the Prophets life ( .)And I say the Prophets life ( ) and not his own because the Quraish infidels had a warrant for the capture of the Prophet ( ) and not Abu Bakr ( ;) the bounty was on the Prophets head ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) could simply turn him in to collect the reward. Getting back to my point here: if it had been Ali ( ) who had accompanied the Prophet ( ) on the Hijra, then the Shia would be declaring that this is a definitive proof for the fact that Ali ( ) was 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 ( .)To conclude, the Shia have no explanation as to why the Prophet ( )took Abu Bakr ( ) along and nobody else. The only logical explanation is that Abu Bakr ( ) was the Prophets top lieutenant, bodyguard, and trusted friend. Nothing else makes sense. At minimum, however, we have established the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) could 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 ( ) would have taken him along. In fact, the Prophet ( )specifically asked Abu Bakr ( recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari. We read in Ar-Raheequl Makhtum: ) to accompany him. This is

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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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?

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) had a strong bond of closeness between himself and the Prophet ( .) 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 ( .)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 ( ) was an enemy of the Prophet ( )or 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 ( ) with 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 ( ) who was being referred to as the sahib of the Prophet ( ,)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 Dont 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

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 womans 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 ( ]) from 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 ( ,) the blessed mother of Prophet Isa ( .) 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 ( ) and 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 Mufids arguments here and substitute Mariam ( ) for Abu Bakr ( ,) and then we will see how obnoxious his argument is. It is like Shaikh Mufid saying to Mariam (:) And the words Dont 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 ( ) was 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 ( ;) he tells his favorite brother to grieve not. This was the one brother whom Prophet Yousuf ( ) loved more than his other brothers who were corrupt, so Prophet Yousuf ( ) separated 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 ( ,) who was fearful for the life of others, much in the same way that Abu Bakr ( ) was fearful for the Prophets life. And so Allah sent angels down to Prophet Lut ( ) who 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 ( ) was 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 ( ?) Surely not. This was an act of solace to reassure Prophet Lut ( ) not to worry.

And then we have the example of Prophet Musas mother ( ,) 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 Musas 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: dont 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 ( )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 Shias colorful reading of verses pertaining to Abu Bakr ( ) are actually very dangerous because if we use the same logic in other verses then we end up condemning the Prophet ( ) himself. Allah says: And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and grieve not (Quran, 16:127) The Prophet ( ) and the believers were saddened after their defeat in the Battle of Uhud. And so it was that Allah sent down reassurance to the Prophet ( ,)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: dont worry, you will indeed become victorious. There is also the example in the Quran of Prophet Ibrahim ( ) when 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 Ibrahims 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 ( ) was apprehensive of the Quraish infidels who were surrounding the cave, and likewise was Prophet Ibrahim ( ) apprehensive 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 ( ) even the staunchest Shia can agree that it is reassurance and not condemnation, for the Shia believe that Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was infallible! And then the angels even tell him despair not in a similar manner that the Prophet ( )told Abu Bakr ( ) to grieve not. If the Shia would like to argue that Abu Bakr ( ) was weak in faith for being in grief, then using this same logic one would have to say that Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was weak in faith for doubting the angels that he could have a child at so old an age. When the Prophet ( )first 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 Alis daughter (Umm Kulthoom [ )] reassured her mother (Fatima [ )] and said: It is nothing, mother, do not worry!

(source: http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/ashariati/works/fatima_is_fatima4.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 ( ) is 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 ( )had 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 distressSurah an-Nashrah is one of them. It is well-known that there was a year in the Prophets 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 ones polemical stance in a debate, in suggesting that people who are afraid or upset by lifes 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.

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

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 ( ) said 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 Bakrs fear and grief). A normal human being would read this verse and say Allah is with us refers to the Prophet ( )and Abu Bakr ( ) because 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 ( ) and 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 ( .) 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 ( ,) and he has reassured us that it refers to the Prophet ( )and Ali ( ). 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 ( ) shows 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 ( ;) but how can this be when Shaikh Mufid himself found it incumbent that this actually refers to the Prophet ( )and Ali ( ?) But Shaikh Mufid is not satisfied with his own explanation that us refers to the Prophet ( and Ali ( ,) 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).

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

Unfortunately, Shaikh Mufid could not provide a single reference in the Quran in which the Prophet ( ) uses the plural form to refer to himself. Suddenly, just this once, the Prophet ( ) chose to use the plural form for himself? This is quite a coincidence. The Prophet ( )would have easily said that Allah is with me if he were excluding Abu Bakr ( .) The idea that we refers to the Prophet ( )alone has no basis whatsoever, and it is contradicted by Shaikh Mufids earlier claims that we refers to the Prophet ( )and Ali ( .) Really, which argument is it? How can the we be a pronoun used in the singular for the Prophet ( ) alone when it also supposedly refers to the Prophet ( )and Ali ( ?) The 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 ( )and his companion in the cave.
Shaikh Mufid says

Your claim that AS-SAKINAH (serenity) was sent down to Abu Bakr is indeed outrageousin 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!

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

The Shia admit that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was grieving and worried in the cave. Therefore, logically it only makes sense that Allah would send down reassurance and serenity to Abu Bakr ( ,) since the Prophet ( ) was 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 dont 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 doesnt make sense, but I guess this doesnt 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 ( ) somehow. 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 ( !)
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

source: http://www.najaf.org/english/book/26/2.htm#_Toc436643784

Congratulations, O great Shaikh Mufid! You have defeated Umar bin Khattab ( ) in 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 ( ) look like a coward. Here, they say that Abu Bakr ( ) was crying like a baby and that he was really frightened, comparing this with Alis bravery ( .) We wonder where this bravery went whenaccording to the ShiaAbu Bakr ( ) ordered his men to break down the door to Alis house ( ,) manhandled his wife, and killed Alis wife and unborn child, dragging Ali ( ) through the streets by the collar? Where was Alis bravery ( ) then? (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 [ ] was 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 [ ] was crying.) There is absolutely no proof that Abu Bakr ( ) was crying. With no proof that Abu Bakr ( ) cried, how do the Shia simply assert this? What could prevent someone else from saying that Ali ( ) cried when the Quraish infidels surrounded the Prophets bed ( ?)Someone could claim that Ali ( ) wet 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 doesnt make them true, especially without a shred of evidence. The key point to be remembered is that the Prophet ( )also told Ali ( ) not to worry when he asked Ali ( ) to sleep in his bed. Therefore, should we then say that Ali ( ) was fearful and this shows his lack of faith that the Prophet ( )had to reassure him? No. The only thing that we can ascertain from the fact that the Prophet ( )reassured Ali ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) is that the Prophet ( ) loved them both and this is why he gave them words of solace. Loved ones always give words of solace, and this doesnt 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 ( ) was the bravest companion of all that he risked his life to accompany the Prophet ( )on this very dangerous mission. The Quraish were on high alert when they found out that the Prophet ( )left Mecca. Why would Abu Bakr ( ) choose to accept this risky mission, if his life was in danger as the Shia claim? The truth is that Abu Bakr ( ) was worried and grieving but he was not fearful of his own life, but rather he was worried about the Prophet ( )more than himself. In fact, many times in his life did Abu Bakr ( ) say that he valued the life of the Prophet ( )above his own, and even he valued the family of the Prophet ( )above his own family. Therefore, Abu Bakr ( ) was worried about the Prophets 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 Allahs 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 Allahs 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 ( ) was more worried about the Prophet ( ) than himself for the simple fact that the Quraish infidels had a warrant for the arrest and capture of the Prophet ( ,) not of Abu Bakr ( .) The bounty was on the head of the Prophet ( ,)not on Abu Bakr ( .) In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) was immune from the persecution of the Quraish infidels because he had powerful tribal connections to protect him. The Prophet ( ) had recently lost this tribal protection with the death of Abu Talib and this was the impetus for the eventual Hijra of the Prophet ( .)Therefore, if anyone was at risk, it was the Prophet ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) loved the Prophet ( )so much that he feared that the Prophet ( )would be captured as the Quraish were interested in capturing the Prophet ( ), not Abu Bakr ( .) There was a bounty on the Prophets head ( ,) and Abu Bakr ( ) could have simply jumped out of the cave and told the Quraish that the Prophet ( ) was 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 ( ) of deliberately crying out in order to give the location of the Prophet ( ) away to the Quraish infidels. Then the Shia accuse Abu Bakr ( ) of crying out of cowardice, because he supposedly didnt have true Iman (faith). These two claims contradict each other. If Abu Bakr ( ) wanted to give away the location of the Prophet ( ,)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 ( ) wanted to reveal the location of the Prophet ( .)If Abu Bakr ( ) 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 ( ) from 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 ( ) wanted to jump out of the Prophets bed and tell the Quraish infidels where the Prophet ( )was, 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 ( .) I understand that religion is about faith and that there are times we cant 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 ( )befriended 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 ( )take Abu Bakr ( ) on the Hijra? If the Shia would like to say that they know that Abu Bakr ( ) wanted to give up the Prophet ( ) to the Quraish infidels, then didnt the Prophet ( )know this as well? If the Shia knew it, then surely the Prophet ( )knew it, since as a basic principle, the Prophet ( ) knew more than anyone else. Unless the Shia would like to say that they know more than the Prophet ( ,)and only they knew Abu Bakrs intentions ( ) and the Prophet ( ) did not know. If the Prophet ( )knew, then why did he even accept to take Abu Bakr ( ) along in the first place? If Abu Bakr ( )really tried so blatantly to give the Prophet ( )away during their flight, why would the Prophet ( )have 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 ( )so 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 ( ) would distance himself from a man who tried to have him captured. It does not make sense then that the Prophet ( )would 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 ( ,) then why didnt Allah also silence Abu Bakr ( ) when he claimed the Caliphate over Ali ( ?) Or perhaps the Nasibis could claim that Ali ( ) was silenced by Allah and this is the only reason Ali ( ) was not able to reveal the Prophets whereabouts when the Quraish infidels surrounded Ali ( ) who was sleeping in the Prophets 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 didnt the verse in the Quran say that the sahib wanted to reveal the Prophets location but Allah silenced him? Perhaps this is written in the Shia version of the Quran, which involves putting Alis name ( ) in brackets wherever anything good is mentioned and putting the Three Caliphs names wherever anything bad is mentioned. Conclusion The Quran mentions Abu Bakr ( ) on this historic day when the Prophet ( )made Hijra. If Abu Bakr ( ) was 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 ( .) Why would Allah do such a thing? What prevented Allah from condemning Abu Bakr ( ) in this verse? And why did the Prophet ( )say 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 ( ) are 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 ( ) who the Prophet ( ) took with him on the Hijra. According to the Shia, Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) were enemies. Therefore, let me ask you: if it was Ali ( ) who was doing the Hijra, would he take along Abu Bakr ( ) as his sole partner? If the answer to this is no, then why wouldnt Ali ( ) follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ( ?)Or, to give another example, what about the exodus of Hussain ( ) from Medinah to Kufa; would Hussain ( ) take Abu Bakr ( ) along? If the answer is no, why isnt Hussain ( ) following the Sunnah of the Prophet ( ?)The true answer is that Ali ( ) and Hussain ( ) had nothing against the first Caliph and they would love to follow the example of the Prophet ( ) which was to have a good relationship with Abu Bakr ( .) I wish that our Shia brothers could look into their heart of hearts, and ask themselves honestly: if it was Ali ( ) who 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.

Hadith About Drinking Urine in Sahih Al-Bukhari

Question:

A Shia person once showed me this Hadith in the Sunni books: Sahih Al Bukhari - Volume 7, Book 71, Number 590: Narrated Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine. So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. The Shia person was making a lot of fun of me saying that this was yet another one of Bukharis fabrications. I am worried. Did the Prophet really ask his followers to drink camel urine? Answer: Why should a Shia person worry himself over such Hadith when the Shia Hadith have even more disturbing narrations in them? Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi reports the following Hadith in his book Manlaa Yahdurhul-Faqeeh (For Him Who Has No Access to A Scholar): His (the Imams) feces are far better smelling than the fragnance of musk. [Reported by Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Saeed al-Kufi who narrated from Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fidaal, from his father from Abul-Hasan Ali b. Musa al-Ridha] Source: Manlaa Yahdurhul-Faqeeh (For Him Who Has No Access to A Scholar), vol.4, page 418, narration # 5914 And we also read what Grand Ayatollah Akhond Mulla Zainul-Abideen al-Galbaigani wrote in his book Anwaar al-Wilayah: Theres nothing (impure) in the urine of the infallibles: their blood, urine and feces (are free of) any filth or dirtinessnor there is any stink in their urine or feces, rather both are like the Musk. Nay, (in fact) whoever drinks and eat their urine, feces and blood, Allah forbids fire on him, and cause him to enter paradisethe urine and feces of the Imams doesnt carry impurities or stench, but they are like musk, and whoever drank their urine and feces and their blood, Allah will make Hell fire Haram on them and their admission to Heaven becomes must. (Anwaar al-Wilayah, p.440)

In the most reliable Shia book of Hadith, Al-Kafi, we read the following: Abu Jafar said: For the Imam there are 10 signs: He is born pure and circumcized.and if he farts the smell is of musk. (Al-Kafi 1/319 Book of Hujja - Chapter on Birth of Imam) With such Hadith in their literature, we kindly ask the Shia to get off their high horse. Having said that, two wrongs do not make a right, and we are not saying that an absurdity in the Shia literature allows us to also have an absurdity in our literature. So why does the Ahlus Sunnah have such a Hadith in their books about the Prophet prescribing the Sahabah camel urine? The answer is as follows: Urine therapy, alternatively called Urotherapy or Urea Therapy, has been utilized for many centuries. Even today, it is considered a very popular form of alternative medicine or homeopathic medicine, and is used to cure many pathological conditions, including edema, hormonal imbalances, and even cancer. Let us see what the American Cancer Society (ACS) has to say on this matter:
American Cancer Society says

Urotherapy has been promoted for a wide variety of diseases and conditions, including cancer

The thought of drinking urine probably offends the sensibilities of most Westerners, but the fact is that human urine has been considered a healing agent in many Asian cultures for centuries. Even now, some physicians recognize urines antiseptic properties, and in some cultures it is poured directly on wounds to prevent infection. Others mix it with several ingredients to make a tonic that is drunk to promote health. In the mid-1950s, a Greek doctor named Evangelos Danopolous, MD, professed that he had identified anticancer properties in urea and had used the compound to successfully treat patients with certain types of skin and liver cancers. Dr. Danopolous claimed that his therapy significantly extended patients lives. He published several small positive case reports, but later studies by other researchers did not achieve the same results. Other doctors have also noted ureas anticancer characteristics. One of them, Vincent Speckhart, MD, testified about ureas benefits before a House of Representatives Committee. A breast cancer patient whom Dr. Speckhart treated with urea reportedly recovered from her disease and was alive 10 years after therapy. Urotherapy is currently offered along with other forms of alternative therapy in some cancer clinics in Mexico.

source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Urotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO

The American Cancer Society says:

American Cancer Society says

Are there any possible problems or complications? Drinking or injecting urine or applying it directly to the skin is

reported anecdotally to be safe and not associated with harmful side effects

source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Urotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO

Wikipedia Encyclopedia says:

Wikipedia Encyclopedia says

Urine therapy is a specialized branch of alternative medicine. Any sort of oral or external application of urine for

medicinal or cosmetic purposes falls into this category. A practitioner of urine therapy is called an uropath.

Promoters of urine therapy believe urine to have many curative powers Dr. John Henry Clarke (a prominent English classical homeopath, 1853-1931) wrote, man who, for a skin affection, drank in the morning the urine he had passed the night before. The symptoms were severe, consisting of general-dropsy (edema), scanty urine, and excessive weakness. These symptoms I have arranged under Urinum. Urinotherapy is practically as old as man himself. The Chinese (Therapist, x. 329) treat wounds by sprinkling urine on them, and the custom is widespread in the Far East. Taken internally it is believed to stimulate the circulation [1] Medics have long known about the presence of hormone metabolites in urine[2], including corticosteroids[3]. These hormones when ingested or absorbed through skin have powerful anti-inflammatory effects[4], which can explain many cases of improvement via such a therapy. [1] A DICTIONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA, 1895 ISBN 0-85032-084-4 [2] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_246/ai_112728018 [3] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1023535 [4] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406316_5

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy

Of course, today we are blessed with many pharmacological agents of the most advanced nature. Therefore, we dont have to resort to drinking urine. Nobody here is claiming that we should resort to drinking camel urine. All we are saying is that this medication was commonly administered in the time of the Prophet even before he was born. The Prophet did not invent this medication but rather it was in vogue at the time amongst the Arab physicians. Therefore, the Prophet advised his followers to utilize this medication that was commonly used at this time. If the Prophet was alive today, he would no doubt encourage modern day diuretics but these did not exist back then. The bottom line point is that the idea that the Prophet would prescribe urotherapy is not at all strange in the least, as it was a common practise back then. And even todayalthough we are not advocating the usage of urinemany allopathic medications used by contemporary physicians include extracts from urine. For example, the drug named Premarin is extracted from horse urine. We read from www.premarin.org and www.premarin.com the following:

Premarin.com says

Premarin (including Prempro, Premphase, Prempac, and Premelle) is a drug made up of conjugated estrogens

obtained from the urine of pregnant mares put out in many forms (pills, creams, injections, patches, vaginal rings) and is used to reduce the symptoms of menopause in women or women who have had a hysterectomy. It is also prescribed to nearly eliminate the risk of osteoporosis (the brittling of bones) and reduce the chance of heart disease in women over 50.

source: www.premarin.org

The British magazine Chemistry and Industry said the following:

Premarin.com says

It was very recently discovered that adding distilled cow urine to medicaments increases their effectiveness while

decreasing their side-effects, making anti-cancer and anti-tubercular drugs twenty times more effective and antibacterial drugs eighty times more effective.

source: http://www.rfi.fr/fichiers/MFI/Sante/641.asp

Many drugs and foods have extracts from urine in themalthough with the advent of technology we of course filter, purify, and extract what we need. And perhaps we have better medical treatments now than they did back 1400 years ago. But the bottom line point is that camel urine has been used as prerogative in Arabia (and other parts of Asia) for thousands of years, and therefore, there is nothing peculiar about the Hadith in Sahih AlBukhari. Arabian physicians have acknowledged the medicinal properties of camel urine for a very long time. Ibn Sana (Avicenna) writes in his book (which was termed as the medical bible for a longer time than any other work by William Osler) that chronic imbalance of the liver produces jaundice, edema, and swelling of the belly and that the health of the liver can be restored through a temporary diet of camel milk and male camel urine. Camel urine has been termed the most beneficial type of urine, above human urine. [In Mah.md al-Nusaym, alT.ibb al-Nabaw wal-`Ilm al-H.adth (3:242) and Muh.ammad Nizr al-Daqr, Rawi` al-T.ibb al-Islm: alQism al-`Ilj (1:257)] In fact, the treatment for edema (formerly called dropsy by the British) was considered to be camel urine. GF Haddad writes: Avicennan textbooks by Ibn al-Azraq (d. 890) and al-Suwayd (600-690) state, The cure [for edema] is to drink the milk of the she-camel - together with its urine - fresh out of the udder,[6] and to use that every day and leave everything else, for it is extremely efficient and of proven results.[7]

Ibn Sayyid al-Ns specifies, notably desert camels feeding on wormwood and southernwood. [8] Wormwood is among the herbs that are extremely useful in correcting digestive disorders in general and for helping detoxify the liver in particular, and is used in the treatment of hepatitis.[9] Thus, Arabian camel urine was a standard prescription in Arabic medicine and remains a staple of Bedouin natural remedies to this day both as diuretic, snuff, and delousing hair wash.[10] [6] Jawd `Al in al-Mufas.s.al f Trkh al-`Arab Qabl al-Islm asserts they used to boil the urine first cf. alNusaym, al-T.ibb al-Nabaw wal-`Ilm al-H.adth (3:237). [7] Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-hl al-Manfi` fil-T.ibbi wal-H.ikma [The Facilitation of Benefits in Medicine and Wisdom] (1206 Khayriyya Cairo ed. p. 60 =1315 H.amdiyya Cairo ed. p. 51=another old Cairo edition p. 66) cf. al-Sha`rns epitome of al-Suwayd titled Mukhtas.ar al-Suwayd fil-T.ibb (1302 H.alab Cairo ed. p. 51). [8] Cited by al-Suyt. in his Sharh. on al-Nass Sunan (1:161). [9] http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/neat-stuff/hepatit.html [10] Gibrl Jabbr, The Bedouins and the Desert, transl. Lawrence I. Conrad, State University of New York Press, 1995 and Hilda and Dagg Gauthier-Pilters, The Camel, Chicago and London, 1981. City Arabs apparently know it only as a hair tonic. End quote. Perhaps it seems to the modern day person that extracting medication from urine is disgusting or nasty. But these are medical lay-persons who have no idea where other medications come from. For example, certain medications come from the venom of snakes. By stating this, are we advocating for normal healthy people to go drink snake venom? Certainly not. And other examples abound, such as penicillin which comes from a dirty mold from a cantelope! Is anyone here advocating to eat moldy cantelopes? Certainly not. Therefore, all of these substances are generally avoided, but in certain situations, they may have medicinal benefit. After having established the fact that urine has been used as a prerogative for thousands of years (and even today by homeopaths), let us go back to the Hadith in question. The Sahabah were suffering some illness due to the living conditions which they were not used to. They were having a lot of edema, or swelling of the abdomen. This has been narrated in many other Hadith about the same event in which many Sahabah fell sick due to some plague. In Sahih Al-Bukhari, Aisha is narrated as saying: We came to Medinah when it was the most plague-infested land of Allh. [The valley of] Buthn was covered with stagnant water. It is likely that the water became infected with some pathogen which caused a form of hepatitis in those who drank from it or who were infected by insects that were breeding in it (i.e. mosquitos). The resulting infection caused hepatitis (inflammation of the liver) and the liver is what maintains osmolarity (proper fluid balance) in the body. Consequently, the Sahabah developed edema (improper fluid balance) due to the liver manifestations. As even a first year medical student knows, edema is caused by a disbalance of solute which causes osmosis (i.e. water flows from an area of lower solute concentration to higher concentration). In swelling, the tissues become hyper-osmolar, meaning that they have more solutes than the blood, so plasma (water in the blood) flows from the blood to the tissues. The medical treatment of this condition is to give a diuretic, which is a highly concentrated solution that will flow in the blood, raising the osmolarity of the blood so that plasma moves out of the tissues and back into the blood, eventually to be excreted by the kidneys. This is the basis of diuretic treatment, which is used for edema. Today, there are many diuretics available on the market, including mannitol. Mannitol is administered in emergency situations because it is very hyper-osmolar and can dramatically reduce the plasma volume. Of course, back in the time of the Prophet, they had not discovered Mannitol as of yet, but the basic principle remained: find a solution which is highly concentrated (hyper-osmolar) which would cause diuresis.

Camel urine is extremely highly concentrated, and would be the Mannitol of the time. In fact, no other animal can produce such a highly concentrated urine (aside from the kangaroo rat, although the kangaroo rat obviously cannot produce sufficient ammounts of milk/urine to be practical). The ability of camels to concentrate their urine is what allows them to survive months in the desert without water. Camel milk (and even cow milk) is considered more hyper-osmolar than human milk, and this is why it is contra-indicated in babies because it causes diuresis. Conversely, a patient who would need diuresis (due to plasma overload) would definitely want to take such a substance. In conclusion, there is nothing absurd at all about the Prophet prescribing camel urine. In the popular TV show Lost, the main characterwho is a doctorengineers various medications using crafty tricks that sometimes seem absurd. But when you dont have a Rite Aid next to your house, then you have to improvize and drinking camel urine was the improvization of the Arabs (and many Asians) for thousands of years. After the Shia propagandist (and his anti-Islam buddies) would be thoroughly refuted by the above historical and scientific data, they will no doubt resort to childish rhetoric such as go drink camel urine then if you think you are a good Muslim. But nobody is claiming such a thing. Today, we have modern medications and we can use those, and the Prophet would have used those himself if he were alive today. Urine was deemed to be Haram by the Prophet, and what we learn from this Hadith is that certain things become Halal in a lifethreatening situation. This is what we learn from this Hadith, not that we should drink camel urine. The application of this Hadith is that we can take certain life-saving medications which contain Haram ingredients in them such as gelatin, alcohol, etc. To completely end the debate on this issueand to strike a severe blow to the Shia polemical stancewe see that the Shia Hadith contain many narrations about the medicinal benefits of camel urine. For example, we read the following in Bihar Al-Anwar: : ( 2 ) :

Translation: Al Jafari said: I head Abul Hassan, peace be upon him, say: The camels urine is more benificial than its dairy products. And also Allah makes the cures (for diseases) in its dairy products. The Infallible Imam of the Shia tells his followers about the benefits of camel urine and how it is superior to dairy products. And there are many other narrations to this effect. Therefore, since we see that this is from Shia Hadith, we come to the conclusion that the Shia propagandists who use such tactics are only shooting themselves in the foot. This argument against Sahih Al-Bukhari is only used by e-Shia youth who know nothing about their own faith, let alone about the Sunni faith. It should be noted that the Shia use the same tactics as the evangelists and the Answering-Islam team which has dedicated itself to destroying the honor of Islam. I have seen this similar accusation on the nefarious Answering-Islam website which also twists this Hadith to disprove Islam. In the end, they disprove nobody save themselves and the joke is on them. As for the Shia, they should be ashamed of the company they are in, using the same old arguments as the very enemies of Islam. They will therefore be treated accordingly.

Hadith About the Quran and Sunnah

Introduction

The Shia propagandists often claim that the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. I am leaving you with the Book of Allah and my Sunnah) is weak or even forged. This is a blatant lie; according to the standards of the Hadith scholars, the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah is Sahih. It is a wonder how the Shia continually attempt to establish the Sunni position themselves. How can they say that this Hadith is considered weak, when in fact it has always been considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah? Whether or not the Shia consider it authentic is irrelevant to us because they have no credible science of Hadith to begin with. The following is a question/answer session with Shaikh Gibril Haddad. Questioner says: This Hadeeth about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah) is weak. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: [A] crass lieThe hadith in question is not weak. Questioner says: Ninowi said: Please note, that some people are using an alleged Hadeeth (that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah). Please be advised that this Hadeeth is extremely weak. Moreover, many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: What scholar(s) of hadith declared this hadith extremely weak? What scholars(s) declared it fabricated? I have listed over two dozen dictionaries of forgeries in an article titled The famous hadith and forgery compilations available in full at livingislam.org / (pdf-file). Surely if many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated it should be easy to say where, in any of those books, one of those supposedly many leading scholars can be seen declaring such a thing. Questioner says: The Hadeeth (i.e. that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah) is present in ONLY ONE book (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim) and has ONLY ONE narrator.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question states that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet. This is narrated from Anas by: *Abu al-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Muhaddithin fi Asbahan (4:67 549); also from `Amr ibn `Awf by: *Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331); and also from Ibn `Abbs by: *Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (202-294) in al-Sunna (p. 25-26 68) *al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:171 318) who declared that all its narrators are agreed upon meaning in the two books of Sahih *al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 20108) *al-I`tiqad (p. 228) by Malik in his Muwatta. Ibn `Abd al-Barr narrated its chain in al-Tamhid (24:331) and describes it as so famous and widespread as a Prophetic report among the people of knowledge that it can be treated as mass-transmitted (mahfuz, ma`ruf, mashhur `an al-Nabi salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam thamma ahl al-`ilm shuhratan yakadu yustaghna biha `an al-isnad) *Ibn Hazm who declared it sahih in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810) even though he is overly strict in his criterion for soundness as stated by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari in his student `Abd Allah al-Talidis biographical notes, Darr al-Ghamam al-Raqiq. Another version states: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and my Sunna. And these two shall never part ways until they show up at the Pond. Narrated from Abu Hurayra by: *Ibn Shahin in al-Targhib fil-Dhikr (2:406 528) as stated by Ahmad al-Ghumari in al-Mudawi (3:482 3923) *al-Hakim in the Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:172 319) *al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 20109) *al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (4:245 149) *Abu Bakr al-Shafi`i in the Ghaylaniyyat as stated by al-Suyuti in the Jami` al-Saghir (3923) *al-Lalikai in Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (1:80) *al-Khatib in al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi (1983 ed. 1:111=1991 ed. 2:165-166 89) and al-Faqih walMutafaqqih (1:94) *Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331) *Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810) *al-Suyuti declared it hasan in al-Jami` al-Saghir (3923). Also narrated mursal from `Urwa as cited by: *al-Suyuti in Miftah al-Janna (p. 29 35). Also narrated mursal through Ibn Ishaq from `Abd Allah ibn Abi Najih by: *al-Tabari in his Tarikh (2:205-206) *Ibn Hisham in his Sira (6:8-10).

So there are chains through at least four different Companions corresponding to two versions which have in common the wording: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna or my Sunna. The fact that this wording in the Muwatta is enough proof that it is sahih, as further confirmed by Ibn `Abd albarrs remarks. Both these sources actually reflect that there is more to Hadith-grading than the mere documentation of chains of transmission. Questioner says: The Hadeeth is narrated by Al Hakem in his Mustadrak by way of Ibn abi owais by way of his father by way of thawr by way of Zayd through Ikrima, through ibn abbas, however, ibn abi owais and his father are unreliable people and fabricators. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: Says who exactly? Imam al-Bukhari narrates over 200 hadiths from Ibn Abi Uways. Over 170 of those are hadiths Ibn Abi Uways narrates from his maternal uncle, Imam Malik. As for his father `Abd Allah Abu Uways, he is one of the narrators of the Sunan and Muslim also uses him in his Sahih. Questioner says: See tahtheeb al kamal 3/127 by Imam Hafez Mizzy, and Sharhh saheeh Al Bukhari intro/391 by Imam Hafez Inb Hajr, also Imam Nasaaiy was among other scholars to denounce those narrators describing them as weak and unreliable, similarly did Abu Hatem Arrazy in his book aljarhh wat tadeel in Elm Al hadeeth, others who also mentioned their unreliability are Llakaiy, Assideeq, Ibn Mueen, Ibn Habban,. .etc. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: None of the above called these two narrators unreliable people and fabricators. On the contrary, Ibn Hajar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Ma`in all called him truthful (saduq). Questioner says: Even Imam Al Hakem himself who mentioned this hadeeth in his book, after he added another weak route to it, declared this Hadeeth immediately as a weak Hadeeth and admitted its great weakness. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: Actually, al-Hakim followed up with another route because it came through another Companion, which strengthens the hadith. Nowhere does he declare the first hadith weak. Shaikh Gibril Haddad also said: Shaykh Abu al-Fadl Ahmad al-Ghumari in his book al-Mudawi li-`Ilal al-Munawi (3:482 3923) supports the authenticity of this hadith and that his brother, Shaykh `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, Allah have mercy on both of them, included this hadith among the sound hadiths in his compilation of the sahih and hasan hadiths of Imam al-Suyutis al-Jami` al-Saghir which he titled al-Kanz al-Thamin fi Ahadith al-Nabi al-Amin salla Allahu `alayhi wa Sallam. And Allah knows best.

Questioner says: We Shia instead follow the Hadeeth in which the Prophet says he left behind the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt. This hadeeth mentioning Ahlul Bayt and Quran as inseparable is very significant and has been narrated by 35 Sahaba (!!!) and is given in the Sahihs of Ahlu Sunnah and the many books of their scholars. It is Mutawattir! Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: This is absolutely false, the hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. Questioner says: The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already saidthe hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.] Questioner says: Why have you abandoned the Mutawattir Hadeeth about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt, replacing it with the weak Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah? Answer by Team Ahlel Bayt: First of all, the Hadith about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt is not Mutawattir, nor is the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah considered Dhaeef (weak). Instead, both Hadith are of a very similar calibre. Secondly, we have not abandoned the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt nor have we replaced it with the other Hadith. Instead, we believe in both Hadith; the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon, and the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt was said by the Prophet in front of the smaller gathering at Ghadir Khumm. This second Hadith was directed towards those of Medinah because it was they who would be tasked with the role of caring for the Prophets family after his death.

Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things [A Sunni Perspective]

Introduction

The six major books of Hadith are referred to as the Sihah Sittah. Two of them, known collectively as the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim), contain mostly Sahih (authentic) narrations. However, the other four contain a mixed bag, with Hadith ranging from Dhaeef (weak) to Sahih (authentic). As for the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, it is narrated in two different versions. One of these versions is considered Sahih (authentic) and part of the Sahihayn. The other version, however, is considered Dhaeef (weak) and is not a part of the Sahihayn. Dhaeef (Weak) Version The weak version is as follows: I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astrayThe Book of Allah and my progeny. This version has been narrated in Sunan Tirmidhi and is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Even though Imam Tirmidhi included it in his book, he himself did not consider it Sahih (authentic) and referred to it as Ghareeb (i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized). A similar version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn can be found in Musnad Ahmad, but it too is classed as Dhaeef. This version of the Hadith does not have any valid chains of transmission. Some of the narrators of this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn were openly known to be Shia, such as Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah Al Awfi. It is an established principle in the Hadith sciences that a narrator is rejected if the content of the narrative is peculiar to a particular deviant school of thought if it is narrated by a deviant who ascribes to such a school of thought (Al-Kifaayah fi `ilm al-Riwaayah). In other words, a Shia narrator cannot possibly be accepted on issues related to the Sunni-Shia divide. This version of the Hadith, found in Sunan Tirmidhi, was narrated via persons who were openly Shia and therefore such a narration cannot serve as a proof. It is a well-known fact that the Shia claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) was nominated to be the Caliph by Prophet Muhammad ( )at Ghadir Khumm; because of this belief, the Shia have propagated many false reports with regards to what was said at Ghadir Khumm, including what was said by the Prophet ( )in regards to al-Thaqalayn. It is therefore not surprising that the modern day Shia can point to many narrations in support of Shia claims, because these reports were forged by Shia themselves; these Hadith are Dhaeef (weak). The reader might wonder why these reports can be found in Sunni books, but such a wondering is based on ignorance of the Sunni science of Hadith: narrations are recorded and only afterwards graded for authenticity. The only two books which contain pre-screened Hadith are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (i.e. the Sahihayn), neither of which record this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. Let us examine the chain of transmission for this version of the Hadith as found in Sunan Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad. *The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes: Nasr ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi - Zayd ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy - Ja`fer ibn Mohammed - Mohammed ibn Ali ibn Hussain The second person in the chain is Zayd ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his book Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal has quoted Abu Haatim as saying that Zayd is Munkir al-Hadith - i.e. Zayd narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Hajar has considered him to be Dhaeef - i.e. a weak or an unreliable narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the said narrative, does not consider it to be Sahih. On

the contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that the Hadith is Ghareeb - i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized. *The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is: Al-Aswad ibn `aamir - Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek - Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy` Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan - Zayd ibn Thaabit The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa`eed has considered him extremely unreliable (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that his father said: I have noticed confusion in Shareeks principles (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa`eed replied: He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: Narratives of Shareek are worthless (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says: [Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating, [was] prejudiced (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa`eed al-Jauhariy says: Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred narratives (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu`een says: When Shareeks narratives contradict with someone elses, the other person is preferable to me (Meezaan alAi`tidaal). The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari says: His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and abominable) and nothing is known about him (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: nothing is known about him (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Musnad Ahmad also has a chain with Atiyyah Al Awfi from Abu Said Al Khudri, and we discuss below how `Atiyyah was a Shia. *The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is: Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy - Mohammed ibn Fudhayl - Al-A`mash - `Atiyyah - Abu Sa`eed. The first, second, and fourth narrator in this chain (i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah) are all known to be Shia. Based on this alone, the narration can be disregarded. Besides this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not being approved of by his contemporaries. (Dhu`afaa al-`Uqayliy). Moreover, Mohammed ibn Sa`d has said that his narratives are not considered by many to be evidence of a true saying of the Prophet (Siyar A`laam al-Nubalaa). The fourth narrator in this chain is Atiyyah. Shaikh Al Islam states regarding him in his Taqrib: He was a Shia and a concealer. Imam Dhahabi states regarding him in his Mizan Al Itidal: he was Dhaeef (i.e. unreliable). Yahya ibn Mu`een considers him to be Dhaeef - i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa`eed (Al-Kaamil fi alDhu`afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb alTehzeeb). Abu Dawood says: He cannot be trusted (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith. It is in fact abundantly clear that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is weak and therefore cannot serve as a proof. Sahih (Authentic) Version

The more reliable version of Hadith al-Thaqlaynand the one narrated in the Sahihaynis as follows: I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it. Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) in Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Daarimiy, and others. In Sahih Muslim #5922, we also find that the following was said: 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. A similar narration has been accepted by the Shia, such as the following:
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet replied: One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family

(Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt.

References: - Aalam al-Wara, pp 132-133

source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html

It should be noted that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is accepted by the Shia to be the most authentic one, and it is in fact narrated in Aalam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by Amin al-Islam al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan. The perceptive reader will notice that the Prophet ( ) says that in the Quran is guidance and it is a light which we should hold fast to without which we will go astray. It can be inferred from this that the Quran is a source of deriving our religion from. On the other hand, when the Prophet ( )talks about his family, he says only I remind you of my family. In the version used by the Shia website above, we even read the words quite clearly: Beware of how you behave with them And in another version, the Prophet ( ) uses the words how you treat them after me. Therefore, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn is in reference to taking care of (and behaving with) the Prophets family after his death, and it cannot be construed in the Shia manner at all. While the Quran is referred to as a source of guidance and light, this is not the case for the Ahlel Bayt, which is not referred to as a source of religion. The Hadith only directs the Muslims to refrain from adopting an uncalled for attitude towards them or a disrespectful behavior towards them.

If the Prophet ( )really meant what the Shia are implying, then the Prophet ( ) should have said something like follow the Quran and my Ahly Bayt, the light and gudiance, instead of saying: The Quran, which is the light of guidanceand I remind you of my family Shaikh Faraz Rabbanis student Sidi Salman Younas says: It is important to note what Thaqalayn means. It is the dual form of Thaql. Thaql means weight, burden, and heavy. Obviously, Thaql has a general connotation of a weight which burdens and elicits responsibility. Out of all the definitions of Thaql and its various forms and their various explications, important or importance is not one of them. Importance would be an inference at most, but definitely not a definition. Even if Thaql is to be understood as important it must be understood that it is an importance regarding its characteristic of eliciting responsibility, burden and cumber rather than being momentous and splendid. Obviously, Thaql and its various forms unanimously allude to burden, responsibility and cumber. Context of the Hadith It is impossible to discuss the Hadith al-Thaqalayn without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet ( )said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said. For example, the Quranic verse slay them wherever you find them is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation. Likewise, Hadith al-Thaqalayn was revealed in a certain context and this background is important to understand if we want to see what the Prophet ( )meant when he said what he said. First off, the Hadith about following Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet ( )in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat. However, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. Quran and Ahlel Bayt) was not said during the Farewell Sermon; instead, the Prophet ( ) said the Hadith alThaqalayn in front of the smaller gathering of people at a place called Ghadir Khumm, a half-way point to Medinah. It was directed only towards those living in Medinah, because the Prophets family lived in Medinah and therefore the task of taking care of them would fall upon their shoulders. If Hadith al-Thaqalayn meant what the Shia imply, then surely the Prophet ( )would have said it in front of all the Muslims during his Farewell Sermon. Instead, the Prophet ( )only said this to those living in the same city as his family, again implying that what he meant was to take care of them. And perhaps the biggest proof is the fact that the Prophet ( )said the Hadith alThaqalayn during his speech at Ghadir Khumm. For those of our readers who have not read our article on Ghadir Khumm, we strongly urge them to read it now: The Sunni Position on Ghadir Kumm. As we have shown in that article, a group of soldiers were harshly criticizing Ali ( ) and complaining about him to the Prophet ( )at the place of Ghadir Khumm. (Please read that article for details and references.) It was in response to this hatred, abuse, and disrespect towards Ali ( ) that the Prophet ( )found it necessary to defend his family in the Hadith al-Thaqalayn. This serves as a very strong proof that the meaning behind the Prophets words were not about deriving religion from the Ahlel Bayt but rather about behaving with them, taking care of them, honoring them, respecting them, etc. Analyzing Weak Hadith

Sometimes the Shia will insist that we accept the weak versions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. Even if we were to do that, then we must view those Hadith in light of the authentic Hadith. For example, often the Shia will use these weak versions of the Hadith: I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astrayThe Book of Allah and my progeny. or I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny. or other similar versions. In this case, we understand that the words sticking to or adhering to or holding onto refers to loving them, respecting them, honoring them, etc. This is the interpretation of that, and this is based on (1) the authentic Hadith al-Thaqalayn, and (2) the context in which the Hadith was said (i.e. a group of soldiers were criticizing, disrespecting, and hating Ali). The Shia argue that since we are told to adhere to the Quran and Ahlel Bayt, then we must adhere to them in the same fashion since the same word is used for both. However, this is a hasty assumption: we should adhere to them in their own respective ways that is appropriate and fitting for each. One could easily imagine an Imam saying adhere to the Quran and the believing people. This would mean obey the Quran and look for it as a book of guidance, as well as befriend and love the believers. It would not, however, mean equating the believers as a source of Allahs Words. Furthermore, the problem rests mostly in English translations which do not account for the dynamic nature of the Arabic language. In any case, no authentic Hadith words it in this way (Hold onto both and you will never go astray), but rather the Hadith which are worded like this are narrated from Shia and other unreliable people. The strong and authentic versions of the Hadith state it in two clauses: The Quran, which is the light of guidanceand I remind you of my family And to serve as the strongest proof against the Shia, then we look at their own website which shows what they themselves consider to be the most authentic version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, as narrated in Aalam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by Amin al-Islam al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan:
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet replied: One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family

(Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt

References: - Aalam al-Wara, pp 132-133

source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html

Shia Rejection of the Thaqalayn Inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty things, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. Even though the Shia accept parts of the Quran, they deny other parts of it. And even though the Shia accept parts of the Ahlel Bayt, they deny other parts of it. This attitude is in marked contrast to the mainstream Muslims (i.e. Sunnis), who accept all of the Quran and all of the Ahlel Bayt. Despite the vehement denials by the Shia polemicists, many classical Shia scholars have held the opinion that the Quran has been tampered with by the Sahabah who supposedly eliminated those verses of the Quran relating to the Wilayah of Ali ( .) We shall show in future articles how Tahreef (i.e. tampering of the Quran) has been a doctrine that finds much support in the core of Shia texts. In this way, the Shia have disregarded and maligned the Book of Allah, classifying it as an adulterated book much like the Torah and Bible, or at least holding in high regards those classical scholars who held such a position. Therefore, whenever the Shia polemicists mention the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, we urge our readers to remind them of their many narrations about Tahreef which can be found in their books, which will hopefully show them that they have abandoned the stronger Thaql. As for the Ahlel Bayt, the Shia have abandoned many parts of the Prophetic family. The Shia reject Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ,) who are definitely part of the Ahlel Bayt. They also reject the very existence of three of the Prophets daughters, namely Zaynub ( ,) Ruqayyah ( ,) and Umm Kulthoom ( .) The Shia have selected a very small portion of the Prophets descendants to be part of the Ahlel Bayt, denying that the Prophets paternal uncle (Abbaas) and his children are a part of the Prophetic family. They deny that the Prophets cousin, Zubair ( ,) is part of the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia also denounce Ibrahim bin Musa Kaazim ( ) and Jafar bin Musa Kaazim ( ,) referring to the latter as Kadhab (the Liar) even though he was a very noble Muslim beloved by the Ahlus Sunnah. And then there is the brother of Hasan al-Askari ( ,) whose name was Jafar bin Ali ( ;) because Jafar bin Ali ( ) denied the existence of Hasan al-Askaris son, the Shia have similarly branded him as Kadhab (the Liar). Among others of the Ahlel Bayt who have been abandoned by the Shia include: Ibrahim Bin Abdullah ( ,) Zakariyyah Bin Muhammad Baaqir ( ,) Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Hussein Bin Hasan ( ,) Muhammad Bin Qaasim Bin Hasan ( ,) Yahya Bin Umar ( ,) and many others from amongst the Prophets progeny. On the other hand, the Sunnis accept and revere all parts of the Ahlel Bayt, including the eleven Imams of the Shia. Whereas the Shia hate Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) and deny the existence of three of the Prophets daughtersthe Sunnis love the entire Ahlel Bayt, including Ali ( ,) Fatima ( ), Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( .) While it may be true that the Shia have done a fantastic job of idolizing these four individuals and their other Imams, they have abandoned other parts of the Ahlel Bayt and have therefore only taken care of part of this Taql. Meanwhile, the Sunnis have revered all sections of the Ahlel Bayt; being a Shia means loving a part of the Ahlel Bayt to excess and hating other parts of it. Being a Sunni means loving all parts and segments of the Ahlel Bayt. This is the only difference between the Sunni and Shia when it comes to the love for the lesser Thaql. Acquiring Knowledge from the Ahlel Bayt

While it is clear that Hadith al-Thaqalayn has to do with loving and behaving with the Prophets family, the Shia will insist that it refers to taking knowledge from them. Even if this is the case, the Sunnis have always used the knowledge of the Ahlel Bayt. Ali ( ,) the Prophets cousin, was the vizier of the first Three Caliphs, and his input on religious matters was invaluable; he was also a rightly guided Caliph who is emulated by the Sunnis. Aisha ( ,) the Prophets wife, was an Aalimah who taught many Sahabah. As for the rest of the Imams of the Shia, they were all Sunnis in reality and Aalims. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir ( )whom the Shia consider to be the fifth Imamwas the Shaikh of Imam Abu Hanifa ( ,) and the Hanafi Madhab is the most popular Madhab amongst Sunnis! And Imam Abu Hanifa ( ) also attended many lectures of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( .) Does this not involve taking knowledge from the Prophets progeny? The Sunnis acknowledge that all eleven Imams of the Shia were great Aalims and reservoirs of knowledge. However, we do not accept the exaggerations of the Shia, who claim that their Imams possess knowledge of the Unseen, who control all the atoms of the universe, etc. Much in the same way that we revere Prophet Isa ( ) but reject the Christian exaggerations, likewise do we revere the eleven Imams but reject the Shia exaggerations. The Shia will often challenge the Sunnis by asking: how many Sunni Hadith are narrated through the Imams of Ahlel Bayt? They ask this implying that the number of Hadith narrated through them is somehow indicative of love for them. What these silly Shia propagandists do not realize is that of course we do not have many Hadith narrated through the eleven Imams, because only three of them were even alive during the time of the Prophet ( !)And of these three that were alive during the time of the Prophet ( ,)two of them (Hasan and Hussain) were only young children during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ;)and as for the third (Ali ibn Abi Talib), he was killed by the Shia in his own party at a very early point in his lifetime before the Hadith were compiled en masse. Nonetheless, the Sunnis have more Hadith narrated by Ali ( ) than we do by Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ,) yet nobody questions our love for Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) simply because we narrate very few Hadith through them. It should be noted that even if we were to accept this meaning of Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. taking religious knowledge from Ahlel Bayt), this does not negate taking religious knowledge from other than the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophet ( )similarly praised his Sahabah, and we also look to them as a source of religious knowledge. The Sunnis love all of the Prophets family members and his friends, whereas the Shia are partisan in their love; why do the Shia not open up their hearts and love all of the Prophets family and friends? The only difference in regards to love of the Ahlel Bayt is that the Sunnis love all of Ahlel Bayt whereas the Shia only love parts of it. Wording of Hadith al-Thaqalayn This is a point which cannot be stressed enough: if the Prophet ( )had meant what the Shia intend, then the Prophet ( ) would have said that the two weighty things were the Quran and the Imams of Ahlel Bayt. Instead, the Prophet ( )only said that the two things were the Quran and the Ahlel Bayt, without any mention of the twelve Infallible Imams of the Shia. Therefore, Hadith alThaqalayn is about not only the twelve Imams of the Shia, but rather about others of the Ahlel Bayt as well. Many Shia respect Imam Zayd ( ,) although they do not believe that he was one of the twelve Infallible Imams. The Zaydis claim that Imam Zayd ( ) claimed Imamah for himself, but the (12er) Shia reject this and say that Zayd ( ) never claimed Imamah for himself. And the Shia respect Zayd ( ) despite the fact that they deny that he was a God-appointed Imam. Well then, is this not the position of the Sunnis with regards to the twelve Imams of the Shia? The Sunnis respect all eleven Imams of the Shia (and also believe in the advent of Imam Mehdi), but we deny that they ever claimed to be Infallible Imams. Therefore, if the Shia have fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to Imam Zayd ( ,) then have the Sunnis not also fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to their twelve Infallible Imams? If the Shia

say that we have not given a proper status to their twelve Imams, then we can say that they have not given a proper status to Zayd ( ) who was also one of the Prophets progeny! The point here is that the Prophet ( ) said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt, not only the Infallible Imams of the Ahlel Bayt who were only twelve from amongst the many in the Prophets progeny. The Sunnis love all of the Ahlel Bayt and regard many amongst the Ahlel Bayt to be great Aalims; whatever the case, Hadith al-Thaqalayn has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate. The Shia can give absolutely no good reason as to why the Prophet ( )said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt and why he did not say that it was the Imams of the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophets statement was therefore general in nature, and it cannot possibly be construed to justify the Infallible Imamah of the Shia. The Quran and Sunnah The Shia say: The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already saidthe hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.] Conclusion The Prophet ( )was reminding the Muslims to take care of his family after his death (i.e. Beware of how you behave with them when I am gone from amongst you), and this is what is known as Hadith al-Thaqalayn. The Shia understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is nothing short of deviancy and error; and inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty objects, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the authenticity of the Book of Allah and the innocence of the entire Ahlel Bayt. We ask Allah to bless all of the Prophets family.

A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansars Article Entitled Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government

By: Ibn al-Hashimi

Introduction: A Sunni View of Saqifah Response to Chapter 1 Entitled Introduction

Response to Chapter 2 Entitled The Historical Facts Response to Chapter 3 Entitled Analysis of the Events Response to Chapter 4 Entitled The Issues Raised at the Saqifa Response to Chapter 5 Entitled Assessing Sunni Justifications of Saqifa [includes a description of the nomination process of the first three of the Rightly Guided Caliphs] Response to Chapter 6 Entitled Some Crucial Observations Response to Chapter 7 Entitled Burial of the Prophet

Saqifah: A Sunni View

Shia says

Abu Bakr and Umar conspired to steal the Caliphate from Imam Ali (A.S.). After the Prophets death, these two fools

rushed to Saqifah in order to quickly bring Abu Bakr to power in a coup dtat 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 Prophets 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 didnt 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 Prophets funeral. Let us now narrate the story of Saqifah Grief Over the Prophets Death The Prophets death sent shock waves of grief throughout the Muslim Ummah. We read: The tragic news (of the Prophets death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah. Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of MedinahUmar was so stunned (by grief) that he almost loss consciousness.

(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559) Umars love for the Prophet ( )was 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 lossThe 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 deadThis 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 deceaseds absencein spite of having seen the deceaseds body with ones own eyes[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceaseds 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 ones death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeralthe more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihoodof a flight from reality Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that the patient has deniedAnger 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 denialthese people require careful and appropriate grief counseling (Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association) Our Shia brothers often bring up Umars denial as some sort of proof against him, but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar ( ) loved the Prophet ( )so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one. And so, it was in the first stage of grief that Umar ( ) reportedly 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 ( ,) he was in his home when he heard of the Prophets death, and immediately upon hearing this tragic news, he head towards the Prophets Mosque in haste. We read: Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophets) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allahs Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophets 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. (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 734) So quite contrary to the callous and diabolic view that the Shia are portraying, Abu Bakrs first action was not at all to rush for the Caliphate, but rather he made haste to visit the Prophets body. Abu Bakr ( ) was deeply affected by the Prophets death, so much so that he broke down in tears whilst kissing the Prophet ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) then 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) (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) Ibn Abbas ( ) said:

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). (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) Umar ( ) said:

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. (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) So great was Umars love for the Prophet ( ) made him come to terms with the reality. News of a National Emergency Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) stayed by the Prophets body. In some time, however, a man by the name of Mughirah bin Shubah ( ) approached Umar ( ) and 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 Prophets 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 Saidah, andas the situation was graveit 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. )that he fell down in grief when Abu Bakr (

(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 ( ) and Umar ( ) were devastated by the Prophets death and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet ( .)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 ( ) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar ( ) first informed Abu Bakr ( ) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) refused to come out and disregarded Umar ( ;) it was only when Abu Bakr ( ) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophets side. We read: Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet ( )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 Prophets Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Saidah. (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 ( ) and Umar ( ) therefore 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 ( ) as Caliph. During the Islamic conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ( )had given the standard to Saad ( .) However, when the Prophet ( )saw Saads 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: Havent 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 ( )took the standard away from Saad ( ) and 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 ( ) had 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 reasonSaads condescending attitude towards the Meccansthat the Prophet ( )stripped him of the standard and it was also the reason that the Shaikhayn rushed to prevent him from declaring his Caliphate. If Saad ( ) were 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 tribesnot only the Meccans but othersfrom similarly declaring their own leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the Caliphate. When Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) set 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 ( ,)who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) took along with them Abu Ubaidah ( ,) 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 ( )were alive, he would not want Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) to 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 ( ). 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). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) Umar ( ) said:

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. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) Of course, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) were 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 ( ) Stayed Behind

Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) did not take along Ali ( ) and Zubair ( ) because they were immediate relatives of the Prophet ( )and it would not be fitting to bother them with such a matter during their time of grief. We read in an authentic Hadith: A persons 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) (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) We read further: (They) left Ali and others (close relatives) to make arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274) It should be noted that Umar ( ) mentioned in detail during his Caliphate that Abu Bakr ( ) went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansar against taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr ( ) left for Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been the case, then surely Abu Bakr ( ) would have brought along more than two of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldnt Abu Bakr ( ) have 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 ( :) Abu Bakr ( ) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) had a whole gathering of Ansar to back him! Common sense dictates that if Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) of 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 ( ,) Khalid bin Waleed ( ,) Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan ( ,) etc? If this was a coup dtat 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 Bayaah to one of their own men; if Abu Bakr ( ) wanted 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 Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) and Abu Ubaidah ( ) set 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) didnt find the need to bring along Ali ( ) or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matterbecause 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) were showing softness and sensitivity towards Ali ( ,) 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 fathers funeral without any other extra worries or burdens to think about. And so it was that Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) and Abu Ubaidah ( ) head out towards Saqifah despite their grief over the Prophets deathto 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 Prophets 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 lineagethat 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 ( ) debated with the Ansar, the perceptive reader will note that Abu Bakr ( ) 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 distinctionbetween religious and socio-political reasonsis 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 Kaabah: 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 infighting. This changed with the advent of Prophet Muhammad ( )who united all the various tribes together under the banner of Islam. It was the Prophets powerful personality which brought peace to the warring factions. First, the Prophet ( )united 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 ( )their 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 ( )and 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 Muslimsand the tribe of Quraish, the unwritten leaders of Arabia, converted en masse to Islamthat 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. (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.474) We read further: The destruction of idols installed in the Kaabah 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 thatdue to the socio-political structure of that timethe Arabians would have rejected Prophet Muhammad ( )had 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 Statesby one way or the otheris seen as the leader, and the countries of the world would accept an American leader, not a Micronesian one.

When Prophet Muhammad ( )had been ex-communicated from the leaders of the Quraish and banished to Medinah, the tribes of Arabia rejected the Prophet ( )and his Message. When Prophet Muhammad ( ) converted the tribe of Quraish to Islam and became their leader, then all of the tribes of Arabia recognized him. The Prophet ( )used 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 Prophets death, the unity of the Ummahthat the Prophet ( )had worked so hard to achievewas 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 Medinahand if the Ansar declared their own man to be Caliphthen 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) 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 Prophets death, many of the new converts to Islam apostasized; without the powerful leader of Muhammad ( ,)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 ( ) before 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 (jamaah). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

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 ( )himself 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 ( )respected 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 Prophets 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 ( )was 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 Bayaah to him; if the masses do not pledge their Bayaah to a person, then he cannot be Caliph over them as that would be tyranny. Qadhi Abu Yala 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 Caliphs 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 populationHad 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-determinationand not Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry)that the Prophet ( )ordered that a man of the Quraish tribe become the first Caliph. The Prophet ( )was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and in fact, the Prophet ( )warned against such Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet ( )was 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. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.22) It is for these practical reasons that the Prophet ( )said:

Our political authority shall remain with the Quraishas long as they follow Islam. (Bukhari: Kitabul-Ahkam) And the Prophet ( )warned 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 ( )clearly 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, Kitabul-Imarah) In fact, the Prophet ( )trusted 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 ( )showered the Quraish and all the other tribes of Arabia with gifts of war booty, but he left out the Ansar. We read: Abu Said Al-Khudri said: When Allahs 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, Allahs Messenger is illspoken of by his folks men! (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah) Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ,) the leader of the Ansar and the man whom the Ansar would seek to elect as Caliph at Saqifah, said to the Prophet ( :) 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.

(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.485) 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 ( )then reassured Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) and 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? (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.486) This is therefore the crux of the matter: the Prophet ( )was thinking only of the future of the Islamic state and how to unify the entire Arabian peninsula. He ( )was 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 ( )had 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 ( )told Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ,) explaining to him that it was actually a lofty status that the Ansar had obtained and that the Prophet ( )used 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 Prophets death, therefore the Prophet ( )said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). Saqifah After the Prophets death, the Ansar had gathered at Saqifah and were intending on nominating their own man as Caliph, namely Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) the same Ansar to whom the Prophet ( ) had 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?

