You are on page 1of 202

Question: 5:6 regarding washing of the feet (the order in which it is stated [in Arabic] is illogical and unlike

e any form of writing...it mentions to wash, wash, wipe, and wipe...why would such literary work state wash wash wipe and wash?

Answer: The Noble Qur'an - Al-M'idah 5:6

O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salt (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janba (i.e. had a sexual discharge), purify yourself (bathe your whole body). But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse) and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allh does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favour on you that you may be thankful.

Question: Does 66:9 prove lanat to be acceptable? Along with multiple other instances in the Quran that state that anyone who betrays the prophet and his family should have lanat upon them?

Answer: Why Shia curse the wives of the prophet and his companions?
The one who curses the wives of the prophet (saws) and his companions is: Either a irreligious anti-Islamic hypocrite who make a defamation against them as a way of slandering the prophet and as a scheme to attack Islam. All the founders of the Shia's movements belong to this group. Note that not any one of Ahlul-Bayt belong to those Shia. Or an inattentive who follows his act according to one's own wishes and ignorant. Almost all the Shia today belong to this group.

Remember that Abu-Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) were the closest companions to Muhammad as all references indicates and Allah confirmed in the Qur'an. His good treat to them is very well known to Shia. They were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet and his right hand. So, if the Shia claim were correct then we have three possible situations: Either they were hypocrites and the Prophet did not know that. This is a great insult to Allah since he did not warn his Messenger from his closest companions. Or they were hypocrites and the Prophet knew that. This is even worst since they are insulting the Prophet by claiming that he did not warn his nation from those hypocrites and he made them his relatives. Or they were good Muslims and they went astray after his death. This is abandonment from Allah to his messenger since He did not tell him what would happen in the future to warn the Muslim Ummah. How come Allah who promised to support his religion and his messenger, make to closest companions to his prophet renegades and hypocrites?! By insulting the wives and the companions of the Prophet , clearly the Shia want people to say: "Muhammad was a wanton man among wanton companions. If he were a virtuous man then his companions will be virtuous people too." The Shia curse the Companions who are the righteous pattern to this Ummah and Allah bear witness for that: (Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs (the Companions who emigrated from Mecca), those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones; But those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls; they are the ones that achieve prosperity. And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Qur'an Hashr: 8-10) Contradiction in Shi'ism Shia cusses Abu-Bakr and his daughter Aisha, the wife of the prophet , but they regard his son since he fought with Ali. So, they hate the best one in this Ummah after The Prophet and they regard his son who does not have any contribution in raising Islam. Shia also claim that they love the family of the Prophet , but they curse his wives who are the most important part of his family! Why cussing the Companions (Sahbah) of The Prophet is very dangerous? Because the Companions of The Prophet are those who are denigrating and demolishing Islam. For, indeed, it is the Sahbah (my Allah be pleased with them) who are the ones through whom Islam has been passed down to us. So those people who curse and insult them, in reality, are destroying Islam. During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." So, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a dsibeliever, because the verse says, "the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)." Shia curses the Rightly Guided Khalifas (May Allah be pleased with them)

If they had any sense, they would know and appreciate that they are in reality cursing the Holy Prophet himself. Abu Bakr and Umar were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet. Also, during the lifetime of the Prophet both were his right hand men; and after his demise, it is they who had great worry feeling for the welfare of Islam. Who else has ever been honored with such a position and honor as was granted to these two? Again, it is these two who had always participated and had been with the Prophet during all the battles. These facts are enough to refute the Shia beliefs. As for Uthmaan, he was the husband to two daughters of the Prophet. It is clear that Allah does not choose for His Messenger a son-in-law and companions except those who are the best. If the Rafida (Shia) are true to their claims, then could they explain why The Messenger did not forewarn the Ummah and clarify the alleged enmity of the Rightly Guided Khalifas (i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan) towards Islam? Allah bears witness in the Qur'an that Abu Bakr is a close companion to the prophet Muhammad by his saying: "If ye help not (Muhammad ), (it is no matter): for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion (Abu Bakr): they two were in the Cave, and he said to his companion, Have no fear for Allah is with us." (9:40) Shia curses Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) Their insults and curses are not limited just to the Rightly Guided Khalifas but are also directed towards Ali. Because Ali himself, in Masjid Rabia, gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Abu Bakr and also gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also willingly gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Uthmaan. Not only this, but he was actually the right hand man and a well wisher of the Rightly Guided Khalifas. So could Ali chosen a kafir as a son-in-law for himself? And could Ali have given the oath of allegiance (bai'ah), as he did, to a kafir? Subhn Allah (Glory to God)! This indeed is a great accusation! Shia curses Hasan son of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) Also, by cursing Mu'aawiya (May Allah be pleased with him), these Rafida (Shia) are actually cursing Hasan (May Allah be pleased with him). Because Hasan withdrew from, and gave up the Khilaafah to Mu'aawiya purely for the pleasure of Allah. The Messenger foretold of this in the hadith. So can the grandson of The Messenger actually have withdrawn from and left the Khilaafah in the hands of a Kafir for him to rule over the people? Subhn Allah! This indeed is a great accusation and insult! If the Rafida say that Ali and Hasan were forced into doing this, then this is proof enough that these Rafida have no sense whatsoever. The accusations levelled against these two honored companions of the Prophet are the worst insults ever imaginable and are beyond belief. They should remember that Ali faced the unbelievers in Mecca pace to face although Muslims were less than 40 man. So, why does he hide his Islam when Muslims became the majority and why he does not face the hypocrites? Shia curses Aisha, the mother of the Believers (May Allah be pleased with her) Furthermore, how do these Rafida curse and insult Umm ul Mu'mineen (mother of the Believers) A'isha when Allah Himself has mentioned her in the Qur'an as the mother of the believers? "The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their (believers) mothers (as regards respect and marriage)." (Al-Ahzaab, verse 6)

There is no doubt whatsoever that only that person will curse and insult Umm al-Mu'mineen who does not consider her to be a mother. Because for one who does have a mother, does not curse and insult her, but loves her. Allah promised to give a great punishment to those who slander her: "When you were propagating it (the slander) with your tongues, and uttering with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you counted it a little thing, while with Allah it was very great." (An-Nur 24:15) Imam Malik stated that anyone who slanders her should be killed right away because Allah forbids us (in the Qur'an) from it forever and because anyone who curses the Prophet (p) or any member of this family should be killed too. This fatwa was also issued by his teacher Imam Ja'far al-Saadiq. Allah says: "Allah forbids you from it (slandering 'A'isha) and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers." (An-Nur 24:17) Ali vs. Jesus Indeed, Christians and Shia are very similar as a way of thinking. For instance, Christians take their priests as gods other than Allah. Shia also take their Imams as gods other than Allah. Christians take Jesus as a son of Allah then they describe his death on the cross as he is a week man who cant do anything to support his faith. They made him a target to every kind of accusations, mocks, and humiliations. Shia on the other side give Ali a higher position than the prophet Muhammad (p) and claim that Islam wouldnt spread and unbelieving wouldnt be defeated without Ali. However, the claim that he too weak to defense Islam after the death of the prophet Muhammad (p) and he had to accept all kinds of accusations and humiliations against himself and against Ahlu-Bayt with no attempt to stop that. Shia vs. Ahlu-Bayt All members of Ahl-ul-Bayt (the family of the Holy Prophet) belong to Sunni Muslims. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq for instance, is the teacher of Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa. None of Ahlu-Bayt subscribed to the false beliefs of these Rafida (Shia). There are numerous solid arguments based on logic and Shari'ah refuting their religion and false beliefs. These arguments are so many that it would be difficult to recount them all. Therefore they should repent from their false and unfounded beliefs and enter into the fold of Islam. "They are the enemies, so beware of them. May Allah curse them! How are they denying (or deviating from) the Right Path." (al-Munaafiqoon, verse 4) These Rafida (Shia) actually descend from Abu Lu'luah Majoosi (a Persian fire worshipper) and Abdullaah ibn Saba' (a Jew). However they are more dangerous than the Christians themselves. Christians fight Islam face to face (if they did) while Rafida stab Islam from its back.

Question: Khums 8:41 - And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent. Why do sunnis not give khums?

Fadak, Part I: Shia Hadith Confirms Abu Bakrs Justice ( )


Answer:

The issue of Fadak is a favorite topic for the Shia, and the story (in collusion with spiteful rhetoric) is one that the Shia children grow up on. The Shia propagandists feel no qualms in rabble-rousing and exploiting Fadak by reviving Fitnah and disagreements that died hundreds of years ago. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah does not focus on the story of Fadak, namely to prevent senseless Fitnah and out of respect for Abu Bakr ( ) and Fatima ( ), two of the great personalities of Islam. Because of the fact that the issue of Fadak is not a center of focus in Sunni circles, many Sunni youth do not have the details about this event and most havent even heard of it. Meanwhile, the Shia youth are trained with propaganda points to assault the unknowing Sunnis with. This imbalance of knowledge leads to a quick victory for the Shia propagandists. The reality, however, is that the Shia version of Fadak is completely biased, contrary to the facts, and yet another typical Taqiyyah-oriented deception and manipulation of history designed to malign Abu Bakr ( ). We find that a fair analysis of Fadak not only absolves Abu Bakr ( ) of all wrong doing, but it also exposes the falsity of the Shia paradigm.

Fadak

Fadak was the name of a property that the Prophet ( ) personally owned. Upon the Prophets death ( ), Fatima ( ) expected to inherit Fadak, but Caliph Abu Bakr ( ) refused to give it to her and he instead donated it to the state as charity. Based on this event, the Shia villify Abu Bakr ( ) for stealing land from the daughter of the Prophet. The reason Abu Bakr ( ) did notand Islamically could notgive Fadak to Fatima ( ) was because the Prophet ( ) had declared that the Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Prophets are awarded special financial privelages in order to aid them in their mission to spread Islam; Prophet Muhammad ( ) got a portion of the Khums on the very basis that he was a Prophet. It is thus not an absurd stipulation that their inheritance too has a special set of rules distinct from non-prophets. Both Sunni and Shia Hadith confirm that the property of Prophets is left behind as charity and not to be awarded as inheritance.
y

Hadith

Let us now examine Sunni Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet Muhammad ( ) said: We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad wasSiyar, no. 49) We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462) This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia. The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith: The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, Beirut) So we wonder why this Hadith is reliable enough to prove Wilayah al-Faqih, but suddenly it is not used by the Shia to defend Abu Bakrs ( ) position? Do we not then see that the statement made by Abu Bakr ( ) about Prophets not giving inheritance is the same statement that was made by Imam Sadiq ( ) whom the Shia consider to be infallible? Allamah Al-Majlisi declared that the Hadith do[es] not fall short of being Sahih. And Ayatollah Khomeini considered it to be so Sahih that he used it to prove his Wilayah alFaqih. If Abu Bakr ( ) is to be considered a liar for quoting this Hadith, then would the

Shia also accept that Imam Sadiq ( liars by same logic?

), Allamah Majlisi, and Ayatollah Khomeini are also

This Shia Hadith is referenced on Al-Shia.com, one of the most reliable of the Shia websites: Hadith 57, Chapter 4, h 1 The prophets did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (wealth) as their inheritance but they did leave knowledge as their inheritance. (source: Al-Shia.com, http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part2/part2-ch4.htm) The Prophet ( ) is recorded as saying:

What we leave behind is to become alms. (Hadith ash-Shafi) The truth is that the Shia has no leg to stand upon since we point to their own Al-Kafi.
y

Crux of the Matter

When Ali ( ) became Caliph, he did not revoke the decision of Abu Bakr ( ) on the propety of Fadak. What stopped Ali ( ) from doing this? So why are the Shia against Abu Bakr ( ) when Ali ( ) upheld the decision? In fact, the scholar Sayyid Murtada (known as Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when Ali ( ) became the Caliph he was approached about returning Fadak. Alis reply ( ) was: I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar. (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4) This here is the crux of the matter. Why didnt Ali ( ) return Fadak once he became Caliph? There is no Shia response to this question. We ask our Shia brothers to guess who returned Fadak. The Shia will be shocked to know that it would be a later Umayyad Caliph that returned Fadak to the descendants of Fatima ( ), even though the Umayyads are hated and villified by the Shia. (However, this decision by the Umayyad Caliph was over-turned by future Caliphs on the basis that it was incorrect, considering that the Prophet [ ] forbade inheritance of his property, and that Abu Bakr [ ], Umar [ ], Uthman [ ], and Ali [ ] upheld the decision of Fadak.) So again, we ask our Shia brothers: why didnt Ali ( ) return Fadak once he became Caliph? Why did he uphold Abu Bakrs decision ( ) if it was so wrong? Why dont the Shia hate Ali ( ) for failing to return Fadak? Why dont they hate Ali ( ) for reaping the gains of Fadak while he was Caliph? Why the double standard with Abu Bakr ( )? The Shia say that Caliph Umar ( ) gave Fadak back to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ), and they accuse Caliph Uthman ( ) of being a tyrant because he snatched it back from them. So then the question is: why didnt Ali ( ) return Fadak to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) when he became Caliph? Uthman ( ) is a tyrant but Ali ( ) is not? Indeed this is nothing short of an incredible double standard.

What is also interesting is that Hasan ( )who was also Caliph for a short durationalso did not return Fadak! He did not claim it for himself, nor did he distribute it to the other inheritors from Fatimas lineage ( ). So why did he too do nothing about Fadak? Surely, if blame is to be put on Abu Bakrs shoulders ( ), and on the shoulders of Uthman ( ), then fairness dictates that equal blame should be put on Hasan ( )!
y

Shia Rebuttal #1: Taqiyyah

According to the Shia, Fadak should have been rightfully distributed to the progeny of Fatima ( ). Then, why didnt Ali ( ) do what is right? The only response the Shia can give is their standard cop-out: why, of course Ali ( ) was doing Taqiyyah! The Shia will say that this is why he didnt return Fadak. Oh, nice! Whenever the logic of historical facts do not sit well with the Shia narrative, they will then always have the trump card of Taqiyyah. (Taqiyyah, according to a Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, means to say something outwardly but mean something else inwardly.) How can we have an intelligent discussion with the Shia when everyone in history is doing Taqiyyah? Why cant we claim then that Abu Bakr ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah and thats why he didnt return Fadak to Fatima? And why couldnt we say that Uthman ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah? It becomes comical when ones entire historical narrative rests on Taqiyyah. There is no way to prove anything if we rely on Taqiyyah as a precedent. The only way the Shia can answer why Prophet Muhammad ( ) took Abu Bakr ( ) as a companion and even married his daughter is that the Prophet ( ) was of course doing Taqiyyah! The only way that the Shia can reconcile the fact that Ali ( ) didnt fight the Three Caliphs like Hussain ( ) fought Yezid is again of course Taqiyyah! Why didnt Allah reveal anything in the Quran about Imamah or the Wilayah of Ali? Again, Allah was doing Taqiyyah!
y

Shia Rebuttal #2: Usurped Property

We have also seen the Shia propagandists claim that the reason Ali ( ) didnt take back Fadak was that the Ahlel Bayt does not take back usurped property. To bolster this argument, the Shia will bring up the example of Prophet Muhammad ( ), whose Meccan home had been usurped by the infidels; upon conquering Mecca, the Prophet ( ) did not take it back. This answer is very weak, and easily debunked by simply providing the names of Infallible Imams of the Shia who accepted usurped property. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, who accepted it. Imam Al-Baqir is considered to be one of the Infallible Imams of the Shia, and thus very much part of what the Shia consider to be the Ahlel Bayt. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz was wrong in returning Fadak (and his ruling was overturned by later Caliphs), but thats not the point. The point is that we see here that one of their twelve Infallible Imams accepted usurped property. The government once again took back Fadak, and then another Caliph came along later down the line who decided to once again return Fadak to the descendants of Fatima ( ). Caliph Mamun would return Fadak to Imam Rida, yet another of those whom the Shia consider to be Infallible Imams. And there are a couple more examples of the Shia Infallibles accepting usurped property. Thus, this argument of the Shia is baseless. The Answering-Ansar Team has argued that no Shia would use such a pathetic argument, but the reality is that we have seen this argument being used again and again on various forums. Thus, it was

imperative that we respond to it here. We are glad that the Answering-Ansar Team also recognizes the baseness of this argument; instead, they have said that Ali ( ) did not want to commit Fitnah (i.e. disunity, chaos, etc) and this is why he didnt return Fadak. We address this argument below.
y

Shia Rebuttal #3: Ali (

) Didnt Want Fitnah

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

Shia Rebuttal #4: Fatima (

) Was Dead

Sometimes an E-Shia will try forwarding the argument that Fatima ( ) died six months into Caliph Abu Bakrs rule, and thus Fadak was a non-issue by the time Ali ( ) became Caliph. Unfortunately, this argument falls apart when we look at the Shia narrations which show that Ali ( ) approached Umar ( ) and asked him to return Fadak to Fatimas heirs, including Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ). Thus, according to the Shia, Fadak was still a monumental issue and the land should be returned to the progeny of Fatima ( ). In fact, the Shia today still claim that Fadak should be returned to those whom they call Syedi. Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) were the inheritors of Fatima ( ), and thus Fadakaccording to the Shiawas their right. The Shia curse Uthman ( ) for taking Fadak away from Ali ( ) and giving it to Marwan ( ). As can be seen, the issue of Fadak did not then die with Fatima ( ) and this argument is weak.
y

Conclusion

The Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( ) are baseless, since he was following orders from Prophet Muhammad ( ) and this decision was upheld by Ali ( ). If the Shia want to lay blame on Abu Bakr ( ) for using Fadak as a charitable property, then the Shia should also accuse Ali ( ) since he did the same thing during his Caliphate. The truth is that Ali ( ) did at first think that Fadak should be given to Fatima ( ); however, he changed his mind after being presented with Abu Bakrs argument ( ), and this is why Ali ( ) upheld the first Caliphs decision in regards to Fadak.

The Shia propagandists will argue that Abu Bakr ( ) went against the Quranic rules of inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets as clearly mentioned by the Prophet ( ) in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The very fact that such Hadith exist in the Shia canon makes impotent the Shia attack on the personality of Abu Bakr ( ). In AlKafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) The Shia will argue that the Quranic verses on inheritance pertain to Prophets and non-Prophets alike, and that these rules are all-inclusive without exception. This argument is weakened by the fact that the Shia Ulema themselves make exceptions in the rules of inheritance. For example, the Quran declares that children inherit wealth from their parents. However, the Shia Ulema (as well as the Sunni Ulema) make an exception to this general rule: Kaffir children do not inherit from their Muslim parents. Hence, not everyone is encompassed in the Quranic verse regarding inheritance; it is the general rule for the average person, but there are exceptions for special cases (and Prophets are one such exception). The Shia propagandists may resort to dogmatic rhetoric declaring the supermacy of the Quran and accusing the Sunnis of straying away from it by making exceptions to the laws of inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, their own Infallible Imams have made exceptions to the rules of inheritance that would make any Shia accusations against the Sunnis to be simply hypocritical and sanctimonious. For example, the Shia Infallible Imams have prohibited some heirs from inheriting certain items of their estates, including the Dhul Fiqar (Alis sword [ ]), the Quran, the Prophets ring, and his bodily garments. These items were excluded from the Quranic laws of inheritance and reserved for the new Imam, instead of being properly distributed amongst the other children and eligible heirs. Hence, Imams had a different system of inheritance, so why is it surprising for the Shia that the Prophets also have their own system of inheritance distinct from nonProphets? The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and exceptions to this rule. For example, the Quran says that men can only marry upto four wives. And yet, we find in Hadith that the Prophet ( ) was exempted from this ruling and he married more than four. Thus, the rules of Hadith grant an exception to the Prophets, and their rules are different than the rules of ordinary people as mentioned in the Quran. Any time a Shia propagandist attempts to assert that we are going against the Quran, we remind them that Prophets in general have different rules in certain matters; otherwise, are the Shia accusing the Prophet ( ) of going against the Quran by marrying more than four women? If the rule about marrying four women can be different for Prophets, then similarly we see no problem in the rules of inheritance also being different for Prophets. The analogy is perfect, and completely negates the Shia claims. Furthermore, the Shia admit that the Quran dictates that if a person becomes poor, then he becomes eligible for Zakat. This is a right of an individual based in the Quran. And yet, the Hadith tells us that the Prophets family is not permitted to take Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the Prophets family could not ask for Zakat. This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophets family could not recieve Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve inheritance from the Prophet ( )? Both rules come from the Hadith, which modify the general rule in the Quran. An astounding revelationof which many people happen to be uninformed ofis the fact that, according to Shia Hadith, a woman does not inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shia accept it for Fatima ( ) to inherit Fadak, when their own Hadith does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?

