understanding shia/imaami/jafari islam · pdf filein the name of god, most merciful, most kind...

In the name of God, Most Merciful, Most Kind

Sunni/Shia Dialouge (All references are from the Qur’an and Sunni books)

Understanding Shia/Imaami/Jafari Islam

Topics covered are:

• 20 questions for Sunnis • Origins of Shia’a • To know the Shia’a • Imamate; The Perfection of Deen • Qur’an and family • Obedience to the Prophet[saww] • Ijtihad and the companions • Tahreef in the Quran? • Cursing Sahabha • Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation) • Mut’ah • Juloos • Azadari explained • Fadak; The property of Fatima al-Zahra[as] • Burning the house of Fatima binte Muhammed • Ayesha • Mu’awiya • Yazeed • Who killed Imam Hussain[as]? • Who really killed ‘Uthman? • Supporting the enemies of Muhammad[saaws] & his

Ahlul'bayt; Political appointments • Students of Imam Ja’far as-sadiq[as] • The names of Imam Ali[as]’s sons

For more information about Shia Islam visit

http://www.answering-ansar.org

Al-islam.org

,

Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na'eemi of Sahiwa'al, Pakistan was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research converted to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari Faith. The rationale for his conversion was that he had questions that he found the Ahlul' Sunnah Ulema could not answer satisfactorily. These are those questions; they remain unanswered to this day. Tragically he was martyred for his beliefs, may Allah (swt) reward him and grant him a place in Paradise. Footnotes have been added for the purposes of further clarity. 1) History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saww) declared his Prophet hood (saww), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saww)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saww) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim? 2). Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saww), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saww) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546) 3). Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saww). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saww) not select him to be his brother when he (saww) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saww) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer? (See The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers) 4). The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saww) declared

"I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it’s Gate”, did Hadrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saww) than these individuals? 5). If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan? 6). If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time?

7). If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (saww) on the premise that the 'Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Holy Prophet (saww) of speaking nonsense?(See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716) 8) . Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saww)'s companions follow this approach?"the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral" - taken from Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).

9). Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did the Prophet (saww)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul'bayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions? 10). We read in the Holy Qur'an "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives.

Our 20 questions… To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/20questions/en/index.php

Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org ProjectCopyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/index.php

Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

rr

,

What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed theKhalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement? 11). Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur'an "And of the people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saww). After the Prophet (saww)'s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saww)'s demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join?

12).Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles adopted by the parties during their discussions about the Prophet's successor at the Saqifa? 13).If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn Mu'awiya will lead to such persons being raised as betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127) 14). It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right? 15). The Holy Prophet (saww) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saww) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers? (Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7)

16). 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 reco ds that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), fo he is unbeliever", see: 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

If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu'awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)

18). It is commonly conveyed that the companions were brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffirs did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (saww)'s order refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummaya clan. (Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, Ashraf Publishers) 19). The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saww) foretold the coming of twelve khalifas after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul'bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu'awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saww) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifas are.1. "The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish" (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui).2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).3. ibid, page 175 20). Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur'an states quite categorically that no one has that right "And it is not for a believing man or woman that they should have any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying". With this verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one sitting and the formula 'Prayer is better than Sleep' in the Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?(Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, Ashraf Publishers)

Origins of Shi’a To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/origins_of_shia/en/index.php


Islam is a deen that passed through 124,000 Prophets, it came bit by bit. Imagine a jigsaw. Each Prophet brought a piece of the puzzle, starting with Hadhrath Adam (as) until the final piece of the puzzle came in to the hand of Hadhrath Muhammad (saws). This role of Prophet hood was explained beautifully by the Prophet (saws) himself: "My relation to the long chain of Prophets can be understood by the parable of a Palace. The Palace was most beautifully built. Everything was complete therein except the place for one brick. I have filled in that place and now the Palace has been completed". [Towards understanding Islam by Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi, page 49 Editors footnote quoting Sahih Bukhari and Muslim (Islamic Foundation publishers) ] During the lifetime of the companions, the Holy Prophet (s) was the Practical Guide to the inner and outer meanings of the Qur'an. With his death, did this type of guidance end? Clearly the need for guidance would have been much more necessary for future generations that had never benefited from the Prophet (s)'s company. Some people assert that the companions fulfilled this role of guidance. This contention is not supported by hadith, for the Prophet (s) had warned the companions not to become kaffirs by killing each other.[Sahih Bukhari V 9 # 198 - 200]. He (s) also said that afflictions would fall on to their homes in the same way that rain drops fall(1) and that some would become apostates after him(2) with the majority perishing in the fire(3). [(1). Sahih al Bukhari V 9 #182 (2). Sahih al Bukhari V8 # 586 (3). Sahih al Bukhari V 8 # 587 ] In the same way that a Doctor after identifying a condition prescribes medication for his patient, the Prophet (s) had likewise told the companions where they should turn to for guidance. During his farewell sermon at Arafat he (s) declared "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". [Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663 ] The sermon was announced to the Companions, thus proving that even they were liable of going astray if they turned away from these two sources. Those muslims, that have clung to these two sources as an eternal form of guidance are called the 'Shi'a' (partisans), defined by the Sunni scholar Ibn Manzur, as "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". [Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189 ] We consider the Ahl'ulbayt as the designated guides appointed by Allah (swt). While past Khalifas were in positions of power, they did not inherit the knowledge, position and wisdom of the Holy Prophet, who specifically told the companions that Hadhrath Ali (as) had inherited

the Qur'an and Sunnah from him. [Riyadh al Nadira, by Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 3 p 123] The inheritance of religious guidance passed through 12 designated Imams from Ahl'ulbayt, there are numerous hadith where the Prophet (s) declared that Islam would remain intact until the passing of 12 khalifas. [Mishkat al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5] This fact is strengthened further by the hadith recorded by the recognized Sunni scholar Al-Juwayni in which the Prophet said that he would have 12 successors the first being Imam Ali, the last being Imam Mahdi. [Fara'id al-Simtayn, pg 160] As for the Shi'a of the Ahl'ul bayt, numerous Sunni scholars have recorded hadith in which the Prophet (s) had said that the group that Allah (swt) describes as "the best of the creatures" (Qur'an 98:7)" are Ali and his Shi'a and that they will enter paradise. [Tafsir Durre Manthur commentary of verse 98:7 Volume 6 page 379 ] If the Prophet (s) said the best of creations are Hadhrath Ali (as) and his Shi'a, then in the same way that this verse is applicable until the end of the world, Ali (as)'s Shi'a will likewise exist to provide a practical commentary to it. The Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that 70,000 Muslims will enter paradise without answering any questions and Anas bin Malik, narrates that the Prophet (s) said that the 70,000 were Ali and his [Shi'a Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by al Maghazli (An ancient Shafi scholar)] The Shi'a have despite centuries of persecution and false propaganda maintained their affiliation with the Imams from the Ahl'ul bayt clinging to the "two weighty things" - seeking solace in the guarantee of the Holy Prophet (s): "Recognition of the family of Muhammad is freedom from the Fire. Love of the family of Muhammad is crossing over the Sirat. Friendship for the family of Muhammad is safety from the fire". [ Ash-Shifa, page 142 by Qadi Iyad, (d.544 Hijri) English translation by Ayesha Bewley, Madinah Press 1991.] With such a clear hadith it is little surprise that the Prophet (s) declared: "O Ali four people will enter heaven first of all. Me, you, Hasan, Hussain and your descendents will follow us and our wives will follow our descendents and our Shi'a will be to the left and right of us". [ al Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 159, by Ahmad ibn Hajr al Makki ,Cairo edition ] These hadith need to be pondered over carefully. Remember, the Prophet (s) said in a well known hadith that Muslims would be divided in to 73 sects of which only one would attain paradise, one hopes that this article has been able to shed light on which group that is.

To know the Shi’a To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/to_know_the_shia/en/index.php


The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur (1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters". 1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189 2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121 The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2). 1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83, 2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15 It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him. [The Holy Qur'an 98:7] Numerous recognised Sunni scholars have in their commentaries recorded that following the descent of this verse the Prophet (s) declared: "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". [Tafsir Ibne Jarir, V 33 p 146, Cairo edition] We view Imam Ali as our guide, Hadhrath Abu Bakr does not come within this definition in his inaugural speech he indicated that he would be turning to others for guidance: "Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong" [Tarikh al-Tabari, English translation Volume 9 p 201] Compare these words to the challenge of Imam Ali (as) related by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab who said: "None of the Companions say, Ask me (about anything you like)! except for Ali". [History of the Khalifas by Suyuti, translated by Abdassamad Clarke, p178 (Taha Publishers)] How can we turn to others, when Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book: "On the Day when some faces will be bright and some faces will be black, And as for those whose faces will have turned black, it will be said 'What did you disbelieve after believing, taste the chastisement for your disbelief'. And as for those whose faces are white, they shall be in the Mercy of God, they shall abide therein forever". The Holy Qur'an 3:106-107 It is clear from this verse that the successful Party on the

Day of Judgement will be those, whose faces are bright. Now apply this verse to the following hadith, taken from two recognised Sunni works: "Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa Qa'id ul Ghurrul Muhajj'ileen (Leader of the bright) face people on Yaum al Qiyamah". [Al Mustadrak Hakim, p 137 & 138] ,

,

So Ali (as) will be the leader of the bright face people, the bright face people will follow him i.e. they will be his Shi'a and it is this group which will attain Paradise. The Prophet (s) said in a Sahih hadith that Muslims would be divided into 73 sects of which only one would attain paradise. It is for this sole reason that we connect ourselves with Ali (as). Our Sunni brothers ascribe to the view that "Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not nominate his successor nor left any explicit an instruction on the question of selection or appointment of his successor". An introduction to Islamic State and Government, by Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, p 56, (Islamic Bk Publishers, Kuwait). We rely on an event that took following the completion of the Final Hajj when the Prophet (s) stopped at a place called Ghadhir Khumm, and addressed the companions "Do I have more authority over you than you have over yourselves? To which the people said 'Yes'. He then said Of whomsoever I am Mawla Ali is his Mawla" [Musnad by Ahmad bin Hanbal Vol 3 p116 Sader Printing 1969] It is the issue of Imamate (Leadership) which is the key difference between the two schools, we however are yet to find a better explanation of the position of an Imam than that offered by Shah Isma'il Shaheed: "The Imam is the Prophet's successor; the Imam has the same relations with Allah as the Prophet had with Allah. The Imam is the leader, in the same way the Prophet had the right to lead the people, the Imam also has the same rights over the people. We read in Surah Azhab 'The Prophet is awla (authority) to the believers', and the Prophet will be a witness to this fact on the Day of Judgement. The Prophet has rights over the people, as does the Imam, both in this world and the next, which is why the Prophet said 'Don't I have more authority over the people than they have over themselves, to which the people replied 'Yes'. The Prophet then said 'Of whomsoever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla'. This is why Allah says in the Qur'an that on the Day of Judgement you will be called according to your Imam (3:17), and why when Allah says 'And stop they are to be questioned' (37:24), we will be asked about the Wilayat (The Mastership) of Ali on the Day of Judgement" [Mansab-e-Imamat, by Shah Isma'il Shaheed, p 71 (A Famous Deobandi Scholar)

Imamate; the perfection of deen To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/imamate_perfection_of_deen/en/index.php


In Surah Rum verse 43, Allah (swt) tells "Then set your face upright towards the established religion before that day comes from God, when there will be no escape". We are told to turn to Deen before the Day of Judgement when people will be separated. The verse tells mankind to search for that perfect deen. It is not until we are able to identify perfect deen that we will be able to turn to it. What is the perfect Deen, we know that it is Islam. What is Deen? Deen is a way of life made up of rules / regulations, it does not present itself, it is identified through those persons whose actions define all aspects of deen, whose deeds act as practical commentaries to the Qur'an. At a glance we know that the perfect example of Deen was Hadhrath Mohammed (saww), deen can be recognised through his Sirat (life). With the departure of Mohammed (saww) from the world, did Deen come to an end? Certainly not! Alhumdolillah deen will remain until the Day of Judgement, but it still requires recognition through individuals whose actions are practical definitions of deen, who follow the Prophet (saww) step by step. If such persons do not exist then deen will not be perfect, because we have no examples to turn to. Deen can only be recognised through individuals who are 100% practical reflections of deen, which is why Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book "Verily in the Prophet you have a perfect example". After the Prophet (saww) we argue that Allah (swt) continued to provide the Ummah with perfect examples, if we deny this then Allah (swt) is not just having bestowed an example to the Sahaba and ignored all generations that followed. During his lifetime Islam was recognised through the Prophet (saww) and after him, Islam is recognised through his Imam. This is clear from the fact that the Prophet (saww) told his followers 'He who dies without giving bayah to the Imam of his time, dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'.[Munsub e Imamate (The position of the Imam), by Shah Ismail Shaheed ] Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an, that the sole reason for creating Man and Jinn is so that they worship Him. We are here to worship Allah (swt), who also says in the Qur'an "Fear Allah and find a wasila to him (5:35)". The wasila we need for true guidance will therefore have to be the 'perfect individual' who will not err, who you can put your faith in, which will act as source of guidance in everything that you do. We know that there is a wasila, and that there is a duty to recognise our Imam of our time. Clearly, these two must be interlinked, the Imam is the authorised guide who will act as the wasila to Allah (swt), but 'do we have any clear signposts which will help us to recognise these Imams'? Well what better guide is there than the hadith of the Prophet (saww): "The religion will continue to be established till the

hour comes as there are twelve Caliphs over them, everyone of them coming from the Quraish" [Mishkat al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5 ] Think carefully, deen is attached to the ruling of 12 Khalifa's. The number 12 is of significance here, it can not apply to political leadership, Jalaladeen Suyuti in Tarikh ul Khulufa recounts that there were 4 Rightly guides khalifas', 14 khalifas' from Banu Ummayah and 49 Khalifas' from the Banu Abbasids. The number 12 does not fit anywhere here, because the Prophet (saww) was not talking about leaders appointed by men. The Prophet (saww) was referring to absolute religious leadership, through which deen can be identified, it started at Ghadhir Khumm when the Prophet (saww) declared before a gathering of 124,000 Sahaba "Of whomsoever I am Maula (Master) Ali is his Maula". It was here that the succession to Prophethood, Imamate was declared. What is crucial is the verse which descended following the sermon declaring Ali (as)'s Wilayat. "Today, I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that you religion be Islam" (Qur’an 5:3). This verse makes it clear Allah (swt) did not declare the perfection of religion, the completion of his bounties and his satisfaction until Hadhrath Ali (as)'s Imamate was formally declared at the end of the Prophetic mission. It is incumbent that we search for that wasila through which deen can be recognised. Allah (swt) tells us in his glorious book "Guide us to the right path, the path of those you have favoured" (1:6-7) and your priority should be to seek those persons on the right path who will likewise guide you to it. This point can not be ignored; particularly when Rasulullah (saww) warned that the Ummah would be divided in to 73 sects and that only one would be saved. At the same time the Prophet (saww) told us which party would be saved, when he said "I am leaving amongst you two things, the Qur'an and my Ahl’ulbayt, if you follow them you will never go astray". [Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663 ] The Prophet recounted this tradition to his Sahaba, which proves the Sahaba could go astray if they turned away from these two sources of guidance. Muslims are dependent on Islam while Islam is dependent on the Ahl’ulbayt, that is why when a prominent sahabi advised Imam Hussain (as) to pledge allegiance to Yazid the reply from the Imam was "by my doing so do you think Islam will remain on the earth?". It is the Party which has taken hold of both the Qur'an the Ahl’ulbayt who are on the right path, for they have grasped the Qur'an which sets out deen and the Imams from Ahl’ulbayt who are walking commentaries of deen, through which Islam can be recognised.

Among the arguments put forward from the Ahl' ul-Sunnah to justify the adallah (justice) of the Sahaba is that they complied the Qur'an. To question their trustworthiness is to question the authenticity of the Qur'an. Hence even if the Sahaba are in the wrong, we must interpret in such a way to protect their integrity (even if it means degrading the position of Prophethood. (Examples of this exist in the chapter on the will of the Prophet (saw) for such an example.) All the references from this section have been taken from Shah Waliyullah's book 'Izalatul Khifa' setting out the merits of the four rightly guided khalifas. Much of what Shah Waliyullah writes can also be found in Suyuti's analysis of the Qur'an 'al Itqan' - (Expect if otherwise indicated) Shah Waliyullah writes: "At the time of the death of the Prophet (saww) the Qur'an had not been compiled in to a book form. Surah's and Ayats were scattered amongst the people" (sic).[ Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliyullah, Vol 4 p 252, publishers Kadheemi Kutubkhana, Karachi] We have cited the tradition from Shah Waliyullah’s work in your detailed article, which we are summarizing here as. 1) At the death of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) the Qur'an was scattered among the people. 2) Zaib bin Thabit regarded it easier to move one mountain then to compile the Qur'an. 3) That the Prophet [saww] died without clarifying the locations of the Surah of the Qur'an, so it was up to Uthman to decide the position of Surah al-Tawbah. 4) Hadhrath Umar was afraid that the Qur'an would be lost so he wanted to compile the Qur'an. Whilst the Prophet did not take heed of such a matter because he[saww] did not make any attempt to compile the Qur'an. The Qur'an we have today in book form is the form collated by these 4 men. We also have the following unnerving statement in the same book where we read the following: "Hadhrath Ali compiled the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Prophet [saww] but Allah's taqdir prevented this from coming forward". [ Izalatul Khifa, by Shah Waliyullah Volume 4 p 497 ] The above evidences from the most regarded sources including the Sahih of al-Bukhari begs the many rational questions among those we are citing some in this flyer: 1) If the Qur'an had not been compiled during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet then why did he during his farewell pilgrimage tell the companions the following: "I am leaving amongst you two weighty things the Book of Allah (Kitabullah) and my Ahl’ulbayt"?