(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.486) 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 ( ) conveyed 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 Allahs Cause, willingly or unwillinglythrough 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. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.2) When the Ansar said such sort of things (i.e. praising the Ansar and minimizing the Muhajirs), Umar ( ) was ready to respond. However, Abu Bakr ( ) 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 (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274) Abu Bakr ( ) said:

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) Abu Bakr ( ) explained:

(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religionbut the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraishwe (the Quraish) are in the center among the Muslims with respect to our position (The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193) Abu Bakr ( ) reminded the Ansar of the Prophets 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 ( ) warned 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 ( ) said: (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 ( )declared 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 ( ) said: Now the Arabs found it most distressing that they should leave the religion of their forefathers; so from among his (the Prophets) 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 peoples) single-minded opposition to them, for they were the first who worshipped Allah on the earth and who believed in Allah and the ApostleOh 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 yousoafter the Muhajirsthere 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) Abu Bakr ( ) then 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. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) 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 ( ) never sanctioned the idea of having more than one leader, something which would create confusion and disarray. Therefore, Umar ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) explained that although he himself was well aware of the Ansars 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 Bayaah 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. Abu Bakr ( ) explained: The people of Arabia are not aware of anyones 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 ( ) repeated his proposal, asking the Ansar to accept either Umar ( Abu Ubaidah ( ) as 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 Bayaah (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 Bayaah. As the news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.275) Neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) 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 ( ) does not himself seek the Caliphate but rather he asks the Muslims to choose between Umar ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( .) Meanwhile, Umar ( ) rejects the Caliphate himself, saying that Abu Bakr ( ) is more fit for it. And then Abu Bakr ( ) 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 ( ) was the most worthy! We can clearly see that neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) desired the Caliphate for themselves and neither furthered their own cause. It was in this manner that Abu Bakr ( ) became the first Caliph of the Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ) did not seek the Caliphate let alone steal it from Ali ( .) The Ansar were the cause of the gathering. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( )were forced to proceed to Saqifah in order to prevent a civil war. The election of Abu Bakr ( ) was something un-premeditated and purely spontaneous. To this effect, Umar ( ) said: The pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an un-premeditated spontaneous affair which was (then only later) ratified. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) When Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) and Abu Ubaidah ( ) 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 didnt the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah ( ) suggest delaying the nomination of the Caliph until all of the Muhajirs (such as Ali) could be summoned? Umar ( ) himself 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 ) or

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) In a slightly different version, Umar ( ) explained:

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 Prophets 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) Abu Bakr ( ) would later say to Ali ( :)

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? (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) When the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) arrived at Saqifah, the Ansar were only moments away from nominating Saad ibn Ubaadah ( .) The three Muhajirs were able to stop the Ansar from doing that but only momentarily, and if they left without first securing the Bayaah, they knew that the Ansar would once again proceed to elect their own man. But when the Ansar gave their Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ,) 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 Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) was rushed in order to prevent doublemindedness on the part of the Ansar. It was less than ideal, as expressed by Umar ( ) himself, but it was born out of dire necessity and it was only with the Grace of Allah Almighty that it worked out. The Prophets Funeral Although our Shia brothers imply that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on the Prophets funeral, this is actually not true at all. After he saved the Ummah at Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) rushed back to help with the Prophets funeral. In fact, the only thing that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on was washing the Prophets 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 ( ) miss out on? Not only did Abu Bakr ( ) help out with the burial, he was actually the one who is credited with deciding where the Prophet ( )was 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 Prophets bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the spot. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246) General Bayaah The Ansars and a few of the Muhajirs had given Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) at Saqifah, but many of the Muslims had not. Therefore, a day after Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) ascended the pulpit of the Prophets Mosque and the masses (approximately 33,000 of the Sahabah) took Bayaah at his hand. We read:

After the meeting at Saqifah Banu Saidah(and) the burial of the Prophet, Abu Bakr took the oath of allegiance from the general population and then rose to deliver his (inauguration) addressthat was the day when 33,000 Companions pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) This came to be known as the General Bayaah. Abu Bakr ( ) thus became the recognized leader of the Muslim empire. One is always astonished with the immense modesty of Abu Bakr ( ,) which contrasts sharply with the monarchs and leaders of other empires. Abu Bakr ( ) said 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. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) And so it was that the most modest man of the Muslims became the Caliph of the emerging Islamic empire. Ali ibn Abi Talib ( )

Ali ( ) was not present at the General Bayaah; instead, he took Bayaah at the hand of Abu Bakr ( ) some time later: some sources seem to indicate that Ali ( ) took Bayaah 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 alTabari 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 ( ) gave Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) twice, once on the second day and the other six months later. The tradition of the Muslims was to renew ones Bayaah periodically (i.e. the Muslims renewed their Bayaah to the Prophet on numerous occassions), and people may have expected Ali ( ) to renew his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) due to the conflict of Fadak which had created a situation in which some people questioned Alis loyalties to the Caliph. Whatever the case, whether it was two days or six months is largely immaterial. The fact is that Ali ( ) did in fact pledge his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ,) something which does not sit well with the Shia paradigm; why would Ali ( ) pledge his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) at 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 ( ) gave his Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( .) For now, we shall suffice with a handful of such reports, and we will focus on those which indicate that in fact Ali ( ) gave this Bayaah on the second day after the General Bayaah. 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 Bayaah 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 Bayaah (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 Shia Islam by SHM Jafri. Establishing this books 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://alislam.org/index.php?sid=729406346&t=sub_pages_74&cat=74 The book The Origins and Early Development of Shia 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.karbalanajaf.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 Husayns sacrifices had on the minds of the Muslims, see: Jafri, The Origins

and early Development of Shia Islam.

With salaams and duas 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 Shi`a 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 Bakrs 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 dont 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 Bayaah at Saqifah Banu Saidah without consulting us? Had you called us there, we would have taken Bayaah 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 Saidah not for the taking of Bayaah but for putting an end to the disputeI did not seek their support (for Caliphate). Rather, they took their oath of allegiance to me on their ownHad 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 Prophets Mosque. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.275-276) In another account, Abu Bakr ( ) said:

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 ( ) said:

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 ( ) offered Ali ( ) the Caliphate, promising to back Ali ( ) with all his men and camels of war. Ali ( ) refused 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-Mumineen (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 Bayaah, but Ali declined(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: By Allah, you do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.199) So we see that Ali ( ) did 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 Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ,) and he upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( .)If Ali ( ) upheld the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ,) then why do our Shia brothers create Fitnah by rejecting the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ?) The fact that Ali ( ) abstained from pledging Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) cannot at all be used as a proof for the Imamah of Ali ( ;) if this were the case, then could someone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) of the Ansar was an Infallible Imam because he refused to pledge Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ?) The opinion of Ali ( ) or Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) could not possibly overturn the collective decision of 33,000 Sahabah; Abu Bakr ( ) was the most popular candidate for Caliphate, and therefore it would not be justice to give the position to anybody else. In any case, Ali ( ) did give Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) eventually (be it after two days or six months), and this in and of itself negates the Shia claims. If Ali ( ) thought he was divinely appointed by Allah to be the Infallible Imam of the Muslim Ummah, then why would he ever pledge his Bayaah to a man who supposedly usurped a God-given position? Did the Prophet ( )ever pledge his Bayaah to those who sought to deny his Prophethood? Why then would Ali ( ) pledge his Bayaah 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 ( ) which 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 ( ) and, in doing so, setting themselves apart from the great majority of the Muslims. It took Ali ( ) at most six

months to accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( Shia brothers have still not accepted it! Eulogy of Abu Bakr ( ) ), Ali (

,) and yet it has been over a thousand years and our

On the death of Abu Bakr (

) said:

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. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.316) Therefore, we can see, that no matter the disagreements that Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) may have had, they both reconciled and respected each other deeply. Indeed, even Umar ( ) was impressed with the eloquence of Alis eulogy to Abu Bakr ( .) 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 ( )

Thirty-three thousand Sahabah pledged their Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( .) The Muslim masses recognized the superiority of Abu Bakr ( ) above all the other Sahabah, and they came to this conclusion after reflecting on the words of the Prophet ( )himself. We read in the following Hadith narrated by Amr ibn al-Aas ( :) 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) It was Abu Bakr ( ) who was chosen by the Prophet ( )to be the Imam of the prayers in the Prophets sickness, and therefore this is indeed an indication that the Prophet ( ) saw Abu Bakr ( ) as 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 Prophets vote for Abu Bakr ( ) and it is therefore no surprise that 33,000 Sahabah pledged Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( ) and nobody else. As for Ali ( ,) he himself did not view himself superior to Abu Bakr ( .) Although Ali ( ) may 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 ( ) later in life. Alis son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah ( ,) 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 ( ) said:

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 ( )was 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) Ali ( ) said:

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 ( .) This was the view of the Prophet ( ,)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 ( ) be declared the successor of the Prophet ( .) 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 Saida. It was reported to Abu Bakr that the Ansar were contemplating pledging their loyalty to Sad 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 Shii sources maintain that Ali did not in fact give his allegiance to the new Caliph until after Fatimas death, which occurred six months after the death of the Prophet. (An Introduction to Shii Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shiism; by Moojan Momen, pp.1820) It should be noted that this book is on Al-Islam.orgs 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 ( )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 ( ) nor Umar ( ) 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) 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.

Response to Chapter 1 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Response to Chapter 1 Entitled Introduction Answering-Ansar says

We shall seek to present the true facts, very different from that presented by the Sunni Ulema and writers who

would seem to suggest that upon the death of the Prophet ( ) the Ummah rushed to elect Abu Bakr as the Khalifa of the Prophet, all the Sahaba participated, all were happy and no difference of opinion.


No Sunni scholar has ever claimed such a thing. Every Sunni work confirms that the vast majority of Muhajir Sahabah were not present at Saqifah. No Sunni scholar has claimed otherwise. However, the day after Saqifah, the General Bayaah was held inside the Prophets Mosque, and it was then that 33,000 Sahabah took Bayaah at the hand of Abu Bakr ( . ) We read: After the meeting at Saqifah Banu Saidah(and) the burial of the Prophet, Abu Bakr took the oath of allegiance from the general population and then rose to deliver his (inauguration) addressthat was the day when 33,000 Companions pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276) So whereas a handful of Muslims may have abstained from pledging Bayaah to Abu Bakr ( , ) an overwhelming number (approximately 33,000) supported Abu Bakr ( . ) As for the idea that there was no difference of opinion, no Sunni scholar has ever claimed this either. In fact, the differences of opinion were so great that the Ummah was close to civil war. This is what Abu Bakr ( ) saved the Muslims from.
Answering-Ansar says

The romantic Sunni image

It is actually the Shia version that revolves around fantasy, conspiracy, and exaggeration. It is the Shia who claim that Aisha ( ) poisioned the Prophet ( ,)how thousands of Sahabah conspired to steal the right of Ali ( , ) how the Caliph supposedly killed the Prophets daughter and her unborn child, and other such far-fetched theories. The Shia conspiracy theory is that Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) somehow rigged the meeting at Saqifah, an allegation that they have a very difficult time proving from authentic sources. The Shia is a great conspiracy thinker. Indeed, their entire faith is based on an unbelievable conspiracy theory.
Answering-Ansar says

The episode actually begins from the point that Rasulullah ( ) died, upon receiving news of the

Prophet (saws)s death the companions who were ordered by the Prophet ( ) to join the expedition led by Usamah returned to Madinah. Three key figures Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah were participants in this aborted expedition,


The expedition of Usamah ( ) was not at all aborted, and in fact, Abu Bakr ( ) ordered Usamahs army to proceed without delay. After the Prophets death, the entire Arabian peninsula erupted in rebellion (i.e. the Wars of Apostasy) and Medinah was under threat of invasion. Because of this, many of the Sahabah asked Abu Bakr ( ) to delay the departure of Usamahs army, but Abu Bakr ( ) rejected these calls and said: By Him in Whose Hands is Abu Bakrs soul, even if I thought that beasts of prey would snatch me away (i.e. eat me), I would carry out the sending of Usamah just as the Apostle of Allah ordered. Even if there remained in the villages no one but myself, I would carry it out. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.14) Under the rule of Abu Bakr ( ) , the army of Usamah ( ) was dispatched posthaste and successfully vanquished the Roman army. The reader is advised to refer to Tareekh al-Islam (Vol.1, p.277) for further details.

Response to Chapter 2 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Response to Chapter 2 Entitled The Historical Facts

There is nothing much here to refute as such, except the fact that a couple weak narrations are being used, as follows:
Answering-Ansar says

. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute *i.e. Ali+.

Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation by Ismail Poonawalla p 193 - 194

A common deception of the Shia is to pass off Shia scholars as being Sunnis. Would it surprise anyone to know that Ismail Poonawalla, the translator of Tabari used by Answering-Ansar and many Shia groups, is himself an

Ismaili Shia and a professor of Shiism at the University of California Los Angeles? It is not surprising then that the Shia Poonawalla inserts into brackets the words Ali even though this does not appear in the Arabic text.
Answering-Ansar says

What Hadhrath Umar seems to have forgotten when recollecting the event is the fact that not all those present in

the Saqifa gave Bayya to Hadhrath Abu Bakr, and they were adamant that their loyalties lay with another man:

Umar stood up saying, Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence? and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except Ali. History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 186

However, this is a weak narration because it is narrated by Ibn Humayd who is not reliable; Tabari, a historian, has been criticized by the scholars of Hadith for his reliance on weak narrators such as Ibn Humayd. He has even been accused of being mutashhi` or Shia-leaning, due to his over-reliance on Shia narrations. And it is for this reason that the Shia are quick to quote from Tabari, attempting to pass it off each and every narration as authentic to the Sunnis, when in fact many narrations are from Shia and considered unreliable. In his defense, however, Tabari simply collected Hadith and did not claim to authenticate them, but rather left that upto the scholars of Hadith to do. Therefore, Tareekh al-Tabari contains both strong and weak narrations; this particular narration is weak. Ibn Humayd has been labelled by the Muhadditheen as an outright liar and shameless forger. Imam Dhahabi and Shaikh al-Islam have declared him to be weak. We read: I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulayman ash-Shadhakuni and Muhammad ibn Humayd. (Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol.25, p.105) Answering-Ansar has used these two narrations in order to further their argument in Chapter 5 of their article. Therefore, to read our rebuttal, please refer to our Response to Chapter 5. We have dealt with this topic more in our rebuttal to Chapter 5.

Response to Chapter 3 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Response to Chapter 3 Entitled Analysis of the events Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Umars behavior upon hearing that the Prophet (saaws) is deceased

We quoted the speech of Hadhrath Umar, it should be remembered that Hadhrath Abu Bakr had heard of the Prophet (saaws)s death, the news had been sent out to the neighboring areas. Hadhrath Umar was in Madinah, so there was no doubt that he knew that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Despite this al Tabari informs us that Hadhrath Umar was threatening to kill anyone who conveyed the Prophet (saaws)s demise to anyone. Why, knowing that the Prophet (saaws) was dead was Hadhrath Umar seeking to deny the truth, to the extent that he even vowed in Gods name that he (saaws) was alive? Why was he reporting to threats of amputation if the truth was made known?

We have already addressed this point in our article: Umar ( ) was very emotional over the loss of the Prophet ( )and he had entered the first stage of grief which is denial. The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) states in Grief Counseling: The first stage of grief is denial of the lossThe 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 deadThis 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 deceaseds absencein spite of having seen the deceaseds body with ones own eyes[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceaseds 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 ones death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeralthe more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihoodof a flight from reality Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that the patient has deniedAnger 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 denialthese people require careful and appropriate grief counseling

(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association) Our Shia brothers often bring up Umars denial as some sort of proof against him, but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar ( ) loved the Prophet ( )so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one. His denial was a psychological defense mechanism. The author of this article has himself went through his psychiatry rotation in medical school, and can say without any shadow of doubt that Umar ( ) was displaying a textbook presentation of denial. It should also be noted that Umar ( ) would later apologize to those he threatened. His apology speech is mentioned in The History of al-Tabari (Vol.9, p.200-201).
Answering-Ansar says

[Was] Hadhrath Umar under the view that the Prophet (saaws) was super-human and could never die?

Why should Answering-Ansar ask this question unless they are ignorant of the historical record? Even a novice Islamic historian knows that Umar ( ) himself explained the reason why he thought that the Prophet ( )had not died. Umar ( ) said: Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what prompted me to speak as I did when the Messenger of Allah died? By Allah, nothing prompted me (to utter those words) but that I used to read the following [Quranic] verse: We have set you up as a moderate nation so that you may act as witness of mankind, as the Messenger is a witness for you. (Quran, 2:143) By Allah, I thought that the Messenger of Allah would remain among his people until he could witness for them to their last deeds. That was what prompted me to say what I said. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.9, p.201) So why would Answering-Ansar ask such an ignorant question such as was Umar ( ) under the view that the Prophet ( )was super-human and could never die? Umar ( ) himself clearly said that he did in fact think that the Prophet ( ) could die but that he thought that he would be the last of them to die (i.e. after the death of all the Sahabah). This was based on the verse in the Quran in which Allah says that the Prophet ( )was acting as a witness over them (i.e. the Sahabah), and it was on this basis that Umar ( ) reasoned that the Prophet ( )must literally witness the acts and deeds of the Sahabah until each and every one of them died. Naturally, this sort of rationalization by Umar ( ) may seem far-fetched, but having gone through my psychiatry rotation in medical school, the author must concur with the American Psychiatry Association: The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceaseds absencein spite of having seen the deceaseds body with ones own eyes (Grief Counseling, American Psychiatry Association)

Furthermore, it is well-known that many Shia claim that the Prophet ( ) is omnipresent even today, and they cite as evidence the same Quranic verse (2:143). They argue that this verse says that the Prophet ( )is a witness over us and this can only mean that he is omnipresent, witnessing everything that we do. If the Shia can believe such a blasphemous idea, then why should they of all people have anything against Umar ( ) temporarily thinking that perhaps the Prophet ( )would be the last of them to die? The sort of rationalization used by Umar ( ) was an elobarate defense mechanism. If anything, this shows how strongly Umar ( ) was affected by the Prophets death and it dispels the myth perpetrated by the Shia that these Sahabah did not love the Prophet ( .)
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Umar felt that his request should be refused because he was not in the right frame of mind? Why the

sudden change in attitude?

This is obfuscation of the truth of the incident to which Answering-Ansar is referring to. Umar ( ) had decided against giving the Prophet ( )a pen because he felt that the Prophet ( ) was overwhelmed with pain and instead of worrying about others he should worry about himself. This was a gesture of love and kindness on the behalf of Umar ( . ) It is similar to Ali ( ) who refused the Prophets request while signing the Treaty of Hudaibiya; the Prophet ( ) asked Ali ( ) to erase something and Ali ( ) refused to do so, out of love for the Prophet ( ). Likewise, did Umar ( ) decide against giving the Prophet ( )a pen, out of love for the Prophet ( )who was in a great deal of pain and should rest. In any case, we shall write another article Insha-Allah on the (non)incident of the pen and paper. This episode has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand, and it is only too typical of the Shia propagandist to bring up side topics in a debate.
Answering-Ansar says

What we find most interesting is that a few years earlier Hadhrath Umar was of the opinion that not only could the

Prophet (saaws) die, he was dead. This occurred during the Battle of Uhud when Khalid bin Waleed mounted an onslaught on the Muslims, the enemy raised the battle cry that the Prophet (saaws) had been killed Hadhrath Umar was amongst those companions who had left the Prophet (saaws)s side and sought refuge in the mountains

Just compare the two different approaches, Hadhrath Umar had heard that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Without inquiring in to the matter he abandoned fighting and took refuge in the mountains. What better time would there have been for Hadhrath Umar to had shown his affection for the Prophet (saaws) by urging the companions not to listen to rumor. Why did Hadhrath Umar not insist that the Prophet (saaws) could not die? Why did he not seek to console the dejected troops by asserting that if the Prophet (saaws) was indeed missing

it was due to the fact that he was in communication with Allah (swt) as Musa (as) was when he descended to Mount Sinai? Why did Hadhrath Umar not insist that the companions ignore rumors of the Prophet (saaws)s death and continue to fight? Rather than dropping his sword, what better time would there have been for Hadhrath Umar to hold aloft his sword and declare to the Muslims that the Prophet (saaws) cannot die let us continue the fight, I will kill anyone who says that the Prophet (saaws) is dead. Yet we read that Hadhrath Umar chose to adopt a more relaxed attitude, he was quite content to listen to the rumor and accept it. Now look at the completely different response upon the death of the Prophet (saaws), now Hadhrath Umar was holding his sword aloft threatening those who said that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Alas if only that same vehemence had been adopted in Uhud.

To the lay-person this may seem like a viable argument, but to anyone who has gone through psychiatry in medical school, Answering-Ansars argument would seem sophomoric at best. We read: The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceaseds absencein spite of having seen the deceaseds body with ones own eyes[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceaseds 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 ones death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeralthe more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihoodof a flight from reality (Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association) Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss psychiatrist, is the one credited with having systematized the stages of grief used by psychiatrists and psychologists worldwide. The five stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, grieving, and acceptance. According to Dr. Kubler-Ross, however, there is a lag time before a person enters the period of grief. It is this lag time which she termed as the period of shock. Dr. Kubler-Ross described shock as a feeling of unreality, or a feeling of numbness. During this time period, the first thing a person does is immediately stop doing whatever he is doing, or even drop whatever he is holding and fall down. It is quite clear that Umar ( ) was in shock when he heard the rumor of the Prophets death during the Battle of Uhud. He immediately stopped doing whatever he was doing (i.e. fighting), dropped whatever he was holding (i.e. dropped his sword), and fell down in a state of non-responsiveness. Had things developed further, it is likely that Umar ( ) would have entered into the next phase, or the first stage of grief (which comes after shock). Had Umar ( ) seen the Prophets mutilated corpse on the battlefield of Uhud, then this would definitely be characterized as an emotional and traumatic experience that could cause a flight from reality. However, such an event did not take place, and instead the Sahabah were reassured that the Prophet ( )was in fact alive, thereby cutting short the cycle of grief. In other words, Answering-Ansars conspiracy theories do not have any medical basis whatsoever, as Umars reaction was a classic textbook case. It should be noted that Umar ( ) was known to be a highly emotional and dramatic person, so it is not at all strange that he would react in such a strong manner. Was it not Umar (

 ) who was complimented by the Prophet ( ) for this very trait, a quality that he used in the protection of Islam against the Enemies of Allah?
Answering-Ansar says

There was clearly more to it, something was happening and even the staunch Sunni scholar Numani admits that the

actions of Hadhrath Umar in denying the death of the Prophet (saaws) and threatening to kill those who spread the news was because:

Omar may have deemed it politic to suppress the news as there was a large number of hypocrites in Madinah who were only waiting for the Prophets death to ferment trouble. Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1 p 87

This was simply a theory by one author and it has no basis. Modern psychiatry and psychology have afforded us an opportunity to clearly understand the basis for Umars denial of the Prophets death, and therefore, it seems altogether unnecessary to probe into the matter further.
Answering-Ansar says

The reality is Hadhrath Umar was merely seeking to stall time he was waiting for Hadhrath Abu Bakr to arrive from

Sukh *sic+. Whilst some might view Hadhrath Umars actions as the actions of a devastated distraught man,

Answering-Ansar has outdone themselves in creating a very fanciful and creative conspiracy theory. Instead of viewing things as an unbiased person who would naturally assume that indeed Umar ( ) was a distressed and distraught man, the Shia put on their conspiracy caps and ask us to believe that this was all some sort of ploy. And of course, they make such grandoise claims without a shred of evidence to back themselves up. We need not even deal with Answering-Ansars conspiracy tales, but let us play along: the Shia argument is that Umar ( ) denied the Prophets death in order to prevent Ali ( ) from declaring himself Caliph in the absence of Abu Bakr ( . ) If indeed this was the case, then why would the Shaikhayn immediately head out towards Saqifah leaving Ali ( ) and others of the Banu Hashim at the Prophets house? Would this then not be the ideal time for Ali ( ) to declare his Caliphate, in the presence of his supporters from his own family? If what Answering-Ansar is claiming is true, then the last thing the Shaikhayn would do is leave Ali ( ) un-supervised! If Umar ( ) feared that Ali ( ) would

declare his Caliphate in the absence of Abu Bakr ( , ) then why would Umar ( ) inform Abu Bakr ( ) that they must head out towards Saqifah? Surely, the Shia arguments make no sense!
Answering-Ansar says

one will note how swiftly these feelings of distress evaporate upon Hadhrath Abu Bakrs inaugural speech, in which

he quoted a Quranic verse that the Prophet (saaws) like other men could also die. With the recital of this verse Hadhrath Umar became convinced that the Prophet (saaws) was dead

Normally the response of a distressed man would be to become traumatized by the tragic loss of a loved one and to develop symptoms of shock and horror at the devastating news. Hadhrath Umar reacted very differently his shock is temporary it completely evaporates within a matter seconds, he in fact makes such a remarkable recovery that he is well and confident enough to make a journey to the Saqifa, put the death behind him and debate about the Khilafath.

Another blatant lie. Answering-Ansar is claiming that as soon as Abu Bakr ( ) came and said those words that suddenly Umar ( ) was alright. Far from it. Umar ( ) said: 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. (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733) What exactly evaporates in a matter of seconds? Umar ( ) does not immediately smile and waltz to Saqifah, as Answering-Ansar is portraying. Instead, upon hearing Abu Bakr ( ) confirm the Prophets death, Umars legs gave away and he fell to the ground in grief and devestation. And this state of devestation continued for some time, and then slowly Umar ( ) got the will-power to help taking care of the Prophets funeral arrangements. And then only after some more time did a man rush to Umar ( ) begging him to come out; Umar ( ) at first rebuffed this man, but only assented to the mans desire after he was convinced that it was a national state of emergency. As a side-note, Answering-Ansar says his shock is temporary it completely evaporates within a matter seconds. To anyone having gone through medical school, such a statement is laughable, considering the fact that the very definition of the word shock is that it is temporary and fleeting! A truly laughable mistake of the Answering-Ansar lay-persons.
Answering-Ansar says

The Inside Informant - why the secrecy?

We learn how Hadhrath Umar receives exclusive information of the meeting at Saqifa. The man from the Ansar specifically calls Hadhrath Umar outside.

Keeping the spirit of conspiracy theory, Answering-Ansar now uses cloak-and-dagger terms such as the inside informant. Is this for dramatic effect? If so, it is a complete failure and only shows how desperate and farfetched the Shia theories are. Indeed, this was not the work of the Israeli Mossad or the American CIA, but rather it was only one singular man who had witnessed what was happening at Saqifah, saw that the Ansars were ready to declare war on the Muhajirs, and then quickly went to the Prophets house to warn of this danger. And at the Prophets Mosque, this man saw Umar ( ) and so informed him of what was happening. Unfortunately, reality is more mundane than the Shia sensationalists imply: a man informed Umar ( ) , that is all. Nothing more sensational than that.
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Umar learns that the Ansar have gathered inside the Saqifa he calls Hadhrath Abu Bakr and the both set off

in the direction of the meeting. The information is kept hidden from all the other companions. In this day and age one regularly learns of public outcrys when information is hidden from the public information which is in the public interest, which they might want I say it could for example be on an issue which concerns there future well being of the countrys citizens. Now the question one must ask here is Was the issue of a secret meeting which could lead to civil strife not in the public interest? Did the companions not have a right to know about it? What right did Hadhrath Umar have to keep the matter a secret? If the meeting was so crucial why could other prominent companions not also have been told invited to attend? Why was this information so top secret?

Once again, Answering-Ansar has resorted to using Mission Impossible words, such as top secret. We wonder how any unbiased person can take Shia history seriously, as it is all based on a giant conspiracy theory. In any case, what exactly was top secret? Was there any evidence at all that Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) hid the information from anyone? All that happened was that they decided to rush towards Saqifah in order to diffuse the problem. There is no evidence that they were hiding this information. In fact, we find that on the way Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) met Abu Ubaidah ( , ) and they told Abu Ubaidah ( ) about the situation quite openly. Furthermore, they met two Ansars on the way, and the Shaikhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) even informed them about their intentions of going to Saqifah. So quite contrary to what Answering-Ansar is saying, there is no top secret and the Shaikhayn openly told people they met what was going on. However, they were in a rush to go to Saqifah and therefore they did not have the time to round up the troops. Having said all that, we must correct Answering-Ansar on another point, simply for the sake that they are saying ridicolous things that cannot go un-corrected. Answering-Ansar asks Was the issue of a secret meeting which could lead to civil strife not in the public interest? We are very sorry to burst Answering-Ansars

bubble, but in such a situation any capable leader would in fact deem it in the national interest to keep such information surpressed from the public. If the news were to become disseminated that the Ansars were ready to enforce their Caliph over everyone else (even through the force of arms), this would have resulted in civil disorder, mass chaos, and public pandemonium. Angry people from other tribes would get up in arms and march out to fight the Ansars so that their own Caliph could be instated. It is in fact a very fortuitous thing that Abu Bakr ( ) went with only two Companions instead of a whole pack of Muhajirs. Had he done the latter, it is likely that the Ansars would feel threatened and things would easily have gone to blows. The Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) were in fact an envoy of peace whose sole purpose was to prevent the Ansars from angering the masses. Indeed, whilst on the way to Saqifah, these three Muhajirs did in fact meet an Ansar who told them to go back to their own people and declare their own Caliph. Abu Bakr ( ) instead chose to be very political in this very precarious situation and diffuse the situation in a carefulas opposed to recklessmanner. In any case, this is all a non-issue because Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had no time to gather the Muhajirs as the Ansars were only moments away from declaring their own Caliph; the Shaikhayn therefore could afford no waste of time (i.e. they could not take out the time to round up the Muhajirs) and instead rushed to Saqifah posthaste.
Answering-Ansar says

The venue

One would have expected the forum for debating the issue of succession would be a grand one, but the reality is it took place at a place where Arabs would meet to scheme evil activities. 1 Ghiyathul lughat, by Ghiyathd-Din, p 228 by Muhammad ibn Jalaladeen Rampuri Ghiyathudin (Nawal Kishor Press, Lucknow, 1867) Why should an issue of such primary importance be discussed in a place such as this? Would you consider this to be an appropriate to discuss the selection of any post let alone that of the Prophet (saaws)s successor? Why this small secret venue? Would a better venue not had been the Prophet (saaws)s Mosque - where all could attend and speak freely upon the matter? Why did the three Muhajireen not raise this option? They raise no objection to the venue and the issue is thawed out between the two parties.

The Ghiyathul lughat by Ghiyathd-Din? What on earth is that? What kind of obscure and unheard of text are the Shia propagandists trying to pass off as an authoratative Sunni text when we have never heard of it? In fact, based on the name, this text is likely a dictionary of some sort. In any case, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) were not the ones to choose the venue. As has been discussed thoroughly, it was the Ansars who assembled at Saqifah and the three Muhajirs were forced to go there in order to stop them from nominating their own Caliph. The Ansars were the cause of the gathering. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) were forced to proceed to Saqifah in order to prevent a civil war. The election of Abu Bakr ( ) was something un-premeditated and purely spontaneous. To this effect, Umar ( ) said:

The pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an un-premeditated spontaneous affair which was (then only later) ratified. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) When Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ,) and Abu Ubaidah ( ) arrived at Saqifah, they came to know of the resolve of the Ansars (i.e. in seeking to nominate their own man to Caliphate); and so these three Muhajirs attempted to persuade the Ansars to change their minds. The Ansars waivered and the Muhajirs jumped on this opportunity to resolve the conflict. Some people might ask: why didnt the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah ( ) suggest delaying the nomination of the Caliph until all of the Muhajirs (such as Ali) could be summoned? Umar ( ) himself 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 (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817) In a slightly different version, Umar ( ) explained:

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 Prophets 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) Abu Bakr ( ) would later say to Ali ( ):

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? (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.276)
Answering-Ansar says

The Parties

Those debating at Saqifa were the Ansar (vast bulk of the tribe) and what historians have incorrectly quoted the Muhajireen.

We dont know what Answering-Ansar is saying here due to their poor writing abilities. What they wrote above is not a sentence. We would respond if we knew what they meant to say.

Answering-Ansar says

The Sunni group Idara Ishaat e diniyat (P) Ltd. undoubtedly fully aware of the true facts seek to convince their

readership that a free and frank debate involving all the companions occurred, they write:

After the demise of Rasulullah Sallallahu alahi wa sallam all the prominent Sahaba Radhialllahu anhum gathered at a place called the Saqifa Bani Saad. Aqaaidul Islam, by Idara Ishaat e diniyat, English translation by Moulana Zahier Ahmad Ragie, published by Idara Ishaat e diniyat, page 127

This is just a poor translation. It should read: After the demise of Rasool-Allah ( ,)all the prominent Sahabah (from the Ansar) gathered at a place called Saqifah This is evident from the very next sentence in which the author says: Among them were also those Sahabah whom Rasool-Allah had given the glad tidings of Paradise in this world. The author would not have used the word also if he had truly meant to imply that all of the Sahabah were present at Saqifah; such an implication would obviate the need to use the term also.
Answering-Ansar says

What one should ask this group is why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at

Saqifa? Were men such as Hadhrath Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Hadhrath Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sad bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?

We have already repeatedly responded to this accusation. The Ansars were just about to finalize the nomination of their own Caliph; Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had to rush towards Saqifah before this could happen. There was, therefore, no time to round up the Muhajirs. In reality, the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) took along with him only two people is a strong evidence that Abu Bakr ( ) had no intention of taking the Caliphate for himself, because if this had been the case, then he surely would have taken along with him more of his own supporters. It should be noted that Umar ( ) mentioned in detail during his Caliphate that Abu Bakr ( ) went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansars against taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr ( ) left for Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been the case, then surely Abu Bakr ( ) would have brought along more than two of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldnt Abu Bakr ( ) have brought with him a

whole mass of his supporters and friends? Instead, he went with only two Companions to a large group of the Ansars. At Saqifah, there were thus only three Muhajirs who were far outnumbered by the Ansars. This would be a less than ideal situation for a Muhajir like Abu Bakr ( :) Abu Bakr ( ) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) had a whole gathering of Ansars to back him! Common sense dictates that if Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) of 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 (,) Khalid bin Waleed ( ,) Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan ( ,) etc? If this was a coup dtat as the Shia claim, then it had to be the worst planned operation ever in the history of humanity. The Ansars were the great majority at Saqifah and they were ready to pledge Bayaah to one of their own men; if Abu Bakr ( ) wanted to further his own claim to the Caliphate, he should have brought enough of his supporters to overwhelm the Ansars. Instead, he came with only two Companions. Indeed, it was not a grab for power at all, but rather Abu Bakr ( ,) Umar ( ) hadiabU ubA dna ,( ) set out only to counsel the Ansars, hoping that their veteran status would straighten out the Ansars. The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali ( ) was 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) didnt find the need to bring along Ali () or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matterbecause they had no idea whatsoever that an election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansars from electing their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansars announced themselves the leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader, and fall into civil war.
Answering-Ansar says

Arguments based on tribal affiliation

At Saqifa the central argument advanced by both sides was over tribal superiority. The entire event consisted of arguments over which side was better. The Saqifa managed to re-ignite the differences that The Holy Prophet (saaws) had throughout his mission sought to eliminate. He had declared that both tribes were brothers, it was a far cry from the famous sermon during the Final Pilgrimage when the Prophet (saaws) said all are equal in Allah (swt)s eyes and that the closest to Allah (swt) are those who are pious. This sermon had been completely erased at Saqifa tribal rivalries that during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws) had been subdued were rekindled. A them and us attitude was quite evident if one analyses the speeches given.

The us vs them debate at Saqifah was between the Ansars on the one hand and the Muhajirs on the other hand. Neither the Ansars nor the Muhajirs were a tribe and therefore it is incorrect to say that this was a debate about tribal rivalries or Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). The Ansars were made up of the Aws and the Khazraj, who have historically been warring tribes; in fact, before the advent of Islam, the Aws and the Khazraj

had been locked into a hundred year long Hatfield and McCoy feud. So how then can the Shia refer to the Ansars as a tribal unit? The term Ansars (Helpers) therefore did not at all refer to a specific tribal group but rather it was a term bestowed upon those who helped the Muhajirs. As for the Muhajirs, they were a small segment of the Quraish who were historically in opposition to the rest of the Quraish. The Muhajirs (Emigrants) were a group not defined by their tribal affiliation but rather on the merit of having been of those who emigrated in the Cause of Allah. These were two groups defined not by their lineage but rather by their merits and deeds; therefore, the question arose as to whether the leadership should fall to those who emigrated in the Path of Allah or those who helped them. The spirit of Islam is that people should be awarded based upon their merits and accomplishments, not because of their lineage or family. The three Muhajirs were arguing for the Caliphate based upon their merits, accomplishments, and service for Islam. Abu Bakr ( ) argues: (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 arguments Abu Bakr ( ) made on his own behalf were all about good deeds, merits, and accomplishments; therefore, we cannot accuse him of Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). Abu Bakr ( ) 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 in relation to the other tribes) 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 distinctionbetween religious and socio-political reasonsis important to understand. Abu Bakr ( ) was not saying that he himself viewed the Ansars as inferior because of their tribal affiliations. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) acknowledged the greatness and accomplishments of the Ansars. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) only reminded the Ansars that whereas they themselves acknowledged the greatness of the Ansars, this was not true for the masses of Arabia. Again, this was not the view of the Shaikhayn but rather the very real public opinion of the various tribes of Arabia. The Shia propagandists may accuse Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) of inventing this excuse and using the public opinion as a guise for their own selfish interests; however, unfortunately for them, it was the Prophet ( )himself who voiced these concerns and the Shaikhayn were simply repeating what the Prophet ( )had said. The Prophet ( )had said: After me, the political authority shall be transferred to the Quraish. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183) The Prophet ( )clearly 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, Kitabul-Imarah) Abu Bakr ( ) said:

(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religionbut the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraishwe (the Quraish) are in the center among the Muslims with respect to our position (The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193) Likewise, we read: He (Abu Bakr) said: All the good that you have said about yourselves (O Ansars) 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) Notice that Abu Bakr ( ) himself acknowledged the greatness of the Ansars, but he was merely pointing out that the Arab masses did not feel the same way. Likewise, did Umar ( ) say that the rest of Arabia would never accept a non-Quraish (leader). It was not the Shaikhayns own viewpoint, but rather it was the view of the various tribes that had only recently come into the folds of Islam after the Quraish of Mecca had converted to Islam en masse. Before the Islamic era, these tribes had looked to the Quraish as their leaders and they would not accept it if anyone imposed some other leadership on them. We have discussed this issue in depth in our article: Saqifah: A Sunni View. 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 Prophets death, therefore the Prophet ( )said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism). In any case, the Shia are the last ones who have the right to criticize anyone of Assabiyyah. The entire argument of the Shia is based upon the idea that the leadership of Islam must remain in one particular lineage (i.e. the Banu Hashim); they reject Abu Bakr ( ) based on the fact that he was born of the wrong family, an argument based in Assabiyyah. The Shia say that Nahjul Balagha contains the letters and sermons of Ali ( ) ; of course, the Sunnis know that many of these letters and sermons are fabrications. Nonetheless, let us read what the Shia consider to be authentic. We read: Your ancestor, Ummayya was not equal to our ancestor, the famous Hashim, neither Harb, another ancestor of yours, was equal to our Abdul MuttalibWhat is more, no freed-slave can be considered equal to a Muhajir and one coming from a doubtful lineage cannot claim to be equal to those who come from the noble parentage (Nahjul Balagha, Letter 17, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm) What could be more biggotted than this Shia saying, namely that a freed-slave cannot be considered equal to a Muhajir or that one coming from a doubtful lineage cannot claim to be equal to those who come from a noble one? Is this not the essence of Assabiyyah? Compare this to the Sunnis who have a saying that even an Abyssinian slave can be the Caliph; the Prophet ( )said in a Sunni Hadith: I admonish you to fear Allah, to listen and obey (your leader) even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as your leader.

(Sunan Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi) Such is the bigotry in the Shia faith, in which leadership and Caliphate can only go to those of the right lineage and not to those of lowly descent. The Shia propagandists attempt to justify this by saying that the Sunnis also say that the leadership must remain within the Quraish. However, this is obfuscation of the truth: the strongest viewpoint amongst the Sunnisthat held by Shaikh Al-Sunnahis that the requirement is simply that the leader must come from the majority group, which in this case was of course the Quraish. The reason that the Prophet ( )acknowledged that the leadership should remain within the Quraish was because he respected 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 Prophets death, this was the Quraish of Mecca and not the Ansars (i.e. Aws and Khazraj) of Medinah. It should be noted that the Prophet ( )was 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 Bayaah to him; if the masses do not pledge their Bayaah to a person, then he cannot be Caliph over them as that would be tyranny. To conclude the matter, the leadership remained with the Quraish due to the principle of popular sovereignity and self-determination. The Prophet ( ) was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and in fact, the Prophet ( )warned against such Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet ( ) was merely saying that the Quraish were fit to be the rulers because they commanded the support of the masses of Arabia. On the other hand, the Shia argument is that the Prophet ( )created a dynastic rulership in which he imposed his own family upon the masses. This is tyranny and oppression. Notice the difference between what the Sunnis say (i.e. the Prophet wanted that group to rule which had the most popular base of support) and what the Shia say (i.e. the Prophets family should be imposed upon the masses despite the fact that 33,000 Sahabah did not want this). What the Sunnis say is based upon the principles of self-determination and popular sovereignity, whereas what the Shia say is based upon tyranny and Assabiyyah (bigotry/discrimination). There is a world of difference between allowing the majority to have their way on the one hand, and imposing ones own family on the unwilling masses on the other hand.

Response to Chapter 4 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Rebuttal to Chapter 4 Entitled The issues raised at the Saqifa

Here, Answering-Ansar make very absurd arguments whereby they somehow differentiate the Muhajirs from Ali ibn Abi Talib ( . ) Answering-Ansar has compared the Muhajirs to Ali ( ) and Banu Hashim. This is an invalid comparison because Ali ( ) and the Banu Hashim were in fact Muhajirs themselves! It is like comparing an orange with a fruit, and claiming that the orange is better than a fruit. Well, an orange is a fruit. Answering-Ansar repeatedly says that the arguments Abu Bakr ( ) made about the Muhajirs apply to Ali ( ) as well; to this, we can only reply: thank you very much, Captain Obvious. Ali ( ) himself was a Muhajir so of course the arguments made by Abu Bakr ( ) would also apply to Ali ( ! ) Answering-Ansar says

The issues raised at the Saqifa

Both sides advanced arguments based on their tribal links to the Prophet (saaws),

Not at all. The bulk of the arguments made by the Ansars and the Muhajirs were based upon their respective good deeds, merits, and service for Islam. Answering-Ansar says

the three Muhajireen won the day advancing the following arguments as proof of khilafat:

1. The Muhajireen being a tribe of the Quraysh were the Prophet (saaws)s close family 2. The Muhajireen were the first to worship Allah (swt) 3. No one had experienced greater trials and tribulations that the Muhajireen 4. Failure to follow the Muhajireen is tantamount to going astray

There were more than these four arguments made. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the strongest argument made by Abu Bakr ( ) and the one that the Ansar finally assented towas when Abu Bakr ( ) reminded the Ansars of the Prophets own words that the leadership should remain with the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs). And the argument which won the day for Abu Bakr ( ) was that put forth by Umar ( , ) namely that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was chosen to lead the prayers in the Prophets sickness. This fact was actually the basis for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( . ) Answering-Ansar says

The Muhajireen being a tribe of the Quraysh were his close family

The argument was that relationship to the Prophet (saaws) meant that khilafat was their right. In terms of closeness there was no tribe more closely related to the Prophet (saaws) than Bani Muttalib. They were the blood descendants of the Prophet (saaws), when the verse And warn your tribe of near kindred (The Quran 26: 214) inviting the Prophet (saaws)s close relatives to embrace Islam. Banu Muttalib were invited not the tribes of Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar or Abu Ubaydah. Hadhrath Abu Bakr seemed to suggest that the Quraysh had a right to succession, they were related to the Holy Prophet (saaws) and had hence inherited that right. Islamic Law does not stipulate inheritance for the distant relatives, it refers to the close / blood relatives. If the Quraysh were entitled to inherit on grounds of their distant relationship to the Holy Prophet (saaws) did Hadhrath Ali (as) not have a greater right?

Abu Bakr ( ) did not at all seem to suggest that the close relatives inherit the leadership. Do the Shia forget that Abu Bakr ( ) was the one who said that the Prophets do not leave behind inheritance? Therefore, Answering-Ansar is merely putting words into the mouth of Abu Bakr ( . ) He never put forward the claim that they inherited the leadership. Rather, Abu Bakr ( ) said: they (Muhajirs) were the first who worshipped Allah on the earth andthey are his friends and kinsmen (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.5) Answering-Ansar seems to have forgotten the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) had argued that the Muhajirs were family and friends of the Prophet ( ,)meaning that they were in a position of closeness to the Prophet ( )before the Ansars were. Abu Bakr ( ) was arguing that the Muhajirs were close to the Prophet ( )before the Ansars were. If we look at it on this basis, then Abu Bakr ( ) would be superior in this aspect as compared to Ali ( ) . Abu Bakrs friendship preceded Alis by many years due to the fact that Ali ( ) was born much afterwards. No man was closer in love to the Prophet ( )than Abu Bakr ( . ) We read in the following Hadith narrated by Amr ibn al-Aas ( : ) 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) Answering-Ansar says

Furthermore in terms of closeness no one was closer to the Prophet (saaws) than Imam Ali (as) as he was his

first cousin, the Prophet (saaws) had declared him to be his brother, the husband of his daughter and the father of his grand children.

This is not correct at all. In fact, the closest living relative of the Prophet ( )at that time had to be Abbas ( , ) not Ali ( . ) Abbas ( ) was the Prophets uncle, a closer relationship than being a cousin. Abbas ( ) was the Prophets fathers brother, whereas Ali (

 ) was the Prophets fathers brothers son. In other words, Abbas ( ) was closer to the Prophet ( )by one link. The Shia argument is that the leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Ali ( ) due to the fact that Ali ( ) was the closest in blood relationship to the Prophet ( .)But in fact, Abbas ( ) was closer to the Prophet ( ) by blood, and thereforeby the Shia logicthe leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Abbas ( . ) And yet, we see that our Shia brothers despise the Abbasid Empire which was Sunni! Being the rabble-rousers they are, the Shia supported the Abbasid revolution against the Umayyads, but as soon as the Abassids actually came to power, then the Shia rebelled against them. In 786, the Shia organized a revolt against the Abbasids; such is the hatred the Shia have for the lineage of Abbas ( . ) Why should the Shia necessitate us to follow the lineage of Ali ( ) when they themselves reject and repudiate the lineage of Abbas ( ) ? In other words, if the Shia are to use the claim that the leadership should have gone to Ali ( ) for his closeness to the Prophet ( ,)then the Sunnis have a greater claim for the leadership based on the even closer relationship of Abbas ( ) to the Prophet ( .)If the Shia claim that Ali ( ) was closer because the Prophet ( )referred to him as his brother, then the Sunnis have a greater claim because the Prophet ( )referred to Abbas ( ) as his father. The Prophet ( )said in one Hadith: Abbas is the uncle of the Prophet of Allah and an uncle is equal in status to the father. Fatherhood is a closer position than brotherhood. On this same basis, Abu Bakr ( ) was father-in-law of the Prophet ( .)If Ali ( ) was to be granted the right of Caliphate based on him being the son-in-law, then shouldnt Abu Bakr ( ) have a greater right based on being the Prophets father-in-law? And what about Uthman bin Affan ( , ) who was given two of the Prophets daughters; based on the Shia logic, should not Uthman ( )be twice as entitled to the Caliphate as Ali ( ) ? Abu Lahab was actually closer in blood relationship to the Prophet ( )than Ali ( ) was, so should we also argue then that Abu Lahab had a right to the Caliphate? The Shia point to the fact that it was Ali ( ) who the Prophet ( )referred to as his brother, but the Prophet ( )likewise referred to Abu Bakr ( ) as his brother. The Prophet ( ) said to Abu Bakr ( : ) You are my brother in Allahs religion and His Book (Sahih Bukhari, Vol.7, Book 62, No.18) For the record, it is unethical to claim that the leadership should stay within the Prophets family. This was not at all what Abu Bakr ( ) was claiming in his argument; rather, what he was saying was that the Muhajirs were the family and friends of the Prophet ( )before anyone else was as they were the first to believe in him. It seems that the Shia propagandists are purposefully twisting and taking out of context Abu Bakrs arguments. In other words, the Muhajirs were close in love and affiliation to the Prophet ( .) Answering-Ansar says

The Muhajireen were the first to worship Allah (swt)

Again this is an incorrect argument. The Muhajireen are advancing that they were the first to embrace Islam at the hands of the Prophet (saaws) and hence worship Allah (swt). If worshipping Allah (swt) is the criterion of

succession then again Ali (as) wins on this count. If there is any doubt on this point then listen to the words of Ali (as) as contained in Tabari: I am the servant of God and the brother of his Messenger, and I am the most righteous one (al siddiq al-akbar). No one other than I can say this but a liar and an inventor of falsehoods, I performed prayer with the Messenger of God seven years before other men. The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 p 81 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W. Montgommery & M.V McDonald

Salah became mandatory on the Muslim masses after the ascension of Meraj, around seven years after the Prophet declared his apostleship. Therefore, what was meant by Ali ( ) was simply that he prayed before other mennot all other men. In other words, this does not mean that no single other Muslim prayed during that seven year period, but only that Salah had not yet become mandatory on the masses. AnsweringAnsar is trying imply that Ali ( ) was not only the first male to convert to Islam but that nobody else did that for another seven years. Surely, this is a bizarre implication that not even the staunchest Shia can accept; would they, for example, have us believe that Ammar ibn Yasir ( ) did not pray for seven years after he accepted Islam? Although Ali ( ) was the first youth to convert to Islam, the most reliable opinion is that Abu Bakr ( ) was the first male convert to Islam; in other words, Abu Bakrs conversion to Islam preceded that of Alis. In fact, we read in the following narration by Zaid ibn Arqam ( : ) The first to accept Islam with the Messenger of Allah was Ali ibn Abi Talib. I mentioned this to al-Nakhai and he denied it, saying: Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.81) Ibn Abbas ( , ) the Prophets cousin, stated that the first to accept Islam was Abu Bakr ( . ) This has been narrated by multiple Isnads in al-Tabari. And there were many others who said the same. We read: Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.85) In The History of al-Tabari, we find that Ibn Ishaq relied on a narration by Ibn Humayd; but this narration is invalid because Ibn Humayd was not reliable. Ibn Humayd has been labelled by the Muhadditheen as an outright liar and shameless forger. Imam Dhahabi and Shaikh al-Islam have declared him to be weak. We read: I have never seen a natural liar, except for two persons: Sulayman ash-Shadhakuni and Muhammad ibn Humayd. (Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol.25, p.105) The strongest opinion is that Abu Bakr ( ) was the first male convert to Islam. Therefore, the Shia argument is invalid; if we were to claim that the Caliphate must go to the one who converted first to Islam, then

definitely Abu Bakr ( ) was the most deserving. It is agreed by all that Abu Bakr ( ) was the first man of sound and mature mind to accept Islam after the Prophet ( ). At the time of his conversion, Ali ( ) was a child whereas Abu Bakr ( ) was an adult. Additionally, Abu Bakr ( ) is credited with being the only one who did not hesitate before converting. Having stated that, the Shia propagandists have adopted a very simplistic approach to things. Leadership is not simply doled out to those who converted first. If that is the case, even if we accept the less strong view that Abu Bakr ( ) was the second or third male convert to Islam, then should we argue that after Ali ( ) , the person with the most right to the Caliphate was Zaid bin Haritha ( ) and Abu Bakr ( ) as opposed to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ? ) The Shia claim that after Ali ( ) it was Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) who had the most right to the Caliphate; yet, there were many other Sahabah alive then who came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) were even born. Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf ( ) was the fourth or fifth male convert to Islam. Should he not thenbased on the Shia logichave had a right to the Caliphate over and above that of Hasan ( ? ) And yet, the Shia scorn Abdur-Rahman ( ) referring to him as a Nasibi! And what about Muawiyyah ( , ) who was born much before Hasan ( ) ? Why then do the Shia claim that Muawiyyah ( ) usurped the right of Hasan ( ) when in fact Muawiyyah ( ) came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan ( ) was even born? In any case, the bottom line point is that if the Shia are trying to imply that the leadership must go to Ali ( ) because he was the first male convert to Islam, then the Shia abandon their claims that Hasan ( ) must be the second Caliph due to the fact that there were many Sahabah who preceded Hasan ( ) in their conversion to Islam. In other words, this sort of logic would nullify the Shia claim that the succession of the Prophet ( )follows the line of their twelve Imams. Once again, Abu Bakr ( ) was making a general comment about the Muhajirs as a whole. That is why he put forward Umar ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( ) as candidates for the Caliphate as opposed to himself. If Abu Bakrs words meant what the Shia imply, then surely it would have been non-sensical for Abu Bakr ( ) to put forward Umar ( ) who had converted to Islam much after many of the Muslims. Based on this fact, we can see that Abu Bakrs words are being twisted by the Shia propagandists who do not care to reflect on what Abu Bakr ( ) truly meant, which was simply that the Muhajirs including Ali ( ) were a group that preceded the Ansars in their service to Islam. It was not simply that they converted to Islam first, but rather that their earlier conversion allowed them to accrue more good deeds in the service of Islam; in other words, the Muhajirs were superior to the Ansars because they (the Muhajirs) had done more for Islam over a longer period of time. Therefore, even if we assume that Ali ( ) converted to Islam a few days before Abu Bakr ( , ) this does not mean that Ali ( ) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam than Abu Bakr ( , ) and we come to this conclusion based upon the insignificance of one or two days. Had Ali ( ) preceded Abu Bakr ( ) in Islam by years and years, then this would make more sense to say that Ali ( ) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam, but how can we say this when it could only be a few more days at most? In any case, the strongest position is that Abu Bakr ( ) preceded Ali ( ) in the faith, and this is therefore a non-issue even by Shia logic. Answering-Ansar says

The Muhajireen had to suffer persecution and alienation before anyone else

This is also an incorrect assertion. No one suffered greater trials and tribulations than the Banu Hashim. In terms of trials none is a greater test than jihad on the battlefield and Hadhrath Ali (as)s unremitting bravery in all battles cannot be surpassed.

How in the world is it an incorrect assertion? It is here that it becomes painfully obvious that Answering-Ansar has no idea of the very basics of Islam. Ali ( ) was himself a Muhajir! Therefore, how can AnsweringAnsar claim that it is an incorrect assumption that the Muhajirs suffered the most trials and tribulations, and in the very same breath say that Ali ( ) was the one who did? This is complete nonsense: Ali ( ) was a Muhajir, and helike the rest of the Muhajirssuffered a great deal for the Cause of Allah. Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Ali (as)s unremitting bravery in all battles cannot be surpassed.

Not according to Ali ( ) himself! We read: Ali replied and said again: Tell me the name of the most valiant person. We dont know, all of them replied. Abu Bakr is the most valiant, Ali replied, and added: On the day of Badr, we had erected a hut for the Messenger of Allah. We then asked each other as to who will accompany the Prophet to save him from the onslaught of the Mushrikeen. By Allah, none of us had the courage to offer his services. But Abu Bakr stood alone drawing his sword and (he) allowed no one to draw near the Prophet; and whoever attempted an attack on the Prophet, (he) came under the charge of Abu Bakr. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.268) Answering-Ansar says

We acknowledge that the Muhajireen experienced trials with the Prophet (saaws) but none suffered as much

persecution than the tribe of Banu Hashim, it was this tribe, which had experienced greater trials and tribulations

Once again, we remind Answering-Ansar that Banu Hashim such as Ali ( ) were Muhajirs! In any case, Banu Hashim was not at all the group that suffered the most during the Meccan period, namely because they were protected by the patronage of Abu Talib. We shall discuss this below. Answering-Ansar says

At the beginning of the Holy Prophet (saaws)s mission the Quraysh conspired to place pressure on his

family, this is what we find in Tabari: the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Kabah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, The Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but Abu Lahab Abd al Uzza b. Abd alMuttalib left the Banu Hashim and went to the Quraysh supporting them against Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them. The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 p 106 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W. Montgommery & M.V McDonald Is there a greater trial than a complete ostracization that left the Prophet (saaws) and his family to the mercy of the Quraysh, where they had to experience famine? None of the Muhajireen suffered like this. Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar had embraced Islam but they were not punished in any way; the boycott did not effect them, they could go about their daily business, the untold sufferings lay squarely on the Prophet (saaws)s relatives the tribes of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is well-known that the Prophets relatives (namely Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib) were largely insulated from the brunt of the persecution, due to the patronage of Abu Talib. We read: When the Apostle saw the affliction of his Sahabah and that though he escaped it because of his standing with Allah and his uncle Abu Talib, [and] he (the Prophet) could not protect them, he (the Prophet) said to them: If you were to go to Abyssinia (it would be better for you) This was the first Hijra in Islam. The first of the Muslims to go were (among) Banu Umayyah: Uthman bin Affan with his wife Ruqayyah, the daughter of the Apostle (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.146) Elsewhere, we read: His (the Prophets) uncle (Abu Talib)and the rest of Banu Hashimgathered round him and protected him from the attacks of the Quraish (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.161) As even a novice Islamic historian knows, the brunt of the persecution was against those lower class Muslims who had no tribal protection. Ali ( ) was from the higher class and was fortunate enough to have the protection of his father, Abu Talib, who was one of the leaders of the Quraish. Because of this patronage, the Quraish infidels were not able to persecute Ali ( ) in the same vicious manner that they did to those

Muslims of the lower class who had no tribal protection. On the other hand, Abu Bakr ( ) was left with no such patronage. Abu Bakr ( ) was one of the unfortunates who was persecuted so much that he had to flee to Abyssinia; on the way there, however, Ibn al-Dughunnathe leader of the Ahabishoffered to protect Abu Bakr ( . ) In other words, Ibn al-Dughunna became Abu Bakrs patron just as Abu Talib was Alis patron. However, some of the Quraish complained to Ibn al-Dughunna about how Abu Bakr ( ) was preaching the faith to the young, the weak, and the slaves. Ibn al-Dughunna told Abu Bakr ( ) that if he wanted to be protected, he would have to refrain from preaching the faith. Abu Bakr ( ) refused and Ibn al-Dughunna withdrew his patronage of Abu Bakr ( . ) Ibn al-Dughunnas abandonment left Abu Bakr ( ) without a patron, and open to the persecution of the Quraish. We read: When the situation in Mecca became serious and the Apostle and his Sahabah suffered ill-treatment from the Quraish, Abu Bakr asked the Apostles permission to emigrate (to Abyssinia), and he (the Prophet) agreed. So Abu Bakr set forth and when he had gone a day or twos journey from Mecca, he fell in with Ibn alDughunnawho was at the time the head of the Ahabish. Replying to Ibn al-Dughunnas inquiries, Abu Bakr told him that his people had driven him out and ill-treated him. But why? he (Ibn al-Dughunna) exclaimed, when you are an ornament of the tribe, a standby in misfortune, always ready in supplying the wants of others? Come back with me under my protection. So he (Abu Bakr) went back with him and Ibn al-Dughunna publically proclaimed that he had taken him (Abu Bakr) under his protection and none must treat him other than well. Some men of the Quraish went to Ibn al-Dughunna saying: Have you given this fellow protection so that he can injure us? Lo, he prays and reads what Muhammad has producedwe fear he may seduce our youths and women and weak ones. Go to him and tell him to go to his own house and do what he likes there (i.e. to stop preaching to others). So Ibn al-Dughunna went to him (Abu Bakr) and said: I did not give you protection so that you might injure your people. They dislike the place you have chosen (to pray and read Quran), and they suffer therefrom, so go into your house and do what you like there. Abu Bakr asked him if he wanted him to renounce his protection and when he (Ibn al-Dughunna) said that he did, he (Abu Bakr) gave him back his gaurantee (i.e. absolved Ibn al-Dughunna of all responsibility). Ibn al-Dughunna got up and told the Quraish that Abu Bakr was no longer under his protection and that they could do what they liked with himas Abu Bakr was going to the Kaabah, one of the loutish fellows of the Quraish met him (Abu Bakr) and threw dust on his head. (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.171) Because of this, Abu Bakr ( ) suffered more directly than did Ali ( ) who was fortunate enough to have the protection and patronage of Abu Talib. Furthermore, if we read Ibn Ishaqs Seerahor any Seerah, for that matterwe find that the worst to be persecuted were the slaves who converted to Islam, including Bilal ( . ) And it was Abu Bakr ( ) who suffered along with these early slave converts, and it was he who spent from his own wealth to buy them their freedom. We read: The Mushrikeen persecuted the Muslims of the lower class(the Mushrikeen) attacked them, imprisoning them, and beating them, allowing them no food or drink, and exposing them to the burning heat of MeccaBilal, who was afterwards freed by Abu Bakr but at that time belonged to one of B. Jumah, being slave born, was a faithful MuslimBilal being the seventh (emancipated by Abu Bakr) (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, pp.143-144) And after the slaves, there were others who were free but had no tribal protection or were weak that suffered the most. These were the Muslims who were eventually forced to flee to Abyssinia. Answering-Ansar has quoted a narration in al-Tabari, but only half of it! If we read the first half of that very same narration, we can clearly see why Answering-Ansar deceitfully avoided reproducing that. We read:

When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia had settled down in the land of the Negus and were living in security, Quraysh conferred together about taking some action against those Muslims who had taken refuge there Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a staunch, sturdy, and mighty warrior, had accepted Islam, as had Hamzah b. `Abd. al-Muttalib before him, and the Messenger of Gods Companions began to feel stronger. Islam had begun to spread among the clans, and the Negus had given protection to those Muslims who had taken refuge in his country. When all of these things happened, the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.105) There are therefore two key points here: firstly, those Muslims who were suffering the most were forced to flee to Abyssinia; included in this group that made Hijra to Abyssinia were Uthman bin Affan ( ) and his wife. If the Shia claim that Ali ( ) had a right to the Caliphate based upon the trials and tribulations he faced, then why should the Shia take issue with Uthman ( ) being the third Caliph before Ali ( ) when it is well-known that Uthman ( ) suffered more during those times? Truly, the Shia logic is faulty and full of holes. There were members of Banu Umayyahthe same Banu Umayyah hated by the Shiawho were forced to emigrate to Abyssinia for fear of their lives as their families had turned them out, unlike those of Banu Hashim who were protected by their family, namely Abu Talib. The Shia propagandists oftentimes denounce the Umayyads based on the fact that there were people from amongst the Umayyads who fought Islam in the early days even up until the fall of Mecca. And yet, this is a hasty conclusion: we see that there were many Umayyads, like Uthman ( , ) who converted to Islam in the early days and who were turned out by their families and clan just like the Prophet ( )would be turned out from his tribe, the Quraish. To condemn Banu Umayyah based on the Shia logic would be equivalent to condemning all of the Quraish; it should be remembered that despite the fact that the Quraish leaders were the staunchest enemies of Islam, Prophet Muhammad ( ) himself was Quraishi! The second key point is that in the same narration quoted by Answering-Ansar, we read that Umar ibn alKhattab, who was a staunch, sturdy, and mighty warrior, had accepted Islam which resulted in (the) Companions began to feel stronger and Islam had begun to spread among the clans. And it was because of this that the Quraish leaders decided to boycott the Prophets family. Such was Umars great service for Islam that the Quraish were left in a state of great panic. We read: Social Boycott Umars coming to the fold of Islam plunged the Meccan disbelievers into profound grief. The believers began to perform their prayers openly at the Kaabah, while a substantial number of the converts had been in peace in Abyssinia. The Quraish were rendered helpless and they had no way within their power to ward off the lurking menace. Now they went into fresh consultations and discussed ways and means to combat the challenge. They came up with a plan to see Abu Talib and ask him to hand over his nephew to them. In case of his refusal, they decided to impose a complete social and material boycott on Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-Muttalib (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.120) How cleverly has Answering-Ansar failed to mention that the boycott was a direct result of Umars strength that he bestowed upon the fledgling Muslim Ummah. Furthermore, the boycott of Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-

Muttalib was enacted for the very reason that the Quraish could not use the same intensity of persecution against these two clans due to the protection of Abu Talib. To give a modern day analogy, America has placed economic sanctions on North Korea for having WMDs, but meanwhile they directly attacked Iraq for the same thing; would anyone in his right mind argue that the boycott of North Korea is worse than the American rape of Iraq? The Americans placed the boycott on North Korea because they cannot militarily deal with North Korea, or rather, are too fearful to do that. Likewise, the boycott on Banu Hashim was due to the fact that the Quraish were too fearful of Abu Talibs standing to directly harm Banu Hashim. In any case, the boycott failed and lasted only three years, after which it was anulled. Therefore, the boycott cannot at all be compared to the direct methods of torture against the weaker Muslims, who were forced to flee to Abyssinia. Abu Bakr ( ) was amongst those who head out towards Abyssinia which is proof that he was from amongst those who suffered the most. And due to the incident with Ibn Dughunna, he neither found refuge in Abyssinia nor a patron in Mecca. In this manner, Abu Bakr ( ) suffered even more than those who found refuge in Abyssinia! Answering-Ansar says

Failure to follow the Muhajireen is tantamount to going astray and apostasy

We can find no argument either from the Quran or the Sunnah that failure to follow the Muhajireen leads to a person going astray.