In the Shia book of Hadith al-Kafi, al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled Women do not inherit land. In this chapter, he narrates a Hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir: Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property. (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1) He asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar alAnwar, vol. 104 p. 351) Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; alIstibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: Women will have nothing of houses or land. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351) So the Shia Hadiths themselves would deny the inheritance to Fatima ( ) even if the Prophets were allowed to give inheritance to their heirs (even though they are not). This makes the Shia arguments against Abu Bakr ( ) even more useless.
y

Ali (

) angered Fatima (

) ), wherein the

The Shia will also bring up the following Hadith to condemn Abu Bakr ( Prophet ( ) said: Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.

There is a great irony in the Shia mentioning this Hadith. What they dont know is the context of this Hadith. Once the Shia is made aware of the context of this Hadith, he is shocked and will then realize that he has shot himself in the foot by bringing up this Hadith. The Prophet ( ) addressed the above statement (he who makes her angry, makes me angry) to Ali ( ) who had angered Fatima ( ) in a very famous incident. This incident is narrated by the esteemed founding father of Shia theology, Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, better known as Al-Sadooq. In his book, Al-Sadooq relayed the following narration on the authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. This narration is also available on Al-Shia.com: Al-Shia.com says

Majlisi Bihar 43/201-202 : : : : . -

. :

: : . : [ ](1)

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar43/a21.html

Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl? She said: Is it true what you say? He said three times: What I say is true. Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah. He said: And Fatimas anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night timeshe moved to her fathers residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her fathers house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it. When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Dua that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: O daughter, rise! So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthooms hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping. The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha. So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah then said: O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.

(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi Bihar 43/201-202) This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by AlMajlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story. It was actually Ali ( ) who had angered Fatima ( ), and consequently, the Prophet ( ) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima ( ) angers him. According to the Shia narration above, the Prophet ( ) even put his foot on Ali and pinched him. Not only this, but the Prophet ( ) rounded up some of the Sahabah in order to publically chastise Ali ( ) on the matter. Hence, if the Shia would like to condemn Abu Bakr ( ) for angering Fatima ( ), then what about this incident in which Ali ( ) does so? In fact, the very statement that the silly Shia use against us is in fact the same statement that was used by the Prophet ( ) as a chastisement of Ali ( )! And this was not the only time that Ali ( ) angered Fatima ( ). According to Shia sources, we see several other instances. On one occassion, she was angry with Ali ( ) because she saw his head in the lap of a slave girl that was given to him as a gift. She even left him for awhile and went to her fathers house, which is something that females do when they are upset with their husbands or they are facing marital problems. This narration is available on the YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website: YaZahra.net says

Majlisi Biharul anwar 43/147 : (1) . : : : .

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

Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatimas house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girls lap. She said: O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!? He said: O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want? She said: Do you allow me to go to my fathers house? He said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet. (source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on How her life with Ali was)

Yasoob.com is another well-known Shia website, and it too has these narrations in which Fatima is angered by Ali. Yasoob.com says

Shaikh Saduk Elal esh sharae p 185-186 ( : : : ) :

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

Shayh Saduk Ilal esh sharai :

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

The Shia say that Fatima ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( ) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali ( ) at

the same time? We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in AlTusis Amali: When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Ali because he refused to help her. (Al-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusis Amali, p.295) Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali ( ) made Fatima ( one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions: ) angry on more than

1) The Prophets saying whoever disturbs her, disturbs me is addressed to Ali ( ) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr ( ); if this statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali ( ) before Abu Bakr ( ). 2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali ( ) angered Fatima ( ). What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali ( ), then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr ( ).
y

No obedience In transgression

When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr ( ) by bringing up the Prophets words ( ) about making Fatima ( ) angry, we ask these mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith and Quranic exhortations about not making ones parents angry. The Prophet has said that if a person makes his parents angry, then this will anger Allah. We are told that if we disobey or anger our parents, we disobey and anger Allah. However, what if a parent asks his daughter not to wear the Hijab, and what if he gets angry if she does wear it? Would it then be sinful for the girl to continue wearing Hijab? Of course not! The Prophet ( ) said: There is no obedience in transgression. Verily, obedience is in good deeds [only]. (Sahih Bukhari, Muslim) We cannot obey another human being above Allah and His Messenger. So how could Abu Bakr ( ) place the words of Fatima ( ) above that of the Messenger of Allah ( ) who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance?
y

Fatimas anger (

) in context

It should be noted that Fatima ( ) is not God. Her anger does not decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. Not even the Prophet ( ) is God; nor will his anger decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. If the Shia ask us proof of this claim, then we give them the example of Washu who killed the Prophets uncle, Hamza ( ). Washu would later convert to Islam and repent for his crimes; even still, the Prophet ( ) could not help but feel anger when he saw the face of the man who killed his uncle. However, this was only the personal feeling of the Prophet ( ). It does not mean that Washu would be condemned to Hell-Fire for crimes that he committed prior to his conversion to Islam. In any case, Fatimas anger ( ) is not the factor which decides who goes to Paradise and who burns in Hell-Fire. If Fatimas anger ( ) is based on something which is wrong from a Shariah standpoint [i.e. Fadak], then how can this be the reason for Abu Bakrs condemnation ( )? Fatima ( ) was angry at Ali ( ) on at least one occassion: Ali (

) greatly upset Fatima ( ) on many occassions, and even there were incidents in which she was so angry that she left Alis house ( ) and went to stay with her father. Do we condemn Ali ( ) as a Kaffir now? The truth of the matter is that peopleeven loved onesget in arguments. We have yet to see a husband who does not get in arguments with his wife. Siblings fight all the time, and parents get angry at their children. We even have the example of Prophet Musa ( ) who lost patience with Khidr ( ), and yet we find that these are amongst the best of people as mentioned in the Quran (and infallible according to the Shia). Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) got in arguments, and yet we know that they were best of friends. Likewise, we believe that Ali ( ) got in arguments with Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ). And the Ahlus Sunnah has no issue with this, so why do the Shia suddenly think we would cower at the site of anyone getting in one argument with Fatima ( )? The Shia exploit the Hadith about whoever makes Fatima ( ) angry makes the Prophet ( ) angry. The Shia believe that the same is true of Ali ( ), that whoever makes him angry also makes the Prophet ( ) angry. Likewise, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that whoever upsets the Sahabah makes the Prophet ( ) angry. Thus, the Hadith about angering Fatima ( ) must be taken into the appropriate context and cannot be taken in such simplistic and stark terms. Furthermore, Abu Bakr ( ) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Fatima ( ). As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr ( ) should have been careful about angering Fatima ( ), an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima ( ) who should have been careful of angering the Caliph of the Muslims who by the Shariah was at a rank higher in status than anyone else. If the Shia want to argue that Fatimas position ( ) is higher due to the fact that she is leader of the women of Paradise, then we can also say that Aishas position ( ) is higher than that of Alis ( ) based on the fact that she is Mother of the Believers as mentioned in the Quran. Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not judge the Companions and relatives of the Prophet ( ), unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize Fatima ( ); we think she made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. The Shia propagandists will now resort to rhetoric and emotional arguments whereby they will ask if it is possible that the daughter of the Prophetwho was raised by himcould possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake. By this same logic, one could defend all of the actions of Aisha ( ), for she was the wife of the Prophet who was married to him at the tender age of six. So if the Shia ask why we say Fatima ( ) made a mistake, we ask the Shia why they say Aisha ( ) made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia). The reality is that any human beingeven the greatest of Muslimsis capable of making mistakes. We reject the concept of infallibility; it is a form of exaggeration and an extension of Shirk, whereby the quality of Allah (i.e. perfection) is given to humans. Fatima ( ) did not know of the Prophets Hadith which forbade inheritance from him. Thus, her demand for Fadak was not based out of sin, but rather out of a sincere mistake; mistakes are made by everyone, even the most pious individuals.
y

Fatima (

) reconciled with Abu Bakr (

In any case, it was only initially that Fatima ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( ). The Shia endeavour to capitalize on her feelings to convey the idea that because she was wronged, she

had directed that Abu Bakr ( ) should not attend her Janaazah and that she remained angry with him until her demise. We do not agree with this narrative, and we believe that Fatima ( ) eventually became pleased with Abu Bakr ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Fatima ( ) in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, Abu Bakr ( ) frequently said: By Allah! Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! Kindness to the relatives of Rasool-Allah is more beloved to me than my kindness with my own relatives. According to both Sunni and Shia narrations, Abu Bakr ( ) was greatly saddened by Fatimas displeasure ( ). He went to great lengths to please her while remaining firm on the Shariah. He went to her home, stood at her door in the midday sun and asked Ali ( ) to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt to placate and please Fatima ( ). Ultimately, she became pleased with him and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqiand in the commentaries of Mishkaat. Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said: Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr). Shia records also confirm that Fatima ( The Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states: ) became pleased with Abu Bakr ( ).

Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers. She then said: Do with it as my father, Rasool-Allah had done. Abu Bakr said: I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it. Fatima said: By Allah! You should most certainly do so. Abu Bakr said: By Allah! I shall most certainly do so. Fatima said: O Allah! Be witness. Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them (Fatima and others of the Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers. In the very reliable narration of Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, we read: When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter. She answerd, Do you want me to give him permission? He said, Yes. So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt. So he talked to her until she was pleased with him. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi) This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dalail al-Nubuwwa (7:273281) who said: It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain. Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.

How do we reconcile this Hadith with the Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari? This is a commonly used Hadith by the Shia propagandist: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 325: Narrated by Aisha: After the death of Allahs Apostle, Fatimathe daughter of Allahs Apostleasked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give to her what was her share of inheritance from what Allahs Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, Allahs Apostle said, Our property will not be inherited; whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity). Fatima, the daughter of Allahs Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allahs Apostle. Both this Hadith and the Hadith stated earlier in Bayhaqi have been deemed to be authentic narrations by the Hadith scholars. Therefore, how do we reconcile the two? The explanation is simple: Aisha ( ) may not have known that Fatima ( ) had reconciled with Abu Bakr ( ). Aisha ( ) was not present at that moment, so she was unaware of it. This does not mean that the event did not take place. Furthermoreand this point cannot be stressed enoughthe Hadith narrated by Aisha ( ) really means that Fatima ( ) did not speak to Abu Bakr ( ) again about the issue of Fadak, not necessarily that she did not speak to him again at all. Even though Abu Bakr ( ) was in the right, he nonetheless had the nobility and chivalry to continue trying to please Fatima ( ), despite the fact that she was in the wrong. The Shia propagandist will oftentimes show narrations that show that Abu Bakr ( ) regretted his causing Fatima ( ) to be angry. We find nothing wrong in this, and we give the Shia the example of Ali ( ) who sought the good pleasure of Aisha ( ) after the Battle of the Camel. In both situations, Abu Bakr ( ) and Ali ( ) were in the right, but they went to seek the good pleasure of the women, both of whom were close to the Prophet ( ). Regarding the claim that Fatima ( ) was averse to Abu Bakr ( ) attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali ( ) in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghairmahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees ( ) explained that she had seen one womans body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima ( ) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did. When Fatima ( ) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet ( ). She instructed Asma ( ) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali ( ) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma ( ) was the wife of Abu Bakr ( ), which serves as another evidence that Fatima ( ) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr ( ) before her death. (In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatimas grave [ ]. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.)

Furthermore, although Abu Bakr ( ) did not attend the burial of Fatima ( ), Ali ( ) asked Abu Bakr ( )on the basis that he was Caliphto conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr ( ) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab: Upon Hadhrat Alis request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs. Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima ( lead the Janaazah, since Ali ( first place!
y

) had said that Abu Bakr ( ) is the one who asked Abu Bakr (

) should not ) to do it in the

Three more refutations

The Shia will never agree with us that Fatima ( ) became pleased with Abu Bakr ( ), and they will adamantly claim that Fatima ( ) was angry with Abu Bakr ( ) for the rest of her life. They will quote Aisha ( ) who said that Fatima ( remained angry with Abu Bakr ( ). Our response is three-fold. Firstly:

If Fatima ( ) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr ( ), but rather it looks bad for Fatima ( ). She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shias own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima ( ) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr ( ), then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any manbut the Caliph of the Ummah. This makes Fatima ( ) look whimsical. The Sahabahincluding Abu Bakr ( ) used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima ( ) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state. It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima ( ) and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr ( ) near the end of her life. Perhaps it was that Aisha ( ) did not know that Fatima ( ) became happy with Abu Bakr ( ) because he did not inform Aisha ( ) about each and everything (such as when he placated Fatima). We take this opinion since it makes Fatima ( ) look better, and not to make her look whimsical and greedy like the Shia narrative does. Furthermore, there are many narrations that indicate that this is indeed the case that Fatima ( ) made good with Abu Bakr ( ), so why should we ignore these? Secondly: The Shia keep saying that Fatima ( ) carried a grudge her whole life, as if that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakrs grave mistake ( ). Fatima ( ) only lived six months after the Prophets death! So even if Abu Bakr ( ) made Fatima ( ) angry, her anger couldnt have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is it a long time. Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get a chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her anger subside. Who does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family members? Surely,

a brother getting in an argument with a sister for a few months is not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human beings and they do not ever get into arguments with family members. Thirdly: It should be kept in mind that after the Prophets death, Fatima ( ) was a highly emotional and distraught individual, since she loved the Prophet ( ) so much and missed him. Even the Shia say that Fatima ( ) was never happy for the rest of her life after the death of the Prophet ( ); the Shia have exaggerated stories about how even Angel Jibraeel ( ) would comfort Fatima ( ). So obviously, Fatima ( ) was in a bad mood, and we cannot lay the entire blame on the shoulders of Abu Bakr ( ); indeed, if the Shia want to lay the blame on someone, then lay it on Allah for taking away Fatimas father. Her melancholy can be attributed to that, and we are not surprised then that she was extra sensitive towards others including the Caliph, who in her eyes, was replacing her fathers position as leader of the Muslims. However, the most reliable position is that Fatima ( ) reconciled with Abu Bakr ( ). It should be noted that the Shia will oftentimes cite obscure sources and claim that they are authoratative Sunni sources or from so-called reknowned Sunni historians; nobody can verify these truly strange reports, and thus, we reject them as a basis for discussion on the matter of Fadak. Instead, we rely on the reliable reports which indicate that Fatima ( ) died happy with Abu Bakr ( ). y A Similar Hadith for the Sahabah The Prophet said: Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish! (Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442). Therefore, if the Shia would insist that Abu Bakr ( ) is to be criticized for angering Fatima ( ), then based on this same logic, shouldnt Fatima be criticized for her angering a Sahabi? Did not the Prophet say whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity with me? Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does interpret it in this way, but we are simply showing the flaw in the Shia logic. The Prophet praised many people, not only Fatima ( ) and Ali ( ) but also other Sahabah; the problem lies in the fact that the Shia stubbornly accept only those narrations in regards to certain people but reject similar Hadith in regards to others. It is only through this skewed interpretation and selective pick-and-choose mentality that the Shia are able to construct an imaginary paradigm pitting one friend of Allah against another. In another similar Hadith, the Prophet said: Whoever loves Umar loves me. Whoever hates Umar hates me. (At-Tabarani)

Therefore, we see that the Prophet said such words to many people he loved and the honor was not unique to Fatima ( ). If the Shia propagandists would like to narrowly apply such a Hadith with regards to Fatima ( ), then their entire paradigm falls apart if they consistently apply similar Hadith directed towards others loved by the Prophet. Indeed, what we see is that the approach of the Shia is overly simplistic and sophomoric. The Prophets statement was a general one, meaning simply that we should love the Sahabah, his Ahlel Bayt, etc, and not hate them. If I were to say that you should love your sister or your brother, this is speaking in general terms; no doubt, it is only inevitableas is the nature of humanto get in a couple arguments or even fights now and then. The Prophet was merely emphacizing his love for these people and urging the people to love them in turn. If one were to criticize Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) for angering Fatima ( ) over Fadak, then one could easily reply that Fatima ( ) hated Umar ( ) over Fadak and the Prophet warned against hating Umar ( ). Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not apply the Hadith in the same myopic way as the Shia does, but we are simply showing how strange the Shia logic seems when applied consistently. The Prophet also said: The Ansar! None loves them except a believer, and none hates them except a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allah loves him; and whoever hates them, Allah hates him. Once again, this is a general statement only; it cannot be interpreted to mean that no human being on earth can get in a disagreement or fight with any one of the Ansar. Instead, what is meant by the Hadith is that the Prophet has a close affinity and love for the Ansar, and that we should also share this, in general terms. The same is the case with the Hadith in regards to Fatimas anger. It is something to be taken in general terms and it cannot be applied in the way that the Shia does in order to malign the First Caliph.

Fadak: Fadak Was Not a Gift

The Shia propagandists will argue for hours claiming that Abu Bakr ( ) denied Fatima ( ) her inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, the Sunni position on Fadak is a slamdunk because of the fact that the Shias own Hadith declares that Prophets do not leave inheritance, thereby completely nullifying the Shia position on the matter. As the Shia often do when they lose an argument, they completely change their position in order to assume a position that will allow them to win said argument. In the case of Fadak, the Shia will suddenly claim that Fadak was not given to Fatima ( ) as an inheritance, but rather as a gift (hiba) from the Prophet ( ). Every single authoratative narrative, both on the Sunni and Shia side, affirms that Fatima ( ) approached Abu Bakr ( ) seeking Fadak as her inheritance. The term inheritance is always used, and never gift. Even the Shia books accuse Abu Bakr ( ) of denying Fatima ( ) her inheritance. This is the primary accusation of the Shia, not of stealing a gift.

Indeed, an integral part of the Shia accusation is that Abu Bakr ( ) fabricated a Hadith in regards to Prophets not leaving behind inheritance. Even a cursory glance of Shia websites shows that the recurring theme is that Fadak was an inheritance denied. The authoratative Shia website, AlIslam.org, declares: Umar was the most harsh person in keeping Fatima (as) from Fadak and her inheritance as he himself confessed. (Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/9.html) If Fadak was bestowed upon Fatima ( ) as a gift, then why did she claim it as her inheritance and not say anything about a gift? We see narration after narration in which Fatima ( ) talks to Abu Bakr ( ) about inheritance; if it was a gift, then why would she mention inheritance at all? And let us dwell on the timing of the issue: it was immediately after the Prophets death ( ) that Fatima ( ) came to claim Fadak. If it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophets death ( ) and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr ( ) for it. Some Shia propagandists will then claim that the Prophet ( ) gifted Fatima ( ) Fadak as inheritance that she would assume after his death. Do the Shia not realize that this is accusing the Prophet ( ) of commiting a Haram act? Both the Sunni and Shia jurists do not allow a man to gift inheritance upon his death. If this was possible, then a man could simply gift all his inheritance to the son, and thereby completely deny inheritance to the daughter. In fact, one could gift inheritance to whomever he pleases! The entire Islamic laws of inheritance would become nothing short of a joke. Indeed, once a person dies, the property must be doled out according to the portions ascribed in the Islamic laws of inheritance. (In the case of Prophets, the only portionaccording to the Shariahis to charity.) Fatima ( ) never sought Fadak as a gift: in every single narration about this incident, Fatima ( ) spoke about her inheritance. It was immediately after the Prophets death that Fatima ( ) came to claim Fadak, and if it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet ( ), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophets death, and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr ( ) for it. It is impossible that the Prophet ( ) gifted Fatima ( ) the property as inheritance that she would assume after his death, since this would be a violation of the Quranic rules about inheritance, in which one cannot simply gift things to whomever one wants. Could not then a father gift all of his inheritance to one son to the exclusion of his daughters? Indeed, a little thought into the matter quickly leads us to the conclusion that the Shia argument holds no weight. The Shia propagandists will then do what they always do: quote strange, obscure, and weak narrations claiming that these are authoratative Sunni sources. The truth of the matter is that all of these reports that are so-called Sunni reports are of a dubious character and cannot be used to prove that Fadak was a gift. We have seen Answering-Ansar and other anti-Sunni sites use reports from someone named Fudayl ibn Marzooq and yet we find that he is not a Sunni authority but rather he is considered a liar and a fabricator by the Ahlus Sunnah! And there are even other reports and quotes on Shia websites that are from books that our scholars have never even heard of, and are no doubt outright falsifications. The Shia propagandists will twist words and events in order to improve their arguments in the debate with the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us even accept the fallacious assertion of the Shia that Fadak was

a gift. The Shia still cannot explain why Fatima ( ) wrongfully said that Abu Bakr ( ) lied and fabricated Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance. (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [ ] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. Neither does the Ahlus Sunnah accept the exaggerated tales of Fatima [ ] cursing Abu Bakr [ ] and other such things.) We have proven that this Hadith (about Prophets not giving inheritance) exists even in the Shia literature and it is considered Sahih. At minimum, the Shia must admit that if the Shia version of history is correct, then Fatima ( ) was horribly wrong for accusing Abu Bakr of fabricating the Hadith (which is in Al-Kafi). This completely negates the Shia views on everything, since a central tenet of the Shia doctrine is that Fatima ( ) was infallible. If she was truly infallible, then why doesnt she know a Hadith that we have even proved from the Shia Al-Kafi? Thus, if the reader finds himself in a debate with a Shia propagandist who demands that Fadak was a gift, then we urge the reader to place the onus on the Shia: do not see the need to even prove that Fadak was not a gift, but rather repeatedly ask why Fatima ( ) wrongfully claimed that this Hadith does not exist, even though it appears in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih even by Ayatollah Khomeini. No matter if Fadak was an inheritance or a gift, one thing that can be proven is that if Fatima ( ) accused Abu Bakr ( ) of fabricating Hadith, then she was wrong.