The word al-Kitab here obviously signifies a single and united entity. It is not applied to a text which is scattered and not collected, let alone one which is unwritten and preserved in memory only. 2) Hadhrath Umar said "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us", when the Prophet (saww) asked for a pen and paper on his deathbed did? Why say 'Book' and not just say Qur'an? 3) If the Qur'an was not compiled then whey did this verse descend "Today, I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that your religion be Islam" (Qur'an 5:3)? This is especially true when the narration of Tirmidhi states of the Prophet[saww] died without specifying the location of Surah al-Tawbah. Would this therefore not imply that Islam was incomplete because Muslims did not know the positions of the Surah's? 4) Hadhrath Umar wanted to collate the Qur'an into book form because he was concerned that it would get lost. How can this be the case when Allah (swt) states categorically "Certainly We sent down the Dhikr (i.e., Qur'an), and certainly we shall protect it" (Qur'an 15:9), did Hadhrath Umar not have faith in this verse? 5) Why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr opt to choose Zaid bin Thabit as compiler when prominent Sahaba famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an such as Ubayy bin Ka'ab and Abdullah ibne Masud present. The latter were acknowledged as the foremost in their knowledge of the Qur'an excepting the Holy Prophet himself. 6) Hadhrath Uthman went even further and appointed, with the presence in Madina of some of the greats amongst the companions who were famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an, companions who were mere boys during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. If one analyses their ages we learn Abdullah bin Zubayr was born in 2 Hijri, Saeed bin Aas in 1 Hijri, Abdur Rahman bin Harith in 1 Hijri, the eldest Zaid bin Thabit was 11 years of age at the time of the Hijrath. The last verse of the Qur'an descended in 10 Hijri that means all four were very young - in fact children, three of whom were still not even Baligh (attained the age of adolescence). Why were these four preferred to prominent Sahaba such as Abdullah ibne Masud and Ubayy bin Ka'ab? 7) Za'id began to compile the Qur'an during Hadhrath Abu Bakr's life. The task stopped and did not start again until Hadhrath Uthman's khilafath. Why was there this pause, especially since the mighty Hadhrath Umar prevented any civil instability in and around Madina, which was not the case with the first and third khalifas whose rules were marred by civil war in and around Madina? What more tranquil, relatively speaking, an opportunity, especially since the compilation of this Qur'an was the suggestion of Hadhrath Umar himself - why this gap period of in excess of no less than 10 years? When Hadhrath Umar was so concerned that the Qur'an be collated why

Separating the Qur'an from the Family To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/quran_and_family/en/index.php



ensure that the task was completed during his ten year reign? He said that he was worried that reciters were dying on the battlefield. Many more wars occurred during his own khilafath so why did he lose that concern? 8) Rather than go to the extraordinary length of appointing a four man committee to collate the Qur'an in to book fashion, a pain staking process would it not have been easier to use the Qur'an that had been compiled by Hadhrath Ali (as)? Here are a further to questions for our Salafi brothers: 1) Did the Sahaba not commit bidah by compiling the Qur'an when the Prophet (S) did not? 2) Are you not committing bidah by keeping the Qur'an at home when according to Sahih al Bukhari did NOT compile the Word of Allah (swt) in Book form? If all bidah's are in the fire then is this bidah not also in the fire? Clearly, this makes no sense. It is a gross slander to suggest that the Prophet[saww] would fail to collate the revelation in to a book form. We believe that he arranged for the compilation during his lifetime - this is simple rationality - and entrusted the Gate of Knowledge Imam Ali (as) with the task, as confirmed by Shah Waliyullah. To suggest that this did not happen because Allah (swt) did not want this compilation makes no sense. How could Imam Ali (as) be removed from this instrumental role when the Prophet [saww] had stated: "Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar". [ Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124 ] If Imam Ali had collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet [saww], it is clear that he must have done so under the specific command of the Holy Prophet. The question now arises - why, after the death of the Holy Prophet, was this version not taken as the official version by Hadhrath Abu Bakr? There is left little room but to contemplate the fact that this was another step in the conspiracy against the family to separate the Qur'an from the Ahl’ulbayt so that no one turns to them for guidance. This was, in other words, a form of ostracization, one that in fact amounted to censorship of the Qur'an till the state had officially eliminated Imam Ali from any claim towards its compilation, an achievement they would take the credit for, and one that if acknowledged would have brought the masses to Imam Ali and not to them for guidance. The khilafath of man had originated in the connivance of men to establish an alternative form of khilafath to that intended by the Holy Prophet. This khilafath was in opposition to that intended by the Holy Prophet, which had been a khilafath that was from a lineage within the family of the Holy Prophet, a lineage that also linked to the Qur'an. The khilafath had been snatched from the family The other easy means of approach for guidance, the

Qur'an, was also snatched. The issue so alarmed the Sunni scholar Mahmud Abu Riyyah that he wrote the following: "The strangest thing and embarrassing point is that they have never even included the name of Ali within those incharged with collecting and writing down the Qur'an, neither during the reign of Abu Bakr nor that of Uthman! Mentioning instead the name of those lower than him in degrees of knowledge and fiqh! Was Ali unable to undertake such a task! Or was he among those untrustworthy men? Or among those who were incompetent to be consulted or committed to shoulder this responsibility? While in fact reason and logic necessitate that Ali should be the foremost and most competent man entrusted with this job, due to possessing attributes and merits of which all other Companions were deprived. He was reared and grown up under the care of the Prophet [saww], living long under his protection, attending the Wahi from the first days of revelation up to the day of cessation, in a way that he did not miss even one of his verse?! So if he was not to be called for such a critical task, what thing else would he be called for?! And if they invented justifications for ignoring him (Imam Ali) in regard of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, never consulting him or seeking him or seeking his opinion about it, what excuse they can give for not inviting him to the task of writing the Qur'an? Is there any logical reason for this behaviour? What judgement can be issued by any just judge? What a surprising matter it is, and we have nothing to say but: May God help you O Ali! They have not treated you with equity in anything!" [Adwa' ala' al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah page 300, by Mahmud Abu Riyyah - English edition published by Ansariyan publications 1999] Hence from the above discussion we get that the two copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah - since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet. The clarity of the Shi'i vision is unfolding. The conclusions of this section are quite clear: 1. The Qur'an is with Ali and Ali is with the Qur'an. 2. The Shi'i, being the party of Imam Ali, have had Uninterrupted communion with the Word of Allah. The Shi'i and only the Shi'i can claim this amongst all Muslims.

,

This article is our reply to Nasibi’s defences of Hadhrath Ayesha and Mu'awiya - namely that their acts of insurgency and rebellion against Imam 'Ali (as) were based on Ijtihad for which they shall be rewarded. In Islam all people are equal in the eyes of Allah (swt). As Muslims we are required to live our lives in accordance with the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we look at the Muslim countries today we see leaders plundering the nations wealth; they commonly put friends and relatives in to positions of power, they likewise plunder the state's wealth. They commit acts that cause revulsion amongst the public, and yet they are 'above the law' you cannot question their actions. We hate this, we believe they should be brought to task; accountability is a key component in Islam. We all must comply with it and we are all responsible if we break it, no matter who you are, who you know, who you are related to. We have the verse in the Qur'an making it clear that we will be judged according to our actions on the Day of Judgement. Furthermore we have the following incident recorded in books of hadith:"A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and it was suggested that she may be spared the punishment of theft. The Prophet replied: "The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offences and their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes; I swear by him (God) who holds my life in his hand that even of Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad has committed this crime, then I would have amputated her hand". [Human Rights in Islam by Abul A'la Maudoodi page 35-36, published by the Islamic Foundation, United Kingdom 1976] This event makes it absolutely clear that: 1) All are accountable for their actions 2) You will be accountable irrespective of nobility This is the justice of Allah (swt) the justice which Islam proclaims. With this clear evidence how would you feel if legislation were passed stating that you can never question the actions of members of the ruling party, no matter what they do? Would the reasonable person accept such a law? Certainly not, on the contrary this would be a clear violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Bearing this in mind it is most unfortunate that the majority sect has formulated an opinion that if the companions perform such violations, they are not in error and hence NOT accountable before Allah (swt), as their actions were due to mistakes in their Ijtihad.

The verdict of Ahl'ul Sunnah on the disputes between the companions This is the Fatwa of the Wahabi scholar Shaykh Muhammad Al-Saleh Ul-Uthaimin on this matter: "We believe that the disputes that took place among the Prophet's companions were the result of sincere interpretations they worked hard to reach. Whoever was right among them would be rewarded twice, and whoever was wrong among them would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven" [The Muslim's Belief, by Shaikh Al Saleh Al Uthaimin, translated by Ar Maneh Hammad al Johani, p 23] What sort of justice is this? If the companions commit any wrongdoing, not only are they unaccountable they are forgiven and rewarded for it! If the beloved daughter of the Prophet (s) is not above the law, then why are the companions? Why adhere to such a belief? The reality is that this concept has been developed by the scholars to in effect provide blanket immunity for those companions who committed major wrongs. Whilst the casual reader would be horrified by their actions his childhood beliefs that the companions actions were mistakes for which they would be rewarded have effectively subdued the majority to not think about what they read. Never has the desire to believe in mistakes in Ijtihad been more important for the followers of the companions than when looks at the battles of Jamal and Sifeen. Here two groups of companions met each other on battlefield and fought one another. The same companions who had sat with the Prophet (s) were killing one another. As these battles are undeniable facts, and uncomfortable reading for scholars whose attitude has been all the companions are just, the concept of Ijtihad has proved to be a 'protection clause' a means of maintaining beliefs in the presence of facts which would other wise creates doubts in those beliefs. Ibn Khaldun exemplifies this thinking as follows: "Beware! Do not speak ill of anyone of them. One ought to find some justification for each faction for they deserve to be rated highly by us. They differed on principle and rightly fought the battle. All those who were killed or were slain were fighting in the way of God for upholding truth and justice. Rather, I think that their differences were a blessing for the latter generations so that every one may choose anyone of them as his guide and Imam. Keep this in mind and try to understand the divine wisdom governing the world and the beings". Tarikh e Islam by Akbar Shah Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 145. Quoting Muqqadimah, by Ibn Khaldun p. 172

Ijtihad and the companions To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ijtihad/en/index.php



-.

,

The Ijtihad attributed to the companions who rose against Imam 'Ali (as) contradicts the Qur'an, the Sunnah and sheer common sense It should be pointed out that both Sunni and Shi'a adhere to the concept of Ijtihad as a legitimate source of Islamic Law. We however assert that Ijtihad can only be exercised when there is no clear ruling within the Qur'an or Sunnah with regards to a particular matter. Ijtihad is therefore essentially the last resort, it cannot be utilised when solutions are evident in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and crucially Ijtihad can never be exercised when it is in violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. What gave one party the right to rebel and behave in this way against a Khalifa whom the vast bulk of Muslims deems rightly guided? Do these actions not therefore set a precedent that if you do not agree with a Khalifa you can mount armed rebellion against him? Would the common man ascribe to the view that ousting a Leader over a difference of opinion through armed rebellion is not only good but will be rewarded even if it is wrong? The Holy Qur'an states quite categorically: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93). With this verse in mind, history testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Does this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading Fitna (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement? If for arguments sake, this concept is indeed correct then why should any disputes be resolved in court? After all if there is a dispute between two groups of Muslims, why should they be punished? Can they not advance a defence that they were following the way of the companions and that whoever was right will receive one reward from Allah (swt) and whoever was wrong will get one reward and be forgiven. Should they not be encouraged to continue to fight and kill one another in the same way that the companions did? Defending the indefensible Despite such clear evidence - namely the verdicts of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Sahaba and the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema themselves, the majority school still maintain the belief that all the companions should be revered and committed mistakes in Ijtihad. In doing so they fall deeper into the quagmire of contradiction, inconsistency and absurdity. The perfect example of contradiction is evident if one analyses the rulings of the Wahabi scholar Shaykh Naasir al-'Aql whilst setting out the creed of the Ahl'ul Sunna wa al Jamaah. He proudly proclaims in the preface: They are called the Jamaa'ah because they are the ones who gather upon the truth and do not split-up in their Religion; they gather upon the legitimate rulers and do not rebel against them; and they follow the consensus (ijma') of the Pious

Predecessors of this Ummah". The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, p 12. Perhaps the Shaykh should also answer this question 'was Imam Ali (as) a legitimate ruler?' Clearly he was, he is deemed the fourth rightly guided Khalifa in the eyes of Ahl ul Sunna. To rebel against the legitimate leader according to Al' Aql takes you out of the Jamaa'ah. Did prominent companions not break ranks and rebel against Imam Ali? Rising against Ahl'ul bayt can never be deemed a mistake in Ijtihad The Prophet (s) had made an explicit instruction during the farewell pilgrimage, namely "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663 This meant that in all circumstances it was incumbent upon Muslims to attach themselves to the Family of the Prophet (s). At no point did he (s) ever say that it would be permissible to fight them, at no time did he state those that fought them would be rewarded because they exercised Ijtihad. On the contrary, Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr narrates: “I saw the Messenger of God pitch a tent in which he placed 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn. He then declared: 'O Muslims, I am at war against anyone who wars against the people of this tent, and am at peace with those who show peace toward them. I am a friend to those who befriend them. He who shows love toward them shall be one of a happy ancestry and good birth. Nor would anyone hate them except that he is of miserable ancestry and evil birth". [Abu Ja'far Ahmad al-Muhib al-Tabari, AlRiyad al-Nadira (Cairo, n.d ), Volume 2, page 199 ] Is there anything more explicit than this instruction? Those who fight them are fighting the Prophet (s). Can fighting the Prophet (s) ever be deemed as a mistake in Ijtihad for which the perpetrators will be rewarded? By Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr's own admission fighting the Ahlul'bayt is on par with fighting the Prophet (s) so how can Ijtihad be used as a defence for those that fought Hadhrath 'Ali (as)? The Sahaba never proclaimed that they had mad mistakes in Ijtihad This is a very interesting point. There exists no statement from history in which any Sahaba who fought Imam Ali (as) declared that they had exercised Ijtihad that was wrong but they would be rewarded for it. Their advocates have only formulated this - years after their departure. Hadhrath Ayesha's own damning confession proves clearly that she did not believe that Allah (swt) would forgive her for her opposition to Ali (as). "Hadhrath Ayesha narrates the Prophet said 'Allah asked me 'Whoever doesn't accept Ali's khilafath and rebels and fights him is a kaffir and will perish in the fire" Someone asked her "Why did you rebel and fight him?" She replied "I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and I asked for Allah's forgiveness, I don't think that I will be forgiven for this sin" Mawaddatul al Qurba p 32by Sayyid 'Ali Hamdani Chapter "Mawaddathul Saum"

Is obedience to Rasulullah (s) conditional or unconditional We read in Surah al Hadeed "Oh you who believe, fear Allah and believe in his Prophet". The words "oh you who believe" illustrate that Allah is addressing the Muslims and in particular addressing the Companions of the Prophet during the time of the verse's revelation. Allah's command to the Companions to "believe in the Prophet" suggests that even during the Prophet's (s) lifetime there existed those who believed in Allah but did not possess a correct belief in the Prophet (s), hence necessitating the revelation of such a verse. Thus, as Muslims we cannot truly believe until we believe in the Prophet (s). Consequently if we have doubts in what the Prophet says and commands, then naturally our belief in the Prophet is flawed. Clear Unconditional Obedience Surah al Maidah verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet's duty is only to deliver the message clearly" Surah Mujadilah verses 12-13 "Perform Salat (Prayer), give Zakat and Obey Allah and his Prophet" Both these noble verses clarify the matter unambiguously. Allah commands the Muslims in the Qur'an to obey Allah - unconditionally - and furthermore to obey the Prophet - once more, unconditionally. Duty only to convey the message clearly Surah Nur verse 54 "Obey Allah and his Prophet and if you dispute, then on him is what is imposed on him, and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty on the Prophet save the clear delivery". This verse also makes it clear that if one obeys the Prophet in this way, only then will one be rightly guided, and that the Prophet's duty is only to convey the message. Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers" Never dismiss the words of the Prophet (s) Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)." No one can overrule anything that the Prophet (s) said Surah AL-AHZAB, verse 36: "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any

option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path" Thus, whatever decision the Prophet makes, is from Allah and any attempt to change this by a Muslim shows that this person has gone astray from the Right Path. An invitation to Ahl'ul Sunnah to ponder and think Now with these verses in mind let us turn to the famous sermon delivered by the Prophet (s) during the Hajj at Mount Arafat: "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". The words here "Lum ta'zilo bah'dee" is an absolute guarantee that if one follows these two things, one will never go astray. The sermon was announced to the Companions, thus proving that even they were liable of going astray if they turned away from these two sources, since the Prophet was informing the Companions - and all Muslims who hear the message - that if they leave these two sources, they will go astray. The traditions (s) relating to the pen and paper episode The Prophet (s) wanted to compose a will We learn from the traditions that towards the end of his noble life, the Prophet's (s) condition was deteriorating. The majority opinion holds that the Prophet (s) left no will before his death, and made no attempt to do so. However, according to the Qur'an it is absolutely obligatory on all Muslims to leave a will. Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book: "It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180). We may thus ask the question: Would the Prophet of Allah (s) of all Muslims - the one whose Sunnah we are obliged to follow - disregard an order stipulated in the Holy Qur'an? The Holy Prophet (s) requests that writing materials be brought to him This is what we read in Sahih al-Bukhari as narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said:” Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Qur'an, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The People in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may

Obedience to the Prophet[saww]; the pen & paper episode To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/index.php



write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while the others said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarrelled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing a statement for them. [Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 573 ] The Prophet asks to write final instructions before his death, and evidently these instructions were to be his last will and testament, to prevent the Muslim Ummah from going astray. He commands in the capacity of the Seal of the Prophets and Allah's Messenger: 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.' What is our obligation as Muslims here at this crucial time in particular? No doubt, to hear and obey, for as the Qur'an says in Surah al Maidah verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet's duty is only to deliver the message clearly"; But what is the reaction of the Companions to the Prophet's apparent attempt to write his will, and to guide the Ummah? Bukhari reports from Ibn Abbas: 'The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said, 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). [Sahih Bukhari V 9 #468] Indeed, not only did they disobey the Prophet and quarrel with each other in front of him in contradiction to the clear command of Allah to obey the Prophet and not to turn away from him, they even spoke down to the Seal of Prophets: "What is wrong with him?" The Holy Prophet (s) was accused of speaking deliriously The Prophet was clearly not asking something out of the ordinary - just a pen and paper. Yet we read that some of the companions intervened and said the Prophet was talking no sense! The phrase 'no sense' is in itself extremely insulting, particularly since it was directed to someone as great as the Prophet (s) the greatest man of all time. The words they used in response to the Prophet's order were 'this man is speaking yahjur'; the word actually means 'incoherent speech - nonsense'. In that there is no doubt, Yahjur comes from the root word "hajara". According to Hans Wehr's "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic edited by J. Milton Cowan" Hans Wehr's "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic"6 edited by J. Milton Cowan, 3rd edition - Publishers Ithaca, New York" - page 1019 Hajara means "To emigrate; to give up; to abandon; TO TALK NONSENSE" In other words, the Companions actually accused the Messenger of Allah [s] of being in a state of delirium. In the English translation of Tabari, the translator has

remained faithful to the Arabic text. He narrates from Ibn Abbas: "The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet (lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write for you a document, after which you will not go astray". Some people said that the Messenger of God was talking deliriously". [History of Tabari, Volume 9 translated by Ismail. K. Poonawala p 175 ] Elucidation of the Truth The words used by Rasulullah (s) are particularly of significant: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." The Prophet (s) at Arafat said similar words as we have mentioned "I am leaving among you two things if you follow them you will never go astray". These two sources - the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt -complimented one another, and would be the eternal source of guidance. Whilst some people may assert that no one can pre-empt what the Prophet (s) wanted to write, there is nevertheless a clear link between what the Prophet (s) was saying on his death bed and what he had said at Mount Arafat. At Arafat the Prophet spoke of two things, adherence to which would prevent the people from going astray for all eternity. Similarly on his deathbed the Prophet (s) likewise wanted to write a document in the form of clear and final instructions which would ensure that the Ummah would never go astray after him, and which would suffice as written proof of the Prophet's last will. This can be read in Commentary of al Bukhari, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, commenting on the Prophet's words, "I will write a document" states that "the Prophet's (s) intention was to nominate a successor after him". [Fath al Bari, by Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, Vol 8 p 101] The consequence of the Pen and paper episode Allamah Shahrastani in his famous books on divisions in Islam states that the origin of dispute amongst the companions owes its origin to this very tragic episode. He writes: "the first dispute that took place during the Prophet's sickness, according to what the Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Isma'il al-Bukhari relates on the authority of Abdullah b. Abbas, is as follows: When the last sickness of the Prophet became acute, he said, 'Bring me an inkpot and writing material; I shall write something for you so that you will not be led astray after my departure'. Umar said, 'the Prophet has been overcome by pain, God's Book is sufficient for us'. A noisy argument arose among those gathered; whereupon the Prophet said 'Go away there should be no quarrelling in my presence'. Ibn Abbas says, 'What a tragedy which prevented us from having some writing of the Prophet!". Al Mihal al Nahal, by Allamah Muhummud b. Add'al Karim Shahrastani, page 18 - English translation by A.K.Kazi and J.G.Flynn (publishers Kegan Paul International, First Edition 1984)

, .