No argument from the Quran or the Sunnah? How about multiple Hadith? The Prophet ( said: ) Our political authority shall remain with the Quraish. In this matter, whoever opposes them as long as they follow Islam, Allah shall cast him face down in Hell. (Bukhari: Kitabul-Ahkam) The Prophet ( )had told the Ansar:

In this matter (i.e. of leadership), bring forward the Quraish and do not try to supersede them. (Talkhisul-Hubayr, vol.2, p. 26) The Prophet ( )said:

After me, the political authority (imamah) shall be transferred to the Quraish. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183) And it was this very fact that was the basis of Abu Bakrs argument. Abu Bakr ( ) of the Ansar: ) had told Saad (

O Saad! 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 Arabs follow their nobles and their ignobles follow their ignobles. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 1, p.5) Answering-Ansar says

The reality is even the Muhajireen could go astray if they failed to follow two sources which the Prophet

(saaws) made clear at Arafat, if the companions followed them (whether they be Ansar or Muhajireen) they would never go astray, the two sources were the Quran and the Ahlulbayt.

Answering-Ansar almost had it right until they said that the two sources are the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. The two sources are Quran and the Sunnah. And definitely, we agree that the Muhajirs were to be followed only so long as they followed these two. To this effect, the Prophet ( )had said in the Hadith we reproduced above that the Muhajirs were to be followed as long as they follow Islam. And the Muhajirs definitely followed Islam, so that is the end of the matter. Answering-Ansar says

If readers remain skeptical on this matter then we will quote the words of Imam Ali (as) himself who

through his eloquent writing dismisses all four grounds. The extract of this letter is taken from the Sunni work Iqd al Fareed. Imam Ali (as) wrote this letter during his period of reign. It was written as a detailed refutation to of the comments made by Muawiya in a letter to him.

Once again, Answering-Ansar attempts to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an authentic Sunni text. Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow Answering-Ansar will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldons thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. The author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations. Ibn Abu Rabuhs book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means the Peak of Eloquence; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus ( ) but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded! The Shia spent excessive ammounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali ( )

and forging his responses to Muawiyyah ( they cannot at all be considered authentic.

; ) so no matter how beautifully worded these texts are,

Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive Sunnis who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah? Not every word written by a Sunni can be construed as being authoratative or indicative of the Sunni position on matters. The entire letter quoted by Answering-Ansar is a fabrication. Absolutely no Isnad is given, and it can therefore not even be accepted by the Shia. As for the content of the fabricated letter, we have already addressed every single point. Ali ( ) did in fact suffer at the hands of the Quraish, but not as much as Abu Bakr ( ) . Ali ( ) was in fact one of the first to convert to Islam, but Abu Bakrs conversion came before that. Ali ( ) was very close to the Prophet ( ,)but the Prophet ( ) said in both of the Sahihayn that Abu Bakr ( ) was the most loved by him after Aisha ( ). Even by the defunct logic of the Shia, Abu Bakr ( ) was superior to Ali ( . ) This is not at all meant as a denigration of Ali ( , ) because we also say that Abu Bakr ( ) was superior to Umar ( , ) yet nobody would claim that the Ahlus Sunnah hates Umar ( ! ) In fact, we love all the Sahabah, and Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) were of the ten promised Paradise. However, if we were to rank those amongst the ten promised Paradise, Abu Bakr ( ) would be first. After the Prophets and Messengers, Abu Bakr ( ) was the most superior of people.

Response to Chapter 5 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Rebuttal to Chapter 5 Entitled Assessing Sunni justifications of Saqifa

This chapter of Answering-Ansars article requires a very indepth and involved response. The problem lies in the fact that oftentimes people of both sides are using terminologies that they are actually unfamiliar with. We have immigrant uncles using terms like democracy when in fact they have no real idea as to what exactly that is; indeed, in order to get into such a discussion, both sides should really have received some formal education in political science and government. It should be noted that Answering-Ansar has stated that democracy is Haram, but even the Iranian government has claimed that it is democratic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Claims_Of_Demoracy.png); so this seeming discrepancy is apparent on both the Sunni and Shia side. Admittedly, many Muslims wrongfully claim that Islam advocates democracy. However, the term these people are actually groping for is popular sovereignity. Laypersons often confuse these terms, using the former when they really mean the latter. The word democracy means the rule of the people. For obvious reasons, this contradicts the Islamic principles, namely that the rule is by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. In a democracy, if 51% of the people deem pork to be Halal, then it is so. On the other hand, this is not true of the Islamic ideal, in which 99% or even 100% of the people could not change the fact that pork is Haram.

What these Sunni people mean to say is not that the Ahlus Sunnah advocates democracy but that the Ahlus Sunnah strongly supports popular sovereignity, the consent of the governed, and self-determination. These are three things that are central to the Sunni faith but rejected by the Shia faith. Popular sovereignity revolves around the idea that the state government has a social contract with the people it governs: it is the people who give the ruler the right to govern them (i.e. a contractual agreement). In other words, a ruler may not enforce himself on a population unwillingly, which would be tyranny and wrong. The leader must obtain the consent of the governed; Wikipedia says: Consent of the governed is a political theory stating that a governments legitimacy and moral right to use state power is, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings (Consent of the Governed, Wikipedia) The Ahlus Sunnah strongly believes in the consent of the governed. On the other hand, Shiism esposes the backwards principle of divine right of kings. We read: The Divine Right of Kings is apolitical and religious doctrine of political absolutism. Such doctrines are largely, though not exclusively, associated with the medieval and ancien rgime eras. It states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God. Its symbolism remains in the coronations of the British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy. It is further evidenced by efforts to trace the genealogy of European monarchs to King David of the Old Testament, in the apparent belief that it legitimizes the rule of the present monarch. The king or queen of the United Kingdom is the last monarch still to undergo such a ceremony, which in other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration. It is the reason why the British Royal Familys motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my [birth] Right - i.e. I rule with Gods blessing). It may also include a belief in the right of the monarch to rule due to direct decendency from God, usually tracing genealogy back to a divine being, such as Jesus of Nazareth; hence being the person most likely to be able to correctly acertain the will of God. The concept of Divine Right incorporates the broader concept of royal God-given rights, which simply says that the right to rule is anointed by God (or gods) (Divine Right of Kings, Wikipedia) It one were to substitute the word King for Imam, then this would be exactly the Shia doctrine of Imamah (i.e. the Divine Right of Imams). We read: The Imamate in the view of the Shiah is a form of divine governance, an office depending on (divine) appointmentsomething God bestows on exalted personsthe selection of the leader is a matter of divine prerogative, acceptance of that leader is equivalent to submission to Gods sovereigntyThere is no longer any question of minority or majority, because the government is the government of GodA society believing in God has no reason to follow the majorityThe Shiah are committed to the principle that the right to designate the Imam (leader) belongs exclusively to God, and that the people have no role to play in this respect. It is the Creator alone Who selects the Imampeople have no right to interfere in the matter of choosing the Imam

(Imamate and Leadership: Lessons on Islamic Doctrine, by Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari; http://alislam.org/leadership/) And we will find that the Shia leaders trace their lineage in order to prove their divine right. Indeed, the Shia faith grew in power amongst primarily Persian peoples, who mixed their fire-worshipping and Zoroastrian practises with Islam. The Persians used to believe in the Divine Right of their King (Chosroes), and that this spirit moved from one king to another through his descendents. When these fire-worshippers converted to Islam, they adapted this idea, claiming that the Imamah passed down from one Imam to another through his descendants. Shaikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says: The idea that there are sayyids or walis (saints) whom Allah has singled out from among mankind for some favor, or that they have a status which other people do not share, is an idea which is based on the Magian belief that Allah 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 Shiah, whose origins are Magian so this idea was introduced to the Muslims. This idea says that Allah selects some of mankind, to the exclusion of others, for this status, which is the status of Imamah and Wilayah. So they believe in this idea with regard to Ali ibn Abi Talib and his descendents, and they add other positions to that, such as sayyidThey 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 entitledThere can be no doubt that this is obviously a misguided notion. How far removed is this Shia principle from that of popular sovereignity, consent of the governed, and selfdetermination. We read: The Sunni concept of leadership of the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet, the Caliphate, is essentially (of) a temporal leadership. The Caliph is a first among equals, elected ideally by consensusTo the Shiis, howeverit makes no difference to the Imams station whether he is acknowledged by the generality of the Muslims or not, whereas this quite clearly does not apply to a Sunni Caliph whose station is totally dependant on such acknowledgement. (An Introduction to Shii Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shiism; by Moojan Momen, p.147) It should be noted that this book is on Al-Islam.orgs recommended reading list. Based on this, we see that the Shia faith believes in the imposition of leadership on a population, even if that subject group does not desire this leader. On the other hand, the Sunnis hold that the leader must have the consent of the governed. In the Sunni treatise, entitled al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (The Rules of Governance), we read: (Caliphate) requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah. (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah) And we read: A ruler can achieve power only with the help of his own peopleThey help him to achieve (a level of) superiority. They participate in the government. They share in all his other important affairs(the leadership) is a community duty and is left to the discretion of all competent Muslims (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah)

This is the element that is lacking in Shiism: the consent of the governed. On the other hand, the Sunnis require that the leader have a contractual agreement with the masses. This is known as the Bayaah (oath of allegiance). We read: The meaning of the oath of allegiance. It should be known that the bayah (oath of allegiance) is a contract to render obedience. It is as though the person who renders the oath of allegiance made a contract with his amirWhen people rendered the oath of allegiance to the amir and concluded the contract, they put their hands into his hand to confirm the contract. This was considered to be something like the action of buyer and seller (after concluding a sale). Therefore, the oath of allegiance was called bayah, the infinitive of baa to sell (or buy). The bayah was a handshake. Such is its meaning in customary linguistic terminology and the accepted usage of the religious lawThe word is used for oath of allegiance to the caliphs and in ayman al-bayah declarations (of loyalty) in connection with the oath of allegiance. The caliphs used to exact an oath when the contract was made and collected the declarations (of loyalty) from all Muslims. This then was called ayman al-bayah declarations (of loyalty) in connection with the oath of allegiance(Imam) Malik pronounced the legal decision that a declaration obtained by compulsion was invalid (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah) As for the selection of the Caliph, the Sunni procedure is much different than the Shia one; the Shia rely on the Divine Right of Kings theory, equating disobedience to their Imam as disobedience to God, an ideology not at all unfamiliar in history. The Shia idea is that one man claims to be elected by Allah Himself, so even if the great majority of Muslims do not wish him to be the leader, the Shia say that they all must submit to him. On the other hand, the Sunnis rely on Shura (mutual consultation) in order to select a leader. All four of the Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by a process of Shura. In fact, there is an entire chapter in the Quran entitled Ash-Shura (The Mutual Consultation). We read: Those who believe and put their trust in their Lordconduct their affairs by mutual consultation (Amruhum Shura Baynahum). (Quran, 42:38) And Allah says: consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. (Quran, 3:159) It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah has adopted the process of Shura in the selection of leadership, as opposed to the system of hereditary divine right of the Imams, a concept missing from the Quran.
Answering-Ansar says

Democratic election never took place at the Saqifa, the whole Ummah did not vote on the issue.


It is unrealistic to expect that every individual of the Ummah cast a vote. There was no system of polling nor were there ballot boxes back then, not in Arabia nor anywhere else in the world. Such an accusation made by Answering-Ansar is actually unsophisticated. Most Western countries today do not operate as direct democracies in which each person casts one vote to elect their leader. The unsophisticated reader may assume that this is the case in the United States, but such a person is speaking out of ignorance. In the United States, no direct democracy exists at the federal level; the United States, along with most Western countries, are representative democracies, in which a handful of the prominent people elect the leader. In the United States, for example, there exists a nationwide popular vote (in which all citizens can vote) and an electoral college. A fact unknown by many laypersons is that the popular vote has absolutely no legal ramifactions in the selection of the president. Instead, the President is selected by the electoral college, a group of 538 individuals. We read: The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each stateThese Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. Although the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it has no legal role in presidential elections. (United States Electoral College, Wikipedia) It would not be feasible or practical for each and every single person to cast his vote. Instead, a group of prominent people who represent the people decide who should be the leader. And this is how the Islamic system works. The prominent members of society use Shura (mutual consultation) in order to nominate a leader.
Answering-Ansar says

More importantly to describe the concept of khilafth as democratic if kufr, the famous Gettysburg address had

described democracy as The Government of the people, appointed by the people for the people. This is contrary to Islamic Sharia, which is based on the fact that sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt) not the people.

As we have stated earlier, many peopleboth Sunni and Shiamistakenly use the term democracy when in fact they mean to say popular sovereignity, consent of the governed, and self-determination. One cannot be too critical of this particular Sunni author when one considers the similar mistake of Iran, which calls herself democratic. If Answering-Ansar insists on degrading our scholars for mistakenly using the term democratic, then we can easily show how the Iranian government has done the same. The Nomination of Abu Bakr (
Answering-Ansar says

If Khan is confusing democracy with the concept of shura (consultation) of the entire community

The election of Abu Bakr ( ) was through Shura (mutual consultation) between the Ansars and the three Muhajirs. Of course, many prominent Muhajirs (such as Ali) were not in attendance; however, this was due to the fault of the Ansars, and not the Shaikhayn or Abu Ubaidah ( . ) We have already discussed this point earlier. And it was based on this fact that Umar ( ) would later say about Saqifah: No doubt, the oath was pledged in the this way (i.e. rushed and suddenly), but the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil consequences [which might have arisen]. (Bukhari, Kitabul-Hudud) This was the fault of the Ansars, not of the Shaikhayn; however, they rectified the mistake of the Ansars by holding the General Bayaah a day later; it was then that 33,000 Sahabah swore their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr ( . ) This is proof that Abu Bakr ( ) attained the consent of the governed. The great majority of the Muslims supported Abu Bakr ( ) and this gave him the contractual right to rule over them. The Nomination of Umar ibn al-Khattab (
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Umar was not voted by the Muslim Ummah; Hadhrath Abu Bakr nominated him.

It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar ( . ) Before Abu Bakr ( ) finalized his decision to appoint Umar ( , ) he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf ( , ) Uthman bin Affan ( ) , Ali ibn Abi Talib ( , ) and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah ( . ) During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan ( , ) the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar ( , ) in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr ( ) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar ( ) would do in the nomination of Uthman ( . ) Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr ( ) did not use Shura. We read: At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphatefollowing this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the

same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: Umars internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all. When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313) In another narration, we read: When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab. Abdur Rahman replied: You are asking me about something of which you know betterBy Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him. Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab. Uthman replied: You know him better than us. Abu Bakr said: Still, O Abu Abdullah! Uthman answered: Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199) Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr ( Muhajirs. We read: ) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and

And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayras well as other big leaders of the Ansars and the Muhajirsso Usayd said: Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199) During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf ( ) and Talhah ( ) who raised any objections to Umar ( , ) but then Abu Bakr ( ) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman ( ) and Talhah ( ) both agreed with Abu Bakrs rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman ( ) and Ali ( , ) they both favored Umar ( . ) Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar ( ; ) the prominent representativesincluding all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs selected Umar ( ) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar ( ) secured the consent of the governed. We read: [Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience: I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph? Hearing this, they (the masses) said: We all agree with your choice and opinion. Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: You should then carry out Umars orders and obey him. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314) We read:

Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosureHe said (to the people): Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you? They responded: We hear and obey. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147) Abu Bakr ( ) would even ask the peoples permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar ( )was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman ( ) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read: (Uthman said): Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter? The people said: Yes. All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200) Similarly, we read: Then the Caliph (Abu Bakr) summoned all the people of Medinah to assemble in the court of the Mosque. He addressed them from the window of his house which opened into the court. (Abu Bakr said): O people! I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab as my successor. He is not my relative, but he is the best among you. Are you satisfied with him? Will you obey him? The people answered with one accord, yes, we will obey him. The Caliph was pleased and prayed for Gods favour on Umar and the Muslims. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.223) So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr ( ) did not at all install Umar ( ) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr ( ) gave his suggestion as Umar ( , ) and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the consent of the governed is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr ( ) the Caliph of an emerging super-power had the modesty and decency to have his own will proof-read by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld. Furthermore, Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari states: 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 [i.e. consent of the governed]the majority of the Ummas 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 nations influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it. (Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, www.sunnipath.com) Qadhi Abu Yala al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (The Rules of Governance): It is permissible for a Caliph to appoint a successor without the approval of those in powerwithout 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 Caliph, or else, there will be two Caliphs; thus there is no need for the influential people to be present. Yes, after the demise of the Caliph, their presence and approval is necessaryCaliphate is not established merely with the appointment of the (previous) Caliph, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah. (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p.9) One other point worth mentioning here is the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) made it a point not to elect his own relative or son to the Caliphate. The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs disliked hereditary rule, as this is not the way of the Ahlus Sunnah; to create such a dynastic rule based on bloodline (on the Shia model) would be unjust and unethical. Abu Bakr ( ) said to the people: Nor have I appointed (as Caliph) a relative. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, p.147) In another account, he said: I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.314) Abu Bakr ( ) said on his deathbed:

After holding consultations with the Muslims, I have selected the best among the Muslims to take care of them and look after their peace and welfare(O Allah) make Umar a good Caliph (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.315) The Nomination of Uthman bin Affan (
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Uthman was voted by a committee of six men not the Muslim public at large.

Completely false. In fact, Abdur Rahman ( ) the leader of the Electoral Council of six menengaged in Shura (mutual consultation) with all the prominent Muhajirs, Ansars, and military leaders before he passed a judgment on who should be Caliph. Before we proceed, some background context may be necessary The masses, being good Muslims, always looked upto the Ashara Mubash Shararah (i.e. The Ten Promised Paradise by the Prophet). It was widely known that these were the prominent figures who should be considered for the Caliphate. In fact, the first four in the list became the first four Caliphs, namely Abu Bakr ( , ) Umar ( , ) Uthman ( , ) and Ali ( . ) The Ashara Mubash Shararah were the spiritual leaders of the community and no election was necessary to ascertain that the public held their

confidence in them. Not only was no such election necessary, but no such sophisticated technology to facilitate polling or ballot boxes was available. In any case, the dominance of the Ashara Mubash Shararah was firmly established; to give an example our Shia brothers might appreciate, we know that in Iran that the peoples loyalties lie with the Maraje (top scholars). There is no need to conduct a poll to ascertain this. What is interesting to note is that our Shia brothers decry the nomination of Uthman bin Affan ( ) even though Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, was elected in a remarkably similar manner. When Ayatollah Khomeini died, it was the body known as the Majles-e-Khobregan (the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership)not the masses of Iranianswho voted for his successor. The Majles-e-Khobregan consists of 86 of the most prominent Shia Mujtahids, or Maraje (top scholars). These 86 individuals conducted Shura (mutual consultation) and eventually decided on two men: Grand Ayatollah Golpaygani and Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. After further deliberation, the latter was chosen by the Majles-e-Khobregan. Based on this fact, how can our Shia brothers have any footing to stand upon when they complain about the nomination of Uthman ( ? ) How remarkably similar is the Iranian Assembly of Experts of the Leadership and the Electoral Council convened by Umar ibn al-Khattab ( ! ) Much like the Grand Ayatollahs hold sway in Iran, it was the Ashara Mubash Shararah who held sway amongst the eyes of the Muslims at the time of Umars death. And so, it was based on this fact that Umar ( ) nominated these men to be a part of the Electoral Council. Of the Ashara Mubash Shararah, the following had passed away already: Abu Bakr ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( . ) And Umar ( ) was obviously dying. This left seven members of the Ashara Mubash Shararah. One of the seven, namely Saeed ibn Zayd ( ) , known as Abu al-Awar, disliked taking administrative posts altogether; he was offered the office of governor once but he refused to accept it. He was even appointed governor of Damascus without his consent, but he rejected this appointment and sent a letter to Abu Ubaidah ( ) demanding send someone else to replace me as soon as you receive this letter. Umar ( ) said:

You should approach (for Caliphate) that group of men whom the Messenger of Allah said are among the people of Paradise. Saeed ibn Zayd is one of them, (but) I am not bringing him into this matter, but rather the following six: Ali and Uthman (sons of Abd Manaf), Abdur Rahman and Saad (maternal uncles of the Messenger of Allah), al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam (the true friend and cousin of the Messenger of Allah), and Talhah al-Khayr ibn Ubayd-Allah. Let them select one of themselves. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.144-145) We read: Umar appointed six persons, the remnant of the ten (men to whom Paradise had been guaranteed), to be members of (an electoral) council (shura), and he put it up to them to make the choice for the Muslims. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah) Umar ( ) said to these six men:

I have deliberated on the matter of Caliphate and have reached the conclusion that there is no difference among the people in this affair as long as it is one of you. If there is any difference, it is within you. Therefore, this matter is entrusted to the six of you: Abdur Rahman, Uthman, Ali, Zubayr, Talhah and Saad. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.344)

In another narration, Umar (

) said to the six men:

I have looked into the matter and consider you to be the chiefs and leaders of the people. This matter will remain amongst you alonedeliberate (amongst yourselves)! Choose one of you. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.145) So we see that Answering-Ansar is not at all being fair here by saying that the Caliph was elected by only these six men. The masses generally clung to one of these six men, who were already the chiefs and leaders of the people; some of the Muslims clung to Abdur Rahman ( , ) others to Uthman ( , ) others to Ali ( , ) others to Zubayr ( , ) others to Talhah ( , ) and yet others to Saad ( ) . Much like some of the Iranians cling to one Grand Ayatollah, and others cling to another Grand Ayatollah, and yet others to another one. But at the end of the day, the masses of Iranians cling to one of the eighty-six Mujtahids. Therefore, to be fair, the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership need only consist of these eighty-six Mujtahids who deliberate behind closed doors to decide the Supreme Leader. Likewise, it was sufficient for the six Sahabah to be on the Electoral Council. Because the number of the members on the council was even (six, including Talhah), Umar ( ) sent his son, Abdullah ibn Umar ( , ) to act as the tie-breaker; however, Umar ( ) categorically forbade Abdullah ibn Umar ( ) to be one of the candidates for Caliph. Umar ( ) said: Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)If three approve of one of them, and three approve of another, get Abdullah ibn Umar to make a decision. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.146-147) We read: Umar had co-opted Abdullah bin Umar with the Board of Electors, but forbade him to be himself a candidate for the Caliphate. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.299) Talhah ( ) was outside of Medinah and was therefore unable to take part in the Electoral Council, leaving five men and Abdullah ibn Umar ( . ) These six men began the process of Shura (mutual consultation). After almost two entire days of intense deliberation, the men were unable to settle the matter. We read: So the Electors met after Umars death. Each one of them pressed his claim to the Caliphate. For two days, they hotly contested against each others claim [sic] until a near stale-mate was reachedconfronted with this stalemate, Abdur Rahman bin Awf resolved it (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.299) Abdur Rahman ( ) then said:

Which one of you will withdraw (the race for the Caliphate), and undertake to appoint the best of you? (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.149)

This was a very fair suggestion by Abdur Rahman ( ) and it was accepted by the group that the one who withdrew from the race voluntarily would be the one who would nominate the Caliph from amongst them. None of them except Abdur Rahman ( ) himself agreed to withdraw, and it was on this basis that he was nominated the leader of the Electoral Council. Abdur Rahman ( ) himself not only continued the procedure of Shura with the other five men on the Electoral Council, but he also consulted all the prominent Muhajirs and Ansars as well as all the military commanders. We read: When they had said the morning prayers, (Abdur Rahman) convened the members (of the Electoral Council) and sent for all the Muhajirs and the Ansars of long standing (in Islam) and of excellence and the military commanders who were (in Medinah). They were all assembled and there was confusion among the people in the mosque. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.151) Tabari then describes how the people debated amongst themselves who should be the Caliph, some saying that Ali ( ) should be Caliph and others saying that Uthman ( ) should be Caliph. A very lively Shura took place with all the prominent people present, not just the Electoral Council. Finally, after much mutual consultation and heated debate, Saad ( ) said: Get it over with, Abdur Rahman, before our people fall into civil war! (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.152) So we see that Shura was done so much that the people eventually got tired of it and begged Abdur Rahman ( ) to get over with it and make the decision. Abdur Rahman ( ) responded: I have looked into the matter and consulted. Do not, members of the electoral council, lay yourselves open to criticism (i.e. by reneging on their promise to abide by Abdur Rahmans ruling). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.152) And it was only then that Abdur Rahman ( ) nominated Uthman ( , ) based on the fact that most of the people he consulted with were of the opinion that it should be Ali ( ) or Uthman ( ) . We read: During this time, it became clear that only two of the Electors had any chance of being accepted (by the masses) as Caliph. They were Uthman and Ali, representing two Quraishite factions, Umayyad and Hashmid respectively. Both had nearly equal claim to the Headship of IslamAbdur Rahman spent the third day and night in busy consultations (Shura) with the other Electors, and the leading citizens of Medinah and of the provinces who were visiting the Capitol after the pilgrimage. His enquiries revealed to him that the majority of opinion favored Uthmans claim. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.299) Abdur Rahman ( ) chose Uthman ( ) over Ali ( ) because he felt Uthman ( ) would better follow the example of the Shaikhayn. In any case, we see that Answering-Ansar cannot at all claim that the decision was made by six men, when in fact Abdur Rahman ( ) mutually consulted all the prominent Muhajirs, the Ansars, representatives from the provinces, the leading military officials, etc. The masses then gave the Bayaah to Uthman ( . ) We read:

Talhah arrived on the day on which the oath of allegiance was given to Uthman. He was asked to give his own oath to Uthman, but he asked: Do all Quraish approve of him? And he was told they did. He came to Uthman and the latter (Uthman) said: You still have your options open; if you refuse to give me the oath of allegiance, I shall reject the Caliphate (for myself). Talhah said: Will you really reject it? Uthman replied that he would. Talhah asked: Have all the people given you the oath of allegiance? Uthman replied that they had. Talhah said: Then I approve; I shall not go against the general consensus. He gave Uthman the oath of allegiance. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.153-154) Based on this, we see that Uthman ( ) had definitely been given the consent of the governed. Furthermore, there was Ijma (consensus) on his Caliphate after Shura (mutual consultation). Uthman ( ) was so careful about obtaining the consent of the governed that he was willing to step down if one person, Talhah, were not to render his oath of allegiance. We should compare this model to that of the Shia form of governance, in which the Infallible Imam forces his leadership upon the masses. The Prophet ( )has told us in Hadith that the leader must be one who does not aggressively seek out the leadership. We see that Abu Bakr ( ) was willing to give up the leadership at Saqifah, when he asked the Ansars to pick between Umar ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( . ) Umar ( ) as well refused the Caliphate and nominated Abu Bakr ( ) at Saqifah. And Uthman ( ) was willing to give up the Caliphate to Talhah ( . ) Likewise, Ali ( ) at first refused to become Caliph after the death of Uthman ( . ) Therefore, we see that a salient feature of all Four Rightly Guided Caliphs is that they were not greedy or hungry for the Caliphate. (Indeed, the fact that Uthman and Ali both pushed for their own Caliphate at some point or the other is only due to the pressure they felt from both of their clans, the Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim respectively.) In the same manner that Abu Bakr ( ) refused to nominate a relative to the Caliphate, Umar ( ) likewise refused to reduce the nomination of Caliphate to a hereditary system. We read:

Someone said (to Umar): I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar. But Umar replied: I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own familyit is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammads community. I have striven and have kept my own family out. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)
Answering-Ansar says

Muawiya took the reigns by force not through election. Similarly the Banu Ummayya rule that followed had no

democratic system of Caliphate rather we had what the late Wahabie scholar Maudoodi describes as Mulukiyat (Kingdom) where there was hereditary succession. This same approach was applied by the Abbasides, the Seljuqs and the Ottomans, so where is this democratic system that Khan advocates?

One of the major reasons that the scholars give for calling the first four Caliphs to be the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs to the exclusion of others is that they were nominated by Shura without coercion and that they did not reduce the leadership to a hereditary system. The Ahlus Sunnah looks to the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as the model to implement and nobody else. Therefore, it is not fitting that we discuss other leaders, but rather we should confine our discussion to the group which represents our views. In regards to Muawiyyah ( , ) it is incorrect to claim that he seized the leadership by force over an unwilling population. In fact, Muawiyyah ( ) commanded the unbridled support of the entire Banu Umayyah ( , ) the whole of Syria, and many other Arabian tribes such as Banu Kalb. By the time of Muawiyyahs Caliphate, the Muslim nation had already broken down into various competing localities. In the locality in which Muawiyyah ( ) resided, he most definitely had overwhelming support and consent of the governed. However, due to the unfortunate situation, the Ummah was divided and in a state of civil war. In such a confusing situation, it is unfair to be un-necessarily critical of Muawiyyah ( . ) The Muslim Ummah at the time was split between Muawiyyah ( ) and Hasan ( , ) both of whom were ready to fight each other for it. This was in marked contrast to the previous Caliphates in which the Ummah jointly agreed on one leader. It was the first time that the Muslims could not peacably agree on one leader. Why was this? There are in fact many reasons for this, but we shall limit our discussion to two of them: Firstly, the Muslim nation-state had spread far and wide by this time, and it is much more difficult for larger groups to reach a consensus as opposed to smaller groups. During the nomination of Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( , ) the Muslim state was limited to the Arabian Peninsula, and the Arabian tribes agreed upon the leadership of the Quraish of Mecca. By Uthmans time, the Muslim state had absorbed many Non-Muslim lands such as Persia and Syria (under the valiant command of Umar); with the rapid expansion of the state, the unity of the Ummah was becoming a problem. It is no wonder that by the time of Alis death, the Kufans and Syrians cannot agree on a Caliph. The second explanation for this disunity is the emerging rivalry between Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. Neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) belonged to either clan and so their Caliphates were saved from much of the in-fighting between the two clans. However, after Umars death, the top two candidates for the Caliphate came from these two rival clans: Uthman ( ) from Banu Umayyah and Ali ( ) from Banu Hashim. Banu Umayyah had always been the leaders before the advent of Islam, and now with the advent of the Prophet ( ,)Banu Hashim was seeking to remove Banu Umayyah from power and come in their place. This shift in power created a civil struggle, one that would manifest itself in the civil war between Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. And so it was that the Western half of the Muslim empire accepted Banu Umayyah and the Eastern half accepted Banu Hashim. The Syrian Muslims nominated Muawiyyah ( , ) whereas the Kufans nominated Hasan ( . ) It was not that Shura was not done, but rather that the two sides did not do

Shura conjointly, a problem arising from (1) the vastness of the Muslim empire and (2) the budding rivalry between Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. It is incorrect to claim that Muawiyyah ( ) seized power by force. The two sides came to a peace agreement: Hasan ( ) agreed to the Caliphate of Muawiyyah ( ) in exchange for five million dirhams (for the coffers of the Bayt ul-Mal of Kufa) as well as the revenue of the Ahwaz Province. So it was not by force that Muawiyyah ( ) came to power, but rather by a peace agreement signed by Hasan ( ) himself, in which five million dirhams and the revenue from a province were given to the Kufans. As for the system of hereditary rule, this too was not started by Muawiyyah ( . ) Yes, Muawiyyah ( ) nominated Yezid to be the Caliph, but we must look into the matter before passing a rash judgment. Initially, Muawiyyah ( ) had no such intention of nominating his son; it was Mughira bin Shoba ( ) who urged Muawiyyah ( ) to nominate Yezid. In fact, Muawiyyah ( ) was at first against this idea, but Mughira ( ) insisted upon it. Mughira ( ) was not the father of Yezid, and therefore, how can we say that Yezids appointment was done to create a dynasty based on hereditary rule? We read: It cannot be denied that (only) at the insistence of Mughira bin Shoba, Amir Muawiyyah nominated Yezid as his successor; otherwise, he would never have thought of making his son Caliph after him. It was Mughira bin Shoba who was the first to introduce that ideathat proposal was absolutely against the tradition of the Rightly Guided Caliphate (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.91) We read: Al-Mughira advised the Caliph to nominate his son as his successor. At first he hesitated, but (only) later he acted on his (Al-Mughiras) advice. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.408) We read further: Mughira bin Shobah, a budding Meccan statesman of the tribe of Banu Thaqeef, embraced Islam in 5 A.Hhe is credited with furthering the initiative of getting Yezid nominated by his father as a Caliph-designate. When the suggestion was first made, Muawiyyah could not persuade himself to take such a delication decision. Mughirah, the old, seasoned statesman over 60 years of age, was shrewd enough to arrange for a deputation of the people of Kufa (the stronghold of his opponents), of all places, headed by his own son, Musa, to convince Muawiyyah. (Last Messenger with a Lasting Message, Ziauddin Kirmani, p.427) In fact, it was Yezid who is blamed for institutionalizing the system of hereditary rule. We read: Even upto Yezids reign, the Muslims had not accepted the principle of Caliphate by (hereditary) succession in government and politics. They knew that the act of Yezid succeeding Amir Muawiyyah as Caliph was a mistake and it needed to be rectifiedhowever, after Yezids death, the idea of (hereditary) succession was strengthenedand finally this evil practise took such a deep root that until now the Muslims have not been able to get rid of it. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.94)

The President of the United States today is George Bush II; do we say that George Bush I created a dynastic and hereditary system since he pushed his son into politics and the presidential race? In fact, we see that Muawiyyah ( ) did not nominate Yezid with any intention of a hereditary dynasty, but rather he did it only because of the circumstances of the time. The Muslim Ummah was in a state of great disunity; Syria and Kufa were very close to an all out civil war, along with Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. Muawiyyah ( ) feared that if he did not appoint a successor, then the Muslims would fall into civil war, and one is hard pressed to disagree. It was based on this prevailing condition of extreme precariousness that Mughira ( ) and others urged Muawiyyah ( ) to simply nominate his son as Caliph to prevent any possible civil strife. We read: Muawiyyah, on the other hand, believed that circumstances had greatly changed since the days of the Orthodox Caliphate (i.e. the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs)there was (now) the danger of a renewed civil war, which might break out after Muawiyyahs death, as it had after Uthmans. This would divide Islam into warring campsMuawiyyah rejected this wise suggestion (not to nominate his son) on the plea of the danger of dispute and bloodshed if he did not settle the question of succession in his lifetime. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.408) Having said that, it is true that we need to return to the way of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, and this is the model used by the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah.
Answering-Ansar says

Khans assertion that Hadhrath Abu Bakr was appointed Khalifa goes against the Sunni belief that the Prophet

(saaws) did not appoint a successor and so again is groundless.

The Prophet ( )nominated Abu Bakr ( ) as his successor as Imam of the prayers. This was the Prophets indirect way of casting his vote for Abu Bakr ( ) without forcing it down peoples throats. Had the Prophet ( ) directly nominated Abu Bakr ( , ) the people would have construed this is a divine command and then felt that a leader was to be forcibly imposed upon them instead of chosen by their own free will. Therefore, in the egalatarian spirit of Islam, the Prophet ( ) allowed the Muslims to choose their own leader. But he definitely showed where his preference was.
Answering-Ansar says

Khans contention that if Caliphate was based on relationship then Uthman was more entitled, due to his being the

Prophet (saaws)s son in law twice over is a very weak argument. Imam Ali (as)s relationship was not just based on an in law relationship, he was the Prophet (saaws)s cousin, the Prophet (saaws) declared him his brother and said that Ali is from me and I am from him, something he never said to Hadhrath Uthman. In addition Hadhrath Uthman was not a member of the Ahlulbayt (the household of the Prophet) while Imam Ali (as) was. Hadhrath Ali (as) was the closest relative of the Prophet (saaws).


We have already dealt with this extensively in our Response to Chapter 4.
Answering-Ansar says

As for the comments of Khan: While Shias say that Islamic system is based on family succession and heirship. In this

regard they present the claim of Hadrat Ali and his associates what can we say? Should we rely on the arguments advanced by Mr Khan a modern day writer that clearly have no grounding or those advance by Ali (as) and his associates who are the affected parties and have first hand experience on the matter?

Ali ( ) would never advocate a hereditary system of familial successorship. This is what the Shia claim that Ali ( ) did or said, but it is quite simply not true. There is no proof that Ali ( ) intended that the leadership should be passed down through his progeny. Such a thing would be immoral and Ali ( ) was above that.
Answering-Ansar says

Twenty-five years after the death of the Prophet (saaws) his grandson Hasan (as) repeated his fathers arguments. In

a letter to Muawiya he pointed out that the Quraysh had secured authority by advancing their relationship to the Prophet (saaws), but when the Ahlulbayt advanced the same argument they were ostracized 1.

1. Maqatil, by Abu-l0Faraj page 55-57, Cairo edition 1949

Abu al-Faraj was a Shia, and his book, Maqatil at-Talibiyin wa-akhbaruhum (The Slaying of the Talibis), is full of typical Shia forgeries and fabrications. It is interesting how Answering-Ansar is attempting to pass this work off as a Sunni text, or somehow trying to imply that it is accepted by both sides as authoratative. This work is a Shia propaganda book that contains biographies of Shia martyrs. It has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of the mainstream Muslims. This letter written in the name of Hasan ( ) is fabricated.

Response to Chapter 6 of Answering Ansars Article on Saqifah

Response to Chapter 6 Entitled Some crucial observations Answering-Ansar says

The hereditary system of Khilfath began at Saqifa

The true proponents of a hereditary system of succession are the Ahlul Sunnah themselves.

Nonsense. The Ahlus Sunnah does not advocate a hereditary system at all, but rather we believe that anybody regardless of lineagecan be the Caliph. This constrasts dramatically with the position of the Shia who say that the leader must be descended from Ali ( ) and Fatima ( . ) The Ahlus Sunnah looks at the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as being the ideal model for Islamic governance, and none of the first four Caliphs advocated a hereditary system. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) expressely stated to the people: I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314) Some people asked Umar ( ) to appoint his son as his successor but Umar ( ) refused to do that as he wanted no part in a hereditary system. In fact, Umar ( ) expressely forbade his son, Abdullah bin Umar ( , ) from being a candidate for the Caliphate. We read: Someone said (to Umar): I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar. But Umar replied: I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own familyit is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammads community. I have striven and have kept my own family out. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144) And Umar ( ) said:

Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.146-147) And this is the model of the Ahlus Sunnah. Admittedly, the Muslims deviated after that, but it is unfair to say that this is what the Ahlus Sunnah advocates.
Answering-Ansar says

The issue advanced by Hadhrath Abu Bakr has resulted in the leading scholars of Ahlul Sunnah embracing this as part

of their faith, i.e. the Khalifa can only be someone of Quraysh descent. In his discussion that the khilafath is reserved for the Quraysh, Ibn Khaldun points to the discussion at Saqifa to support his hypothesis:

The condition of Qurashite origin is based upon the general consensus on this point that obtained in the men around Muhammad on the day of the Saqifah. On that day the Ansar intended to render the oath of allegiance to Sad b. Ubadah. They said One amir from among us, and another from among you. But the Qurashites argued against them with Muhammads statement, The imams are from the Quraish. The Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldun, translated by Franz Rosenthal, Volume 1 page 597 (Princeton University Press)

This was the position of Ibn Khaldun that the leadership must remain within the Quraishites forever. However, this is an incorrect position. In the same treatise, Ibn Khaldun states the opinion of Shaikh al-Sunnah: Among those who deny that Qurashite descent is a condition (of the imamate) is Judge Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, Ch.3) We should now discuss who Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (i.e. Shaikh al-Sunnah) was. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah referred to Imam al-Baqillani as the best of the Ashari Mutakallimoon, un-rivalled by any predecessor or successor. Ibn Ammar al-Mayurqi said Imam al-Baqillani was a righteous and scrupulous Maliki, one of those for whom absolutely no error is recorded and no defect was ascribed. He was called the Shaikh of the Sunnah and the Tongue of the CommunityHe was one of the fortresses of the Muslims and the people of innovations never experienced greater joy than their joy at his death. Abu Imran al-Fasi said about Imam al-Baqillani: He was the master of the people of the Sunnah in his time and the Imam of the mutakallimun of the people of truth in his time. Abu Bakr al-Khatib said about Imam al-Baqillani: He was the person with the most knowledge of Kalam and the best of them in thought in it. In other words, there is no comparison between al-Baqillani and Ibn Khaldun. The opinion of al-Baqillani overrules. Imam al-Baqillani said that the Caliph need not be Quraishite; instead, the leader must simply be from the majority group. This view finds support in the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-AdDeen who also said that the leader must be from the majority. At the time of Abu Bakrs nomination, the Quraishites were in the majority, and therefore, they had the right to the leadership. However, if at another time a different group becomes the majority, then that group deserves the

leadership. The majority group deserves the leadership, so long as it does not stray from the Quran and Sunnah. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).
Answering-Ansar says

No mention of the Quran, Sunnah, ijma or qiyas at the Saqifa

In the eyes of the Wahabies The sources for the creed (aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of his Messenger sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors

Nonsense. The primary argument that won the day was Abu Bakrs reminder of a Prophetic Hadith. Abu Bakr ( ) 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) Furthermore, the Ansars and Muhajirs were making use of Shura which is mentioned in the Quran as the way the believers manage their affairs.
Answering-Ansar says

No reference to the virtues of the Shaykhain mentioned at the Saqifa

Both Parties put forward how they had aided the Prophet (saaws). The Muhajireen consisted of these three prominent Sahaba. We find in books of hadith that all three have many hadith in their praise. What better way to convince the other side would there have been than to advance the Prophet (saaws)s own praises of them. This would have been the final word on the matter. There would have been no doubting the words of the Prophet (saaws) a hadith of superiority would have brought the dispute to a close.

Neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( Abu Bakr ( ) said: ) went to Saqifah in order to obtain the Caliphate. In fact,

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) And Umar ( ) then repudiated the Caliphate, saying he was unworthy of it in front of Abu Bakr ( ) . Then he very much did mention the qualities of Abu Bakr ( . ) We read: 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 Bayaah (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 Bayaah. As the news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.275) There was no need to mention any more of the qualities of Abu Bakr ( ) as the people already rushed to pledge allegiance upon what Umar ( ) mentioned; the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) was nominated as Imam of the prayers during the Prophets sickness was actually the strongest proof for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( , )and this was therefore mentioned by Umar ( . ) Had the people still not been convinced, then perhaps Umar ( ) might have mentioned more of Abu Bakrs many qualities and honors. Yet, this is a non-issue because the others were won over with the simple argument that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was nominated by the Prophet ( )to be the substitute Imam of the prayers.
Answering-Ansar says

Reference to Hadhrath Ali (as) at the Saqifa

At two points the name Ali was mentioned by the Ansar.

We have already discussed this before, in our Response to Chapter 2. In the first narration cited by AnsweringAnsar, the name of Ali ( ) does not appear but rather the words Ali were added in brackets by the Shia translator, Mr. Ismail Poonawalla. As for the second narration, it is inauthentic and narrated by a liar and shameless forger, namely Ibn Humayd.
Answering-Ansar says

A man from the Ansar amidst the debate acknowledges that if Ali (as) was to enter the debate all pledge their

allegiance to him. Why would he say such a thing, unless the khilafat was Ali (as)s exclusive right?

Actually, the more appropriate question is: if these Ansars actually held the opinion that Ali ( ) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger, then why would these Ansars have been the ones to rush to appoint Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ? ) If the Ansars had felt that it was Alis exclusive right, then they would not have accepted Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) as Caliph nor would they have accepted Abu Bakr ( ) ! Therefore, we conclude that it could not have been the majority of Ansars who felt that Ali ( ) was fit for Caliphate, but rather at most it could only be a handful of them who felt that way.
Answering-Ansar says

If Hadhrath Ali (as) was tending to the funeral rites and the Ansar were of the opinion that Hadhrath Ali (as) had a

right in this matter, then why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar offer to invite him to the meeting?

Again, the more important and pertinent question is: why didnt the Ansars invite Ali ( ) to Saqifah themselves? Why had they rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ? ) What prevented them from seeking Ali ( ) out? Even Abu Sufyan ( ) approached Ali ( ) and offered to help him in the matter of Caliphate, but the Ansars did no such thing. In fact, the Ansars wanted to nominate their own man to be Caliph as opposed to any of the Muhajirs such as Ali ( . ) The conclusion, therefore, is that the matter is not at all as Answering-Ansar is implying: it was not the majority of Ansars who felt that Ali ( )was fit for Caliphate, but rather it was only a small minority of them.
Answering-Ansar says

This (Ali) was clearly a name the Ansar were happy with, he was mentioned so why not offer to suspend the

proceedings and make him as the Khalifa, this would have been okay to the Ansar. Why the insistence to continue debating the matter when there existed a man from the Muhajireen who the Ansar had no opposition to?

Again, it was not a name that all or even most of the Ansars were happy with. At most, it was a name that only a handful of them were satisfied with. On the other hand, the great majority of them wanted Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) to be Caliph. Furthermore, more of them were happy with the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ) than that of Ali ( . ) As proof of this, we remind the Shia of what happened after Uthmans death when the people nominated Ali ( ) to be Caliph. In fact, many of the prominent Ansars refused to give Bayaah to Ali ( ! ) Such illustrious Ansars such as Kab bin Malik, Hasan bin Thabit, Maslamah bin Mukhallad, Abu Saeed al-Khudri, Muhammad bin Maslamah, al-Numan bin Bashir, Zaid bin Thabit, Rafi bin Khadij, Fadalah bin Ubaid, Kab bin Ujrah, and others. We read: He (Ali) was not accepted as Caliph by all the citizens and especially (not) by all the (Ansarite) companions in Medina. Several Ansarite Companions, like Hassan bin Thabit, Kab bin Malik, Zayd bin Thabit, and Numan bin Bashir, did not pay homage to him. Similarly, several Quraishites also did not take the oath of allegiance at his hands. They were, to mention a few, Abdullah bin Amar, Sad bin Abi Waqqas, and others. The Umayyad clan, of course, paid no homage at allthe non-acceptance of so many Companions and citizens was itself a proof that there was no unanimity as there had been in the three elections before. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.329) Answering-Ansar claims that if Abu Bakr ( ) had given the name of Ali ( ) then this would have ended the matter and the Ansars would happily have accepted this name thereby ending the debate. What a preposterous argument that runs so contrary to the facts on the ground. Many prominent Ansars did not want Ali ( ) to be Caliph and many of them would refrain from giving their oath of allegiance to him after Uthmans death. It is absolutely absurd to claim that this is a name that would have ended the debate, when in fact it was Alis nomination to Caliph after Uthmans death which only augmented a debate into an all-out civil war. Let us keep in mind that the three Muhajirs head off to Saqifah in order to prevent disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah. By nominating Abu Bakr ( ) a man whom 33,000 Sahabah agreed uponUmar ( ) managed to save the unity of the Muslim Ummah and prevent Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) whom the vast majority of the Muslims (other than the Ansars) would not acceptfrom being elected. The fear was that if a less popular candidate was elected, this would create break away movements; to prevent this, a candidate needed to be chosen who had mass appeal, and this was only Abu Bakr ( . ) The people were eventually reconciled with the nomination of Abu Bakr ( ) based on the fact that he was the one chosen to lead the prayers. We have already acknowledged that there was a minority group who supported Alis Caliphate, including Zubair ( ) and Abu Sufyan ( ; ) therefore, it is quite possible that a small minority of the Ansars were part of this group. However, the vast majority of the Ansars supported Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) and it is strange that Answering-Ansar would attempt to imply otherwise. Was it not the Ansars themselves who rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) to be the Caliph? A group of people supported the Caliphate of Saad ibn Ubaadah ( , ) a group supported Ali ibn Abi Talib ( , ) and it is likely that other groups favored other people. Do the Shia know of any modern day election in which one candidate wins 100% of the vote? Surely this is not possible. Abu Bakr ( ) was, however, a more popular candidate than the others and it is for this reason that he became Caliph. Thirty-three thousand Sahabah took Bayaah at the hands of Abu Bakr ( , ) whereas only a handful supported Ali ( . ) The Shia author, S.H.M. Jafri, has a difficult time naming even twelve Sahabah who supported Alis Caliphate. We can see quite clearly that the supporters of Ali ( ) were few and far in between. Two of Alis supporters, for example, were Zubair ( ) and Abu Sufyan ( , ) but the Shia think of them as

apostates anyways. Would it then be justice for the Caliphate to go to the party in the minority as opposed to the will of the great majority? Surely not, and even Ali ( ) himself did not think so, because he eventually respected the Ijma of the community by taking Bayaah at the hand of Abu Bakr ( ) as confirmed in Shia books (Al-Ihtejaj, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Nassikhut-Tawareekh, etc). Please see our main article on Saqifah for discussion of this.
Answering-Ansar says

Their aim was to replace the Khalifa of Allah with the Khalifa of Man

In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) explicitly referred to himself not as the Caliph of Allah but rather as the Caliph of a man, namely the Messenger of Allah. Such was the modesty of Abu Bakr ( , ) whoeven though he had just become the ruler of an emerging super-powerused such a modest title. This contrasts with those Shia leaders who use such flamboyent titles as Ayatollah (i.e. the Sign of God Himself). Abu Bakr ( ) said: Call me not the Caliph of the Lord. I am but the Caliph of the Prophet of the Lord. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.225) We read: Origin of the titles of KhalifaWhen Abu Bakr was elected as the chief (of the Muslim Ummah), he gave orders that he should be known by the title of Khalifat-ur-Rasul-Allah i.e. the substitute or successor of the Prophet of God. This was a modest title, for it did not imply divine sovereignitybut it meant that he was merely to administer the affairs of the Muslim community after the departure of the Prophet. Later, when Umar succeeded Abu Bakr, he too assumed (the) equally modest title of Khalifat Khalifat-ur-Rasul-Allah i.e. the Caliph of the Caliph of the Prophet of God. Though an expressive term, it was clumsy and unwieldly(it was) shortenedsimply to Khalifa, or caliph, its anglicized form. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.364)
Answering-Ansar says

He (Umar) made this confession during his own Khilafath. This is what we find in Tabari, Ibne Abbas narrates:

Confession? What confession? What Ibn Abbas ( ) narrated in Tabari cannot at all be considered a confession. Surely, the Shia have a strange interpretation of things.
Answering-Ansar says

al Bukhari also records Hadhrath Umars sermon in similar wording, and this addition:

I have been informed that a speaker among you says, By Allah if Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such and such person. One should not deceive oneself by saying that the Pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. Sahih al Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540

When Umar ( ) was on his deathbed, there were many people who considered nominating their own Caliph, as the Ansars had once rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah ( . ) It was the Ansars who had forced the three Muhajirs to rush to Saqifah, and it was because of their over-aggressiveness on the matter that the oath of allegiance was hurriedly rendered lest the Ansars change their mind. Both Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) had wished that the situation had been more ideal and that the rest of the Muhajirs be included in the Shura. In order to rectify this problem, Umar ( ) ensured that all of the prominent figures be included in the Shura this time around. In this speech, he was simply saying that the Ansars were the ones who had erred by forcing the meeting at Saqifah and that Abu Bakrs nomination was a spontaneous un-premeditated affair, or faltah. In other words, what Umar ( ) was saying here was that the Shaikhayn had not gone out to obtain the Caliphate intentionally and therefore they could not be blamed for not rounding up the rest of the Muhajirs. Had this been their intention (i.e. to steal the Caliphate), then of course this would have been wrong to exclude the Muhajirs. This is what Umar ( ) was warning against in this speech, asking the people not to rush to elect their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims. He explained that people might think that this is what Abu Bakr ( ) did, but he says that in reality Abu Bakr ( ) did not go to Saqifah with this intention and that his election was a spontaneous and un-premeditated affair (i.e. faltah).
Answering-Ansar says

This speech itself nullifies any argument advanced by the majority school, i.e. that the coming to power of Abu Bakr

was legitimateHadhrath Umar made it clear that it was evil should the process be repeated again, the individuals concerned should be put to death.


Nothing in Umars speech indicates that Abu Bakrs Caliphate was illegitimate. It was the Ansars who had rushed the matter, and Allah had saved the Muslim Ummah from any evil consequences of the hastiness shown by the Ansars. Through Allahs Mercy and Grace, Abu Bakr ( ) saved the Ummah from civil war and destruction. Umar ( ) mentions here that if anyone rushes to elect their own man as the Ansars had done, then this time around they would be severely punished for that. Again, this was a criticism of the Ansars and not the three Muhajirs.
Answering-Ansar says

There was no (shura) consultation, ijma the cornerstone of Sunni theology did not take place

It is at times like this that we wonder at the Shia diatribes which are devoid of facts and based solely upon lies. Who said there was no Shura or Ijma with the nomination of Abu Bakr ( ? ) The Shura most definitely took place, between the vast majority of the Ansars and the three Muhajirs. The Majlis-e-Shura need not consist of more than a handful of representatives, and therefore the requirement for Shura was fulfilled. It is not only un-necessary that every single person is present at the Shura, but rather it is discouraged for the fact that such a Majlis would become unwieldly and difficult to manage: after all, how could over thirty thousand Sahabah hold deliberations? The Shura was conducted with those present at Saqifah but it was binding on those not present. For proof of this, we turn to the Shias own Nahjul Balagha in which Ali ( ) allegedly said: Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism. (Nahjul Balagha, Letter 6, Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm#letter6) As for Ijma (consensus), that definitely took place as well. The very next day after Saqifah, thirty-three thousand Sahabah took their Bayaah at the hand of Abu Bakr ( . )
Answering-Ansar says

he was also negating his own khilafath for he was appointed by Hadhrath Abu Bakr - without consulting the

companions.

Has the author of Answering-Ansars article never opened up a history book in his life? Every credible sources proves that Abu Bakr ( ) consulted the prominent Sahabah before finalizing his nomination of Umar ( . ) Before Abu Bakr ( ) finalized his decision to appoint Umar ( , ) he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman bin Awf ( , ) Uthman bin Affan ( , ) Ali ibn Abi Talib ( , ) and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah ( . ) We read: At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphatefollowing this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: Umars internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all. When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313) In another narration, we read: When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab. Abdur Rahman replied: You are asking me about something of which you know betterBy Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him. Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: Tell me about Umar Ibn Khattab. Uthman replied: You know him better than us. Abu Bakr said: Still, O Abu Abdullah! Uthman answered: Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199) Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr ( Muhajirs. We read: ) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and

And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayras well as other big leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirunso Usayd said: Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199) During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf ( ) and Talhah ( ) who raised any objections to Umar ( , ) but then Abu Bakr ( ) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman ( ) and Talhah ( ) both agreed with Abu Bakrs rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman ( ) and Ali ( , ) they both favored Umar ( . )

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar ( ; ) the prominent representativesincluding all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs selected Umar ( ) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar ( ) secured the consent of the governed. We read: [Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience: I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph? Hearing this, they (the masses) said: We all agree with your choice and opinion. Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: You should then carry out Umars orders and obey him. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314) We read: Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure while Asba b. Umays was steadying him with tattoed hands. He said (to the people): Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you? They responded: We hear and obey. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147) Abu Bakr ( ) would even ask the peoples permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar ( ) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman ( ) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read: (Uthman said): Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter? The people said: Yes. All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200) So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr ( ) did not at all install Umar ( ) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr ( ) gave his suggestion as Umar ( , ) and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the consent of the governed is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr ( ) the Caliph of an emerging super-power had the modesty and decency to have his own will proof-read by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld.
Answering-Ansar says

In these early days both Ammar bin Yasir and Zubayr were Shii.

Actually, neither Ammar ( ) nor Zubair ( ) were ever Shia in the sense of Imamiyyah Shiism. They were mainstream Muslims and not followers of heterodoxy. Neither Ammar ( ) nor Zubair ( ) held the opinion that Ali ( ) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger to be the first Infallible Imam. If that were the case, then why would the same Zubair ( ) reject the Caliphate of Ali ( ) twenty-five years later in the Battle of the Camel? Based on this, we see that the supporters of Ali ( ) after Saqifah did not at all believe that Ali ( ) was divinely appointed to be Caliph or Imam, but rather they simply felt that he was more fitted for that position based on worldly reasons. The idea that Ali ( ) was divinely appointed by Allah was actually propagated much afterwards during the Caliphate of Uthman ( ) by the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba and the Ghullat originators of modern day Shiism.
Answering-Ansar says

The reason for making this speech is what needs to be gleaned. Hadhrath Umar had heard that upon his death

people would pledge allegiance to so and so. Who was this so and so that Hadhrath Umar was referring to, that was the cause of this speech.