Fadak: Charity is Good

Abu Bakr (

) Gave Fadak as Charity

The Shia will make it sound as if Abu Bakr ( ) took Fadak and made it his own. Abu Bakr ( ) did not take a cent from Fadak, but rather he made it part of the Waqf for the benefit of the Ummah and the emerging Muslim state. Fadak became charity, and contrary to what the Shia insinuate, Abu Bakr ( ) did not buy a new car using the money from Fadak. In fact, Abu Bakr ( ) was known to have dedicated most of his wealth to the Islamic cause. He lived the life of a pauper, and was known for his ascetism. Prior to his conversion to Islam, Abu Bakr ( ) was a very wealthy man; after his conversion, he dedicated this wealth to Islam and consequently lived a meager life. In the Shia Makarem Shirazi, we find: ABUBAKR was an influential wealthy man, and made us of his influence and wealth for improving Islam. (source: Makarem Shirazi, http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/english/TAFSIR3/01.html#_Lnk7)

Abu Bakrs Dilemma (

Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophets daughter, and Abu Bakr ( ) felt horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would think that perhaps Abu Bakr ( ) should have shown lenience on the matter. However, this would have set a horrible precedent if the first Caliph of the Ummah willfully violated the Shariah of the Prophet ( ), who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. To adjust the rules for close family or friends would have shown nepotism. Indeed, it does not matter how high the status of an individual is in a just state: he/she will have to adhere to the law of the land, and exceptions cannot be granted based upon rank. Otherwise, an injust state would be created in which the high class get away with things, and meanwhile the lower class faces stricter implementation of law. Thus, it can be seen that Abu Bakr ( ) must have been under immense stress from the general public who would have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned for those of a high rank such as Fatima ( ). Abu Bakr ( ) was held accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.
y

Further Arguments

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

Fadak, Part VIII: The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance

Prophets Do Not Give Inheritance

The Shia propagandists will try to give examples from the Quran to prove that Prophets actually do give inheritance. This is all in an attempt to undermine the words of Prophet Muhammad ( ) who clearly said that Prophets do not give material possessions as inheritance. This is recorded in a Sahih narration in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) It is sad that in an attempt to win a debate, the Shia will try to prove the Prophet ( ) wrong as a consequence. The Shia propagandists will quote Verse 27:16 in which the Quran says: And Sulaiman was Dawuds heir. The Shia tactfully do not quote the entire verse, nor the preceding verse. Allah says: We gave (in the past) knowledge to Dawud and Sulaiman, and they both said: Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above many of his servants who believe! And Sulaiman was Dawuds heir. He said: O you people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah). (Quran, 27:15-16) In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman ( ) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud ( ). It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman ( ) being Prophet Dawuds heir ( ), we see that the Quran is talking about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) who asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor. It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word al-irth in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:

Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen (Quran, Surah Fatir) As well as in Surah al-Muminoon, Allah says: Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise. (Quran, Surah al-Muminoon) Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption. It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) to be asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob ( ) would continue. Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah ( ) was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and they spent any surplus in charity. As for the case of Prophet Dawud ( ), it is well-known that he had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why is Prophet Sulaiman ( ) mentioned as the soleinheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge. Otherwise, Prophet Dawud ( ) denied inheritance to his other children, and this would violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance to the children of Prophets. If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not make much sense that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud ( ) nor to Sulaiman ( ). Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulaiman ( ) and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking, and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Prophets, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Prophets which carry lessons or benefit. Things like he died, and his son inherited his property, or they buried him, or they ate, drank, and slept is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Quran. (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, Volume 1, p.240, with minor adjustments) It is thus obvious that the Quran is talking about inheriting the loftiness of Prophethood, much like the Quran talks about who amongst the believers will inherit the lofty position of Paradise. In any case, all of these verses in the Quran must be interpreted in the light of the Hadith which states that Prophets do not leave dinars or dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge. This Hadith explicitly negates the possibility that the Prophets in the Quran were leaving material possessions as inheritance, but rather were talking about knowledge. This along is sufficient proof to reject the Shia manipulation of these Quranic verses. Even if the Shia live in the delusional world that Prophets leave behind inheritance, then this still does not answer why the Prophet ( ) has stated in Hadith that Prophets do not

leave behind inheritance. Again, this Hadith has been stated in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih. The Shia say that Fatima ( ) accused Abu Bakr ( ) of fabricating the Hadith, but we find that this Hadith exists! If there is a discrepancy between the Quran and the Prophetic Sahih sayings, then we must state that this is an accusation against the Prophet ( ): are the Shia really saying that the Prophet ( ) incorrectly stated that Prophets do not inherit?

Fadak, Part IX: Umar ( ) Upheld Abu Bakrs Decision ( )

Previous (Continued) The Shia propagandists will sometimes claim that Umar ( ) overturned Abu Bakrs decision ( ) and gave Fadak back to Ali ( ). They will use this as proof that Abu Bakr ( ) was wrong, implying that look, even your Umar gave Fadak back. This is a blatant lie. Umar ( ) upheld Abu Bakrs decision ( ), and Umar ( ) repeated the Prophets Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) approached Umar ( ) in regards to Fadak, and Umar ( ) allowed them to take control of Fadak as trusteesnot as inheritors. As trustees, Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) would be responsible for doling out the charity funds derived from Fadak. As such, the two would be continuing in the steps of the Prophet ( ), Abu Bakr ( ), and Umar ( ), all of whom were trustees who distributed the revenue from Fadak as charity. We find proof of this from Sahih Bukhari narrated by Malik bin Aus: Umar said: Allahs Apostle used to spend the yearly expenses of his family out of this property and used to keep the rest of its revenue to be spent on Allahs Cause. Allahs Apostle kept on doing this during all his lifetime. I ask you by Allah do you know this? They [Ali and Abbas] replied in the affirmative. Umar then said to Ali and Abbas: I ask you by Allah, do you know this?

Umar added: When Allah had taken His Prophet unto Him, Abu Bakr said, I am the successor of Allahs Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it in the same way as Allahs Apostle used to do, and Allah knows that he was true, pious and rightly-guided, and he was a follower of what was right. Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakrs successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allahs Apostle used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right. Now you both (Ali and Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case; you, Abbas, came to me asking for your share from your nephews property, and this man (Ali) came to me asking for his wifes share from her fathers property. I told you both that Allahs Apostle said, Our (prophets) properties are not to be inherited, but what we leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity). When I thought it right that I should hand over this property to you, I said to you, I am ready to hand over this property to you if you wish, on the condition that you would take Allahs Pledge and Convention that you would manage it in the same way as Allahs Apostle used to, and as Abu Bakr used to do, and as I have done since I was in charge of it. So, both of you (Ali and Abbas) said (to me), Hand it over to us, and on that condition I handed it over to you. So, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to them on this condition? The group said, Yes. Then Umar faced Ali and Abbas saying, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you on this condition? They said, Yes. He said, Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave both the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I have already given). And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will do the job on your behalf. (source: Sahih Bukhari, http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=53&translator=1) Umar ( ) thus made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) trustees of Fadak on the condition that they accept that they are not the owners of it, nor the inheritors of it. In fact, Umar ( ) said in the above Hadith that if there is even a bit of doubt on this matter, then they should return Fadak to Umar ( ) who can act as its trustee instead. The fact that Umar ( ) made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) the trustees of Fadak was a compromise of immense wisdom. Umar ( ) gauranteed the goodwill of Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ), but also Umar ( ) remained strict on following the Shariah and doing with Fadak what Abu Bakr ( ) had done as well. During the Caliphate of Uthman, Marwan ( ) was made trustee of Fadak and it was he who distributed the revenue as charity. When Ali ( ) assumed power, he did not reclaim Fadak for himself nor did he give it to his sons, Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ). Thereby, Ali ( ) maintained the position of Fadak as a charity, and he continued to allow Marwan ( ) to be its trustee.

The Shia will claim that Ali ( ) was under Taqiyyah during his Caliphate and this is the reason he did not return Fadak. They say that Ali ( ) could not restore Fadak to Hasan ( ) and Hussain ( ) simply because if he did this, then the people would conspire against him and rebel. In the words of one Shia propagandist, So many people at the time rejected the Imamah of Ali. If they didnt accept his rule, then how would they accept the controversial reconfiscation of Fadak? In fact, it would strengthen the views of those who opposed his Caliphate. Had Imam Ali (as) restored Fadak by force, these people would have reacted in open opposition and spread Fitnah and hatred against Imam Ali. These people would say that Ali was abusing his power as Caliph to give favors to his relatives [i.e. Hasan and Hussain]. There is no real way to respond to this since it is based on nothing but assumptions. One could easily claim that this is the same reason that Uthman ( ) did not return Fadak to Fatimas sons. Perhaps he too did not want to return Fadak because it would damage his image; people would say that he abused his power as Caliph to favor people who were related to him. This would cause people to rebel against him. Actually, during the time of Uthman ( ), there was a lot of civil strife and people were ready to revolt against Uthman ( ). Had he given Fadak back to Fatimas sons, then people would have reacted against him with force, and this would have created Fitnah and hatred against Caliph Uthman ( ). On what basis can the Shia claim that their fairy-tale (about Ali [ ] doing Taqiyyah) is any different than the above fairy-tale and scenario we gave (i.e. about Uthman [ ] also doing Taqiyyah)? We see that when we play the game of the Shia with history, the sky is the limit! Perhaps, to extend this example, Abu Bakr ( ) was also doing Taqiyyah! He was the grandfather-in-law of Fatima ( ). Perhaps, Fatima ( ) did not want the people to think that the Caliph was not using nepotism and favoring his relatives. One could even claim that Fatima ( ) was doing Taqiyyah by pretending to be mad at Abu Bakr ( ). The truth is that Taqiyyah is a useless way to look at history. No matter what the facts are on the ground, the Shia can always claim Taqiyyah. The facts are that Ali ( ) did not return Fadak to Fatimas sons, and nothing prevented him from doing so. He did not even make them trustees of Fadak, like how Umar ( ) made Ali ( ) and Abbas ( ) trustees of Fadak. In fact, one could argue that Umar ( ) was the first one to return Fadak to Ahlel Bayt and Ali ( ) didnt even do this. So shouldnt the Shia believe Umar ( ) to be the good guy and Ali ( ) to be the bad guy? Umar ( ) made the Ahlel Bayt the trustees of Fadak while it was a Waqf; Ali ( ) didnt even do this! Such hypothetical scenarios show that the Shia versions of history are nothing but fairy-tales based in double standards. When Abu Bakr ( When Umar ( Abbas ( When Uthman ( Hasan ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak. ) was Caliph, then the Shia do not love him even though he appointed ) and Ali ( ) as the trustees of Fadak. ) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for failing to return Fadak to ) and Hussain ( ). ) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he was doing Taqiyyah and thats why he

When Ali ( didnt return Fadak.

When Muawiyyah (

) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak.

When Hasan ( ) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he didnt return Fadak again because he was doing Taqiyyah and didnt want people to accuse him of abusing power. Do we notice a pattern? All of the above people did the same action [i.e. not return Fadak] but all the people that the Shia love are excused [using Taqiyyah as an excuse], but the people the Shia hate are accused of being tyrants. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. All of the above individuals should be kept to the same standard and judged by their actions. The Shia are being unjust bigots and supremacists. They believe that the Ahlel Bayt are not to be held to the same standard as other people. This is not unlike white supremacists who lock up blacks for crimes but do not lock up whites for the same crimes; instead, they make up excuses for white criminals and thus exonerate them. A black man will rob a bank and the whites will lock him up. But if a white guy robs a bank, then the white supremacists will make all sorts of fanciful excuses like the bank was owned by evil people who had stolen money and the white man was simply returning the money to the poor, or perhaps he was using Taqiyyah. Thus, people of white wombs are excused, and those born to other wombs are punished for the same crimes. Likewise, the Shia excuse all those who were born to the wombs of Ahlel Bayt; in fact, the Shia say that they are infallible and cannot commit mistakes. Meanwhile, the people of born of a different wombs, such as the the lineage of Abu Sufyan, they are all cursed and wrong and guilty always. Is this justice? Is this consistency? Why the double standard? If the Shia are going to hate Abu Bakr ( ) for not returning Fadak, then they should also hate Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ) for not returning Fadak during their respective Caliphates. And then these Shia should simply love Umar ( ) since he did something that neither Ali ( ) nor Hasan ( ) did [i.e. return Fadak]. The truth is that the Shia poured over our Sahih books of Hadith looking for anything they could use against the first three Caliphs. They found a Hadith about how Fatima ( ) was angry at Abu Bakr ( ) and they said aha! They accepted the story of Fadak since it fit in their paradigm. Fadak may not even have been a part of Shiism prior to this discovery in Sahih Bukhari, but then suddenly it became a central part of Shiism since it helps their cause so much. It doesnt matter to the Shia who narrates the Hadith, its Isnad, or anything. It becomes Sahih simply because it supports Shiism. [In fact, the Shia base the story of Fadak and Fatimas anger [ ] upon a Hadith narrated by Aisha [ ], whom they call a liar and a fabricator. However, because Aisha [ ] narrates a Hadith which supports the Shia cause, suddenly her word becomes golden.] So it was that the Shia were so happy and jumping with joy when they found this Hadith against Abu Bakr ( ). However, they failed to realize that they were also destroying their whole religion if they accepted the story of Fadak. They didnt realize that their own Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ) did not give Fadak to Fatimas descendants either. Thus, if any fault is to be put on the shoulders of Abu Bakr ( ), equal fault should be placed on the shoulders of Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ).

We notice the same phenomenon with other stories that the Shia love to quote. For example, the Shia poured over our Sahih Hadith books and found a Hadith about Umar ( ) and the incident of the paper and pen. So then the Shia invented the story about how this was when the Prophet ( ) was going to appoint Ali ( ) as successor. The Shia propagandists will then trumpet this Hadith about the paper and pen, only because to them it makes Umar ( ) look evil. In fact, if the Ahlus Sunnah had Sunni Hadith that said Umar ( ) was the devil who even oppressed Allah, then the Shia would even accept this Hadith! Anything so long as it makes the three Caliphs look bad, no matter if acceptance of this Hadith would destroy the fundamentals of their faith in the process. Indeed, the incident of the paper and the pen destroys the faith of Shiism because the Shia claim that it was Ghadeer Khumm in which the Prophet ( ) appointed Ali ( )! In the incident of the paper and the pen, the Prophet ( ) said that he had something new to write, so how could it be the appointment of Ali ( ) if he was already appointed at Ghadeer Khumm? Suddenly, the pillar of Shiism namely that Ghadeer Khumm proves that we must follow Ali ( )falls down. Thats OK to the Shia who is content with any story so long as it makes the three Caliphs look bad. If there was a Hadith about anything bad about the three Caliphs, then it becomes Sahih automatically to the Shia, no matter who narrated it. Ronald McDonald or Mickey Mouse could narrate a Hadith, and as long as it made the three Caliphs look bad, the Shia will consider it Sahih! In conclusion, Ali ( ) and Hasan ( ) did not return Fadak; therefore, neither Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), Uthman ( ), nor Muawiyyah ( ) can be condemned by the Shia.

Fadak, Part X: The Shia Who Deny Our Interpretation of the Al-Kafi Hadith

Previous (Continued) We find the following Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia. The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayat al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith: The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, Beirut) When the Shia propagandist is reminded that the Hadith about Prophets not inheriting is in their own Al-Kafi, he will resort to two measures. Either he will change the topic and discuss the other more tertiary aspects of Fadak, or he will make feeble attempts at rationalizing the Hadith. The Shia will say that the Ahlus Sunnah is twisting this Hadith. This is the general approach taken by such anti-Sunni websites such as Answering-Ansar. They will say that this Hadith in Al-Kafi is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather has a symbolic meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets. Let us even accept this fallacious assertion, or any other explanation the Shia give. The fact of the matter is that the Shia are accusing Abu Bakr ( ) of fabricating the Hadith. They even say that Fatima ( ) accused him of this. Regardless of the interpretation of this Hadith, the fact is that it at leastexists and thus the Shia claims that it is fabricated are simply false. If they claim that Fatima ( ) cursed Abu Bakr ( ) and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and all sorts of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shias own Al-Kafi would prove Fatima ( ) wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [ ] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more.) We remind the reader thataccording to the ShiaFatima ( ) never claimed that Abu Bakr ( ) was interpreting the Hadith in the wrong manner, but rather she was claiming that he fabricated it completely! If it was a mere difference in interpretation, then we could say that they both had their individual Ijtihad on the matter, and the Shariah law states that the Ijtihad of the Caliph takes priority. But the Shias main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr ( ) made an incorrect Ijtihad, but rather that he fabricated the Hadith entirely. Whereas the Shia can certainly always argue senselessly about interpretations of the Hadith, they have absolutely no basis for the claim that the Hadith was fabricated. This claim is rejected on the basis of Al-Kafi, much to the chagrin of the Shia. Thus, if the reader finds himself debating a Shia propagandist who simply demands that we are interpreting the Shia Hadith in the wrong manner, then force him to accept that Fatima ( ) was wrong to question Abu Bakr ( ) regarding the existence of the Hadith which is in the Shias own Al-Kafi. It is a no way out situation for the Shia propagandist, who will then resort to switching gears and focusing on other aspects of Fadakanything other than having to talk about the Hadith in their own Al-Kafi.

Fadak, Part XI: Respect for Fatima ( )

Previous (Continued) The Shia version of history is always simplistic; it is completely black and white, with no shades in between. The Shia propagandists demand us to pick either Abu Bakr ( ) or Fatima ( ). Why must we pick between the two? If our parents get in an argument, should we be forced to pick between the two? In the argument between our parents, it may be that our father is correct and our mother is incorrect. But this does not mean that we stop loving our mother! We simply disagree on oneissue. The Shia propagandists will then try saying that the Ahlus Sunnah is accusing Fatima ( ) of lying or this and that. We do not say that she lied at all! In fact, what we say is that if the Shia accounts of history are correct, then she was lying by accusing Abu Bakr ( ) of so many things. (And this is how we know that the Shia versions are false.) We do not believe in these exaggerated Ghullat accounts of history. Instead, we say that Fatima ( ) simply did not know that the Prophet ( ) said such-and-such, or maybe her interpretation of such-and-such was different. Between telling a lie and telling the truth there are many other stages. One of them is called making a mistake. And all human beingseven Prophetsmake mistakes. Abu Bakr ( ) and Umar ( ) got in arguments with each other. But they were the best of friends, and are known as the Shaikhayn. So too did Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ) get in arguments. Do the Shia really think that a single married couple has ever gotten away without even a single argument? This would be living in some strange alternate universe to think otherwise! And we actually know of at least one argument between Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ), namely when Ali ( ) planned on marrying another wife other than Fatima ( ). Both Fatima ( ) and the Prophet ( ) were upset at Ali ( ) for this. But the reality is that neither Ali ( ) nor Fatima ( ) nor the Prophet ( ) were wrong about the issue. They simply had different opinions and preferences. Nobody would say to pick between Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ). In any case, we cannot understand why we must pick between Abu Bakr ( ) and Fatima ( ); we do not see why we have to call one or the other a liar. Is it not possible that one of the two simply made a mistake, and this was the cause of the argument? Unlike the Shia, the Ahlus Sunnah does not haveGhullat tendencies and we do not say that one of the parties involved was infallible and the other pure evil. As for the Ahlus Sunnahand this cannot be stressed enoughwe consider it Makrouh (detestable) to criticize Fatima ( ) for no reason. The Shia will raise their children on stories about how evil Abu Bakr ( ) was, and the bad things that Umar ( ) did. The Shia children will hear about the accounts of Umar ( ) murdering Fatima ( ), and of Abu Bakr ( ) stealing Fadak. But the Ahlus Sunnah does not ever mention the story of Fadak in its own circles, nor does it trumpet the mistake of Fatima ( ). In fact, the only

time we discuss Fadak is when we argue with the Shia because they force our hand by condemning Abu Bakr ( ). Otherwise, the Ahlus Sunnah does not like to bring up arguments that ended 1400 years ago and have absolutely no relevance to our faith! And worst yet, we are talking about people who are not even alive to defend themselves; we cannot possibly look into the hearts and minds of these people and judge them. And who are we to judge them when both Abu Bakr ( ) and Fatima ( ) have done more for Islam in one day than we shall do in our entire lifetime? Nobody on this earth is on par with these two great heroes of Islam. Instead of wasting our precious time arguing about their faults, shouldnt we work on removing our own faults and worrying about our ownselves? Should we not worry about our fate on the Day of Judgment? Surely on that Day, nobody will ask us does Fadak belong to Abu Bakr ( ) or Fatima ( )? Furthermore, before the Shia condemns Abu Bakr ( ), he should ask himself if in his heart he has even a shadow of doubt about Abu Bakrs guilt ( ). Do the Shia not see all the other differing accounts of Abu Bakrs actions ( )? What if one of the alternate accounts of Abu Bakr ( ) is correct? Then what? Surely it is a possibility! Therefore, there is at least a shred of doubt and we should not condemn Abu Bakr ( ) lest we wrongfully accuse him of something. This holds true for anyone, and this is why we should leave the judging upto Allah. The truth is that the issue of Fadak has absolutely no religious significance. It was a mere legal dispute. Fadak does not change the doctrine of Islam; it does not affect our prayers, our fasts, our Zakat, our Hajj, or anything else for that matter. The truth is that Fadak has no relevance to anything in our lives; in fact, it doesnt even have relevance to any non-religious aspect of our lives! Neither of the two parties involvedneither Abu Bakr ( ) nor Fatima ( )commited any sin in the legal dispute of Fadak. If two people reached a different answer in a math problem, do we say that one of them is sinning? No, we simply say that one of them is mistaken. In regards to Fatima ( ), she is revered by the Ahlus Sunnah. It is narrated in our authentic Hadith that she is the chief of the women in Paradise. Any mainstream Muslim who talks ill of her is considered deviant. We do not like to discuss her mistakes (which were few and far in between), and it is only the Shia who forces us to do so because the Shia culture is one obsessed with finding faults (in the Sahabah, the Prophets wives, and anyone else they can get their hands on). They engage us in such dirty disputes and debates. We notice that the Shia is always busy sending Laanat on so many different people; surely, the Shia should lighten his heart and refrain from sending Laanat on everything that walks but rather to ask for Allahs Mercy. The Shia is obsessed with saying that the Ahlus Sunnah insults and hates the Ahlel Bayt. In reality, it is the Shia who insult the House of Muhammad ( ) including his wives and three of his lovely daughters. (The Shia even go to the extent of insulting the Ahlel Bayt by denying that the Prophet [ ] had four daughters!)

Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion

Previous (Continued)
y

Bias of the Shia

The Shia is clearly biased against Abu Bakr ( ). Let us imagine that it was not Fatima ( ) but rather Aisha ( ) in her place, and that it was Ali ( ) in the place of Abu Bakr ( ). Then, the Shia would be talking about how ungrateful, whimsical, and rebellious Aisha ( ) was being against the Caliph of the Ummah! They would say that Aisha ( ) was greedy for wanting Fadak for herself instead of giving it to charity and the poor. Indeed, to the Shia, it is not the events that matter, but rather whom they are about. Ali ( ) and Fatima ( ) are always right, and Abu Bakr ( ) and Aisha ( ) are always wrong. Simply switch a few names around, and suddenly, the Shia will switch arguments on the issue. To the Shia, Aisha ( ) is wrong for going against the Caliph on the issue of Qisaas against Uthmans murderers (a right granted by Shariah); and yet, paradoxically, Fatima ( ) is right for going against the Caliph on an issue where she is wrong and the Shariah denies her the right she seeks (i.e. Fadak). The Shia is clearly biased: indeed, the Shia believe that Fatima ( ) is infallible and incapable of sin or mistake; to the Shia, she is perfect. This belief of the Shia is Shirk, because only Allah is perfect. How can the issue of Fadakor any issue for that matterbe judged fairly when we assume that one party is always right? This is not a fair analysis of the event. No matter what Abu Bakr ( ) or Fatima ( ) did, the Shia would twist the events in some way or the other to make sure that it was Abu Bakr ( ) who was in the wrong. Had it been Abu Bakr ( ) who gave the Prophets land to Aisha ( )and had it been Fatima ( ) who was against thisthen it would be the Shia who would condemn Abu Bakr ( ) for violating the Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance. In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima ( ) the infallible is wrong or Prophet Muhammad ( ) the infallible is wrong, since their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima ( ). The words of Prophet Muhammad ( ) as recorded by the Shia are 100% at variance with the words of Fatima ( ). So how can the Shia exaggerate and say that anyone is above mistake, since two of their so-called infallibles are in disagreement?
y

Conclusion

In conclusion, Fatima ( ) made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr ( ) was upholding the words of the Prophet ( ), according to both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The Shia propagandists will go in circles when they argue about Fadak, but we advise our readers to continually remind them of two points, both which they cannot refute: 1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith: The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) There is no way around this Hadith for the Shia, and again, we urge our readers to continually bring any arguments about Fadak back to this point. The Shia propagandist will endeavor to drag the

conversation away from this fact, but the reader must remind him again and again that the Shia Hadith also confirms that Prophets do not inherit. 2. Ali ( ) did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the exact same manner as Abu Bakr ( ) did. All of the Shia counter-arguments to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali ( ) used Fadak as a Waqf, then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr ( ) doing this as well. These two facts completely nullify the Shia accusations against Abu Bakr ( nothing but slanderous lies. ), which are

Question: 66:1-10 This ayah talks about betrayal of aeisha (r) to muhammed (s). Did she not hurt the prophet? How can one who hurt the prophet be a jannati?

Answer:

The incident of al-Ifk is narrated in both Sunni and Shia Tafseer; the incident is also narrated on the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org. We shall first re-tell the story of al-Ifk and then later shall we authenticate it with Shia Tafseer from Al-Islam.org. Incident of al-Ifk On the way back to Medina, the Muslim army stopped for a rest, but then the Prophet ( ) unexpectedly ordered the army to continue the march again. Aisha ( ) noticed that her onyx necklace was missing so she retraced her steps to find it. When she finally found it and returned to the camp, the Muslim army had already left without her. Her litter was veiled so her absence was not noticed. Aisha ( ) waited for someone to notice she was missing and to come back for her. Fortunately, she did not have to wait long, for a young Muslim man named Safwan ( ),

who had fallen behind the army after taking a rest, reached the camp during the night and found her lying fast asleep. Safwan ( ) recognized her and escorted her back to the Muslim army and the Prophet ( ). Unfortunately, some hypocrites who had seen Safwan ( ) and Aisha ( ) arrive alone together began to gossip and spread slanderous lies about them. Eventually the story reached the Prophet ( ) himself and by then the whole community was talking about what might or might not have happened between the two young Muslims. Naturally, the believers were certain that nothing bad had happened, but the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) thought otherwise and were not afraid to insinuate that was the case, accusing the Prophets wife of engaging in an adulterous affair. Aishas Feelings ( ) are Hurt

The accusations against Aisha ( ) hurt her deeply and she soon fell so sick that she asked the Prophet ( ) if she could return to her parents house until the matter was cleared up. The Prophet ( ) then tried to vindicate Aishas honor ( ) by calling everyone to the mosque and publicly defending her reputation, but the hypocrites who had started the trouble in the first place only made matters worse, so that arguments broke out all over the mosque, and people had almost come to blows over the matter before the Prophet ( ) calmed them down and silenced them. The Prophet ( ) said to Abdullah ibn Ubayy, leader of the Munafiqoon: O Muslims, who will deal with a man [i.e. Abdullah ibn Ubayy] who I have heard is speaking in an offensive manner about my family? By Allah, I know nothing but good about my family. [Bukhari, Muslim] Ali ( ) Defends Aisha ( )

The Prophet ( ) was a person with a lot of Gheerah (protective jealousy) which, according to the Sunnah, is considered a good quality in Muslim men. So the Prophet ( ) was naturally incensed by the accusations that his wife had slept with another man. These accusations caused him a great deal of agitation. The Companions of the Prophet ( ) saw how miserable the Prophet ( ) had become over this issue, and so it was that Ali ( ) said to him: O Allahs Apostle! Allah does not impose restrictions on you, and there are plenty of women other than her. If however, you ask her slave girl, she will tell you the truth! (Bukhari) The popular Shia author and scholar Al-Tijani cited this as evidence that Ali ( ) told the Prophet ( ) to divorce Aisha ( ). He declares that this is recorded in Sunni accounts as well and he off-handedly cites the above Hadith from Bukhari as his evidence. This is what we like to call Half-Hadith-ing [i.e. using half of a Hadith to prove ones point]. If we look at the other half of the Hadith, we see that it negates Al-Tijanis claim that Ali ( ) told the Prophet ( ) to divorce Aisha ( ). Al-Tijani Let us see what Al-Tijani, the popular Shia scholar and writer, has to say on the issue. Al-Tijani says: We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm alMumineen Aishah, who played an important role in ithow could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk (Then I was Guided, p. 117)

Ali (

) did not in any way advise the Prophet ( ) to divorce Aisha ( ). He merely said that the Prophet ( ) could since nobody had greater rights than the Prophet of Allah, but that it would be better if the Prophet ( ) just asked Aishas slave girl, who was with Aisha ( ) most of the time, on the matter of Aishas innocence. The slave girl was in the room, and Ali ( ) meant to say that all the believers knew Aisha ( ) was innocent, even a lowly slave girl. In any case, as we shall see soon, if Ali ( ) doubted Aisha ( ) and asked the Prophet ( ) to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk, then this would mean that Ali ( ) was one of the Munafiqoon. Is this what the Shia are accusing Ali ( ) of? The Quran itself would declare anyone who doubted Aishas innocence ( ) to be a Munafiqh. So this is slander against not only the Prophets wife but also against Ali ( ). Allah Almighty Defends Aisha ( ) ) and ) )

It would be none other than Allah Himself who would declare Aishas innocence ( vindicate her of the slander levied against her. Allah revealed to the Prophet ( the following verses, condemning those Munafiqoon who doubted Aishas innocence ( and slandered her honor:

[24:11] Surely those who fabricate the lie are a group from among youEvery man will receive what he has earned for this sin, and whoever had the greater part in it will have a grievous punishment. [24:12] Why did the men and women believers, when they heard it, not think good of their own folk and say: This is clearly a lie? [24:13] Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they did not produce witnesses, they are certainly liars in the sight of Allah. [24:14] If it were not for the grace of Allah, and His mercy on you in this world and in the next world, an awful doom would have overtaken you for what you repeated. [24:15] Since you received it with your tongues, and repeated what you did not know anything about with your mouths, you thought it was a trifle, but in the sight of Allah it is serious. [24:16] Why, when you heard it, did you not say: It is not for us to repeat this, Glory be to You (O Allah), this is a serious slander. [24:17] Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if you are indeed believers! [24:18] And Allah makes the signs clear to you; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. [24:19] Surely those who love to spread around slander about those who believe will have a painful punishment in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do not know. [24:20] And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, (Allah would have hastened the punishment upon you). And that Allah is full of kindness, Most Merciful. [24:21] O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of Shaitan [24:22] AndDo you not love that Allah should forgive you? [24:23] Verily, those who accuse chaste women, who never even think of anything touching their chastity and are good believers, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter, and for them will be a great torment. [24:24] On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs or feet will bear witness against them as to what they used to do. [24:25] On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth. [24:26] Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision. Shia Tafseer

Sometimes Shia will have a hard time absorbing these verses, so they will oftentimes try denying that these verses were revealed in relation to Aisha ( ). They will even completely deny the incident of al-Ifk, which is a known historical event recorded in the preserved annals of history and is even in the authentic Shia books. To categorically prove that these verses were revealed in regard to Aisha ( ) in the incident of al-Ifk, we shall quote straight from the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which contains the authentic Shia Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. This is the most authentic Shia Tafseer in English, and can be found at the following Shia website: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/ The reader can simply use the search function on the left hand side of the site (http://www.alislam.org/quran/) to find the Shia Tafseer (Pooya/M.A. Ali) of verses 24:11-19. We shall copy and paste what Al-Islam.org says here: Al-Islam.org says

The particular incident referred to here occurred on the return from the defensive expedition of

the Bani Mustaliq in 5-6 Hijra. At one of the halts, A-isha, the Holy Prophets wife, withdrew from the camp to cleanse herself in the nearby desert. There she lost her necklace. As it was dark there she took time to discover it. In the meantime the march was ordered. As her litter was veiled, it was not noticed that she was not in it. When she returned to the camp, she could do nothing but wait. She fell asleep. Next morning she was found by Safwan who had been left behind to pick up anything inadvertently left behind. He put her on his camel and brought her, leading the camel on foot. This episode furnished some malicious enemies of the Holy Prophet, particularly the hypocrites, with an opportunity to raise a scandalous storm in order to hurt the feelings of the Holy Prophet. The ringleader among them was the chief of the Madina hypocrites, Abdullah ibn Ubay. Mistah, her uncle, also helped him. Ibn Ubay is referred to as the man who took on himself the lead among them to spread the scandal. Ali ibn abi Talib knew that it was an obvious lie (as said in verse 12), concocted to hurt the Holy Prophet, so he asked Burayrah, the maid of A-isha, to tell the mischief-makers the truth about her mistress. On Burayrahs report the scandal was diffused. People may think it is an insignificant matter to speak lightly of something which damages a persons character or reputation, but with Allah it is a most serious matter in all cases [Pooya/M.A. Ali 24:11]

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

Shia Slander

Allah Almighty Himself declared Aisha ( ) innocent and warns everyone not to make any accusations or slander against Aisha ( ). He says: Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if you are indeed believers! (Quran, 24:17) Yet today we see that Aisha ( ) is still insulted and slandered. She is accused of hating Ali ( ) and of being an enemy of Ahlel Bayt. To the Shia, being a Nasibi (hater of Ahlel Bayt) is worse than Zinnah and indeed such a person is declared a Kaffir according to their texts. Therefore, what Aisha ( ) is accused of is in fact far worse than what the al-Ifk Munafiqoon spoke about. Commiting Zinnah does not make one a Kaffir, and none of the Munafiqoon during the incident of al-Ifk ever accused Aisha ( ) of being a Kaffir. In fact, the very same Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha ( ) is not only a Kaffir but rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [Imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org quotes the Shia Tafseer for verse 9:12 as: Al-Islam.org says

According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed

and fought against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul BaytAli ibn abi Talib had recited this verse at the battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet. [Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12]

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

In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom Ali ( ) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha ( ), Talha ( ), and Zubair ( ) who are being referred to in this Verse as the Leaders of Kufr. This view is also the position of Kashani in his Tafseer Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes Aisha ( ) as one of the Aimmatul Kufr (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish polythiests, the Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians. The Shia Ayatollahs also accuse Aisha ( ) of fabricating Hadith which is another act of Kufr. Fabricating Hadith is considered Kufr by both the Sunni and Shia Ulema! It is unfortunate that she is called a Kaffir when Allah Himself declares her a believer: Surely those who love to spread around slander about those who believe will have a painful punishment in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do not know. (Quran, 24:19) Moreover, Allah declares Aisha to be a good believer: Verily, those who accuse chaste women, who never even think of anything touching their chastity and are good believers, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter, and for them will be a great torment. (Quran, 24:23) If the Shia accuse Aisha ( ) of being vile, then they are accusing the Prophet ( ) of being vile. Allah says: Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision. (Quran, 24:26) This is the absolute verdict on the character of Aisha ( ), and stands as a refutation against all the slander made against her.

This verse was revealed in regards to Aisha ( ) in the incident of al-Ifk, and this is agreed upon by even the authentic Shia Tafseer. So we wonder then why the Shia feel comfortable with slandering her character. Conclusion Any unbiased person can see that the accusations levied against Aisha ( ) by the Ayatollahs are worse than those levied against her by the Munafiqoon in the incident of al-Ifk. The latter only accused Aisha ( ) of Fisq (i.e. Zinnah is not Kufr), but the Ayatollahs accuse her of Kufr (i.e. fabricating Hadith is Kufr, and according to the Shia, so is preventing the Imamah of Ali [ ]). No believer should feel comfortable slandering a woman who was specifically defended in the Quran by Allah Almighty, a person whom the Quran warns against slandering in the strictest of tones, declaring those who do so to be unbelievers. During the incident of al-Ifk, the Prophet ( ) publically denounced the Munafiqoon and said that he knew nothing bad about his family; so why then do the Shia scholars insult the Prophetic family by speaking ill of them, even when the Quran and Hadith both exonerate Aisha ( )?

The Quran bestows the title of Mother of the Believers (Umm Al Mumineen) to Aisha ( ), Hafsa ( ), and the rest of the Prophets wives: The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives are their mothers. (Quran, 33:6) Therefore, anyone who declares baraa (disassociation) from Aisha ( ) and says that she is not his mother, such a person is not a believer. In order to be a believer, a Muslim must accept all of the Prophets wives as his mothers as decreed in the quoted verse. He must treat Aisha ( ) with the same respect that he treats his own mother with. Let us see what the Quran says about respecting ones parents: Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy (Quran, 17:23-24). Allah says again: And (there is one) who says to his parents oof ! for they are those in loss! (Quran, 46:17-18) If Aisha ( ) is the mother of the believers, then the people who slander her, insult her, and criticize her are not believers. We wonder what will be the fate of those who speak of Aisha ( ) with contempt, who repel Aisha ( ), disassociate themselves from her [i.e. baraa], and call her an enemy of Islam? How can the mother of Muslims, as declared by Allah, be an enemy of the Muslims? Why would Allah bestow this honor upon Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) if they were the enemies of the Muslims? Surely then Allah would have addressed them with the title of Umm Al Nasibioon (Mother of the Nasibis). Why would Allah try to confuse the believers by complimenting a

supposed enemy of Islam? Was Allah trying to fool us? In another verse in the Quran, Allah addresses the Prophets wives ( ) as Ahlel Bayt: O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. (Quran, 33:32-33) Allah bestowed upon Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) the special honor of being addressed in the Quran as both Ahlel Bayt and Umm Al Mumineen, a position of double respect not given to anyone else other than the Prophets wives ( ). This is something for our Shia brothers to reflect upon. Do they really feel comfortable criticizing people who have been elevated to such a high status by Allah in the Quran? Can any Shia claim to be mentioned in the Quran in such a manner? No mainstream Muslim is mentioned in the Quran like this either. Based on this, everyone alive today should know their place in this world as inferior to the Prophets wives; and inferior people should not criticize those higher in rank than them (i.e. higher in the ranks of Allah). We ask: are any of the contemporary Shia Ayatollahs mentioned in the Quran and bestowed an honor like the Prophets wives? The answer is a resounding no: none of them are mentioned in the Quran, and so it is up to the Shia wether or not he chooses to follow those honored in the Quran (i.e. the Prophets wives) or those who malign those honored in the Quran. Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if their local Ayatollahs delivered sermons denouncing their biological mothers? Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if Al-Islam.org or other Shia websites broadcasted slander against their biological mothers like they dedicate page after page denouncing Aisha ( )? Al-Islam.org has a whole page dedicated to the charge that Aisha ( ) was a jealous woman. Answering-Ansar has a page dedicated on their site to condemning the Prophets wife. Would believers find it acceptable and within religious protocolto insult their own biological mothers? Yet, an insult against Aisha ( ) is a personal insult to all the believers. Recently, the Muslims rallied against the Denmark newspaper which insulted the Prophet ( ); should we not also rally against the forces that insult his wives and the Mothers of all the Believers? Should we not heed the word of Allah and lower the wing of humility to Aisha ( ), the Mother of the Believers? Should we not, in fact, pray for her and the rest of the Prophets wives as mentioned in the Quran: My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy (Quran, 17:23-24)

Question: 33:33 Does this ayah not talk about isma? Answer: Verse 33:33 in the Quran is the Verse of Purification. The Ahlel Baytnamely Ali, Fatima,
Hasan, Hussain, and the Infallible Imams including the Mehdiwere made infallible by verse 33:33 in which Allah says: And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. (33:33) The Prophet placed a cloak underneath all four of these people and then made them infallible by this verse in the Quran.

When we read verses of the Quran, we should read the entire passage and not just isolated parts of it. We must see what is the context of what is being said. Otherwise, we will be misled. We are afraid that many people, either knowingly or unknowingly, are taking the Quran and Hadith out of context simply to win debates. Insha-Allah we should read the Quranic verses in their entirity and with an open heart.