The 'actual' definition of Taqiyyah Taqiyyah means 'concealing one's religion or faith due to fear, but in one's heart, the person must believe in the religion s/he is concealing'. In other words it is a form of self-defence that encompasses defending one's life, property, esteem and beliefs. According to Shariah, if a person is caught up between two hardships and one of them is intolerable, then to save one's self from the bigger hardship, one should tolerate the smaller one. Therefore, Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Fakhruddin Razi wrote: When faced with two hardships, one should go through the smaller one to save one's self from the bigger one. This is a recognized fact. Tafseer-e-Kabir, Vol 5, P 746-750, published IstanbulIn the same Tafseer, Volume 2, Page 746, Publishers Dar-ul-Taba Istanbul, Razi writes: "For a momin, taqiyyah is allowed till the day of Judgement. And this is the right act, for the reason that using self-control to defend oneself against a hardship is a necessity." Taqiyyah proven from the Qur'an First verse "Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith but such as open their breast to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty". Surah An-Nahal, verse 106 transliteration by Abdullah Yusuf Ali All Muslim scholars agree that this verse descended in relation to the suffering of Ammar bin Yasir (ra). Allamah Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of this verse states: The non-believers once caught Ammar-bin-Yaser (ra) and they forced him to say praise their false gods and to condemn Prophet Muhammad (s). They forced him to an extent that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) gave in an exceeded to their demands. After that, when he returned to the Prophet Mohammed (s), Ammar (A.S) narrated the whole story to him (s). Prophet Muhammad (S) asked him, how do you feel in your heart? To which Ammar (A.S) replied, I am fully content with Allah's religion in my heart. To this Prophet Mohammed (S) said, if non-believers ask you to say the same again, say it. At which time the following ayah was descended. "Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters disbelief (save under compulsion and even then his heart remains firm in faith) on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty" Tafseer Durre Manthur Vol 4 page 132, Cairo edition

Second verse "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah Al- Imran, verse 28 translation by Yusuf Ali Allamah Fakhruddin Razi had commented on this verse: Undoubtedly, there is no harm in practicing Taqiyyah if a believer is caught up between non-believers and his life or property is under threat from them. In such circumstances he should conceal his enmity from them. Infact, he should talk in such a manner that his words should show passion. His hear should not confirm what he is saying. Taqiyyah does not have an effect on one's heart; it only has an external effect. Tafseer-e-Kabir, Volume 2, Page 626, Published Istanbul Ibn Taymiyyah's commentary on verse [3:28] The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a restricted exception. Not only is it forbidden to be used against Muslims but it also does not give permission to lie to others. What it means is that if you oppose certain behaviours and you are in a situation where condemnation would endanger Islam or Muslim community you can keep silent but you must avoid lying. Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj V. 1 p 213 In the above Fatwa, Ibn Taymiyyah introduced 2 conditions/ (innovations) at his own in the Islamic Sharia. They are 1. Taqiyyah can only be done in the presence of Kafirs; it cannot be practised before a cruel Muslim king. 2. One cannot lie (while one is practising Taqiyyah) i.e. one can maintain silence, but should not lie. Our Response 1. There is not a single verse of the Qur'an that prescribes these conditions. 2. There is not even a single saying or practice of Rasul (s), that stipulates these conditions. 3. Not even a single Sahabi understood Taqiyyah along with these conditions (they practised contrary to these conditions) 4. No Ahle-Sunnah Alim from the early centuries added these conditions in Taqiyyah. We invite the Nasibis to prove the innovations of Ibn Taymiyyah from the above 4 sources. Contrary to Ibn Taymiyyah's claim, all of these sources are refuting his assertion.

Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation) To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/index.php



The Qur'an refutes Ibn Taymiyyah [Yusufali 16:106] "Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." As you see, the Qur'an states "uttering unbelief". This does not mean keeping silent. Uttering means either saying or acting something in contrary to belief. What lie is bigger than uttering unbelief? The onus is on the Nasibis to show us these 2 conditions/(innovations) of Ibn Taymiyyah from the Qur’an. Innovations in Taqiyyah by Mufti of Sipah e Sahaba Did any Prophet ever practice Taqiyyah? Mufti Khalid Mehmood (The most well-known Mufti and debater of Sipah e Sahaba- Deoband) claims in his book "Taqiyyah na kijiay" [Don't do Taqiyyah]" that Taqiyyah is Haram for God Appointed People like Prophets and Imams. On page 49 of this book, Mufti Khalid Mehmood challenges Shi'a to show him if any other Prophet ever practiced Taqiyyah. Reply 1 - Rasulullah (s) practised Taqiyyah before the newly converted Sahaba We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:Narrated Aswad: Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "A’isha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'A’isha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same. Comment Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to redesign the Ka’ba, yes or no? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say "Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it". If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah(s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba? If this silence is not proof of Taqiyyah then what is? In his commentary of the above hadith (destruction of the Ka’ba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment: "Ibn Batil said the following principle is established from the above hadith, if a good act is carried out, but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead

to opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned." In other words this Sunni scholar is saying that one can practise Taqiyyah / remain silent on an order, if such an order incites Fitnah. The tradition in al Bukhari clearly demonstrates that Rasulullah (s) preferred practising Taqiyyah to implementing an act that would cause opposition from the Sahaba. Reply 2 - According to of Ahlul Sunnah, Prophet Ibrahim (as) recited Kufr in a state of Taqiyyah We read in Tafseer Kabeer volume 4 p 77 by Imam Razi: When at night Ibrahim saw the stars and said this is my lord. These words are Kufr and the question arises, how a Prophet would recite such Kufr… The order on Ibrahim was propagation (Dawah), this was an opportunity to do Dawah and the temporarily recited this Kufr. His words at that time were the word said in duress. This proves at a time of necessity it is permissible to recite kufr since the Qur’an confirmed when one's heart is firm he can openly recite kufr when danger is clear reciting kufr is permissible. The Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah believe in the legitimacy of Taqiyyah It is interesting to see that the Nasibi brand Taqiyyah deception, whilst their own aqeedah is lying i.e. deception when necessary is not only allowed, but a must. Therefore, Imam Nawawi wrote: All the scholars agree on the fact that if a cruel man comes to kill a person who is hiding, or comes to wrongfully take someone else's possessions, and asks for information about that (possession), then it is a must on everyone who has any knowledge about it, to hide it and lie about it. This is not just a lie, infact it is a must for the reason that it is a means of protecting the weak from the cruel. Sharh Muslim Nawawi, Volume 2, Page 106-266, Published Luknow The Khwaarij are the only Sect that reject Taqiyyah Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Ibn Asakir discusses the beliefs of the Khwaarij in Tadheeb Volume 4 page 147, whilst commenting on the life of Hasan bin Farokh. He states: "The fourth characteristic of the Khwaarij is that they consider it permissible to kill their enemies women and children…the sixth characteristic of the Khwaarij is they deem advocating (verbally) and practising Taqiyyah to be unlawful". We would like to make it clear that both Shi'a and Ahl'ul Sunnah believe in the legitimacy of Taqiyyah and the only group that deny it and deem it to be 'calculated deception' are the Khwaarij and Nasibi who also deem shedding the blood of their opponents to be an act for which they shall be rewarded.

Innovation with regards to the Shari`i Penalty of Cursing Sahaba by "Sipah-e-Sahaba" The extremist worshippers of Sahaba are doing propaganda and misguiding normal Muslims that it is Haram to criticize the wrongdoings of Sahaba. But it is against Islamic Sharia, which orders us not only to criticize the wrongdoings of any personality, but in case of some extreme "Wrongdoings" also send "Lanat" upon them. Allah says in Qur’an: [Yusufali 4:93] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. In order to conceal the wrongdoings of some Sahaba (like killing of Ammar Yasir by rebellious group), these Sahaba worshippers have innovated in Islamic Sharia, and demanding that any one who criticises some Sahaba for their wrongdoings, he should be put to DEATH. Similarly, they declare Shi’as Kaffir while they criticize those some Sahaba for their crimes. And not only they declare Shi’as Kaffir for this, but also it becomes a tactical means of shedding the blood of the innocent Shi'a. killing of Shi'as are justified, for they curse the Sahaba Shari'i Penalty of Cursing Sahaba according to Sharia The Islamic Sharia is very clear on this issue. Rasool Allah [saww] said: Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The gravest sin is going to lengths in talking unjustly against a Muslim's honour, and it is a major sin to abuse twice for abusing once. [Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4859 ] So, abusing/cursing any Muslim unjustly is a gravest sin and punishment for this is ABUSING ONLY ONCE IN RETURN (And if someone abuses twice in return, it's again a Major SIN). This is all what Islamic Sharia says about abusing/cursing other Muslim (irrespective of being Sahaba or normal Muslim). Abu Bakr also witnessed this fact. Narrated Ab Bakr: Abu Barzah said: I was with Ab Bakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot words. I said: Do you permit me, Caliph of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) that I cut off his neck? These words of mine removed his anger; he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said: What did you say just now? I said: (I had said

Permit me that I cut off his neck. He said: Would you do it if I ordered you? I said: Yes. He said: No, I swear by Allah, this is not allowed for any man after Muhammad (peace be upon him).Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4350 Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated by Abu Huraira: "One person was abusing Abu Bakr and Rasool Allah (s) was watching it and smiling. When he didn't stop, then Abu Bakr refuted him. Upon this, Prophet Muhammad (s) stood up and left. Hadhrath Abu Bakr said: "O Prophet of Allah, till the time he was abusing me, you kept on sitting (and smiling), and when I refuted him, why you became angry?" Rasool Allah (s) said: "O Abu Bakr, when he was abusing you, an angel was refuting him from your side, and when you started refuting him, then came devil and I cannot sit with devil". Masnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, vol. 2, page 436 Narrated 'Urwa from 'Ayesha: …(Zainab bint Jahsh complaint Rasool (saw) against Ayesha) On that she (Zainab bint Jahsh) raised her voice and abused 'Ayesha to her face so much so that Allah's Apostle looked at 'Ayesha to see whether she would retort. 'Ayesha started replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet then looked at 'Ayesha and said, "She is really the daughter of Abu Bakr." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755, translated in English by Saudi paid Alim Mohsin Khan Narrated Abu Salih As-Samman: I saw Abu Said Al-Khudri praying on a Friday, behind something which acted as a Sutra. A young man from Bani Abi Mu'ait, wanted to pass in front of him, but Abu Said repulsed him with a push on his chest. Finding no alternative he again tried to pass but Abu Said pushed him with a greater force. The young man (a Tabai) abused Abu Said(a Sahabi) and went to Marwan and lodged a complaint against Abu Said and Abu Said followed the young man to Marwan who asked him, "O Abu Said! What has happened between you and the son of your brother?" Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 9, Number 488 Note: The word of "Tabai" in above parenthesis i.e. in (The young man (a Tabai) abused Abu Said) are not ours but of Salafi Translator of Sahih Bukhari Mohsin Khan. Narrated Anas: It was said to the Prophet "Would that you see Abdullah bin Ubai." So, the Prophet went to him, riding a donkey, and the Muslims accompanied him, walking on salty barren land. When the Prophet

Cursing Sahaba; Shari’i penalty To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/cursing_sahaba/en/index.php



reached 'Abdullah bin Ubai, the latter said, "Keep away from me! By Allah, the bad smell of your donkey has harmed me." On that an Ansari man said (to 'Abdullah), "By Allah! The smell of the donkey of Allah's Apostle is better than your smell." On that a man from 'Abdullah's tribe got angry for 'Abdullah's sake, and the two men abused each other which caused the friends of the two men to get angry, and the two groups started fighting with sticks, shoes and hands. We were informed that the following Divine Verse was revealed (in this concern):-- "And if two groups of Believers fall to fighting then, make peace between them." (49.9)Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 856 Narrated Said: Aban bin Said came to the Prophet and greeted him. Abu Huraira said, "O Allah's Apostle! This (Aban) is the murderer of the Ibn Qauqal." (On hearing that), Aban said to Abu Huraira, "How strange your saying is! You, a guinea pig, descending from Qadum Dan, blaming me for (killing) a person whom Allah favored (with martyrdom) with my hand, and whom He forbade to degrade me with his hand.' Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 545 Sulaiman b. Surad reported that two persons abused each other in the presence of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and the eyes of one of them became red as embers and the veins of his neck were swollen. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I know of a wording, if he were to utter that, his fit of rage (would be no more and that wording is): I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the accursed. Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6316 (Ayesha said): The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) came upon me while Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, was with us. He began to do something with his hand. I signalled to him until I made him understand about her. So he stopped. Zaynab came on and began to abuse Ayesha. She tried to prevent her but she did not stop.So he (the Prophet) said to Ayesha: Abuse her. So she abused her and dominated her. Zaynab then went to Ali and said: Ayesha abused you and did (such and such)…….. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4880 Briefly, there are a lot of occasions when Sahaba cursed each other in presence of Rasool Allah [saww], but he never ordered the killing of people on this account. Fatwas of Ulama of Ahle-Sunnah Imam Hafidh Ibne Taymiyyah al-Damishqi Imam Ibne Taymiyyah (Sheikul-ul-Islam of Salafies) wrote in his book Al-Sarimul Maslool, page 579 (first published by Taba Sa'ada Egypt), while giving arguments against Kufr of person who insulted Sahaba: "And merely abusing

some one other than the Prophets does not necessarily make the abuser Kaffir; because some of those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e. companions) used to abuse one another and none of them was declared kaffir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is not Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers and the Last day" Imam Nawawi Al-Shafi Imam Mohiyyuddin Al-Nawwawi Al-Shafi writes: "There is a consensus of All Aima and Fuqha of Ahle-Sunnah that abusing Sahaba Karam is Haram, but the punishment for this is not killing" [Al-Nawwawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, page 310, published in Delhi ] Hadhrath Umar Ibne Abdul Aziz One of his representatives from Kufa wrote him: "Please advise me about a person, who abused Umar bin Al-Khattab. Should I kill him?" He replied him: It is not allowed to kill any person due to abusing any muslim, except in case of abusing Rasool Allah (s). Thus, if anyone abuses Nabi (s), then his blood is Mubah". [Al-Tabaqaatul Kubraa, v. 5, p 369, published in Bairut.] Mulla Ali Qari "It is neither proved by Sahaba nor Tabaeen to kill a person or declare him kaffir who insults Abu Bakr and Umar. And the 3 Imams i.e. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yousuf are unanimous that a person who insults Sheikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) is neither Kaffir nor Wajib-ul-Qatl. According to Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu Yousuf, even the witness of such a person is acceptable. Silalatul Risalah, page 19, published in Jordan In order to more clarify this fact, Mullah Ali Qari writes in "Sharah Fiqh Akbar": "Then again from the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa that Ahle Qibla, even if he is Ahle Bidah (innovator) doesn't become Kaffir due to his sins, it proves that no one becomes Kaffir merely by abusing Abu Bakr and Umar. To abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur as Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And it is because the basis of this claim (claim that reviling the Shaykhayn is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is confirmed. It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhayn(Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in this rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the Shaykhayn, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all of them together, even then according to Ahlussunnah wa al-Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e. will not become kaffir) Sharah Fiqah Akbar, page 86 Matba Qayyumi, India

Are the Shi'a kaffir BECAUSE Tahreef traditions exist in their texts? Nasibis often cite tahreef traditions from Usul al Kafi. In reply to these traditions we will advance the following arguments: Hadith can NOT contradict the Qur'an With regards to the traditions of Usul al Kafi that Nasibi shamelessly quotes, we should point out that these traditions have been deemed by the Ulema to be weak narrations. In addition to this Allah (swt) takes the responsibility of protection of the Qur'an Himself by declaring: "Certainly We revealed the Reminder and certainly We shall preserve it." ( Holy Qur'an 15: 9) When Allah (swt) provides a guarantee that it is protected, any hadith of tahreef automatically has to be rejected. We do not deny that these traditions exist, but the Nasibis should know that there is a difference between tahreef traditions and basing one's aqeedah on those traditions. The ultimate standard to determine the authenticity of any hadith is the Qur'an, if it conflicts with Allah (swt)'s Book it must be disregarded. This is also confirmed by al-Kulayni, compiler of al-Kafi from where the Nasibis cite the tahreef traditions to their followers. Sunni traditions of tahreef Despite this quite logical fact Nasibis and the fellow Nasibi groups insist on declaring Shi'as kaffirs on account of tahreef traditions. They are in effect forcing us to accept that these traditions are a part of aqeedah. By that logic, if Shi'as are kaffir then so are the Ahl'ul Sunnah for like the Shi'a their texts also contain traditions of tahreef. We will provide a few examples: A missing verse on stoning? Hadhrath Umar's saying that the current Qur'an is incomplete. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8, pages 209-210, we read this sermon delivered by Hadhrath Umar during his last Hajj as Khalifa: "Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning. We read it and understood it". "The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, someone may say, 'By God, we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God;' thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed. "Stoning is in the Book of God. It is the right punishment for a person who commits adultery if the required witnesses are available, or there was

pregnancy without marriage or adultery is admitted." Hadhrath Ayesha also testified to a 'missing' verse on stoning "When the verses "Rajm" [Stoning] and ayah "Rezah Kabir" descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper while we were mourning. Sunan Ibne Majah, Vol 2, P 39, Published Karachi… Has most of Surah Ahzab been lost? Al-Muttaqi 'Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book "Mukhtasar Kanz al-'Ummal" printed on the margin of Imam Ahmad's Musnad, Volume 2, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33, said that Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said: 'Umar said to me 'How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?' I said, '72 or 73 verses.' He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning. Has most of the Qur'an been lost? Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti records the following words of Abdullah ibne Umar: "No one can proclaim that I have found the Qur'an complete because most of the Qur'an has been lost". " Tafseer Durre Manthur" as-Suyuti Volume 1 page 104 A missing verse on suckling Muslim also reported in the Book of al-Rida'ah (Book of Nursing), part 10, page 29, that 'Ayesha said the following: "There was in what was revealed in the Qur'an that ten times of nursing known with certainty makes the nursing woman a mother of a nursed child. This number of nursing would make the woman 'haram' (forbidden) to the child. Then this verse was replaced by 'five known nursing' to make the woman forbidden to the child. The Prophet died while these words were recorded and read in the Qur'an." Did the Sahaba read verses containing 'Ali's name? Ibn Masud notes that he would read this verse from Surah Ahzab as follows: "and enough was Allah for the believers in their fight 'via Ali ibn Abi Talib'. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 192 One should note that Hadhrath Abdullah bin Masud would read these verses with name the 'Ali. His text contained this, and he himself states that he read a verse

Sunnis & Tahreef (distortions) in Qur’an To read the entire chapter please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/creed_of_shia_explained/en/chap3.php



in this way in the presence of Rasulullah (s). Perhaps Nasibis could shed light as to why we no longer find the name 'Ali in the current Qur'an? The answer will of course be that the name here was contained in Ibn Masud's Tafseer of the Qur'an. We likewise say exactly the same when explaining our similar texts, we believe that the some Sahaba had the name 'Ali inside verses in brackets, as an interpolation so that they would know about whom the verse descended. The words 'Ali (as) were NOT part of any verses, but simply a way of 'remembering' that this verse descended in praise of 'Ali. The Imams of Ahl'ul bayt (as) likewise wanted to remind the people about whom these verses descended. The actual Shi'a position Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (as) "We did not make humans rulers, but we made the Qur'an the ruler over humans. This Qur'an is free from change but does not speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task." Nahjul Balagha part 6 page 7, Publishers Rehmania Egypt Hadhrath Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) Ali bin Salam narrates from his father who asked Imam Jafer Sadiq (as) "O descendant of Prophet (S). What are your views on the Qur'an? Imam Jafer (as) replied 'the Qur'an is Allah's book; it contains commands of Allah; sent by Allah. It is not subject to alteration, neither can anyone claim that it has been changed, nor has anyone ever made such a claim. Amali-al-Shaykh Saduq, Page 545, Published Iran Shaykh Saduq (R.A) The completeness of Qur’an is so indisputable among Shi’a that the greatest Shi'a scholar of Hadith, Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn al-Husain Ibn Babueyh, known as "Shaykh Saduq" (309/919 - 381/991), wrote: "Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar." Etikadat Shaykh Saduq 93, Published Iran Allamah Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai This renowned scholar of the Qur'an writes in his very famous exegesis, Tafseer-ul-Meezan, 12th edition, page 109, Published Iran: The Qur'an, which Almighty Allah descended on Prophet Muhammad (S), is protected from any change.