Poonawalla in his translation of this edition of Tabari writes in footnote 1308 relating to Hadhrath Umars speech as follows: According to Baladhuri, Ansab I, 581, this was Zubayr, and the person whom he wanted to hail as caliph was Ali. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, on the other hand reports that the person who said it, according to al-Jahiz, was Ammar b. Yasir or, according to ahl al hadith, Talha; but the person they wanted to hail as caliph was Ali. It was thus Alis name that made Umar disturbed and caused him to deliver a fiery speech. The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p189, footnote 1308 So, the motive for the speech was to quash the rumors that the intention was to make Imam Ali the next Khalifa. This was merely a continuation of the policy that was implemented in the venets surrounding the Saqifa meeting. This was part of an unrelenting / systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach of the designated and rightful successor to the Holy Prophet

It may well have been Ali ( ) who a group of people were intent on electing without consulting the rest of the Muslims. Likewise had Abu Sufyan ( ) approached Ali ( ) after the Prophets death, urging Ali ( ) to seize the Caliphate without consulting the other Muslims. Umar ( ) was therefore discouraging anyone, not only Ali ( ) but all other possible candidates as well, to refrain from rushing to nominate their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims first. Actually, by this time, a great competition had begun between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. Both clans were wishing to keep the rulership for themselves and they were aggressively vying for power. In this matter, both groups were equally to blame. Both the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah consisted of good and bad people. Perhaps the Shia would demand that the Banu Hashim is automatically superior based on the fact that the Prophet ( )was from this clan, but let us remind them that Abu Lahab was also from the Banu Hashim. The Shia may point to some evil person being from the Banu Umayyah, but we remind them that the Prophets wives were from Banu Umayyah. We read: From the very beginning, the Prophet was being harassed and oppressed by his own people, and his mission was being continually interrupted by violent, and even armed, opposition. A tendentious impression, contrary to the facts, has been assiduously created by most of the (Shia) writers that Banu Ummayah were the worst enemies of the Prophet and his mission(but) the Umayyads opposition (is) exaggerated. As a matter of fact, more Ummayads than Hashimites figured among those who migrated to Medinah with the Prophet and also among those who had previously migrated to Ethiopia. Similarly, among those who participated in the Battle of Badr, more Umayyads than Hashimites fought for the Cause of Islam. Barring four or five, all Hashimite notables, including the Prophets own cousins, fought on the side of the Meccans. No doubt, the Umayyads at that time masterminded the Meccan opposition (but this was only) since Abu Sufyan happened to be the acknowledged leader of the Meccans. But it should not forgotten thatthe Prophets own first cousins, Talib and Aqeel (sons of Abu Talib), Utbah and Utaibah (sons of his uncle Abu Lahab), Naufal bin al-Harith bin Abdil Muttalib (of Banu Hashim), Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi (of Banu Hashim), and Abdullah bin Umayyah (son of the Prophets aunt Aatikah)were all on the side of Meccans in the Battle of Badr. Talib, the eldest brother of Ali, was actually killed fighting devotedly for the Meccans. Late in 8 A.H. or early in 9 A.H., when Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi and Abdullah bin Umayyah (the two cousins of the Prophet mentioned above) first met the Prophet, he (the Prophet) turned his face in disgust and did not even like to look at themhis cousin, Aqeel bin Abi Talib (Alis brother), had hastened to occupy (i.e. usurp) the Prophets house as an evacuee property when the Prophet migrated to Medinah, and later he (Aqeel) sold it to a brother of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. The Prophet actually complained of his behavior when he was asked on the fall of Mecca(sources: Asah-hus-Siwar by Maulana Danapuri, Seerat-un-Nabi by Allamah Shibli and Jila-ulUyoon by the famous Shia esteemed traditionist Mullah Baqir Majlisi). Few Hashimites were appointed by the Prophet to any high office of responsibility while several Umayyads, including Abu Sufyan and his son, Yezid, were appointed governors. The Prophet married his eldest daughter, Zaynab, to an Umayyad, Abul Aas bin ar-Rahee. They proved a happily married couple and the Prophet openly paid a tribute to his Umayyad son-in-law (sources: Sahih Bukhari and Bab Dhikr Ashaar-in-Nabi). The second and the third daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthoom, were formally engaged to his Hashimite first cousins, Utbah and Utaibah (sons of Abu Lahab), but they broke the engagement to spite the Prophet. Thereupon, the PRophet married these daughters, one after another, to Uthman bin Affan, another Umayyad notable, who gave him no cause for regret In the end, in connection with the baseless charge of the Umayyads (supposed) inveterate prejudice against Islam, suffice it to say that, on the contrary, it is a Hashimites (Abu Lahab) unenviable distinction that he (Abu Lahab) and his family have been eternally condemned by name in the Quran for their enmity towards the

Prophet and his mission. Apart from being the usual form of the customary curse, the expression the two hands of Abi Lahab may metaphorically refer to his two sons, Utbah and Utaibah (The Last Messenger with a Lasting Message, by Ziauddin Kirmani, pp.186-191) In any case, this rivalry was a natural result of human nature, namely of supporting ones own family over and above others. Some from amongst the Banu Hashim held the errant opinion that they should be favored over others simply because they were a clan blessed with Prophethood. Likewise, some from amongst the Banu Umayyah held the errant opinion that they should be favored because they had always been the leaders of Mecca. This power struggle was getting very intense and thankfully neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) came from either clan. However, after Umars death, the two most capable candidates left were Uthman ( ) from the Banu Umayyah and Ali ( ) from the Banu Hashim. Each clan was putting pressure on these two candidates, urging them to lay claim to the Caliphate. Umar ( ) was stabbed by Abu Lula, the beloved of the Shiawhom they call Baba Shuja-e-din which can be translated as Honored Defender of Religion. On his deathbed, Umar ( ) sought to unify the ranks of the Muslims, and therefore he ordered the assembly of an Electoral Council with representatives from both Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. By thus doing so, Umar ( ) ensured that the two clans come to a mutual agreement and remain united. Umar ( ) nominated Uthman ( ) and Ali ( ) to be in this Electoral Council. Therefore, Umar ( ) was not at all shutting the doors of the Caliphate of either of these men, but rather he was simply making sure that neither of their clans would declare their own Caliph without consulting the rivaling clan. And this is why Umar ( ) made this fiery speech warning the people not to nominate a Caliph without consulting all sides. In fact, this is a fact not known by many Shia, but Umars top choice was actually Ali ( . ) Umar ( ) wanted to place Ali ( ) over his own son, Abdullah ibn Umar ( . ) We read: So (those who had asked him to nominate Abdullah ibn Umar) left and returned in the evening, suggesting to the Commander of the Faithful (Umar) that he draw up a sucession agreement. He (Umar) replied: I had decided after talking to you that I would look into the matter and appoint someone over you, the most suitable of you to bear you along the true path. And he indicated Ali. He (Umar) continued: ButI do not want to take on the burden (of the Caliphate), dead as well as alive. You should approach that group of men who the Messenger of Allah said are among the People of Paradise. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144) Does this at all sound like a man who despises Ali ( ) and who wants to prevent him from becoming Caliph? Why would Umar ( ) tell all the people that he thinks that Ali ( ) is most suited for the task? How long can the Shia operate under such strange conspiracy theories whereby they pit Umar ( ) against Ali ( , ) even though we know that Ali ( ) gave his own daughter in marriage to Umar ( ! ) And yet, the Shia are fooled by the lies of the likes of Abdullah bin Saba who create such unlikely conspiracy theories that Umar ( ) and Ali ( ) despised each other. If Umar ( ) truly sought to deny the Caliphate to Ali ( , ) then why did Umar ( ) choose Ali ( ) to be one of the six on the Electoral Council? Why would Umar ( ) thus make Ali ( ) eligible for the Caliphate? It is strange how the Shia can say such strange things that defy common sense. In fact, Umar ( ) even commented on the Electoral Council, saying: I think one of these two, Ali or Uthman, will become the leader. If it is Uthman, he is a gentle person; if it is Ali, he has a (good) sense of humor, how suitable is he to carry them along the true road!

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.146) Does this sound like a person who is conspiring to prevent Ali ( ) from the Caliphate? Not only did Umar ( ) place Ali ( ) on the Electoral Council but he also included Alis known supporter, Zubair ( . ) Why didnt Umar ( ) simply nominate Uthman ( ) to be Caliph? Would that not have been a much more easier and simpler method of marginalizing Ali ( ? ) Umar ( ) placed Ali ( ) and his supporter, Zubair ( , ) on the Electoral Council; is this what the Shia consider an unrelenting/systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach of Ali ( ) ? Umar ( ) disqualified his own son, and yet he publically endorsed Ali ( ) above even Uthman ( . ) A truly strange systematic campaign; perhaps the only unrelenting/systematic campaign is that of the Shia lies and slander against the Sahabah.
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Umar sought to justify the position that the people disliked the Prophethood and caliphate to run through

the same family. This is an attitude that has been noted before.

Actually, this attitude was held by Hasan ( Hasan ( ) said: ) who said something very similar. Before he died, 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) Therefore, no blame can be put on Umar ( ) for what he said. For the record, however, Umar ( ) was merely stating the well-known opinion of the masses, not his own opinion on the matter. Had the Prophet ( )used his position of power to place all his relatives into positions of power, then this would have greatly upset the masses, making them feel as if the Prophet ( )was claiming Prophethood for the worldly reason of putting his family above others. We read: This was the idea that led the Prophet to make a Hashimi neither a permanent ruler of a province nor a free and independantly responsible commander of a large army. Though in the expedition of Mauta, the Prophet deputed Jafar bin Abi Talib as a commander, he made his freed slave Zaid bin Harith his senior. Although, he assigned Ali bin Abi Talib the work of collecting the Islamic tax in Yemenand that for only a short timehe gave the post of administrator to Muadh bin Jabl and Abu Musa al-Ashari. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.25) It would have taken away from the greatness and innocent sincerity of the Prophet ( )if he meant to use his position of power to create a dynasty of rulers from his loins. It should be noted that Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) themselves forbade their own family members from succeeding them, no doubt following the Sunnah of the Prophet ( )who did not exploit his leadership position in order to place his own relatives in power.

Answering-Ansar says

Al Tabari records a further, more heated discussion between the two individuals; again the narrator is Abdullah ibne

Abbas:

In fact, this is a narration about the same event but it is a weak and inauthentic version narrated by Ibn Humayd, who we have already discussed before in our rebuttal; Ibn Humayd was known as a liar and shameless forger. The discrepancies between the first version quoted by Answering-Ansar and this version by Ibn Humayd show clearly that the latter contains many anomalies in it, in particular the odd and out-of-place dialogue. Having said that, Answering-Ansar did not even quote the entire passage, and quite cleverly cut out the very next line, in which Umar ( ) softens. Even though the passage is inauthentic, let us at least read the entire narration. Right before what Answering-Ansar quoted, we read: As Umar b. al-Khattab and some of his friends were reciting poetry together, one said that so and so was the best poet. Another said that, rather, so and so was the best poetI (Ibn Abbas) arrived and Umar remarked: The most knowledgeable on the subject has just arrived. And he asked: Who is the best poet, Ibn Abbas? I replied it was Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma. [Ibn Abbas then narrates poetry from Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma] Bravo! exclaimed Umar. I do not know of anyone more worthy of such poetry than this branch of Banu Hashim because of the excellence of the Messenger of Allah and their close relationship to him. I said: May you be granted lasting success, Commander of the Faithful. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.136-137) Notice the praise Umar ( ) gives Banu Hashim by calling them worthy and close to the Messenger of Allah. And Ibn Abbas says to Umar ( : ) May you be granted lasting success. So we see that the two were actually very close and loved each other. Answering-Ansar has quite cleverly only quoted the middle part of the passage in which the two Sahabah get into a small squabble, a tactic quite common amongst troublemakers who wish to take things out of context. Even after the small disagreement, the two Sahabah immediately reconcile. We read, at the end of the very same passage: I (Ibn Abbas) replied: Take it easy, Commander of the Faithful; do not describe the hearts of a people from whom Allah has removed uncleanness, and to whom He has purified completely, as being envious and malicious. The heart of the Messenger of Allah is one of the hearts of Banu Hashim. Umar retorted: Leave me, Ibn Abbas. I said I would comply, but, when I went to get up, he (Umar) became embarassed at what he had said to me and said: Stay where you are, Ibn Abbas. I shall tend to your right and approve of what gives you pleasure.

I replied: Commander of the Faithful, I have a right that is incumbent upon you and every Muslim. Anyone who preserves it will achieve good fortune; anyone who does not will lose good fortune. Then he got up and went away. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.138) It should also be noted that Ibn Abbas ( ) was the cause of the disagreement, not Umar ( . ) Umar ( ) addressed the Banu Hashim with love and respect, saying that it was worthy, excellent, etc. After having said all that, Umar ( ) wanted to explain why the people chose not to elect a leader from Banu Hashim in spite of all that, namely that they did not want the Banu Hashim to become full of pride and arrogance for having been blessed with Prophethood and Caliphate. (And this was a legitimate concern considering the arrogant attitude of some from amongst Banu Hashim who denigrated Banu Umayyah.) To this, Ibn Abbas ( ) likened these people to a people Allah described in the Quran who happened to be disbelievers. Naturally, this was a grave accusation, and so Umar ( ) replied: Far from it indeed, Ibn Abbas. I used to hear things about you of which I was reluctant to inquire, lest they bring about your removal from your position with me. Indeed, it would be a wrong thing to liken Muslims to disbelievers. Umar ( ) then said: I have you saying they have turned (the Caliphate) away from you out of envy and injustice. Once again, Ibn Abbas ( ) was accusing the other people of grave things, such as being envious and unjust. And Ibn Abbas ( ) even likened these people to Iblis. It was this inflammatory comparison that prompted Umar ( ) to say: Far from it! You hearts Bani Hashim, have refused [to show anything] other than unchanging envy and increasing spite and malice. Ibn Abbas ( ) had declared that the people were envious, but Umar ( ) replied that saying such a thing is itself indicative of being spiteful towards the people.
Answering-Ansar says

Both accounts indicate that the Quraysh resented the Banu Hashim and their approach to put in place and appoint

Hadhrath Abu Bakr was the correct one.

It was only Ibn Abbas ( ) who said this, but Umar ( ) rejected his opinion on this matter. The people did not resent the Banu Hashim, but rather it was the fact that many from amongst the Banu Hashim had adopted an attitude of superiority due to the fact that the Prophet ( )was from amongst their clan. It was for this reason, not out of resentment, that the people wished that Banu Hashim refrain from being placed as lords over the rest of the community simply because they were related to the Prophet ( ).
Answering-Ansar says

One however manages to get a better understanding of Hadhrath Umars thinking, his attitude that leadership

should not continue in one family


Yes, this was the attitude of Umar ( , ) who rightfully was against dynastic rule of one bloodline. Such a thing would be unjust and would defy the egalatarian principles of Islam. Umar ( ) was most strict and severe in this matter with regards to his own family! It was for this very reasonthat the leadership should not continue or be hoarded up in one familythat Umar ( ) categorically forbade his son, Abdullah ibn Umar ( , ) from being a candidate for the Caliphate. We read: Someone said (to Umar): I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar. But Umar replied: I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own familyit is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammads community. I have striven and have kept my own family out. (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)
Answering-Ansar says

it was an indication that the aim was to ensure that Imam Ali did not attain the leadership over the Ummah, not that

day not ever.

Yet Umar ( ) was the one who nominated Ali ( ) to be one of the six candidates for the Caliphate, and it was Umar ( ) who chose Ali ( ) over and above all the other candidates. Was it not Umar ( ) who publically declared that he thought Ali ( ) was the most fit to lead the Muslims after his death?
Answering-Ansar says

Interesting three ancient historical works record a letter by none other than Muawiya that points to the fact that

Imam Alis rights were indeed snatched. The letter was a response to one sent to him by Hadhrath Muhammad bin Abu Bakr who criticized Muawiyas policy of opposition towards Imam Ali stating it was unjust to oppose a man so superior. He justified his position by referring to the acts of his predecessors:

We and your father used during the lifetime of the Prophet used to consider the right of Ibn Abi Talib binding upon us, and his excellence was well above ours. Despite this when Allah chose for the Prophet what he had in store for himHe took him to Himself. Then your father and his Faruq were the first to snatch it and oppose him, they both worked together on thisIf it was injustice, then your father founded it and we are his partners. We followed his guidance and imitated his action.

Waqat Siffin by Minqari p118-120 (Cairo edition 1962); Ansab al Ashraf by Baladhuri Volume 2 page 393-397 (Beirut edition 1974); Masudi Muruj ud Dhuhab Vol 3 page 197 - 201 (Beirut 1969 edition)

A completely inauthentic letter, no doubt written by the Shia themselves! The three sources that AnsweringAnsar gives are all useless. The first one, namely Waqat Siffin, was written by a Shia Rafidhi. As for the second source, namely Ansab al Ashraf, the editor was a Shia, namely Muhammad Baqir al-Mahmudi. Furthermore, it is a dictionary on geneology, not a historical book. Absolutely no chain is given and it is therefore completely useless as a source. As for the third source given, namely Muruj ud Dhuhab, it was written by a Shia Mutazzalite.

Response to Chapter 7 of Answering-Ansars Article on Saqifah

Response to Chapter 7 Entitled Burial of the Prophet Answering-Ansar says

The Saqifa meeting was given preference to the Prophet (saaws)s funeral

This is an attested fact.

Perhaps this is an attested fact in opposite world or in Alice and Wonderland. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) did not at all miss the Prophets funeral, not even one single moment of it. Although our Shia brothers imply that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on the Prophets funeral, this is actually not true at all. After he saved the Ummah at Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) rushed back to help with the Prophets funeral. In fact, the only thing that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on was washing the Prophets 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 ( ) miss out on? We read:

The dead body should preferably be washed by a relative. (Everyday Fiqh, Vol.1, by Abdul Aziz Kamal, http://muslim-canada.org/fiqhch29.html) Furthermore, only a small handful of people should be present, no more than is absolutely necessary. The reason for this is to maintain the Haya of the body. We read: At the washing, only people whose presence is needed may stay. (Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq) And we read further: The majority of jurists are of the opinion that washing the body of a dead Muslim is a fard kifayah or a collective obligation. If some people attend to it, it is done on behalf of all, as commanded by Allahs Messenger, peace be upon him, and practiced by the Muslim community. (Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol.4, Sayyid Saabiq) In other words: 1. The Prophets body should have been washed by his close relatives. 2. No other extra person should be present except those absolutely necessary from amongst his relatives. 3. The obligation to wash the Prophets body is a communal obligation; the Prophets relatives removed any obligation from the shoulders of the rest of the community, including Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) . Had Abu Bakr ( ) or Umar ( ) insisted upon washing the body, then this would have been wrong, as is clear from one who knows Fiqh. As for the Prophets funeral, not only did Abu Bakr ( ) help out with the burial, he was actually the one who is credited with deciding where the Prophet ( ) was 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 Prophets bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the spot. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246) And so we wonder: what part of the Prophets funeral did Abu Bakr ( ) or Umar ( ) miss out on? We see clearly from Tareekh al-Islam and other credible history books that it was only the task of washing the body that Abu Bakr ( ) missed out on, something which he would not have taken part in anyways due to the fact that it is a task given to near relatives only.
Answering-Ansar says

Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophets to guide mankind. Is there any evidence that when these Prophets died; their

companions failed to attend their funerals, and instead chose to participate in the selection of their immediate successors? If no such precedent exists then why did the Seal of Prophet (saaws)s companions adopt this approach?

It is all too easy to make such grandiose claims when we do not have any stories or narrations about the funerals of any of these 124,000 Prophets.
Answering-Ansar says

Lest there remain any doubt over the events as described by us we will shall quote the words of the Hanafi scholar,

Allamah Shibli Numani:

It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves! It is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament and the unpleasantness of the act becomes still more poignant when it is remembered that those persons who were connected with the Prophet by ties of blood and kinsmanship (Ali and the Banu Hashim) were naturally affected by his death and the sad bereavement prostrated them with grief, which, coupled with their anxiety to perform the last offices to the dead, hardly left the room for ulterior considerations. Al Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Vol 1 p 85-86 In the end what transpired at the Saqifa is astounding, even to the casual observer. Even Shibli Numani, a diehard defender of the institution, has written of the event with much astonishment based upon his presuppositions of the character of those involved at the Saqifa.

The deception of the Shia knows no bounds! Here, we see one common tactic used by the lovers of Taqiyyah, namely quoting only half of the text dramatically out of context. Allamah Shibli Numanis book Al-Farooq is about the life of Umar ibn al-Khattab ( . ) In it, Allamah Numani refutes much of the propaganda levied against Umar ( , ) particularly by Shia and Orientalists. Here, Allamah Numani is reproducing

the Shia arguments and accusations against Umar ( ) in order that he may then refute them. What Answering-Ansar has done is to quote the first part in which Allamah Numani is quoting the Shia arguments and then claiming that this is what Allamah Numani believed! In fact, what Answering-Ansar has quoted is not at all what Allamah Numani believed, but rather it is what he refuted. The very next line which comes after what Answering-Ansar quoted, reads as follows: We admit that works on Tradition and Biography seemingly impress ones mind with the same notion, but such is not the case if facts are inquired into. (Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol.1, p.86) When Allamah Numani was reproducing the Shia argument, he started it off with it is apparently surprising that And then he goes on to say that it is still more surprising that this act is attributed to the persons (Abu Bakr and Omar) who are the brightest stars of the Islamic firmament. Perhaps it is easy to get confused but we kindly ask the reader to refer to the original Urdu text; it is clear to the Urdu reader that these are not the views of Allamah Numani but rather he is merely stating that this is what it may seem at first but rather the truth of the matter is such-and-such. Indeed, Allamah Numani then refutes the Shia argument by bringing up four points, as follows: 1. Whether the question of the Caliphate was raised by Umar and his Companions? 2. Whether these personages went to the Saqifah Bani Saidah of their own accord? 3. Whether Ali and Banu Hashim were not anxious to (likewise) secure the Caliphate for themselves? 4. Whether or not the action taken by Umar and Abu Bakr was justifiable under the circumstances? (Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol.1, p.86) 1. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) did not raise the question of the Caliphate. In fact, it was the Ansars who rushed to Saqifah in order to elect Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) as Caliph. As for Abu Bakr ( ) , when he heard the news, the first thing he did was rush towards the Prophets house, not rush towards the Caliphate! We read: Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophets) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allahs Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophets 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) As for Umar ( , ) the first thing he did was collapse in a state of grief and despair. We read:

The tragic news (of the Prophets death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah. Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of MedinahUmar was so stunned (by grief) that he almost loss consciousness. (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559)

2. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) did not want to go to Saqifah at all; they did not want to be disturbed whilst they were with the Prophets body. In fact, they had to be cajoled into going by a man named Mughirah bin Shubah ( ) who approached Umar ( ) and notified him of an impending emergency. We read: It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophets 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 Saidah, andas the situation was graveit 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-Farooq, 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 ( ) and Umar ( ) were devastated by the Prophets death and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet ( .)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 ( ) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar ( ) first informed Abu Bakr ( ) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr ( ) refused to come out and disregarded Umar ( ; ) it was only when Abu Bakr ( ) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophets side. We read: Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3) The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet ( )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. 4. Before resorting to highly emotional arguments, we must realize that Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) were more than justified in setting out for Saqifah due to the outstanding circumstances. AnsweringAnsar has made many claims about how missing a funeral is not proper, but they have not at all taken into consideration the state of national emergency, in which the ordinary rules cannot apply. Had the two not left the Prophets house for Saqifah, it would have been nothing short of irresponsibility on their part. Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansars were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansars were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansars had adopted a very belligerent attitude, and Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) therefore went as peace-makers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansars from placing themselves at loggerheads with the rest of Arabia. If the Ansars declared their own Caliphate, then nothing would prevent other tribes from similarly declaring their own leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the Caliphate. When Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) set out for Saqifah, they did so with no intention of seeking the

Caliphate for themselves but rather only to prevent the Ansars 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 Ansars. The Ansars 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 ( ,) who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) took along with them Abu Ubaidah ( , ) 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 ( )were alive, he would not have wanted Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) to dilly-dally but rather he would indeed have wanted them to act swiftly to save the Muslim Ummah, which would be the best way to honor the memory of the Prophet ( ). 3. We have discussed Allamah Numanis first, second, and fourth point; now let us discuss the third point: it would be incorrect to criticize other parties for rushing for the Caliphate when we know that Banu Hashim, including Ali ( , ) were a group that aggressively sought the Caliphate themselves. In fact, neither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Umar ( ) sought the Caliphate, something which was a dramatic difference between the first two Caliphs and the second two Caliphs: both Uthman ( ) and Ali () actively sought out the Caliphate. The reason for this is no doubt the rivalry between Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim, in which each clan sought power over the other. At every turn, Ali ( ) sought out the Caliphate; admittedly, he cannot be blamed for this because most of this pressure came from his fellow tribesmen who wished to see their clan excel others. Meanwhile, Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) never sought out the Caliphate and they went to extreme lengths to ensure that their clan and family did not benefit from their rise to power. The Shaikhayn were painstakingly scrupulous about the public funds and state expenditure, never using it for the benefits of their own living or family. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) refused to allow their relatives to succeed them. In conclusion, the Shia cannot at all portray that the Shaikhayn wished to have the Caliphate for themselves. Abu Bakr ( ) offered the Caliphate to Umar ( ) and Abu Ubaidah ( , ) and this is proof that he himself did not care for it. As for Umar ( , ) he refused the Caliphate when it was offered to him! On the other hand, Ali ( ) sought out the Caliphate for himself. So how then can the Shia lay any blame on the Shaikhayn who by their actions did not seek out the Caliphate for themselves but were rather given the Caliphate by others? If the Shia would like to blame someone for being power hungry, then this would only work against them by implicating the good character of Ali ( ( . ) Having said this, we cannot criticize Ali, the Lion of Allah, because he was no doubt simply being pressured by his clan and relatives.)
Answering-Ansar says

Even Shibli Numani, a die-hard defender of the institution, has written of the event with much astonishment based

upon his pre-suppositions of the character of those involved at the Saqifa.


What utter deception by the lovers of Taqiyyah! Allamah Numani was not at all surprised by anything but rather he was saying it may seem surprising, but
Answering-Ansar says

The contemporary Saqifiites par excellence are Hizb ut-tahrir, a political group dedicated since the 1950s to reviving

the now dead institution of the khlilafath of man in the presence of Allahs Khalifa in the form of the Twelfth Imam of the Shii. With this sole objective in mind this group have sought to underplay the political dissensions to the authority of the Khalifa of man as well as to rewrite history, this is what they state in their key document The Khilafah:

The Ijmaa of the Sahaba to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw) (sic), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw) (sic). So this was an Ijmaa to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. The Khilafah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Khilafah Publications, London, pp.3-4

First of all, the group known as Hizb ut-Tahrir cannot at all be used as an authoratative source since they are a group which has been criticized by the Sunni mainstream for certain views of theirs. Having said that, they are correct on the point that appointing a Caliph takes priority over everything else. The reason for this is fairly obvious, namely that a country without a leader will fall into anarchy and chaos. Not a single moment can go by in which a country does not have a leader. The United States, for example, makes sure that if the President were to die, the Vice President immediately replaces him, and if the Vice President then dies, then someone else replaces him, etc. There is a careful pecking order selected so that anarchy and chaos does not ensue, because the masses are known to enter a state of panic without a leader to guide them. In fact, the person who first informs the American people that the President has died is in fact the Vice President himself who declares himself the new President. In this way, any public pandemonium is diverted.
Answering-Ansar says

The point made is that the meeting at the Saqifa was haram, undoubtedly haram since the priority incumbent by the

ordinances of Islam are to bury the dead as fast as possible. This is the Seal of all Prophets!

The priority in Islam is to select the leader, as the Muslim Ummah must never be leaderless. Please see the discussion above for this. The meeting at Saqifah was troublesome not because the Prophet ( ) was needing to be burried, but rather it was wrong because not all of the prominent Sahabah were invited. Yet, as we have discussed thoroughly, this was the fault of the Ansars and the Muhajirs were absolved of all blame in this matter. In regards to the Seal of the Prophets, this is pretentious and sanctimonious coming from the Shia, who have themselves created a mockery over the idea of the word khatm (i.e. seal of finality). Is it not the Shia who like the Qadianisplay word games with this word khatm? Is it not the Shia who extend the Prophethood by believing their Imams continue Prophethood and that these Imams are in fact superior to Prophets? By creating a position higher than Prophethood, the Shia obviate the need for the final seal of Prophethood.
Answering-Ansar says

The second point made is that the Saqifa was a shameful meeting as it was occurring while the Seal of Prophets was

being buried.

The meeting at Saqifah did not at all take place when the Prophet ( )was being buried but rather it was taking place when the Prophets body was being washed by the near relatives, a matter which others were not privy to anyways. In any case, it was the Ansars who caused the meeting at Saqifah, not the Shaikhayn.
Answering-Ansar says

The third point is that the Holy Prophet would not leave the Muslims in such a dilemma - one that the authors would

have us believe took the Muslims to the level of committing a sin - he left a successor.

The Shia barrage the Sunnis with the question: How could the Prophet ( )not have left a successor or even a means to nominate a successor? And then they point to the fact that there are very few instructions in the Quran and Sunni Hadith in regards to how to nominate a successor. But this line of reasoning is completely invalid, because the Arabs already had a system of electing successors! The Prophet ( ) had no need to instruct the Arabs in the way of nominating their leaders, because they already had a working system in this regard. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Fred McGraw Donner of the University of Chicago writes in his book The Early Islamic Conquests that the standard Arabian practice even before the advent of Islam was for the prominent men of a group or tribe was to gather after a leaders death and elect a leader from amongst themselves. We read: Tribal customthe Caliphate originated from the ancient practise of the Arab tribes to select their chiefs. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.361) The historian, Thomas Arnold, wrote in his book Caliphate: When a chief of a tribe died, his office passed to that member of the tribe who enjoyed the greatest influence, the leading members of the tribe selecting to fill the vacant place with someone among themselves who was respected on account of age or influence, or for his services to the common weal; there was no complicated or formal method of election, nor within such small social groups would any elaborate procedure be necessary, and when teh choice of a successor had been made, those present swore allegiance to him one after another, clasping him by the hand. (Caliphate, by Thomas Arnold, p.361) We read further: It also explains, as (Thomas) Arnold says, why the Prophet did not nominate anyone as his successor. He realized that the Arabs had no liking for the hereditary principle in their choice of their chiefs, but left the members of the tribe entirely free to select their own leader. The truth of this view is demonstrated by the procedure of election followed in both cases (i.e. before and after Islam). The tribal Shaykh (i.e. head of state) was elected in two stages: firstly, a restricted group of leading heads of the families in the tribe chose a prospective chief. Then the ordinary members of the tribe confirmed this choice by expressing their consent in the Arab fashion of taking the Bayt, or the oath of allegiance at his hands by holding them in his hands. Exactly the same procedure was followed in the election of all four Orthodox CaliphsIn fact, it is these two features (Shura and Ijma) that made the Orthodox Caliphate a democratic and republican institution. But its democratic nature was merely a continuation of the democratic spirit of Arabian tribalism. Tribalism is essentially a direct democratic, collective way of life. (A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.362) Had the Prophet ( )imposed his own leader upon the people, then this would have been denying the rights of the people. Having said that, the Prophet ( )gave his indication that he favored Abu Bakr ( ) for this position, but he did so in the indirect manner of nominating him as the Imam of the prayers. In this manner, the people knew the choice of the Prophet ( )but they did not feel as if the Prophet ( )was imposing his will on the people as a tyrant would.
Answering-Ansar says

The fourth point made is that what gave the companions the right to appoint a Khalifa when that was not their

prerogative, and still more since the man who was Allahs Khalifa was duped and was not kept informed while he shouldered the burden of burying the Holy Prophet?

Shia fairy-tales and nothing more. The Prophet ( as his successor.

Answering-Ansar says

)did not at all nominate Ali (

The excuse is that the opinion of the companion overrides the Quran and the Sunnah since Ijmaa (of a handful of

Muhajirs) is given as the excuse. But Ijmaa came after the Quran and Muhammad (saws). And Ijmaa is a belief of the followers of the institution, and we the Shii who follow the family can here point out that the Quran and Sunnah override Ijmaa when the opinion of the companions overrides the Quran

When did the Sunnis ever claim the excuse that the opinion of the Companions overrides the Quran and the Sunnah? Never have we claimed such a thing! Not even if the entire world got together could they override the Quran and Sunnah. The Companions did not at all go against the Quran and Sunnah, so this is a moot point.
Answering-Ansar says

At no point did the companions say that the Khilafath of Hadhrath Abu Bakr came about via ijma. On the contrary as

we have stated earlier Hadhrath Umar had stated that it was a mistake, no consultation took place, meaning the ijma of the companions was not sought.

Answering-Ansar is conflating Ijma with Shurah. What was done at Saqifah was Shurah, and what was done the day after at the Prophets mosque was Ijma (i.e. when 33,000 Sahabah took the oath of allegiance at the hand of Abu Bakr).
Answering-Ansar says

The Shii follow Allah, the Holy Prophet and the Khalifas of Allah.

The Shia follow Shaytan, their own desires, and misguidance.

Answering-Ansar says

The Shii were with Imam Ali when he buried the Holy Prophet. Some who were not involved in the burial as they

were more distant and thus their absence would not be missed were defending the cause of the Khalifa of Allah by plotting how to take on the subversion of the Muhajirs, when the three Muhajirs interrupted their meeting and made Hadhrath Abu Bakr the Khalifa, in so doing not attending the funeral!

With Ali ( ) were only a handful of people, no more than ten in number. So according to AnsweringAnsar, the rest were at Saqifah? Does Answering-Ansar understand the implications of what they are cogitating? They are hereby saying that it was the Shia who were the cause of the gathering at Saqifah! And so all blame for the event lies on their shoulders! This entire article was one big diatribe against Saqifah, and yet here Answering-Ansar is saying that the Shia were the cause of it! Subhan-Allah! Well then, the debate is over and we can all safely say that all the blame lies on the shoulders of the Shia.
Answering-Ansar says

The Shii do not follow the companions when the companions humiliate the decorum that exists at the funeral of the

Seal of prophets. What an insult. Terms are broken off between families, and understandably, when due respect is not shown at a funeral - this was the funeral of Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) himself.

And yet Answering-Ansar was just claiming that it was the Shia who orchestrated Saqifah! So is it not these Shia, the cause of Saqifah, the ones guilty of humiliating the decorum [sic] and arent these the ones who have caused the insult?
Answering-Ansar says

The group, a political party, finally ease the sense of outrage they have acknowledged as being due to the

companions, by presenting the burial - its actual timing - as a fact - while 2 sets of traditions which contradict each other exist. We believe that the Holy prophet was buried on time. This group believes otherwise, and blatantly does so that Hadhrath Abu Bakr is made attendant at the burial if not in the actual funeral proceedings.

Some say that the Prophet ( )was buried on Tuesday, whereas others say Wednesday. The Prophet ( )died on Monday, and the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr ( ) was also given on Monday. So whether or not the Prophet ( )was buried on a Tuesday or Wednesday is immaterial, since the event of Saqifah took place on Monday, and even if we take the earlier day (Tuesday), this does not at all contradict the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) was present for the funeral. In fact, Answering-Ansar has put forward a deceitful argument: yes, we readily accept that one opinion states that the Prophet ( )was buried on Tuesday while the other is opinion that he was buried on Wednesday. And yet, both opinions place Abu Bakr ( ) at the scene!
Answering-Ansar says

Was the burial delayed?

If for arguments sake we accept the contention that the desire was to hold up proceedings so that a Khalifa could be appointed would the better approach not have been to delay the funeral? It is alleged that this was done intentionally so that a Khalifa would be appointed

Huh? The burial was not at all delayed due to the events at Saqifah. Who alleges that this (i.e. delaying the burial) was done so that a Caliph could be appointed? We Sunnis do not claim this!
Answering-Ansar says

There was no reason for any type of delay the Prophet (saaws) was dead and in accordance with Islamic rites he was

to be buried forthwith. There were no reasons to hold up proceedings. Why should the funeral of the Seal of Prophets be delayed for Hadhrath Abu Bakr to get there on time? It was Abu Bakrs job to get to the dead person of the Holy Prophet (saaws), and not the job of the deceased person of Hadhrath Muhammad (saws) to wait for Hadhrath Abu Bakr!


And yet not a single report says that the Prophets burial was delayed so that Abu Bakr ( there. Neither have we claimed such a thing, and neither is it true!
Answering-Ansar says

) could be

The reports that suddenly place Hadhrath Abu Bakr at the scene cannot be true.

And yet, thisthe fact that Abu Bakr ( ) was present at the Prophets burialis recorded in Tareekh alIslam, the History of al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, and pretty much every classical work of history, along with the numerous contemporary biographies of the Prophet ( .)If, however, we were to live in imaginary land or opposite world, then perhaps we could entertain the Shia tall tales.
Answering-Ansar says

Whilst Ibn Ishaq continues the narratives stating that discussion then took place as to the burial site and that

Hadhrath Abu Bakr suggested the Prophet (saaws)s burial place this does not tally up with the fact that Abdullah ibne Abbas had arranged for grave diggers. It is common sense you select an area and then bring a gravedigger not the other way round!

Common sense perhaps in bizarro world. It is obvious that one gets the advice of a grave-digger as to where to bury the body. He is one of the best persons to consult as to what would be an ideal place to lay the body to rest.
Answering-Ansar says

Sunni Islam is suggesting that the person of Hadhrath Abu Bakr was superior to a Holy Prophet no longer in this

Earthly domain.


Let the Shia produce even one Sunni narration that says Abu Bakr ( ) was superior to Prophet Muhammad ( .)And yet, let us then show the Shia many of their own narrations which do this with Ali ( ! ) Was it not historically the Shia who had sects from within their ranks that claimed that Angel Jibraeel ( ) made a mistake and shouldve come to Ali ( ) instead of the Prophet ( ?)
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) passed away on the Monday, the discussions at the Saqifa were from Sunday until

Tuesday.

Are we playing make-believe? The Prophet ( )died on Monday and it was on that same day that the event of Saqifah was finalized with the Bayaah given to Abu Bakr ( . ) 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 (jamaah). (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)
Answering-Ansar says

The Shii will not add insult to injury by suggesting, as this group does, that the funeral was delayed for a further 2

days (in a desert climate) just to provide Hadhrath Abu Bakr with some cursory dignity in the supposed capacity that he was at the funeral as well as at the Saqifa as the funeral got delayed for 2 days, when it is fard (obligatory) to bury the dead immediately.

The Sunnis do not claim that the burial was delayed so that Abu Bakr ( ) could be there. On Monday, the Prophets body was being washed, and then on Tuesday people came into pray the Janazah prayers for the Prophet ( .)However, the room was very small and so the people prayed in small groups, and this was the cause for the delay in the Prophets burial. We read:

The Funeral Prayer and Burial The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: I have heard the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is to be buried on the spot where he has breathed his last. The Prophets bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the same spot. The grave being completed, the people came to perform the funeral prayer in groups one after another. The women came in after the men and after them the chidlren, all of whom prayed over him. Nobody acted as an Imam for the funeral prayers of the Prophet. On receiving the sad news of the Prophets illness and then of his final departure (to the Afterlife), Usamah bin Zayd and his men moved back to Al-Medinah and the military standard was placed upright at the door of the Prophets room. The funeral prayer was performed in the room of Aisha, where his burial was to take place. Obviously, it was impossible for the men, women, and children of the entire city to perform the prayer together. Moreover, the prayer was not to be led by an Imam. Thus it was natural that all took some time in performing the prayers in separate small batches in the small room. The Prophet passed away on Monday and was buried the next day, on Tuesday. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.246-247) Therefore, the delay in the Prophets burial was for the reason that all the thousands of Muslims wanted a chance to be able to pray for him. The Shia should be the last ones to complain about such a delay: should we remind them of the great delay in the burial of their Ayatollah Khomeini? We read: The death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini on June 4 was mourned by millions of his followers with an extravagance that surprised even the Iranian authorities. Time and again, funeral plans were disrupted by gigantic mobs unwilling to give way either to schedules or politicians. The scene in Tehran was one of unrelieved chaos. In the traditional Shi`i manner, men pounded their chests and flagellated themselves with chains. Some sacrificed sheep and some shouted, We wish we were dead, so not to see our beloved imam dead. Others ran 25 miles to the cemetery. The grave dug for Khomeinis body was occupied by mourners who refused to leave. The authorities appealed to citizens to stay away from Khomeinis house and from the cemetery, but to no avail. Fire trucks sprayed water on mourners in an effort to keep them from fainting in the intensity of the June heat and the press of humanity. According to official sources, 10,879 people were injured and received on-the-spot medical attention, 438 were taken to hospitals, and eight died in the crush to view Khomeinis body. In the cemetery, mourners climbed on buses the better to catch a glimpse of the body, and in one case the roof of a bus collapsed, injuring those sitting inside. `Ali Khamenei, the president of the republic, could not even reach the special stand set up for dignitaries. The special stand for state officials and foreign dignitaries almost collapsed under pressure of the crowd. The height of frenzy occurred at the gravesite itself. Bringing the body by land vehicle was out of the question, so it arrived by helicopter. The first time the helicopter landed, the crowd swarmed in and grabbed pieces of the shroud, causing the corpse actually to fall to the ground. After fifteen frantic minutes, the coffin was put back on the helicopter, which then bore the body away. In an attempt to thin out the crowd, it was announced that the funeral had been postponed by a day. The trick worked, as many went home. Then, six hours after the first attempt, a second effort at a helicopter landing was made. This time more guards were around and the body was placed in a metal casket. Still, it was not easy. As the Iranian news agency described it: The grave was only ten meters away but the pushing and shoving of thousands made it seem like kilometers. It took ten terrible minutes to be able to put the casket down near the grave. Once the body had finally been buried, concrete blocks were placed on top of it.

(Daniel Pipes, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/366) Time Magazine said about Khomeinis funeral: The funeral of the Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini ignited an emotional outpouring from his fanatical followers that Westerners found as bizarre, frighteningand ultimately incomprehensible. While the Ayatullahs body lay in state inside a refrigerated glass box, the crowd of mourners in Tehran became so thick that eight were reportedly crushed to death. The next day, as a helicopter brought the open wooden coffin containing Khomeinis remains to the citys Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, nearly a million mourners thrust forward in the blistering heat and choking dust, many wailing and pounding their heads as they groped to touch the body and snatch a piece of the linen burial shroud. Some managed to surge past a force of Revolutionary Guards, clambering into the casket to plant kisses on the Imams face. The corpse spilled to the ground, bare feet protruding from beneath the white shroud. As the Guards beat back the crowds, firing shots in the air and spraying fire hoses, other soldiers shoved the body and coffin back into the chopper. It lifted off with the casket hanging precariously out the door. Some five hours passed before there was another, successful attempt to deliver the body to its final resting place, this time encased in a metal coffin. Again arms flailed and chants of Death to America! filled the air as the helicopter touched down. Although barricades held most of the crowd at bay, the Guards were forced to make a frantic push past the outstretched hands to deliver the coffin to the grave site. At the last instant, the metal lid of the casket was ripped off, and the body was rolled into the grave, in keeping with an Islamic tradition that requires that the dead be interred in only a shroud. The grave was quickly covered with concrete slabs and a large freight container to prevent delirious mourners from exhuming the corpse. By the end of the ceremony, more than 440 people had been hospitalized and an additional 10,800 had been treated for injuries. (Time Magazine, 6/19/89) So we see that Ayatollah Khomeinis funeral was delayed due to the outpouring of grief of the Shia masses. Why then would the Shia have any problem with the grief shown by the Sahabah over the Prophets death? Each and every person wanted a chance to pray for the Prophet ( ,)and even an entire army headed back for this very purpose. So there is therefore no question as to why any delay occurred, and it had nothing at all to do with Abu Bakr ( . ) On another unrelated matter, it is a blessing that the Sahabah did not defile the Prophets body like the Shia defiled the body of their great Ayatollah Khomeini, whodue to the chaos of the Shia massesfell out from his bier and hit the ground! Is this the respect that the Shia are trying to preach to us about?
Answering-Ansar says

There were two gravediggers during that period in time the Muhajireen Abu Ubayda and the Ansar Abu Talha Zayd

bin Sahl. Al Abbas sent two men to find either of them, only Abu Talha was located 1. Where was Abu Ubaydah? Had he been there do you not think that he would have insisted that as a prominent companion he undertake the task? Would he have not want to participate in this honor? Any man would have been proud to do this, would Abu Ubaydah had declined if he had been there? Would any man decline such an honor? We think not, clearly Abu Ubaydah was nowhere to be seen at the time of the burial he was with Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar at the Saqifa.


Both Abu Ubaidah and Abu Talhah were present in Medinah, as is clearly mentioned in the narration quoted by Answering-Ansar. Therefore, it is an invalid question to ask where was Abu Ubaidah when it is clearly stated that he was in Medinah. The issue of the two grave-diggers revolved around the fact that Abu Ubaidah was a Muhajir and Abu Talhah was an Ansar. Once again, the Ansars sought to outdo the Muhajirs, and it was in this vein that they rushed to bring forth Abu Talhah, the grave-digger of Medinah, as opposed to the grave-digger of Mecca. We read: When they wanted to dig a grave for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, there were two persons in alMedinahAbu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah who used to dig flat graves after the pattern of the people of Mecca, and Abu Talhah al-Ansari who used to dig vaulted graves for the people of al-Medinah. Al-Abbas called two persons and said to one of them to go to Abu Ubaydah and to the other to go to Abu Talhah. They differed in digging a flat grave or a vaulted grave for the Prophet, may Allah bless him. (Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol.2, p.372) So it was not at all that Abu Ubaidah was nowhere to be found, but rather that the Ansars rushed to their own man of the Ansar. There is absolutely no indication in any authentic text that Abu Ubaidah was nowhere to be found and this is the guess-work of Answering-Ansar.
Answering-Ansar says

(The body of the) Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, remained on the bier from Monday when the sun was

declining, till Tuesday when the sun was declining. The people said funeral prayers over him when the body was on the bier close to (the site of) his grave

Tabaqat by Ibn Sad,Volume 2 page 372 English translation by S.Moinul Haq, Kitab Bahavan publishers

2. The body was close to the burial site of the grave - this proves that a grave had already been dug on the Monday.

No, it does not. Had that been the case, the body would have been placed in the grave instead of resting in the bier! This is just common sense! All it meansand what the author clearly meantwas that the bier was placed near the site that the actual grave would be dug, and this is fairly obvious considering the fact that Abu Bakr ( ) is the one who recommended that the grave be dug at the same spot. It was Abu Bakr ( ) himself who said:

I have heard from the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is buried at the spot where he has breathed his last. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.246)
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar both wanted to attend the funeral and yet they also wanted to participate in

the Saqifa discussions. The best way to achieve this would be to seek to delay the funeral prayers, what better way could there be to do it than take the gravedigger of Makka away from the locality. This might cause delay as a search would be conducted to find him, stalling enough time for them to wind up proceedings at Saqifa and then return triumphantly in time for Abu Ubaydah to dig the grave and for them to attend the funeral.

Sometimes it is impressive how creative the Shia can be with their arguments and how they can improvise on the spot with such imaginative explanations. Unfortunately, their argument is rejected by the fact that Abu Ubaidah ( ) was the grave-digger of Mecca, and yet the Prophet ( )died in Medinah; it is therefore common sense that Abu Talhah ( , ) the grave-digger of Medinah, would be the more likely candidate for this task. Hence, had this been the intention of the Shaikhayn then they should have taken Abu Talhah ( ) along with them! To this argument, the Shia will improvize and argue that there was no need to take along Abu Talhah ( ) since he was an Ansar and thefore was already at Saqifah. Really? How amusing it is that the Shia gets caught up in the web of his own lies! If Abu Talhah ( ) was at Saqifah with the rest of the Ansars, then this debunks the entire argument put forward by Answering-Ansar, which is that Abu Talhah ( ) was present at the Prophets funeral but that the three Muhajirs were not! If Abu Talhah ( ) was both at Saqifah and also at the Prophets funeral, then this necessitates that the meeting of Saqifah ended and then after this was the Prophets funeral!
Answering-Ansar says

This thinking of course did not materialize as discussions went on far longer than was expected and by that time the

grave had been dug and the Prophet (saaws) had been buried.

Not according to every authentic historical source, including Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, the History of alTabari, Tareekh al-Islam, Ibn Saads al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, etc! The Shia argument that the Saqifah meeting lasted from Saturday all the way to Tuesday is ridicolous and it is not indicated by any of the texts that even

they themselves put foward in their article. If the meeting was really so many days long, where did all those people sleep? Where did the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah ( ) sleep when they were at Saqifah?
Answering-Ansar says

If Nasabi still wish to deny it, then allow us to round up the matter with a narration from Kanz al Ummal Volume 3

page 140, Bab Khala Fatha maal Amara:

Urwa narrates that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present at the time of burial, the Prophet ( ) was buried before they had returned

Urwa was not even alive during that time! This narration is inauthentic and the chain is Muntaqi (broken).
Answering-Ansar says

If any doubt remains with regards to the non attendance of Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah at the funeral of the

Prophet ( ,) then allow us cite the following Sunni commentaries of Saheeh al Bukharee:

1. Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm 2. Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219 3. Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35 All three contain the proud admission of Umar: By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance Rather than feel ashamed at this fact, The Ahlul Sunnah Ulema feel proud at the actions of their leaders, Mull Ali Qari in Sharra Fiqa Akbar, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Quran Muhall, Karachi ) as follows in his discussion on Imamate .the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophets funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented.


We have already discussed this fact before: the appointment of a leader for the Ummah takes precedence over all else, even the Prophets burial. The reason is that a nation without a leader turns to civil disorder, public pandemonium and utter chaos. For example, when Umar ( ) was stabbed to death, Umar ( ) instructed the Muslims to deliberate for three days as to who would be the next Caliph. However, he ordered that an interim Caliph be installed in those three days in between, so that the Ummah would not be left leaderless. And so it was that Suhaib ( ) became the interim Caliph and Imam of the Muslims in those three days. This is a strong proof for the sheer necessity of having a leader at all times, and not even for a single day can the state survive without a leader. What is interesting is that almost no country in the world today allows a single day to go by without having immediately installed a new leader, so why in the world should the Shia find anything peculiar about this? Perhaps something that would completely impotentiate the Shia argument altogether is the fact that this is the case in Iran as well! According to the Iranian legal system, the country cannot go one day without a Supreme Leader. When Ayatollah Khomeini died, his successorAli Khameneiwas nominated as his successor before Khomeinis funeral! Khomeini died on June 4 of 1989 and Khameini was nominated as his successor on the very same day. How two-faced are the Shia that they accept this behavior with their Ayatollahs but they choose to insult and berrate the Sahabah for the very same actions. Such is the hypocrisy of the Shia.
Answering-Ansar says

Some final points to ponder over

In this section, Answering-Ansar says absolutely nothing new and weve already addressed all of these points repeatedly in our article. Perhaps these same exact questions and taunts can be applied to their Supreme Leader Khameini who brought himself to power even before his predecessor was put to rest! Points 1-7 do not reveal anything new but simply play on emotional rhetoric. It should be noted that none of these people AnsweringAnsar mention (i.e. a son, a student, etc) have the burden of the entire Ummah on their shoulders; none of them had to deal with the fate of Islam. This is a major difference between the situation of the Shaikhayn and that of these insignificant people that Answering-Ansar mentions. If the US Presidents daughter dies, but the Russians are about to launch a nuclear strike on America, the President will have to put his personal feelings aside in order to deal with the crisis.
Answering-Ansar says

The books of the Ahlul Sunnah attest to the fact that when Abu died, his funeral took place first and the baya to

Umar occurred afterwards.


Even before Abu Bakr ( ( . ) We read: ) died, the people had already agreed to take the oath of allegiance to Umar (Uthman said): Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter? The people said: Yes. All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to. (Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200) Therefore, the Ummah was not at all leaderless after the death of Abu Bakr ( . ) Umar ( ) had become the leader based on this acceptance of the people, and it was only formality sake that the Bayaah was repeated again. Because the people en masse had already accepted Umar ( ) before Abu Bakrs death, there was therefore no fear of civil disorder.
Answering-Ansar says

Similarly when Umar died, he was buried firs and the baya to Uthman took place afterwards.

Once again, the Ummah was not left leaderless during those three to four days before Uthman ( ) was sworn into office. Umar ( ) had ordered that an interim Caliph be installed in those three days in between, so that the Ummah would not be left leaderless. And so it was that Suhaib ( ) became the interim Caliph and Imam of the Muslims in those three days. This is a strong proof for the sheer necessity of having a leader at all times, and not even for a single day can the state survive without a leader.
Answering-Ansar says

# Hafsa and Ayesha had become widowed at the death of the Prophet. Would any reasonable women find it

acceptable that her father failefd tp participated in her deceased husbands funeral? The Shaykhayn were so cold hearted that they did not even have any care for the feelings of their widowed daughters. Daughters are in a state of shick and distress and the fathers are squabbling over leadership.

What pretentious concern Answering-Ansar has shown for Umm al Mumineen Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( !)Are these not the same two people that the Shia send curses upon? Read: Shia Dua Curses Two of Prophets Wives
Answering-Ansar says

The Shariah is clear that the deceased needs to be buried as a matter of urgency, as such Abu Bakr and Umar also

violated this Ismalic edict, since the delay in burial was on account of them.

Is it not strange that Answering-Ansar can put forth so many contradictory claims? Here, they are claiming that the burial was delayed on account of the Shaikhayn, and yet just a few lines earlier they had claimed that in fact the burial was not at all delayed but rather that funeral took place without them! In any case, the reality is that the funeral was not at all delayed because of the events of Saqifah which were wrapped up on the same day of the Prophets death. The Prophets burial was delayed up until Tuesday or Wednesday only because so many thousands of people wished to perform Janazah prayer for the Prophet ( .)Similar was the case for the burial of Ayatollah Khomeini, whose funeral was delayed and postponed due to the hordes of Shia who wished to mourn over him.
Answering-Ansar says

Little wonder that Ghazali himself, passed his fatwa of censorship, deeming discussion of the events surrounding the

death of the Holy Prophet and the event of the Saqifa one of the 4 that were banned and made haram (forbidden) to discuss because they had the potential to create hatred of the companions (bughs as Sahaba) 1.

The Ahlus Sunnah finds it blasphemous and disrespectful to dig up dirt on the Ahlel Bayt or the Sahabah. Yes, this is what distinguishes the Ahlus Sunnah from the Shia, namely that the Shia feel no qualms in reviling the dead. Meanwhile, the Ahlus Sunnah forbids reviling the dead and does not wish to discuss such topics when the people in question are no longer alive to defend themselves. It is all too easy for the Shia to criticize the great heroes of Islam hiding behind computer screens, but it would be an altogether different matter had they to actually face these Sahabah in person and look them in the eyes.
Answering-Ansar says

This was a conspiracy, often called the greatest conspiracy in history


Exactly by whom is it called the greatest conspiracy in history? Such a ludicrous exaggeration. We would challenge the Shia to bring forth one historical book which claims such a thing. It is these outlandish and grandiose claims that make a mockery of objective historical analysis, and bring to question the academic honesty of the Shia.

Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective]

Question:

There is a Hadith narrated in Musnad Ahmad which states: There shall be twelve Caliphs for this community, all of them from Quraish. This same Hadith has been narrated in many other reliable Sunni books of Hadith, and it has been deemed as Sahih by the Sunni scholars. Is this not proof in support of Shiism, namely in their belief of twelve Imams? Answer by www.ahlelbayt.com : This issue of the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs has caused un-necessary confusion within the ranks of Sunni laypersons; the e-Shia have relied on this Hadith as a trump card whilst debating on various forums, mostly due to the fact that no Sunni site hadup until nowadequately dealt with this issue. The few responses that were available from the Sunni side were half-hearted at best and in fact failed to deal with the crux of the issue, namely the coincidence between the number twelve found in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. No doubt it was this (so-called) coincidence that seemed to surprise Sunni lay-persons. It is our sincere hope that this article will finally bring an end to this situation; we will show, from their own Shia books, that there is absolutely no coincidence in the number twelve nor is it a proof for Shiism but rather it is only a proof of the Shia manipulations. Throughout our answer to this question, we refer the reader to the following book: The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain. It should be noted that the author, Dr. Hussain, is a devout Imami Shia professor who wrote this book in order to defend Shiism. The book was published by The Muhammadi Trust as well as by the Zahra Trust, both of which are very well-respected Shia publishers. The book is also referenced by Al-Islam.org and therein cited as an authoratative source. Hence, the book is considered highly reliable to the Shia.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, before we begin, we must define what exactly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We read: A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. (Self-fulfilling prophecy, Wikipedia) To give an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we have the literary story of Romulus and Remus: according to legend, Romulus and Remus were in their childhood sentenced to death for fear of a prophecy that one day they would kill the king. However, Romulus and Remus escape death and later in life they hear stories of the prophecy; after hearing these prophecies, Romulus and Remus then realize that their destiny in life is to kill the king, and they then do exactly that. In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy is a statement which may sufficiently influence people in such a way that their reactions ultimately fulfill (or seem to fulfill) the prophecy. The prophecies of various religious persons have always been the victims of this problem, whereby people seek to fulfill the prophecy themselves. As for the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, the Prophet ( )prophecized that there would be twelve Caliphs after him, and thereafter various deviant sects fulfilled this prophecy by laying claim to political authority by putting forward their own set of twelve Caliphs. The Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs There is no doubt that the Prophet ( )did in fact prophecize in Hadith that there would be twelve Caliphs, and many Sunni scholars do believe that the last of the twelve will be Imam Mehdi who will fill the earth with justice. This is most definitely a belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, well-known to the scholars even if it is not well-known amongst the lay-persons from amongst the Sunnis. After the Prophet ( )made this statement, there were many deviant sects which sought to exploit this Hadith and other similar prophecies in order to bring themselves to power. The Shia were one such group, who used this Hadithalong with those about Imam Mehdiin order to place their own sect into power. It was based upon the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs that the Shia decided to limit their Imamah to the number twelve. We read (emphasis is ours): These and other traditions (Hadith) were spread in both Imamite and Zaydite circlesAccording to al-Saduq these traditions (Hadith) and others predicting the occurrence of the Ghayba were the main reason for the Imamite acceptance of the Ghayba and for their being satisfied that the series of the Imams should stop at the twelfth. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.138) In other words, the Imamah of the Imami Shia would not have ended at the number twelve had it not been for this Hadith of the twelve Caliphs found in mainstream Muslim books of Hadith. It was this Hadith which was one of the main reasons that caused the Shia to terminate the Imamah at the number twelve. It is therefore based on very backwards and circular logic that the Shia should now use this Hadith as proof for their twelve Imams, when in fact it was they who based their belief on our Hadith! Today we have Shia youths who attack the Sunnis by saying how could it simply be a coincidence that your Hadith also tells you about these twelve Imams? Of course it is not a coincidence! It is the Shia who based their deviant beliefs in our Hadith, and so it is very queer of them to then further our Hadith as proof of their beliefs! This is very backwards and circular logic! It is placing the carriage before the horse, reversing cause and effect!