Verse 33:33 of the Quran. Let us now read to whom this verse in the Quran is addressed to; let us read the entire sentence, starting from verse 33:32 all the way to verse 33:34. O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them). (Quran, 33:32-34) Allah Almighty clearly addresses the wives of the Prophet ( ). If we were to argue that this verse is the verse of purification and that it makes certain people infallible, then we would have to conclude that it is Aisha ( ) and the rest of the Prophets wives which were made infallible. We base this on the simple fact that the verse was revealed with the heading O wives of the Prophet. Brother Zain, how can we say that this verse refers to Ali ( ) and the

Infallible Imams when none of them are mentioned here, but only the wives are addressed? We understand that it is a popular concept that this verse makes the Ahlel Bayt infallible. However, it is also the same people who spread such conceptions who believe that Aisha ( ) hated Ali ( ). It seems to us that, if anything, it is Aisha ( ) who is made infallible, and if indeed that is the case shouldnt the Shia side with her over Ali ( )? There is actually not a single verse in the Quran which identifies Ali ( ), Fatima ( ), Hasan ( ), or Hussain ( ) to be Ahlel Bayt. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the 12 Infallible Imams of the Shia, let alone mentioning them as the Ahlel Bayt. Nowhere in the Quran does it refer to the Hidden Imam as the Ahlel Bayt. How is it then that a very fundamental aspect of the Shia faith is not in the Quran, which is supposed to be the ultimate guide to truth? How can the ultimate guide be devoid of the essence of belief, as the Shia claim that following their Ahlel Bayt is? The term Ahlel Bayt has been used twice in the Quran, and both times to refer to the wives. The Quran does not say O cousin of the Prophet but rather it says O wives of the Prophet. In conclusion, the verse you have mentioned, Verse 33:33, was addressed to the Prophets wives. Allah ( ) says:

And Allah wishes only to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt, and to make you pure and spotless. (Quran, 33:33) The Shia claim that this verse makes the Ahlel Bayt infallible; the Shia believe that here Allah ( ) made the Ahlel Bayt perfect in the sense that they cannot make any mistakes, nor forget anything, nor commit any sins whatsoever. Based on this interpretation, the Shia claim that the Prophet ( ), Ali ( ), Fatima ( ), Hasan ( ), Hussain ( ), and the other nine Imams are the infallibles. But does this verse actually make anyone infallible? First off, if we say that this verse makes people infallible, then we must say that it makes the Prophets wives ( ) to be infallible, since Allah ( ) addresses the Prophets wives. Let us analyze the entire verse: O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them). (Quran, 33:32-34) But the truth is that nobody was made infallible by this verse. Allahs ( ) statement was not to assure the Prophets wives ( ) that they had already been purified, but rather to stipulate a condition that if they obeyed Him, He would remove all abomination from them and thus purify them. He only wished to purify them if they met this condition, namely that they wear Hijab when they are out of the house (i.e. not making a dazzling display) and establish regular prayer as well as charity. If we analyze the context, we find that Allah Almighty ( ) was giving the Prophets wives some divine directions to do all what He commanded them and to abstain from what He forbade. He thus informed them that if they conformed to His commands and abstained from what He forbade, He would reward them by removing all abomination from them and make them pure and stainless.

It should be noted that Allah Almighty ( people. Consider the following verse:

) has used this pattern of speech to address many

Allah does not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favor upon you, that you may be grateful. (Quran, 5:6) In this verse, Allah ( ) is talking about the believer; should we really conclude that that Allah ( ) has now made the person completely clean and purified based on this? That is indeed missing the important conditional statement that Allah ( ) is making. In another verse, Allah Almighty ( ) says:

Allah does wish to make clear to you and to show you the ordinances of those before you. (Quran, 4:26 ) He also says: Allah does wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh). (Quran, 4:28) The wish of Allah ( ) expressed in the above mentioned verses comes as a condition of being loyal to His commands, to love Him and make Him pleased. Otherwise, without fulfilling this condition, His wish will not come into reality, (i.e the purification will not occur). In another verse, Allah Almighty ( ) says:

For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in repentance and loves also those who keep themselves pure and clean. (Quran, 2:222) Allah also said in the Quran to all His believers: But He so will to purify you and complete His favors on you. (Quran) Allah ( ) so addresses His servants in many other Quranic verses in a similar vein. Therefore, if we claim that the aim of Allah Almighty ( ) in purifying the Ahlel Bayt was to make them infallible, it would necessitate us to say that all the believers are infallible, following the Quranic verse which states that Allah Almighty ( ) so wills to purify them. As Allah Almighty ( ) told us of His wish to purify members of the Prophets family, He similarly informed us of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah ( ) to purify the believers was meant to make them infallible, then all sincere pious believers are infallible and impervious to sin. (Of course, this is incorrect and we find that none of these verses make anyone infallible.) The purification mentioned in the aforementioned verse (33:33) was not meant to make anyone infallible, but rather simply to expiate them for past sins like we get expiation for our sins when we go for Hajj. This style is widely used in the Quran. We read in the Quran: Of their goods take alms, so that you might purify them and sanctify them (Quran, 9:103)

We will never find anybody who says that the purification mentioned in the afore-mentioned verses was meant to make the Prophets family members or the believers into infallibles. Furthermore, and this cannot be stressed enough, the Shia are exaggerating on the meaning of the word pure. Allah ( ) desired to make them pure and spotless, but this does not mean that they are infallible! The words pure and infallible are not interchangeable. Surely, the Shia would have to agree that Salman al-Farsi ( ) and other great heroes of Islam are considered to be pure, but we do not say that they are infallible. The Shia would say that their Ayatollahs are pure, but few would say that they are infallible. Likewise, this verse in the Quran is addressing the Prophets wives ( ), promising them to be pure, but it does not in any way confer to them infallibility. This would be reading into the text of an otherwise straight-forward Quranic verse. Another inconsistency in Shia theology is the fact that the Shia adamantly claim that their Imams areborn as Imams. They are pure from birth and can never sin in their lives. This is a central part of Shia belief, and one reason they claim that a little boy in a cave is to be the Imam Mehdi, since he is born pure. Why then would the verse 33:33 be revealed, clearly indicating that Ali was being cleansed by Allah ( ) for his sins; what sins, we ask, if he was born an Infallible Imam? We ask the Christians why Jesus ( ) asks Allah ( ) for forgiveness in the Bible if he is infallible; there are many such Biblical verses in which Jesus ( ) is praying to the Father for forgiveness. Surely infallibles have no sins to ask for forgiveness or purification for since they do not sin in the first place! The verse 33:33 does not mean that purification has already taken place, but it rather asserts explicitly the will of Allah Almighty ( ) to purify the sincere wives of the Prophet ( ). The Prophet ( ) was eager to pray for his immediate and other relatives to be included in the verse of purification, in order to achieve the same as his spouses ( ) were promised. Likewise, he even included Salman al-Farsi ( ) in his Ahlel Bayt. And we ask the Shia: how many times did the Prophet ( ) invoke Allah ( ) to make Alis family pure and spotless? The Shia will proudly show multiple times, citing many examples from the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah; and we, the Ahlus Sunnah, acknowledge that the Prophet ( ) did ask Allah ( ) multiple times to make Alis family pure and spotless. However, we wonder why there would be a need for the Prophet ( ) to keep asking for purification of his family? He asked again and again. If they were infallible and did not have any sins to begin with, then there would be no need to ask Allah ( ) again and again for this purification. Indeed, the Prophet ( ) asking for his relatives to become pure and spotless was just one of the many duas that he would make to Allah ( ). It is what we would call an every day dua much like our local Imam prays for the forgiveness and purification of all his congregation, or how a mother prays for the forgiveness and purification of her children. How many of us have asked Allah ( ): O Allah, purify me of my sins and purify my family from sins. Each and every one of us should ask Allah ( ) this. How many of us make this same dua day after day, obviously indicating that we need Allahs mercy, not that we are infallible. In any case, even if the Shia were to somehow convince us that verse 33:33 makes someone infallible, the first to be made infallible by this verse would have to be the Prophets wives ( ) since they are the ones that verse 33:33 is addressed to. The Shia are thus faced with two options: they can accept Aisha ( ) as infallible. In this case, they must accept her statement that the Prophet ( ) appointed Abu Bakr ( ) to be the Imam of the prayers while he was sick; this would mean that Abu Bakr ( ) was the rightful first Caliph and not Ali ( ). Such a concession by the Shia would topple a very important foundation of Shiism which is rooted in the succession of Ali ( ). The second option for the Shia is to say that Aisha ( ) and the Ahlel Bayt were not made infallible by this verse, and this too topples the entire

Shia doctrine of Infallible Imamah, a corner-stone of their belief. Either way, the Shia is in a predicament.

Why Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was only 9?


The question of Holy Prophets (PBUH) marriage with Sayyidah Aisha is the one hurled against Muslims in almost every discussion. And it takes much time for people to understand the whole issue only because they fail to understand historical things in their right perspective considering the situation in those particular times. Agreed that a Prophets deeds should be above any question in all times and this is true indeed, but there are certain things in which change is inevitable subject to valid reasons and Holy Prophets (PBUH) marriage with Sayyidah Aisha is one such case. One who fails to understand the times and all the factors related to issue in hand can never understand the happenings through the history. Islamic Law regarding age of marriage: In Islam there is no fixed age of marriage, whenever a person reaches the age of puberty he or she is fit for marriage. Nikah, the marital contract, may be made earlier but consummation of marriage can take place only after puberty is attained. The age of maturity through the ages and over the regions: The wisdom behind Islam not fixing an age is evident, different people reach the age of puberty at different times. And the general trend also varies over the time and across the regions with variant climate conditions. For instance, people living in regions of low altitudes attain puberty earlier then those in high altitudes regions. Similarly people in warm climates attain puberty earlier then those in cold climates. Now keeping all this in mind consider that when Holy Prophet (PBUH) married Sayyidah Aisha while she was nine it was some 1400 years back and it happened in Arabia, a region with relatively lower altitude and hot climate as one of its most salient features. Leaving all the history aside, even now puberty at nine is no wonderful a phenomenon. Experts now suggest that age 7 (even 6 for some races) and not 8 should be considered precocious (i.e. early) for puberty among girls. Below is a reference that a nine year old Thai girl even became a mother.

Sayyidah Aisha was fit for the marriage, considering the puberty factor and physical bearing: It is rather erroneous to say that Sayyidah Aisha (RA) was a child bride. She was a grown up girl. Sayyidah Aisha herself narrates; Holy Prophet (PBUH) married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old (Bukhari, Hadith 4738) Having known this, let me draw your attention to another saying of Sayyidah Aisha which Al-Tirmidhi has narrated under a Hadith in his collections Book of Marriage, Chapter 18. It goes as: Sayyidah Aisha said: When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty). (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) Moreover, through certain narrations we come to know of the fact she was going through her puberty. Modern science testifies that puberty causes hair loss and this is exactly what we read in a Hadith: Narrated Sayyidah Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj then I got ill and my hair fell down (Bukhari Hadith 3605) So this makes it absolutely clear that Sayyidah Aishas marriage was consummated at an age, she herself says was that of puberty. The general tone of her statement also conveys that it was normal in those times and in that environment. It also needs to be mentioned that even before the Holy Prophet (PBUH), she was engaged with Jubair bin Mutam whose parents dissolved the engagement when her family embraced Islam. All these details kill the argument that Holy Prophet (PBUH) had intimate marital relations with a child, for in that particular sense she was no more a child and she herself testifies that being a nine year old she was a woman then having attained puberty.

Moreover, she was quite healthy and fit. She herself says: My mother intended to make me fat to send me to the (house of) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). But nothing which he desired benefited me till she gave me cucumber with fresh dates to eat. Then I became fat as good (as she desired). (Abu Dawud, Hadith 3903. Albani classified it as Sahih) About Sayyidah Aisha playing with dolls etc: Another issue concerning this marriage is the fact of Sayyidah Aisha playing with dolls and other toys. The question raised is that playing with toys is an innocent child act, and it proves that she was a child when she was married to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This much is true but the point missed is that Holy Prophet (PBUH) did have an understanding of this fact and he did not expect or force her to behave like his other wives e.g. like aged Sayyidah Sawda (RA). Infact we find that Holy Prophet (PBUH) gave her ample chances to fulfill her desire of playing with her friends and made her feel comfortable. Sayyidah Aisha narrates: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (Bukhari, Hadith 5665) Sayyidah Aisha reported: By Allah, I remember the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) standing on the door of my apartment screening me with his mantle enabling me to see the sport of the Abyssinians as they played with their daggers in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He (the Holy Prophet) kept standing for my sake till I was satiated and then I went back; and thus you can well imagine how long a girl tender of age who is fond of sports (could have watched it). (Muslim, Hadith 1481) These two narrations show that Holy Prophet (PBUH) did care for the natural urge of his young wife for amusement. And this is also a proof that her marriage at the age of nine did not bar her from the enjoyment craved for at that age. Holy Prophet (PBUH) consummated the marriage with Sayyidah Aisha when she was nine as she had attained puberty and, as she herself said that at nine a girl is rather a woman, but he did not burden her with tough responsibilities of a wife and provided her ample opportunities to enjoy her age. This infact shows the wisdom of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that he did present a role model for all the people to come to care for all the needs of a wife. She married women of all age groups, elder to him like Sayyidah Khadija (RA), of his own age like Sauda (RA), younger but mature of age like Zainab (RA) and much younger like Sayyidah Aisha (RA). Sayyidah Aishas marriage and consent issue: Next comes the issue of her consent. Her nikah, the marital contract, was made when she was six but the marriage was consummated when she was nine. Now had she showed her displeasure about this marriage when she was nine, and thus a woman according to her own testimony, then marriage would haven been null and void, but it never turned up like that. She did not show any such notion and similarly never in her later life did she ever give any such impression. She rather always showed her love for the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Wisdom behind this marriage: We know that Sayyidah Aisha (RA) was considered the most learned among the all the Companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The following testifies to this. Abu Musa al-Ashari says: "Never had we (the companions) any difficulty for the solution of which we approached Aisha and did not get some useful information from her". (Tirmidhi, Hadith 3883. Albani classified it as Sahih) She narrated some 2210 Ahadith from the Prophet (PBUH) and this was possible only because she lived with him for nine years and that too at a young age when people have a sharp memory and great sense of observation. Then she lived for about 46 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and continued to teach the people matters of religion especially those related to household affairs and marital life. No other wife of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did the similar job that may be compared with her blessed endeavors. This shows the Divine Wisdom for it was not the Prophet himself but Allah that ordained this marriage. She herself reports; Allah's Messenger (PBUH) said to me, You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. (Bukhari, Hadith 6495) Thus do Allahs plans work in a marvelous way! INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Question: Many hadith state how we will see Allah in Jannah but 6:103 states

vision comprehends him not and he comprehends all vision...7:143 and moses said my lord show me thyself so that i may look upon thee he said you cannot bear to see me sahih bukhari v1 ch fazlas sujud min kitabul adhan pg 100 or volume iv pg 92 of sahih muslim. How does contradiction make sense?

Answer: Yes, without a how or shape or form, because [absolutely nothing resembles Allah].

One has to believe that Allah can be seen in the Hereafter. The believers will see Him while they are in Paradise with the eyes of their heads. They will see Him without a kayf (manner of being), without a place and without a direction.

Allah

ta^ala

said:

The ayah means: Fresh faces which see its Lord (al-Qiyamah 22-23).

The prophet, salla-l-lahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said: You will see your Lord on the Day of Judgment. [The seeing is] similar to the seeing of the moon on the night when it is full when you will see it without a doubt (narrated by Muslim).

The prophet, salla-l-lahu ^alayhi wa sallam, likened our seeing to Allah- being a seeing without a doubt- to seeing the moon on the night when it is full. The prophet did not liken Allah to the moon.

Al-imam Abu Hanifah, radiya-l-lahu ^anhu, said in <al-Fiqh al-Akbar>:

Allah ta^ala is seen in the Hereafter. The believers will see Him while they are in Paradise. [They will see Him] without any likeness, ascription, and quantity and there will not be any distance between Him and his creations.

Allah exists without a beginning and everything else exists with a beginning. He is the creator and everything else is a creation.

One must believe Allah is the only One who is eternal (Qadim) Who does not have a beginning to His existence and every thing else is a creation. Every creation that exists, be it among entities or deeds, from the fine dust to Ceiling of Paradise (^Arsh), and every movement, rest, intention and thought of the slaves is created by Allah. Hence, no one other than Allah -- be it nature or reason -- creates any thing. Things become existent by Allahs eternal Will, Power and Knowledge as mentioned in al-Quran in Surat al-Furqan verse 2:

which means: Allah created everything. Imam an-Nasafiyy said: If a person hit glass with a stone and broke it, then the acts of hitting and breaking and the

state

of

being

broken

were

created

by

Allah.

Everything that happens is by the eternal will and power of Allah.

One has to believe that Allah can be seen in the Hereafter. The believers will see Him while they are in Paradise with the eyes of their heads. They will see Him without a kayf (manner of being), without a place and without a direction.

Allah (

ta^ala .

said: )

The ayah means: Fresh faces which see its Lord (al-Qiyamah 22-23).

The prophet, salla-l-lahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said: You will see your Lord on the Day of Judgment. [The seeing is] similar to the seeing of the moon on the night when it is full when you will see it without a doubt (narrated by Muslim). The prophet, salla-l-lahu ^alayhi wa sallam, likened our seeing to Allah- being a seeing without a doubt- to seeing the moon on the night when it is full. The prophet did not liken Allah to the moon. Al-imam Abu Hanifah[r.h], said in al-Fiqh al-Akbar: Allah ta^ala is seen in the Hereafter. The believers will see Him while they are in Paradise. [They will see Him] without any likeness, ascription, and quantity and

there

will

not

be

any

distance

between

Him

and

his

creations.

{They will be in Paradise but Allah, as always is Attributed, will be existing without a place and without a direction. There will be no distance between the believers and Allah and no facing. They will see Him with their everlasting eyes; unlike the creations see one another.}

As

the

Book

of

our

Lord

has

expressed

it:

"Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord". [al-Qiyamah 75:22-23]

The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, in the Sahih Hadith (authentic sayings), is as he said and means what he intended.

{This is the sound methodology which the Salaf mostly applied. They gave the

general

interpretation

of the mutashabih (linguistically could have more than one meaning but only the proper meanings

apply) verses of the Qur'an and the Hadiths of the Prophet by saying we believe in these verses as per

the meaning Allah willed and intended and we believed in the mutashabih Hadith as per the meaning

the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, intended. They mostly did not give detailed interpretation

because of their strength in Tawhid and the Arabic language that shielded them from drifting into

improper meanings that constitute likening Allah to the creations. It was confirmed about Imam Ahmad

that he gave detailed interpretation. However, the scholars of the Khalaf (the latter scholars who came

after the Salaf) mostly gave detailed interpretations well founded and based on the Muhkam verses and Hadiths (have one meaning or the intended meaning stands out very clear) out of fear that, due to the diminishing strength that prevailed at the time of the Salaf, people would drift to likening Allah to the

creation.}

- Imam at-Tahawi is referring here to the baseless interpretation that the Mushabbihah practice in

order to liken Allah to the creation or the Mu^attilah in order to negate the Attributes of Allah.

We do not delve into that with baseless interpretation according to our own opinions or deluding ourselves by unsound inclinations. No one is safe in his religion unless he submits himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.

This is a clear advice for us to seek acquiring the knowledge from the reputable scholars who deliver

it according to the methodology prescribed by the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam.

Questions- please provide detailed answers and explanation, and if possible please refute all shia claims in relation to the questions. Question: Three years after the advent of islam the verse (26:214 and warn thy nearest relations) was revealed, after which the prophet organized the feast of the clan (dawat dhi lashira) and announced Ali bin Abi Talib as his successor my brother, my successor, my caliph akhi, wasiyyi, khalifati. Why was Ali not the first caliph after such a clear statement?

Answer: Question: Events of Ghadir Khumm. How do sunnis justify it?

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]


Answer:

Introduction It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet ( ) said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said. For example, the Quranic verse slay them wherever you find them is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation. Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet ( ), who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally different (and misleading) picture. The Prophets intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali ( ) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali ( ) against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was said. The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia The Shia claim that the Prophet ( ) divinely appointed Ali ( ) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should set the stakes: (1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali ( ) was divinely appointed by the Prophet ( ) and the Shia creed is correct. (2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet ( ) appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali ( ) was never appointed at all by the Prophet ( ) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid.

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

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

Muhammads last instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Alis vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage source: http://www.amaana.org/gadhir/gadhir1.htm

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

After completing his last pilgrimage (Hajjatul-Wada), Prophet [s] was leaving Makkah toward

Madinah, where he and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is close to todays al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from different provinces used to greet each other before taking different routes for their homes. In this place, the following verse of the Quran was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 5:67) The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people. Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of Ali and said: For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), Ali is his Leader (mawla). Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Quran was revealed: Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Quran 5:3) The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophets immediate successor.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm Why It Just Doesnt Make Sense

The Shia claim that the Prophet ( ) completed his last Hajj, said his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Mecca, and then afterwards appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm. Let us analyze this claim: Ghadir Khumm is located between Mecca and Medinah, near the city of Al-Juhfah, as mentioned by the Al-Islam.org website. It is a watering hole in the middle of the desert. The coup de grceto the Shia argument is the fact that Ghadir Khumm is located approximately 250 km away from Mecca. This simple fact is enough to shatter the entire premise of Shiism. As we all know, the Prophet ( ) delivered his Farewell Sermon in Mecca during his last Hajj. This was in front of the great majority of the Muslims, who had come from all of the various cities to do Hajj. If the Prophet ( ) wanted to appoint Ali ( ) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable explanation why the Prophet ( ) did not do this during his Farewell Sermon to all of the Muslims. The entire Muslim Ummah was gathered there to hear his parting words, so surely this would be the most appropriate time and opportunity to appoint a successor. The Prophet ( ) and the Muslims completed their Hajj after which everyone went back to their respective home cities. The people of Medinah went back to Medinah, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Syria went back to Syria, and the people of Mecca stayed put in Mecca.