Scholar's of Ahlul Sunnah that have vouched for the Shi'a viewpoint Allamah Abdul Haq Haqani Dehlavi Up until the present time no Shi'a scholar, or for that matter any adherent of the Islamic Faith has held a belief that the Qur'an has ever been altered or changed. The Shi'a scholars have reiterated this point in their texts. Tafseer-e-Haqani, 1st Edition, Page 63, Published Lahore Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehlavi Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehlavi, while acknowledging that the Shi'a do not believe that the Qur'an had been altered states: It is proven from all the traditions of the Imamia that the Ahl'ul bayt used to recite this same Qur'an and based their decisions in accordance with it. The commentary of Qur'an by Imam Hasan Askari is the commentary of this (same) Qur'an. All his children, relatives and servants studied 'this' Qur'an, and he used to order them to recite this Qur'an when praying. It is due to this fact that Shaykh Ibn-e-Bawia in his book "Al Aqidath" denied that Qur'an had been altered. Tuhfa Ithna Asharia, Page 281, Published Istanbul Apart from the scholars cited, numerous other Sunni scholars have also confirmed that the Shi'a do not believe that the Qur'an is incomplete. Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shaykh Ghazzali of Egypt in "Wafa an Al aqida wa Al Shariah" Page 265-266, Publishers Al kutub Al hadisia, Egypt, 1985 Imam Abu Zahra Misri in "Al Imam Al Sadiq", Page 206, Published Egypt Ahmed Abraham Being Ustad Shaykh Shaltoot in "Ilm Usul-e-Fiqh", page 21 published Egypt. Allamah Sami Arif-ud-Din in "Al muslimun man Hum", Page 98, Published Egypt. Allamah Muhammad Ali M.A Lahore in "Jameih-al-Qur'an", Page 111, Published Lahore. Maulana Ghulam Dastagir Anjahani in "Imamate-ul-Burhan", page 5, Published Lahore. Principal of the Shariah Department of Al Azhar University, Allamah Shaykh Muhammed-al-Madani in "Risalah'thul-Islam", 11th Edition, Pages 382-383, 4th Part Allamah Rehmatullah Hindi Dehlavi in "Izhar-ul-Haq" 2nd edition, Page 89-90, Publishers Mutabah Amira, Istanbul

What is Mut'ah? Nawawai in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, defined Mut'ah as follows: Nikah Mut'ah is marriage for a fixed time on Mehr agreed with the woman, when the time expires the marriage comes to an end. [Nawawai. Sharh Sahih Muslim. Volume 4, p. 13 ] Qur'anic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mut'ah The Verse of Mut'ah (4:24) [Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise. [Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24] Allah (swt) has used the word istimta'tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut'ah. Many of the Sunni Tafsir writers agree that this verse explicitly deals with Mut’ah for example "Istimatum' here refers to Nikah Mut'ah and this is a form of Nikah where a couple for a specified time have ownership of one another, and when the time expires they separate without Talaq" [Tafseer Mazhari Volume 3 p. 18…] We also read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Vol 2, P. 140 & 141 that Ibn Abbas(r) said: "Mut'ah was practised from the outset of Islam and the Companions would read the verse of Mut'ah with the words 'for a prescribed period'. Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Qur'an? The first argument is that the verse of Mut'ah came down, but this was abrogated when the verses dealing with marriage came down, such as the opening verses of Surat al-Mu'minun: "Successful are the believers, who are filled with awe in their salat, who turn away from vein talk, who give in charity, and who protect their chastity, except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess." Qur'an, Surah 23, Ayah 1-6 As anybody with even the most basic knowledge of Islam knows that the Prophet (s) migrated from Makka to Madinah, meaning he was in Makkah first. Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani in Fath al Mulhim, Sharh Muslim Volume 3 page 221 in his discussion of the verse , 'And those who

preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses' - states: "The verse being referred to descended in Makka" Whilst these verses descended in Makka, Sunni traditions confirm that Mut'ah was practised much later, during the battle of Khayber. This means that, according Nasibis, the abrogating verse (nasikh) was revealed before the abrogated verse (mansukh). This is, of course, a logical impossibility: how can the verse of Mut'ah be abrogated by the verses from Surat al-Mu'minun when the verse of Mut'ah was revealed after those verses? Allamah Baghdadi in his discussion of the verse 'And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses' also acknowledges this fact in his Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani Volume 9 page 10: "This verse is Makkan and descended before the Hijrah [migration], since Mut'ah was halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this as evidence of the illegality of Mut'ah". Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Sunnah? Analyzing the claim that Mut'ah was made haraam on the day of Khayber It is often said by the critics of Mut’ah that Prophet(s) forbade it at Khyber. But we see that the Sunni scholars have rejected the narration of Bukhari and Muslim wherein Mut'ah was banned on the Day of Khayber. We shall rely on the following authentic Sunni sources as proof: In Fathul Bari vol.9 pg. 145 and Neel al Authar vol.6 p. 146, Sunan Baihaqi vol.7 pg.201 and Zaad al Maad Volume 1 pg. 443 Abu Awaanah is quoted as writing in his Sahih: "I have heard scholars saying that the tradition related of Ali only talked of the prohibition of the eating of the meat of domestic asses and there was no mention of Mut'ah, and the tradition is silent on that matter". Above all, Ibn Qayyim says in Zaad al Maad Volume 2 page 142: that “If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen." Analyzing the claim that Mut'ah was made haraam at the time of the conquest of Makka Ibn al Qayyim states in Zaad al Maad: "Most argue that if this hadith were correct Ibn Masud would know about it. It is even narrated that they (himself and other companions) were practising it and that he proved the legitimacy of Mut'ah by quoting verse 24 of Surah Nisa . He further adds: "If the tradition

Mut’ah; a comprehensive guide To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/en/index.php



was correct Omar would not say: 'It (Mut'ah) was permissible during the time of Allah's Messenger (S) but from now henceforth I declare it forbidden and will punish those who practice it', he (Omar) would rather have said "The Messenger of Allah (S) prohibited it and forbade it. This argument is irrefutable. As will be discussed below, there is no doubt that it was 'Umar who forbade Mut'ah, and did so in complete contradiction to the hukm of the Prophet (s) and Allah (swt). The Truth: That 'Umar banned Mut'ah We cite the fatwa of Ibn Abbas(r), where he stated: "Mut'ah was blessing of Allah upon the Ummah of Muhammad and had Umar not prohibited it the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person." [Tafsir Durre Manthur Vol 2 p. 41 Ayat Mut'ah] It has been established that the Qur'an bore witness to the legitimacy of Mut’ah, and that it was originally halaal. All arguments about other verses abrogating the verse of Mut’ah have proven invalid. The only argument after this was the belief that the Prophet (s) had abrogated it in his Sunnah, but this was proven to be impossible: all of the hadeeths dramatically contradict each other on this issue. It is also well known that a large number of companions, if not the majority of them, continued to practice Mut’ah after the death of the Prophet (s). The only claim for the abrogation of Mut’ah which remains, then, is the only claim which is true: that it was "abrogated" by 'Umar, who of course had no authority to do such a thing. This acknowledgement is made in Ahl'ul Sunnah's esteemed work al Awail, wherein we read: "The first to make Mut’ah haraam was 'Umar" Indeed, the Sahaba deemed Umar to be a liar when it came to this issue. We read in Tafseer Kabeer p. 41: "Imam Ali(as) said "Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person." Admission by Umar We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 p. 12 hadith 369 that : "When Umar become Khalifa he issued a sermon to the people of the Qur’an is the same Qur’an and Rasulullah(s) is the same Rasulullah(s). During the time of Rasulullah there were two types of Mut'ah, Mut'ah of Hajj and Mut'ah of Nisa." It is stated in Kanz al Ummal Volume 8 p. 93 Bab Mut'ah. "Ibn Qalaba narrates Umar said, 'During the lifetime of Rasulullah(s) there were two types of Mut'ah, I now prohibit them and shall inflict the punishment of the Zina on its perpetrators." Imam Malik issued a Fatwa that Mut'ah is halaal We read in Fatwa Qadhi khan Volume 1 p 151 al Nikah Fayl: "Mut'ah cannot be Nikah , Mut'ah is false,

it should not be practised, Ibn Abbas and Imam Malik had differing views, in their views this was practicable". Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal deemed Mut'ah to be Halal We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 14, Surah Nisa verse 24: "Ibn Abbas and other party amongst the Sahaba narrated traditions that Mut'ah is halaal, and Ibn Hanbal also said that it was practicable" The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral Critics of Mut’ah deem it immoral while an un-Islamic and worst form of marriage is permissible among Wahabis namely 'Zawaj al Missyar' or 'Marriage with the intention of Divorce'. See the fatwa of Shiekh Bin Baz at http://www.binbaz.org.sa/last_resault.asp?hID=323 where he states: "…Response: Yes, this fatwa has come from Permanent Council (of Muftis), and I am its leader, and we have ruled that it is permissible to marry with the intention of getting divorced, if this intention is between the servant and his Lord. If someone marries in a Western country, and his intention is that when he finishes his studies or finds a job or something like this that he will get divorced, then there is absolutely no problem with this in the opinion of all 'ulama…" This is absolutely bizarre. Bin Baz has permitted something that is in no way different from a temporary marriage. If a marriage with the intention to divorce is not temporary marriage, what is it? The only reason Bin Baz says Mut'ah is invalid is because the man actually tells the woman this beforehand, and that they agree on it, and that this condition is binding. Basically this amounts to saying that since Mut'ah is honest, it is haram. So if a man lies to a woman and promises her a permanent marriage, and then divorces her one-hour later, this is fine. But if a man and woman actually agree together that the marriage is only to last a month or what have you, then it is haram. For the Bin Baz camp its perfectly legitimate for a man to marry a woman [with the 'hidden' intention of divorcing her afterwards] if this is not deception then what on earth is? Few Facts About Mut’ah Just like in permanent marriage, there is 'waiting period' or 'iddah' for woman in Mut’ah [Tafseer-e-Kabir", v 3, page 286 ; Wasai'l, vol. 21, p. 44, hadeeth #26489… ] About the inheritance of child out of Mut’ah, it is well known amongst the Shi'a that the child of Mut'ah is considered legitimate and has all rights of inheritance.[See: http://www.mutah.com/muta2.html ] The child born out of such marriage is no doubt legitimate. We can read that two beloved Sahaba of Sunnis Urwa and Abdullah were indeed the products of this union when their mother Asma bint Abu Bakr contracted Mut’ah with Zubayr. Musnad Abu Dawud Vol 1, Page 309 Published Bairut; Al-Maudhoorath Volume 2 page 96 by Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah al-Raghib al-Isfahani.

Introduction This topic has been the subject of intense debate in the world of Sunni / Shi'a polemics since the death of Rasulullah (s). Discussions in connection with the attack on the house of Sayyida Fatima always generate huge emotions, so intense that they in effect force people to think about which side of the Sunni / Shi'a divide they choose to remain on. This tragic episode in effect explains why it is that Shi'a Muslims bear enmity to some of those individuals that Sunni Muslims deem to be their heroes. The anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61 "Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry." This hadith makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)'s anger is on par with the anger of Rasulullah (s). This is all the more significant when we recognize that one who incurs the wrath of Rasulullah (s) also incurs the wrath of Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that we should steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah (swt). Analysing the event from classical Sunni sources There are many authentic Sunni sources where this incident has been recorded but for the sake of brevity, we shall cite some of them in this flyer. First Reference - al Imama wa al Siyasa Let us begin with Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah (d. 276 Hijri) who in his famous book al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-28 states as follows: "When news reached Abu Bakr that the people had gathered in the house of 'Ali and were refusing to give bayya, he sent Hadhrath Umar in their direction. Umar called out to Akraan who was in the house of 'Ali, but he refused to come out. Umar then said: 'I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, if you people do not come out of the house I shall set fire to it, and everyone inside shall perish. The people said 'Abu'l Hafs (Umar), Fatima (daughter of Rasulullah (s)) is also in this house'. Umar replied, 'I do not care about this, people should leave the house of 'Ali and give bayya'. 'Ali replied I have sworn that I shall not set foot outside my home until I have completed compiling the Qur'an. [ Al-Imama Walsiyasa Page 12 ] Second Reference - Tareekh Abul Fida Sunni historian Abul Fida in his discussion on the attack on the house of Fatima (as) recorded the event, in a very low

key / cautious tone, but as a scholar of integrity and honesty he has refused to cover up history and has still acknowledged that the event did indeed take place and Umar threatened to burn Fatima (sa) alive: "Then Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab with the objective that those 'people gathered in the house of Fatima and Ali come out, and that if anyone objects to coming out then you should fight them'. Hadrath Umar approached with fire in his hands to set the house ablaze. At this point Hadhrath Fatima approached and said 'Would do you dare, Ibn Khattab? Do you wish to set my home on fire? Umar said 'Give bayya to 'Abu Bakr and enter into that which the majority of the Ummah has agreed to.' Tareekh Abul Fida Urdu translation by Maulana Karrem'ud Deen al Hanafi pages 177-179 Third Reference - Iqd al Fareed Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik in his book Iqd al Fareed Volume 3 page 283 states: "Those that were opposed to the bayya of Abu Bakr were 'Ali, Abbas, Zubayr and Sa'd bin Ubada, amongst whom 'Ali and Abbas were sitting in the house of Fatima. At that time Abu Bakr sent Umar with the order 'that you remove those gathered in the house of Fatima, and if they refuse to come out then kill them'. Umar brought fire to the door and Fatima said 'Ibn Khattab have you arrived in order to set my home on fire?'. Umar replied 'I have come with the intention that you people give bayya to Abu Bakr as others have done". Fourth Reference - Tareekh Tabari The most renowned Sunni historian Ibn Jareer al Tabari also recorded this event. We read in al Tabari (English translation) Volume 9 page 187: Ibn Humayd - Jarir - Mughirah - Ziyad b. Kulayb: Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." Sayyida Fatima (as) suffered a miscarriage on account of Umar's actions We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah's authoritative work Sharh Kushaiji page 407 under the chapter Mubais Imamate as follows: "Abu Bakr sent Umar when Ali had refused to give bayya to Abu Bakr. Umar went with fire and this caused Fatima distress as a result of which she suffered a miscarriage".

Burning the house of Fatima binte Mohammad [saww] To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/index.php



What is this "distress" that led to Fatima (as) miscarrying her child so that the infant was stillborn? If it was Santa beating up a woman then Santa must surely also be a murderer. Sunni scholar Salahuddin Khalil al-Safadi in his book 'Waafi al-Wafiyyaat' under the letter 'A' cited the view of Ibrahim Ibn Sayyar Ibn Hani al-Basri, well-known as Nidhaam: "On the day of 'Bay'aat' (paying allegiance), Umar hit Fatimah (AS) on the stomach such that child in her womb died." Hanafi scholar al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in Murujj al Nubuwwa "Chapter 4, the events of 2 Hijri 'Tajweez Fatima'": "Allah (swt) gave Fatima and 'Ali the following five children, Hasan, Husayn, Zeyneb, Umme Kalthum and Muhsin, who was martyred following the Ummah's oppression, this illness and pain led to the death of Fatima". The Islamic penalty for one guilty of causing Sayyida Fatima (as) to have a miscarriage We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed page 531 "Dhikr Badr" as follows: "Naqeeb Abu Jafer states that when Jabir bin Asood who frightened Zeyneb causing her to suffer a miscarriage, Rasulullah (s) deemed it permissible (mubah) shed his blood. Had Rasulullah (s) been alive he would have likewise deemed it permissible to shed the blood of the individual that frightened Fatima, to the extent that she had a miscarriage". The respect afforded to house of Sayyida Fatima (as) by Rasulullah (s) The exalted rank and respect afforded to the house of Fatima (as) Ahl'ul Sunnah's leading Sunni scholar of Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 51, al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in Tafseer Durre Manthur, narrates from Ibn Marwaya - Uns bin Malik - Burhaida: "Rasulullah (s) recited this verse 'and amongst houses is a house that Allah has ordered to be exalted'. A Sahaba asked 'O Prophet of Allah whose house is being referred to here?' He (s) said this refers to the houses of Prophets. At this point Abu Bakr pointed in the direction of the house of Ali and Fatima and asked is the house of 'Ali and Fatima included amongst the homes of the Prophets?' Rasulullah (s) replied 'Yes their home is superior to their homes'. It is tragic that a house that Rasulullah (s) had testified to having such a rank, where guidance shone out from in Paradise, was attacked with Umar threatening to set it on fire! We ask those with open minds, can there be a more heinous act than that? The devil had taken hold of Umar's mind. The sheer impudence in his personality, the arrogance with which he treated the Holy Prophet (saws), cannot be forgiven.