In fact, had the Sunni Hadith stated that there were eleven Caliphs instead of twelve, then the Shia would have claimed that their Imams were eleven in number. And once again, they would have come to us with incredulous looks on their faces, saying what a miracle it was that their beliefs can be proven from our books. Had it been thirteen Caliphs mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith, then the Shia would have ended the Imamah at the number thirteen. The proof for the termination of the Shia Imamah was based from Sunni Hadith, so there is therefore no surprise at the concordance between the number of Caliphs in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. Indeed, the Shia in actuality did not have twelve Imams, but eleven of them. The eleventh Imam, Hasan alAskari, died without leaving behind a son to succeed him. In fact, Hasan al-Askaris own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan al-Askaris estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother (instead of any to the son). Moojan Momen writes in An Introduction to Shii Islam (London, 1985, p. 162) that, Jafar remained unshakeable in his assertion that his brother (Hasan alAskari) had no progeny. We read: The majority of the Imamitesdenied his birth or even his existence, and mocked those who believed in him. According to al-Numani the bulk of these groups abandoned their belief in the hidden Imam. In fact those who continued to hold a firm belief in his Imamate were a small minority belonging to the circles of narrators, like Ibn Qubba and al-Numani himself, who based their belief on the traditions of the Imams (i.e. Hadith about twelve Imams). Many scholars shared the perplexity of the Imamite masses over the prolonged occultation of the twelfth Imam. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.143) Indeed, 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 inconsistency, the Imami Shia of the time denounced Jafar as being al-Kadhab (the Liar), and they came up with the fantastic story that the eleventh Imam had a son but that this son was hidden from view (i.e. in occultation). In order to prove the existence of this mysterious son, the Imami Shia actually brought forward the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others similar to it, in order to somehow prove that the Imamah could not possibly have ended at eleven persons but must be twelve in number. Nonetheless, such fantastic explanations did not fool the vast majority of the Imami Shia who apostatized from Imamiyyah Shiism in order to embrace Sunni Islam or other branches of Shiism. In fact, the Shia movement split into at least fifteen different sects after the eleventh Imams death, some of these sects claiming that the Imams were only eleven in number (and ended with Hasan al-Askari). These sects were defeated and denounced by the Imami Shia safir (representative) who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsalong with an intensive propaganda campaignto silence any who opposed the idea of there being exactly twelve Imams; it was because of this very Hadith that these other Shia groupswho believed in eleven Imamsfell into non-existence. We read: Although the Imamites split into fifteen groups and held different views concerning the successor of al-Askari at the time of the first safir, the teaching and the underground activities of the second safir met with success. His followers (al-Imamiyya al-Qatiyya) carried out intensive propaganda to prove the existence of the twelfth Imamthus the teachings and doctrine of the followers of the second safir dominated Imamite circles, whereas other groups disappeared. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.139) And we read how many Shia used this Hadith to limit the number to twelve:

He also mentions traditions (Hadith) which point to the fact that the number of the Imams would end with the twelfth Imam and he would be al-Qaim. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.4) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs was instrumental in determining how many Imams the Shia decided upon having. Had, for example, the tenth Imam died without leaving behind a successor, then the Shia would have said that there were two Imams in occultation or perhaps they would have nominated a brother of the Imams to be one of their Imams or perhaps they would claim that Fatima ( ) was one of the twelve, etc. Whatever the case, no matter what, the Shia would make sure that their Imams would add upto twelve in number, in order to establish legitimacy through the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. It is therefore very pretentious that they should now use this as a proof against us. Hadith Exploited by Deviant Sects A fact unknown to lay-persons is that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is exploited by not only the Imami Shia but by many other deviant sects. Interestingly, many of these deviant sects have a more convincing argument for their claims over that of the Imami Shia! For example, the Ibaadisthe descendants of the Khawaarijuse the Hadith of twelve Caliphs in order to validate the claims of their leaders, who were twelve in number. The Ibaadis claim that this Hadith is a shining proof for their twelve Caliphs, which include: Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ,) Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Kindi, and the nine Ibaadi Imams of the Rustamid Dynasty. It is interesting that the racist cult known as the Nation of Islam, headed by Elijah Muhammad, also uses the hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to validate their sect. Elijah Muhammad, their supposed Messenger, claimed that their founder, W.D. Fard, was one of the twelve Imams: Now there are twelve (12) Imams or Scientists, who have been ruling all the time, and one of the twelve is always greater than the other eleven (11) (Muhammad Speaks Newspaper) If a deviant group like the Nation of Islam can use the hadith of the twelve Caliphs, then we are not at all surprised when the twelver Shias use it as as a proof. Another deviant sect which did in fact lay claim to the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and use it to bring themselves to power were the Zaydis. We read: The Zaydites also used these traditions (Hadith) in their attempts to gain control (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) A group from amongst the Zaydis revered twelve Imams, but they believed in a different set of twelve Imams than the Imami Shia. These Zaydis believed in the first four of the Imams of the Imami Shia, but they disagreed with the Imami Shia as to who the other eight of them were. This group of Zaydis, like the Sunnis, believed that the Caliphate was not limited to twelve, but the Zaydis argued that the twelfth would be Al-Qaim and he would lead an armed and political insurrection. A similar view was held by another heretical sect, namely that of the Ismailis who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to further their own set of Imams. And there were many other deviant groups who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsand other Hadith in regards to Imam Mehdiin order to bring themselves to power. We read: (These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period.

(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others like it were well-known by all Muslims back then and that deviant groups often used them in order to advance themselves politically. We read: But political rivalry amongst the Muslims encouraged some people to exploit this hope and to distort these Prophetic traditions (Hadith) in order to use them in their struggle for power. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) We read: The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21) And we read, right from the mouth of this Shia historian himself, the following: These traditions (Hadith) were used by many Shiite groups to back up the claims of their leaders who aspired to power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.2) The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is so vague and obscure that it allows almost any group to exploit it and use it to further their own cause; it simply necessitates allocating a group of twelve leaders and then saying that the Hadith refers to them. We read: This obscurity allowed some Alids to use these traditions (Hadith) to support their own political aims (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) The exploitation of this Hadith was not at all limited to Imami Shia. We read: Like the Imamites, the Ismailis had reported the (same) Prophetic traditions (Hadith)however, they interpreted some of these traditions (Hadith) in a manner which would support their struggle to gain immediate success in North Africa. Furthermore they applied other traditions (Hadith) narrated by the Imamites about alQaim al-Mahdi to their own concealed leader (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.111) The Hadith was also exploited by a group known as the Qaramita. We read: The Qaramitas use of the Prophetic traditions (Hadith)in their struggle to gain immediate political success (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.116) In fact, it was not only the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs which were exploited by the Shia but also many other Hadith which prophecized the coming of Imam Mehdi. We read:

He also traces the use of the prophetic traditions (Hadith) regarding al-Qaim al-Mahdi by these groups in their struggle for power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.11) We read further: Between the years 245-260/859-874 the Imamite and Zaydite traditionists were relating traditions stating that al-Qaim would be the twelfth Imam and urging people to join his side when he rose. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29) On numerous occassions did groups of Shia exploit the Sunni Hadith in order to claim for themselves political supremacy. We read: The spread of such narrations (Hadith) encouraged the Imamites to expect the rise of al-Qaim in the near future and to link his rising with Abbasid rule. Some of them applied these traditions (Hadith) along with others concerning the signs of the rise of al-Qaim to the circumstances surrounding the Alid revolt which broke out in 250/864. Ibn Uqba relates that the leader of the rebellion, Yahya b. Umar, was expected to be al-Qaim alMahdi, since all the signs concerning the rise of al-Qaim al-Mahdi related by al-Sadiq occurred during the revolt. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29) We read further: It appears, however, that the Abbasid oppression did not deter the Shiite ambition to reach power. Many historians like al-Isfahani report that Alid revolts broke out in 250-1/864-5 in the areas of Kufa, Tabaristan, Rayy, Qazwin, Egypt, and Hijaz. These might have been directed by one group, or to be more accurate, by one leader. It is beyond the scope of this work to deal with the details of these revolts, but it is worth mentioning that the rebels employed the Prophetic traditions (Hadith) concerning al-Qaim al-Mahdi and the signs of his rising to achieve immediate political success. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.52) This game of playing with Hadith was also played by Caliph al-Mansoor, who named his son Muhammad alMahdi. We read: Moreover he (Caliph al-Mansoor) invested his successor Muhammad with the epithet al-Mahdi in order to turn the attention of his subjects from the Alid family toward the family of Abbas. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.28) Elaborating on this point, the Shia author states: It is reported that the Prophet said, The Mahdi is from my progeny. His name is similar to mine. (alTirmidhi)perhaps al-Mansur took this point into account when he called his son, Muhammad al-Mahdi (alBidaya) (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.165)

What is interesting is that at first many of the Shia referred to Hasan al-Askaris mysterious son by the name Ali as opposed to Muhammad. However, the Shia later decided to switch to Muhammad so that it would more fully apply to the mainstream Muslim collection of Hadith which state that Muhammad is the name of Imam Mehdi. We read: They thought that he (the eleventh Imam) had left a successor whose name was not Muhammad but Ali. They said that al-Askari had no son except Ali, who had been seen by his fathers trustworthy followers. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.63) So we see that the Imami Shia were very adamant about lining up their beliefs so that they would find legitimacy in Sunni Hadith. It is therefore all too convenient that the Shia can now point to these Hadith as some sort of proof for Shiism. The Twelve Caliphs Cannot be the Shia Imams The Hadith in question declares that the Imams will be from the Quraish. It is in fact this part that negates both the Shia and Ibaadi claims. It is well-known that amongst the three groups (i.e. Sunnis, Shia, and Ibaadis), it is only the Sunnis that necessitated that the leadership be confined to the Quraish after the Prophets death. The Sunnis argued that the leadership of the Muslims must always be given to that party which makes up the majority group. Based upon the principle of majority rule, it was only fair that the leadership be given to the Quraishis who at the time of the Prophets death made up the majority group from amongst the Muslims. On the other hand, the Shia claim that the leadership must be confined to the Ahlel Bayt whereas the Ibaadis claim that the leadership can be given to any Muslim regardless of if he belongs to a minority group unrepresentative of the majority desire. Therefore, if this Hadith were truly in relation to the Shia Imams, then it should have stated that the twelve Caliphs would be from the progeny of the Prophet ( ) instead of using the term from Quraish. Indeed, this is a fact that the Shia were well-aware of and it was based upon this that they blamed the Sunnis for having distorted the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, accusing the Sunnis of altering it from Ahlel Bayt or Bani Hashim to Quraish. Some Shia even refer to the Sunni Hadith of the twelve Caliphs as a censored or even chopped up version of the Prophets real words. The Shia then refer us to the un-censored version of the Hadith which is available in Shia books, as follows: (There will be) from my descendants eleven leaders (who will) be noble and receive and understand (knowledge). The last of them will be al-Qaim, who will fill the world with justice after it had been filled with tyranny. So we see that while the Shia have historically used Sunni Hadith to back their claims, they end up having to distort these Hadith in order to make them apply more correctly to the Shia paradigm. The fact that the Shia need to mend the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order for it to work for the Shia belief is proof enough that the Hadith cannot be used as a proof against the Sunnis. A lay-person may argue that the Bani Hashim are within the clan of Quraish and therefore the Hadith still supports a Shia view. But such a person would be altogether ignorant of Arabic Balagha which necessitates that ascribing the Caliphs to the Quraish means that not all of them are from one particular clan of Quraish but rather they are from different groups from amongst the Quraish; otherwise, there was absolutely no reason that the Prophet ( )did not say that the Caliphs will be from Bani Hashim. Having stated that, ignorant Shia youth arguing over the internet will insist that the Hadith can still be applied to the twelve Imams of the Shia since Bani Hashim is part of the Quraish. We simply ask these youths to be honest with themselves: why did the Prophet ( )use the vague wording that the Caliphs will be from

the Quraish, as opposed to clearly stating that the twelve Imams would be from his descendants of the Ahlel Bayt? Common sense dictates that there is no reason that the Prophet ( )would have used the word Caliph as opposed to Imam, when in fact the Shia literature always refers to the twelve Imams, not the twelve Caliphs. Additionally, only two of the Imams served as Caliphs whereas the rest never became Caliphs. Furthermore, if the Prophet ( )was willing the leadership to his descendants, then should he not state that specifically instead of saying that it was a position open to all the Quraish? We see that the Shia paradigm can only be forced upon this Hadith through brute intellectual force. A similar approach do we see from Qadianis who take our collection of Sunni Hadith and try to prove that their leader is the Mehdi. The truth of the matter is that the Shia would only have a clear argument if the Hadith stated that there would be twelve Imams from the Prophets descendants. Instead, the Shia have an obscure Hadith in which they are trying to force upon it their own interpretation, much in the same way that Qadianis do with many a Hadith. The Identity of the Twelve Caliphs Almost all the deviant sects (including the Imamis, the Zaydis, the Ismailis, the Ibaadis, the Nation of Islam, etc.) claim to know exactly who the twelve Caliphs are; they state with certainty who are the twelve Caliphs, they forge false Hadith to name these Caliphs, and then they say that whoever does not follow these twelve is deviant. This methodology differentiates the sects from the mainstream Muslims who do not claim to know exactly who are the twelve Caliphs. The Prophets prophecies were vague, and nobody can know exactly who or what they refer to. The Shia propagandists will oftentimes attack the Sunnis by asking us who are the twelve Caliphs and then they will laugh with joy when we cannot answer them with any certainty. And yet, this is nothing particular or peculiar about our lack of certainty with regards to this one specific prophecy, but rather we are similarly uncertain about the bulk of the Prophets prophecies. In another Hadith, the Prophet ( )has stated that a mujaddid (reviver of the faith) would appear after every century; if we ask the Sunni scholars to name who were all the mujaddideen of the Ummah throughout the centuries, we find that they will not be able to name them. In fact, there is no way that anybody can know for certain even a single of these mujaddideen, namely because to say something like that with absolute certainty would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah, which is considered a sin. Therefore, it is not fair for the Shia to demand for us to say for certainty who the twelve Caliphs are, when in fact our doctrine necessitates that we cannot talk about this with certainty as it being a thing only Allah knows. The vagueness of the Prophets prophecy is not at all limited to this one particular Hadith but can be seen in many other Hadith, such as the prophecy about Gog and Magog. Throughout the ages, people have guessed as to who Gog and Magog refers to, some saying that it refers to the Turks while others saying it refers to the Mongols, some say Gog and Magog have already come, whereas others say that they are yet to comebut nobody knows with certainty. Many of the prophecies of the Prophet ( )were vague and we can only guess at their exact meaning; such is the nature of prophecies. So when we Sunnis are vague with who are the twelve caliphs in the Hadith, we are vague with all the prophecies in general, because we do not wish to speak about the Unseen without knowledge. Allah warns in the Quran: Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden aresaying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (Quran, 7:33)

And Allah warns against Dhann (conjecture), saying: But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture! (Quran, 45:25) And Allah says further: Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only. (Quran, 6:116) Allah warns again and again against conjecture on such matters: Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned. (Quran, 17:36) The Shia who claim that they know with certainty the names of the twelve Caliphs are only conjecturing and only doing this in order to follow their own desires to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. Allah says: They follow but conjecture and that which they themselves desire. (Quran, 53:23) We have only been given the knowledge that there will be twelve Caliphs but we cannot say for certainty who they are, as Allah says: You have been given but little knowledge. (Quran, 17:85) The Prophet ( )made all sorts of prophecies, and the examples we could cite are numerous. In one Hadith, the Prophet ( )says: By Him in Whose hand is my soul, the Hour will not come untila man speaks to his whip or his shoe, and his thigh will tell him about what happened to his family after he left. This has led some people to postulate that this Hadith refers to cell-phones, because cell-phones are placed in a mans pockets next to his thigh. People have further guessed that the whips were an attempt to describe wires. Whatever the case, we can only guess at the exact meaning, and this is the case for most of the Prophets propheciesincluding the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. Therefore, the Sunni scholars hold that we do not know for certain who are the twelve Caliphs referred to in the Hadith. Furthermore, it is speaking without knowledge to claim to know for certain who they are; unlike the Shia and other deviant sects who forge Hadith to back their own list of twelve Caliphs, the Sunnis resort to

saying Allahu Aalim (Allah knows Best). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar says about the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs: No one has much knowledge about this particular Hadith (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari 16:338) The truthful scholars of Sunni Islam can only therefore guess at who the twelve Caliphs are, and it should be understood that these are guesses at best; only deviants manipulate the Word of Allah claiming certainty: the Imamis are adamant about their twelve, the Zaydis are adamant about their twelve, the Ibaadis (descendants of the Khawaarij) are adamant about their twelve, the Ismailis are adamant about their twelve, etc. We shall let these deviant groups bicker amongst each other about who the twelve Caliphs are. We urge our Sunni brothers not to fall into the traps of the Shia propagandists who demand to know who the twelve Caliphs are, and then they enjoy to see the Sunnis replying with varying lists from different scholars, as if this is some sort of proof against Sunni Islam! Like all other prophecies, we cannot know for certain who or what it refers to; it is not only that we do not know, but rather even more than that, namely that we cannot possibly know for certain who the twelve are, as this would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah. This is a doctrinal view and it is what differentiates the mainstream Muslims from the deviant sects. Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to. The Rightly Guided Caliphs Perhaps the best guess is that the twelve Caliphs refers to al-Khulafaa al-Rashidoon (the Rightly Guided Caliphs). There is Ijma (consensus) on the fact that the first four Caliphs were Rightly Guided Caliphs and the term is most often used for them. However, in addition to these four, we say that Alis son, Hasan ( ,) was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Prophet ( )said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the rule of His Kingdom to whomever He wills. (Sunan Abu Dawood) Indeed, the rule of the first four Caliphs lasted twenty-nine years and six months; Hasan ( ) ruled for another six months bringing the rule of the Rashidoon to thirty years in conformity to the Prophets prophecy. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz ( Caliphs refer to: 1. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq 2. Umar ibn al-Khattab 3. Uthman bin Affan 4. Ali ibn abi Talib 5. Hasan ibn Ali 6. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz ) is also included amongst the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Therefore, the twelve

This means that six of the twelve have come to pass, and six more will come to pass before the Day of Judgment, the last of whom will likely be Imam Mehdi. The Cacophonous Response of the Ahlus Sunnah The Shia claim that the Sunni response to who the twelve Caliphs are is cacophonous due to the fact that scholars do not agree as to who the twelve Caliphs are. This may in fact be true, but the Shia would be lying if they were to say that they were always united as to who were the twelve Caliphs. We read: The Imamate during the life of the last six Imams of the Twelver Imamites (al-Imamiyya al-Ithna ashariyya) was distinguished by the many splits which occured after the death of each Imam, who was considered by the Imamites as one of the twelve Imams, over the recognition of his successor. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.56) In fact, after the death of each Imam, the Imami Shia ran around like headless chickens trying to figure out who was the next Imam; absolute confusion would descend into their ranks as to who was the next of the twelve Imams. After the death of each Imam of the Shia, numerous Shia sects emerged, each claiming that another person was the Imam! So if the Shia of today would like to laugh at the Sunnis for not knowing who the Imam is, let them also laugh at their own ancestors who did not know who the Imam was! The only reason that the Shia of today have some sort of unanimity with regards to who the twelve Imams are is because Shah Ismail I, the ruler of the Safavid Empire, forcibly enforcedby the swordhis brand of Shiism upon the masses of Persia. By thus doing so, he succeeded in converting the masses to one strain of Shiism all of which followed one set of twelve Imams. And yet, even today there exist some minority sects of the Shia such as the Zaydiswho believe in a different set of twelve Imams. It is in fact impossible for the mainstream Muslims to say who the twelve Caliphs are when it is likely that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled! Once the twelve Caliphs have all come and passed, only then will it become clearer to the Muslims as to whom they are. To give an analogy, the Muslims living in the time of Abu Bakrs Caliphate did not know exactly who the Rightly Guided Caliphs (i.e. the Caliphate of Prophecy) would be; would it have been fair to ask them who is being referred to in the Hadith which says that the Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years? Of course, at that time they would not have known since the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled! Only after the prophecy was fulfilled was it possible to pinpoint who the Caliphate of Prophecy referred to. Another Twelve in Sahih Hadith It is altogether too easy to haphazardly apply vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause. If the Shia insist upon doing this, then let us point them to another twelve people mentioned in Sahih Muslim. The Prophet ( ) said: In my Ummah, there would be twelve hypocrites and they would not be admitted to Paradise and they would not smell its odor, until the camel would pass through a needles hole. (Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Number 6689, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/038.smt.html) The Khawaarij or the Nawaasib could argue that the twelve hypocrites here refer to the twelve Imams of the Shia. Do the Shia see how easy it is to twist vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause?

Conclusion Shiism is an off-shoot of mainstream Islam, and many of the concepts of mainstream Islam were borrowed and incorporated. Not only this, but the Shialike deviant sects of any religionhave always sought to justify their own deviant beliefs by basing them, albeit loosely, in the books of the mainstream. At the time of Hasan alAskaris death, the Hadith in regards to the twelve Caliphs was well-known amongst the Muslim masses. We read: (These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) Thus, the Shia terminated their Imamah at the number twelve in order to conform to the Hadith of twelve Caliphs, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Imams are twelve in number just as the Sunni Hadith says. We read: The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21) The truth of the matter is that the Sunni belief in the twelve Caliphs and in Imam Mehdi differs dramatically from the Shia conception: the Sunnis do not believe that these Caliphs are infallible, nor are they appointed by God, nor are they superior to the Prophets, etc.

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 To: admin@ahlelbayt.com Asalaamu Alaykum brothers, I do not particularly consider myself either Shii 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 Shii Thought) People selfishly took away our rightGod 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 Quran, and the Truth and the Quran are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come upon me at Kawthar doesnt that make Alis 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 ( .) The Christians could challenge us by asking us: Was Jesus ( ) lying 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 ( ) never 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 ( ,) Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( ) did seek the office of the Caliphate, but so too did many other Muslims. For example, Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) sought 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 ( ) did 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 ( ) and Hussain

( ) 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 ( ) and distribute them amongst the Shia living in far off places. All of this went on underground without the knowledge of Ali ( ) himself; in fact, when Ali ( ) did find out, he burned many Sabaites to the stake! And this factthat Ali ( ) burned extremists within his own ranksis 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 ( ) and 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 notin essenceblow 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 Bushs 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 isnt 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 Shiism; Zurarah claimed to be the Wakeel of Imam Jafar asSadiq ( ) and he collected Khums money in the name of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( .) And yet, we find that Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( ) publically 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 ( ,) the Imami Shia claim that Imam Jafar ( ) was simply acting under Taqiyyah! These Shia claimed that the public condemnation and cursing of Zurarah was just some act designed to save Zurarahs 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 Shia Islam, by Dr. S.H.M. Jafri, p.306) So we see that Imam Jafar ( ) denounced 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 ( ) claiming that Ali ( ) was opposed to Caliph Uthman bin Affan ( .) And these forged letters were the reason that many people assassinated Uthman ( ) because they thought that these were the orders of Ali ( ) himself, 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-Sadiqs 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 alKhattabbut (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 Imams 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 ( married his daughter off to Umar ibn al-Khattab ( .)

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 Mamoon appointed Imam Ar-Ridha ( ) as 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 ( .) 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 Mamoon give the Caliphate to Imam Ar-Ridha ( ) but 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 Shii Thought) People selfishly took away our rightGod 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 Prophets 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 ( ,) claimed that their right to authority was taken away by the Quraish; but does anyone claim that Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) or the rest of the Ansars were claiming to be Infallible Imams divinely appointed by Allah Himself? Surely not! Yes, at first Hussain ( ) held the erroneous view that the Caliphate should remain within the Prophets 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 ( ) was 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 ( ) was an Imami Shia who believed in the divine Imamah of Ali ( ( ?) In fact, the Shia not only reject the idea that Abu Sufyan ( ) was 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 ( ) was 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 ( .)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 ( ) believed that he was more fit to rule the Muslims due to the fact that he was the Prophets 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 Hashimincluding 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 ( )had chosen the Umayyads for he had married from amongst them. These arguments were based on politicaland not religiousrivalries between the two clans. 3. Further, with the Hadith (judged Sahih in Tirmidhi) that says Ali is with the Truth (haqq) and the Quran, and the Truth and the Quran are also with Ali, and they will be inseparable until they come upon me at Kawthar doesnt that make Alis claims to Imamate to be true? Answer: There is no doubt in the minds of the Ahlus Sunnah that Ali ( ) was 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 ( ) never claimed to be divinely appointed by Allah at all. Yes, Ali ( ) did contest the Caliphate of Abu Bakr ( ) and Uthman ( ,) but this was merely a political matter, just as Saad ibn Ubaadah ( ) had contested Abu Bakrs Caliphate and how Zubair ( ) contested the Caliphate during the electoral council after Umars death. Ali ( ) never 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 ( ) who was innocent from that. 4. I do not particularly consider myself either Shii or Sunni muslim Answer: Brother, there is no such thing as Shia Islam; Shiism 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 usto the Truth!

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyahs Love for Ahlel Bayt

One of the harshest opponents of the Shia was Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and because of this, some of the Shia have slandered him by claiming that he was a Nasibi (i.e. hater of Ahlel Bayt). Answering-Ansar refers to him as Imam of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya. And yet, Ibn Taymiyyah was a lover of Ahlel Bayt; not only did he love the Ahlel Bayt, but he publically declared the necessity of loving the Ahlel Bayt as a part of the creed of

the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Let us narrate what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his most famous book, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah; he said: They (the believers) accept what has been reported continuously from the Prince of the Believers Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4) Ibn Taymiyyah said further: The best men of this Ummah after its Prophet are: Abu Bakr; then Umar; third: Uthman; and fourth: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them all). (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4) In regards to the Prophetic Household, Ibn Taymiyyah said: The Ahlus Sunnah should love the Prophets family, give them support, and honor the Prophets will in regards to them, as he said at Ghadir Khumm: I ask you by Allah to take care of my family; I ask you by Allah to take care of my family. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4) Explaining the Sunni creed, Shaykh al-Islam said: They (Ahlus Sunnah) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allah; they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah concerning thembut they reject the way of the (Shia) Rafidhis who hate the Sahabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Nasibis who insult Ahlel Bayt in words and deed. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, 3/154) Ibn Taymiyyah was so aggrieved by the death of Husayn at Kerbala, that he said the following: May Allah curse his killers, and whoever was glad with his murder! (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, Vol.4, pp.403-404)
Note: Ibn Taymiyyah did not mention any names, as it is not the practice of the Sunnis to revile the dead by name or person, but rather Ibn Taymiyyah stated a conditional and general statement, i.e. whoever killed Husayn ibn Ali is to be cursed.

It is altogether interesting how careless the Shia are when it comes to throwing around insults of being Nasibi! It is very similar to the irresponsible attitude of Israeli Zionists who throw around insults of being anti-Semitic if anyone insults Israel. The Shia define a Nasibi to be one who insults the Shia, and in actuality their definition of the word has nothing at all to do with the Ahlel Bayt! How dishonest is Answering-Ansars claims that Ibn Taymiyyah was a Nasibi: which Nasibi in his right mind would call for the obligation of loving the Prophetic Household? Which Nasibi would claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib was from amongst the four greatest men in all of Islamic history? Would not a Nasibi be happy at the death of the Prophets grandson? And yet Shaykh al-Islam curses those who killed Husayn ibn Ali and those who are happy over his murder!

The Shia propagandists refer to us as Takfeeris and other such things, but the reality is that it is they who are guilty of this! Let us remind the reader that in Shia Fiqh a Nasibi is considered worse than a Kaafir. Notice how easily the Shia propagandists refer to people as Nasibis; we have no doubt that Answering-Ansar will one day refer to us as Nasibis! Why then should the Shia ever complain about Takfeeri Sunnis when they themselves are guilty of worse than this? In fact, we are hard-pressed to find a single rebuttal on AnsweringAnsar where they refrain from calling the Sunni author to be a Nasibi. Calling someone a Nasibi is Takfeer, and it is in fact worse than Takfeer!

Response to Shia Accusation that Our Website Lied; Women Do NOT Inherit Land in Shia Hadith

We have received a few emails on this matter, and therefore we thought it appropriate to clear up the matter and refute the Shia accusations made against our website. Shia says

On your website, you have quoted this Hadith: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) In fact, this is a complete lie! The actual Hadith is: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property from her husband. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) But you have so conveniently cut off the rest of the Hadith! You have accused the Shia of Half Hadith-ing; well, who is doing it now? I have attached the scanned page in Arabic, and I have circled very clearly from her husband so that you can read it yourself. I demand that you remove this page from your site to maintain your intellectual honesty and apologize to your readers! May Allah blacken your face and curse you Abu Bakr lovers.

Scanned Attachment:

Response by Team Ahlel Bayt:

Thank you for providing us with this scan, which will serve as a proof against YOUR OWN manipulations and lies. Now let us all look at the scan you provided us with; if we look in the top left corner, we read that you have provided us the scan for page 151 of Volume 4 of al-Istibsar. And yet, our website did not cite any Hadith on page 151, but rather the Hadith we cited is on page 152! Notice:
Shia says

On your website, you have quoted this Hadith:

A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)


And yet your scan is of page 151, as clearly indicated by your scan! You have circled the words from your husband in the scan, but these words do not appear in the Hadith we cited, which is on page 152! See:

Your accusation is that the Ahlel Bayt website truncated a Hadith and that we cut off the words from her husband. Then why didnt you provide us a scan of this Hadith to prove us wrong? Instead, you provided a different Hadith altogether and then circled from her husband there. But we did not quote that Hadith, but a different Hadith altogether, which is not on page 151 but on page 152! If we look at the two Hadith you circled in your scan, we see that they read: ( 570 ) 1 - Ann al-marata la tarithu min tarikati zawjiha (A woman does not inherit from her husbands legacy.) ( 571 ) 2 - Ann al-maratu la tarithu mimma taraku zawjuha (A woman does not inherit from her husband.)

On the other hand, the Hadith that we quoted comes on page 152, and reads as follows: ( 572 ) 3 - An-nisaau la yarithna min al-ardhee wala min al-aqaari shayyan. (A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.) In the original Arabic text, the full Hadith reads: ( 572 ) 3 -

This is the complete Hadith, without any additions nor deletions. We challenge you to provide the scan of page 152, instead of page 151! In fact, it is you who is guilty of truncating the matter; your scan was deliberately cut off at page 151. If you had only provided the VERY NEXT LINE on page 152, you would have found the Hadith that we quoted! What you chose to do instead was lie and claim that the Hadith was on page 151. The two Hadiths you circled in the scan were Hadiths 570 and 571, whereas the Hadith we cited was Hadith 572. What deception! But your lies did not stop there; not only did you provide a different Hadith altogether, but you also provided a bogus translation of it. You circled the Hadith on page 151 and claimed that it translated to: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property from her husband, when in fact the Hadith you circled translates to A woman does not inherit from her husband You falsely claimed that we at Ahlel Bayt truncated the Hadith and cut out the words from her husband, when in fact, the Hadith does not at all contain said words. Read: ( 572 ) 3 - An-nisaau la yarithna min al-ardhee wala min al-aqaari shayyan. (A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.) ( 572 ) 3 -

You lied about the page number. You said:

Shia says

The actual Hadith is:

A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property from her husband. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

And yet the two Hadiths you circled in the scan are on page 151, as is clearly visible by viewing the top left corner of your scan.

You tried to imply that the Hadith we quoted on our website was the same one you circled on your scan, when in fact they are completely different Hadiths altogether. The difference is NOT only in the from her husband ending, but rather the Hadiths are different from beginning to end. The Hadith we quoted says An-nisaau la yarithna whereas the Hadith you quoted says Ann al-marata la tarithu. Completely different wording, so how can you claim it is the same?

Our Challenge
We challenge you Shia to provide us the proper scan of page 152 of al-Istibsar (vol 4), the very next page to what you provided us the scan for. We dare you to circle and highlight the Hadith on the top of page 152. Then we shall see who is the liar and who is telling the truth! We now direct the Shia reader to their very own website: the book al-Istibsar is available on Al-Shia.com, so let us now see who is the truthful and who is the liar.
Al-Shia.com says

[152] (572) 3 - . :

Translation: Yunus bin Abdur-Rahman from Muhammad bin Hamran from Zararah and Muhammad bin Muslim from Abi Jafar [A.S.] who said: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.

source: http://al-shia.com/html/ara/books/estebsar-4/a95.html

Conclusion
To conclude the matter, the Sunni argument holds: women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property according to Shia Hadith and their Infallible Imams. The irony is that even when the Shia propagandists try to expose others by calling them liars, the only way they can do this is by themselves lying! Notice that it was the Shia here who accused us of manipulating texts, but we have here proven that in reality it is these same Shia who are the ones guilty of horrible manipulation of the texts, obfuscation of page numbers, and false translations. The Ahlel Bayt website was founded on the basis of intellectual honesty. There are many websites that rely on sensationalism, but we are not such a site. What sets the Ahlel Bayt website apart from the rest is that we do not rely on sensationalism, and we are always honest. Whilst it is a part of the Shia faith to lie, it is considered Haram (forbidden) in our religion and we shall never do it. May Allah guide us to the Truth and expose the liars.

Accusing the Prophets Wife of Murder: Kill this old fool (Nathal)

Introduction
The Shia propagandists have absolutely no shame when it comes to the Mother of the Believers. They accuse the Prophets wife Aisha of the most dastardly of things. These Shia accuse Umm al-Mumineen Aisha of being a murderer! Is not their Taqiyyah exposed when they say to us that they dont hate Aisha on the one hand and then on the other hand so openly claim that Aisha was a cold-blooded murderer? Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel

against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?

History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman Kill this old fool (Nathal), for he is unbeliever, see [references:] History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206 Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141 al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/20questions/20_questions_flyer.pdf

Answering-Ansar copied this pathetic list of references from the nefarious Shia Encyclopedia:
Shia Encyclopedia says

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for

her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:

Kill this old fool (Nathal), for he is unbeliever. ^^^^ Sunni references: - History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206 - Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141 - al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 - Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter5a/9.html

Everywhere we go, we find these same four bogus references. Let us deal with them one at a time:

(1) Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid

Ibn Abi al-Hadid was not a Sunni at all, but rather a Mutazzalite/Shia. In Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. As such, his book is not a proof for us Sunnis. It is extremely deceitful of the Shia to provide this non-Sunni pro-Shia book in a list entitled Sunni references. The Shia books are full of lies against Aisha, some even accusing her of poisoning the Prophet himself. Therefore, bringing up a Shia book does not prove anything in a debate. If we are going to accept everything the Shia attribute to Aisha in their books, then we would have to accept many other so-called facts such as the idea that the sixth of the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for Aisha (as stated in Bihar al-Anwar [vol.4, p.378] and Tafseer al-Ayyashi [vol.2, p.243]). We would have to accept the idea that Aisha was a hypocrite who apostatized after the Prophets death. We would even have to accept the idea that Aisha was guilty of adultery (as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir [vol.2, p.377], Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan [vol.4, p.358] and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir [p.338]). And yet we know that accusing Aisha of adultery is Kufr and the one who says such a thing becomes an apostate due to the fact that Allah Himself declared Aisha innocent of this in the Quran. In fact, the proper title of the book is Sharh Nahjul Balaghanot the Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadidwhich is perhaps one of the reasons that the Shia propagandists do not like to take the entire name of the book, as this would unveil their deception quite readily. The Nahjul Balagha is one of the Shias most revered books, and the Sharh Nahjul Balagha is the most famous commentary of it. The Sunnis, of course, reject the Nahjul Balagha altogether as nothing but a pack of lies and forgeries. This book, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, is a useless commentary on a worthless book; Ibn Abi al-Hadids book is worthy of being used as toilet paper. We would like the Shia to think about how they are bringing forth a book as proof that we would consider worthy of being used as toilet paper and nothing else.

(2) Iqd al-Fareed

Once again, the Shia attempt to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an authentic Sunni text. Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow the Shia will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldons thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations. Ibn Abu Rabuhs book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means the Peak of Eloquence; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded! The Shia spent excessive amounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali and forging supposed counter-responses by his so-called opponents such as Muawiyyah and Aisha. The author of Iqd al-Fareed included these texts due to their literary value, but the truth is that no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic. Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive Sunnis who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah? Not every word written by a Sunni can be construed as being authoritative or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.

(3) Lisan al-Arab

Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary! Does this Shia not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavor to establish historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an anthology of poetry. Lisan al-Arab is once again chain-less and unauthenticated; as such, it is yet another garbage source. We read from Lisan al-Arab: Nathal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was referring to Uthman. (source: Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mansur, Vol.11, Chapter Lughuth Nathal, p.670) So we see that the dictionary Lisan al-Arab was defining the word Nathal and gave that sentence as an example of its usage. Many of the sample sentences in dictionaries are completely fictitious in nature, and one can simply grab any dictionary to confirm this. There is even an Arabic dictionary in which the sample sentence

with regards to the word Nathal refers to an elf; could we then use this as a proof that elves exist? Not a single person on earth would use a dictionarys sample sentences as a historical resource! In fact, the way in which the Shia do this just shows how utterly desperate (and deceptive) the Shia propagandist is, and how he will stoop to any low in order to fool the Sunni layperson. The sentence kill this old fool (Nathal) has actually become famous due to the fact that the Shia have repeated this statement over and over throughout the ages. As such, it is not at all surprising that the first sentence that comes to mind when the word Nathal is heard would be this sentence, falsely attributed to Aisha by the Shia. Therefore, it is not a shock that this sentence was used as the sample sentence in the Arabic dictionary. Similarly, for example, the sample sentence for the word trinityeven in many dictionaries written by Muslimsrevolves around the Christian doctrine. This does not at all mean that the Muslim author of the dictionary feels that the sentence is true. If we asked a Sunni student at an Islamic university about the word Nathal, the first thing that would come to his mind would be the sentence kill this old fool (Nathal), simply because it is a common sentence discussed in debate. In fact, thanks to the Shia propaganda machine, the first thing anyone thinks about when the word Nathal is said is that fabricated saying falsely attributed to Aisha. As such, it is no surprise that this sample sentence was given in the Arabic dictionary. It should also be noted that Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary used by Sunnis, Shia, and non-Muslims. Dictionaries are not religious texts, and Lisan al-Arab cannot therefore be used as a Sunni source, let alone an authoritative one, a word that the Shia propagandist loves to use in order to beguile the layperson.

(4) History of Ibn Atheer

The fact that the questioner names this work as the History of Ibn Atheer appears to reveal that he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and happens to be citing it from second or third hand sources. For his information, the books proper title is al-Kamil fi al-Tareekh. Had the questioner been familiar with this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based upon Ibn Jarir at-Tabaris work; and had he been familiar with Tabaris work he would have known that Tabari has recorded the material in his book complete with chains of narrations. He would also have known that Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol.1, p.24), declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. Tabari says in his introduction: 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 disregardedThe 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) In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the authenticity of the statement which the questioner has so boldly and recklessly (and also ignorantly) ascribed to the Mother of the Believers Aisha. This statement is to

be found on p.226 of the 5th volume of the edition of Tareekh at-Tabari published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998. It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the following chain of narration: Tabari narrates from Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-Ijli, who narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al-Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn Muzahim al-Attar Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the chain: 1. Of Tabaris immediate source, Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-Ijli, no trace can be found in the biographical works of narrators. He is thus an unknown person. 2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim. Of him too, no trace is to be found in the biographical literaturehence another unknown person. The only thing that is known about him is the fact that he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim. 3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the Hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn Adi. He is described by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shia. (See Lisan alMizan vol.7, p.187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shia who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mujam al-Udaba vol.19, p.225) As may be expected, Shia Hadith scholars are generally more accepting of Nasr ibn Muzahim. However, even they have located a problem with the historical material which he transmits. The Shia Hadith scholar Abul Abbas an-Najashi, for example, remarks about Nasr ibn Muzahim that while he himself was a person of righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority of unreliable sources. (Rijal anNajashi vol.2, p.384) This statement of an-Najashi is corroborated by al-Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami ar-Ruwat vol.2, p.291) With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed to investigate the sources on whose authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this alleged statement to Umm al-Mumineen Aisha. Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which he claims to have received this information. They look as follows: 1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn Umar, who narrates from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-Alam. 2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Umar ibn Saad, who narrates from Asad ibn Abdullah, who narrates from some unnamed persons. The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn Umar is that historian whose total unreliability has been a matter of much discussion, especially in Shia circles. The contemporary Shia scholar, Murtada al-Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of accusation at this very same Sayf ibn Umar. The charge which he levels against Sayf ibn Umar is that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al-Askaris research, this book has been highly acclaimed in Shia circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling Sayf ibn Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material which Sayf transmits is not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Aisha, his unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and an-Najashis complaint of Nasr ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind. Such objectivity leaves one in complete amazement.

Furthermore, Sayf ibn Umars two sources, Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-Alam, are completely unknown entities. Nasr ibn Muzahims second chain of narration suffers once again from the same defect. His immediate source, Umar ibn Saad is unknown, as is Umar ibn Saads source Asad ibn Abdullah. The person or persons from whom Asad ibn Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even named at all. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that the Shia Hadith scholars themselves criticized Nasr ibn Muzahim for his propensity of taking narrations from unreliable sources. In summary, it may therefore be said that not a single person in the entire chain of narration may be relied upon at all. Usually, Hadiths are thrown out due to the fact that they have just one weak narrator, but in this case, we have not a single person who is reliable.

Nasr bin Muzahim

The statement kill this old fool (Nathal) was fabricated by Nasr bin Muzahim, a Shia and enemy of Sunni Islam. As such, the statement has no credibility whatsoever. Al-Aqeeli said about Nasr bin Muzahim: He tends to be a Shia, and his narrations are filled with confusions and mistakes. (source: Al-Duafa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.300, #1899) Imam al-Dhahabi said about Nasr: A hardcore Rafidhi (Shia), and his narrations are not taken as authentic. Abu Khaythamah said, He was a liar. Abu Hatim said, Weak narrator, and is not taken as an argument. Al-Darqutni said, His narrations are weak. (source: Al-Mizan by Al-Dhahabi, vol.4, p.253, #9046) We read further: Al-Jowzani said: Nasr was a fake person and far away from truth. Salih bin Muhamed said, Nasr bin Muzahim narrated ugly stories from unreliable narrators. Al-Hafudh Abi Al-Fath Muhamed bin Al-Hussain said, Nasr bin Muzahim goes excess in his (Shia) denomination. (source: Tareekh Baghdad, by al-Baghdadi, Vol.13, p.283) And as we have stated earlier, even the Shia scholars of Hadith are critical of Nasr bin Muzahim, and so how now can the Shia propagandists use his narration as a proof, when he was a Shia and an unreliable one at that! As we have discussed above, the Shia scholars such as Abul Abbas an-Najashi and al-Allamah al-Hilli criticized the reliability of Nasr ibn Muzahim. The statement kill this old fool (Nathal) originated from Nasr bin Muzahim and he is the primary source. His narration then found its way into Tareekh at-Tabari, the secondary source, and from there it was copied into AlKamil as well as a few dictionaries. The latter are all tertiary sources, and therefore, to ascertain the authenticity of the statement, we must look back at the primary source. It should be noted that Imam at-Tabari was criticized by the Hadith scholars for his usage of Shia narrators and unauthenticated narrations in his work. However, in Imam at-Tabaris defense, he clearly stated that his book was merely a collection of Hadith complete with the Isnads, and that it was up to the reader to authenticate whatever was found therein.

Imam at-Tabaris book was simply an attempt to place Hadith into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, at-Tabarilike Ibn Ishaqdid 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. In fact, Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol.1, p.24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. 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 atTabari) which is of a lower status than the six? The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni. 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-Tabaris book, when in fact the Sunni scholars of Hadith have always criticized his book for its weak narrations and unreliable narrators. 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 the words kill this old fool (Nathal) were falsely attributed to Aisha? Answering-Ansar has dedicated an entire article to the fact that the Sunni compilers of Hadith would take from Shia sources/narrators. Indeed, the compilers of Hadith would simply compile all the known narrations about certain topics; this was their job. This in itself was a very tedious task that consumed their time; these compilers generally left the authenticating to others, and this is why the Isnads were left intact so that this could be done. Nasr bin Muzahim was a Shia; as any student of Hadith would attest to, narrations by those who follow deviant sects are not to be accepted if they pertain to the viewpoints of that sect. Therefore, as a rule, Nasr bin Muzahims narration condemning Aisha (a Shia belief) cannot be accepted as valid to the Sunni.

Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar
For a very long time, the Shia would prance around the internet regurgitating the same four sources (Ibn Atheers book, Lisan al-Arab, Iqd al-Fareed, and Ibn Abi al-Hadids Sharh), and guffawing over the fact that no Sunni layperson on the various forums could deal with them. But then Abu Sulaiman and Moulana M Taha Karaan easily refuted these four sources, as we have reproduced above. The Shia argument was quickly unraveled when it became clear how deceitful the Shia propagandists were that they needed to reproduce a Shia source and pass it off as a Sunni one; worse still, the desperation of the Shia became obvious when it was revealed that they were using a dictionary as a source! After the Sunnis had embarrassed the Shia by refuting all four sources they had relied upon, Answering-Ansar responded in the time-honored fashion of the Shia propagandist: they dumped us with even more garbage sources. This tactic is oftentimes used by lawyers, whereby they dump loads of paperwork onto the opposing side in order to slow down their response time. Answering-Ansar did not have any one solid source, so they decided to compensate for this by throwing at us a list of garbage sources. The Shia propagandist knows that the non-Arab layperson is impressed with lengthy lists with Arab names. The layperson is wowed by names like Iqd al-Fareed or Lisan al-Arab; granted, the layperson has never heard of these names and certainly doesnt

know what they mean, but these words sure do sound impressive! And it is for this reason that the Shia propagandist is able to pass off Shia works as Sunni ones, or pass off dictionaries as history books. It was in this spirit that Answering-Ansar provided another seven garbage sources to back their claim, knowing full-well that this would take the Sunni writers some more time to look up and refute.
Answering-Ansar says

Hadhrath Ayeshas lead role in killing Uthman

Many of the books of Ahlul Sunnah record that Ayesha had declared Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Amongst those texts are the following: 1. Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117 2. Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38 3. Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, Dhikr Jamal 4. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185 5. Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80 6. Qamus page 500 lughut Nathal by Firozabadi 7. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 Dhikr Jamal 8. Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122 9. Shaykh Mudheera page 163

Is it not unbelievable how the Shia have the audacity to refer to the Prophets wife as Hadrath on the one hand and then accuse her of being a cold-blooded murderer on the other? This inconsistency exposes the two faced hypocrisy of the Shia. How it is that these people claim to be Muslim and call for unity with us, all the while accusing the Prophets wife of murder? Let us now deal with these nine sources:

(1) Manaqib by Khawarzmi

We actually couldnt find any such narration in Khawarzmis work! In any case, Khawarzmis reliability is disputed, and he was criticized for being weak and lenient when it came to Hadith. His book is a secondary source, andas we have reviewed beforesecondary sources have no value unless we examine the primary

source and its reliability. The Shia propagandists could point to one million secondary sources but if they all originate from the same primary source, then the authenticity is checked in the primary text. The quote kill this old fool (Nathal) originates from Nasr bin Muzahim and as such has absolutely no value.

(2) Tadkhirath al Khawwas

The Shia propagandists will make use of this book often because they can claim it was written by Ibn al-Jawzi. As most people know, Ibn al-Jawzi was a very famous Sunni scholar. However, this particular book, Tadkhirath al-Khawwas, was not written by Ibn al-Jawzi, but rather by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, the Hanafi turned Shia, and not the famous Sunni scholar. This book is actually on the biographies of the twelve Imams of the Shia! It is quite unbelievable that the Shia propagandists attempt to pass off Shia books as Sunni ones. It is using tactics like this that the Shia preachers have tricked many Sunnis.

(3) Usd al-Ghaba

It is a secondary source, not a primary one, and the narration contains no chain of transmission. As such, this is yet another garbage reference provided by the Shia propagandist.

(4) Al Istiab
Same as above.

(5) Al Nahaya
This is a dictionary just like Lisan al-Arab; therefore, our rebuttal of Lisan al-Arab (see above) would apply here as well.

(6) Qamus
Yet another dictionary! Perhaps the Shia propagandist will provide us with three dozen dictionaries and then show us how these are three dozen authoritative Sunni sources! We already know that the most famous sentence using the word Nathal is kill this old fool (Nathal), and it is therefore no surprise that many dictionaries use this nefarious sentence when defining the word Nathal.

(7) Iqd al Fareed

We have already discussed Iqd al-Fareed in detail above.

(8) Sharh Nahjul Balagha

We have discussed this above as well.

(9) Shaykh Mudheera

How it is that Answering-Ansar is using an anti-Sunni book and passing it off as a Sunni text! Quite unbelievable! This book was written by the contemporary heretic Mahmud Abu Rayya, the fool who questioned the veracity of Abu Hurayra and who referred to the entire Sunnah as being unauthentic. His work would probably not even be palatable to an extreme Shia, let alone a Sunni!

(10) Seerath al Halabiyya

Absolutely no Isnad given here. Chain-less and unauthentic.
Answering-Ansar says

We should point out that Abu Sulaiman fails to cite WHICH TEXT contains the name of Nasr bin Muzahim! Ayeshas

takfeer against Uthman is not just restricted to Nasr bin Muzahim the classical Sunni scholars who have narrated from various chains!

Oh yeah? Then cite them! What various chains? We are very interested to know of these! Do they perhaps exist in the imaginary world of Answering-Ansar? What is interesting is that Answering-Ansar makes this bold claim (a blatant lie) but fails to back it up. If indeed this narration were found in various chains as AnsweringAnsar claims, then what are they and where can we find them? Instead of providing these various chains, Answering-Ansar provides a handful of chain-less books. Answering-Ansar claims that Abu Sulaiman failed to point out which text originates from Nasr ibn Muzahim, but in fact it is Answering-Ansar which failed to mention which text does not!

Forged Letters
Answering-Ansar says

Sahaba had even reminded Ayesha of her takfeer against Uthman

During the Caliphate of Uthman, the rebels forged letters in the name of various Sahabah and distributed them to various provinces. These letters enticed the people to rise up against Caliph Uthman. We read: [The rebels] had written forged letters in the names of Ali, Talha, Zubayr, and the Mothers of the Believers [i.e. Aisha], to their followers in Kufa, Basra, and Egyptthe letters emphasized that Uthman bin Affan was no longer able to shoulder the heavy burden of the Caliphate. Therefore the matter [i.e. the rebellion] should be brought to its climax in the month of Dhul-Hijjah. Encouraged by these forged letters, the rioters found it easy to indulge in acts of plunder, massacre, and doing away with the present Caliphate. They would not have otherwise [without the forged letters] mustered courage to plan an invasion. (source: Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.412-413)

In Nahjul Balagha, one of the Shias most revered books, Ali ibn Abi Talib complained that he was falsely being accused of Uthmans murder. Letters were forged in the name of Ali and sent to the rebels, authorizing them to kill Uthman. And yet, Ali would later declare himself innocent of that. Similarly, words were forged and falsely attributed to Aisha, so is it not strange and hypocritical that the Shia declare Alis innocence and yet condemn Aisha for the very same thing? There were Sahabah who asked Aisha about the letters which were written in her name, to which Aisha declared in no uncertain terms that these words were falsely attributed to her. We read: Masrooq told her (Aisha): This is the result of your work. You encouraged people to rebel against him (Uthman). Aisha answered: By the One who believers believe in and the disbelievers disbelieve in, I did not write them a single word. Al-Aamash said, It is to be known that words were forged in her name (and she did not know about it). (source: Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katheer, vol.7, p.204, with authentic chain of narrators) And similarly did Ali disregard the letters written in his name. We read: Letters were also forged to show that Ali, Talha, Zubair and other noted Companions had full sympathy with the movement. This led people to think that there was widespread unrest and that the leading Companions wanted to remove the Caliph By Allah, replied Ali, I will have nothing to do with you (rebels). Then why did you write letters to us? they (the rebels) demanded. What letters? said Ali in amazement. By Allah, I never wrote to you anything. They (the rebels) had been using Alis name to fan the fire of discontent. How could they see him stand by the side of the Caliph? So they forged the fateful letter. (source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/companion/usman_bin_affan.htm) These forged letters rallied the people to assassinate Uthman. After Uthmans demise, some of the people used those fabricated sayings as proof against Ali, declaring war upon him for supposedly orchestrating the murder of Uthman. Similarly, these forged sayings were used against Aisha, in particular by the Shia killers of Uthman. Caliph Uthman bin Affan was killed by radical Shia extremists; Aisha was calling on Ali to find and punish these Shia. These Shia, fearful that Aisha would be successful in that, immediately began spreading lies about Aisha. One of the dirtiest lies they could spread about her was to accuse her of orchestrating Uthmans murder, a claim that would single-handedly call to question Aishas very noble quest to find and bring to justice Uthmans killers. Very conveniently they referred back to the same letters they had forged in her name to rally the people against Uthman.
Answering-Ansar says

In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 we read that:

Musruq said to Ayesha, Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him.

This is a deceptive half-quote. In fact, this is the same narration that we ourselves quoted above, found in Ibn Katheers Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah. Answering-Ansar purposefully left out the very next line, in which Aisha denies that she ever wrote those words and that the Sahabah came to the conclusion that the letter was forged in her name, much like letters were forged in the name of Ali. So Answering-Ansar is correct in claiming that there were Sahabah who mentioned the forged letters, but afterwards the Sahabah agreed that those letters were forged, and the matter was thereby cleared.

Conclusion
The statement kill this old fool (Nathal) found its way in Tareekh at-Tabari through Nasr bin Muzahim, a Shia liar. And from Tabaris work, the statement was copied in a handful of secondary and tertiary sources, as well as into some dictionaries under the meaning of the word Nathal.

A Warning to the Shia Layperson

It is distressing that the Shia layperson will thoughtlessly accept anything as a fact so long as it insults and brings down the Prophets own beloved wife, no matter how spurious the source. How many countless e-Shia have accepted the idea that the Prophets wife was guilty of murder simply based on these four garbage sources mentioned in the Shia Encyclopedia? Many times the tabloid magazines will spread slander and lies about famous people, but most people have the sense to question the authenticity of such stuff, due to the fact that these are not reliable texts. Of course nobody would use these tabloid magazines as proof in a court of law in order to accuse someone of murder! And yet, the Shia are willing to make use of even more spurious sources to accuse the Prophets wife of being a murderer. This tells us a lot about Shiism, namely that it is a religion which fosters a hatred towards the Prophets loved ones, such that the Shia will believe anything negative about them. Slander is a very heinous sin in Islam. Even in America, the punishment for defamation is very steep. But in the Court of Allah, the punishment is nothing short of Hell-Fire. Allah warns specifically against slandering Aisha, saying: Surely those who fabricate the lie are a group from among youEvery man will receive what he has earned for this sin, and whoever had the greater part in it will have a grievous punishment. 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? 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. 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. 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. Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if you are indeed believers! And Allah makes the signs clear to you; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. 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. 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. O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of ShaytanDo you not love that Allah should forgive you? 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, 24:11-26) The Shia Tafseer confirm that these above verses are in reference to none other than Aisha (see Pooya/M.A. Ali, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/). Yet, do the Shia propagandists hold their tongues, or do they slander her by calling her a murderer? This is proof of the intense brainwashing of the Shia masses, whereby they will obey their Ayatollah masters even if it means accusing the Prophets wife of murder! Is it on the basis of such worthless sources that the Shia wish us to believe that Aisha was a murderer? If the Shia can bring himself to accept such worthless material, it begs the question as to why he would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for his acceptance of such narrations would have to be the Shias own sectarian prejudices. It is only because of his sects infernal hatred for the Prophets wife that he is willing to accept such tall-tales, even if the proof revolves around a few obscure texts that are even less reliable than the tabloids. Indeed, these Shia will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources. On the Day of Judgment, the Prophets wife will testify against these Shia, and then Allah will bring to justice those who brought forth allegations without proof. As for us mainstream Muslims, we abide by the instruction of Allah Almighty who declared: 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) Those who come to us with such reports of Aisha being a murderer are nothing but evil-doers, including Nasr ibn Muzahim and his fellow Shia throughout the ages up until this day. Aisha was a Muhajir, and Allah says in the Quran: And those [believers] who come after them [the Muhajirs and Ansars], they say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancor towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful. (Quran, 59:10) May Allah bestow His Infinite Blessings upon the Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophets wife Aisha, the Mother of the Believers.

Response to Rayats Article Entitled Imam Alis Sons

This is a response to an article written by a Shia who goes by the name of Hamil Rayat Muhammad. However, because he has nothing to do with the flag of the Prophet, we will instead refer to him from now on simply as Rayat. And because Rayat used many of the same arguments that are found in Answering-Ansars article, it is therefore only appropriate that we refer the reader to our earlier rebuttal:

Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar]

Introduction
The Shia claim that the first three Caliphs (i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) were enemies of Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Ghali (exaggerator) Rayat, true to the Ghuloo that defines his sect, trumpets the Shia allegation that the first two Caliphs killed Alis wife and unborn child. And there are many other trumped up claims made by the Shia, whereby he seeks to paint the picture that the first three Caliphs and Ali were sworn enemies. This is of course a fairytale invented by the Shia propagandists in order to create enmity within the ranks of the Muslims. The evidence shows us that there was nothing but mutual love and respect between the first three Caliphs and Ali. A very strong proof is that Ali named his sons after Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. The Shia revile the first three Caliphs and that is why we will never find a Shia with the names Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman; the Shia scholars forbid it and even those Sunnis who turn Shia are asked to change their names to something other than Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Indeed, if Ali hated the first three Caliphs like the Shia do, then he too would not have named his children those names. The fact that he did shows that Ali did not hold the same view towards the first three Caliphs as the Shia do.

Rayats Honesty
Rayat says

Ali ( ) had 18 sons (including the unborm Mohsin ( .) Two of the eighteen were named Omar

and Uthman.

Rayat has conveniently forgotten that Ali also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. So its not just two of the three Caliphs, but rather it is a royal flush! Indeed, Ali named his sons after the first three Caliphs! Ali named one of his sons Abu Bakr, two of his sons as Umar, and two more of his sons as Uthman. In actuality, however, Rayat has not forgotten this fact; in fact, Rayats article had earlier stated the following:
Rayat says

Ali ( ) named four of his 18 sons with the names Omar and Uthman.


But then after a few days, Rayat edited his article and changed it from four to two. This is deceit: Rayat knows that Ali had four sons with those names, but he changed it to two in order to make his argument more palatable to the reader. After all, it is much easier to believe that there was a coincidence twice, whereas it is much harder to convince someone that a coincidence happened four times! There is nothing wrong with editing articles to eliminate sincere mistakes which everyone makes. But this was not what Rayat did: he changed four to two, even though he knows that Ali had four sons with that name! It seems that Rayat does not even buy his own argument: he knows deep down inside that it is quite the miracle that four (five including Abu Bakr) of Alis sons were named with those accursed names. We kindly ask Rayat to display more honesty when he furthers arguments; if he knows that four of them were named that, then there is no reason to state two and then base his entire article upon that false fact.

Ali Named His Sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman

Something that should jump out at the reader is that Rayat could not deny that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Instead, Rayat 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. What is interesting is that Rayat does not even deal with the argument. He pretends that the issue is merely about Ali naming his sons Umar and Uthman; Rayat remains oblivious to the fact that Ali also named one of his sons as Abu Bakr! The fact that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman 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 Perhaps if the matter was simply about naming his sons Umar and Uthman, then one could somehow (possibly?) pretend it was a coincidence. But when Ali names his sons after all three of the first three Rightly Guided Caliphs, then somehow it seems too much of a coincidence! Lightning cannot strike twice, let alone three times.
Rayat says

Ali ( ) had 18 sons (including the unborm Mohsin ( .) Two of the eighteen were named Omar

and Uthman.