It was only the group that lived in cities in the North of the Arabian Peninsula that passed by Ghadir Khumm. This would consist of only those who were heading towards Medinah and the minority of Muslims that lived in places such as Syria. Therefore, when the Prophet ( ) stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great number of the Muslims were not present including those living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. After the Hajj, the Meccans stayed behind in Mecca, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, etc. Only the group going to Medinah (or passing through/near it) accompanied the Prophet ( ) to Ghadir Khumm. Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet ( ) did not appoint Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims, but rather what happened at Ghadir Khumm happened in front of just the handful of Muslims who were heading back to Medinah (or passing through/near it). Let us look at what one Shia website claims: The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

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

Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) had departed Makkah en route to Madinah. He and the entire Muslim caravan, numbering over 100,000, were stopped at Ghadeer Khumm, a deserted-yet-strategically situated area that lies between Makkah and Madinah (near todays Juhfah). In those days, Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage from neighbouring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home. source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the conclusion we reach is that the Shia claim that the Prophet ( ) appointed Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Prophet ( ) did not address this point in his Farewell Sermon at all. As for the incident of Ghadir Khumm, we have seen how unlikely it is that this would be the place that the Prophet ( ) would appoint Ali ( ) as the next Caliph; indeed, the mainstream Muslim version of Ghadir Khumm just makes more sense. What Really Happened at Ghadir Khumm Nobody denies the incident of Ghadir Khumm; however, what we deny are the exaggerations of the Shia with regards to said event. First off, the Shia exaggerate as to how many people were present at Ghadir Khumm, often giving numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As we have shown above, only the Muslims heading towards Medinah were present at Ghadir Khumm, which means that the Meccans were not present, nor were any of the people of Taif, Yemen, etc. In fact, the Shia often quote that 100,000 people were present at Ghadir Khumm but this is likely an over-exaggeration, and rather this is the number of people present in Mecca for the Hajj from all of the cities, not only those who were returning to Medinah (which was only a fraction of that number). Whatever the case, no matter what number the Shia use, this can only be a fraction of the Muslims because it would not include the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.

The context of Ghadir Khumm must be taken into consideration. What happened at Ghadir Khumm was that the Prophet ( ) was responding to certain individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ). The background behind this was that a few months earlier, the Prophet ( ) had dispatched Ali ( ) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the Shia website, www.najaf.org: Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen. (http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm) The army led by Ali ( ) was very successful in Yemen and they captured a lot of war booty. It was over this war booty that a dispute began between Ali ( ) on the one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathirs al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah: Amongst the states fifth of the spoils there was enough linen to clothe the whole army, but Ali had decided that it must be handed over to the Prophet untouched. After the victory in Yemen, Ali ( ) placed his deputy commander in charge of the troops stationed in Yemen, while he himself head out towards Mecca to meet the Prophet ( ) for the Hajj. We read: In his (Alis) absence, however, the man he left in charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for nearly three months. The troops stationed in Yemen then set out to Mecca to complete the Hajj with the Prophet ( ): When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from entering the city (of Mecca), Ali rode out to meet them and was amazed to see the transformation that had taken place (in regards to their clothing). I gave them the garments, said the deputy commander, that their appearance might be more seemly when they entered in among the people. The men all knew that everyone in Mecca would now be wearing their finest clothes in honor of the Feast, and they were anxious to look their best. But Ali felt he could not countenance such a liberty and he ordered them to put on their old clothes again and return the new ones to the spoils. Great resentment was felt throughout the army on this account, and when the Prophet heard of it, he (the Prophet) said: O people, blame not Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of Allah to be blamed. But these words were not sufficient, or it may be that they were only heard by a few, and the resentment continued. On the way back to Medina one of the troops bitterly complained of Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed color. Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves? he said; and when the man assented, he added: Whomsoevers beloved friend I am, Ali is (also) his beloved friend. Later on in the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking Ali by the hand he repeated these words [i.e. whomsoevers beloved I am, this Ali is (also) his beloved friend], to which he added the prayer: O Allah, be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his foe; and the murmurings against Ali were silenced. The soldiers under Alis charge were not only perturbed over the change of clothes but also over the distribution of the spoils of war in general. The Muslims, thanks to the great leadership of Ali ( ), had conquered many camels, but Ali ( ) forbade them from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed that Ali (

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

) of being a hypocrite for denying the clothes and camels to the men but for himself taking a slave girl. It was for this wrongful criticism of Ali ( ) that the Prophet ( ) defended Ali ( ) in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. ShiaChat Member says

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

leisure but dont dare bring this up here That accusation [that Imam Ali slept with a slave girl] is blatantly ummayyad propaganda to make our Mawla (A.S.) look bad

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

Majlisi Biharul anwar 43/147 : (1) .

: : : .

[Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatimas house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girls lap. She said: O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!? He said: O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want? She said: Do you allow me to go to my fathers house? He said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet. (source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on How her life with Ali was)]

source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html Fourthlyand this ends the debate altogetheris the fact that this incident is mentioned in Shia sources as well. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar, writes: (Earlier) the Commander of the Faithful had chosen a slave-girl from among the prisoners. Now Khalid sent Buraida to the Prophet. He said: Get to (the Prophet) before the army does. Tell him what Ali has done in choosing a slave-girl for himself from the Khums and bring him dishonor Buraida went to the Prophet. He (Buraida) had with him the letter from Khalid with which he had been sent. He began to read it. The face of the Prophet began to change. Apostle of Allah, said Buraida, if you permitted the people (to act) like this, their booty would disappear.

Woe upon you, Buraida, the Prophet told him. You have committed an act of hypocrisy. Ali ibn Abi Talib is allowed to have what is allowed to me from their bootyBuraida, I warn you that if you hate Ali, Allah will hate you. Buraida reported: I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I could be swallowed into it. Then I said: I seek refuge in Allah from the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of him. The Prophet forgave him. (Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.111-112) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (volume 5, Book 59 Number 637): Narrated Buraida:

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, Dont you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the Prophet, I mentioned that to him. He (the Prophet) said, O Buraida! Do you hate Ali? I said, Yes. He said, Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus. This is the version of Ghadir Khumm narrated in the Sahihayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim), with no mention at all of the word Mawla. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: As for his saying If I am someones mawla then Ali is his mawla too, this is not in the books of Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim), but it is one of the reports which were narrated by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed. Therefore, we see that the Shia have created much ado about nothing. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a far cry from a nomination to Caliphate. The Shia scholar, SHM Jafri, writes: The Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated the Prophets exhortation [at Ghadir Khumm] in that some people were murmuring against Ali due to his harsh and indifferent treatment in the distribution of the spoils of the expedition of Al-Yaman, which had just taken place under Alis leadership, and from where he, along with his those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join the Prophet at the Hajj. To dispel these ill-feelings against his son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner. (The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22) The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context The Sunnis say that the Prophet ( ) was forced to make his declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali ( ) and his soldiers in Yemen. The Shia approach this in one of two ways. The first response is to deny the event in Yemen altogether, claiming that it was merely Umayyad propaganda that Ali ( ) would ever take a slave girl like that. Of course, this response is quickly refuted by pointing out that these narrations are available in Shia sources as well, including Shaykh Mufids book Kitab Al-Irshad. Therefore, the Shia propagandist must fall back on another explanation, as offered by Taair-al-Quds below, which is to admit that the event in Yemen did take place but that it has nothing to do with Ghadir Khumm. Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says

The Hadiths mentioning this incident [of Alis soldiers getting angry at him]have nothing to do

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

while the other took place in Yemen earlier on and got resolved earlier as well in Masjid e Nabavi, Medinah, before the Prophet (s) even left for Hajj!

In fact, both events (what happened in Yemen and Ghadir Khumm) occurred in the final year of the Prophets life. According to the classical Shia scholar, Shaykh Mufid, the expedition in Yemen was coming to an end in the last five days of Dhu al-Qadah (the 11th Islamic month) and the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred right thereafter in Dhu al-Hijjah (the 12th Islamic month). What Taair-alQuds has deceptively done is claim that the expedition of Yemen took place in Rabi al-Thani (the 4th Islamic month) or Jumada al-Awwal (the 5th Islamic month), whereas Ghadir Khumm took place in the 12th month; this is a horrible half-truth. The Yemen campaign lasted many months and into the 11th month! So whereas the Yemen expedition may have started a few months back, it definitely did not end before the last five days of the 11th month, after which Ali ( ) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet ( ) in Mecca to do Hajj. As for Taair-al-Quds claims that the incident of Yemen was resolved in Medinah, then this is a horrible blunder on his part. After what happened in Yemen (i.e. the dispute over Khums), Ali ( ) rode out to meet the Prophet ( ) in Mecca, not Medinah. Ali ( ) and his men performed Hajj with the Prophet ( ) and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali ( ), which led to the pronouncement at Ghadir Khumm. Taair-al-Quds refers to it as Wahabi / Nawaasib propaganda to claim that the dispute between Ali and his soldiers happened right before Ghadir Khumm. We would like to ask Taair-al-Quds if he considers Shaykh Mufid to be one of the Nawaasib? Shaykh Mufid, in his epic book Kitab alIrshad mentions the dispute in Yemen (between Ali and his soldiers) in the same heading as the section entitled The Prophets Farewell Pilgramage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm! We read: The Prophets Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, had sent him (Ali), peace be upon him, to Yemen to collect the fifth share (khums) of their gold and silder and collect the breastplates and other thingsThen the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, decided to go on the pilgrimage and to carry out the duties which God, the Exalted, had decreed He, may God bless him and his family, set out with them with five days remaining in (the month of) Dhu al-Qada. He had written to the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, about going on the pilgrimage from Yemen Meanwhile, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, set out with the soldiers who had accompanied him to Yemen. He had with him the breastplates which he had collected from the people of Najran. When the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was nearing Mecca on the road from Medina, the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, was nearing it on the road from Yemen. He (Ali) went ahead of the army to meet the Prophet, may God bless him and his family, and he left one of their number in charge of them. He came up to the Prophet as the latter was looking down over Mecca. He (Ali) greeted him (the Prophet) and informed him (the Prophet) of what he (Ali) had done and what he (Ali) had collected [in Khums] and that he had hurried ahead of

the army to meet him. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was pleased at that and delighted to meet him The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, said farewell to him (the Prophet) and returned to his army. He (Ali) met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He (Ali) denounced them for that. Shame on you! he (Ali) said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. Whatever made you give them breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family? I did not give you permission to do that. They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me, he replied. The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion When the Apostle of God carried out his rituals of the pilgrimage, he made Ali his partner in the sacrifice of animals. Then he began his journey back to Medina. (Ali) and the Muslims went with him. He came to a place known as Ghadir Khumm (Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.119-123)

Who Was Angry With Ali (

)?

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

) and Buraida ( ).

None of the hadiths mention any third individual besides Khalid bin Walid and Burayda (or Bara

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

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

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

sources? In any case, in order to be fair, the only two additions we will discuss will be: (1) This Ali is also his Mawla, and (2) befriend whosoever befriends him The Definition of the Word Mawla The Shia claim that the word Mawla here means master. It is based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the Prophet ( ) nominated Ali ( ) as his successor. In fact, the word Mawlalike many other Arabic words has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word mawla is actually servant and not master. A former slave who becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah. One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various definitions of the word Mawla. Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word Mawla can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord, owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant, brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc. Now let us examine the Hadith again: Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him. The word Mawla here cannot refer to master, but rather the best translation of the word Mawla is a beloved friend. It is clear that Mawla here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word Mawla makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet ( ) immediately says O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him. The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means beloved friend but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that. Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah: The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned. Imam Shafii said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam. Allah says in the Quran:

So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is. (Quran, 57:15) No translator on earthnot even the staunchest Shiahas ever translated this to mean Imam or Caliph, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word Mawla comes from Wilayah and not Walayah. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership. Allah says in the Quran: That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them. (Quran, 47:11) This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the second part of this verse in which Allah says: the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them. Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of course the disbelievers have a leader, such as today the American disbelievers have George Bush as their leader. This fact is mentioned in the Quran itself: Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr. (Quran, 9:12) And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire. (Quran, 28:41) And so when Allah says the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them, this refers to a protector of extreme closeness, not that they dont have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla to mean Imam or Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet ( ) was advising the people to love Ali ( ) and be close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), and Uthman ( ) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar ( ) was so beloved to Ali ( ) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali ( ) served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was the mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali ( ). In other words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet ( ) nominating Ali ( ) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to stop criticizing Ali ( ) and to love him. Allah says in the Quran: Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends) are Allah and His Messenger and the believersthose who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly. As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be triumphant. (Quran, 5:55-56) In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as being Mawla. How then can the Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are suddenly

Caliphs or Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this verse refers to Ali alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers in the plural. No doubt, Alilike many other righteous believerswas included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and exclusively to him since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word Mawla here refers to love, extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a single instance in the Quran in which the word Mawla is used to refer to Imamah or Caliphate. In another verse of the Quran, Allah says: No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment. Does this mean that no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of Judgment? Surely this makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of the Quran that Allah refers to two people and calls both to be Mawla; if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the leader of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could be Mawla of each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer to both of them as Mawla as Allah does in the Quran. The word Mawla is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let us examine Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715). The Prophet ( ) says: The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja are my beloved helpers (Mawali), and they have no protector except Allah and His Apostle. Does the word Mawla here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph or Imam over the Prophet ( )? Of course not. It makes more logical sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet ( ) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla). It is also important to point out that the Prophet ( ) did not say after me in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the Prophet ( ) had meant whomsoevers leader I am, this Ali is also his leader, which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a very big problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs in the same land at the same time, and there are many Hadith in which the Prophet ( ) warns against having two Caliphs. Without the words after me, it would become a very confusing sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of course, the Prophet ( ) did not mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla (beloved friend) at the same time. One can love the Prophet ( ) and be close to him, and at the same time love and be close to Ali ( ). If the Prophet ( ) meant to nominate Ali ( ), then why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying something vague such as whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla, why didnt the Prophet ( ) say something clearer such as I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I die or Ali is my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after me. Surely, this would have cleared up the matter. The Prophet ( ) was commanded to be clear in delivering the Message, and none of the Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm to mean that Ali ( ) was nominated as Caliph.

To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows: ShiaChat Member says

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

Caliph and many other clearer things but these hadeeth were not transmitted by the sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla hadeeth because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more direct and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would think that it is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would then take it out. In fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW) did in fact say it clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the next Caliph but the Sunnis reject those.

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

like the Prophet (

) was. Had the Prophet ( ) wanted to nominate Ali ( ) as the Caliph, then he ( ) would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Mecca instead of on his journey back to Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Mecca and the rest of the Muslims. Playing Games with the Quran Al-Islam.org says

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

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 5:67) The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.

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

This is an oft-repeated claim of the Shia, namely that this verse (5:67) was revealed in regards to Alis nomination to Caliph; in other words, the Prophet ( ) should not worry about the awful reaction of the Sahabah to the declaration of Alis Imamah and Caliphate. As is usually the case, the Shia propagandists have no qualms with playing legoes with the Quran and using the Quran as their own personal jigsaw puzzle. In fact, verse 5:67 could not possibly have been revealed in regards to Alis nomination, namely because it was directed towards the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). The Shia take the verse out of context, without considering the verse that comes right before it and the verse that comes right after it. Let us take a look: [5:66] And if they (the Jews and the Christians) had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. [5:68] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians)! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people. So we see that the verse before and after is talking about the People of the Book, and it is in this context that the verse 5:67 was revealed, reassuring the Prophet ( ) that he should not fear the Jews or the Christians and that he (

) should clearly deliver the Message of Islam which will be made supreme over Judaism and Christianity. The Prophet ( ) is told in verse 5:67 that he should not fear these men who mean mischief, and in the very next verse (5:68) Allah says that the Message of Islam will only increase them in inordinacy and disbelief. It is exceedingly clear that we are talking about the same group of people, namely the disbelievers from amongst the People of the Book who mean to make mischief and who become obstinate in inordinacy and disbelief. In fact, that entire section of the Quran is referring to the People of the Book, starting from verse 5:59 and going all the way to 5:86. Let us reproduce the verses below: [5.59] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians)! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors? [5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path. [5.61] And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows best what they concealed. [5.62] And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do. [5.63] Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work. [5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers. [5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss [5:66] And if they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. [5:68] Say: O People of the Book! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people. [5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. [5.70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of Israel and We sent to them apostles; whenever there came to them an apostle with what that their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they slew. [5.71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do. [5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. [5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away. [5.76] Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah He is the Hearing, the Knowing. [5.77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. [5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. [5.79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. [5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. [5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors. [5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. [5.83] And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth). [5.84] And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people? [5.85] Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who do good (to others). [5.86] And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame. It is very clear that all of these verses are about the Jews and the Christians, and it is absurd that the Shia could just cut and paste the Quran as they wish. This is manipulating the Word of Allah and a very big sin that leads to the path of the Kufr. And yet, you will find that the Shia universally make the claim that this verse was revealed with regards to the Ghadir Khumm address and the nomination of Ali ( ). So this is the length that the Shia propagandist will go to in order to twist Quran and Hadith in order to create the imaginary tale that the Prophet ( ) nominated Ali ( ) to be Caliph. Al-Islam.org says

In this place, the following verse was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 5:67).

Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum: (1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under commentary of verse 5:67, v12, pp 49-50, narrated on the authorities of Ibn Abbas, al-Bara Ibn Azib, and Muhammad Ibn Ali. (2) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, p50, narrated on the authorities of Atiyyah and Abu Said al Khudri. (3) Nuzul al-Quran, by al-Hafiz Abu Nuaym narrated on the authorities Abu Said Khudri and Abu Rafi. (4) al-Fusool al Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki al-Makki, p24 (5) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, under commentary of verse 5:67 (6) Fathul Qadir, by al-Shawkani, under commentary of verse 5:67 (7) Fathul Bayan, by Hasan Khan, under commentary of verse 5:67 (8) Shaykh Muhi al-Din al-Nawawi, under commentary of verse 5:67 (9) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p301 (10) Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by al-Ayni (11) Tafsir al-Nisaboori, v6, p194 (12) and many more such as Ibn Mardawayh, etc

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

The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to describe them. They have become notorious for their half-quotes. Here the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them one by one. The first one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool the Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse 5:67 was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact opposite in his book! Imam Razi mentions that various people have claimed that the verse was revealed on different occassions. He lists ten possibilities of when the verse could have been revealed. It is wellknown that the style of the scholars was to list the most important view first and the least important view last. It should interest the deceitful Shia to know that Imam Razi did mention Ghadir Khumm but as the absolute last one, meaning in his eyes it was the weakest possible view. We will now provide the commentary of Imam Razi word for word: Scholars of Tafseer have mentioned many causes of revelation: (1) The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of stoning and retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the Jews. (2) The second cause is that it has been revealed because of the Jews criticism and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet had remained silent about them, thus this verse was revealed. (3) Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is O Prophet! say to thy wives: (i.e 33:28), the Prophet did not deliver this verse to them out of fear that they may choose this world, and thus it (i.e 5:67) was revealed. (4) Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint Jahsh. Aisha said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah concealed part of what was revealed to him, then he has committed a

great lie against Allah, for Allah has said: O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) and was the Messenger of Allah to conceal part of what was revealed to him he would have concealed His saying: And you hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light [33:37] (5) Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites hated it, so he used to withhold from urging them for Jihad. (6) Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling their gods, so this verse was revealed, and He said: Proclaim i.e the faults/criticism about their gods and do not hide it, and Allah will protect you against them. (7) Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims, because in the Last Pilgrimage after he had declared the rulings and rituals of Hajj, he said: Have I not declared (it to you)? They said: Yes. He said: O Allah be my witness. (8) Eighth: It has been narrated that he rested under a tree in one of his journeys and hung his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he was sleeping and snatched the sword saying: O Muhammad, who will protect you against me? He said: Allah, so the hand of the Bedouin trembled, the sword fell from his hand, and he banged his head against the tree until his brains burst, so Allah revealed this verse and explained that He will protect him against people. (9) Ninth: He used to fear Quraysh, the Jews and the Christians, so Allah removed this fear from his heart with this verse. (10) Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress Alis excellence, and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet caught hold of Alis hand and said: One who has me as his mawla has Ali as his mawla. O Allah, Be his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy. (Soon) after this, Umar met him (Ali) and said: O Ibn Abi Talib! I congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the mawla of every male and female believer. This is the saying narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas, Baraa ibn Aazib and Muhammad bin Ali. You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is more fit to explain the verse as Allah assuring him (the Prophet) of protection against the cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and ordered him to announce the proclamation without having fear of them. This is because the context before this verse and after this verse is addressing the Jews and Christians; it would not be possible to throw a verse in the middle (of other verses) making it foreign to what is before it and after it. (source: Tafseer al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of the verse 5:67, volume 12, pp.49-50) In other words, Imam Razi did mention ten possibilities but he stated that the only strong opinion was that the verse was revealed about the Jews and Christians and this is why he mentioned this possibility first. Is it any wonder that the deceitful Shia Encyclopedia did not mention that Imam Razi mentioned ten possibilities and stated that the only reasonable one was the first? Instead the Shia rely on halfquotes; indeed, they are a people who love Taqiyyah and deception. We warn the Sunni laypersons not to be impressed by their lengthy lists of references; whenever the Shia give a list of references but no exact quote, it is a good sign that they are twisting the text just like they twist the Quran and play legoes with it.