Did Umar not think about the consequences of his actions? He knew Sayyida Fatima (as) was in the house, if there was any doubt that her (as) remonstrating with him, confirmed this. Despite this he arrogantly replied to her and made his intention clear that he was willing to kill her and those in the house if bayya was not given to Abu Bakr. Just imagine a madman like that in your neighbourhood- you would warn your wife and kids not to go anywhere near him…his actions would make the national news headlines… "PSYCHO TRIES TO BURN PREGNANT WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN TO DEATH"… indeed it is so shocking it made the Islamic headlines also… all the great SUNNI men of letters we quoted noted it...it's preserved there over a thousand years later. Note that even in jihad, it is forbidden to terrorise women and children…so what was this man doing? The reaction of Sayyida Fatima(as) The fact of the matter was that it was so serious that Sayyida Fatima despised Abu Bakr to the degree that she did not even want him to participate in her funeral prayers or attend her funeral. Sayyida Fatima (as) stipulated that no one attends her funeral, who she was upset with, and this testimony has been vouched for in the following books of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

• Tabaqat ibn Sa'd, Dhikr Fatima page 19 • Mustadrak al Hakim Dhikr Fatima page 192 • Hilayath al Auliya page 43

Sayyida Fatima (as)'s eulogy of her suffering Hadhrath 'Ali stated 'following the death of Rasulullah (s), Fatima (s) went to the grave of the Prophet (s) and recited these words: "O my beloved father, since your death I have faced such troubles that had these fallen on the day it would have turned into night" [ Tarikh Khamees p173, Murujh al Nubuwwath page 443 Dhikr Dufun Rasulullah (s) …] These words have entered the Arabic language as a mournful expression in prose, so powerful are they. These words, used by countless Arab women ever since down to the present, including the daughters of martyred fathers falling at the hands of injustice, originate from those of Sayyida Fatima (as) all those years ago and stand as proof that she had suffered immense torment following the death of her father - it is clear evidence that she was persecuted and was so hurt by her treatment that she complained to Rasulullah (s) after his passing. The haunting memory of Fatima (as)'s pain is testified to also in the fact that uniquely amongst those that died during that period, her grave in Madina is unknown. She was also buried at night. Why? Because the Umar and his Cronies could not force themselves onto her funeral procession.

Fadak is a controversial issue that has since the death of Rasulullah (s) created an open wound between the Sunni and Shi'a schools of thought. The best summary exists from Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325: Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),'After the death of Allah's Apostle Fatima,the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her the share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting)which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "the holy Prophet (saww) had said, 'Our property will not be inherited; whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Holy prophet(saww). The scholors of Ahle Sunnah have fought tirelessly to uphold the decision of Abu Bakr as correct. The reason that they do so is because so much hangs on upholding Abu Bakr's stance. After all if he is proven wrong then they will have to admit that the Khalifa coined a tradition to justify the usurpation of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as). The matter would not just end there it will raise more serious issues such as. 1) The Justice of the Sahaba - If the 'best friend' of the Prophet (s) could behave in such an unjust manner what can we expect of the other Sahaba? 2) If Abu Bakr ruled in such an unjust manner then how can he be deemed the rightly guided Khalifa of the Prophet (s)? 3) If hatred for Abu Bakr is a sin then why did Sayyida Fatima (as) hate Abu Bakr until her dying day?

General facts on Fadak What is Fadak? "Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of travel from Madina. There were wells of water and trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu Bakr, "My father gave me this Fadak as a present". Abu Bakr asked her in reply to produce witnesses." [Tareekh-e-Khamees, v2, p88 …]

The income from Fadak "Abu Dawud says that when Umar bin Abdul-Aziz became Caliph, the income from the property of Fadak was 40,000 Dinars.” [ Sunan Abu Dawud, v3, p144 ]

How did the Prophet attain Fadak? "When the Prophet (s) returned from Khayber, he sent Muhisa bin Masood to propagate Islam to the people of Khayber. The leader of the Jews of Khayber at that time was Yusha bin Nun. The people of Fadak refused to accept Islam, but offered to give them half of their Land of Fadak. The Prophet (s) took half the land and allowed them to live there. This half Land of Fadak was property of the Prophet (s), as the Muslims didn't ride horses over it". [Tareekh Kamil, v2, p108, …]

The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as) aquired Fadak Allah declares in the Holy Qur'an: And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.Al-Qur'an Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali ,

We read in various tafsirs of Ahle sunnah that :

"Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her". [Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177, …]

The contents of the written paper which Prophet (s) gave Fatima Zahra (as) In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the written document:Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it's sin is on his head. And Allah is "Sami" and "Aleem". Abu Bakr's rejection of witnesses' testimony Fatima [as] asked her right of Fadak which was gifted to her by Prophet(s) but when Abu Bakar rejected that stance, She (as) asked it throught law of inheritence. The fact is that Abu Bakar accepted

Fadak; The property of Fatima al-Zahra[as] To read the entire book please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/index.php




, ,

Umme Kalthum (as) as witnesses to corroborate her claim, but he rejected all of them. “Fatima made a claim that Rasulullah (s) left Fadak for her and she presented the testimonies of Umm Ayman and 'Ali in her favour, yet the criteria for witness numbers was not met. There are differences amongst the scholars as to whether a husband can testify in favour of a claim made by his wife. It can also be said that Fatima did not ask her witnesses to make a claim on oath. People have also said that Hassan, Husayn and Umm Kalthum testified in support of Fatima's claim, this is Batil, the testimony of offspring or underage children in favour of their parents is unacceptable.” [Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Page 138 & 139 ]

When Abu Bakr felt like it, he would accept a claim without the need for witnesses Narrated Muhammad bin Ali: Jabir bin Abdullah said, "When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr received some property from Al-Ala bin Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, "Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet, or was promised something by him, should come to us (so that we may pay him his right)." Jabir added, "I said (to Abu Bakr), Allah's Apostle promised me that he would give me this much, and this much, and this much (spreading his hands three times)." Jabir added, "Abu Bakr counted for me and handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and then five-hundred, and then five-hundred." [Sahih, Muslim, Volume 2 page 291, …] All that it took was the word of Jabir that Rasulullah (s) owed him money; no witnesses were presented to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakr's opinion was that the money should be returned to Jabir, without the need for witnesses, he didn't say anything that contradicted the Qur'an, yet when Fatima [as] claimed that the land of Fadak was bequeathed to her as inheritance, he refused to grant her the land, on the premise that the stipulated witnesses required to give evidence were not met. Rules of Inheritance in the Qur'an With regard to inheritance, we read the verse of Surah Nisa 004.007, translated by Yusufali “From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, a determinate share”.

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half”.Al-Qur'an Surah an-Nisa Ayah 11, Yusufali These verse proves that a daughter of any person whether normal or a Prophet(s) is the Waris of her father. Qur'anic proof that Prophets leave inheritance to their offsprings Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016: “And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye 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.)" We read in many sunni tafsirs including Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani vol 24,p 183: "Maqathil narrates that there were one thousand horses, and Sulayman inherited these from his father” In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya: “Praying: "O my Lord! Infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!" Sayyida Fatima (as) left a will that Abu Bakr be prevented from attending her funeral "When Sayyida Fatima died, Ayesha arrived with the intention of coming in, but Asma physically prevented her from entering. Ayesha complained to Abu Bakr that 'this woman has prevented me from participating in the funeral rites of the Prophet's daughter' Abu Bakr then came himself and asked 'Asma why do you prevent the wife of the Prophet (s) from, entering?' She replied 'The Lady had personally ordered her exclusion'. [al Istiab Volume 4 page 367,…]

The rebellion of Hadhrath Ayesha against Hadhrath 'Ali (as) Hadhrath Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Qur'an Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s): "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Qur’an 33:33 We read in Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 commentary of Surah Ahzab, that: "When Hadhrath Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Qur’an 33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used to get wet with tears". The prohibition on Hadhrath Hafsa that she not join Ayesha proves that Ayesha was misguided We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 231 that: "Hadhrath Hafsa binte Umar made preparations to join Ayesha, but (her brother) Abdullah Ibne Umar prevented her from going". Ayesha wanted to install herself as the Imam over the nation In Tadkhira al Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the narrator states: "I was walking through Jamal and witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels and reciting poetry, another narrators states that someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who intends to become Ameerul Momineen". Answering the Ibn Saba Defence Card Nasibis seek to play down the situation with the claim that the two parties had resolved hostilities and that the battle of Jamal was in fact started by the followers of Ibn Saba hiding within Imam 'Ali (as)'s army, hence they should be blamed for the fitnah. Ayesha's killing of the Shi'a of 'Ali at Basra destroys the Ibn Saba defence card "In Kufa Abu Burdha Azdi asked Hadhrath 'Ali, 'why were people killed at Jamal?'. 'Ali replied 'They killed my Shi'a and my officials without any justification, then they fought me, despite the fact that they gave me bayya, they killed 1000 of my companions". [ Muttalib al Saul page 119 ]

Was Ayesha seeking Qisas for the blood of Uthman ? Imam 'Ali (as) rejects Ayesha's demand of Qisas for Uthman In Muttalib al Saul page 116 we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Hadhrath 'Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:"…Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra". Hadhrath Ayesha's incitement against Uthman refutes the defence of Qisas A woman who was so determined that she was willing to go to war to avenge Uthman's death would have been just as vocal in defending him during his lifetime. Curiously we find that this was not the case and we have this testimony by Imam 'Ali (as) in a letter written to Ayesha as recorded in Seerath al Halabiyya Volume 3 page 356: "You have acted in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) by leaving your home, you have made demands for those things that you have no right. You claim to wish to reform the Ummah, tell me, what role do women have in reforming the Ummah and participating in battles? You claim that you wish to avenge Uthman's murder despite the fact that he is a man from Banu Ummayya and you are a woman from Banu Taym. If we look in to the matter it was only yesterday that you had said 'Kill Nathal May Allah (swt) kill him because he has become a kaffir". Ibn Atheer in Nahaya page 80 Volume 5 record that: "Nathal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was referring to Uthman". Hadhrath Ayesha's enmity towards Imam 'Ali (as) 'Ali Muttaqi al Hind in Kanz al-`ummal, Chapter 8 Kitab “Mawa azafee katheeya'thul taweela” records the testimony of Imam 'Ali (as): Hadhrath Ali said, "Ayesha fought me because firstly being a woman she possessed a weak judgement and secondly she bore enmity towards me and it would open in the same way a pot is opened. She would have never fought anyone other than me in that way".

Ayesha To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php




Ayesha's reaction at the death of Ali (as) "When news of 'Ali's death reached Ayesha, she said: And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home". [ al Tabari Volume 17 page 224 ] Professor G. R. Hawting who states in the footnote on page 224: "…the verse is proverbial ands is cited indicate pleasure at something". Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, "One that expresses happiness at the suffering of Ahl'ul bayt (as) is a murtad" In Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263: "What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who disrespect the family of the Prophet and the descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such individuals as Murtad". Was Hadhrath Ayesha the most superior wife of Rasulullah(s)? Rasulullah said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds whom Allah chose over all women are: Asiya the wife of Pharaoh, Mary the daughter of Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, and Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad" [ Sunan al-Tirmidhi, v5, p702 ] Hadhrath Ayesha's jealousy of Hadhrath Khadija is clear proof that she was not the most superior wife In Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.166 Ayesha herself narrates: "I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija," he would say, "Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children." Jealousy is a trait inherent in a person who is envious of the superior position of another, and Ayesha's admission "I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija", is clear proof that Ayesha was fully aware of the superior rank of Hadhrath Khadija. Had Ayesha indeed been the most superior wife there would have been no need for her to be jealous. Were Abu Bakr and Ayesha the most beloved of Rasulullah (s)?

The most beloved are those individuals whose love has been made compulsory in the Qur'an Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin." (Qur’an 42:23). Jalaladin Suyuti in Tafsir Durre Manthur under the commentary of this verse records the following: Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates 'When this verse descended the people asked who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?' Rasulullah said they are 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn'. Hadhrath Ayesha's condemnation in the Qur'an is further proof that she was not the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s) Some Ahl'ul Sunnah assert that since Ayesha was the most superior wife then that means that she was the most superior of all women. Not only is the claim that she was the most superior wife baseless, the fact of the matter is in Surah Tahreem, Allah (swt) also states this: "Perhaps if he divorces you, his Lord will give him wives who are better than you, who submit and believe (Qur'an 66:5)" - this clearly indicates that there were believing women among the Muslims who were much better than Ayesha. Do the Shi'a slander Hadhrath Ayesha? The Sahaba slandered the character of Hadhrath Ayesha "Hadhrath Ayesha was accused of illicit relations. Those responsible for spreading this allegation were Hadhrath Abu Bakr's cousin Mustha bin Hasasa and the Prophet's sister in law Humna binte Hajash and the poet Hasan bin Thabit. The Prophet ordered that they be flogged and they were punished accordingly" [al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page 160 Volume] The 'true' Shi’a position with regards to Hadhrath Ayesha "The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my Ahl alBayt protect my nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them, they will all then differ and become the party of Satan." [page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-Mustadrak ] Had Hadhrath Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul Momineen living a life of piety within the confines of her home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed respect that the wives of Rasulullah (s) deserve. Unfortunately her envy and greed lead her to mount a mass rebellion against the Imam of the time 'Ali ibne abi Talib (as).

The gist Nasibis has been to absolve the Sahaba of any wrongdoing in the killing of ‘Uthman. They have done their utmost to locate sources that protect the leading companions, for they know too well that failure to do so, in effect raises serious questions on the Ahl’ul Sunnah’s aqeedah on the justice of the Sahaba.

Identifying ‘Uthman’s killers

Hadhrath Ayesha’s lead role in killing Uthman Many of the books of Ahl’ul Sunnah record that Ayesha had declared ‘Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Ibn Atheer in Nahaya page 80 Volume 5 and Ibn Mansur in Lisan al Arab Volume 11 Chapter "Lughuth Nathal" page 670 both record that: "Nathal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was referring to ‘Uthman". 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". Sahaba had highlighted Ayesha’s shift in policy on Uthman In Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 100 Ibn Atheer records that: "Ubayd bin Abi Salma who was a maternal relative of Ayesha met her as she was making her way to Madina. Ubayd said "‘Uthman has been killed and the people were without an Imam for eight days" to which Ayesha asked "What did they do next?". Ubayd said "The people approached '‘Ali and gave him bayya". Ayesha then said 'Take me back! Take me back to Makka". She then turned her face towards Makka and said, 'Verily ‘Uthman was murdered innocently, and By Allah, I shall avenge his blood'. Ubayd then said 'You are now calling ‘Uthman innocent, even though it was you who said 'Kill Nathal, this Jew".

Talha & Zubayr’s lead role in killing UthmanImam of Ahl’ul Sunnah al Zuhri records a conversation between Imam ‘Ali (as) and Zubayr prior to the battle of Jamal: "Ali said: 'Zubayr, do you fight me for the blood of Uthman after you killed him? May God give the most hostile to Uthman among us the consequence that that very person dislikes’. [Tarikh Tabari, V 4, p90] We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 7 page 248 Dhikr Jamal: “Talha was killed in the battle of Jamal

by the arrow of Marwan, who then told Aban-bin-Utham that I have taken the revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman”.

Identifying the usual suspects

The Muhajir, Ansar and other faithful living in Madina killed Uthman We read in Iqd al Fareed page 215: “The leaders of the group who killed ‘Uthman were Abdur Rahman bin Adees, Hakeem-bin-Jaleeh and Abdullah-bin-Fadeek. They came to Madina and with both, the Ansar and Muhajireen, surrounded the house of ‘Uthman, they finally stormed it and killed him”. The Sahaba wrote to people inciting them to rise up against ‘Uthman The fact is the Sahaba had written letters inciting uprising against ‘Uthman. We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa, page 64, that when Talha and Ayesha reached Basra, a man approached Talha and said: “O Talha, Do you recognize this letter?” Talha answered, “Yes” to which the man said’ “Don’t you feel ashamed that only a few days earlier, you wrote letters to us inciting us to kill ‘Uthman and now you ask to revenge his blood?” In Iqd al Farid, Page 218, Volume 6, it is written that Marwan told Ayesha that “‘Uthman was killed on account of your letters”. Talha and Ayesha were not the only individuals to wrote letters, rather the Sahaba living in Madina had become disillusioned with Uthman and encouraged those Sahaba in other provinces to come to Madina and oppose Uthman. As proof we present al Tabari, English version, v15, p184 who narrates on the authority of Ibn Ishaq: “When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad's religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad's religion." Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman)”.

Who really killed ‘Uthman? To read the entire topic please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/index.php



The Sahaba and their children colluded with the Egyptians to kill ‘Uthman We read in Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 385, Dhikr Fadail ‘Uthman: “When the Egyptian forces landed at “Ghafa” and began to talk ill of ‘Uthman ‘Uthman, ‘Uthman got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me. A Sahaba that pledged allegiance under the tree of Ridhwan commanded the Egyptian rebels “Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman-bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” peace treaty, and he was also present at the “allegiance under the tree”, “Allegiance of Rizwan”, and he was the commander of the group that came from Egypt and surrounded the house of ‘Uthman and killed him”. [Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203,…] Mu’awiya’s cousin Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa played a lead role alongside the Egyptians in killing ‘Uthman We read in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa: “The lead figure in inciting people against ‘Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, ‘Uthman raised him for many years after his father had died. When people began to oppose ‘Uthman, Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this worsened the situation”.

Talha advised the Egyptians during the siege of ‘Uthman’s palace Whilst the Egyptians had surrounded ‘Uthman’s home, the presence of prominent Sahaba on the ground is what gave their opposition momentum. Talha was present outside ‘Uthman’s residence during the siege. Qays bin Abi Hadhim al Baj’ali narrates that a man had visited Talha during the siege and requested that he intervene to prevent the death of ‘Uthman. Talha replied “No by Allah, not until the Banu Ummayya surrender the right on their own accord”.[Tareekh Damishq, by Ibn Asakr, Chapter “‘Uthman” page 407]

Sahaba that participated in Badr also participated in the killing of ‘Uthman We read in al Istiab Volume 4 page 48, Dhikr Abu al Hasan Mazani: “Abu Al Hasan Mazani was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (s), and he was one of the companions present in “Aqba” and Badr”. Zaid bin Thabit, on the day of ‘Uthman’s murder said to the Ansar from Madina that, “Shall we become the helpers of Allah for a second time?”

He (Mazani) replied, “No! By Allah we won’t follow your lead, for if we do, we will be counted amongst those who on the Day of Judgement shall proclaim that our leaders misguided us”. Note here this Sahaba refuses to side with ‘Uthman – he did not deem him to be a victim, on the contrary he made it clear that to side with him would lead to punishment on

e day of Judgment for following a misguided Imam. th Did ‘Uthman die a ‘martyr’? There are some alleged hadiths in which Prophet(s) said that Uthman will die a martyr and would attain paradise. Worthy of note is the fact that Baladhuri in Ansab al Ashraf Volume 5 page 76 notes that, when the Sahaba Mujammi bin Jarriya al Awsi passed by Talha (during the siege), Talha asked how ‘Uthman was, Mujammi replied “I think that you will kill him”. Talha replied: “If he should be killed, he is neither an angel brought close (to Allah) nor a Prophet (sent by him)”. It is clear here from Talha’s statement that he had no regrets should ‘Uthman die, for he did not have an esteemed rank in the eyes of Allah (swt). Could Talha make such a comment if he was aware that Rasulullah (s) said he would die a martyr that would attain paradise? ‘Uthman’s body was unattended for three days. Companions’ not burying him proves that they did not deem him to be a martyr We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 Page 190: ‘Uthman’s body remained unattended for three days after his murder,the Sahaba did not bury him.” We read in Al Istiab Page 80, Dhikr ‘Uthman:“Three days after the murder, ‘Uthman’s body remained unattended near rubbish, and the Sahaba did not bury him.”