In fact, Rayat should not deal with half-truths, but rather he should clearly say that four of his eighteen sons were named Umar and Uthman, and another one named Abu Bakr. (5/18, not 2/18). Suddenly the coincidence gets too large to ignore!

First Name Basis of the Four Caliphs

Rayat says

When you hear the name Omar today you usually immediately and automatically think of Omar Ibn al-Khattab.

However, back at the time, this was not the case

This is just simply not true, nor is it believable. If we look at so many hundreds of narrations, we find that people used to say Ali and the Shia would never doubt that this was a reference to Ali ibn Abi Talib. When Sahabah narrated the story of Ghadeer Khumm, for example, they would most times narrate the story using the name Ali without Ibn Abi Talib after it. In other words, when a Sahabi used the word Ali, it was clear who he was referring to. If the Shia would not accept this fact, then he would thereby invalidate many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths that he uses to prove the Shia doctrine, wherein a Sahabi will narrate about Ali without specifying Ibn Abi Talib. Could we Sunnis deny Ghadeer Khumm by saying that it was in reference to another Ali? Surely not! When a Sahabi mentioned Ali, it is crystal clear that this is in reference to none other than Ali ibn Abi Talib. The same is the case with, for example, Umar. So many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths exist in which Sahabah narrated and only said Umar instead of Umar ibn al-Khattab. When a Sahabi said Umar, there was thus no doubt that this was in reference to Umar. Let us share an example that the Shia propagandists love to bring up: the incident of the pen and paper. In those Hadiths, Ibn Abbas says Umar and does not say Umar ibn alKhattab. The same is the case in most of the Shia narratives recorded in their classical books. The fact that Ibn Abbas referred to Umar ibn al-Khattab as simply Umar makes it clear that when a Sahabi mentioned Umar, then this was a clear reference to Umar ibn al-Khattab. So this argument of the Shia falls to the wayside. Just like today we think of Umar ibn al-Khattab when we hear the name Umar, likewise did the Sahabah think of Umar ibn al-Khattab when they used the name Umar alone. The evidence for this is in the Hadith books which clearly show that many Sahabah used to narrate events and simply use the word Umar and it is clear to all that this is a reference to none other than Umar ibn al-Khattab! How many countless Shia Hadiths are there in which the word Umar is mentioned, and how many of these do the Shia use as a proof against Umar ibn al-Khattab? If we Sunnis claimed that Ibn Abbas was referring to another Umar during the incident of the pen and paper, would the Shia not laugh at us? There are so many countless examples in the books of Hadith in which Umar ibn al-Khattab is referred to by the Sahabah as simply Umar and there is no doubt in anyones minds who it is. To prove this, we will quote only Hadiths which the Shia use repeatedly, and that in order to berate Umar (yes, that Umar). In the so-called incident of the pen and paper quoted by none other than the Shia on various websites, we read Ibn Abbas say: When Allahs 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 and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.

Would the Shia not laugh at us if the Sunni defense was that Ibn Abbas meant another Umar? It is clear that when a Sahabi like Ibn Abbas mentioned the name Umar it was evident that by default this was Umar ibn alKhattab. Or what about the Hadith about Mutah which the Shia narrate over and over again, in which Jabir ibn Abdullah says: We used to do these two (i.e. Mutah) during the lifetime of Allahs Messenger. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. Here, we see that Jabir Ibn Abdullah refers to Umar ibn al-Khattab simply as Umar, and this is his explanation to some third person. This is proof of the fact that when Sahabah used to discuss matters amongst themselves, they used to refer to Umar ibn al-Khattab as simply Umar and it is well-known who this was in reference to. In other words, this statement made by Rayat:
Rayat says

I replied to him, Brother you are missing the point. The names Yezid, Saddam and Adolf are always associated with

Yezid Ibn Muawiya, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. They are the first people you think of when the names are mentioned. However, during Imam Alis ( ) time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan would not spring to mind when their first names were mentioned. This is the crucial point.

is quite patently false! This so-called crucial point is nothing but a bold-faced lie. If indeed Umar ibn alKhattab would not spring to mind when his first name was heard, then why did Ibn Abbas, Jubair, and others always narrate various incidents and only use the first name Umar? Who sprung to mind to the people when these Hadiths were heard? This is the proof that destroys and topples Rayats argument. The fact of the matter is that when the name Abu Bakr or Umar was heard, then the first thing that sprung to mind was indeed Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq and Umar al-Farooq. The proofs and evidences for this are innumerable and one can simply pick up any book of Hadiths to confirm this. Indeed, Abu Bakr was the first Caliph of the Muslims, Umar was the second, and Uthman was the third. As such, these names became very familiar to the people. To give a contemporary example, there are certain figures today who are spoken about on a first name basis, and nobody questions who it refers to. For example, people like Oprah, Madonna, Saddam, Usamah, etc. They are such famous people that they are simply known by their first name. Similarly, the first three Caliphs (as well as the fourth) were known by their first names, such was their fame in the society. They were the top lieutenants of the Prophet of Islam, and they were even related to the Prophet through marriage. But more than that, they became the Caliphs of the Ummah; Umar was known as Ameer al-Mumineen, such was his fame! Therefore, it is an established fact, based upon the Hadith canon, that the names Abu Bakr, Umar, etc. were unambiguous much like Oprah, Madonna, etc. are unambiguous today. In fact, if we glance at the Hadith literature (both Sunni and Shia), we find that when someone like Umar ibn al-Khattab is mentioned, then oftentimes he is mentioned simply as Umar, but when a man with the same name is mentioned, then the narrator will always disambiguate by saying his full name, i.e. Umar bin + fathers name. For example, Alis son was referred to in the books of Hadith and history books as Umar ibn Ali or even Umar ibn Ali ibn Abi

Talib. If the name Umar was said alone, then the narrator more often than not meant Umar ibn al-Khattab, and if it was in reference to Alis son, then he would be referred to explicitly as Umar ibn Ali to disambiguate. The fact that Umar ibn al-Khattab could be simply referred to as Umar without anything added to that shows that when the name Umar was mentioned, the first thing that popped into peoples minds was none other than the second Caliph. When Ali named his children with the names of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, of course this was in reference to the first three Caliphs and nobody had any doubt in that.
Rayat says

names such as Aisha, Omar and Uthman were very popular and very common Arab names. In fact, the brothers over

at Answering-Ansar provided a list of the numerous companions who shared their names. So basically, Imam Ali ( ) did not name his sons after the two caliphs.

This argument is actually upside down; the Shia propagandists are placing the carriage before the horse. They are arguing that the names such as Abu Bakr were very common Arab names, but this is actually not true at all. Yes, we admit that today they have become very common, but let us now figure out what is the carriage and what is the horse! To illustrate this point, let us discuss the name Muhammad. Today, it is the second most common name in the world, and it is the most common name amongst Muslims. And yet, when the Prophet was given that name, in fact the name Muhammad was a very uncommon name. But after Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him) was declared by Allah as a Prophet, we find that within a few generations the name of Muhammad became very common. The same is the case with names such as Hasan and Husayn. The eleventh Imam of the Shia was named Hasan, and he was named after Hasan ibn Ali. The point is that the name Hasan was not very common initially but after the advent of Islam, then people started naming their sons as Hasan in honor of the Prophets grandson. And because so many people did this, then eventually that name became very common, such that today the Shia will even name multiple children with this same name. The point is that the name Abu Bakr, for example, was not very common: in fact, one can hardly find a Hashimite with the name of Abu Bakr before Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq. Then suddenly, after Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq, we find that many Hashimites, including the descendants of Ahlel Bayt, were naming their children Abu Bakr. The matter is simple and can be reduced to mathematics: if the frequency of a name increases after a certain individual became famous, then we know that people are starting to name their children after that person. For example, we find that a very small percentage of Arabs were naming their children as Muhammad before the Prophethood of Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him). But suddenly, the frequency of parents who were naming their children as Muhammad more than doubled, tripled, etc. This makes it clear that it is no longer pure chance, but rather the name has become more common due to that certain individual.

Sunnah of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt to Name Sons After Three Caliphs
If we look at the Prophets clan, no Hashimites were named Abu Bakr. Suddenly, after Abu Bakr became Caliph, then Ali named his son after him, and then this practice continued amongst the others amongst the

Hashimites, including the descendants of Ahlel Bayt. Shaykh Ehsan Elahi Zaheer says: A perusal of the books by Shia scholars reveals that nobody among the Bani Hashim had ever named their son Abu Bakr before AliAli was not the only one who was moved by feelings of love and sincerity for Abu Bakr to name his sons after him. The practice survived among his children (i.e. the descendants of Ahlel Bayt) who named their sons after Abu Bakr with the same zeal and enthusiasm. Suddenly, the frequency with which the name Abu Bakr increased. This cannot possibly be by chance. Hasan, the second Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons after Abu Bakr and Umar. This fact is recorded in Shaykh Mufids Kitab al-Irshad , in which Abu Bakr is mentioned as Hasans son on page 373 and Umar is mentioned as his son on page 290: http://rafed.net/books/hadith/ershad-1/index.html Not only this, but Husayn, the third Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman! The fact that Husayn named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman is mentioned in Shaykh Mufids book Kitab al-Irshad on page 372. The fourth Imam of the Shia, Zayn al-Abideen, similarly named his son as Umar, as mentioned on page 391 of Shaykh Mufids book Kitab al-Irshad. The seventh Imam of the Shia, namely Musa al-Kadhim, named his son Abu Bakr: Musa bin Jafar al-Kadhim, the seventh Imam of the Shias, had also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. (Kashf-ul-Ghummah, Vol.2, p.217) The seventh Imam of the Shia not only named his son Abu Bakr but he also named his daughter after Abu Bakrs daughter, namely Aisha, that hated name by the Shia! This fact is recorded in Shaykh Mufids book Kitab al-Irshad on page 459. As for the tenth Imam of the Shia, the only daughter ascribed to him by Shaykh Mufid (p.506) is (you guessed it!) none other than Aisha.

Crucial Point About the Name Abu Bakr

It should be noted that Abu Bakr was not the first Caliphs actual name; in fact, his actual name was AbdAllah ibn Abu Quhafah. However, he was given the kunya (nickname) of Abu Bakr which means father of young camels. He was given this unusual nickname due to his expertise with camels. This name was unheard of before him, and he was given this name based on his hobby of raising camels. This was much like Abu Hurayrah who was given the kunya of father of kittens because of his love for cats. Prior to Abu Hurayrah, that nickname was virtually unheard of, but after him, then people started naming their children Abu Hurayrah after him; these children would probably not share that same love for kittens, but rather it is clear they are being named for their parents love for Abu Hurayrah. The point is that it would baffle the mind why Ali would also name his child father of young camels. The only possible explanation is that this was after Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq. No other explanation makes sense. It was not as if suddenly there were many parents who thought they would name their children father of young camels. Why is it that we cannot find any Imams of the Ahlel Bayt who named their children father of horses or father of goats or even father of adult camels? Instead, we see that they did name their children Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq was given this interesting nickname and others adopted the same epithet after him. Is it not interesting that Ali, Hasan, and Husayn all named their sons father of young camels, i.e. Abu Bakr!

The fact is that Abu Bakr is such a unique and creative name that we cannot here claim any coincidence. It surely was not a common name like Dick, Harry, and Pete, as Answering-Ansar and Rayat claim. In fact, it was an endearing name given specifically to one man, who was known for that hobby of his. The conclusion is that there is absolutely no doubt that Ali, Hasan, and Husayn named their sons Abu Bakr after none other than Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq.

The First Imams Children

Rayat says

As for the claim Imam Ali ( ) named all his sons after beloved ones (e.g. Jafar after Jafar Al-Tayyar ( .)

)) this is not always the case as indicated by the example of Aun Ibn Ali (

Rayat seems to be very desperate here, as he picks the only one of eighteen of Alis sons who was not named after a beloved one. Let us examine the list of Alis 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 Alis 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 namesIndeed, we see that when a person names multiple sons with the same name, then this becomes clear that it is because he reveres the namesake.

The Second Imams Children

In fact, the descendants of Ahlel Bayt were known for the fact that they most times chose names for their children based on revered and respected figures of the past. For example, let us look at the list of Imam Hasans children, as found in Shaykh Mufids book (Kitab al-Irshad, pp.289-290): 1. Zayd 2. Qasim 3. Abdullah 4. Umm Abdullah (all are names of the Prophets sons) 5. Ruqayya 6. Fatima 7. Fatima (all are names of the Prophets daughters) 8. Umm Salama (name of the Prophets wife) 9. Umm al-Hasan 10. Umm al-Husayn 11. Hasan 12. Husayn (all are names of Prophets grandsons) 13. Talha (This childs mother was Umm Ishaq, the daughter of Talha ibn Ubayd-Allah; in other words, this child too was named after his grandfather, keeping in line with the idea that the Ahlel Bayt named their family after loved ones and revered personas.) 14. Abdur-Rahman 15. Umar (the names of the Ashara Mubash Shararah, i.e. the ten highest ranking of the Sahabah who were promised Paradise)

The Third Imams Children

The third Imam of the Shia, Husayn ibn Ali, named his children as follows (Kitab al-Irshad, p.379): 1. Ali 2. Ali (Are the Shia perplexed as to whom these two sons were named after?)

3. Fatima (the name of the Prophets daughter) 4. Abdullah 5. Abdullah 6. Abdullah (the name of the Prophets son) 7. Sukayna 8. Abbas (the name of the Prophets uncle) 9. Abu Bakr 10. Uthman (the name of the second and third Caliph)

The Fourth Imams Children

The fourth Imam of the Shia named his children as follows (Kitab al-Irshad, p.391): 1. Muhammad 2. Hasan 3. Husayn 4. Husayn 5. Ali (Any question as to whom these children were named after?) 6. Abdullah 7. Zayd (the name of the Prophets children) 8. Umar 9. Abdur-Rahman (the names of the Ashara Mubash Shararah, i.e. the ten highest ranking of the Sahabah who were promised Paradise) 10. Sulayman (a Prophets name)

The Fifth Imams Children

We read the names of the fifth Imams children, according to Shaykh Mufids book (Kitab al-Irshad, p.406): 1. Abu Abdullah 2. Abdullah (the name of the Prophets son) 3. Ibrahim (a Prophets name)

4. Ubayd-Allah (the name of the Prophets cousin, i.e. Ubayd-Allah ibn Abbas) 5. Ali (the name of the Prophets cousin) 6. Zaynab (the name of the Prophets daughter) 7. Umm Salama (the name of the Prophets wife)

The Sixth Imams Children

And let us now look at the names of Imam Jafars children, i.e. the sixth Imam of the Shia (Kitab al-Irshad, p.430): 1. Abdullah (the name of the Prophets son) 2. Abbas (the name of the Prophets uncle) 3. Ali (the name of the Prophets cousin) 4. Fatima (the name of the Prophets granddaughter) 5. Muhammad (the Prophets name) 6. Ismaeel 7. Ishaq 8. Moosa (names of Prophetsis there any doubt in that when one is named Ismaeel and the other Ishaq?) 9. Umm Farwa (Imam Jafar named his daughter Umm Farwa after his own mother whose name was Umm Farwa as well. Do the Shia propagandists not see how the Imams of Ahlel Bayt named their children after their loved ones? It should be noted that Umm Farwa was the daughter of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr who was, according to Sunni and Shia alike, a very close friend of Ali ibn Abi Talib.) 10. Asma (Named after the famous Asma bint Umays, who was in fact the mother of that same Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, i.e. Umm Farwas grandmother. The Shia reader would be reminded that this Asma bin Umays is the same who married Jafar ibn Abi Talib as well as Ali ibn Abi Talib.)

The Seventh Imams Children

The seventh Imam of the Shia (Imam al-Kadhim) named his children as follows (Kitab al-Irshad, pp.457-458): 1. Ali 2. Aliyya (feminine version of Ali) 3. Jafar 4. Umm Jafar 5. Ubayd-Allah (after Ubayd-Allah ibn Abbas) (the names of the Prophets cousins) 6. Hasan 7. Hasan 8. Hasana (feminine version of Hasan) 9. Husayn (the names of Prophets grandsons) 10. Umm Kulthoom 11. Zaynab 12. Ruqayya 13. Ruqayya the younger 14. Fatima 15. Fatima the younger 16. Umm Abeeha (Fatimas famous epithet) 17. Zayd 18. Abdullah 19. Qasim (the names of the Prophets children) 20. Abbas 21. Hamza (the names of Prophets uncles) 22. Hakeema 23. Muhammad 24. Ahmad (the Prophets name) 25. Khadija 26. Aisha 27. Umm Salama 28. Maymoona (the names of the Prophets wives) 29. Amina (the name of Prophets mother) 30. Burayha (Imam al-Kadhim named this son after his companion Burayha, a man who had converted at Imam al-Kadhims own hands. The reader should refer to Lesson 19 of The Question Of Imamate by Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari available on Al-Islam.org)

31. Fadl (the name of Ibn Abbass brother whom the Shia claim supported Ali over Abu Bakr) 32. Lubaaba (name of Fadl and Ibn Abbass mother) 33. Ibrahim 34. Ismaeel 35. Haroon 36. Ishaq 37. Sulayman (names of Prophets)

The Eighth Imams Children

The eighth Imam of the Shia, Ali ibn Musa al-Rida, had only one son and his name was Muhammad. (Kitab alIrshad, p.479) Once again, we tease the Shia: who was this Imam naming his child after? Was it Prophet Muhammad, or could we use the argument that Muhammad was such a common name that it doesnt necessarily mean that it was after the Prophet? Truly this would be a laughable argument, so why do the Shia propagandists further it with the names of the Three Caliphs?

The Ninth Imams Children

The ninth Imam of the Shia, Imam Muhammad ibn Ali al-Jawad, had four children according to Shaykh Mufid (Kitab al-Irshad, p.495): 1. Ali 2. Moosa 3. Fatima 4. Imaama Other than the name Imaama, we see the same names popping up again and again and again! Surely this is not all coincidence! Lightning is striking a dozen times for the Shia!

The Tenth Imams Children

As for the tenth Imam of the Shia, he named his children with the following names (Kitab al-Irshad, p.506): 1. Hasan 2. Husayn 3. Muhammad 4. Jafar 5. Aisha Is it not interesting that the Shia would laugh at us if we said that Hasan was not named after the second Imam, or if we said that Husayn was not named after the third Imam, or if we say that Muhammad was not named after the Prophet, or if we said a similar thing about the name Jafar? Why is it then that suddenly the Shia becomes blinded when he sees the last name in the list and suddenly it is just chance. Subhan-Allah the Shia only fool themselves! It is very clear that this Imam of the Shia was naming all his children after the elite Sahabah and heroes of Islam! The only confusion is in the eyes of the Shia who have to sit in their rooms and start thinking up colorful explanations to explain away the facts on the ground.

The Eleventh Imams Children

As for the eleventh Imam of the Shia, the Shia say that he had a son named Muhammad. Once again, shall we claim that this is just a coincidence and use arguments such as back then people didnt think of the Prophet when they heard the name Muhammad? We see that all of the Imams of the Shia named their children after the heroes of Islam. We see the names popping up again and again: Hasan, Husayn, Abbas, Abdullah, Qasim, Jafar, Muhammad, etc. In fact, according to Shaykh Mufids book, we find that over 90% of the children of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt were named after revered and respected Sahabah. Therefore, the argument that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were simply common names of the time falls to the wayside, because this same argument can then be applied to the names Hasan, Husayn, Abbas, etc. If the Shia claim that the names of the Three Caliphs were very common back then, then let us retort that the names of Hasan, Husayn, etc. were far more common yet no Shia would accept that the Imams named their children after any other Hasan or any other Husayn. We believe that we have adequately dealt with Rayat and Answering-Ansars argument about Awn; nobody is saying that 100% of the Imams children were named after respected ones, but we are saying that there was this general theme as is clearly shown above by the lists taken from Shaykh Mufids book. It should be noted that we did not miss a single name listed in Shaykh Mufids book, and so it is clear that over 90% of the children were named after respected ones. This is an undeniable pattern; so when the Imams would name their children as Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman, it is highly more likely that they did this after the heroes of Islam instead of simply by chance.

Inane Analogies
Rayat says

The Sunni propagandist may say is it not too big of a coincidence for Imam Ali ( ) to have named two of his

sons Omar and Uthman without having the caliphs in mind.

Not just two, but rather five. Five of Alis sons were named Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. And only one, Awn, was not named after a famous person.
Rayat says

A suitable comparison would be if a staunch anti-George Bush father were to name his sons George and Richard.

These two names are very popular indeed and no one would even think for a second he had named his sons that in honour of George Bush and Dick Cheneyif an anti-USA father were to name his sons George and Richard would anyone start talking about coincidences

This is not a suitable comparison. First off, we have proven that the names like Abu Bakr were not at all common at that time. Abu Bakr was named father of the young camels! So a more suitable analogy would be if a man named his son GW or Dubya (after the nickname of George W Bush). And he also named his other sons after presidents, and his children kept naming their children after presidents just like the eleven Imams of the Shia all named their children after Sahabah. One simply cannot imagine an anti-American person naming five of his sons after US presidents, and all his children naming their children after US Presidents and so on. But again, this is not a suitable comparison: it is not right to bring up the example of a president and a random anti-American person. According to the Shia, Ali was competing for the Caliphate with the rivals Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. So to bring Rayats example more in line, we bring up the analogy of Barack Obama naming five of his children after his opponents: Hillary, Hillary, Rudy, Rudy, and John. But this too does not quite capture the moment, because these are simply people who are running against each other in a peaceful election. The Shia do not say that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were running a peaceful election against Ali; no, they say that Abu Bakr and Umar killed Alis wife and her unborn child! Can one imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if Hillary Clinton killed his other child? Or can anyone imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if it was Hillary Clinton who sexually molested his other daughter? Surely not! The name Hillary would then become so repugnant that Obama could not fathom naming his child that. The proper analogy would be: let us imagine a Shia person who lost a loved one after Al-Qaeda bombed a Shia mosque in Iraq. Can anyone imagine that such a person would then name his child with the name Usamah, despite the fact that the name Usamah is actually a very common name amongst Muslims? Once again, that name would become repugnant. Honestly, there is no reason for such abstract analogies because they do not capture the gravity of the situation. Rayat fails to mention any example of three men killing another mans wife and child, and then that same victim naming his next three children after those three men. We ask Rayat to come up with a creative example that would actually fulfill this criteria; indeed, no man would name his sons after the men responsible for killing his wife and child. That is why we go back to our original analogy we provided:
AhlelBayt.com says

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 dont 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.


The fact that Rayat needs to resort to abstraction actually proves that he knows deep down inside that if we simply substitute the names Tom, Dick, and Harry and otherwise keep the story the same as the Shia claim (i.e. the so-called oppression of Ahlel Bayt by the Three Caliphs), then nobody would actually be convinced by his argument. Rayat uses the names George and Dick; so let us imagine that George and Dick break into Sams house and kill his wife and child. Do we imagine that Sam will ever name two of his sons as George and another two as Dick? We demand that when Rayat brings up examples that he keeps the story the same (i.e. two or three men breaking into a house and killing a persons wife and child); Rayat can name these three men whatever he wants! Let us see him do it! In fact, even the most generic names would not do the trick for Rayat, as nobody would name their child after the murderers of another of their children!

A Convoluted Argument
Rayat says

If the Sunni propagandists say that it is unlikely Imam Ali ( ) named his sons those names simply because

the names were popular while there were many other popular Arab names, we respond to them by saying Imam Ali ( ) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful ( .) Therefore, when you think about it carefully it is not appropriate to claim the coincidence is too big, as there were so many people opposed to Imam Ali ( ,) many of them with popular Arab names.

This is perhaps one of the most convoluted arguments we have ever seen; it took some time to even comprehend what the author was trying to say. After we finally figured out what Rayat was trying to say, we found that he was actually shooting himself in the foot. He makes a couple points (we are just translating what he said above): 1. Ali never named his sons with the names of his enemies such as Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan, etc. 2. Rayat claims that the above names were all very popular but Ali did not choose them because they were the names of his enemies. 3. Then Rayat claims that Ali had so many enemies that it was difficult to choose any name without it being one of his enemies, and therefore we should not beaccording to Rayatimpressed when we see that Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. All three points go against the Shia. The first point is very interesting: we look at all of the names of Alis sons, and we do not find any of those names. More than that, if we look at the children of all of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt, then we do not find those names. Instead, we find Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman in those lists, along with names like Hasan, Husayn, Ali, Muhammad, Jafar, etc. All the same names keep popping up! If Abu Bakr,

Umar, and Uthman were simply common namesand if Ali had chosen them randomly as the Shia claimthen one would expect that the Imams of Ahlel Bayt would also randomly have selected other popular names, such as those listed by Rayat. And yet we do not find any of these names ever. Statistically, if the names Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman are just random names like the others, then one expects them to occur in equal frequency. Instead, we find that none of the other names appear. In regards to the second point, it is actually conceding the argument. Ali did not choose those other names despite the fact that they were popular namesbecause they were the names of his enemies. Then why would he name his children after the men who supposedly killed his wife and unborn child? From this, we can deduce that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were not Alis enemies; otherwise, Ali would not have chosen those names. The third point is just ridiculous: were there not eighteen names available that were not the names of his enemies? Why then did Ali name two of his sons as Umar and two of his sons as Uthman? How random is that? After naming one son as Umar, then why didnt Ali put his hand in the bag and pick another random name? After naming one son as Uthman, why then randomly select it again for another son?

Doubling Names
It is clear that when people double names, then there is some significance to them; otherwise, there is no point in doing that. In fact, this is a challenge to the Shia: we have provided the names of all of the children of their twelve Imams. We find that many of them doubled names (i.e. gave the same name to multiple children). Can the Shia give even one example from them in which a name was doubled and it was not a special name of importance? In fact, the Shia can never accept this challenge because we will reproduce all the doubled names here: First Imam: Muhammad x 3 Abbas x 2 Jafar x 2 Abdullah x 3 Uthman x 2 Umar x 2 Second Imam: Abdullah x 2 Fatima x 2 Hasan x 2 Husayn x 2 Third Imam: Ali x 2 Abdullah x 3 Fourth Imam: Husayn x 2 Fifth Imam: Abdullah x 2

Seventh Imam: Ali x 2 Jafar x 2 Hasan x 3 Ruqayya x 2 Fatima x 2 So the only names that were doubled were all loved ones (Ali, Abdullah, Hasan, Husayn, Fatima, Ruqayya, Jafar, Muhammad, Abbas, Umar, and Uthman). Are any non-significant names doubled? Certainly not! We have given the entire list of doubled names and not a single one of them is insignificant. All of these names are the names of the Prophets children, grandchildren, cousin, or uncle! Umar and Uthman are in a very privileged company! Or should we dig our head in the sand and claim coincidence? The idea that Ali could not think of any name that wasnt that of his enemy does not account for the doubling of the names. Furthermore, it is simply inaccurate: there were many names that were not the names of Alis supposed enemies, such as Miqdad, Abu Dhar, Bilal, etc. To end the argument altogether, the Shia today adamantly refuse to name their children with the names of Alis enemies; we shall even include a Shia fatwa that forbids this. Now then, do the Shia have a difficult time picking the names of their children because there are too few names to pick from? Are they forced to pick a name of one of Alis enemies simply because Alis enemies were too many and the names available too few? The answer is a resounding no: we find that Shia parents name their children with many different names and they find no dearth of names to pick from, without having to resort to the names of Alis supposed enemies.

A Garbage Reference
Answering-Ansar says

We should point out that in our Shia text Muntheeala Mahal Volume 1 under the Chapter Shahadth - we read the

testimony of Imam Ali (as) that he named one of his sons Uthman because on the day he was born he (as) stated:

I shall name this child after my brother Uthman bin Nateoon.

Rayat says

In fact, Imam Ali ( ) did indeed name his son Uthman in honour of someone;

I name this child Uthman after my brother Uthman Ibn Madhoon ( 45 Page 38, Maqatil Al-Talibeyeen Page 55

) Bihar Al-Anwar Volume


Bihar al-Anwar, Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, and Muntheeala Mahal are all garbage books. They are Shia books and as such they hold no weight. We respond with the Answering-Ansars own words:
Answering-Ansar says

We are fully aware that the Nasibi will advance some Sunni text claiming that Imam Ali (as) named his son Umar

after the second khalifa - but an Ahlul Sunnah work can not be advanced as evidence to convince us.

Likewise, a Shia work cannot be advanced as an evidence to convince us. (It is interesting how AnsweringAnsar always refers to us Sunnis as Nasibis, is it not?)

Rayat Hangs Himself

Rayat says

I also want to keep in mind the likely possibility that Imam Ali ( ) named his son Omar as a tool of

facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the bitterly divided and warring Muslims. A Shia man I know named his daughter Aisha to please his Sunni wife, and so it is absolutely probable Imam Ali ( ) named his son Omar to bring together the various factions of Muslims who were deeply divided i.e. for the greater good. Personally speaking, I lean towards this idea.

This argument here actually made us chuckle because Rayat is now openly contradicting himself. In fact, after we expose his argument, we think that Rayat will edit out this part and remove it; therefore we have saved a screen shot of his article to remind him of his outrageous gaffe should he choose to edit/delete it. Rayats entire articleas well as Answering-Ansarsis focused on how Ali did not name his children after the Three Caliphs. Both Rayat and Answering-Ansar then gave proofs for why it was simply unthinkable that Ali did in fact name his sons after Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Quite clearly, Rayat had said the following:
Rayat says

Imam Ali ( ) did not name his sons after the two caliphs.

But then he contradicts himself by saying that perhaps Ali did name his son after Umar, the second Caliph. In fact, Rayat says that he leans towards this opinion as being the most accurate. Suddenly, all the evidence and arguments that Rayat and Answering-Ansar had brought up to prove that Ali did not name his son after Umar ibn al-Khattab goes down the drain. Now Ali did name his son after Umar, but instead as a peace offering to the Sunnis. This is the inevitable result of the Shia propensity for furthering any argumentno matter how spurious simply to win debates; they base their arguments not on the truth but rather on if they win arguments. We are reminded of the Shia argument about Umm Kulthoom, Alis daughter who was wedded to Umar. The Shia further two contradictory arguments: 1. The marriage never took place. 2. If it did, then it took place out of force. For both opinions, they will cite authoritative Shia sources. Option 2 above is in case Option 1 fails. But if we logically think about this, it is much like OJ Simpson saying: 1. I didnt kill Nicole Brown. 2. If I did, then it was out of self-defense. For both opinions, he will cite his friend as a witness. The obvious question arises: the veracity of both OJ Simpson and his friend comes into question when he claims that he didnt kill her, but then gives evidence to prove it was self-defense when he did. The proof he shows that it was self-defense contradicts his original statement that it didnt happen at all. In a court of law, presentation of such contradictory evidence would undermine ones defense. Here, Rayat is furthering two contradictory arguments: 1. Ali did not name his son after Umar ibn al-Khattab. 2. Ali did in fact name his son after Umar ibn al-Khattab but it was just to make peace with Sunnis. Rayat actually provides arguments to prove both points above. But if Rayat were able to prove one of the points, would this not disprove the other? Either Ali named his son after the second Caliph, or not; it cannot be both. The fact that Rayat brings up the second point is actually showing that he himself was unconvinced of his arguments to prove the first point. Rayat made arguments to prove that Ali did not name his son after Umar ibn al-Khattab, but he was unconvinced so he makes a u-turn by claiming that indeed he did name his son after Umar ibn al-Khattab! In fact, both Rayat and us can agree that Ali did in fact name his son after the second Caliph; the only question now is why? To answer this question we again are faced with either accepting the more plausible Sunni paradigm or the stretch-of-the-imagination Shia paradigm. We are actually very familiar with this position because the Shia put us in this situation when we discussed the marriage of Alis daughter to Umar. The Shia propaganda site Al-Islam.org admitted that Ali wed his daughter to Umar, but then argued that Ali was forced to

give his daughter away. So we were forced to pick between the creative explanation offered by the Shia (i.e. that it was out of force) and the more plausible explanation given by the Sunnis that Ali respected Umar and thus gave his daughter to him. It may amuse the reader to know that the Shia scholars have even come up with a third possibility, namely that Ali married a Jinn in the image of Umm Kulthoom to Umar. Perhaps the Shia propagandists can also claim that five of Alis children were Jinns and that is why he named them after the Three Caliphs! It is amazing how the Shia can provide creative answers, instead of simply accepting the most probable and obvious explanation which is that Ali respected Umar. We now have two strong evidences that do not jive with the Shia perspective: Ali not only named his sons after the first Three Caliphs, but he also wed one of his daughters to the second Caliph. What more evidence can be provided to convince the Shia that Ali and Umar were on good terms? Maybe if Umar appointed Ali as his vizier? Oh wait, we have that too! It is as if even Ali ibn Abi Talib was alive today he himself could not convince the Shia that he loved Umar ibn al-Khattab: the Shia might claim that Ali was doing Taqiyyah! Anything so long as the Shia can tenaciously cling onto his paradigm and the beliefs of his sect which take priority and precedence over the search for the truth. Going back to the argument that perhaps Ali named his son Umar as a token of peace, then this also invalidates another argument of the Shia: did not Answering-Ansar and Rayat claim that people back then did not think of Umar ibn al-Khattab when they heard the name Umar? We read:
Rayat says

Two of the eighteen were named Omar and Uthman. When you hear the name Omar today you usually immediately

and automatically think of Omar Ibn al-Khattab. However, back at the time, this was not the case and the names such as Aisha, Omar and Uthman were very popular and very common Arab names.

during Imam Alis ( ) time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan would not spring to mind when their first names were mentioned. This is the crucial point.

But now Rayat claims that Ali named his son Umar as a sign of peace of reconciliation with the Sunnis:
Rayat says

I also want to keep in mind the likely possibility that Imam Ali ( ) named his son Omar as a tool of

facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the bitterly divided and warring Muslims.

This begs the question: if Umar ibn al-Khattab did not spring to mind when the name Umar was heard, then how would naming his son Umar be a means of facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the Muslims? In fact, here we see that Rayat knows that back then when people heard the name Umar, then the first person they thought about was Umar ibn al-Khattab. When Ali named his son Umar, then everyone knew that it was after the second Caliph. We hope the perceptive reader can understand how Rayat has shot himself in the foot with this argument; he has implicitly admitted that the Muslim masses would immediately think of Umar ibn al-Khattab when they heard that Ali named his son Umar.

Do Not Name Your Daughter Aisha

Rayat says

A Shia man I know named his daughter Aisha to please his Sunni wife, and so it is absolutely probable Imam Ali (

) named his son Omar to bring together the various factions of Muslims who were deeply divided

Did this Shia friend of yours not consider the fatwa of his own scholars:
Al-Islam.org says

QUESTION:

as salaam alaikum I have a brief question for you concerning the name Aisha. 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 Shia 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

Is it not strange that the Shia scholars claim that the followers of the ahl al-bayt are not encouraged to keep her name when in fact the Ahlel Bayt themselves named their children Aisha? Was it not Imam Musa al-Kadhim, the seventh Imam of the Shia, who named his daughter Aisha? Similarly did the tenth Imam of the Shia name his only daughter as Aisha. Were the Infallible Imams of the Shia not followers of ahl al-bayt? Were they Nasibis for naming their children with the name of the queen Nasibi? When will the Shia masses wake up? None of them are the followers of Ahlel Bayt! Their scholars claim to be followers of Ahlel Bayt but they are not the followers, but rather they stray from the Sunnah of their Imams. The Imams named their daughters Aisha, but the Shia scholars discourage that and the Shia masses deplore naming their children that. How long can the Shia operate under the misunderstanding that they are the followers of Ahlel Bayt, when they do not follow the Sunnah of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt? In fact, the Imams of Ahlel Bayt were all Sunnis, and that is why they named their daughters Aisha; no Shia would do that!

Conclusion
The truth is that Rayat is correct in one way: Ali ibn Abi Talib did name his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as a token of closeness and reconciliation. The Three Caliphs and Ali initially had some friction but this was all resolved and the matter cleared. The Three Caliphs and Ali were brothers, and everyone knows that brothers get in arguments all the time! But at the end of the day, they love each other. This was the case with the Three Caliphs and Ali; whatever tension was between Abu Bakr and Ali initially was long gone by the death of the first Caliph. In fact, it was Ali who gave a stirring and emotional eulogy in praise of Abu Bakr during the latters funeral. Ali also named a son after him.
Rayat says

In conclusion, Imam Ali ( ) did not name his sons Omar and Uthman out of love for the two caliphs

Maybe then Ali named his sons after the Three Caliphs out of hatred for them? What better way to get back at someone than to name your sons after him!
Rayat says

his stance towards them is perfectly clear

Indeed! How clear Alis stance is when he named five of his sons after the Three Caliphs! And how clear his stance is when he wed his daughter to the second Caliph!

Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective]

Question:

There is a Hadith narrated in Musnad Ahmad which states: There shall be twelve Caliphs for this community, all of them from Quraish. This same Hadith has been narrated in many other reliable Sunni books of Hadith, and it has been deemed as Sahih by the Sunni scholars. Is this not proof in support of Shiism, namely in their belief of twelve Imams? Answer by www.ahlelbayt.com : This issue of the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs has caused un-necessary confusion within the ranks of Sunni laypersons; the e-Shia have relied on this Hadith as a trump card whilst debating on various forums, mostly due to the fact that no Sunni site hadup until nowadequately dealt with this issue. The few responses that were available from the Sunni side were half-hearted at best and in fact failed to deal with the crux of the issue, namely the coincidence between the number twelve found in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. No doubt it was this (so-called) coincidence that seemed to surprise Sunni lay-persons. It is our sincere hope that this article will finally bring an end to this situation; we will show, from their own Shia books, that there is absolutely no coincidence in the number twelve nor is it a proof for Shiism but rather it is only a proof of the Shia manipulations. Throughout our answer to this question, we refer the reader to the following book: The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain. It should be noted that the author, Dr. Hussain, is a devout Imami Shia professor who wrote this book in order to defend Shiism. The book was published by The Muhammadi Trust as well as by the Zahra Trust, both of which are very well-respected Shia publishers. The book is also referenced by Al-Islam.org and therein cited as an authoratative source. Hence, the book is considered highly reliable to the Shia. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, before we begin, we must define what exactly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We read: A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. (Self-fulfilling prophecy, Wikipedia) To give an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we have the literary story of Romulus and Remus: according to legend, Romulus and Remus were in their childhood sentenced to death for fear of a prophecy that one day they would kill the king. However, Romulus and Remus escape death and later in life they hear stories of the prophecy; after hearing these prophecies, Romulus and Remus then realize that their destiny in life is to kill the king, and they then do exactly that.

In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy is a statement which may sufficiently influence people in such a way that their reactions ultimately fulfill (or seem to fulfill) the prophecy. The prophecies of various religious persons have always been the victims of this problem, whereby people seek to fulfill the prophecy themselves. As for the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, the Prophet ( )prophecized that there would be twelve Caliphs after him, and thereafter various deviant sects fulfilled this prophecy by laying claim to political authority by putting forward their own set of twelve Caliphs. The Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs There is no doubt that the Prophet ( )did in fact prophecize in Hadith that there would be twelve Caliphs, and many Sunni scholars do believe that the last of the twelve will be Imam Mehdi who will fill the earth with justice. This is most definitely a belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, well-known to the scholars even if it is not well-known amongst the lay-persons from amongst the Sunnis. After the Prophet ( )made this statement, there were many deviant sects which sought to exploit this Hadith and other similar prophecies in order to bring themselves to power. The Shia were one such group, who used this Hadithalong with those about Imam Mehdiin order to place their own sect into power. It was based upon the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs that the Shia decided to limit their Imamah to the number twelve. We read (emphasis is ours): These and other traditions (Hadith) were spread in both Imamite and Zaydite circlesAccording to al-Saduq these traditions (Hadith) and others predicting the occurrence of the Ghayba were the main reason for the Imamite acceptance of the Ghayba and for their being satisfied that the series of the Imams should stop at the twelfth. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.138) In other words, the Imamah of the Imami Shia would not have ended at the number twelve had it not been for this Hadith of the twelve Caliphs found in mainstream Muslim books of Hadith. It was this Hadith which was one of the main reasons that caused the Shia to terminate the Imamah at the number twelve. It is therefore based on very backwards and circular logic that the Shia should now use this Hadith as proof for their twelve Imams, when in fact it was they who based their belief on our Hadith! Today we have Shia youths who attack the Sunnis by saying how could it simply be a coincidence that your Hadith also tells you about these twelve Imams? Of course it is not a coincidence! It is the Shia who based their deviant beliefs in our Hadith, and so it is very queer of them to then further our Hadith as proof of their beliefs! This is very backwards and circular logic! It is placing the carriage before the horse, reversing cause and effect! In fact, had the Sunni Hadith stated that there were eleven Caliphs instead of twelve, then the Shia would have claimed that their Imams were eleven in number. And once again, they would have come to us with incredulous looks on their faces, saying what a miracle it was that their beliefs can be proven from our books. Had it been thirteen Caliphs mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith, then the Shia would have ended the Imamah at the number thirteen. The proof for the termination of the Shia Imamah was based from Sunni Hadith, so there is therefore no surprise at the concordance between the number of Caliphs in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. Indeed, the Shia in actuality did not have twelve Imams, but eleven of them. The eleventh Imam, Hasan alAskari, died without leaving behind a son to succeed him. In fact, Hasan al-Askaris own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan al-Askaris estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother (instead of any to the son). Moojan Momen writes in An Introduction to Shii Islam (London, 1985, p. 162) that, Jafar remained unshakeable in his assertion that his brother (Hasan alAskari) had no progeny. We read:

The majority of the Imamitesdenied his birth or even his existence, and mocked those who believed in him. According to al-Numani the bulk of these groups abandoned their belief in the hidden Imam. In fact those who continued to hold a firm belief in his Imamate were a small minority belonging to the circles of narrators, like Ibn Qubba and al-Numani himself, who based their belief on the traditions of the Imams (i.e. Hadith about twelve Imams). Many scholars shared the perplexity of the Imamite masses over the prolonged occultation of the twelfth Imam. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.143) Indeed, 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 inconsistency, the Imami Shia of the time denounced Jafar as being al-Kadhab (the Liar), and they came up with the fantastic story that the eleventh Imam had a son but that this son was hidden from view (i.e. in occultation). In order to prove the existence of this mysterious son, the Imami Shia actually brought forward the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others similar to it, in order to somehow prove that the Imamah could not possibly have ended at eleven persons but must be twelve in number. Nonetheless, such fantastic explanations did not fool the vast majority of the Imami Shia who apostatized from Imamiyyah Shiism in order to embrace Sunni Islam or other branches of Shiism. In fact, the Shia movement split into at least fifteen different sects after the eleventh Imams death, some of these sects claiming that the Imams were only eleven in number (and ended with Hasan al-Askari). These sects were defeated and denounced by the Imami Shia safir (representative) who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsalong with an intensive propaganda campaignto silence any who opposed the idea of there being exactly twelve Imams; it was because of this very Hadith that these other Shia groupswho believed in eleven Imamsfell into non-existence. We read: Although the Imamites split into fifteen groups and held different views concerning the successor of al-Askari at the time of the first safir, the teaching and the underground activities of the second safir met with success. His followers (al-Imamiyya al-Qatiyya) carried out intensive propaganda to prove the existence of the twelfth Imamthus the teachings and doctrine of the followers of the second safir dominated Imamite circles, whereas other groups disappeared. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.139) And we read how many Shia used this Hadith to limit the number to twelve: He also mentions traditions (Hadith) which point to the fact that the number of the Imams would end with the twelfth Imam and he would be al-Qaim. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.4) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs was instrumental in determining how many Imams the Shia decided upon having. Had, for example, the tenth Imam died without leaving behind a successor, then the Shia would have said that there were two Imams in occultation or perhaps they would have nominated a brother of the Imams to be one of their Imams or perhaps they would claim that Fatima ( ) was one of the twelve, etc. Whatever the case, no matter what, the Shia would make sure that their Imams would add upto twelve in number, in order to establish legitimacy through the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. It is therefore very pretentious that they should now use this as a proof against us. Hadith Exploited by Deviant Sects

A fact unknown to lay-persons is that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is exploited by not only the Imami Shia but by many other deviant sects. Interestingly, many of these deviant sects have a more convincing argument for their claims over that of the Imami Shia! For example, the Ibaadisthe descendants of the Khawaarijuse the Hadith of twelve Caliphs in order to validate the claims of their leaders, who were twelve in number. The Ibaadis claim that this Hadith is a shining proof for their twelve Caliphs, which include: Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ,) Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Kindi, and the nine Ibaadi Imams of the Rustamid Dynasty. It is interesting that the racist cult known as the Nation of Islam, headed by Elijah Muhammad, also uses the hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to validate their sect. Elijah Muhammad, their supposed Messenger, claimed that their founder, W.D. Fard, was one of the twelve Imams: Now there are twelve (12) Imams or Scientists, who have been ruling all the time, and one of the twelve is always greater than the other eleven (11) (Muhammad Speaks Newspaper) If a deviant group like the Nation of Islam can use the hadith of the twelve Caliphs, then we are not at all surprised when the twelver Shias use it as as a proof. Another deviant sect which did in fact lay claim to the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and use it to bring themselves to power were the Zaydis. We read: The Zaydites also used these traditions (Hadith) in their attempts to gain control (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) A group from amongst the Zaydis revered twelve Imams, but they believed in a different set of twelve Imams than the Imami Shia. These Zaydis believed in the first four of the Imams of the Imami Shia, but they disagreed with the Imami Shia as to who the other eight of them were. This group of Zaydis, like the Sunnis, believed that the Caliphate was not limited to twelve, but the Zaydis argued that the twelfth would be Al-Qaim and he would lead an armed and political insurrection. A similar view was held by another heretical sect, namely that of the Ismailis who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to further their own set of Imams. And there were many other deviant groups who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsand other Hadith in regards to Imam Mehdiin order to bring themselves to power. We read: (These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others like it were well-known by all Muslims back then and that deviant groups often used them in order to advance themselves politically. We read: But political rivalry amongst the Muslims encouraged some people to exploit this hope and to distort these Prophetic traditions (Hadith) in order to use them in their struggle for power. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) We read:

The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21) And we read, right from the mouth of this Shia historian himself, the following: These traditions (Hadith) were used by many Shiite groups to back up the claims of their leaders who aspired to power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.2) The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is so vague and obscure that it allows almost any group to exploit it and use it to further their own cause; it simply necessitates allocating a group of twelve leaders and then saying that the Hadith refers to them. We read: This obscurity allowed some Alids to use these traditions (Hadith) to support their own political aims (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) The exploitation of this Hadith was not at all limited to Imami Shia. We read: Like the Imamites, the Ismailis had reported the (same) Prophetic traditions (Hadith)however, they interpreted some of these traditions (Hadith) in a manner which would support their struggle to gain immediate success in North Africa. Furthermore they applied other traditions (Hadith) narrated by the Imamites about alQaim al-Mahdi to their own concealed leader (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.111) The Hadith was also exploited by a group known as the Qaramita. We read: The Qaramitas use of the Prophetic traditions (Hadith)in their struggle to gain immediate political success (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.116) In fact, it was not only the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs which were exploited by the Shia but also many other Hadith which prophecized the coming of Imam Mehdi. We read: He also traces the use of the prophetic traditions (Hadith) regarding al-Qaim al-Mahdi by these groups in their struggle for power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.11) We read further: Between the years 245-260/859-874 the Imamite and Zaydite traditionists were relating traditions stating that al-Qaim would be the twelfth Imam and urging people to join his side when he rose. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29)

On numerous occassions did groups of Shia exploit the Sunni Hadith in order to claim for themselves political supremacy. We read: The spread of such narrations (Hadith) encouraged the Imamites to expect the rise of al-Qaim in the near future and to link his rising with Abbasid rule. Some of them applied these traditions (Hadith) along with others concerning the signs of the rise of al-Qaim to the circumstances surrounding the Alid revolt which broke out in 250/864. Ibn Uqba relates that the leader of the rebellion, Yahya b. Umar, was expected to be al-Qaim alMahdi, since all the signs concerning the rise of al-Qaim al-Mahdi related by al-Sadiq occurred during the revolt. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29) We read further: It appears, however, that the Abbasid oppression did not deter the Shiite ambition to reach power. Many historians like al-Isfahani report that Alid revolts broke out in 250-1/864-5 in the areas of Kufa, Tabaristan, Rayy, Qazwin, Egypt, and Hijaz. These might have been directed by one group, or to be more accurate, by one leader. It is beyond the scope of this work to deal with the details of these revolts, but it is worth mentioning that the rebels employed the Prophetic traditions (Hadith) concerning al-Qaim al-Mahdi and the signs of his rising to achieve immediate political success. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.52) This game of playing with Hadith was also played by Caliph al-Mansoor, who named his son Muhammad alMahdi. We read: Moreover he (Caliph al-Mansoor) invested his successor Muhammad with the epithet al-Mahdi in order to turn the attention of his subjects from the Alid family toward the family of Abbas. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.28) Elaborating on this point, the Shia author states: It is reported that the Prophet said, The Mahdi is from my progeny. His name is similar to mine. (alTirmidhi)perhaps al-Mansur took this point into account when he called his son, Muhammad al-Mahdi (alBidaya) (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.165) What is interesting is that at first many of the Shia referred to Hasan al-Askaris mysterious son by the name Ali as opposed to Muhammad. However, the Shia later decided to switch to Muhammad so that it would more fully apply to the mainstream Muslim collection of Hadith which state that Muhammad is the name of Imam Mehdi. We read: They thought that he (the eleventh Imam) had left a successor whose name was not Muhammad but Ali. They said that al-Askari had no son except Ali, who had been seen by his fathers trustworthy followers. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.63)

So we see that the Imami Shia were very adamant about lining up their beliefs so that they would find legitimacy in Sunni Hadith. It is therefore all too convenient that the Shia can now point to these Hadith as some sort of proof for Shiism. The Twelve Caliphs Cannot be the Shia Imams The Hadith in question declares that the Imams will be from the Quraish. It is in fact this part that negates both the Shia and Ibaadi claims. It is well-known that amongst the three groups (i.e. Sunnis, Shia, and Ibaadis), it is only the Sunnis that necessitated that the leadership be confined to the Quraish after the Prophets death. The Sunnis argued that the leadership of the Muslims must always be given to that party which makes up the majority group. Based upon the principle of majority rule, it was only fair that the leadership be given to the Quraishis who at the time of the Prophets death made up the majority group from amongst the Muslims. On the other hand, the Shia claim that the leadership must be confined to the Ahlel Bayt whereas the Ibaadis claim that the leadership can be given to any Muslim regardless of if he belongs to a minority group unrepresentative of the majority desire. Therefore, if this Hadith were truly in relation to the Shia Imams, then it should have stated that the twelve Caliphs would be from the progeny of the Prophet ( ) instead of using the term from Quraish. Indeed, this is a fact that the Shia were well-aware of and it was based upon this that they blamed the Sunnis for having distorted the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, accusing the Sunnis of altering it from Ahlel Bayt or Bani Hashim to Quraish. Some Shia even refer to the Sunni Hadith of the twelve Caliphs as a censored or even chopped up version of the Prophets real words. The Shia then refer us to the un-censored version of the Hadith which is available in Shia books, as follows: (There will be) from my descendants eleven leaders (who will) be noble and receive and understand (knowledge). The last of them will be al-Qaim, who will fill the world with justice after it had been filled with tyranny. So we see that while the Shia have historically used Sunni Hadith to back their claims, they end up having to distort these Hadith in order to make them apply more correctly to the Shia paradigm. The fact that the Shia need to mend the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order for it to work for the Shia belief is proof enough that the Hadith cannot be used as a proof against the Sunnis. A lay-person may argue that the Bani Hashim are within the clan of Quraish and therefore the Hadith still supports a Shia view. But such a person would be altogether ignorant of Arabic Balagha which necessitates that ascribing the Caliphs to the Quraish means that not all of them are from one particular clan of Quraish but rather they are from different groups from amongst the Quraish; otherwise, there was absolutely no reason that the Prophet ( )did not say that the Caliphs will be from Bani Hashim. Having stated that, ignorant Shia youth arguing over the internet will insist that the Hadith can still be applied to the twelve Imams of the Shia since Bani Hashim is part of the Quraish. We simply ask these youths to be honest with themselves: why did the Prophet ( )use the vague wording that the Caliphs will be from the Quraish, as opposed to clearly stating that the twelve Imams would be from his descendants of the Ahlel Bayt? Common sense dictates that there is no reason that the Prophet ( )would have used the word Caliph as opposed to Imam, when in fact the Shia literature always refers to the twelve Imams, not the twelve Caliphs. Additionally, only two of the Imams served as Caliphs whereas the rest never became Caliphs. Furthermore, if the Prophet ( )was willing the leadership to his descendants, then should he not state that specifically instead of saying that it was a position open to all the Quraish? We see that the Shia paradigm can only be forced upon this Hadith through brute intellectual force. A similar approach do we see from Qadianis who take our collection of Sunni Hadith and try to prove that their leader is the Mehdi. The truth of the matter is that the Shia would only have a clear argument if the Hadith stated that

there would be twelve Imams from the Prophets descendants. Instead, the Shia have an obscure Hadith in which they are trying to force upon it their own interpretation, much in the same way that Qadianis do with many a Hadith. The Identity of the Twelve Caliphs Almost all the deviant sects (including the Imamis, the Zaydis, the Ismailis, the Ibaadis, the Nation of Islam, etc.) claim to know exactly who the twelve Caliphs are; they state with certainty who are the twelve Caliphs, they forge false Hadith to name these Caliphs, and then they say that whoever does not follow these twelve is deviant. This methodology differentiates the sects from the mainstream Muslims who do not claim to know exactly who are the twelve Caliphs. The Prophets prophecies were vague, and nobody can know exactly who or what they refer to. The Shia propagandists will oftentimes attack the Sunnis by asking us who are the twelve Caliphs and then they will laugh with joy when we cannot answer them with any certainty. And yet, this is nothing particular or peculiar about our lack of certainty with regards to this one specific prophecy, but rather we are similarly uncertain about the bulk of the Prophets prophecies. In another Hadith, the Prophet ( )has stated that a mujaddid (reviver of the faith) would appear after every century; if we ask the Sunni scholars to name who were all the mujaddideen of the Ummah throughout the centuries, we find that they will not be able to name them. In fact, there is no way that anybody can know for certain even a single of these mujaddideen, namely because to say something like that with absolute certainty would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah, which is considered a sin. Therefore, it is not fair for the Shia to demand for us to say for certainty who the twelve Caliphs are, when in fact our doctrine necessitates that we cannot talk about this with certainty as it being a thing only Allah knows. The vagueness of the Prophets prophecy is not at all limited to this one particular Hadith but can be seen in many other Hadith, such as the prophecy about Gog and Magog. Throughout the ages, people have guessed as to who Gog and Magog refers to, some saying that it refers to the Turks while others saying it refers to the Mongols, some say Gog and Magog have already come, whereas others say that they are yet to comebut nobody knows with certainty. Many of the prophecies of the Prophet ( )were vague and we can only guess at their exact meaning; such is the nature of prophecies. So when we Sunnis are vague with who are the twelve caliphs in the Hadith, we are vague with all the prophecies in general, because we do not wish to speak about the Unseen without knowledge. Allah warns in the Quran: Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden aresaying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (Quran, 7:33) And Allah warns against Dhann (conjecture), saying: But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture! (Quran, 45:25) And Allah says further: Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only.

(Quran, 6:116) Allah warns again and again against conjecture on such matters: Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned. (Quran, 17:36) The Shia who claim that they know with certainty the names of the twelve Caliphs are only conjecturing and only doing this in order to follow their own desires to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. Allah says: They follow but conjecture and that which they themselves desire. (Quran, 53:23) We have only been given the knowledge that there will be twelve Caliphs but we cannot say for certainty who they are, as Allah says: You have been given but little knowledge. (Quran, 17:85) The Prophet ( )made all sorts of prophecies, and the examples we could cite are numerous. In one Hadith, the Prophet ( )says: By Him in Whose hand is my soul, the Hour will not come untila man speaks to his whip or his shoe, and his thigh will tell him about what happened to his family after he left. This has led some people to postulate that this Hadith refers to cell-phones, because cell-phones are placed in a mans pockets next to his thigh. People have further guessed that the whips were an attempt to describe wires. Whatever the case, we can only guess at the exact meaning, and this is the case for most of the Prophets propheciesincluding the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. Therefore, the Sunni scholars hold that we do not know for certain who are the twelve Caliphs referred to in the Hadith. Furthermore, it is speaking without knowledge to claim to know for certain who they are; unlike the Shia and other deviant sects who forge Hadith to back their own list of twelve Caliphs, the Sunnis resort to saying Allahu Aalim (Allah knows Best). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar says about the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs: No one has much knowledge about this particular Hadith (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari 16:338) The truthful scholars of Sunni Islam can only therefore guess at who the twelve Caliphs are, and it should be understood that these are guesses at best; only deviants manipulate the Word of Allah claiming certainty: the Imamis are adamant about their twelve, the Zaydis are adamant about their twelve, the Ibaadis (descendants of the Khawaarij) are adamant about their twelve, the Ismailis are adamant about their twelve, etc. We shall let these deviant groups bicker amongst each other about who the twelve Caliphs are. We urge our Sunni brothers

not to fall into the traps of the Shia propagandists who demand to know who the twelve Caliphs are, and then they enjoy to see the Sunnis replying with varying lists from different scholars, as if this is some sort of proof against Sunni Islam! Like all other prophecies, we cannot know for certain who or what it refers to; it is not only that we do not know, but rather even more than that, namely that we cannot possibly know for certain who the twelve are, as this would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah. This is a doctrinal view and it is what differentiates the mainstream Muslims from the deviant sects. Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to. The Rightly Guided Caliphs Perhaps the best guess is that the twelve Caliphs refers to al-Khulafaa al-Rashidoon (the Rightly Guided Caliphs). There is Ijma (consensus) on the fact that the first four Caliphs were Rightly Guided Caliphs and the term is most often used for them. However, in addition to these four, we say that Alis son, Hasan ( ,) was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Prophet ( )said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the rule of His Kingdom to whomever He wills. (Sunan Abu Dawood) Indeed, the rule of the first four Caliphs lasted twenty-nine years and six months; Hasan ( ) ruled for another six months bringing the rule of the Rashidoon to thirty years in conformity to the Prophets prophecy. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz ( Caliphs refer to: 1. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq 2. Umar ibn al-Khattab 3. Uthman bin Affan 4. Ali ibn abi Talib 5. Hasan ibn Ali 6. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz This means that six of the twelve have come to pass, and six more will come to pass before the Day of Judgment, the last of whom will likely be Imam Mehdi. The Cacophonous Response of the Ahlus Sunnah The Shia claim that the Sunni response to who the twelve Caliphs are is cacophonous due to the fact that scholars do not agree as to who the twelve Caliphs are. This may in fact be true, but the Shia would be lying if they were to say that they were always united as to who were the twelve Caliphs. We read: The Imamate during the life of the last six Imams of the Twelver Imamites (al-Imamiyya al-Ithna ashariyya) was distinguished by the many splits which occured after the death of each Imam, who was considered by the Imamites as one of the twelve Imams, over the recognition of his successor. ) is also included amongst the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Therefore, the twelve

(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.56) In fact, after the death of each Imam, the Imami Shia ran around like headless chickens trying to figure out who was the next Imam; absolute confusion would descend into their ranks as to who was the next of the twelve Imams. After the death of each Imam of the Shia, numerous Shia sects emerged, each claiming that another person was the Imam! So if the Shia of today would like to laugh at the Sunnis for not knowing who the Imam is, let them also laugh at their own ancestors who did not know who the Imam was! The only reason that the Shia of today have some sort of unanimity with regards to who the twelve Imams are is because Shah Ismail I, the ruler of the Safavid Empire, forcibly enforcedby the swordhis brand of Shiism upon the masses of Persia. By thus doing so, he succeeded in converting the masses to one strain of Shiism all of which followed one set of twelve Imams. And yet, even today there exist some minority sects of the Shia such as the Zaydiswho believe in a different set of twelve Imams. It is in fact impossible for the mainstream Muslims to say who the twelve Caliphs are when it is likely that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled! Once the twelve Caliphs have all come and passed, only then will it become clearer to the Muslims as to whom they are. To give an analogy, the Muslims living in the time of Abu Bakrs Caliphate did not know exactly who the Rightly Guided Caliphs (i.e. the Caliphate of Prophecy) would be; would it have been fair to ask them who is being referred to in the Hadith which says that the Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years? Of course, at that time they would not have known since the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled! Only after the prophecy was fulfilled was it possible to pinpoint who the Caliphate of Prophecy referred to. Another Twelve in Sahih Hadith It is altogether too easy to haphazardly apply vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause. If the Shia insist upon doing this, then let us point them to another twelve people mentioned in Sahih Muslim. The Prophet ( ) said: In my Ummah, there would be twelve hypocrites and they would not be admitted to Paradise and they would not smell its odor, until the camel would pass through a needles hole. (Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Number 6689, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/038.smt.html) The Khawaarij or the Nawaasib could argue that the twelve hypocrites here refer to the twelve Imams of the Shia. Do the Shia see how easy it is to twist vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause? Conclusion Shiism is an off-shoot of mainstream Islam, and many of the concepts of mainstream Islam were borrowed and incorporated. Not only this, but the Shialike deviant sects of any religionhave always sought to justify their own deviant beliefs by basing them, albeit loosely, in the books of the mainstream. At the time of Hasan alAskaris death, the Hadith in regards to the twelve Caliphs was well-known amongst the Muslim masses. We read: (These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18)

Thus, the Shia terminated their Imamah at the number twelve in order to conform to the Hadith of twelve Caliphs, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Imams are twelve in number just as the Sunni Hadith says. We read: The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21) The truth of the matter is that the Sunni belief in the twelve Caliphs and in Imam Mehdi differs dramatically from the Shia conception: the Sunnis do not believe that these Caliphs are infallible, nor are they appointed by God, nor are they superior to the Prophets, etc.