As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows: My father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn Zakariya told us: Ali Ibn Abis told us: from Al-Amash from Atiya Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri. The Isnad is weak. If we analyze the narrators, we find: (1) Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: He is weak. Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: He is not strong. (2) Ali Ibn Abis Yahya Ibn Maeen said: He is nothing. And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai, and Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi. Ibn Hibban said: His mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted. (3) Al-Amash He is Mudalis. (4) Atiya Al-Awfi: Ahmad said: He is weak. Al-Nasai said: He is weak. Ibn Hiban said:He heard from Abu Saeed hadiths and when he died he used to sit with Al-Kalbi, so if Al-Kalbi said: The Messenger of Allah said such-and-such, he would memorize it and he gave him the kunya of Abu Saeed and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: Who narrated this to you? He would say: Abu Saeed narrated this to me. So they (i.e those who inquired) would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi. He further stated: It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about them. And then he related from Khalid Al-Ahmar that he said: Al-Kalbi told me: Atiya told me: I have given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say: Abu Saeed narrated to us. Accordingly, Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the Prophet, i.e. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri. (5) Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Saeb Al-Kalbi Al-Suyuti said in Al-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas: And the weakest of its chains is the way of Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn Marwan AlSadi, the young, is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi and Al-Wahidi narrate through it.

Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mujam Al-Udaba of Tafseer at-Tabari: And he (Tabari) did not make reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did not include in his book anything from the book of Muhammad Ibn Al-Saeb Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi for they create suspicion (athina) in his view, and Allah knows best. Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tareekh Al-Kabeer: Muhammad Ibn Al Saeb Abu Al- Nadhir Al-Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed. Ibn Mahdi and Ali told told us: Yahya Ibn Saeed told us: from Sufyan: Al-Kalbi told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies. Al-Nasai said: He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written. Ahmad Ibn Haroon said: I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer Al-Kalbi. He said: Lies. I said: Is it permissible for me to look into it? He said: No. CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all. The other books cited by the Shia contain this same chain, such as Asbab Al Nuzul by Imam Wahidi al Naysaburi: : : : : : ( ) :

In the Tafseer Dar al-Manthur of Imam Suyuti, we find that the same chain is cited: #6609 :

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

Revelation of Quranic Verse 5:3

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

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm This is another Shia fabrication: the Quranic verse 5:3 (this day I have perfected your religion) was revealed at the end of the Farewell Sermon on top of Mount Arafat. This fact is reported in Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Sunan, and others: It (i.e. the verse This day I have perfected your religion) was revealed on a Friday, the Day of Arafat

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

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

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


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

An Appeal to Common Sense:

Allah, the All-Knowing, describes the sublime character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) as follows: Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate [9:128] The Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was an extremely kind-hearted and compassionate. He always took every effort to ensure the well-being and comfort of his followers, and was never known to impose any extra burden or hardship upon others. He was even known to shorten his prayers upon hearing the voice of a baby crying. It is impossible to infer that the Prophet,

who was sent as a mercy unto the worlds had ordered his followers to sit in the burning heat of the Arabian desert, without any shade, for several hours, only to announce to them that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.

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

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

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

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

Laudation from the Muslims

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

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

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

)then why does Umar ( ) congratulateAli ( ) on his nomination? At most, we would expect such a person to grudgingly give the Bayaah, if at all. But here, we see that Umar ( ) is the first to congratulate Ali ( ) with regards to being Mawla. The bottom line point is that if the word Mawla meant leader, then Umar ( ) would not have congratulated him on it. This praise said by Umar ( ) was transmitted widely to the people, so why should Umar ( ) do that favor to Ali ( ) if he was truly against him or if Mawla really meant leader? Umar ( ) interpreted Mawla to be beloved friend and not leaderand this is the meaning understood by the people back then. The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

The Meaning of Mawla

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

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

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

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

Ghadir Khumm. The community had gathered to listen to the sermon (in which he asked): Am I not more appropriate for authority (awla) over you than yourselves? Yes, they answered. Then he spoke to them in an ordered manner without any interruption in his speech:

Whomsoever I am the authority over (mawla), Ali is also the authority over.

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

First: The question which the Holy Prophet asked just before this declaration: Do I not have

more authority (awla) upon you than you have yourselves? When they said: Yes, surely, then the Prophet proceeded to declare that: Whoever whose mawla I am. Ali is his mawla. Without doubt, the word mawla in this declaration has the same meaning as awla (having more authority upon you). source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf Without a doubt, no. Awla and Mawla are two different words! Describing himself, the Prophet ( ) says: Am I not more appropriate for an Awla (authority) over you than yourselves? And describing Ali ( ) switches to: ), suddenly the Prophet (

Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. If anything, this sudden switch in wording completely negates the Shia claims! The Prophet ( ) should simply have said that Ali ( ) was Awla over the people, but instead he was very keen to say Mawla instead. The Prophet ( ) first states that Allah has authority over the people, then he says that he himself has authority over the people, but then suddenly he switches and uses the word Mawla for Ali ( ), even though he had used the word Awla for Allah and himself. The Prophet ( ) mentioned that he had authority over the believers so that they would listen to him and befriend Ali ( ) as was his wish. The Muslims under Alis command hated him, so the Prophet ( ) was using his influence to cause them to love Ali ( ) and take him as a beloved friend. An analogy to this is if a mafioso was about to hurt a baker, but that baker turned out to be a good friend of the mafia don. So the mafia don asks the mafioso: Are you loyal to me and do you obey my commands? The mafioso replies in the affirmative. So the mafia don says: If you obey my command, then be nice to this baker. This baker is my good friend, and if you are my good friend, then you should also be friends with this baker. It seems that the Shia are grasping at straws trying to inject the meaning of Imamah or Caliphate into the word Mawla. In order to build their claim, they will borrow Quranic verses that are on totally unrelated topics; whatever sounds good can work for the Shia, no matter how true it is. Here, the Shia want us to just believe that Awla is the same as Mawla. The Shia are just one step away from claiming that Ali ( ) must be Wali since the words Ali and Wali are so similar.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

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

Love him who loves Ali, and be the enemy of the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali. This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a friendship?

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

Glitters of Ahadith Relevant to the Ghadir Incident

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

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

The Shia author of the article has clearly stated that in order to find out what Mawla means, we need to use context clues. And he shows us the very next sentence in which the Prophet ( ) says: O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him. This is a great Hujjah (proof) against the Shia claims! The word used is befriend or love which means that Mawla here is being used to refer to a beloved friend. It is clear from this that Mawla here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word Mawla makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet ( ) immediately says O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him. How can it be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that? It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliphate and Imamah when the context has nothing to do with that. And it is even more unbelievable that the Shia can bring forth proof that is in fact the proof against their own arguments! As for this part: The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

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

nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters. source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

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

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

Allah) and I will answer that call. This clearly shows that he was making arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death. source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf

How is it clear? It is not clear at all. If the Prophet ( ) meant that, then why didnt he ( ) just say that? Why does the Shia have to become the spokesperson for the Prophet ( ) always telling us that the Prophet ( ) meant such-and-such even though he just said such-and-such? Surely, the Prophet ( ) could have said I am about to die and therefore I am worried about who will be my successor and this is why nominate Ali to be the Caliph after me. Instead, we have to guess and trust the Shia that this is what the Prophet ( ) really meant to say, and we all know how creative the Shia imagination is.

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

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

doubt concerning the meaning of this declaration. source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf We have already addressed this point earlier. The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet ( ) to nominate Ali ( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people: O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67) And the Shia say that the Sahabah were the ones foremost against the nomination of Ali ( ). And yet now, the article is claiming that the Sahabah had expressions of joy. Is this not a contradiction? If the people and the Sahabah were against Alis nomination so much so that Allah had to reveal a verse in the Quran about this, then why would they congratulate Ali ( ) and have expressions of joy? This is indeed a very big contradiction, but no doubt it is the inevitable result of furthering any argumentno matter how spuriousin order to bolster ones argument. What happens is that the Shia propagandist does this so frequently that he forgets his earlier arguments and accidentally furthers two contradictory claims. The people were congratulating Ali ( ) because he had just been declared the beloved friend of all the Muslims. If some childs parents told him to be friends with so-and-so person, what is the first thing this child would do after his parents said that? No doubt the child would go and introduce himself to that person and say kind words to him. This is the case at Ghadir Khumm: there had been people who were criticizing Ali ( ), but then the Prophet ( ) declared that Ali ( ) was the beloved friend of the Muslims, and so the people went to Ali ( ) to say kind words to him and congratulate him on this honor. Again, it has nothing to do with leadership, Imamah, or

Caliphate. If that were the case, thenat least according to the Shia paradigmwouldnt the Sahabah have been sullen and depressed, instead of joyful and elated? It is strange how the Shia try to downplay the greatness of being declared a beloved friend: we will often see Shia who say things like surely it couldnt mean just a friend. We do not understand what they mean by just a friend. First of all, it is not any old friend, but rather it is a beloved friend, indicating deep affection and love. Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was referred to as Khaleel-Allah which means friend of Allah and this title is bestowed to him by Allah. This is a great title, and nobody would say just a friend here. To be declared the friend of Allah is no small thing, and neither is it any small matter being referred to as the beloved of the Ummah. The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

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

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

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

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

Number of Companions in Ghadir Khumm

Allah ordered His Prophet [s] to inform the people of this designation at a time of crowded populous so that all could become the narrators of the tradition, while they exceeded a hundred thousand.

Narrated by Zayd b. Arqam: Abu al-Tufayl said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah [s], and there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.

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

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

And yet, nobody uses this Hadith to say that the Prophet ( nominating Umar ( ) as his successor; not even Umar ( himself interpreted it in this way, and it was he himself who nominated Abu Bakr ( ) to be Caliph instead. In yet another Hadith, we read:

) was )

The Prophet ( ) said: If a prophet were to succeed me, it would have been Umar ibn al-Khattab. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)

Had this been a Hadith in regards to Ali ( ), then the Shia would have been quoting it left, right, and center; but a cool-headed understanding by the Ahlus Sunnah takes into account all of the various Hadith in which the Prophet ( ) praised many Sahabah in various ways. These are all proofs for the exaltation of Sahabah definitely but they do not entail Prophetic nomination to Caliphate and they definitely do not convey any sense of divine appointment by Allah. In another Hadith, we read: The Prophet ( ) said: The first one whom the Truth will shake hands with is Umar (narrated Ubay ibn Kaab) And in yet another Hadith, we read: The Prophet ( ) said: There were in the nations before you people who were inspired, and if there is one in my Ummah it is Umar. (narrated Abu Hurrairah) Therefore, based on these Hadith and many other similar Hadith said to other Sahabah, we see that the Prophet ( ) calling Ali ( ) to be Mawla (beloved friend) was not a Prophetic nomination for Caliphate because others were praised in a similar fashion. What the Shia do is reject all the Hadith in regards to those they dislike and then accept only those in relation to Ali ( ); what is a bit amusing is that the Shia does not care to look at Isnad, but to the Shia a Hadith is authentic if it praises Ali ( ) and it is forged if it praises other Sahabah. This is the Shia science of Hadith; indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia would accept a narration on the authority of Mickey Mouse if it praised Ali ( ), and they would reject a Hadith narrated through Ali ( ) himself if it meant praising Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), etc. Now let us look at the second addition to the Hadith, namely the following: The Prophet ( ) said: Befriend whoever befriends him (i.e. Ali), and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him. The Shia will then use this Hadith to criticize those Sahabah who argued with Ali ( ), and yet do they not know that the Prophet ( similar things of other Sahabah? For example, we read the following Hadith:

) also said

The Prophet ( ) said: Whoever is angry with Umar is angry with me. Whoever loves Umar loves me. (At-Tabarani) In fact, the Prophet ( ) and Umar ( ) said this not only about Ali ( ), but about all of his Sahabah:

The Prophet ( ) said: Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish! (Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi, by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442). Parting Words

The Shia have taken the event of Ghadir Khumm way out of context. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate, and if it did, then nothing prevented the Prophet ( ) from clearly stating that instead of using the word Mawla which is known by everyone to mean beloved friend. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Mecca: if the Prophet ( ) had intended on nominating Ali ( ) then he would have done that at the larger gathering atop Mount Arafat during his Farewell Sermon in front of all the Muslims from every city. The entire Shia paradigm is based on the flimsy and easily refutable idea that Ghadir Khumm was a central location in which all the Muslims would gather together in before parting ways and going to their respective homes. Indeed, only those Muslims heading towards Medinah would pass through Ghadir Khumm, not the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. A couple hundred years ago, the Shia masses could easily have been misled because many of them would not have had the availability of a map to check where Ghadir Khumm is and they would merely have accepted the commonly held myth that it was a meeting place for Muslims before they parted ways. But today, in the age of information and technology, accurate maps are at our finger-tips and no reasonable person should be fooled by the Shia myths. We have shown that the Prophet ( ) did not (and could not have) nominated Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm as the Shia claim. This is the very foundation block of Shiism, without which their faith has no basis whatsoever: if the Prophet ( ) did not nominate Ali ( ) to be Caliph, then the Shia can no longer claim that Abu Bakr ( ) or the Sunnis usurped the divinely determined designation of Ali ( ). And with that, the whole of Shiism collapses in on itself, all because of an unaccountable 250 km separating Ghadir Khumm from Mecca and separating Shiism from the truth.

Question: How can all four schools of thought be correct with such large contradictions, from food restriction, to prayer times, etc and how can this be simply limited to four scholars as many more interpretations can be shown of these hadith, or if all are correct then why have they not settle on only one to follow?

Answer:

1. Adhering to one Madhab is clearly more easy that selecting from various

Madhaahib. If you select from all over the show, you will be adhering to your Nafs (base desires) instead of the Madhab.

2. Imagine if the corpse being dissected for medical purposes is the corpse of your love one. Would you be happy with this? Obviously, you wouldn?t. then why would you condone it for someone else?s loved one?

3. The prohibition of television is not merely because of the content but also because of the picture-making process. So, irrespective of what is viewed on the screen, it is still prohibited.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

None of the 4 Fiqah imams accused each other that your wrong or i am wrong. Or fought over baseless issues. They all had mere RESPECT for each other and so do i.

Hazrat Imam e Azam Abu Hanifa, Hazrat Imam Bin Hanbal, Hazrat Imam Shafi, And Hazrat Imam Malik Rahmatullahi'ta'ala allaiah.

The division and fighting becomes within the muslim community when one tries to outshine the other trying to "add" or "subtract" the certain issues within the boundries of islam.

Let me give you an example: Example: why do Hanafi scholars use imam maliks(Radi Allah Anhu) fatwa in anulling the marriage of a women who's husband has gone to war or got lost,and no sign of him returning i.e. after 4 yrs, whereas imam abu Hanifa(Radi Allah Anhu) said let her wait 70 yrs(or maybe 90yrs?) Are they insulting Abu Hanifa(Radi Allah Anhu) by not going by his decision? No!

Why do some Shafiee's(Radi Allah Anhu) in ihraam choose to follow hanafi madhab whilst doing wudhu for tawaaf etc,because in their madhab wudhu is anulled during physical contact with women( be it accidentally), and this is some times very difficult whilst doing tawaaf to avoid,are they disrespecting the decision of their imam too?

After the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), the Sahaba-e-Kiraam and the Taabi'in, the most excellent are the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnat Wa Jamaat. They are such great Imaams that they are known as "Mujtahideen Fi Shara". They are Imam-e-Azam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maalik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmed bin Hambal (alaihimur rahmah). Taqleed means to follow one of the four Imaams of religion concerning the commandments of Islamic Law (Shariah).

Today, Muslims throughout the world follow the Taqleed of these four Imaams. In the Masa'ile Furoo'iya, there is no other fourth Madhab. The difference of opinion of the four Imaams is only in the laws of Furoo' (actions) and not in beliefs (Aqaa'id). The followers of the four Madhabs are commonly known as Hanafi, Maaliki, Shafi'i and Hambali. It is necessary (Waajib) to follow one of them, eg. to perform Salaah, or perform Saum, Zakaah, etc. as per what they have prescribed. This is known as Taqleed Shakhshi. These Imams have not made a rule on their own accord but have explained the meaning of the Holy Quran and Hadith, which a normal person or even an Alim could not understand.

I Think people who swear and curse each other or call each other wrong are nothing more then just being deluded by a fog of blindness.

Question: does this ayah not talk about tawassul? 3:169 why is it than not acceptable?

Answer: The thought that tasawwuf is bidah could be due to several reasons. It is

possible that some people conduct certain practices against shariah in the name of tasawwuf that are obviously wrong. If your father believes that tasawwuf is bidah due to this reason, then he is correct. The reality of tasawwuf is Tazkiyya (purification) of ones nafs.

We are created from sand, water.fire and air. Each one of these elements reflects a certain character in a person. Anger is the reflection of fire in a person. Humbleness is the reflection of the sand in person. Water reflexs itself through a persons intelligence. Arrogance is the outcome of the air in person.

In tazkiyya, the focus is to bring a balance in all natural instincts. The purpose is not to eliminate the natural instincts. Anger and pride are natural. Arrogance and humbleness are also natural instincts. In tazkiyya, the focus is on controlling the natural instincts and avoiding every instinct form exceeding moderation.

Excessive anger is bad. To be humble is praiseworthy. However at times it is inappropriate. All other evils of the nafs flow from these evils.

Tazkiyya of the nafs is one of the missions of Rasulullah (s.a.w).

Allah says,

(2

It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom although they were before in clear error.

When a person does not concentrate in rectifying his soul, he feels uneasy within himself. His family life is in chaos. He has marital problems. His children are disobedient to him. His social life is a burden for him. To a large extent, if one honestly examines himself, he will conclude that he is the problem.

He did not contain his nafs. His problems are the consequences of his nafs. Had he controlled his nafs, the position would be different.

Everyone knows when he is following his nafs. Allah has given everyone an ultra sense to determine that. If one examines his challenges in life honestly, he will conclude that he brought his problems upon himself. Allah says:

(41

Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness].

If one is able to purify his nafs himself well and good. If one cannot do so, he should seek the assistance from a spiritual doctor.

If one is physically sick, he consults a doctor. Similarly; a spiritually ill person should also consult a spiritual doctor to cure his spiritual sickness. If one denies this, his condition will worsen.

A spiritual guide who has undergone spiritual training under a sheikh kamil will apply his skills and expertise in curing one form his spiritual diseases.

A spiritual guide adheres to shariah and the Sunnah and all aspects of shariah.When one sits in his company or hear his talks or listens to his zikr, he feels spiritual enlightenment in his heart. The above is a brief explanation on the philosophy of tasawwuf.

Question: 72: 26-27 isnt this ayah talking about ilmu l-ghayb of prophets and imams?