Conclusion The best and shortest explaination about the issue of the murder of Uthman was given by Sadf Ibn Abi Waqas as stated in in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 218 and al Imama wal Siyasa page 45 that: "Sad ibn Abi Waqqas was asked 'who killed ‘Uthman? Sad replied, 'the sword was lifted by Ayesha and it was sharpened by Talha".

Nasibis had perpetuated the common lie that the Shia killed Imam Husayn (as). In this refutation we shall analyse the facts of history to expose the fallacy of such a claim. Their argument can be summarised as follows: 1) The Shi’a invited Imam Husayn (as) by writing letters and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can recognise him as their Imam. 2) Imam Husayn (as) sent Muslim bin Aqeel (as) as his representative to assess the situation 3) The Shi’a gave bayya to Imam Husayn via Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as). 4) The same Shi’a subsequently abandoned him following the entry of Abdullah ibn Ziyad. 5) The Shi’a failed to support Imam Husayn (as) as a result he was killed. The approach we have taken is to focus on the historical sources in detail and then identify and expose the beliefs of the Kufan people. The beliefs of the people of Kufa Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Allamah Shibli Numani in al Faruq states that Hadhrath Umar established Kufa city: “The city was founded in 17AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were built. Arab tribes were allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given clear instructions with regard to the plan of the city as well as its construction”. “In Omar’s lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendour that the Caliph called it the head of Islam”.[al Faruq Volume 2 page 95-96] The 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 Shi’a who deem him (as) to be the rightful khalifa after Rasulullah (s). The mass extermination of the Kufan Shi’a by Mu’awiya’s Governor Ziyad One should also point out that any trace of Shi’a presence that existed in Kufa was in effect eliminated with the coming to power of Ansar.org’s Imam Mu’awiya. When Ziyad bin Sumayya became Governor of Kufa he slaughtered the vast bulk of the Shi’a of Ali, to the extent that only a few were left. [Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 3 P50, …] In such circumstances how can we accept that the vast

bulk of Kufans were Shi’a? How can it be believed that the Shi’a that had been obliterated by Ziyad all of a sudden appeared again and were strong and confident enough to summon Imam Husayn (as) to them. Sahaba and Tabieen living in Kufa wrote to Imam Husayn (as) and became the Tawabun Imam Dhahabi writes as follows: “Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza’i in Kufa, was a Sahaba of Rasulullah, hadith have been narrated on his authority. Ibn Barr states ‘He (Sulayman) was amongst those that wrote to Imam Husayn [r] and gave him bayya. They were unable to support him and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged war. I am of the opinion that he was a pious religious individual, he joined the army on account of his sin of failing to support Husayn [r], he made tauba (asked for forgiveness) and left to avenge the shedding of his (Husayn’s) blood, this army was known as the army of the Tawabun” [Sira Alam an Naba V 3 p 394 (Beirut edition)] The participation of the Sahaba and their sons in killing Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel (as) Dhahabi states “Umar bin Harith is counted amongst the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) that had settled ion Kufa…he is a Sahaba who narrated hadith from Rasulullah (s). [Sira Alam Volume 3 page 417] Later Ibn Kathir informs us about Umar bin Harith: “Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad arrested Muslim bin Aqeel and sent him to Umar bin Harith Makhdhoomee, who was the Chief of Police”. [Tabari V 6, p 198]

The Shi’a of Uthman/Nasibis killed Imam Hussain (as) We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Kufa, in Imam Husayn (as)’s army declaring: “I am al-Jamali.I believe in the religion of Ali.A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”.Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him” [Tabari V 19 P 136-137] When Yazeed’s forces encircled Imam Husayn (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated: “Stop the water of Husayn in same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”. [Tabari]

Who killed Imam Hussain[as]? To read the entire topic please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_killed_imam_hussain/en/index.php




Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order: “Treat them in the same way that Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”. [Bidayah V 8 p175] It is clear as day that those that killed Imam Husayn (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be ‘Ameer’ul Momineen’. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen; we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazeed considered Yazeed to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda. Those in Yazeed’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani / Nasibis. Upon receiving the news that Imam Husayn (as) was making his way for Kufa Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Ibn Ziyad, stating: “Husayn ibn Ali is heading in your direction. He is Fatima’s son and she is the daughter of Rasulullah (s). By Allah! We deserve nothing greater than bringing him into our possession". [al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165] Naming & shaming the Nasibi killers of Imam Husayn(as) Shah Abdul Aziz states: “The Syrian forces upon orders of Yazeed and the efforts of Chief of hatred and fitnah Ibn Ziyad martyred Imam Husayn in Kerbala”. [Taufa Ithna Ashari, page 9] Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi has written similarly about Marwan: “Mu’awiya’s rebellion and Marwan’s being a Nasibi are proven facts” [Sharh Ahfaq Tasneef, p 270] So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam Husayn (as)? Shamir al Amiri: Shamir was one of Ibn Sa’d officers and infact gave the final order to slay Imam Husayn (as). Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Tadheen al Ithidhab Volume 4 page 365 states: “Shamir was an Uthmani, Imam Nasai and Ibn Habban deemed him to be a reliable authority”. Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas: Dhahabi whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Sira al Volume 4 page 349: “Umar bin Sa’d lead the army that killed Imam Husayn (as), the Mukhthar killed him… Imam Nasai has narrated traditions from him”. Ubaydullah bin Ziyad: On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states: “Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad ibn Abi Sufyan…Abu Sabir took traditions from him…he narrated traditions on the authority of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Mu’awiya, Maqil bin Sayyar and Banu Judha, Ibn Ameer. Hasan Basri and Abu Maleek bin Asma took traditions from him”. [Tahbeel al Munfaath buzwahdh rijaal al Muthaa al rijjaatha page 180] Shabath bin Rib’I: He was the leading one who invited Imam Hussain (as) to Kufa. Dhahabi writes on him:

“This is the individual that rebelled against Imam Ali, he rejected the arbitration, and then subsequently repented…he narrated hadith on the authority of ‘Ali, Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’b Kurdhee and Sulayman Timee took hadith from him in Sunan Daud” [ Sira Volume 4 page 150 ] Marwan: Ibn Arabi stated: "With regards to Marwan and Yazeed, critics who assert that they were both fasiq, are themselves fasiq. Marwan is in the eyes of the Sahaba, tabieen and fuquha a just individual, he was a high ranking member of the Ummah". [al Awasim min al Kawasim page 88-89] Did the tragedy of Karbala highlight the Shia/Sunni schism? Yes, because Hanafi School deems Yazeed to be the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). “Sharh Fiqh Akbar” by Mulla 'Ali Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid and on the page 176 of this book, He sets out 12 caliphs of Islam including Yazeed as 6th one. Yazeed was a Sunni Muslim We read in one of the books of Ahlu Sunnah, “Sharh Qaseeda Amali”, page 16: "Other than a kaafir, is is not permissible to curse a Muslim and Yazeed was not a kaafir but was a Sunni Muslim" Conclusion Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority Hadhrath Ayesha: "Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed, killer Yazeed, he will rebel against my beloved Husayn and martyr him" Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Hafidh Jalaladun Suyuti records this tradition in “Khasais al Kubra” V2 p 125 on the authority of Sahaba Uns bin Harith: "I heard Rasulullah(s) say 'Verily my son [Husayn] will be killed in a land called Kerbala,whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him". Taking these two traditions and the allegation that Shia killed Imam Hussain (as) into consideration, following questions arises in one’s mind… 1) Yazeed was cursed by Prophet(s). Now who deem him to be the 6th rightfull caliph? 2) According to the words of Prophet(s), it was incumbent to help Hussain (as). Now who deem those people as reliable narrators, who didn’t help Imam Hussain (as) infact lead a notorious role in the killing of Imam Hussain (as)? To escape from such questions, our opponents have discovered an excellent way propagated by their renowned scholar Imam Ghazali that: "It is a sin for the people to narrate the martyrdom of Hasan and Husayn, as retelling the troubles of the family of the Prophet (s), creates enmity towards the Sahaba".

Commemorating Muharam We read in Surah Ibrahim verse 5: PICKTHAL: We verily sent Musa with Our revelations, saying: Bring thy people forth from darkness unto light. And remind them of the days of Allah. Lo! Therein are revelations for each steadfast, thankful (heart). We read in Kanz al Ummal Vol 4 page 320: "The day of Ashura is Allah (swt)'s day". Hence reminding Ashura is not against Islam as it is one of the days of Allah[swt]. Is Azadari against Patience? In this connection we have the comments of Abdul Hamid Ghazzali In his esteemed work, Ihya ul Uloom Adeen" Vol 4, page 126: "Weeping for the dead is not against patience". Also we have numbers of incidents where we see tha not only companions but Holy Prophet[s] also lamented over the death of their beloved ones. Rasulullah's blessing for those that weep for Imam Husayn (as) Allama Ibn Hajar Asqalani has recorded a tradition in his renowned book 'Isaba' V 1, p 226 that: The Prophet(s) said: 'whoever on the day of Ashura weeps for my son Husayn, Allah will place that person in paradise alongside the Ul'il Uzm Prophets. When Rasulullah (s) himself has guaranteed Paradise for those who weep for Imam Husayn (as) then who are the Nasibis to give Fatwas against mourning. Whom should we follow, the Prophet(s) or these Nasibis? Reciting elegies (Marsiyah) for Imam Husayn (as) Many of today's Nasibis deem the recital of sad poetry in praise of our slain Imam (as) to be an act of Bidah that has no place under the Shari'ah. While we read in history that Prophet Adam[as] recited couplets over death of Habeel [Tareekh Yaqoobi V 1 p 30], Ayesha recited couplets over Abu Bakar's death [Iqd al Fareed V 3 p 204 ], Hassan bin Thabit recited elegies over Prophet's death [Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, v 5 p 485 (urdu)] and most importantly heaven / Genies recited elegies over martyrdom of Imam Hussain[as] as heared and narrated by Ume Salma (ra) [ibid, V 8 p 1106 ]. Majalis (Gathering) to remember the dead Umm'ul Momineen Salmah obtained the approval of the Prophet (s) to participate in a mourning ritual. We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work "Al-Jami al-Sagheer" by

al Tabrani page 206: "On one occasion Umm Salmah appeared before the Prophet (s) and said 'O Rasulullah (s) the women of Waleed bin Waleed ibne Mugheera's of Bani Majhum are arranging a mourning gathering, and I require your permission to be present there He gave his permission. Umm Salmah went and recited a couplet whilst crying…" The Fatwa of Ulema e Ahle Sunnah regarding the permissibility of Majalis e Hussain(as) Sunni Scholar of sub continent, Allamah Muhammad Shafi Okarvi writes in his book "Shaam e Karbala" page 300: "Hadhrath Shah Rafiuddin Mohaddith Dehalvi who is also the translator of Holy Quran, says in one of his edicts: 'Holding of Majalis for the remembrance of Imam Hussain [as] in the month of Muharram, or other than that, listening to Salams and elegies, and crying and wailing for the martyrs of Karbala is permissible and correct.'" Wearing black attire Some Nasibi says that black was the attire of the people of Pharaoh and the people of Hell. For all such ignorant people we would like to present some historical facts, for example Gabriel came to Prophet [s]in black attire [Tareekh Baghdad 4th Ed p 232 ], Prophet (s)'s shroud was black [Sirat Ibn Hisham, 4th Ed p 665], Prophet (s)'s turban was black [Sahih Muslim Hadith # 3146]. Moreover we read in the prominent book of Ahlul Sunnah, Sharh Shumail Tirmidhi, page 166 that: "On the day of the murder of Hadrath Uthman, a party of people wore black just as Imam Hassan (as) used to give sermons whilst attired in black. Moreover his turban also used to be black." Hitting ones body (Matam / Zanjeer) This is one of the favourite areas of exploitation for the Nasibi and they enjoy making fun and insisting that these practises are against the Shari'ah. We would like to present incidents of Prophets and companions where they lamented in such a way. For example in plenty of Sunni books we read that "Rasulullah (s) was in a state where he was hitting his chest." [Sahih Bukhari V 2 p 50 etc] Ibn Hajr Asqalani in the commentary of this tradition in Fathul Bari V 3 p 90 writes: "This Hadeeth demonstrates that it is permissible to bang your hand at a moment of distress". We read in renowned anti-shia book Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 523 that: "When Ayesha was defeated and Ali saw the corpses on the ground he began to beat his chest".

Azadari; Mourning for Imam Hussain [as] To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/azadari/en/index.php


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/azadari/en/index.php


In Surah adh-Dhaariyaat we read that Hadrath Sara (as) struck her face when she was told that she would conceive a baby."Then came forward his wife in grief, she smote her face and said (what! I) An old barren woman?" Quran 51:29. The slapping of Prophet Ibraheem (as)'s wife Sara is proven from the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us to adhere to the ways of the people of Ibraheem (as), so if the Shi'a beat themselves whilst mourning for Imam Husayn (as) such acts are lawful. We also read in authority books that Prophet Yusuf[as] beat his head when he came to know about dismal situation of his father [Tafseer Kabeer V 5 p 158], similarly we read in [Aqd al Fareed V 2 p 5] that Umer beat his head over death of Numan ibn Muqran, Ayesha along with other women beat their faces over Prophet's death [Tabari History V9 p 183], Uthman's wives and daughter beat their faces over his death [Tareekh Kamil V 3 p 89] and Hazrat Owais Qarni broke all of his teath when he came to know that Prophet's teeth has been broken during a war [Seerate Halbia' vol II, page 295]. Creating and revering symbols (Sha'er Allah) We reading in Holy Quran: And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of His authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." Al-Qur'an, Surah 2, Ayah 248, translated by Yusufali. Under the commentary of this verse Imam Fakhruddin Razi writes: "The Ashab narrate that Allah (swt) sent some relics to Adam (as) which contained pictures of the Prophets and these relics were inherited by the children of Adam until they reached Hadhrath Yaqoob (as)" [Tafseer Kabir Volume 2 page 506 & 507]. It is clear from this verse and tradition that Allah created these pictures of Prophets and sent them to Hadhrath Adam (as) who transferred it to his lineage. Hence paying homage to the symbols/images of prophets stands as an established fact. Why does the Ahl'ul Sunnah remain silent when it comes to this matter? If the Shi'a produce images of Karbala to commemorate the tyrannies faced by Ahl'ul bayt (as), the aim is to recall the tragedy of Karbala in people's minds. Our aim is not to worship these images. If Allah (swt) sent pictures of Prophets that were kept by the people to remember Him then why the objection when the Shi'a create images to remember Karbala? Street Processions (Juloos) The Sunni Imam Ibne Qutayba in "Al-Imama wa Siyasa", vol 1, page 42 states about the situation after the murder of Uthman: "One of the ambassador of Mu'awiyah told him: I have left 50,000 old people in such

State that they have made their beards wet with tears, while they are weeping after looking at the shirt of Uthman. And this shirt has been raised by them on the spears." And in authentic Sunni book "Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya", page 268, vol 7, it is written: "When the shirt of Uthman was kept on the Minbar (in mosques), the people gathered around the Minbar and started weeping. Afterwards, some time it is kept there and some times it was taken away from there. Whole complete year people wept upon this shirt in this way." These references make it beyond doubt that beard of Uthman was pulled with an extreme force.These hairs and Uthman's bloodied shirt were sent to Mu'awiyah in Damascus, who did a lot of 'Azadari over them. Sometimes they were kept on the Mosque pulpit, and at others they were raised on the spears and shown to the shell shocked Syrians. Processions wherein the shirt and hairs were paraded went on for an entire year. It's very sad that these so called Muslims show sorrow for the killing of this 70 years Bani Umayyah tribesman but when it comes to mourning the samily of the Propget (s), who were slaughtered in state of thirst in Karbala, they become machines of issuinn all manner of Kufr Fatwas against such acts. The weeping of the skies and Jinn for Imam Husayn (as) Ibn Hajr al Makki in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa records a tradition wherein: "Ali, while passing through Karbala, stopped at the place where Husayn was going to be buried and said: "Here Husayn and his comrades will be slain and the heavens and the earth shall weep over them". Hardline Nasibi scholar Ibn e Katheer writes: "When Hadhrath Yahya bin Zakariya (a.s) was assassinated the sky turned red, it also turned red when Imam Husayn (r) was martyred..:After the martyrdom of Husayn (r) fresh blood started to gush from wherever stones were picked up. There was a solar eclipse, the corners of the sky had turned red." [Tafseer Ibn Katheer, volume 9, page 163, published in Egypt] The constant weeping of Angles for Imam Husayn (as) Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Shaikh 'Abdul Qadir Jilani, in his famous book, "Ghanyatul Talibeen", page 604; comments: "70,000 angels came to the grave of Husayn bin Ali after his martyrdom and they wept for him and will keep weeping unto the Day of Judgment." Nasibi say that the Shi'a commit Bidah by mourning the tragedy of Husayn (as) every year, what Fatwa do they have upon these 70,000 angels that mourn Husayn (as) every day?

Juloos; Religious mourning procession Please visit us for comprehensive Islamic studies: http://www.answering-ansar.org


What is happening? What you are seeing here is a religious mourning procession commemorating martyrdom of Imam Hussain (P), grandson of Prophet Mohammad (P). Hussain was raised in an atmosphere of piety, gentle kindness and tender love. He was also educated to place the needs of others above the needs of his own and to respect and love his mother and father. Above all Hussain was taught that the word of God was the source of salvation and tranquillity. He was killed by Yazeed the Tyrant, some fourteen hundred years ago in Karbala, Iraq. Why was Imam Hussain (P) killed? Yazeed sought endorsement of his oppressive regime through the allegiance of Imam Hussain. Imam Hussain, following on from the footsteps of his father Imam Ali (P) and grandfather Prophet Mohammad could never have given his support to such an oppressive ruler. We are sure that there must have been people who despised Yazeed. As is the normal case such individuals are reduced to the ranks of the ‘Silent majority’ - they despise their tyrannical leaders but remain silent fearing the consequences of open opposition. You will only get a handful of strong minded courageous individuals who are willing to fight for what they believe in, not fearing the repercussions, however serious they might be. Imam Hussain was willing to sacrifice all this and more to protect the faith and show the world that mankind should never submit to tyranny. When was Imam Hussain (P) killed? In 680 A.D. Yazeed’s failed assassination attempt on Imam Hussain resulted in his decision to travel to Iraq, so as to avoid bloodshed. Imam Hussain set out on this journey in May 680 A.D. and reached his destination Karbala, Iraq on 2nd of October 680 A.D. He was accompanied by 72 of his companions including women and children from his family. According to Arab culture, anyone accompanying women and children with him is a sign of peace. It was here that Hussain, his family and Shi’a (Partisans) were confronted by the army of Yazeed. Hussain refused to pledge allegiance to the tyrant and Yazeed declared war on him. Hussain was forced to battle the army of Yazeed, but not before the army had cut off their food and water supply for three days. For three whole days and nights, enduring temperatures around 55°C without food or water, the males of the camp, totalling 72 (including the elderly and children) fought valiantly and were all brutally slaughtered.