Hadith About Shias Being Best of Creation [A Sunni Perspective]

In regards to the narration: You and your shias are the best of creation. It should be known that it is not authentic. It was narrated in Tafseer at-Tabari in regards to Verse 98:7 of the Quran: Those who have faith and do righteous deads, they are the best of creatures. (98:7)

29208 - { : {

From Ibn Humayd, Eesa ibn Farqad, from Abu Jarud, from Muhammad ibn Ali: They are the best of creatures, the Prophet said to Ali: That is you and your shias. The narration is Mursal. The chain ends at Muhammad ibn Ali who did not see the Prophet, and as such, he could not witness the so-called event. Additionally, the chain is extremely weak and goes through Rawaafidh (Shia extremists). The chain goes through Abu Jarud (Ziyad ibn Manzoor) and he was criticized by the scholars of Hadith. Ibn Hajar said about him: Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who was declared to be a liar by Yahya ibn Maeen (Taqreeb Al Tahzheeb 1/221), and he described him as a liar and not trustworthy (Al Jarh wal Tadeel 3/454). Dhahabi reported about Abu Jarud in Mizan (#2965):

. : . :
Ibn Mueen said: He is a liar. Nasai and others said he is Matrook. Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Hibban al-Busti in his book Marjoohin (p.306) wrote about him:

(He) narrated baseless stories about the honor of Ahlel Bayt.

And Ahmad said: Abu Jarud is matrook ahadeeth. Ibn Abu Hatim reported in his book Jarh wa tadeel (#2462):

From Abdur-Rahman: I heard that Abu Zura said: Ziyad ibn Manzoor, Abu Jarud Kufi: Dhaeef (weak) alhadeeth. Additionally, we find Eesa bin Farqad in the chain, and he is the one who narrates from liars and abandoned people (matrookeen) such as Jaabir Al al Jafee (Jaami Al Jarh wal Tadeel, 1/122)the Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who used to believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib is the beast of the earth and that he didnt die and that he is in the clouds and that he will come back to this earth.

Hadith About Aishas House and Satans Horns [A Sunni Perspective]

Praise be to Allah for giving us this opportunity to defend the Prophets wife. Truly what an amazing honor this is. May Allah raise us up with those who defend the Ahlel Bayt, as opposed to those who slander the blessed Ahlel Bayt. As for those who slander and insult the Prophets own wives, we can only imagine the Prophets anger towards these erring people; indeed, not even the vilest and most debased Shia would tolerate someone insulting his own wife! It will be the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah that will forever guard the honor of our Beloveds beloved.

Shia Slander Against the Mother of the Believers

Despite the fact that Umm al Mumineen Aisha is part of the blessed Ahlel Bayt, the Shia propagandists revile her; of the many slanders they utter against her, one of their favorites is to claim that the horns of Satan or the head of Satan would emerge from Aishas house. This is based on their horrible misinterpretation of Sunni Hadith which they then propagate amongst the ignorant ones amongst the Sunnis. Let us read the false translations and even falser interpretations made by the Shia propaganda website, AlIslam.org:
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) warned the Ummah against her on several occasions

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336 Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here, saying three times, from where the side of the Satans head comes out. In the above tradition the Prophet predicted the sedition which Aisha will bring for Muslims and that she will be seduced by Satan for instigating the first civil war in the history of Islam. Muslim has also related in his Sahih from Ikrima Ibn Ammar from Salim from Ibn Umar who said: The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) emerged from the house of Aisha and said. The pivot of disbelief is from here, where the horns of Satan will rise. Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4, p2229

source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1a/10.html

A Similar Accusation Made By the Anti-Islam Orientalists

Unbeknownst to many Shia is the fact that this same Hadith is used by the Anti-Islam Orientalists (i.e. NonMuslims) who seek to defile the good name of Prophet Muhammad. These Orientalists argue that the Prophet predicted that Satans horns would emerge from Aishas house, and then they are quick to mention that the Prophet himself was buried inside Aishas house! It is disconcerting how the Shia propagandistsin their overzealous attempts to slander the Ahlel Bayt (i.e. the Prophets wives)have unwittingly allied themselves with Orientalists. Indeed, if the Hadith in question is actually in reference to Aishas house, then nobody can deny that the Orientalists have rightfully pointed out that the Prophet was buried in that same house. If we take this interpretation, then we are led to the conclusion that Satans horn emerged from the Prophet himself; this claim has been made by the Christians for a very long time, whereby they argue that Prophet Muhammad was not sent by Allah but was rather one of Satans agents. The Christians argue that the Prophet was doomed by his own prophecy, in a similar fashion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of the Qadianis was doomed by his own prophecy. (Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had claimed to be a prophet after our Prophet Muhammad; he also prophecized that false prophets die from illnesses such as cholera. Ironically, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed himself died from cholera.) Today, a very large mosque is built over Aishas house, known as al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Prophets Mosque). Are the Shia implying that the Horn of Satan would emerge from the second holiest mosque of Islam? Do they say that the Horn of Satan would emerge from the Prophets Mosque (not Aishas Mosque)? The Shia are agreed upon the sanctity of the Prophets Mosque, and yet at the same time they dare to make accusations that this was the site from where Satans horns would emerge?

The Hadiths in Question

In fact, the Hadiths in question have nothing at all to do with Aisha, but rather the Prophet was simply pointing in the direction of the East towards Iraq (i.e. the Persian Empire at that time). An analogy of this is if a man asks which direction is Qiblah, and his friend points towards a certain house on the street. This simply means that Qiblah is in that direction. The Prophet did not at all mean that Aishas house would be the source of Satans horns, but rather he meant the East. In relation to where the Prophet was standing, Aishas house simply happened to be in the direction of the East.
Shia Chat Member says

This Hadith has been narrated in the Sahihayn, in both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.

Indeed. Now let us reproduce the Hadiths from both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. We read: Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6938: Ibn Umar reported that he heard Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while he had turned his face towards the East: Behold, turmoil would appear from this side, from where the horns of Satan would appear. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6938 Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6939: Ibn Umar reported that Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood by the door (of the apartment of) gafsa and, pointing towards the East, he said: The turmoil would appear from this side, viz. where the horns of Satan would appear, and he uttered these words twice or thrice; and Ubaidullah in his narration said: the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had been standing by the door of Aisha. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6939 Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6940: Salim b. Abdullah reported on the authority of his father that Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him), while turning his face towards the East, said: The turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this sidethe side where appear the horns of Satan. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6940 Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6941: Ibn Umar reported that Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of Aisha and said: It would be from this side (pointing to the East) that there would appear the height of unbelief, viz. where appear the horns of Satan.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6941 Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6942: Ibn Umar reported: I heard Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while pointing his hands towards the East: The turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side (he repeated it thrice) where appear the horns of Satan. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6942 Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6943: Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of his father that he heard Salim b. Abdullah b. Umar as saying: O people of Iraq, how strange it is that you ask about the minor sins but commit major sins? I heard from my father Abdullah b. Umar, narrating that he heard Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while pointing his hand towards the East: Verily, the turmoil would come from this side, from where appear the horns of Satan and you would strike the necks of one another http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6943 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336: Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing towards Aishas house (i.e. Eastwards), he said thrice, Affliction (will appear from) here, and, from where the side of the Satans head comes out (i.e. from the East). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 212: Narrated Salims father: The Prophet stood up beside the pulpit (and pointed with his finger towards the East) and said, Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out, or said, ..the side of the sun.. (i.e. the sun emerges from the East) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 213: Narrated Ibn Umar: I heard Allahs Apostle while he was facing the East, saying, Verily! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:

Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said, O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen. The People said, And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq). He said, O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (North)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen (South). The people said, O Allahs Apostle! And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq). I think the third time the Prophet said, There (in the Najd, i.e. Iraq) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html Iraq was at that time referred to by the Arabs as the Najd, as stated in Najd Qarnu ash-Shaytan. This has been stated by al-Khattabi, al-Kirmani, al-Ayni, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr and others. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajr said: Al-Khattabi said: For the one who is in Medinah, then his Najd would be the desert of Iraq and its regions (baadiya al-Iraaq wa Nawaaheehaa) for this is to the East of the People of Medinah. This is made abundantly clear by the same narration recorded in alternate wording: Al-Mujam al-Kabeer, Compiled by Imam Al-Tabarani: Narrated by Ibn Abbas: The Prophet supplicated and said, O Allah bestow your blessings on our Shaam and Yemen. A person from amongst the people said, O Prophet of Allah, and Iraq? He said, Indeed there (in Iraq) is the Horn of Satan, and the trials and tribulations will come like mounting waves, and indeed harshness is in the East.

Pointed Towards, Not Pointed To

It is Hadith Number 336 of Vol.4, Book 53 of Sahih Bukhari that the Shia propagandists rely on most, namely because the translator used by the USC website (Muhsin Khan) made a mistake in his translation. He translates it as pointed to Aishas house instead of pointed towards Aishas house. However, the proper translation is pointed towards and not pointed to. In the Arabic text of said Hadith, the words are fa-ashaara nahwa (towards) maskani `aishah and not fa-ashaara ila (to) maskani `aishah. Therefore, we see that the Prophet was simply pointing towards the direction of Aishas house, and not at Aishas house specifically.

The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satans Horns Emerged

At that time in history, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire; the Prophet had dispatched an ambassador to the Persian Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The haughty Persian leader scoffed at the Prophets call, rejecting to accept the lowly Arab barbarians as spiritual leaders over and above the mighty Persians. Soon thereafter, the Muslim Ummah would be propelled into an all-out war with the the Persian Empire; Caliph Umar ibn alKhattab blitzed across Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began for the Muslims. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that before the fall of Persia, the Muslim Ummah was united under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was expanding its borders. Right after the liberation of Iraq from Persian domination, the assassinations of Caliphs began. The Muslims had indeed defeated the haughty and proud Persian Empire, but the Persians carefully planned their revenge. The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The conquered Persians plotted against the Muslims, and it was their conspiracy plans which no doubt the Prophet was referring to as Satans horns. It was from the ashes of the

Persian Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Persian nationalism. The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day Persian 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. Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia faith. His intention in creating the Shia faith was to create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create disunity, andquite franklyto forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as Rafidhis (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satans horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is what the Prophet was referring to.

Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah

The Shia argue that it was Aisha who started the Fitnah in the ranks of the Muslims by organizing an army against Ali. But in fact, this is incorrect. First of all, Aisha did not leave her house with the intention of instigating an armed revolt against Ali. Instead, she left her house only with the intention of Islah (reformation). In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha why she had come to visit Ali, saying: O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country? She answered: O son, to reconcile between people. The word Fitnah refers to turmoil which causes disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah. Even before the time of the Battle of Camel, the Muslim ranks had become split, so why should the Shia blame this on Aisha? The Fitnah began right after the Persians assassinated the Caliph of the Muslims, which pre-dated the Battle of the Camel. In fact, it was the murder of Umar ibn al-Khattab by the Persians that started the chain reaction which resulted in the Battle of the Camel. Ubaidallah, Umars son, avenged the murder of his father by plotting to kill the three men who hired the assassin Abu Lulu. Ubaidallah was successful in killing two of the three men, but the thirdSaba bin Shamoonsurvived, and he demanded that Ubaidallah be executed for his double murder. Caliph Uthman, however, showed Ubaidallah mercy, despite Ali who advised the Caliph to execute him for his crime of vigilante murder. 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 Ubaidallahs 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 Sabas 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 Sabaites (followers of Abdullah ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman. This murder of Uthman led to the rise of Ali as Caliph; the people demanded of Ali that he apprehend the killers of Uthman and this was the cause of the Battle of Camel. The people were upset with Ali for failing to apprehend the killers of Uthmanwho happened to be in his own party, but Ali chose to delay apprehending

them due to the fact that he did not want to alienate his own supporters in this time of civil discontent when he needed them the most. So Ali decided to delay on apprehending the killers until after he consolidated his power as Caliph, but the people were threatening to revolt against and even kill Ali, who was even wrongfully implicated in the murder of Uthman. And so it was that some of the people appealed to the Prophets wife to go talk to the Caliph on their behalf. Aisha agreed to do this, only to prevent bloodshed and furnish Islah (reformation) between the ranks of the Muslims. Aisha was hopeful that she could convince Ali to find the killers and apprehend them posthaste. When the Sabaite killers of Uthman found out that Aisha was on her way to meet the Caliph in order to urge him to apprehend the assassins, this naturally made them antsy and fear for their lives. So it was they who attacked Aishas contingent and thus began the Battle of the Camel, a result of the chain reaction that began with the Persian murder of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was thus that the Persians were the cause of the Fitnah, and Aisha was innocent of that. Today, we find that the modern day Shia are soft towards the Persian conspirators but harsh towards the Mother of the Believers! The truth is that the Shia propagandists will be raised with those they love, and they will be raised up with the likes of the Persian Abu Lulu, whereas the Muslims will be raised with the blessed Ahlel Bayt including the Prophets wives. The Shia of today are the remnants of the Magian Persian Empire, and they are from where Satans horns emerged. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said: The People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allah informed us that the trials and tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the East and they were the reason for the splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction. (Fath al-Bari 13/58)

Conclusion
The Prophet was not at all referring to his own wife. If that were the case, then nothing prevented him from simply pointing to his wife, instead of pointing towards Aishas house in the direction of the East. In fact, although this Hadith is abused by the Shia propagandists, in reality this same Hadith is a damnation of the Shia themselves for it was they who the Prophet was warning against us. May Allah save us from Shiism, the horn of Satan. It is inconceivable that the Prophet of Islam would be buried at the spot wherefrom Satans horns emerged. May Allah bless the Prophets Ahlel Bayt including his wives, the Mother of the Believers.

Hadith as-Safinah (of Ahlel Bayt being like Noahs Ark) is a Forgery

The following Hadith, commonly quoted by Shia, is found in al-Mustadrak: Ahlul Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked on it was saved. Whoever turned away perished.

However, it is inauthentic. Imam al-Dhahabi said in the Talkhis of al-Mustadrak that this Hadith is a forgery. The Isnad of the Hadith contains Mufaddal ibn Salih, who Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Hajar in his Taqrib called weak and whom Imam Bukhari referred to as Munkhar al-Hadith. No version of this Hadith contains an acceptable chain of narrators. In any case, if we were to accept this Hadith as authentic, then it would be used first and foremost in relation to the Prophets wives who have most right to being called Ahlel Bayt. The Shia are the ones who have abandoned the Prophets wives. If Ahlel Bayt are an Ark, then the Shia have cut up that ship and punched a hole in part of it so that now the entire boat is drowning. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah loves and respect the entire boat (i.e. the entirity of the Ahlel Bayt).

Hadith al-Manzilah [A Sunni Perspective]

The Shia propagandists oftentimes abuse the following Hadith in order to claim that the Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700: Allahs Apostle set out for (the Battle of) Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, Do you want to leave me with the children and women? The Prophet said, Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon to Musa? But there will be no prophet after me. However, this Hadith is not evidence for the Caliphate of Ali after the death of the Prophet because the comparison made was between Ali and Prophet Haroon. It is well-known that Prophet Haroon died before Prophet Musa, and thus was never his successor after him. The following is an explanation by Imam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer: There is no disagreement that Haroon died before Musaand (Haroon) was not a successor after him (Musa), for the successor (to Musa) was Yusha bin Noon (i.e. Joshua), so if he (the Prophet) wanted by his saying (to grant Ali) the Caliphate, he would have said you will be to me like Yusha was to Musa, so when he didnt say this it proved that he didnt want that meaning, but he (simply) wanted that you are my deputy over my family in my life and my absence from my family, like Haroon was deputy of Musa over his people when he left to speak to his Lord.
Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says

He (Allah) appointed Harun the helper, assistant, deputy and successor of Musa among his people, and even made

him a prophetSince Harun was the leader of all the Bani Israil, the situation of Ali, peace be upon him, was analogous.

source: Imamate And Leadership, http://home.swipnet.se/islam/books/imamate/lesson5.htm

This is simply incorrect: Prophet Haroon died before Prophet Musa, so it is impossible to claim that Haroon was the successor of Musa. The successor of Prophet Musa was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) and therefore if the Prophet had wanted to imply successorship, then surely he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha. In Hadith al-Manzilah it is narrated that the Prophet left to go for war and he deputized Ali as the caretaker of his family in his absence. It was very routine at that time for a father to deputize his son as caretaker of the family in his absence; because the Prophet did not have a son, Ali was the most appropriate choice for this very noble task.
Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says

To this we answer that whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, left the Islamic

capital, he would always appoint someone to act as his deputy. If by comparing Ali, peace be upon him, to Harun, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, had intended nothing more than the usual appointment of a deputy, restricted in his authority to Madinah for the period of the Prophets absence, why did he not use a similar expression for those other favored Companions he would appoint as deputy? Why did he not use the same or similar words to describe the services they rendered?

source: Imamate And Leadership, http://home.swipnet.se/islam/books/imamate/lesson5.htm

In order to respond to this, we must first understand the context in which this Hadith was said. Before the Battle of Tabuk, a band of the Munafiqoon (Hypocrites) began to spread anti-Islamic propaganda in order to dishearten the Muslims. One of the lies they spread was directed towards Ali ibn Abi Talib and it was because of this that the Prophet said what he said in the Hadith. We read: Expedition to Tabuk The Munafiqoon were constantly in league with the Jews of al-Medinah and were holding regular consultations against the Muslims. A band of twelve Munafiqoon built their own separate mosque as a center for carrying out their hostile activities and anti-Islamic propaganda, and for creating a rift among the Muslims. When they saw the Muslims engaged in preparing for the impending battle, they started passing discouraging remarks Islamic Armys Departure The Messenger of Allah set out for Tabuk with an army of 30,000 men from al-Medinahand he put Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari in charge of al-MedinahThe Prophet had left behind Ali to look after his family. The Munafiqoon used this as an opportunity to spread false rumors about Ali. They implied that the Prophet gave little importance to Ali and therefore left him alone in al-Medinah. When his patience ran out, he (Ali) hurried from al-Medinah andjoining the Prophet at al-Jurfasked: The Munafiqoon are saying such-and-

such about me and so I have come to you. The Prophet of Allah said: They are liars. I have left you behind to look after my household, so go back. In order to soothe his feelings, the Prophet further added: You are to me as Haroon was to Musa, except that there will be no Prophet after me. Ali returned to al-Medinah pacified and satisfied. (Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.232) This context is understood by the Shia as well:
Al-Islam.org says

The Expedition of Tabuk

The hypocrites in Medina seized this opportunity to plant disaffection in the minds of the neophytes in Islam. They not only did not take part in the campaign but also tried to dissuadeothers from doing so. In an attempt to undermine the will and purpose of the Muslims, they began to spread alarmist stories Nevertheless, many Muslims responded to the appeal of the Prophet, and took up arms to defend the faith. When a head-count was taken, there were found to be 30,000 volunteers. It was the largest force ever assembled in Arabia until then. The Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib his viceroy in Medina during his own absenceFor the hypocrites, there was nothing more disagreeable than to see Ali in authority over them. When the army left Medina, they began to whisper that the Apostle had left Ali in Medina because he wanted to get rid of him. Ali was mortified to hear that his master had found him a burden. He, therefore, immediately went after the army and overtook it at Jorf. The Apostle was surprised to see him but when he (Ali) explained why he came, he (the Apostle) said: These people are liars. I left you in Medina to represent me in my absence. Are you not content to be to me what Aaron was to Moses except that there will not be any prophet after me.

source: Restatement of History of Islam, http://al-islam.org/restatement/34.htm Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says

they (the Munafiqoon) began spreading idle rumors in the hope of weakening Alis position. They hinted that the

Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was angry with Ali, peace be upon him, and that it was for this reason that he had not been permitted to accompany him on a major military expedition.

Ali, peace be upon him, was greatly troubled and saddened by the circulation of these rumors, and he hastened to the presence of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, who had already left Madinah. He told him what had happened, and with a single historic sentence he clarified the special position of Ali, peace be upon him, once and for all:

Are you not content that your relation to me shall be like the relation of Harun to Musa, excepting only that there shall be no prophet after me?

source: Imamate And Leadership, http://home.swipnet.se/islam/books/imamate/lesson5.htm

Now we come back to the question of the Shia propagandist which was: Why did he (the Prophet) not use the same or similar words to describe the services they (the other Sahabah) rendered (i.e. for similar tasks)? The answer is obvious: the Munafiqoon did not spread this particular rumor except against Ali. It was this degrading rumor and Alis concern that caused the Prophet to say what he said in order to placate Ali. Had other Companions been similarly slandered, then perhaps they too would have refused to stay back in Medinah. Because these other Sahabah did not feel dismayed with their deputyship and did not ask to go along with the Prophet instead of staying behind, there was thus no need for the Prophet to reassure them with such words as he used for Ali. On the other hand, when Ali was deputized by the Prophet to take care of his family, the Munafiqoon implied that this task was menial as it left Ali behind with women and children. This is the reason that Ali asked to go along with the Prophet instead. It was based on this specific concern of Alis (i.e. that the task was menial) that the Prophet spoke the words he did, in order to convey to Ali the extreme importance of taking care of his family in his absence. Hadith al-Manzilah was said to Ali because of the circumstances, which were that Ali objected to staying behind with children and women as opposed to embarking on Jihad with the Prophet. By saying those words, the Prophet was explaining to Ali how he would be to him, by staying behind watching over women and children, like Haroon was to Musa when the latter left the former behind as a deputy over his people. The Prophets purpose in saying this was to reassure Ali that this deputyship was an honor and that he would not be any less than the ones who went to fight in battle.
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib his viceroy in Medina during his own absence. He selected Ali to be his

viceroy for the following reasons: He wanted to show to the rest of the world that he considered Ali to be more qualified than anyone else to be the ruler of all Muslims, and to be the head of the Islamic State. He, therefore, appointed him as his representative in his capital.

source: Restatement of History of Islam, http://al-islam.org/restatement/34.htm

This is a very odd argument. This was the singular instance in which the Prophet left Ali as his deputy in Medinah, yet we know that there were many other battles in which the Prophet left other Sahabah behind as his deputy in Medinah. For example, the Prophet left behind Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari as his deputy in Medinah; what if we told the Shia that this is a proof that the Prophet wanted to show to the rest of the world that he considered Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari to be more qualified than anyone else, to be the ruler of all Muslims, and to be the head of the Islamic state and the Prophet therefore appointed him as his representative in his capitol?

To this, the Shia would say that this is a preposterous argument, yet suddenly they force this argument upon us in the one single instance in which the Prophet appointed Ali as his deputy. Therefore, we say to the Shia that their interpretation is just as preposterous as saying that the other Sahabah were appointed as Caliphs by the Prophet simply because he deputized them. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in Minhaj as-Sunnah: As for the Messenger placing Ali in charge over Medinah, then that is not an honor specific to him alone. He (the Prophet) had left Ibn Makhtoom, Uthman bin Affan, and Abu Mundhir (in charge of Medinah, i.e. on other occasions). This (being appointed over Medinah) is not an unrestricted succession, which is why none of these people ever said they were the Caliph of Allahs MessengerAli left Medinah along with the Prophet to Badr, Hunayn and other places, and (the Messenger) left others in Medinah as deputies. (Minhaj as-Sunnah)
Shia says

The words except there will be no prophet after me indicates that Ali was being appointed for a task similar to

Prophethood. Otherwise, there would have been no need to mention Prophethood at all.

One of the fundamental beliefs of Islam is that Prophet Muhammad was the final seal of the Prophets. Therefore, whenever Prophet Muhammad would liken anyone to a Prophet, he would make sure to clarify that this is only a comparison and does not mean there will be any Prophet after him. In a separate instance, the Prophet praises Umar as one who is very much inspired as Prophets were inspired, but he makes sure to clarify for the people that there would be no Prophet that would succeed him. These were clarifications that were necessary in order that people not be misguided on the matter later lest they take Ali or Umar as Prophets. In any case, to end the discussion altogether, Prophet Haroon and his lineage were prohibited by the Law of Musa to take executive roles, but they were instead limited to religious, spiritual, and ceremonial roles. It was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) who became the Caliph (successor) of Musa, not Prophet Haroon nor his descendants. Throughout the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn and Uthman, Ali remained a spiritual guide for the people. Similar is the case with many of the Imams of the Shia, who secluded themselves from any temporal role and instead remained as spiritual guides. The Hadith al-Manzilah does not at all help the Shia cause, but rather it is a strong proof against the Shia claims. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha rather than Prophet Haroon. Instead, the Prophet likened Ali to Prophet Haroon whose role was not that of a temporal ruler but that of a spiritual guide.

Hadith About the Quran and Sunnah

Introduction

The Shia propagandists often claim that the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. I am leaving you with the Book of Allah and my Sunnah) is weak or even forged. This is a blatant lie; according to the standards of the Hadith scholars, the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah is Sahih. It is a wonder how the Shia continually attempt to establish the Sunni position themselves. How can they say that this Hadith is considered weak, when in fact it has always been considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah? Whether or not the Shia consider it authentic is irrelevant to us because they have no credible science of Hadith to begin with. The following is a question/answer session with Shaikh Gibril Haddad. Questioner says: This Hadeeth about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah) is weak. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: [A] crass lieThe hadith in question is not weak. Questioner says: Ninowi said: Please note, that some people are using an alleged Hadeeth (that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah). Please be advised that this Hadeeth is extremely weak. Moreover, many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: What scholar(s) of hadith declared this hadith extremely weak? What scholars(s) declared it fabricated? I have listed over two dozen dictionaries of forgeries in an article titled The famous hadith and forgery compilations available in full at livingislam.org / (pdf-file). Surely if many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated it should be easy to say where, in any of those books, one of those supposedly many leading scholars can be seen declaring such a thing. Questioner says: The Hadeeth (i.e. that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah) is present in ONLY ONE book (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim) and has ONLY ONE narrator.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question states that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet. This is narrated from Anas by: *Abu al-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Muhaddithin fi Asbahan (4:67 549); also from `Amr ibn `Awf by: *Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331); and also from Ibn `Abbs by: *Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (202-294) in al-Sunna (p. 25-26 68) *al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:171 318) who declared that all its narrators are agreed upon meaning in the two books of Sahih *al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 20108) *al-I`tiqad (p. 228) by Malik in his Muwatta. Ibn `Abd al-Barr narrated its chain in al-Tamhid (24:331) and describes it as so famous and widespread as a Prophetic report among the people of knowledge that it can be treated as mass-transmitted (mahfuz, ma`ruf, mashhur `an al-Nabi salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam thamma ahl al-`ilm shuhratan yakadu yustaghna biha `an al-isnad) *Ibn Hazm who declared it sahih in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810) even though he is overly strict in his criterion for soundness as stated by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari in his student `Abd Allah al-Talidis biographical notes, Darr al-Ghamam al-Raqiq. Another version states: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and my Sunna. And these two shall never part ways until they show up at the Pond. Narrated from Abu Hurayra by: *Ibn Shahin in al-Targhib fil-Dhikr (2:406 528) as stated by Ahmad al-Ghumari in al-Mudawi (3:482 3923) *al-Hakim in the Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:172 319) *al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 20109) *al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (4:245 149) *Abu Bakr al-Shafi`i in the Ghaylaniyyat as stated by al-Suyuti in the Jami` al-Saghir (3923) *al-Lalikai in Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (1:80) *al-Khatib in al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi (1983 ed. 1:111=1991 ed. 2:165-166 89) and al-Faqih walMutafaqqih (1:94) *Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331) *Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810) *al-Suyuti declared it hasan in al-Jami` al-Saghir (3923). Also narrated mursal from `Urwa as cited by: *al-Suyuti in Miftah al-Janna (p. 29 35). Also narrated mursal through Ibn Ishaq from `Abd Allah ibn Abi Najih by: *al-Tabari in his Tarikh (2:205-206) *Ibn Hisham in his Sira (6:8-10).

So there are chains through at least four different Companions corresponding to two versions which have in common the wording: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna or my Sunna. The fact that this wording in the Muwatta is enough proof that it is sahih, as further confirmed by Ibn `Abd albarrs remarks. Both these sources actually reflect that there is more to Hadith-grading than the mere documentation of chains of transmission. Questioner says: The Hadeeth is narrated by Al Hakem in his Mustadrak by way of Ibn abi owais by way of his father by way of thawr by way of Zayd through Ikrima, through ibn abbas, however, ibn abi owais and his father are unreliable people and fabricators. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: Says who exactly? Imam al-Bukhari narrates over 200 hadiths from Ibn Abi Uways. Over 170 of those are hadiths Ibn Abi Uways narrates from his maternal uncle, Imam Malik. As for his father `Abd Allah Abu Uways, he is one of the narrators of the Sunan and Muslim also uses him in his Sahih. Questioner says: See tahtheeb al kamal 3/127 by Imam Hafez Mizzy, and Sharhh saheeh Al Bukhari intro/391 by Imam Hafez Inb Hajr, also Imam Nasaaiy was among other scholars to denounce those narrators describing them as weak and unreliable, similarly did Abu Hatem Arrazy in his book aljarhh wat tadeel in Elm Al hadeeth, others who also mentioned their unreliability are Llakaiy, Assideeq, Ibn Mueen, Ibn Habban,. .etc. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: None of the above called these two narrators unreliable people and fabricators. On the contrary, Ibn Hajar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Ma`in all called him truthful (saduq). Questioner says: Even Imam Al Hakem himself who mentioned this hadeeth in his book, after he added another weak route to it, declared this Hadeeth immediately as a weak Hadeeth and admitted its great weakness. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: Actually, al-Hakim followed up with another route because it came through another Companion, which strengthens the hadith. Nowhere does he declare the first hadith weak. Shaikh Gibril Haddad also said: Shaykh Abu al-Fadl Ahmad al-Ghumari in his book al-Mudawi li-`Ilal al-Munawi (3:482 3923) supports the authenticity of this hadith and that his brother, Shaykh `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, Allah have mercy on both of them, included this hadith among the sound hadiths in his compilation of the sahih and hasan hadiths of Imam al-Suyutis al-Jami` al-Saghir which he titled al-Kanz al-Thamin fi Ahadith al-Nabi al-Amin salla Allahu `alayhi wa Sallam. And Allah knows best.

Questioner says: We Shia instead follow the Hadeeth in which the Prophet says he left behind the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt. This hadeeth mentioning Ahlul Bayt and Quran as inseparable is very significant and has been narrated by 35 Sahaba (!!!) and is given in the Sahihs of Ahlu Sunnah and the many books of their scholars. It is Mutawattir! Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: This is absolutely false, the hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. Questioner says: The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already saidthe hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.] Questioner says: Why have you abandoned the Mutawattir Hadeeth about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt, replacing it with the weak Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah? Answer by Team Ahlel Bayt: First of all, the Hadith about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt is not Mutawattir, nor is the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah considered Dhaeef (weak). Instead, both Hadith are of a very similar calibre. Secondly, we have not abandoned the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt nor have we replaced it with the other Hadith. Instead, we believe in both Hadith; the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon, and the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt was said by the Prophet in front of the smaller gathering at Ghadir Khumm. This second Hadith was directed towards those of Medinah because it was they who would be tasked with the role of caring for the Prophets family after his death.

Hadith About Drinking Urine in Sahih Al-Bukhari

Question:

A Shia person once showed me this Hadith in the Sunni books:

Sahih Al Bukhari - Volume 7, Book 71, Number 590: Narrated Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine. So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. The Shia person was making a lot of fun of me saying that this was yet another one of Bukharis fabrications. I am worried. Did the Prophet really ask his followers to drink camel urine? Answer: Why should a Shia person worry himself over such Hadith when the Shia Hadith have even more disturbing narrations in them? Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi reports the following Hadith in his book Manlaa Yahdurhul-Faqeeh (For Him Who Has No Access to A Scholar): His (the Imams) feces are far better smelling than the fragnance of musk. [Reported by Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Saeed al-Kufi who narrated from Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fidaal, from his father from Abul-Hasan Ali b. Musa al-Ridha] Source: Manlaa Yahdurhul-Faqeeh (For Him Who Has No Access to A Scholar), vol.4, page 418, narration # 5914 And we also read what Grand Ayatollah Akhond Mulla Zainul-Abideen al-Galbaigani wrote in his book Anwaar al-Wilayah:

Theres nothing (impure) in the urine of the infallibles: their blood, urine and feces (are free of) any filth or dirtinessnor there is any stink in their urine or feces, rather both are like the Musk. Nay, (in fact) whoever drinks and eat their urine, feces and blood, Allah forbids fire on him, and cause him to enter paradisethe urine and feces of the Imams doesnt carry impurities or stench, but they are like musk, and whoever drank their urine and feces and their blood, Allah will make Hell fire Haram on them and their admission to Heaven becomes must. (Anwaar al-Wilayah, p.440) In the most reliable Shia book of Hadith, Al-Kafi, we read the following: Abu Jafar said: For the Imam there are 10 signs: He is born pure and circumcized.and if he farts the smell is of musk. (Al-Kafi 1/319 Book of Hujja - Chapter on Birth of Imam) With such Hadith in their literature, we kindly ask the Shia to get off their high horse. Having said that, two wrongs do not make a right, and we are not saying that an absurdity in the Shia literature allows us to also have an absurdity in our literature. So why does the Ahlus Sunnah have such a Hadith in their books about the Prophet prescribing the Sahabah camel urine? The answer is as follows: Urine therapy, alternatively called Urotherapy or Urea Therapy, has been utilized for many centuries. Even today, it is considered a very popular form of alternative medicine or homeopathic medicine, and is used to cure

many pathological conditions, including edema, hormonal imbalances, and even cancer. Let us see what the American Cancer Society (ACS) has to say on this matter:
American Cancer Society says

Urotherapy has been promoted for a wide variety of diseases and conditions, including cancer

The thought of drinking urine probably offends the sensibilities of most Westerners, but the fact is that human urine has been considered a healing agent in many Asian cultures for centuries. Even now, some physicians recognize urines antiseptic properties, and in some cultures it is poured directly on wounds to prevent infection. Others mix it with several ingredients to make a tonic that is drunk to promote health. In the mid-1950s, a Greek doctor named Evangelos Danopolous, MD, professed that he had identified anticancer properties in urea and had used the compound to successfully treat patients with certain types of skin and liver cancers. Dr. Danopolous claimed that his therapy significantly extended patients lives. He published several small positive case reports, but later studies by other researchers did not achieve the same results. Other doctors have also noted ureas anticancer characteristics. One of them, Vincent Speckhart, MD, testified about ureas benefits before a House of Representatives Committee. A breast cancer patient whom Dr. Speckhart treated with urea reportedly recovered from her disease and was alive 10 years after therapy. Urotherapy is currently offered along with other forms of alternative therapy in some cancer clinics in Mexico.

source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Urotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO

The American Cancer Society says:

American Cancer Society says

Are there any possible problems or complications? Drinking or injecting urine or applying it directly to the skin is

reported anecdotally to be safe and not associated with harmful side effects

source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Urotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO

Wikipedia Encyclopedia says:

Wikipedia Encyclopedia says

Urine therapy is a specialized branch of alternative medicine. Any sort of oral or external application of urine for

medicinal or cosmetic purposes falls into this category. A practitioner of urine therapy is called an uropath.

Promoters of urine therapy believe urine to have many curative powers Dr. John Henry Clarke (a prominent English classical homeopath, 1853-1931) wrote, man who, for a skin affection, drank in the morning the urine he had passed the night before. The symptoms were severe, consisting of general-dropsy (edema), scanty urine, and excessive weakness. These symptoms I have arranged under Urinum. Urinotherapy is practically as old as man himself. The Chinese (Therapist, x. 329) treat wounds by sprinkling urine on them, and the custom is widespread in the Far East. Taken internally it is believed to stimulate the circulation [1] Medics have long known about the presence of hormone metabolites in urine[2], including corticosteroids[3]. These hormones when ingested or absorbed through skin have powerful anti-inflammatory effects[4], which can explain many cases of improvement via such a therapy. [1] A DICTIONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA, 1895 ISBN 0-85032-084-4 [2] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_246/ai_112728018 [3] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1023535 [4] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406316_5

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy

Of course, today we are blessed with many pharmacological agents of the most advanced nature. Therefore, we dont have to resort to drinking urine. Nobody here is claiming that we should resort to drinking camel urine. All we are saying is that this medication was commonly administered in the time of the Prophet even before he was born. The Prophet did not invent this medication but rather it was in vogue at the time amongst the Arab physicians. Therefore, the Prophet advised his followers to utilize this medication that was commonly used at this time. If the Prophet was alive today, he would no doubt encourage modern day diuretics but these did not exist back then. The bottom line point is that the idea that the Prophet would prescribe urotherapy is not at all strange in the least, as it was a common practise back then. And even todayalthough we are not advocating the usage of urinemany allopathic medications used by contemporary physicians include extracts from urine. For example, the drug named Premarin is extracted from horse urine. We read from www.premarin.org and www.premarin.com the following:
Premarin.com says

Premarin (including Prempro, Premphase, Prempac, and Premelle) is a drug made up of conjugated estrogens

obtained from the urine of pregnant mares put out in many forms (pills, creams, injections, patches, vaginal rings) and is used to reduce the symptoms of menopause in women or women who have had a hysterectomy. It is also

prescribed to nearly eliminate the risk of osteoporosis (the brittling of bones) and reduce the chance of heart disease in women over 50.

source: www.premarin.org

The British magazine Chemistry and Industry said the following:

Premarin.com says

It was very recently discovered that adding distilled cow urine to medicaments increases their effectiveness while

decreasing their side-effects, making anti-cancer and anti-tubercular drugs twenty times more effective and antibacterial drugs eighty times more effective.

source: http://www.rfi.fr/fichiers/MFI/Sante/641.asp

Many drugs and foods have extracts from urine in themalthough with the advent of technology we of course filter, purify, and extract what we need. And perhaps we have better medical treatments now than they did back 1400 years ago. But the bottom line point is that camel urine has been used as prerogative in Arabia (and other parts of Asia) for thousands of years, and therefore, there is nothing peculiar about the Hadith in Sahih AlBukhari. Arabian physicians have acknowledged the medicinal properties of camel urine for a very long time. Ibn Sana (Avicenna) writes in his book (which was termed as the medical bible for a longer time than any other work by William Osler) that chronic imbalance of the liver produces jaundice, edema, and swelling of the belly and that the health of the liver can be restored through a temporary diet of camel milk and male camel urine. Camel urine has been termed the most beneficial type of urine, above human urine. [In Mah.md al-Nusaym, alT.ibb al-Nabaw wal-`Ilm al-H.adth (3:242) and Muh.ammad Nizr al-Daqr, Rawi` al-T.ibb al-Islm: alQism al-`Ilj (1:257)] In fact, the treatment for edema (formerly called dropsy by the British) was considered to be camel urine. GF Haddad writes: Avicennan textbooks by Ibn al-Azraq (d. 890) and al-Suwayd (600-690) state, The cure [for edema] is to drink the milk of the she-camel - together with its urine - fresh out of the udder,[6] and to use that every day and leave everything else, for it is extremely efficient and of proven results.[7] Ibn Sayyid al-Ns specifies, notably desert camels feeding on wormwood and southernwood. [8] Wormwood is among the herbs that are extremely useful in correcting digestive disorders in general and for helping detoxify the liver in particular, and is used in the treatment of hepatitis.[9] Thus, Arabian camel urine was a standard prescription in Arabic medicine and remains a staple of Bedouin natural remedies to this day both as diuretic, snuff, and delousing hair wash.[10]

[6] Jawd `Al in al-Mufas.s.al f Trkh al-`Arab Qabl al-Islm asserts they used to boil the urine first cf. alNusaym, al-T.ibb al-Nabaw wal-`Ilm al-H.adth (3:237). [7] Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-hl al-Manfi` fil-T.ibbi wal-H.ikma [The Facilitation of Benefits in Medicine and Wisdom] (1206 Khayriyya Cairo ed. p. 60 =1315 H.amdiyya Cairo ed. p. 51=another old Cairo edition p. 66) cf. al-Sha`rns epitome of al-Suwayd titled Mukhtas.ar al-Suwayd fil-T.ibb (1302 H.alab Cairo ed. p. 51). [8] Cited by al-Suyt. in his Sharh. on al-Nass Sunan (1:161). [9] http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/neat-stuff/hepatit.html [10] Gibrl Jabbr, The Bedouins and the Desert, transl. Lawrence I. Conrad, State University of New York Press, 1995 and Hilda and Dagg Gauthier-Pilters, The Camel, Chicago and London, 1981. City Arabs apparently know it only as a hair tonic. End quote. Perhaps it seems to the modern day person that extracting medication from urine is disgusting or nasty. But these are medical lay-persons who have no idea where other medications come from. For example, certain medications come from the venom of snakes. By stating this, are we advocating for normal healthy people to go drink snake venom? Certainly not. And other examples abound, such as penicillin which comes from a dirty mold from a cantelope! Is anyone here advocating to eat moldy cantelopes? Certainly not. Therefore, all of these substances are generally avoided, but in certain situations, they may have medicinal benefit. After having established the fact that urine has been used as a prerogative for thousands of years (and even today by homeopaths), let us go back to the Hadith in question. The Sahabah were suffering some illness due to the living conditions which they were not used to. They were having a lot of edema, or swelling of the abdomen. This has been narrated in many other Hadith about the same event in which many Sahabah fell sick due to some plague. In Sahih Al-Bukhari, Aisha is narrated as saying: We came to Medinah when it was the most plague-infested land of Allh. [The valley of] Buthn was covered with stagnant water. It is likely that the water became infected with some pathogen which caused a form of hepatitis in those who drank from it or who were infected by insects that were breeding in it (i.e. mosquitos). The resulting infection caused hepatitis (inflammation of the liver) and the liver is what maintains osmolarity (proper fluid balance) in the body. Consequently, the Sahabah developed edema (improper fluid balance) due to the liver manifestations. As even a first year medical student knows, edema is caused by a disbalance of solute which causes osmosis (i.e. water flows from an area of lower solute concentration to higher concentration). In swelling, the tissues become hyper-osmolar, meaning that they have more solutes than the blood, so plasma (water in the blood) flows from the blood to the tissues. The medical treatment of this condition is to give a diuretic, which is a highly concentrated solution that will flow in the blood, raising the osmolarity of the blood so that plasma moves out of the tissues and back into the blood, eventually to be excreted by the kidneys. This is the basis of diuretic treatment, which is used for edema. Today, there are many diuretics available on the market, including mannitol. Mannitol is administered in emergency situations because it is very hyper-osmolar and can dramatically reduce the plasma volume. Of course, back in the time of the Prophet, they had not discovered Mannitol as of yet, but the basic principle remained: find a solution which is highly concentrated (hyper-osmolar) which would cause diuresis. Camel urine is extremely highly concentrated, and would be the Mannitol of the time. In fact, no other animal can produce such a highly concentrated urine (aside from the kangaroo rat, although the kangaroo rat obviously cannot produce sufficient ammounts of milk/urine to be practical). The ability of camels to concentrate their urine is what allows them to survive months in the desert without water. Camel milk (and even cow milk) is considered more hyper-osmolar than human milk, and this is why it is contra-indicated in babies because it causes diuresis. Conversely, a patient who would need diuresis (due to plasma overload) would definitely want to take such a substance.

In conclusion, there is nothing absurd at all about the Prophet prescribing camel urine. In the popular TV show Lost, the main characterwho is a doctorengineers various medications using crafty tricks that sometimes seem absurd. But when you dont have a Rite Aid next to your house, then you have to improvize and drinking camel urine was the improvization of the Arabs (and many Asians) for thousands of years. After the Shia propagandist (and his anti-Islam buddies) would be thoroughly refuted by the above historical and scientific data, they will no doubt resort to childish rhetoric such as go drink camel urine then if you think you are a good Muslim. But nobody is claiming such a thing. Today, we have modern medications and we can use those, and the Prophet would have used those himself if he were alive today. Urine was deemed to be Haram by the Prophet, and what we learn from this Hadith is that certain things become Halal in a lifethreatening situation. This is what we learn from this Hadith, not that we should drink camel urine. The application of this Hadith is that we can take certain life-saving medications which contain Haram ingredients in them such as gelatin, alcohol, etc. To completely end the debate on this issueand to strike a severe blow to the Shia polemical stancewe see that the Shia Hadith contain many narrations about the medicinal benefits of camel urine. For example, we read the following in Bihar Al-Anwar: ( 2 ) : :

Translation: Al Jafari said: I head Abul Hassan, peace be upon him, say: The camels urine is more benificial than its dairy products. And also Allah makes the cures (for diseases) in its dairy products. The Infallible Imam of the Shia tells his followers about the benefits of camel urine and how it is superior to dairy products. And there are many other narrations to this effect. Therefore, since we see that this is from Shia Hadith, we come to the conclusion that the Shia propagandists who use such tactics are only shooting themselves in the foot. This argument against Sahih Al-Bukhari is only used by e-Shia youth who know nothing about their own faith, let alone about the Sunni faith. It should be noted that the Shia use the same tactics as the evangelists and the Answering-Islam team which has dedicated itself to destroying the honor of Islam. I have seen this similar accusation on the nefarious Answering-Islam website which also twists this Hadith to disprove Islam. In the end, they disprove nobody save themselves and the joke is on them. As for the Shia, they should be ashamed of the company they are in, using the same old arguments as the very enemies of Islam. They will therefore be treated accordingly.

Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things [A Sunni Perspective]

Introduction

The six major books of Hadith are referred to as the Sihah Sittah. Two of them, known collectively as the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim), contain mostly Sahih (authentic) narrations. However, the other four contain a mixed bag, with Hadith ranging from Dhaeef (weak) to Sahih (authentic). As for the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, it is narrated in two different versions. One of these versions is considered Sahih (authentic) and part of the Sahihayn. The other version, however, is considered Dhaeef (weak) and is not a part of the Sahihayn. Dhaeef (Weak) Version The weak version is as follows: I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astrayThe Book of Allah and my progeny. This version has been narrated in Sunan Tirmidhi and is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Even though Imam Tirmidhi included it in his book, he himself did not consider it Sahih (authentic) and referred to it as Ghareeb (i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized). A similar version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn can be found in Musnad Ahmad, but it too is classed as Dhaeef. This version of the Hadith does not have any valid chains of transmission. Some of the narrators of this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn were openly known to be Shia, such as Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah Al Awfi. It is an established principle in the Hadith sciences that a narrator is rejected if the content of the narrative is peculiar to a particular deviant school of thought if it is narrated by a deviant who ascribes to such a school of thought (Al-Kifaayah fi `ilm al-Riwaayah). In other words, a Shia narrator cannot possibly be accepted on issues related to the Sunni-Shia divide. This version of the Hadith, found in Sunan Tirmidhi, was narrated via persons who were openly Shia and therefore such a narration cannot serve as a proof. It is a well-known fact that the Shia claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) was nominated to be the Caliph by Prophet Muhammad ( ) at Ghadir Khumm; because of this belief, the Shia have propagated many false reports with regards to what was said at Ghadir Khumm, including what was said by the Prophet ( )in regards to al-Thaqalayn. It is therefore not surprising that the modern day Shia can point to many narrations in support of Shia claims, because these reports were forged by Shia themselves; these Hadith are Dhaeef (weak). The reader might wonder why these reports can be found in Sunni books, but such a wondering is based on ignorance of the Sunni science of Hadith: narrations are recorded and only afterwards graded for authenticity. The only two books which contain pre-screened Hadith are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (i.e. the Sahihayn), neither of which record this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. Let us examine the chain of transmission for this version of the Hadith as found in Sunan Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad. *The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes: Nasr ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi - Zayd ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy - Ja`fer ibn Mohammed - Mohammed ibn Ali ibn Hussain The second person in the chain is Zayd ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his book Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal has quoted Abu Haatim as saying that Zayd is Munkir al-Hadith - i.e. Zayd narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Hajar has considered him to be Dhaeef - i.e. a weak or an unreliable narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the said narrative, does not consider it to be Sahih. On

the contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that the Hadith is Ghareeb - i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized. *The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is: Al-Aswad ibn `aamir - Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek - Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy` Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan - Zayd ibn Thaabit The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa`eed has considered him extremely unreliable (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that his father said: I have noticed confusion in Shareeks principles (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa`eed replied: He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: Narratives of Shareek are worthless (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says: [Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating, [was] prejudiced (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa`eed al-Jauhariy says: Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred narratives (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu`een says: When Shareeks narratives contradict with someone elses, the other person is preferable to me (Meezaan alAi`tidaal). The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari says: His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and abominable) and nothing is known about him (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: nothing is known about him (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Musnad Ahmad also has a chain with Atiyyah Al Awfi from Abu Said Al Khudri, and we discuss below how `Atiyyah was a Shia. *The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is: Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy - Mohammed ibn Fudhayl - Al-A`mash - `Atiyyah - Abu Sa`eed. The first, second, and fourth narrator in this chain (i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah) are all known to be Shia. Based on this alone, the narration can be disregarded. Besides this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not being approved of by his contemporaries. (Dhu`afaa al-`Uqayliy). Moreover, Mohammed ibn Sa`d has said that his narratives are not considered by many to be evidence of a true saying of the Prophet (Siyar A`laam al-Nubalaa). The fourth narrator in this chain is Atiyyah. Shaikh Al Islam states regarding him in his Taqrib: He was a Shia and a concealer. Imam Dhahabi states regarding him in his Mizan Al Itidal: he was Dhaeef (i.e. unreliable). Yahya ibn Mu`een considers him to be Dhaeef - i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa`eed (Al-Kaamil fi alDhu`afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb alTehzeeb). Abu Dawood says: He cannot be trusted (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith. It is in fact abundantly clear that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is weak and therefore cannot serve as a proof. Sahih (Authentic) Version

The more reliable version of Hadith al-Thaqlaynand the one narrated in the Sahihaynis as follows: I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it. Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) in Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Daarimiy, and others. In Sahih Muslim #5922, we also find that the following was said: 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. A similar narration has been accepted by the Shia, such as the following:
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet replied: One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family

(Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt.

References: - Aalam al-Wara, pp 132-133

source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html

It should be noted that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is accepted by the Shia to be the most authentic one, and it is in fact narrated in Aalam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by Amin al-Islam al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan. The perceptive reader will notice that the Prophet ( )says that in the Quran is guidance and it is a light which we should hold fast to without which we will go astray. It can be inferred from this that the Quran is a source of deriving our religion from. On the other hand, when the Prophet ( )talks about his family, he says only I remind you of my family. In the version used by the Shia website above, we even read the words quite clearly: Beware of how you behave with them And in another version, the Prophet ( )uses the words how you treat them after me. Therefore, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn is in reference to taking care of (and behaving with) the Prophets family after his death, and it cannot be construed in the Shia manner at all. While the Quran is referred to as a source of guidance and light, this is not the case for the Ahlel Bayt, which is not referred to as a source of religion. The Hadith only directs the Muslims to refrain from adopting an uncalled for attitude towards them or a disrespectful behavior towards them.

If the Prophet ( )really meant what the Shia are implying, then the Prophet ( ) should have said something like follow the Quran and my Ahly Bayt, the light and gudiance, instead of saying: The Quran, which is the light of guidanceand I remind you of my family Shaikh Faraz Rabbanis student Sidi Salman Younas says: It is important to note what Thaqalayn means. It is the dual form of Thaql. Thaql means weight, burden, and heavy. Obviously, Thaql has a general connotation of a weight which burdens and elicits responsibility. Out of all the definitions of Thaql and its various forms and their various explications, important or importance is not one of them. Importance would be an inference at most, but definitely not a definition. Even if Thaql is to be understood as important it must be understood that it is an importance regarding its characteristic of eliciting responsibility, burden and cumber rather than being momentous and splendid. Obviously, Thaql and its various forms unanimously allude to burden, responsibility and cumber. Context of the Hadith It is impossible to discuss the Hadith al-Thaqalayn without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet ( )said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said. For example, the Quranic verse slay them wherever you find them is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation. Likewise, Hadith al-Thaqalayn was revealed in a certain context and this background is important to understand if we want to see what the Prophet ( )meant when he said what he said. First off, the Hadith about following Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet ( )in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat. However, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. Quran and Ahlel Bayt) was not said during the Farewell Sermon; instead, the Prophet ( )said the Hadith alThaqalayn in front of the smaller gathering of people at a place called Ghadir Khumm, a half-way point to Medinah. It was directed only towards those living in Medinah, because the Prophets family lived in Medinah and therefore the task of taking care of them would fall upon their shoulders. If Hadith al-Thaqalayn meant what the Shia imply, then surely the Prophet ( )would have said it in front of all the Muslims during his Farewell Sermon. Instead, the Prophet ( )only said this to those living in the same city as his family, again implying that what he meant was to take care of them. And perhaps the biggest proof is the fact that the Prophet ( )said the Hadith alThaqalayn during his speech at Ghadir Khumm. For those of our readers who have not read our article on Ghadir Khumm, we strongly urge them to read it now: The Sunni Position on Ghadir Kumm. As we have shown in that article, a group of soldiers were harshly criticizing Ali ( ) and complaining about him to the Prophet ( )at the place of Ghadir Khumm. (Please read that article for details and references.) It was in response to this hatred, abuse, and disrespect towards Ali ( ) that the Prophet ( )found it necessary to defend his family in the Hadith al-Thaqalayn. This serves as a very strong proof that the meaning behind the Prophets words were not about deriving religion from the Ahlel Bayt but rather about behaving with them, taking care of them, honoring them, respecting them, etc. Analyzing Weak Hadith

Sometimes the Shia will insist that we accept the weak versions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. Even if we were to do that, then we must view those Hadith in light of the authentic Hadith. For example, often the Shia will use these weak versions of the Hadith: I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astrayThe Book of Allah and my progeny. or I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny. or other similar versions. In this case, we understand that the words sticking to or adhering to or holding onto refers to loving them, respecting them, honoring them, etc. This is the interpretation of that, and this is based on (1) the authentic Hadith al-Thaqalayn, and (2) the context in which the Hadith was said (i.e. a group of soldiers were criticizing, disrespecting, and hating Ali). The Shia argue that since we are told to adhere to the Quran and Ahlel Bayt, then we must adhere to them in the same fashion since the same word is used for both. However, this is a hasty assumption: we should adhere to them in their own respective ways that is appropriate and fitting for each. One could easily imagine an Imam saying adhere to the Quran and the believing people. This would mean obey the Quran and look for it as a book of guidance, as well as befriend and love the believers. It would not, however, mean equating the believers as a source of Allahs Words. Furthermore, the problem rests mostly in English translations which do not account for the dynamic nature of the Arabic language. In any case, no authentic Hadith words it in this way (Hold onto both and you will never go astray), but rather the Hadith which are worded like this are narrated from Shia and other unreliable people. The strong and authentic versions of the Hadith state it in two clauses: The Quran, which is the light of guidanceand I remind you of my family And to serve as the strongest proof against the Shia, then we look at their own website which shows what they themselves consider to be the most authentic version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, as narrated in Aalam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by Amin al-Islam al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan:
Al-Islam.org says

The Prophet replied: One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family

(Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt

References: - Aalam al-Wara, pp 132-133

source: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html

Shia Rejection of the Thaqalayn Inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty things, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. Even though the Shia accept parts of the Quran, they deny other parts of it. And even though the Shia accept parts of the Ahlel Bayt, they deny other parts of it. This attitude is in marked contrast to the mainstream Muslims (i.e. Sunnis), who accept all of the Quran and all of the Ahlel Bayt. Despite the vehement denials by the Shia polemicists, many classical Shia scholars have held the opinion that the Quran has been tampered with by the Sahabah who supposedly eliminated those verses of the Quran relating to the Wilayah of Ali ( .) We shall show in future articles how Tahreef (i.e. tampering of the Quran) has been a doctrine that finds much support in the core of Shia texts. In this way, the Shia have disregarded and maligned the Book of Allah, classifying it as an adulterated book much like the Torah and Bible, or at least holding in high regards those classical scholars who held such a position. Therefore, whenever the Shia polemicists mention the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, we urge our readers to remind them of their many narrations about Tahreef which can be found in their books, which will hopefully show them that they have abandoned the stronger Thaql. As for the Ahlel Bayt, the Shia have abandoned many parts of the Prophetic family. The Shia reject Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ,) who are definitely part of the Ahlel Bayt. They also reject the very existence of three of the Prophets daughters, namely Zaynub ( ,) Ruqayyah ( ,) and Umm Kulthoom ( .) The Shia have selected a very small portion of the Prophets descendants to be part of the Ahlel Bayt, denying that the Prophets paternal uncle (Abbaas) and his children are a part of the Prophetic family. They deny that the Prophets cousin, Zubair ( ,) is part of the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia also denounce Ibrahim bin Musa Kaazim ( ) and Jafar bin Musa Kaazim ( ,) referring to the latter as Kadhab (the Liar) even though he was a very noble Muslim beloved by the Ahlus Sunnah. And then there is the brother of Hasan al-Askari ( ,) whose name was Jafar bin Ali ( ;) because Jafar bin Ali ( ) denied the existence of Hasan al-Askaris son, the Shia have similarly branded him as Kadhab (the Liar). Among others of the Ahlel Bayt who have been abandoned by the Shia include: Ibrahim Bin Abdullah ( ,) Zakariyyah Bin Muhammad Baaqir ( ,) Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Hussein Bin Hasan ( ,) Muhammad Bin Qaasim Bin Hasan ( ,) Yahya Bin Umar ( ,) and many others from amongst the Prophets progeny. On the other hand, the Sunnis accept and revere all parts of the Ahlel Bayt, including the eleven Imams of the Shia. Whereas the Shia hate Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) and deny the existence of three of the Prophets daughtersthe Sunnis love the entire Ahlel Bayt, including Ali ( ,) Fatima ( ,) Hasan ( ,) and Hussain ( .) While it may be true that the Shia have done a fantastic job of idolizing these four individuals and their other Imams, they have abandoned other parts of the Ahlel Bayt and have therefore only taken care of part of this Taql. Meanwhile, the Sunnis have revered all sections of the Ahlel Bayt; being a Shia means loving a part of the Ahlel Bayt to excess and hating other parts of it. Being a Sunni means loving all parts and segments of the Ahlel Bayt. This is the only difference between the Sunni and Shia when it comes to the love for the lesser Thaql. Acquiring Knowledge from the Ahlel Bayt

While it is clear that Hadith al-Thaqalayn has to do with loving and behaving with the Prophets family, the Shia will insist that it refers to taking knowledge from them. Even if this is the case, the Sunnis have always used the knowledge of the Ahlel Bayt. Ali ( ,) the Prophets cousin, was the vizier of the first Three Caliphs, and his input on religious matters was invaluable; he was also a rightly guided Caliph who is emulated by the Sunnis. Aisha ( ,) the Prophets wife, was an Aalimah who taught many Sahabah. As for the rest of the Imams of the Shia, they were all Sunnis in reality and Aalims. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir ( )whom the Shia consider to be the fifth Imamwas the Shaikh of Imam Abu Hanifa ( ,) and the Hanafi Madhab is the most popular Madhab amongst Sunnis! And Imam Abu Hanifa ( ) also attended many lectures of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq ( .) Does this not involve taking knowledge from the Prophets progeny? The Sunnis acknowledge that all eleven Imams of the Shia were great Aalims and reservoirs of knowledge. However, we do not accept the exaggerations of the Shia, who claim that their Imams possess knowledge of the Unseen, who control all the atoms of the universe, etc. Much in the same way that we revere Prophet Isa ( ) but reject the Christian exaggerations, likewise do we revere the eleven Imams but reject the Shia exaggerations. The Shia will often challenge the Sunnis by asking: how many Sunni Hadith are narrated through the Imams of Ahlel Bayt? They ask this implying that the number of Hadith narrated through them is somehow indicative of love for them. What these silly Shia propagandists do not realize is that of course we do not have many Hadith narrated through the eleven Imams, because only three of them were even alive during the time of the Prophet ( !)And of these three that were alive during the time of the Prophet ( ,)two of them (Hasan and Hussain) were only young children during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ;)and as for the third (Ali ibn Abi Talib), he was killed by the Shia in his own party at a very early point in his lifetime before the Hadith were compiled en masse. Nonetheless, the Sunnis have more Hadith narrated by Ali ( ) than we do by Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ,) yet nobody questions our love for Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) simply because we narrate very few Hadith through them. It should be noted that even if we were to accept this meaning of Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. taking religious knowledge from Ahlel Bayt), this does not negate taking religious knowledge from other than the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophet ( )similarly praised his Sahabah, and we also look to them as a source of religious knowledge. The Sunnis love all of the Prophets family members and his friends, whereas the Shia are partisan in their love; why do the Shia not open up their hearts and love all of the Prophets family and friends? The only difference in regards to love of the Ahlel Bayt is that the Sunnis love all of Ahlel Bayt whereas the Shia only love parts of it. Wording of Hadith al-Thaqalayn This is a point which cannot be stressed enough: if the Prophet ( )had meant what the Shia intend, then the Prophet ( )would have said that the two weighty things were the Quran and the Imams of Ahlel Bayt. Instead, the Prophet ( ) only said that the two things were the Quran and the Ahlel Bayt, without any mention of the twelve Infallible Imams of the Shia. Therefore, Hadith alThaqalayn is about not only the twelve Imams of the Shia, but rather about others of the Ahlel Bayt as well. Many Shia respect Imam Zayd ( ,) although they do not believe that he was one of the twelve Infallible Imams. The Zaydis claim that Imam Zayd ( ) claimed Imamah for himself, but the (12er) Shia reject this and say that Zayd ( ) never claimed Imamah for himself. And the Shia respect Zayd ( ) despite the fact that they deny that he was a God-appointed Imam. Well then, is this not the position of the Sunnis with regards to the twelve Imams of the Shia? The Sunnis respect all eleven Imams of the Shia (and also believe in the advent of Imam Mehdi), but we deny that they ever claimed to be Infallible Imams. Therefore, if the Shia have fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to Imam Zayd ( ,) then have the Sunnis not also fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to their twelve Infallible Imams? If the Shia

say that we have not given a proper status to their twelve Imams, then we can say that they have not given a proper status to Zayd ( ) who was also one of the Prophets progeny! The point here is that the Prophet ( )said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt, not only the Infallible Imams of the Ahlel Bayt who were only twelve from amongst the many in the Prophets progeny. The Sunnis love all of the Ahlel Bayt and regard many amongst the Ahlel Bayt to be great Aalims; whatever the case, Hadith al-Thaqalayn has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate. The Shia can give absolutely no good reason as to why the Prophet ( )said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt and why he did not say that it was the Imams of the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophets statement was therefore general in nature, and it cannot possibly be construed to justify the Infallible Imamah of the Shia. The Quran and Sunnah The Shia say: The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah. Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad: The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already saidthe hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.] Conclusion The Prophet ( )was reminding the Muslims to take care of his family after his death (i.e. Beware of how you behave with them when I am gone from amongst you), and this is what is known as Hadith al-Thaqalayn. The Shia understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is nothing short of deviancy and error; and inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty objects, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the authenticity of the Book of Allah and the innocence of the entire Ahlel Bayt. We ask Allah to bless all of the Prophets family.