Hussain was forced to witness the savage mutilation of Abbas - his brother, the callous murder of his nephew Qasim, the torture and execution of his innocent son Ali Akbar and finally the depraved murder of his six month old baby boy - Ali Asghar. Left alone finally Hussain was also attacked, his body was showered with arrows, his head was severed and the hooves of the horses of Yazeed’s cavalry trampled on his body. The aftermath of the battle led to the humiliation of the women of Hussain’s camp. Their tents were looted and burnt, leaving the women to the mercy of Yazeed’s soldiers. The aggrieved children who had lost their fathers were beaten. Headscarves were snatched off and they were made to trek barefoot, chained and shackled, from Karbala to Damascus, a journey of approximately 750 miles. The heads of all the males including that of Hussain’s six -month old son were impaled on spikes (as war trophies) and paraded through the streets. On arriving at Damascus, they were paraded in the town, for all to see and shun. A barrage of stones, rubbish and verbal abuse bombarded them. They were kept in prison for over a year. Why are we taking it to the roads? Imam Hussain spent his life following the Divine order of God, and was a brilliant leader, teacher and spiritual guide for humanity. His determination to uphold the truth and denounce the falsehood has given hope to all oppressed peoples and strengthened our faith. We are here, remembering his death, and are sending a message to his killers and all tyrants, that the Truth can never be hidden and no compromise will be made against tyranny. It is vital that we remember the atrocities committed by Yazeed, inorder to keep alive and propogate the message of Imam Hussain to all humanity. Our men mourn the men of Imam Hussain who were martyred, our women mourn the helpless women of Imam Hussain’s family, and our children mourn his children. “Azadari” the mourning for Imam Hussain, is an important aspect of Islamic belief and history. All Muslims are indebted to Imam Hussain for keeping the religion alive and free from any distortions. How often this mourning is observed? This is observed on the 10th day of Islamic month of Moharam. The mourners of Imam Hussain throughout the world suspend their normal activities on this day, and participate in this noble cause. We march today; to remember, mourn and uphold the teachings and values of Hussain and show our support for all oppressed peoples.

http://www.answering-ansar.org/

Was Mu'awiya seeking Qisas for the death of Hadhrath Uthman? Mu'awiya exploited people's ignorance and greed to attain support Ibne Maghazli states in his Manaqib page 128 "Dhikr Sifeen" that: "Imam 'Ali wrote a letter to Mu'awiya stating 'Makka and Madina have given bayya to me you should do the same so as to avoid a war between the people of Iraq and Syria'. Mu'awiya used Uthman's blood as an excuse not to give bayya and he used this excuse to mislead the ignorant Arabs, bribing people with money and land". Mu'awiya's actual motive was power What greater proof of the deviance of Mu'awiya can there be than the admission of his key supporter Amr bin Aas. We read in Ta'rikh Kamil Volume 2 page 139 "Dhikr Sifeen" that Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya: "Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we are desirous of worldly power; upon hearing this Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr". Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz - one that fights 'Ali (as) is a kaffir Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz comments in - Hadiyyah Majeediyyah page 813 "One who fights 'Ali [r] with enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah" Also on the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come within this definition since: "Mu'awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman". Mu'awiya's appointment of Yazeed as his successor Mu'awiya forced people to give bayya to Yazeed Deobandi scholar Rasheed Akhtar Nadwi in "Tahzeeb au Tamadhun e Islami" comments on page 1: "Mu'awiya forced people to give bayya to Yazeed". Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Raza the Syrian scholar echoes similar words in his book "Imamate al Uzma" page 99: “Mu'awiya introduced the bad practice of giving bayya to Yazeed by force".

The callous killing of Hujr bin Adi (ra) Mu’awiya instituted the bidah of cursing Ali(as) from pulpits and whoever opposed to act on batil orders of Mu’awiya, he was forced to death ,among such people there was a pious companion of Holy Prophet(s) Hujr bin Adi(ra) who was martyred as on Mu’awiya’s order , he was buried alive. See "Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat" Under the chapter 4 "the elimination of freedom of speech". It is further written that : "This incident shook the heart of the Ummah. Upon hearing the news Hadhrath Ibn Umar and Hadhrath Ayesha were aggrieved. Hadhrath Ayesha had previously written a letter admonishing Mu'awiya. Later on when she met Mu'awiya she said `Mu'awiya did you not fear Allah even slightly when killing Hujr?'. When Hadhrath Mu'awiya's Governor of Khurusan Rabiya bin Ziyad heard this news he shouted `O Allah if in your knowledge there is anything good left on my part, take me from this world'. [Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat, chapter 5, page, 165…] The killer of Hujr shall receive the wrath of Allah (swt) In Kanz al Ummal Volume 7 page 87 we read that Hadhrath Ayesha narrated that Rasulullah (s) said "Whoever kills Hujr will incur the wrath of Allah". The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as) In this regard the comments of defender of Mu'awiya Ibn Kathir Volume 8 page 17 are indeed of interest: "The Sunnah is that there khalifa (Banu Umayya) be referred to as Kings, because Rasulullah (s) said that khilafath would last for thirty years, this would be followed by kingdom. This (khilafath) remained until the Rabi'ul Awwal 31 Hijri when Hasan was left with no other choice but to make peace with Mu'awiya" Ibn Kathir's admission that Imam Hassan (as) was left with no choice but to make peace is clear proof that the khilafath was not happily handed over to Mu'awiya on a silver platter as Nasibis would lead us to believe. Mu'awiya's poisoning of Imam Hasan (as) and the Reason behind this act Mu'awiya despite gaining power saw in Imam Hasan (as) a formidable opponent. As Nasibi admits Mu'awiya wanted Yazeed to succeed him. This contradicted one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement with Imam Hasan (as) namely that in the event of Mu'awiya's death khilafath would RETURN to Hasan (as). See Isti'ab, I, pp. 355…

Mu’awiya To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/index.php



Mu'awiya had no intention to comply with this, to ensure the best approach would be to kill Imam Hasan (as) during his own lifetime. Renowned Egyptian academic Dr Taha Husayn in his book "'Ali wa banooh (Ali and his sons)" (translated in Urdu as Hadhrath 'Ali (ra) by Maulana 'Abdul Hameed Numani) on page 214 writes : "by poisoning Hasan, Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas had made the way clear for making Yazeed the next khalifa". Mu'awiya the baghi (rebel) It was incumbent to fight alongside Imam Ali (as) Rasulullah (s) said: "O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us" [Kanz al Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn Asakir, hadith number 32970 ] Abdullah bin Umar's regret he didn't fight the baghi Mu'awiya Ibn Àbd al-Barr in al-'Istiàb narrates that Umm Habeeb ibne Abi Sabith (ra) heard Abdullah ibnÙmar say: "I regret that I did not join Ali and fight the rebellious group". Abi Barr bin Abi Jaham (ra) narrates that he heard Abdullah ibneÙmar say "I never regretted anything in my life other than the fact that I did not fight the rebels" Mu'awiya instituted the bid'ah of cursing Imam Ali (as) Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari "Fathul Bari" states: "Mu'awiya issued an order to curse Hadhrath 'Ali. Upon hearing this Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas said "Even if you place a sword over my head and demand that I curse 'Ali, I will refuse to do so". [Fathul Bari, Vol. 7, Page 74, "Bab Manaqib 'Ali"] The comments on this shameful practice of Pakistani Hanafi scholar Maulana Raghib Rahmani in "Hadhrath Umar bin Abdul Aziz" page 246, are indeed very poignant: "It is indeed unfortunate that this bidah was introduced that cut the nose of the cities, this bidah even reached the pulpits and even shamelessly reached the ears of those present in the Mosque of Rasulullah (s). This bidah was introduced by Amir Mu'awiya". [ Khalifatul Zahid, Page 246 ] Cursing Ali (as) is tantamount to cursing Allah (swt) Prophet(s) said : "Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into the Hell-fire." [Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33 ]

Not a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya is Sahih The leading 'Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu'awiya as fabricated. Al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in "La'ali al-Masnuàa fi ahadith al-Mauduàa" Volume 1 page 424 states: "Imam Hakim claims that he never came across a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that was Sahih". Al Muhaddith Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in "Sharh Mishkat Shareef" - Volume 4 page 716 (published in 1873) after citing the hadith in praise of Mu'awiya comments: "It is recorded in Jami` al-'Usul that many Muhaddith scholars have concluded that there exists not even a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih". Was Mu'awiya a Momin or Munafiq? Let us cite the words of Hadhrath 'Ali (as): "By him who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me. [Sahih Muslim, Tradition #141 ] The hatred of Mu'awiya towards Ali(as) can be deduced from the above mentioned acts of Mu'awiya. Now readers can better decide that was Mu’awiya a momin or Munafiq! Mu'awiya bin Hind was the product of Nikah Ijtimah (Combined Nikah) In Rabi'ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari Volume 3 page 551: "There were four people who were thought to be Mu'awiya's father, Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir, Abi Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah [ Also see Sharh Nahjul Balagha V10 P 130 ] It is a religious duty to expose the deeds of a fasiq "The testimonies of three people should be rejected:The individual who openly indulges in bad acts, A Zaalim Ruler and One who practices bidath" [Sharh Muslim, by Nawawi Volume 2 page 322 ] Famous Deobandi scholar and former chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi, after citing the words of Hasan Basri in Tahfim ul Qur'an Volume 5 page 87, makes these relevant comments: "It is imperative that we highlight such individuals to prevent the risk of running in to danger (from such individuals) if narrators, witnesses and writers display such faults then such weaknesses should not be hidden, rather they should be conveyed"

Was there an ijma in Yazeed's Khilafath? The families of well known Sahaba opposed the bayya of Yazeed like family of Umar, Abu Bakar, Usman and moreover Ahlul’bayt(as) were against the bayya of Yazeed. We shall cite the stance of Usman's family here. We read in al Imama was al Siyasa Volume 2 page 184: "At the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, Uthman's son Sa'eed approached Mu'awiya, and said 'Commander of Syria, on what grounds are you making Yazeed your successor, and why are you ignoring me? After highlighting some of his own faults he [Sa'eed] then said 'If you object to making me the khalifa then at least give something to me'. Mu'awiya said 'I'll give you the province of Khurasan. Sa'eed accepted and recited a eulogy 'Even if may father Uthman were alive he would not give me as much as Mu'awiya just did'. Threats of physical violence to secure the bayya for Yazeed In 'Abu Hanifa ki Siyasi Zindagee page 51' al Misra page 115 Volume 2 it is cited the way that Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas gave bayya to Yazeed: "When Ibn Sa'eed approached his door with firewood, and said 'Give bayya to Yazeed otherwise I shall set your home alight', Abdullah then joined the majority by giving bayya to Yazeed". Mu'awiya adopted evil methods to secure the bayya to Yazeed We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 73 Surah Muhammad Part 29: "If people analyse history, they shall realise how people were forced to give bayya to Yazeed, and that Mu'awiya adopted every wicked method to secure bayya". Yazeed's Character A Sahaba's testimony that Yazeed was an incestuous drunkard In Isaba we read: "The Sahaba Maqil stated that 'Yazeed drank alcohol, committed zina with his mahram relatives, infact he performed every type of bad action"

Yazeed was a homosexual We read in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah page 64 Volume 9 "Dhikr Abdul Mulk" that: "Abdul Malik bin Marwan said in a khutbah that unlike Uthman I am not weak and unlike Mu'awiya I am not cunning / dishonest and unlike Yazeed I am not a homosexual". Yazeed used to copulate with his mother and sisters We read in Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283 and many other books that: "Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated 'By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat". Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's rejection of the Qur'an When the head of Husayn (as), the grandson of the Holy prophet (saws), was presented before Yazeed he recited the couplets of the kaffir Zubayri: "Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies nether was there any revelation" [Tarikh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri… ] Yazeed's killing of Imam Hussain[as] Yazeed ordered his Governor Waleed kill Imam Hussain[as] We read in Maqathil Husayn al Khuwarzmee Volume 2 page 80 Chapter that: "Yazeed wrote a letter to Waleed the Governor of Medina, in which he stated 'Force Husayn to give bayya. Should he refuse then strike off his head and return it to me.' Ibn Ziyad's own admission that he killed Imam Husayn on the orders of Yazeed We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya page 219 Dhikr 63 Hijri that: "When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering him to fight Ibn Zubayr in Makka, he said 'I can't obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s) upon his orders, I'm not now going to assault the Kaaba'.

Yazeed (L’aeen) To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/index.php



Yazeed's pride at killing Imam Hussain[as] We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 204: "Ibn Asakir, writing on Yazeed, states then when Husayn's head was brought before Yazeed, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubayri the kaffir 'I wish my ancestors of Badr were hear to see the severed head of the rebellious tribe [The Prophet's tribe of Hashim]." Yazeed's treatment of the Ahl'ulbayt[as] Yazeed's army looted the camps of the women of Rasulullah (s)'s household and made them captives We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 188: "Following the killing of Husayn the tents were set on fire and women and their possession were distributed and scarves were removed from the heads of the women." Cursing Yazeed The Fatwa of Imam Ahmad that Yazeed has been cursed in the Qur'an We also read in Tafseer Mazhari as follows: "Qadhi Abu Ya'ala in his own book al Muthamud al Usul that Saleh Ibn Hanbal asked his father Ahmad: 'Some people state, 'We are the friends of Yazeed'. Abu Hanifa replied 'If people have faith in Allah, then it is unlikely that they also have faith in Yazeed, and why should they for this is a man that has been cursed in the Qur'an. I asked 'Where is Yazeed cursed in the Qur'an?' He replied "Have fear… when spread Fitnah through the land - these are people that Allah has cursed" - can there be a greater fitnah that killing Husayn?'" Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 207, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn we read as follows: "May Allah's curse be upon the killers of Husayn and Ibn Ziyad". The Shaafi Ulema deem it permissible to curse Yazeed We should point out that Ghazzali was an adherent of the Shaafi madhab who tried to defend Yazeed. Another Shaafi scholar Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi Ulema on this topic as follows: "Amongst the Shaafi's we are in agreement that it is permissible to curse Yazeed" [Haseeya Nabraas page 551] Yazeed's attack on Harra "Muslim was ordered to ransack Medina for three days. Yazeed committed a major sin. Sahaba and

their children were slaughtered openly; other heinous acts were also perpetuated. We have already mentioned that he had Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his companions. In those three days in Madina, it is difficult to mention the type of acts that were carried out. By doing this act Yazeed wanted to secure his governance, in the same way Allah (swt) broke the neck of every Pharaoh, the true King (swt) also broke the neck of Yazeed". [al Bidayah Volume 8 page 222 ] One who attacks Medina is cursed We read in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 223 that: "Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la'nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person" More on Yazeed In Ahsan aur Meezan: "Yazeed was a fasiq, faajir, we cannot rely on his narrations" Yazeed was such a fasiq that not a single hadith of his can be accepted, when this is the case then his khilafat cannot be accepted either. In Takmeel al Iman page 97 Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi gives Yazeed a number of titles such as impure, fasiq and drunkard. Ahmad Reza Barelvi in Irfan al Shariat stated: "There is an agreement amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah that he was a fasiq and a fajir, the dispute is over whether he was a kaffir". Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi in Fatawa said: "One should refrain from calling Yazeed a kaffir, but there is no objection to referring to him as a fasiq". The Salafi and Hanafi Schools of thought have graded Yazeed as the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) "Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen shall remain strong as long as these twelve Khalifahs are at the helm, and the twelve are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, 'Ali Mu'awiya, Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan" [Sharh Fiqh Akbar p 50, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa p 12 Chap 3…] The sixth Imam of truth according to Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq is Yazeed, but this is a fact that these Ulema often don't mention to the public.

In this article we have set out to refute the false claim made by Nasibis when they try to present the romantic image of love / affection between Imam 'Ali and the Khalifas. Nasibis are able to use their supernatural psychic abilities to inform their followers that such was Imam 'Ali (as)'s love for these personalities that he named his sons in their memory. This is one of the greatest evidences that these Nasibi love to flash in our faces as 'proof' that Imam 'Ali (as) loved the three khalifas. If we examine the lives of the Arabs we see that the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common names, it was not exclusively reserved to a specific Arab tribe, so we would urge our opponents to at least examine in depth before arriving at a conclusion. The fact is these names were common amongst the prominent Arab tribes, and amongst those with these names were Kaffirs, Muslims and munafiqs and hence these are not names that in any way point to the superiority of the three Khalifas. Incidentally, Ali (as) had 12 sons, thus the Nasibis are mistaken in trying to give the impression that he had 3 whom he named after the 3 khalifas Famous Arabs that were called Abu Bakr In Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work Al Isaba Volume four "Dhikr 'Abu Bakr" Ibn Barr states: "The first was Abu Bakr bin Quhafa, the second Abu Bakr bin Shuab Laisy and the third was Abu Bakr Nafee bin al Harith Saqfi." In the Risala Taseemee'thul Isma page 4 we read that the grandson of Prophet Ilyas (as) was called Abu Bakr. If our opponents are still not convinced then we shall cite Sibt Ibn Jauzi al Hanafi's "Tadhkirathul Khawwas, under the Chapter "Dhikr Abu Bakr" who provides a complete list of those individuals that were called Abu Bakr along with the tribe that they belonged to:

1. Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman Mukhdhoomee 2. Abu Bakr bin Hamam al Hameeree 3. Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Muslim Qurshee 4. Abu Bakr bin Abi Maleeka al Timeemee 5. Abu Bakr bin Sireen 6. Abu Bakr bin Marwan ibn Muhammad al Thathree 7. Abu Bakr Younis bin Bakeer al Shaybanee 8. Abu Bakr al Bahili 9. Abu Bakr al Sakhthayanai

Famous Arabs called Umar We are quoting from Ahl'ul Sunnah's leading work Asadul Ghaybah Volume 4 under the letter "Ayn" that provides a list of men from those tribes that had the name Umar:

1. Umar al Jamai 2. Umar bin Hakim Salma 3. Umar bin Salim Khuzamee

4. Umar bin Suraqa Qurshee 5. Umar bin Sa'd al Numaree 6. Umar bin Sa'd Salma 7. Umar bin Sufyan Qurshee 8. Umar bin Abi Salma Qurshee 9. Umar bin Amr Salmi 10. Umar bin Abdullah 11. Umar bin Ikrima 12. Umar bin Umar Laysee 13. Umar bin Ameer Ansari 14. Umar bin Auf Nakhai 15. Umar bin Ghazia 16. Umar bin La Haqq 17. Umar bin Malik bin Ukba 18. Umar bin Malik Ansari 19. Umar bin Mu'awiya Ghazree

Famous Arabs that were called Uthman We are again quoting from Asadul Ghaybah Volume 3 under the letter "Ayn" that provides a list of 19 people with tribal ancestry that were called Uthman:

1. Uthman bin Arqam 2. Utman bin Adhrak 3. Uthman bin Haneef 4. Uthman bin Rabia 5. Uthman bin Shumaas 6. Uthman bin Abi Talha 7. Uthman bin Abu'l Aas 8. Uthman bin Amr 9. Uthman bin Abd al Rahman 10. Uthman bin Abd' Ghanam 11. Uthman bin Ubaydullah 12. Uthman bin Affan 13. Uthman bin Uthman Thaqfee 14. Uthman bin Umar Ansari 15. Uthman bin Umar 16. Uthman bin Qays 17. Uthman bin Muhammad 18. Uthman bin Fadhoown 19. Uthman bin Ma'dh

We have proven from the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah that the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common amongst the Arab tribes; these were the names of the sons of various parents. Perhaps Afriki could try and use some honesty for once in his life, and answer this: 'What revelation did you receive that led you to conclude that Imam 'Ali (as) had named his sons after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman due to his love of the three khalifas'?