Hadith About the City of Knowledge and Ali is its Gate [A Sunni Perspective]

Ibn al-Hashimi of Team Ahlel Bayt writes:

In reference to the following Hadith: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.

It was related by al-Hakim, at-Tabarani and others. It was also related by at-Tirmidhi with the wording, I am the House of Wisdom, and Ali is its Door. Albani declared the Hadith to be Mawdoo (fabricated). Daraqutni labeled the Hadith as mudtarib (shaky), both in isnad and text. Tirmidhi labeled it is ghareeb (weak) and munkar (rejected). Bukhari said that the Hadith has no sahih narration and declared it un-acknowledgeable. Qurtubi said about this Hadith in al-Jame li Ahkam al-Quran: This Hadith is Batil (false)! Ibn Maeen said that the Hadith is a baseless lie. Dhahabi considered it a forgery and included it in his book on forged Hadiths. Al-Hakim declared that it is weak. Amongst others who dismissed the Hadith are Abu Zur`ah, Abu Hatim, Yahya bin Saeed, etc. This Hadith is narrated by many unreliable chains. These Isnads (chains of transmission) were deemed to be unreliable because they contain Shia, liars, and people accused of lying. It should be noted that Ibn Hajar and some others differed and stated that because there were so many unreliable chainsand because the meaning of this Hadith is not invalidthat collectively these many unreliable chains could constitute a level of Hasan. However, we do not agree with this position and instead take the opinion of Bukhari and the many others who deemed that the weakness in the chains could not constitute anything but weakness or forgery. However, even those who accept this Hadith do not interpret the Hadith in the same manner that the Shia do. The Hadith refers to Ali as a gate to the city of knowledge; yet, this does not impart exclusivity nor does it convey superiority of Ali over Abu Bakr or Umar. The Prophet similarly praised other Sahabah and it is incorrect to take a close-minded and dogmatic approach to this Hadith. Abul Mu`in al-Nasafi says in Tabsirat al-Adilla: This Hadith does not establish the superiority of Sayyiduna Ali (over Abu Bakr). Im the city of knowledge and Ali is its door. A city never has only door (unlike a fortress). Rather, most cities would haveone (door) from each side. In another Hadith, the Prophet refers to Ali as his brother, and the Shia use this as a proof for the superiority of Ali over Abu Bakr. And yet, the Prophet similarly refers to Abu Bakr as his brother, and this is recorded in the Sahihayn! What the Shia need to understand (and Allah help them to understand this seemingly intuitive concept) is that these are not praises of exclusivity. A man can have many brothers, not just one! We direct the readers attention to the following Hadith: Let no door of the Mosque remain open, except the door of Abu Bakr. (Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 244) In this Hadith, the Prophet even uses an expression of exclusivity (i.e. let no door), yet we Sunnis still do not interpret this literally. Instead, we understand that these are expressions of praise. The other doors of the Mosque were not closed, as it is clear that this is a saying and it is meant simply to praise Abu Bakr. Furthermore, this Hadith shows that there are many doors, not just one. In the case of the Hadith of the city of knowledge, this reference is not to be taken literally: it is obvious that the Prophet is not in actuality a city. In other words, this is a saying not to be taken literally; it is praise of Ali and cannot be construed in the sectarian manner that the Shia view it. The reader should be reminded that those scholars of Hadith who overlooked the weakness of the various chains of this Hadith did so on the condition that the meaning of the Hadith be interpreted in the manner above and not in the Shia manner. In conclusion, the Hadith was narrated by weak and unreliable narrators (i.e. Shia, liars, etc.). It was not narrated by even a single reliable chain. As such, we are inclined to reject it, as was the opinion of the impressive list of scholars we mentioned above. We therefore reject both versions of the Hadith (i.e. the City of Knowledge and the House of Knowledge).

Umm Abdullah of Team Ahlel Bayt writes:

The Hadith (i.e. the city of knowledge) has been shown/declared to be false/fabricated by the following scholars: Yahya Bin Maeen Source: al Jarh wat-Tadeel 6/99 Sualat ibn Junayd #185 Tareekh Baghdad 11/205 Ahmad Bin Hanbal Source: Tareekh Baghdad 11/49 Ibn Hibban Source: al Majruheen 2/136 Ibn Adi Source: al Kamel fi ad-Duafa 1/311 & 316 Al-Daraqutni Source: Taliqat ala al Majruheen 179 Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi Source: Dhakhirat al Huffadh 5/2578 - Tadhkirat al Huffadh #136 Ibn Al-Arabi al Maliki Source: Ahkam al Quran 3/86 Ibn Asakir Source: Tareekh Dimashq 45\321 Ibn Al-Jawzi Source: Al Mawduat 2/112-116 Al-Nawawi Source: Tahdheeb al Asma wal-Lughat 1/348 Al-Mizzi Source: Tahdheeb al Kamal 11/462 Al Dhahabi Source: Mizan al-Itidal 1/415 - 1/110

Abu Ali Efendi Abdullah al-Ujari of Team Ahlel Bayt writes:

In regards to the Hadith Im city of knowledge, and Ali is a gate, Shaykh Albani judged the Hadith in Jamiu sagir (#3247) as fabricated. Shaykh Dhahabi judged the Hadith as fabricated in Talkhees al-maudua (1/115/#256).

The Hadith is narrated from Ibn Abbas in al-Mustadrak as follows:

[ 4637 ]
One of the narrators is Abu Salat Abdus-salam ibn Salih, and he is a rejected narrator in accordance to majority of the Ulema. Mizzi in Tahtheeb al Kamal vol 18, #3421

Abu Bakr Marwadhi said: I asked Abu Abdullah about Abu Salat, (and) he said: (Abu Salat) narrated rejected (munkar) narrations.

Zakariya ibn Yahya Sajji said: (Abu Salat) narrated rejected narrationshe is weak.

Nasai said that Abu Salat is not truthful. Abdur-Rahman ibn Abu Hatim said: I asked my father about him, he said: Not truthful for me; he is weak; Im not narrating from him! Ibn Hajar in Tahtheeb at tahtheeb 6/#619

Ukayli said (about Abu Salat): Rafidhi (Shia extremist), khabith (wicked). Muslimat reported that Ukayli said: (Abu Salat) is liar. Ibn Hibban said: Its not permissible to rely on him.

Hakim Naggash and Abu Nuaym said: (Abu Salat) narrated munkira (rejected narrations).

Muhammad ibn Tahar said (about Abu Salat): Liar. Dhahabi in Mizan #5051:

.:

Ibn Adi said (about Abu Salat): Accused!

: : )1(. : .
Daraqutni said (about Abu Salat): Rafidhi (Shia extremist), khabith (wicked). Accused in fabrication of narrations Ibn Adi said: The narration is fabricated by Abu Salat.

Daraqutni further stated: Abu Salat is the man who fabricated this narrationAnd the groups of people steal this narration from him. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about this narration and replied: May Allah disfigure Abu Salat! In regards to the chain in #4638 of Mustadrak:

[ 4638 ]
One of the narrators is Husayn ibn Fahm who was not strong. Ibn Hajar al Askalani in Lisan al mizan (Vol.2, #1266):

Hakim said (about Husayn ibn Fahm): Not strong.

Daraqutni mentioned (Husayn ibn Fahm) and said: Not strong.

The House of Wisdom and Ali is its Door

In regards to the Hadith in which the Prophet supposedly used the wording House of Knowledge instead of City of Knowledge, this was narrated in Tirmidhi. But Tirmidhi himself said about it that it was munkar (rejected). Bukhari said: There is nothing authentic in it. Ibn Maeen said: Its a lie. (Kashful hafa 1/203) Shaykh Dhahabi said in Talkhees Kitab al-Maudua (1/116) that it is fabricated. Shaykh Albani said in Jamiu as-sagir (#3238) said that the Hadith was fabricated. Ibn Daqiq said that the narration is not steady; it is fabrication! (Sahawi in Makasidal Hasanat, p.54) Shawkani also said it is fabrication, and he included it in his book on weak narrations. (see Fawaid al-Majmua, p.348, #51) The same is the case with Ibn al-Jawzi. (see Maudua 1/349-350-351) Nawawi said in Tahzeeb Asma wa Lughat (p.480) that both versions of the Hadith (I am the House of Wisdomand I am the City of Knowledge) are false:

- : :- ))1((. : ))2(( :

Hadith About the Prophet Contemplating Suicide

Question:
A Shia person showed me the following Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111 Narrated Aisha: The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allahs Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship (Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, I do not know how to read. (The Prophet added), The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, I do not know how to read, whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?). Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generousup to.. ..that which he knew not. (96.15) Then Allahs Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, Cover me! Cover me! They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, O Khadija, what is wrong with me? Then he told her everything that had happened and said, I fear that something may happen to me. Khadija said, Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones. Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin Abdul Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her fathers brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew. Waraqa asked, O my nephew! What have you seen? The Prophet described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out. Allahs Apostle asked, Will they turn me out? Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly. But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the

top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, O Muhammad! You are indeed Allahs Apostle in truth whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.
Rayat says

[This Hadith is] shocking. According to this narration, the Prophet Mohammed was suicidal, and we seek refuge in

Allah ( ) from such blasphemy

How do we respond to this?

Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. To the Sunnis, there are six books of Hadith which are referred to as the as-Sihah as-Sittah which translates to the six authentic books. However, this does not mean that each and every single one of these books is 100% accurate to the Sunnis. For example, Sunan al-Tirmidhi is part of as-Sihah as-Sittah, but it is not considered 100% Sahih. In other words, yes Sunan al-Tirmidhi is referred to as part of as-Sihah as-Sittah but this is merely Islamic parlance. Likewise, with the Sahihayn (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), then it should be known that not every single letter in them is Sahih. Yes, they are referred to as 100% Sahih in Islamic parlance, but by this the scholars do not mean that every single letter is authentic. To give another example of how Islamic parlance can get a bit confusing: we hear many Sunni scholars saying that the Prophet was infallible. However, when a Sunni says that the Prophet was infallible, he does not mean this in the same manner that a Shia does. A Sunni means that the Prophet was infallible when it comes to delivering the message, not that the Prophet was infallible when it comes to agriculture, or to mathematics, or other things! So we see that in Islamic parlance, a Sunni will say that the Prophet was 100% infallible, but in reality this does not mean that the Prophet was 100% infallible in all aspects. Likewise, when a Sunni scholar says that Sahih Bukhari is 100% Sahih, then this does not mean that it is 100% Sahih in all aspects. For a non-scholar, this ambiguity in terminology is a bit confusing, but this is something that is well-known amongst the scholars and there is no doubt in it. Shaykh GF Haddad said: This conclusion [that Bukhari is 100% Sahih] excludes the chainless, broken-chained reports, or unattributed reports sometimes adduced by al-Bukhari in his chapter-titles or appended to certain narrations. An example of the latter is the so-called suicide hadith one of al-Zuhris unattributive narrations (balaghat) which is actually broken-chained and therefore weak. It does not meet the criteria of hadith authenticity used by the lesser and greater hadith Masters, much less that of al-Bukhari who mentioned it only to show its discrepancy with two other chains whose versions omit the attempted suicide story, and Allah knows best.

The above conclusion is proof that the position that everything that is found in the two Sahihs is rigorously sound refers only to full-chained reports positively attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. (source: Shaykh GF Haddad, http://www.livingislam.org/k/whb_e.html) If we look at the Hadith in question, it says: the Prophet became so sad as we have heard (fi ma balaghana) that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains The narrator says fi ma balaghana which translates to as we have heard; a better translation is actually from what has reached us. Dr. SHM Jaffri, the renowned Shia author and lecturer, said: The phrase fi ma balaghani was used by the Seerah authors to denote a degree of doubt. To denote an even higher degree of doubt, they would use the term zaama (he alleged). (Dr. SHM Jaffri, Islamic Pakistan Studies, Lecture 2) Alfred Guillaume, the translator of Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, writes: A word that very frequently precedes a statement is zaama or zaamu, he (they) alleged. It carries with it more than a hint that the statement may not be true, though on the other hand it may be soundAnother indication of reserve if not skepticism underlies the expression fi ma dhukira li, as in the story of the jinn who listened to Muhammad as he prayedAn expression of similar import is fi ma balaghani. (source: The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. xix) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari that because this phrase fi ma balaghana was used in the Hadith, that we do not take that part to be authentic. This phrase fi ma balaghana (from what has reached us) is well-known amongst scholars of Hadith and Seerah: a narrator would use this phrase when there was some doubt in what he was narrating; it is classified as hearsay only. In other words, the narrator simply heard it and he himself does not say whether it is true or not. For example, we can say: From what has reached us, Iceland is cold. We ourselves have never been to Iceland but others have told us that it is cold; this may or may not be true, and it depends on the truthfulness of he who narrated it to us. The phrase fi ma balaghana is used as a disclaimer by the narrator, whereby he seeks to distance himself from the statement and take no responsibility as to its authenticity. The narration is Sahih in the sense that it is true that the narrator did in fact hear that from others; but it might not be Sahih from the angle that despite him hearing it, we dont know if who he heard it from was saying something accurate or not. As such, Imam Bukhari made no mistake when he included this addition, because this is really what the narrator did hear. But because it is hearsay, we do not necessarily accept the actual content. What is Sahih is that this information reached the narrator (fi ma balaghana); wether what reached was Sahih or not, that is a differen story. The inclusion of fi ma balaghanaand the addition of the Prophet attempting to throw himself off the mountainare from the mouth of Zuhri, not Aisha. Zuhri was one of the narrators of the Hadith. If we look at the Isnad of the Hadith, it reads as follows:

Az-Zuhri said: Urwah told me on the authority of Aisha Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar explained in Fath al-Bari that this means that the addition of fi ma balaghana was an addition to the narration and it would be referred to as Balaghaat az-Zuhri only; Zuhri added it to Aishas narration based on what he had heard from other sources. Such an addition is considered Dhaeef (weak) because of the large gap between Zuhri and Aisha. Furthermore, this story is found in other sources but without Zuhris addition. Zuhris narration is graded as Mursal; Mursal means that the chain is hurried and incomplete, so we are in doubt of its authenticity. Everything Mursal by az-Zuhri is considered Dhaeef (weak) by the scholars of Hadith. Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other! It should be noted that if we read the entire Hadith from beginning to end, we will not find any other place where the phrase fi ma balaghana (from what has reached us)or a similar wording of doubtis used. These are the words of the narrator, not of Aisha. They denote a level of skepticism at that part of the narration. AzZuhri heard it but did not affirm its authenticity or lack thereof; he merely reported it as hearsay. The fact that Zuhri specifically mentioned it at this particular place shows that this addition was of a different value than the rest of the narration. What is most likely is that this is one of the legends attributed to the Prophet. The masses attributed these legends to great events in history. To give an example dear to the Shia, we refer the reader to the event of Karbala which took on legendary attributes in the Shia mind. Ibn Katheer said: Al-Tabarani mentioned in this chapter very strange reports indeed and the Shia went overboard concerning the day of Ashoora, 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. (source: al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8:201-202) These types of phrasessuch as the sun being eclipsed, no stone was lifted except blood was seen, and the stars were hurling against one anotherare all examples of a real event taking on a legendary aspect. Likewise, the Prophet was indeed worried at the start of his mission, but the phrase throw himself from the tops of high mountains is part of the legendary lore. The commoners adored Imam Husayn and so they attributed these legends to him; likewise, the people adored the Prophet and so they too attributed legends to him. The Shia professor Dr. SHM Jaffri said: It became difficult to differentiate between Muhammad the man and Muhammad the legend. But even the legends have importance insomuch as they give us insight as to what was going on in the minds of the people at that time. Therefore, modern historians do not doubt the historicity of such legends in determining the popular culture and folklore at the time if not the actual veracity of said event (Dr. SHM Jaffri, Islamic Pakistan Studies, Lecture 2) Today, many Muslims tell their children stories about the Prophet before putting them to bed. Likewise, back then the people used to tell stories about the Prophet and unfortunately the commoners are not careful about accuracy and are known to exaggerate. This can be seen even today: many people from the Indian subcontinent, for example, are known to narrate stories without care for authenticity. This problem is prevalent on the internet as well, and we all have seen the email about the legend of how some janitor in Mecca had a dream, etc etc.

In other words, what Zuhri narrated was simply what had reached him and he indicated that there was doubt about its authenticity, indicated by the words fi ma balaghana. The Hadith is Sahih in the sense that Zuhri did in fact hear it from the people (and soas Dr. SHM Jaffir saysit gives us insight in the thinking of the people), but it is not Sahih in the sense that what the people were saying may simply have been a thing of legends.
Shia says

Even if you say it is a legend, then why did Sunnis narrate a legend which is offensive to the Prophet?! How can you

narrate a legend that says the Prophet tried to commit suicide which is a grave sin????

We disregard the addition of Zuhri because of the weakness of its narration; the usage of fi ma balaghana, the grading of Mursal, and the reliability of Mursal narrations via az-Zuhrithese are all factors which force us to grade this addition as being Dhaeef (weak). This addition is graded as Dhaeef based on its Isnad (chain of transmission), not its Matn (content). In fact, the Matn (content) is not blasphemous as the Shia claim. If it is, then we ask: how is it blasphemous?
Rayat says

suicide is a terrible deed [i.e. sin]

This event took place at the very beginning of the Prophets mission, right when he was appointed as a Prophet. As such, the Shariah had not yet been expounded. The legend says that the Prophet tried to throw himself off mountains, but this was before suicide was declared as a sin. It was only much later that the Quranic verse (4:29) and the Command from Allah condemning suicide was revealed. The Shariah was expounded gradually and progressively over the course of many years. In fact, at the start of the Prophetic mission, there were Sahabah who used to drink alcohol. This was not a sin because the legislation prohibiting it had not yet been revealed. It would be totally inappropriate to accuse these Sahabah of sinning when the legislation forbidding it had not been passed as of yet. Another example is that of Purdah; it was not ordained on women in the beginning and so we cannot say that Muslim women were sinning for not observing Purdah. It was only at a later point in time that this was ordained. There was no sin before the action was declared Haram. Likewise, even if we say that the Prophet was attempting suicide, then this was before suicide had been declared Haram and so there is no sin in that.
Shia says

Even if suicide had not been declared Haram yet, it is still a deplorable act. Even the Westerners think of suicide as a

despicable act and they are not Muslim! It is like murdering children: yes that might not have been definitively declared Haram till much later, but still, would you find it appropriate if we claimed that the Prophet did that in the beginning of his mission before it was declared Haram? Nauzobillah! Suicide is intrinsically evil and the Prophet would have known that. Suicide is very wrong. I dont think it was ever right in any culture on Earth. It feels wrong at every level.

In fact, this Shias analogy (i.e. of murdering a child) is not appropriate at all. This is a matter of impinging on someone elses rights (i.e. of the child) and therefore all peopleregardless of their religionwould admit that it is a wrong thing. However, suicide does not harm anyone else; it does not take away anyone elses rights. Therefore, it is like comparing apples with oranges. Having said that, it should interest these Shia to know that there were in fact Sahabah who used tobefore the Islamic injunctions forbidding itengage in female infanticide. And yet today we respect these Sahabah immensely. The point is that no blame can be put on a person before the Shariah declared it Haram. Burying a baby is worse than suicide, and yet we Sunnis do not have much problem with the fact that some upright Sahabah used to engage in that before Islam forbade it. Furthermore, this Shia polemicist has mentioned that even Westerners look down on suicide despite not being Muslim. In fact, the Westerners come from the Judeo-Christian culture; they are descendants of an Abrahamic faith. Allah had declared suicide Haram to the people of Moosa and the people of Eesa. The proof of this is that we can find this prohibition in their religious books. So Westerners look down on suicide because it was something that permeated their culture from their religious beliefs which are originated from the same source as our own. Suicide is evil because Allah said so, and it is not intrinsically evil, in the sense that if a man were left all to himself on an island since birth, then there is no way he would himself figure out that it was an immoral thing to do. As proof of this, we give the example of many Eastern cultures in which suicide is not looked down upon. In fact, suicide is looked at as an honorable act in Japanese culture. When Samurais were defeated by their enemies, they would often take their own lives as opposed to become prisoners. When Japanese people failed in certain tasks, they then took their own lives to compensate for that; this was an act of devotion and not of desperation. In the Indian culture, a woman is supposed to commit suicide after her husband dies and if she does not do it then she is looked down upon! This is proof that the assertion that suicide is wrong in every culture is patently false. Because suicide is one of those sins that does not directly harm others, there is no way that humans could figure out on their own that it is wrong. Allah had to tell us that it was. Before he was declared a Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to engage in Tahannuth atop Mount Hira. Then one day out of nowhere the Arch-Angel Jibraeel descended on him and declared him to be a Prophet. But after this initial revelation, there was then a pause in the revelation. This was a period in which no message was sent to the Prophet by Allah. This interruption or pause in revelation is known in Arabic as Fatrah. This is mentioned in the Shia Tafseer of the Quran available on Al-Islam.org:

In the beginning of the ministry of the Holy Prophet there was a short interval during which he received no revelation. The pagans jeered at him as one forsaken by Allah, and slandered and persecuted him as well as those who believed in him (Pooya/Ali Commentary 93:3, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/) We read: Subsiding of the Revelations Muhammad expected the revelations to guide his path from day to day, but they subsided. Gabriel did not appear for some time, and all around him there was nothing but silence. Muhammad fell into solitude, separated from himself as well as from the people. His old fears recurred. It is told that even Khadijah said to him, Does it not seem that your Lord is displeased with you? Dismayed and frightened, he returned to the mountain and the cave of Hira. There, he prayed for God fervently, seeking assiduously to reach Him. Particularly, he wanted to ask God about the cause of this divine displeasure. Khadijah did not dread these days any less than Muhammad, nor was she any less fearful. Often Muhammad wished to die, but he would again feel the call and the command of his Lord which dispelled such ideas. It was also told that he once thought of throwing himself down from the top of Mount Hira or Mount Abu Qubays, thinking what good was this life if his greatest hope therein was to be frustrated and destroyed? Torn between these fears on one hand and despair on the other, revelation came to him after a long interval. The word of God was as clear as it was reassuring: By the forenoon, and by the night as it spreads its wings over the world in peace, your Lord has not forsaken you; nor is He displeased with you. Surely, the end shall be better for you than the beginning. Your Lord will soon give you of His bounty and you will be well pleased. Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? Did He not find you erring and guide you to the truth? Did He not find you in want and provide for you? And as for the favor of your Lord, rehearse and proclaim! -Quran, 93:1-11 The Call to Truth Alone Oh, what divine majesty, what peace of mind, what joy of heart and exaltation to the soul! Muhammads fears dissolved and his dread was dissipated. He was overjoyed with this fresh evidence of his Lords blessing and fell down in worship to God and praise of Him. There was no more reason to fear, as Khadijah had done, that God was displeased with him, and there was no cause for his dread. God had now taken him under His protection and removed from him every doubt and fear. Henceforth there was to be no thought of suicide but only of a life dedicated to calling men unto God and unto God alone. (source: Hayat Muhammad, Chapter From the Beginning of Revelation to the Conversion of `Umar) The Prophet had become depressed because he thought that he had earned the displeasure of Allah. The Prophet thought that Allah had forsaken him due to some failure on his own part and as such he wished to end his life. So we see that even if we accept the addition that the Prophet wished to commit suicide, then we find that this does not disparage the character of the Prophet, but rather it shows the Prophet could not live with the fact that he had displeased and failed his Lord. The proof that the Prophets worries were due to his fear that he had angered Allah can be found in the Quran itself: By the forenoon, and by the night as it spreads its wings over the world in peace, your Lord has not forsaken you; nor is He displeased with you. Surely, the end shall be better for you than the beginning. Your Lord will soon give you of His bounty and you will be well pleased. Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter?

Did He not find you erring and guide you to the truth? Did He not find you in want and provide for you? And as for the favor of your Lord, rehearse and proclaim! (Quran, 93:1-11) We have already discussed how suicide was not a sin at that time, and that the suicide legend was not one that disgraces the nature of the Prophet because it was only due to the Prophets noble devotion and worry that he had displeased His Lord. But let us now play along with the Shia and forget the fact that suicide had not been declared Haram yet. We find that even if we pretend that suicide was a sin back then, even so the Prophet did not at all commit a sin if the legend was true. Simply inclining towards a sin is not a sin; in fact, if one inclines towards a sin but refrains from it, then this is counted as one thawab (reward in Paradise). In his book Minhaj as-Sunnah, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah brings up the example of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph). He was being seduced by a very attractive woman named Zulaykha and this story is narrated in the Quran. Allah says in verse 12:24 of the Quran: wa laqad hammat bihi (and she did desire) wa hamma bih (and he also desired) lawl an ra burhna rabbihi (had it not been for him seeing the burhan of his Lord) kadhlika linarifa `anhu as-sa wa al-fasha innahu min `ibdin al-mukhlana (Thus it was, that We might ward off from him evil and lewdness. Lo! he was of Our chosen slaves.) In the Tafseer of Shafi Uthmani, we read: In this verse, the word hamm (thought, desire, etc.) has been attributed to both Zulaykha and Sayyiduna Yusuf both, as in: wa laqad hammat bihi (and she did desire) wa hamma bih (and he also desired) Prophet Yusufs hamm to commit zinnah (adultery) is similar to any hamm Prophet Muhammad may have supposedly had about committing suicide. As Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah makes clear: we do not say that Prophet Yusuf committed sin when he had that hamm, so why would we attribute sin to the Prophet when he had similar hamm? And we think that zinnah is a worse sin than suicide or at least of a similar nature. So if the hamm of Prophet Yusuf as mentioned in the Quran does not negate the nobility of his Prophethood, then similarly we say that the nobility of the Prophethood of Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not affected even if he did have any hamm to commit suicide. The Prophet said: Allah has forgiven the scruple and thought of sin for my Ummah if not put into practice. (Sahih Bukhari) Therefore, neither Prophet Yusuf nor Prophet Muhammad were given any sin for having the thought because neither of them put it into practice. Allah says: if a servant (of Mine) intends to do a sin, but then does not do it due to the fear of Allah, then write one good deed in his or her book of deeds in lieu of that sin.

The Quran says: wa hamma bih (and he also desired) lawl an ra burhna rabbihi (had it not been for him seeing the burhan of his Lord). What does burhan mean? It translates to miraculous evidence. The scholarsboth Sunni and Shiaare agreed that this is not the same as daleel (evidence) but rather this is a miracle from Allah. The burhan that Prophet Yusuf saw at that moment was some miraculous vision. Some say that this burhan was Arch-Angel Jibraeel while others say that it was a vision of Prophet Yaqoob. Ibn Katheer says: As for the evidence as to (exactly) what Yusuf saw at that moment, there are conflicting opinions to what it was. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari said: The correct opinion is that we should say that he saw an Ayah from among Allahs Ayat that repelled the thought that crossed his mind. This evidence might have been the image of Yaqoob (Jacob), or the image of an angel (i.e. Gabriel), or a divine statement that forbade him from doing that evil sin, etc. There are no clear proofs to support any of these statements in specific, so it should be left vague, as Allah left it. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer) We read in Tafsir al-Jalalayn provided by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought: Ibn Abbas said: Yaqoob was made to appear before him (Yusuf), and he struck his (Yusufs) breast, whereupon his [sexual] desire withdrew [from his body] through his fingernails (Tafseer al-Jalayn) We read in Tafseer Ibn Abbas: (She) the woman (verily desired him, and he) Joseph (would have desired her if it had not been that he saw the argument of his lord) if he had not seen that the chastisement of his Lord would befall him; it is also said that this means: if he had not seen the figure of his father; and it is also said that this means: if he had not seen the proof of his Lord. (Thus it was, that We might ward off from him evil and lewdness) adultery. (Lo! he was of Our chosen slaves) who are protected from adultery. (Tafseer Ibn Abbas) We have come to the conclusion that Prophet Yusuf had hamm and that hamm was removed by the burhan, which was either the image of Yaqoob, the appearance of the Arch-Angel Jibraeel, or something similar. Is this not the same case as the hamm of Prophet Muhammad which was removed by the appearance of the ArchAngel Jibraeel? The Hadith reads: every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Jibraeel would appear before him and say, O Muhammad! You are indeed Allahs Apostle in truth whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. (Sahih Bukhari) The Shia say that we take away the Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophets by accusing him of having this hamm. They say: Allah would prevent the Prophet from such thoughts as committing suicide. We say: did Allah not show His burhan and thereby do exactly that? So yes, Allah would protect his Prophet from such sin and that is why the Prophets thought was removed when he saw the burhan. And this is the very definition of the Ismah of the Prophets, and this is keeping in line with that.

The Prophets could have hamm but Allah removed that hamm and in this way the Prophets are protected from such major sins. Prophet Yusuf and Prophet Muhammad both had hamm, but Allah removed any such hamm through His burhan. The Shia and the groups like them claim that the Prophets are intrinsically infallible, but we say that it is only through the Grace of Allah that they are made infallible. The Shia would say that the Prophets do not have hamm and they say that this does not befit their nobility, but we say that it only increases them in their nobility. If, for example, one were to argue that Prophet Yusuf had no desire at all, then in that case what would be the big deal in him avoiding that woman? If, for example, a man is being seduced by a very ugly woman for which he has no desire for, then it is no big accomplishment on his part that he refrained from her. But if this were a very beautiful woman whom he had a great desire for and yet even still he refrained from her due to his fear of Allah, then this shows the strength of his faith. It is overcoming the desirenot the absence of desirethat is what exalts the human being over the angels. The angels cannot have hamm: they lack desire and free-will. As such, they are incapable of committing sin. And yet Allah exalted Prophet Adam over and above the angels, and the reason for that is that Allah gave him desire and free-will and even so he stayed away from sin. Prophet Yusuf stayed away from sin even when there was desire; Prophet Muhammad refrained from ending his life even when the weight of the world was placed on his shoulders. From this we find that the one who cannot have hamm is at a lower position and rank than the one who can have hamm but turns away from it out of fear of Allah. It should be further noted that there are different types of hamm. We do not say that Prophet Yusuf and Zulaykha had the same type of hamm; rather, the hamm of Zulaykha was of one of evil intent, whereas Prophet Yusufs hamm was that of the uncontrollable urges that come with being human. Likewise, if the Prophet had any hamm about ending his life, then this was not of an evil intent but rather an uncontrollable urge that comes with being human.
Rayat the Shia says

The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he received revelation.

There is a Hadith in which the Prophet says: No prophet has suffered as much as I have suffered. And this is known to mean that no human being has ever been put to the test as much as the Prophet. As such, any feelings of anxiety, sadness, or even suicide, are understandable. But the fact that the Prophet pushed through these feelings and rose above them is indicative of the steadfastness of his character. The fact that the Prophet had feelings of distress and foreboding at the start of his mission in fact tells us of the greatness of the task that he accomplished.
Shia says

Allah would protect the Prophet from having such thoughts, because the Prophets are infallible!


Exactly! And this is exactly why Allah showed His burhan to Prophet Muhammad just as He had showed His burhan to Prophet Yusuf. We believe that Allah does indeed protect his Prophets from such thoughts, and this is why Allah showed His burhan and took away those thoughts of suicide (and of temptation in the case of Prophet Yusuf). Every single time Prophet Muhammad had any such thoughts, then Allah sent His burhan (i.e. Arch-Angel Jibraeel) and thereby prevented the Prophet and maintained his infallibility. The Shia are actually arguing over a non-issue; the Hadith conforms to the idea that Allah protected His Prophets from such thoughts, because it shows that Allah removed them from their minds.
Rayat the Shia says

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Claims The Holy Prophet ( )was Suicidal, Naudhobillah

That is just one spin on it. A more accurate statement would be: Sahih Bukhari Hadith shows that the Holy Prophet was protected from any suicidal thoughts by Allah and His burhan, Al-Hamdu Lillah! We recall the story of the Prophet during his youth: the Prophet had gone to a wedding party in which there was music playing. But Allah protected him from that by putting him into a deep slumber. The Prophet said: I wanted to go down to Mecca and entertain myself as the young men did. I went down to the first house in Mecca where I heard music. I entered and asked: What is this? Someone answered: It is a wedding party. I sat down and listened but soon went into a deep sleep. I was awakened by the heat of the sun. I went to my fellow shepherd and told him what happened to me. I never tried it again. (narrated by Ibn al-Atheer, classed as Sahih by Hakeem) In other words, the Prophet could have the normal instincts and thoughts, but Allah then prevented him from indulging in that, and in fact, Allah removed all avenues and ways to that. If we take out the Shia book of Hadith, al-Kafi, we find that they ascribe many qualities of Allah to their Imams. This is similar to what the Christians did with Prophet Eesa. Prophet Eesa did many miracles but in actuality these miracles were not done by him, but rather they were from Allah. However, soon the Christians thought that the source of the power was from Prophet Eesa, but the Islamic belief is that human beings have no power and the source of all power is Allah Almighty alone. Likewise, the Shia have exalted the status of the Prophet and their Imams. All of Prophet Muhammads greatness came from Allah the Almighty. Prophet Muhammad himself could not read, but Allah gave him the power to read when Arch-Angel Jibraeel embraced him. The Prophet had told Jibraeel multiple times that he could not recite, but then Allah gave him the power to do that. The Prophet was also a human being so he could forget things, but Allah then protected the Prophet from forgetting any of the verses of the Quran. The Prophet could feel fear, but then Allah sent His

Sakeenah (divine tranquility) down on him which would remove any fear he felt. The point is that the Prophet was a human being but then Allah bolstered him with His Power. Likewise, the Prophet could feel hamm but then Allah removed it.
Rayat the Shia says

1) The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he received revelation.

He supposedly said, What is wrong with me? It is completely wrong to claim the Prophet was in that confused and poor state of mind regarding his Prophethood, and it is a borderline attack on his holiness and nobility.

How is it in any way an attack on the Prophets holiness and nobility to claim that he was in a state of shock when he was first announced a Messenger of Allah? This was a monumental announcement and the Prophet would not have been a human being if he were not shocked by this news. It should be noted that the Prophet went through various stages, and this event happened at the start of his mission when he had just begun his ascent. Ibn al-Qaiyim mentioned the stages that the Prophet went through: The First (stage): The period of true vision. It was the starting point of the Revelation to Allahs Messenger. The Second: When the angel invisibly cast in the Prophets mind and heart, (but) without being seen The Third: The angel used to visit Allahs Messenger in the form of a human being.. The Fourth: The angel came to him like the toll of a bell and this was the most difficult form because the angel used to seize him firmly and sweat would stream from his (the Prophets) forehead The Fifth: The Prophet saw the angel in his actual form The Sixth: What Allah Himself revealed to him in heaven, i.e. when he ascended to heaven and received Allahs order for Salah. The Seventh: Allahs Words to His Messenger at first hand without the mediation of an angel Some religious scholars added a controversial eighth stage in which they state that Allah spoke to the Prophet directly without a curtain in between. (source: Zadul-Maad, 1/18) The Prophet was elevated in status throughout his mission. When Arch-Angel Jibraeel first informed the Prophet of his missionand when the suicide legend occurredthis was only at the beginning when the Prophet was on the lowest of the stages above. But then Allah slowly elevated him to higher and higher levels. At the start of his mission, the Prophet was a normal human being who had all the feelings and thoughts associated

with our species; but then Allah raised him to the rank of Messenger, bolstered him, and elevated him to higher and higher levels of Prophethood. It should be noted that the Shia also believe in stages of Prophethood, as they describe how Prophet Ibrahim went through various stages and ranks. The point is that the confidence with which Prophet Muhammad strode into Mecca as a conquerer at the end of his mission would differ from the feelings of apprehension he had at the start of his mission when he was first announced as a Messenger of Allah.
Rayat the Shia says

Narrated Aisha:

Then Allahs Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, Cover me! Cover me! They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, O Khadija, what is wrong with me? 1) The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he received revelation. He supposedly said, What is wrong with me? It is completely wrong to claim the Prophet was in that confused and poor state of mind regarding his Prophethood, and it is a borderline attack on his holiness and nobility.

After Arch-Angel Jibraeel declared him a Prophet, Prophet Muhammad was so shaken up by this that he went to his wife who covered him up with a cloak to stop his shivering. How can the Shia deny this when Allah revealed about this: O you wrapped up in the cloak! Arise and warn! (Quran, 74:1-2) This is when Allah commanded the Prophetwho was shivering beneath the cloakto embrace his noble task of Prophethood. This mighty command took the Prophet from his sleep and his comfort, to struggle and continue under hardship. (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p.92) Once again, this does not at all call to question the Prophets nobility, but rather it raises the status of the Prophet as it shows that he rose above any fears in order to serve His Lord Most High.

Conclusion
The story of the Prophet contemplating throwing himself off a mountain is a legend which is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Shaykh Uthman al-Khamees, in his refutation of the Shia, stated that the issue need not be discussed since it was a Dhaeef addition by Zuhri to the Sahih narration by Aisha. Additionally, the legend is not offensive to the Prophet because it proves that the Prophet was protected from suicidal thoughts by none other than Allah.

Hadith About No Sword Except Dhul-Fiqar [A Sunni Perspective]

In regards to the following narration used by the Shia:

There is no sword except Dhul-Fiqar, and there is no brave youth except Ali It should be known that this is not authentic. It was narrated by Ibn Adi in Kamil as a part of the following narration:

Eesa ibn Mihran is weak. Ibn Adi said: He narrated fabricated Hadith. Dhahabi said about him: Liar (Mizan, #6613) Ibn Ubaydullah ibn Abu Rafi is weak as well. Bukhari said: Munkar al-Hadith. Ibn Mueen said his narrations are nothing. Abu Hatim said: Extremely rejected. (Mizan, #7904) Via Ibn Abu Rafi it was also narrated by Tabari in Tareeh (2/197) Suyuti rejected this narration in Leal al masnua (1/333), and Dhahabi rejected it in Talkhees Kitab alMaudua (1/126/#274). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

This narration is from false, fabricated storiesin accordance to the ijma (consensus) of people who know the science of Hadith. (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah) Shawkani said in Fawaid al-Majmua (372/#68):

And in the chain is Eesa ibn Mihran, and he is Rafidhi (Shia extremist), who narrated false stories. Ibn al-Jawzi included this narration in his book on fabricated Hadith.

Hadith About Dying With Hatred Towards Ali [A Sunni Perspective]

In regards to the following narration: Whoever died and in his soul was hate towards Ali, died like a Jew or Christian. It should be known that it is not authentic. Shawkani said in Fawaid al-Majmua (p.373, #72):

Narrated by Ukayli via Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather Marfuan. In the chain is Ali ibn Qarin: he fabricated; and Jarud ibn Yazeed: he also used to fabricate. In regards to Ali ibn Qarin, Dhahabi said in Mizan (#5913):

: . : . . : . :

Yahya said: He is a wicked liar. Abu Hatim said: Matrook ahadeeth. Musa ibn Harin and others said: He used to lie. Ukayli said: He fabricated narrations. Daraqutni said: Weak. As for Jarud ibn Yazeed, Dhahabi said in Mizan (#1428):

. . . . : . :

: .

Abu Usama said: He is a liar. Ali (ibn Madini) said: He is weak. Yahya said: He is nothing. Abu Dawood said: Not truthful. Daraqutni and Nasai said: Matrook. Abu Hatim said: Liar.

Hadith About Shias Being Best of Creation [A Sunni Perspective]

In regards to the narration: You and your shias are the best of creation. It should be known that it is not authentic. It was narrated in Tafseer at-Tabari in regards to Verse 98:7 of the Quran: Those who have faith and do righteous deads, they are the best of creatures. (98:7)

29208 - { : {

From Ibn Humayd, Eesa ibn Farqad, from Abu Jarud, from Muhammad ibn Ali: They are the best of creatures, the Prophet said to Ali: That is you and your shias. The narration is Mursal. The chain ends at Muhammad ibn Ali who did not see the Prophet, and as such, he could not witness the so-called event. Additionally, the chain is extremely weak and goes through Rawaafidh (Shia extremists). The chain goes through Abu Jarud (Ziyad ibn Manzoor) and he was criticized by the scholars of Hadith. Ibn Hajar said about him: Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who was declared to be a liar by Yahya ibn Maeen (Taqreeb Al Tahzheeb 1/221), and he described him as a liar and not trustworthy (Al Jarh wal Tadeel 3/454). Dhahabi reported about Abu Jarud in Mizan (#2965):

. : . :
Ibn Mueen said: He is a liar. Nasai and others said he is Matrook. Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Hibban al-Busti in his book Marjoohin (p.306) wrote about him:

(He) narrated baseless stories about the honor of Ahlel Bayt.

And Ahmad said: Abu Jarud is matrook ahadeeth.

Ibn Abu Hatim reported in his book Jarh wa tadeel (#2462):

From Abdur-Rahman: I heard that Abu Zura said: Ziyad ibn Manzoor, Abu Jarud Kufi: Dhaeef (weak) alhadeeth. Additionally, we find Eesa bin Farqad in the chain, and he is the one who narrates from liars and abandoned people (matrookeen) such as Jaabir Al al Jafee (Jaami Al Jarh wal Tadeel, 1/122)the Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who used to believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib is the beast of the earth and that he didnt die and that he is in the clouds and that he will come back to this earth.

No Sunnah Masjids in Tehran!

The following line (Al-Hamdulillah!) is becoming more and more known to many Muslims, even those who are pretty unaware of the ugliness of the Shia Safawi regime and the the cult its representing: There are no Sunni Masjids (mosques) in Tehran.

So whats about this claim? Is it true? False? Wahhabi propaganda? well let us first give you some ammunition i.e. answers to common mendacious answers of many Rafidi Shias, when it comes to this question. 1. Rafidah say: Well there is no Sunni Masjid in Sunni parts of Saudi Arabia either!

Answer:
Firstly, this is pure dishonesty. Its like someone doing bad to you, and you doing the same to others, then when facing a trial defending yourself with: Well, the other guy has slained many people too, so did I. Thats not even an excuse, this is plain hypocricy. Secondly, Saudi Arabia never claimed unity with the Rafidah Shia sect, in fact, they are honest in their stance towards Shias, and all the major scholars of Saudi Arabia declare (at least) the Shia scholars of heresy (though most scholars in Saudi excuse the laymen of the Shia). having said that, it is the so called Islamic Republic of Iran that claims to recognize Sunnis as fellow Muslims with absolute freedom of worship inside Iran, according to the Iranian constitution. So they are claiming something (unity) which they dont fulfill. So in fact, the Iranian regime is hypocritical, their state sect is based on Sunni hatred, including the cursing of the companions and wives of the Prophet, yet to lure the people into their cult, they do not (or at least try not) to expose much of their beliefs and especially hatred to the Sunni world . From one side they call to unity, yet they deprive the Sunnis of Tehran of their basic human right (having a place of worship for their own). Thirdly, and this is the most Ironic part, there are plenty of Shia Masjids (in fact Shia call them Husseiniyyah!, these are placed where they gather to beat themselves like wild animals, curse the companions, call upon their saints/Imams, and fornicate/motah) in Saudi Arabia. And no, we not talking about the eastern province i.e. a Shia populated area of Saudi Arabia, rather we talking about Madinah! There is even a Shia neighbourhood in Madinah (the Nakhali tribe, an Afro-Arab tribe are virtually ALL Shia!) and the

Rafidah have their own temples in the city of the Prophet peace be upon him - HERE one example! The HUSSEINIYYAH of Shaikh Kadhim in Al-Madinah! Thus the evil Wahhabis let the Shia have their massive Husseiniyyah-Temple in the fortress of Wahhabi teachings (Madinah), even though the very same Wahhabis openly declare the Shias (mostly their scholars, for the Sunnah scholars mostly believe that the Shia masses are betrayed by their so called Ayatollahs) as Kuffar (yet the gov. of Saudi as one can see give the Shia more freedom than a Sunni Iranian can every dream of for himsel. Now compare that to the Iranian regime, that unlike the Wahhabis does NOT (openly) declare Sunnis as disbelievers, rather it calls itself THE brother and defender of the Sunni case (like in Palestine) yet, it prohibits Sunni IRANIANS in Tehran from having their own Masjid! So there is a Shia HUSSEINIYYAH in Madina, can we find a Sunni Masjid in Qom? Oh, well, there is not even a Sunni Masjid in Tehran, let alone Qom what a question! 2. Rafidah say: Mosques dont belong to Sunni or Shia, mosques are the houses of Allah.

Answer:
Is it? If so, let us build a massive mosque by the Ahl Al-Sunnah in Karbala, Najaf, Qom, Isfahan and Mashad and of course in Terhan. Why not? True its gonna be build by Sunnis, but Mosques dont belong to Sunni or Shia Obviously a Masjid is a Masjid, yet with these apologetic claptrap, the Rafidah Shia want to potray the demand of Sunni Muslims of Iran, as something unatural and unnecessary, even though they know better that the difference of a Sunni Masjid compared to Shia temples (Husseiniyyahs etc.) starts right with the prayer! Whereas Sunni Masjids call FIVE times to prayer, the Shia in Iraq and Iran and elsewhere can be proud to not only combine their prayers at home (ALL THE TIME), rather even their Masjids and those who dwell inside them, call only THREE times a day to prayer! (YES, in Iran you only hear THREE Adhans a day!). So how on earth shall Sunni Muslims pray large congregational prayers, when the Shia owned SHIA Masjids and Husseiniyyahs in Tehran call to, and pray three prayers in congregational only? Secondly, there are differences of Aqidah and Fiqh, and a Sunni community needs to teach according to their own beliefs, how can this be done except in a Masjid of Ahl Al-Sunnah? I hope nobodys gonna tell us that the humble signs of Allah (Ayatollahs) are ready to leave their Masjids for us, to teach people Quran and the explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari etc. if so, let us know so we can pass it to the brothers in Iran Coming back to the main question and the reality of the Ahl Al-Sunnah of Iran, let us quote you the following (from wikipedia): In a joint appearance with former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani calling for Shia-Suni unity, Sunni Shiekh Yusuf al-Qaradawi complained that no ministers in Iran have been Sunni for a long time, that Sunni officials are scarce even in the regions with majority of Sunni population (such as Kurdistan, or Balochistan). Sunnis cite the lack of a Sunni mosque in Tehran, Irans capital and largest city, despite the presence of over 1 million Sunnis there, and despite the presence of Christian churches, as a prominent example of this discrimination. Although reformist President Mohammad Khatami promised during his election campaign to build a Sunni mosque in Tehran, none was built during his eight years in office. The president explained the situation by saying Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not agreed to the proposal. As in other parts of the Muslim world, other issues may play a part in the conflict, since most Sunnis in Iran are also ethnic minorities.

Well well, what does it take to LET Sunnis build their own Masjid? Of course it takes nothing but a OK from the boss, but since the BOSS (Khamenei) is against it, even a simple Masjid made of dirt will not make it into Tehran. And interestingly the Rafidite Safavid regime has not problems whatsover with over 40 (!) churches, over 20 synagoges and even Hindu/Sikh Temples AND Fire Temples (for the Majoos ). To visualize the situation a bit: Sunni Masjid in Los Angeles (Omar Bin Al-Khattab Mosque)

Islamic centre of Washington D.C. (The CAPITAL of the GREAT Satan )

The massive east London Mosque (Another Sunni Mosque in the CAPITAL of yet another satan )

A Sunni Mosque in MOSCOW

And here it is, one (of many Mosques) in occupied Palestine (Israel), a Sunni Mosque in the Jewish fortress of HAIFA!

And here what the Iranian regime DO allow: A MASSIVE Chruch in the heart of Tehran, with public Shirk of the Nasara

Another church with a massive cross (check simply google for curches+Tehran dont worry, there are, many, many more )

On of MANY synagoges in Tehran:

The holy Talmud, next to the holy men

Happy as ever, worshipping in freedom under the shade of their Rafidi (shia) brethren

and on top of it being comforted by the scholars of Ahl Al-Bayt

Sikh Temple in Tehran!

Entrance, in Persian and Hindi!

from inside

and of course there are a good number of ZOROASTRIAN (MAJOOSI) Fire Temples in the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Firuz Bahram, a zoroastrian High School in Tehran!

The reality of SUNNAH MUSLIMS in IRAN:

(despite Sunni Iranians representing the BIGGEST religous (sect) minority in Tehran. They are more Sunnah

Iranians than Christians, Jews and Zoroastrian altoghether! Congratulation! The Rafidah Republic has beaten USA, ISRAEL, RUSSIA and ENGLAND. It (the Rafidi Safavid regime) can proudly declare: We have the ONLY capital with NO Sunni mosque in the world! (if youd like to see more of the over 40 churches, and Temples, and Fire Temples http://sonsofsunnah.com/2011/04/27/297/#more-297

Irans Sunnis, Saudis Shias; a Fair Comparison

Note: Some national media sources have been publishing articles to compare the situation of both Sunni community of Iran and Shiite community of Saudi Arabia. These elements claim that Sunni community in Iran has more civil rights and liberties than Shiites in Saudi. Dear readers, the following article is a brief comparison of the two communities, the situation is being presented, you can analyze the matter from a different side. We only provide some credible information; final judgment is up to you. Republic & Kingdom: Republic and Kingdom are two well-known types of governing around the world. In republican states, masses elect their rulers, policy makers and chiefs of states; in other words, people, regardless to difference of language, skin color, religion and race independently cost their votes and give approval to leaders, eventually those who get vote of majority have right to hold the government. Islamic Republic: When the title republic appears with affix of Islamic, it means that the rules of that state are based on Islam. The Islamic laws and jurisprudence urge on taking care of the civil and religious rights of minorities, it prohibits from injustice actions. On the other hand, kingdom system of governing means rule of royal family on a country, they hold key posts and make mostly the interior and foreign policies. The Islamic Republic of Iran came into existence after a long nation-wide protest and struggle which succeeded to defeat the ex-kingdom regime of Iran, the world saw the victory of a public revolution in February 1979 in Iran. The Iranian nation, Shiites and Sunnis, backed the anti-Shah movement due to its motto Islamic Republic. In short words, key posts are distributed in kingdom system by SELECTION and in democratic and republican regimes by ELECTIONS. After knowing these details, it looks very amazing to compare Islamic Republic of Iran with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It astonishes more to analyze the situation of Irans Sunnis in the light of Saudis Shiites.

Jobs distribution in Iran & Saudi: It must be kept in mind that in the KSA, only high offices and important appointments are under the control of royal family, king Abdul Aziz; while for lower posts nationality is the only required point not sect like Shia and Sunni. As Saudi Shiites have been working in various departments side by side of their Sunni country-fellows. They can get jobs in armed forces and security services without any obstacles; even till recent time, the chief of police in Medina Munawwarah was a Shiite citizen. The Saudi ambassador in the Iranian capital, Tehran and Saudi Consul in Mashhad, the second largest Iranian city, were Saudi Shiites. Besides, there are five Shia members in Selective Chamber or Consultative Council of Saudi Arabia among 150 members. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Sunni citizens are questioned about their sect and school of thought in each step when they apply for a job. Important offices are Prohibited Tree for Sunnis in Iran, rather the rulers have been neglecting Sunni citizens at distribution of low and small posts. While they claim the ruling system is based on democracy and republic. The Sunni community of Iran is the second largest majority of Iran. The community played an important and active role to bring revolution against the Shahs regime along with the rest of public. After victory, Sunnis remained favoring the new regime, warm welcome of officials in Sunni-majority areas is an evidence of this continuous support. Despite all of this, since the victory of the Revolution none of Sunnis has been appointed as a minister, vice minister, ambassador or member of any Iranian embassy, vice president or governor of any province even with 90% Sunni population. In armed offices Sunnis are present only as common soldiers and constable not more. Take the example of Sunni-majority province, Sistan Baluchistan where Sunnis take 5% of key offices out of one hundred high offices. There is no a single Sunni member in the Provincial Security Council. From 170 members of Provincial Internal Council just 13 are Sunnis. As well as, there is no any Sunni member in the Upper Council (Shura Negahban) and other Supreme departments. Are you a Shiite or Sunni? this question is in front of oppressed citizens in most of the official departments even in some hospitals this question is asked from patients. Problems in religious affairs: It was the case in distribution of posts; Sunni citizens have been suffering from discriminative official treatment in their religious affairs as well. Ban on the constitutional civil and religious rights, interference in the religious and educational matters of Sunnis, prohibition of building a mosque for more than one million Sunni citizens in Tehran, forbiddance of Sunnis to offer Eid and Jumah prayers in mega cities as well as offering five-time prayers in congregation in some other cities are the matters which have made the Sunni community anxious. On the other hand, Shiite citizens of Saudi Arabia have a grand mosque in Riadh where they establish Friday prayers. In all areas and cities where they live, they have separate worship places. Even Shias have a Husainiah (Imam Bargah) in Medina Munawwarah which was inaugurated by ex-president of Iran, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Apart of this, unlike Saudi Shiites, most of the Iranian Sunnis live in border areas and they are so weak and vulnerable economically. Where Saudi Shias are strong in this regard and own big trade companies, they do not face discriminative acts in this field. If somebody takes out the glass of partiality and prejudice from his eyes, he will judge that Shias of the KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia are in quite better condition than Sunnis of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Iran.

It is better for pro-regime elements to compare the conditions of Irans Sunnis to Shia minorities of a democratic/republic state if they are eager to do so. It seems more logical to look at the situations of Shia minorities of Irans neighbors, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Shias in Pakistan and Afghanistan: An eye-reach shows that Shias enjoy an absolute freedom in these two countries; as vice president, some governors and ministers are Shiite in Afghanistan. The president of Pakistan belongs to Shia community, there are some other important public figures belong to Shia community in Pakistan even in Army and intelligence services. Religiously, Shias enjoy full freedom, as there are many Shiite worship places in Kabul and Islamabad and wherever they live from small to big cities. Finally, the Iranian rulers and their defenders should try to be ideal for other states in dealing with religious and ethnic minorities instead of comparing minorities. They should prove that Islamic Republic of Iran believes in justice and equality among different sects and races