The names of Imam Ali[as]’s sons To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/names/en/index.php



We should point out that in our Shi'a text Munthee'ala 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 Nat'eoon". This is why the name Uthman was kept by Imam 'Ali (as) it does not prove Uthman bin Affan's merit, not even in the slightest. With regards to Imam 'Ali (as)'s son Umar, we should point out that one of Imam 'Ali (as) close Sahaba was Umar the son of Umm'ul Momineen Salma (ra). Umar was brought up by Rasulullah (s) and he fought alongside Imam 'Ali (as) at Jamal, and was in fact one of his commanders during that battle. During his reign Imam 'Ali (as) appointed him as Governor over Bahrain and Faris. To prove our point we suggest our opponents consult Asada al Ghaybah Volume 4 page 134 under the letter "Ayn". We assert that Imam 'Ali (as) named his son Umar after this great faithful commander. 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 Ahl'ul Sunnah work can not be advanced as evidence to convince us. If keeping a name is proof of love of another person then we should point out that amongst our Ahl'ul Sunnah friends' names such as Abdur Rahman, Ubaydullah and Ghulam Ahmad are very common. Abdur Rahman Makhdoomee was the killer of Imam 'Ali (as), Ubaydullah bin Ziyad was one of the killers of Imam Husayn (as) and Ghulam Ahmad was a deviant who falsely proclaimed himself to be a Prophet. So with these facts in mind we ask our Ahl ul Sunnah brothers: Do you love Abdur Rahman killer of Imam 'Ali (as)? Do you love Ubaydullah killer of Imam Husayn (as)? Do you love the false Prophet Ghulam Ahmad ? If you do not love these individuals then why do you keep these names? From here we can see that there is no harm in keeping names, even if the same names were those of kaffirs, munafiqs etc. To keep such names does not constitute love of a particular kaffir / Munafiq / Nasibi either. Rasulullah (s) named one of his sons Uzza If the claim is that Imam 'Ali (as) named his sons after these three then Hanafi scholar Shibli Numani in Seerathun Nabi Volume 1 page 191 quotes Imam Bukhari's "Tareekh al Sagheer" that Rasulullah (s) named one of his sons Abdul Uzza: That is interesting as Uzza was the name of a false God, as pointed out by Allah (swt) in Surah Najm verses 19-22 (taken from Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali's transliteration): "Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?.....These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for

which Allah has sent down no authority(whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!" So whom was this Uzza that Rasulullah (s) called his son Uzza on? Was it based on an idol (astaghfirullah)? If Ahl'ul Sunnah are going to say Rasul(s) didn't name his son because he loved an idol, we will also say Imam 'Ali (as) didn't name his sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman on account of his love for the three khalifas. During the old times the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common place amongst the Arabs. Similarly the name 'Ali was also common place amongst the Arabs. Asadul Ghaybah cited thirteen people who were called Ali. By the time of the Nasibi Banu Ummayya regime it became an offence to keep the name 'Ali. In Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work Tahdheeb Volume 7 page 319 under the chapter "Dhikr 'Ali bin Rahba" we read that: "During the Banu Umayyad reign when information was received that a child had been named 'Ali, he would be killed". Individuals named 'Ali, Hasan, Husayn were labelled as Shi'a and were persecuted, even killed. Such was the hatred vented by the State, that no Banu Ummayya soldier was named 'Ali, Hasan or Husayn, neither did the descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman keep these names. The oppression of Banu Ummayya in effect forced the Shi'a to bear enmity towards 'Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. In summary, Ali (as) had 12 sons - some had very common names - like Ibrahim, Umar, Uthman, Abu Bakr. The latter 3 names are very common names amongst the Arabs like Tom, Dick or Harry amongst the Christians, and were common in pre-Islamic times also. To suggest therefore that because a man with 12 sons has a couple with the same names as his putative friends, and that he therefore called them after them, when these are very common names, is ridiculous - many men have friends called Tom, Dick and Harry, and many will have sons also by that name, but very few of these sons will have been named after their fathers' friends. Means, there could have been a case if a man's friends are called Engel Bert, Darwin and Zebediah, and these are also the names of even some of his sons, but the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were like Tom, Dick and Harry, and these names had no such religious connotations in those early days… it was much later on that they came to be associated with Sunni Islam. Further, we have shown that Ali (as) actually named those sons of his with these names after other individuals and that the name "Abu Bakr" was not the name of the 1st khalifa by which he was addressed but an epithet added some years later - the oldest sources always refer to him as Ibn Abi Quhafa (Son of Abi Quhafa).

Students of Imam Ja’far[as] To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imam_jafar/en/index.php


A refutation of Nasibi allegation that 'Abu Hanifa was NOT a student of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) Proving the Teacher - Student relationship This is the perfect example of Nasibi resentment towards Ahl'ul bayt (as). They are willing to deny an established historical fact so as to lower the status of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) in the eyes of actual Sunnis. Fortunately actual Sunnis have caught on to the efforts of such individuals and we present the lengthy text from modern day Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul who has refuted lies such as this in his excellent biography of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq "Subeh Sadiq". We are quoting from pages 186 - 191: "Imam Abu Hanifa is one of the distinguished students of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as), as has been confirmed by Ibn Hajar al Makki in his Sawaiq al Muhriqa, Allamah Shiblinji in his Nur al Absar, Abdul Haleem Jindi in his Mohqaq, Abu Zohra in his various writings, and other Ulema. Imam Abu Hanifa had previously studied under Imam Baqir (as) and then subsequently Abu Hanifa extended the link of knowledge with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as). In this regard, Abdul Haleem Jindi writes that Abu Hanifa stated that if he 'hadn't spent two years of his life with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as), he would have been dead'. (Al-Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, page 162). Sunni research scholar Abu Zohra states that these words of Imam Abu Hanifa's are widely known namely 'if these two years had not been available to me due to my good fortune, Numan (Abu Hanifa) would have been dead. (Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, page 83). Imam Abu Hanifa had also remarked 'I have never seen a greater scholar of fiqh than Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as)'….." We also cite the references of "Musnad Imam Azam" rendered in to Urdu by Maulana Sa'd Hasan Sahib. The text is a collection of traditions that have been narrated and compiled by Imam Abu Hanifa. On page 23 of the preface of the Musnad, Maulana Abdur Rashid Numani, whilst giving an overview of the life of Imam Abu Hanifa states: "Imam Abu Hanifa stayed for a long time in the pure (city of) Madina and continuously attended the circles of Imam Baqir (r). In jurisprudence (fiqh) and traditions (hadith) he learnt many things during his time with Imam Baqir (r) which he didn't know before. Imam Baqir (r) passed away on 7 Dhu'l Hijja 114 AH. After Imam Baqir's death, Imam Abu Hanifa had the

greatest respect for his son Imam Ja'far Sadiq (r). He would attend Imam Ja'far's classes quite often to acquire knowledge. Imam Abu Hanifa used to hold the opinion about the Ahl al-Bayt that hadith and fiqh, indeed all religious sciences, have surfaced from their Household". Pakistani Sunni Scholar Mohammad Hameedullah Khan in his book "The Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence - A comparative study, states in his brief biography of Imam Abu Hanifa on page 61: "He got an opportunity to meet Anas, a famous companion of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), at the age of 12 or 13 years and attended the lectures of Imam Ja’far as Sadiq. Regarding his place in history of Fiqh, Abu Hanifa said: I have not seen a jurist of high rank like Imam Ja’far as Sadiq [taken from Tabayeen page 69 by Shah Moinuddin Ahmed Nadvi]" Allamah Sharawi's admission that Imam Abu Hanifa was Imam Ja'far (as)'s student Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shaykh Sharawi Azhari in his famous Egyptian Risala Al Ahraam ul Sunnah page 103 periodical number 32932 wrote: "The Imam of the Shi'a Imamiyyah, Hadhrath Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq was the teacher of Imam 'Abu Hanifa. These are the Imamia Ja'fari who as we previously explained adhere to a pure religion. It is with regards to them that our Shaykh Shaltoot issued a fatwa deeming it permissible to follow this madhab because this is a legitimate Islamic madhab, that acts as a source of guidance for its adherents. In Egypt we have incorporated certain principles of Shi'a fiqh on divorce and inheritance into our Law". Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as) also taught Imam Malik Yet again in this case Nasibi fails to cite any sources as evidences for their accusation that Imam Malik was not the student of Imam Ja’far Sadiq(as) .Like Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik also benefited from the knowledge of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as): Abu Nu'aym Isfahani (d. 430 Hijri) wrote in Hilayat al-Awliya page 199 Volume 3 that: "Imam Malik bin Anas was a student of Imam Ja'far (as). He attained knowledge from him and attended his gatherings".

Hadhrath Umar played an instrumental role at the Saqifa and Hadhrath Abu Bakr recognized and rewarded him for this by appointing him as his successor. If we are to accept the argument that the Prophet (saww) left no successor then what right did Hadhrath Abu Bakr appoint a successor? He should have likewise left the issue to the Ummah to decide, as the Prophet (saww) did (according to the Ahlul' Sunnah belief). During his reign Hadhrath Umar the post as Governor of Syria was successively given to the 2 sons of Abu Sufyan, Yazid and then Mu'awiya. What was the aim behind these appointments? These two men were not from among the Muhajireen or the Ansar, they were not from amongst those who had pledged allegiance at Hudaibiya, and on the contrary they embraced Islam following the conquest of Makka. Al Alwani writes that during his reign Hadhrath Abu Bakr decided: "…that everyone should receive an equal share from the public treasury. 'Umar asked him: "How can you consider one who entered Islam with misgivings to be equal to one who left his home and wealth behind, and migrated and migrated to be with the Prophet? Abu Bakr however insisted that: "They all entered Islam for the sake of Allah, and their reward is with Him; this world is nothing". When however 'Umar became khalifa, he differentiated between people and paid the "stipend" according to how early each person had entered Islam, whether they had migrated, and how much they had suffered for the sake of Allah". [Usul al Fiqh al Islami - Source methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, by Taha Jabir Al Alwani, page 19, translated by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo publisher Zain International, UK, second edition.] If Hadhrath 'Umar had taken such a staunch line when distributing money amongst the faithful, salaries being rewarded on account of when an adherent embraced Islam and their subsequent service to the faith, why did he adopt a completely different approach when it came to granting positions of power? If those who had embraced Islam later and had no service to Islam, received less money than the early converts, why were these same individuals more entitled to receive administrative control / 'physical power' over an entire region? Why was preference given to them over prominent Sahaba who had accompanied the Prophet (saww) very early on in his mission? Why appoint them when they had provided no service to Islam in the past? This was a carefully thought out strategy. Hadhrath Umar had once told Hadhrath Abdullah Ibne Abbas that the Muslims felt that Imamate and Prophethood should not exist in one household. This is in fact one of the most consistently proposed arguments given by the scholars of

Ahl'ul Sunna to account for the attitude of Hadhrath Umar with regard to Imam Ali. He sought to ensure that this would not happen by providing positions to those who would never tolerate the Ahlul'bayt taking the reigns of government. This scheme paved the way for Hadhrath Uthman to become the next khalifa, once in power his position was strengthened by the presence of Mu'awiya in Syria. This would probably result in checkmate for Imam Ali, who was hated vehemently by the Banu Ummaya since he and his clan, the Holy Prophet's clan of Banu Hashim, had slaughtered so many of their closest kin. A perfect example of this is the reaction of 'Abu Sufyan when Hadhrath Uthman was made the khalifa, Ibn al-Hadid records: "…he went to Uhud and kicked at the grave of Hamzah (the uncle of the Prophet) and said: "O Abu Ya'la! See that the kingdom which you fought against has at last come to us". [Sharh Nahjul-balaghah, by Ibn al Hadid,Vol 16, p136 2nd edition, Egypt ] Syria was an agriculturally rich land; it generated a high amount of income. Hadhrath Umar knew that there was a long standing hatred by the Banu Ummaya towards the Banu Hashim, they would never tolerate a member of the Ahlul'bayt becoming khalifa in the long run and that this would cause inevitable rivalry....this happened on the plains of Sifeen. Mu'awiya in fact justified his hostility pointing to the fact that he was merely adhering to a policy of opposition that had been created by the earlier Khalifa’s. This is what he wrote in reply to a critical letter by Muhammad bin Abu Bakr: "We and your father 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 him…He took him to Himself. Then your father and his Faruq were the first to snatch it and oppose him, they both worked together on this…If it was injustice, then your father founded it and we are his partners. We followed his guidance and imitated his action". [Waq'at Sifeen by Minqari p118-120 (Cairo edition 1962)] Hadhrath Uthman became Khalifa at the age of 74, again the question arises why was he preferred to younger more able Sahaba? This was part of Hadhrath Umar's thinking to vest absolute power to the Banu Ummayya clan. This was secured via the coming to power of Hadhrath Uthman. Hadhrath Uthman appointed the enemy of the Prophet (saww) his cousin Abdullah bin Sarh to quote Ameer Ali: "…the satrapy of Egypt. This Abdullah was at one time a Secretary to the Prophet, and when the Master dictated his revelation he used to change the words and 'denaturalise' their meanings".

Supporting the enemies of Muhammad[saww] & his Ahlul'bayt; Political appointments To read the entire article please go to the following URL: http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/support/en/index.php



r

t

,

,l , i

l , i

[The Spirit of Islam, by Syed Ameer Ali, p 294 ] He appointed Waleed as Governor of Kufa. Walid was a transgressor according to the word of Allah (swt). Once when ordered by the Prophet (saww) to collate Zakat from a tribe, he lied alleging they had refused to hand over their due, this lead to the descent of this verse: "Oh you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news try to verify it...” (49:6-7). [See Tafseer of Surah Hujuraat by Bilal Philips, commentary of the above verse ] Most significantly Hadhrath Uthman appointed Marwan, who to quote Baladhuri: "…embraced Islam following the conquest of Makka, but continued to insult the Prophet, as a result Hakim and his sons were banished from Madina, this ruling was upheld by Umar and Abu Bakr. When Hadhrath Uthman came to power he chose to ignore the Prophet (saww)'s order, he called back Marwan and Hakim, and made Marwan his Assistant and Chief Officer of the Court". [Ansab al ash af, by al Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 17 ] So in these three key posts Hadhrath Uthman appointed three men, one who the Prophet (saww) wanted executed, a transgressor and a man who was banished by the Prophet (saww). Even the revered Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb Shaheed was unable to mask his discontent over these facts, he writes: "the khalifa - in his old age, and his state brought about by advanced age - did not possess control of his affair to the expense of Marwan. It is difficult to accuse the spirit of Islam in the person of Islam, but it is likewise difficult to pardon him for the error of the unfortunate occurrence of his taking the khilafa whilst he was a weakened old man, who was surrounded by evil courtiers from Banu Umayyah". [ Al-Adaala ul-Ijtimaa'iyyah by Sayyid Qutb Shaheed p.189, 5th edition ] When prominent pious Sahaba were still living why was priority given to such men? The answer is that the objective was to have a Caliphate that would permanently belong to the Banu Ummaya. A clan whose supremacy had been effectively extinguished with the coming to power of Islam, now had the reigns of power, nothing no one, especially their sworn enemies the Banu Hashim were going to stand in their way or humiliate them again. Absolute favouritism was given to the Banu Ummayya they were rewarded with power and financial clout a means to eliminate any likelihood of Banu Hashim attaining the Khilafath. Hadhrath Uthman gave a fifth of the spoils of the first expedition of Africa to his foster brother Abdullah Ibn Abu Sarh. Marwan purchased a fifth of the second expedition of Africa; then the Caliph gave him the whole amount(1). Fadak land belonging to the Prophet (saww) that Hadhrath Abu Bakr had confiscated and made a part

of the State was awarded to Marwan (2). He gave his cousin Harith a gift of camels that had been collected as part of alms tax and brought to Madina(3). Is it not curious that land that Hadhrath Abu Bakr stated belonged to the State which Ahlul'bayt could not claim was 'given' to Marwan? Hadhrath Uthman gave Harith the Zakat of Qud-ah that amounted to 300,000 dirhams(4) and Abdul Rahman bin Auf had 3 million dirhams(5). 1). Tarikh, Ibn al Athir Volume 3 page 49 publishers, Dar ul Kitan al Lubnani, 1973 2). al Ma'arif by Ibn Qutayba, page 190 edited by Tharwat 'Ukasha, Cairo edition 1960 3). Ansab al ashraf, by Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 28, edited by S.D.F. Goitein Jerusalem 1936 4). At Fitnah thu Kubra by Taha Hussa n, Volume 1 page 193 published by dar al Ma'arif, Egypt 1953 5). At Fitnah thu Kubra by Taha Hussa n, Volume 3 page 126 published by dar al Ma'arif, Egypt 1953 It may alternatively be viewed that Hadhrath Umar, realizing the greed of the Banu Ummaya, stalled a civil war by handing it over to them in all but name and thus preserved the integrity of the Muslim state for a while longer before the Banu Ummaya would tear it apart. This also excluded Imam Ali. It can be argued why did Hadhrath Umar not give the khilafat to his son Abdullah bin Umar? Hadhrath Umar had too much vision for this. Realizing the powerful threat of the Bani Ummayya should his son have become khalifa his end would have been at the hands of the powerful Banu Ummayya, who were power hungry. In fact he made his own son Abdullah bin Umar have the deciding ballot should the council set up after his death end in deadlock, thus favouring the Banu Ummayya represented by Hadhrath Uthman. Abdullah bin Umar became a close ally of the Banu Ummayya and a bitter enemy of Imam Ali's sons, in particular Imam Hussain (as) whose genocide with the majority of the remaining members of the family of the holy Prophet he would sanction. Either rational upshot of this plan makes it self-evident that for historical purposes the khilafat of Hadhrath Umar can be viewed as an interim period to effect a transition of power back to the old overlords of pagan Makka - the Banu Ummayya, the tribe of Abu Sufyan. The unfolding events of history testify that this scheme materialized as harsh reality. It explains the bitter irony, noted by Sunni and Shi'i Muslims alike, of how it came to be that the most bitter enemies of the Holy Prophet came to the rule the Muslim Ummah within 30 years of his death. It explains how the terrible wars of Jamal and Sifeen, the first Muslim civil wars after the earliest period came to be. It also explains the later genocide of the family of the Holy Prophet (saww) and persecution of the Shi'i Imams. In here lie further origins of Muslim disunity.

understanding shia/imaami/jafari islam · pdf filein the name of god, most merciful, most kind...

Documents