Imams Can See Al-Ghaib (the Unseen)


Answer:

The Shia believe that their Infallible Imams posses knowledge of Al-Ghaib (the Unseen). Here is a quote from Lesson 23 on the popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org: The Immaculate Imams can also make contact with the world of the unseen (Al-Ghaib) whenever necessary by seeking Gods aid and support and thereby gain access to knowledge they need. (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ ) So the Imams are believed to be able to see Al-Ghaib , even though the Quran clearly says: None knows Allahs Al-Ghaib (Unseen realm) except those whom He chooses from among His messengers. (Quran, 72:26) In this verse, Allah categorically declares that only Messengers can see Al-Ghaib by the Grace of Allah. There is categorical exclusion of anyone else, and this is known to anyone who understands the Arabic. This puts the Shia in a dilemma. The Ahlus Sunnah has always accused the Shia of believing in false messengers (Dajjals), but the Shia have adamantly denied that their Imams are messengers. So we wonder then: how do the Shia respond to this Quranic verse without either admitting that they believe in false messengers after Prophet Muhammad ( ) or by admitting that they are commiting Kufr by believing that their Imams see Al-Ghaib? What a predicament for the Shia! There is no way out for the Shia on this matter. According to the Quran, only messengers can see AlGhaib. This is clear evidence to the unbiased observor that the Shia believe in messengers after Prophet Muhammad ( ) since they say that their Imams see Al-Ghaib. The Shia simply do not call them by the name messenger or prophet, but rather they use the term Imam instead. However, other than the name, the Imam has all the same powers and prestige as a messenger or prophet. Denying the finality of Prophethood is Kufr since it violates this verse in the Quran: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but the Messenger of Allah and the Last of Prophets. And Allah has knowledge of everything. (Quran 33:40)
y

Al-Kafi

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

Imam Abu Abdullah said: I have a knowledge about what in the heavens and what is in the earth,what in the paradise and what is in the fire, and I know what was (before) and what is going to happen Biharul anwar vol 26, p 111 Al Kafi vol 1, p 261 The name of the chapter is simply shocking:

)* ( )

If the Imam wants to know anything, he will know it Al Kafi vol 1, p 258 According to the Shia, Imam Jafar said: Whenever the Imam wishes to be informed of something, Allah informs him of it. (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ ) He further stated: I swear by God that knowledge of the first things and the last things has been bestowed on us. On hearing this utterance of the Imam, one of his companions asked him whether he had knowledge of Al-Ghaib (the Unseen). He answered: Woe upon you that you find it necessary to ask such a question. We are fully informed of each drop of sperm in the loins of men and the wombs of women. Woe upon you; open your eyes, and let your hearts perceive the truth! We are Gods proof, dwelling among His creation, but only the believer whose faith is as firm as the mountains of Tihamah has the ability to perceive this truth. I swear by God that if I wished I could inform you how many pebbles exist in the world, even though their number is constantly growing, by night and by day. I swear by God that after me you will rise up in enmity against each other until one group among you destroys the other. (Source: http://alislam.org/leadership/ ) Imam Baqir is reported to have said: We have been given complete knowledge of the heavens and the earth. (Source: http://al-islam.org/leadership/ )
y

The Quran

Once again, the Shia find no validation for their belief in the Quran, but rather the Quran rejects the idea that the Imams can know Al-Ghaib. According to the Quran, none save a few chosen Messengers can see Al-Ghaib, and even this is limited access as Allah pleases. Nobody save Allah and Allah alone knows anything and everything as the Shia claim their Imams do. Indeed, there were matters of Al-Ghaib that were not shared with Prophet Muhammad ( ), and this is mentioned in the Quran. For example, the knowledge of the Hour of the Day of Judgment was not given to the Prophet ( ). The Prophet ( ) repeatedly declared that he had limited knowledge and that only Allah knew all of Al-Ghaib. To cogitate that the Imams know all of Al-Ghaib is a blasphemy beyond bounds. Here are some verses in the Quran that refute the Shia belief:

And with Him [Allah] are the keys of the Unseen (Ghaib); none knows them but He. (Quran, 6:59) Say (O Muhammed), I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you. I only follow whatis revealed to me. I am no more than a profound warner. (Quran, 46:9) Say (O Messenger): I do not control any benefit or harm for my own soul except as Allah pleases; had I known the Unseen (Ghaib) I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me; I am nothing but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who believe. (Quran, 7:188) Say (O Muhammed), I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of Allah. Nor do I know the future. Nor do I say to you that I am an angel. I simply follow what is revealed to me. (Quran, 6:50) Nor will Allah disclose to [any of] you the secrets of the Unseen (Ghaib), But He chooses of His Messengers (for the purpose) whom He pleases. (Quran, 3:180) The Prophet ( ) only knew a limited amount of Al-Ghaib and only what Allah revealed to Him of it. It certainly was not an absolute knowledge of Al-Ghaib, which is something that only Allah and Allah alone knows because He is Al-Aalim (All-Knowing, Omniscient). In fact, Allah told His Messenger( ) that: These are announcements relating to the Unseen (Ghaib) which We reveal to you, you did not know them neither you nor your people (Quran, 11:49) Surely, the Imams would be included in neither you nor your people. Allah declares: And they say: Why is not a sign sent to him from his Lord? Say [O Muhammad]: The Unseen (Ghaib) is only for Allah; therefore wait surely I too, with you am of those who wait. (Quran, 10:20) Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the Unseen (Ghaib) but Allah; and they do not know when they shall be raised. (Quran, 27:65) None knows Allahs Al-Ghaib (Unseen realm) except those whom He chooses from among His messengers. (Quran, 72:26)

Question: Hadith mentioning Abu bakr apologizing for what he has done to Fatima (killing her

behind the door) and being a pious leader contradicts with the hadith mentioning that anyone who hurts Fatima has hurt muhammed and allah and lanat shall be upon them. How is this explainable?

Neither Abu Bakr Nor Umar Was a Liar, Sinful, Treacherous, and Dishonest
Answer:

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

In Sahih Muslim, we see that Umar said: He (referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his

wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr said: The Messenger of Allah had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity. So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonestWhen Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr, you (Ali and Abbas) thought of me (Umar) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. (Sahih Muslim)

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

Authenticity of Hadith

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

without the use of the phrase liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. As the student of Hadith knows, the most authentic Hadith are those present in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim (meaning: both of them agreed on a Hadith and both mentioned it in their books). If this is not the case, then the greatest authenticity is considered Sahih Bukhari and then after that Sahih Muslim. Thus, as a rule, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that the narrations from Sahih Bukhari take precedence over Sahih Muslim. In case of dispute between the two, the Sahih Bukhari version is accepted over the Sahih Muslim version. This is the case with not only this particular Hadith but all other Hadith as well. There are many lay people who erroneously believe that every word in Sahih Muslim is considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah. This is incorrect. A Hadith can be Sahih overall, but contain Shadh (an anomaly). As for the Hadith that the Shia propagandists quote from Sahih Muslim, it is considered a sound Hadith overall but the words liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest are Shadh (an anomaly).

Shadh (Anomaly) in the Sahih Muslim Version


It should be noted that those present at the scene of this argument did not remember exactly word for word what was said. In fact, even in the Sahih Muslim version we see that it said about the narrator: The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. (Sahih Muslim) If he was unsure about one part, then clearly he could be unclear about another. The exact wording was not remembered, and there were various versions other than the words liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Hajar stated in his Sharh of Sahih Bukhari (i.e. Fath al-Bari) that there are variant versions of this narration: Shuayb and Yunus added that Ali and Abbas called each other names without mentioning exactly what those names were.

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

In the version of Juwariyya, it says: Between this perfidious, deceitful, wrongdoing liar (Ali). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said regarding this Hadith:

meaning, the narrator of the Hadith Zuhri would sometimes not mention it (i.e. the phrase liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest) and sometimes he would. Thus, there are numerous versions of the Hadith, and the only thing which is absolutely clear is that Ali and Abbas were in disagreement, and so too were they at one point in time in disagreement with Abu Bakr and Umar. The details of these arguments (i.e. what words were used) is an unclear matter.

Sahih Bukhari Version is More Authentic


Again, in cases of dispute between two narrations-one from Sahih Bukhari and one from Sahih Muslim-preference is given to Sahih Bukhari. This is a general rule. Furthermore, the Sahih Muslim version of this narration is merely an Ahaad (single narrator) Hadith, which is another factor giving greater weight to the version in Sahih Bukhari. Thus, for the Sunni believer, this Hadith brought up by Shia propagandists is a non-issue, because we take the version of Sahih Bukhari in which the words in question were not said.

Hadith in its Entirety


As for the Shia propagandists who simply want to debate with us, let us entertain them. Even if we were to accept the Hadith of Sahih Muslim over that of Sahih Bukhari, let us at least be honest about it and post the entire Hadith and not simply half of it. The Shia propagandists will post only the second part of this Hadith in which Umar says that Ali/Abbas said that Abu Bakr/Umar are liars, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. However, the Shia willfully neglects to post the first part of the Hadith in which Abbas first calls Ali to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. The entire Hadith is a bit lengthy so after producing the entire Hadith, we shall bold the relevant parts as well as reproduce them afterwards: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349: It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said: Umar b. alKhattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. Auf, Zubair and Sad (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. So they entered. Then he (Yarfa) came again and said: What do you say about Ali and Abbas

(who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (Ali). The people (who were present) also said: Yes, Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by Ali and Abbas). Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, dont you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, dont you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (may peace be upon him) a special favor that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Quranic verse: What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger. The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) distributed among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity. So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him),you (Ali and Abbas) thought me (Umar) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasnt it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me. The Hadith can thus be broken down into relevant parts: 1) Abbas calls Ali to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest 2) Umar repeats the words of Abbas and says that Ali and Abbas thought of Abu Bakr and Umar to be liar[s], sinful, treacherous, and dishonest

If the Shia propagandists are going to accept this Hadith and use it against the Ahlus Sunnah, then they must accept the entire narration. In order to accept the second part, they must accept the first part in which Abbas-who is revered by the Shia and comes from the House of Muhammad-called Ali to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. Of course, the Shia will never accept this! The Shia are thus left with two options: either they accept the Sahih Bukhari version of this Hadith as the Ahlus Sunnah does (in which case their claims that Ali called Umar such-and-such are no longer valid), or else they accept the fact that Abbas accused Ali of being a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.

Context of the Hadith


The truth is that oftentimes Shia propagandists who post this Hadith on various forums have absolutely no idea what this Hadith is about. This is a narration of a story in which Ali and Abbas come to seek Caliph Umars arbitration in a dispute. In this dispute, Abbas was of the opinion that he should be given a portion of Fadak and the Prophets property as inheritance, whereas Ali thought that the property should be his based on his relation to Fatima, the Prophets daughter. This is mentioned in the above Hadith: (Referring to Hadrat Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. While presenting his case to the Caliph, Abbas referred to Ali as liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. Firstly, Umar knew that both of them were wrong, and that neither inherits from the Prophet because of a Hadith which says that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Secondly, Umar did not approve of Abbass accusation against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point. Umar was making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. If we apply the Arabic Balagha, the phrase actually means: So you both thought Abu Bakr was a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest? This is an example of reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: reduction to the absurd) also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result. The following dialogue is an example ofreductio ad absurdum: Father- Why did you start smoking? Daughter - All my friends were doing it. Father- Youre saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too? In this case, Umar used the exact same words (i.e. verbatim) that Abbas used for Ali in order to make a point. Umar was basically saying: If you think Ali is such-and-such, then you must also think that Abu Bakr and Umar are also that? Another analogy of this is a mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: Father, can you settle this dispute of

mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin? The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an idiot. The father then says: So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too? By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brothers character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well. Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shia propagandists ignore this coincidence especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. But the reality that it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point. Regardless of whether we accept the Sahih Muslim version or the Sahih Bukhari version, this Hadith actually makes Umar look good, not bad. Abbas disagreed fervently with Ali; in one narration, he supposedly called Ali to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. In the more accurate narration of Sahih Bukhari, Abbas simply disagreed with Ali. Whatever the case, it was Umar who then repeated the same logic and questioned if both Abbas and Ali thought of Abu Bakr and Umar that way. This was in a way correcting Abbas and telling him to refrain from accusing Ali of such things. In conclusion, the Shia can never use this Hadith against the Ahlus Sunnah; acceptance of this Hadith dooms the Shia case because then we could easily question the integrity of Ali who was accused by Abbas of being a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And the Shia can never accept this, because they revere Abbas and believe him to be part of the House of Muhammad. The Shia-if they accept the Sahih Muslim version-would have to agree that Abbas, the senior member of Ahlel Bayt and the uncle of the Prophet, called Ali these things. So then why condemn Abu Bakr for what Ali thought when Abbas thought the same of Ali? Was it because Ali was actually a liar or simply that Abbas said this in an emotional disagreement and with heated emotions? The Shia can answer this for themselves.

Nobody is Infallible
In any case, it is worthwhile to mention that unlike the Shia-who have (Ghullat) tendencies of exaggeration in religion-the Ahlus Sunnah does not consider anyone to be infallible. Thus, whatever errors may be attributed to Ali, Abbas, Abu Bakr, or Umar are a result of what arises due to being human. The truth is that everyone gets into arguments, and we find disagreements between Abu Bakr and Umar, and even between two members of the Ahlel Bayt! An argument between two pious people does not negate our religion nor does it affect our basic beliefs. We already accept that there were disagreements after the Prophets death. There were disagreements between who would be the Caliph, and not just between Abu Bakr and Ali, but also between others. There were arguments about Fadak, and other such matters. These arguments may have historical meaning but they have no religious significance. Even if we accept the Shia propaganda that Umar and Ali hated each other, this does not change the belief system of Islam. Unlike the Shia, the Ahlus Sunnah does not allow civil and political arguments to change religious fundamentals.

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

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

Question: Hadith mentioning the 12 successors of the prophet is also in bukhari: what are the names of the imam according to sunni and who is the imam of our time?

Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective]


Answer:

Question: There is a Hadith narrated in Musnad Ahmad which states: There shall be twelve Caliphs for this community, all of them from Quraish.

This same Hadith has been narrated in many other reliable Sunni books of Hadith, and it has been deemed as Sahih by the Sunni scholars. Is this not proof in support of Shiism, namely in their belief of twelve Imams? Answer by www.ahlelbayt.com : This issue of the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs has caused un-necessary confusion within the ranks of Sunni lay-persons; the e-Shia have relied on this Hadith as a trump card whilst debating on various forums, mostly due to the fact that no Sunni site hadup until nowadequately dealt with this issue. The few responses that were available from the Sunni side were half-hearted at best and in fact failed to deal with the crux of the issue, namely the coincidence between the number twelve found in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. No doubt it was this (so-called) coincidence that seemed to surprise Sunni lay-persons. It is our sincere hope that this article will finally bring an end to this situation; we will show, from their own Shia books, that there is absolutely no coincidence in the number twelve nor is it a proof for Shiism but rather it is only a proof of the Shia manipulations. Throughout our answer to this question, we refer the reader to the following book: The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain. It should be noted that the author, Dr. Hussain, is a devout Imami Shia professor who wrote this book in order to defend Shiism. The book was published by The Muhammadi Trust as well as by the Zahra Trust, both of which are very well-respected Shia publishers. The book is also referenced by Al-Islam.org and therein cited as an authoratative source. Hence, the book is considered highly reliable to the Shia. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, before we begin, we must define what exactly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We read: A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. (Self-fulfilling prophecy, Wikipedia) To give an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we have the literary story of Romulus and Remus: according to legend, Romulus and Remus were in their childhood sentenced to death for fear of a prophecy that one day they would kill the king. However, Romulus and Remus escape death and later in life they hear stories of the prophecy; after hearing these prophecies, Romulus and Remus then realize that their destiny in life is to kill the king, and they then do exactly that. In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy is a statement which may sufficiently influence people in such a way that their reactions ultimately fulfill (or seem to fulfill) the prophecy. The prophecies of various religious persons have always been the victims of this problem, whereby people seek to fulfill the prophecy themselves. As for the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, the Prophet ( ) prophecized that there would be twelve Caliphs after him, and thereafter various deviant sects fulfilled this prophecy by laying claim to political authority by putting forward their own set of twelve Caliphs. The Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs There is no doubt that the Prophet ( ) did in fact prophecize in Hadith that there would be twelve Caliphs, and many Sunni scholars do believe that the last of the twelve will be Imam Mehdi who will fill the earth with justice. This is most definitely a belief of the

Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, well-known to the scholars even if it is not well-known amongst the laypersons from amongst the Sunnis. After the Prophet ( ) made this statement, there were many deviant sects which sought to exploit this Hadith and other similar prophecies in order to bring themselves to power. The Shia were one such group, who used this Hadithalong with those about Imam Mehdiin order to place their own sect into power. It was based upon the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs that the Shia decided to limit their Imamah to the number twelve. We read (emphasis is ours): These and other traditions (Hadith) were spread in both Imamite and Zaydite circlesAccording to al-Saduq these traditions (Hadith) and others predicting the occurrence of the Ghayba were the main reason for the Imamite acceptance of the Ghayba and for their being satisfied that the series of the Imams should stop at the twelfth. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.138) In other words, the Imamah of the Imami Shia would not have ended at the number twelve had it not been for this Hadith of the twelve Caliphs found in mainstream Muslim books of Hadith. It was this Hadith which was one of the main reasons that caused the Shia to terminate the Imamah at the number twelve. It is therefore based on very backwards and circular logic that the Shia should now use this Hadith as proof for their twelve Imams, when in fact it was they who based their belief on our Hadith! Today we have Shia youths who attack the Sunnis by saying how could it simply be a coincidence that your Hadith also tells you about these twelve Imams? Of course it is not a coincidence! It is the Shia who based their deviant beliefs in our Hadith, and so it is very queer of them to then further our Hadith as proof of their beliefs! This is very backwards and circular logic! It is placing the carriage before the horse, reversing cause and effect! In fact, had the Sunni Hadith stated that there were eleven Caliphs instead of twelve, then the Shia would have claimed that their Imams were eleven in number. And once again, they would have come to us with incredulous looks on their faces, saying what a miracle it was that their beliefs can be proven from our books. Had it been thirteen Caliphs mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith, then the Shia would have ended the Imamah at the number thirteen. The proof for the termination of the Shia Imamah was based from Sunni Hadith, so there is therefore no surprise at the concordance between the number of Caliphs in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. Indeed, the Shia in actuality did not have twelve Imams, but eleven of them. The eleventh Imam, Hasan al-Askari, died without leaving behind a son to succeed him. In fact, Hasan al-Askaris own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan al-Askaris estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother (instead of any to the son). Moojan Momen writes in An Introduction to Shii Islam (London, 1985, p. 162) that, Jafar remained unshakeable in his assertion that his brother (Hasan al-Askari) had no progeny. We read: The majority of the Imamitesdenied his birth or even his existence, and mocked those who believed in him. According to al-Numani the bulk of these groups abandoned their belief in the hidden Imam. In fact those who continued to hold a firm belief in his Imamate were a small minority belonging to the circles of narrators, like Ibn Qubba and al-Numani himself, who based their belief on the traditions of the Imams (i.e. Hadith about twelve Imams). Many scholars shared the perplexity of the Imamite masses over the prolonged occultation of the twelfth Imam.

(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.143) Indeed, if Hasan al-Askari really had a child, then why did his own family not give a share of the inheritance to him? To deal with this inconsistency, the Imami Shia of the time denounced Jafar as being al-Kadhab (the Liar), and they came up with the fantastic story that the eleventh Imam had a son but that this son was hidden from view (i.e. in occultation). In order to prove the existence of this mysterious son, the Imami Shia actually brought forward the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others similar to it, in order to somehow prove that the Imamah could not possibly have ended at eleven persons but must be twelve in number. Nonetheless, such fantastic explanations did not fool the vast majority of the Imami Shia who apostatized from Imamiyyah Shiism in order to embrace Sunni Islam or other branches of Shiism. In fact, the Shia movement split into at least fifteen different sects after the eleventh Imams death, some of these sects claiming that the Imams were only eleven in number (and ended with Hasan al-Askari). These sects were defeated and denounced by the Imami Shia safir (representative) who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsalong with an intensive propaganda campaignto silence any who opposed the idea of there being exactly twelve Imams; it was because of this very Hadith that these other Shia groupswho believed in eleven Imamsfell into non-existence. We read: Although the Imamites split into fifteen groups and held different views concerning the successor of al-Askari at the time of the first safir, the teaching and the underground activities of the second safir met with success. His followers (al-Imamiyya al-Qatiyya) carried out intensive propaganda to prove the existence of the twelfth Imamthus the teachings and doctrine of the followers of the second safir dominated Imamite circles, whereas other groups disappeared. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.139) And we read how many Shia used this Hadith to limit the number to twelve: He also mentions traditions (Hadith) which point to the fact that the number of the Imams would end with the twelfth Imam and he would be al-Qaim. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.4) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs was instrumental in determining how many Imams the Shia decided upon having. Had, for example, the tenth Imam died without leaving behind a successor, then the Shia would have said that there were two Imams in occultation or perhaps they would have nominated a brother of the Imams to be one of their Imams or perhaps they would claim that Fatima ( ) was one of the twelve, etc. Whatever the case, no matter what, the Shia would make sure that their Imams would add upto twelve in number, in order to establish legitimacy through the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. It is therefore very pretentious that they should now use this as a proof against us. Hadith Exploited by Deviant Sects A fact unknown to lay-persons is that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is exploited by not only the Imami Shia but by many other deviant sects. Interestingly, many of these deviant sects have a more convincing argument for their claims over that of the Imami Shia! For example, the Ibaadisthe descendants of the Khawaarijuse the Hadith of twelve Caliphs in order to validate the claims of their leaders, who were twelve in number. The Ibaadis claim that this Hadith is a shining proof for their twelve Caliphs, which include: Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Kindi, and the nine Ibaadi Imams of the Rustamid Dynasty.

It is interesting that the racist cult known as the Nation of Islam, headed by Elijah Muhammad, also uses the hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to validate their sect. Elijah Muhammad, their supposed Messenger, claimed that their founder, W.D. Fard, was one of the twelve Imams: Now there are twelve (12) Imams or Scientists, who have been ruling all the time, and one of the twelve is always greater than the other eleven (11) (Muhammad Speaks Newspaper) If a deviant group like the Nation of Islam can use the hadith of the twelve Caliphs, then we are not at all surprised when the twelver Shias use it as as a proof. Another deviant sect which did in fact lay claim to the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and use it to bring themselves to power were the Zaydis. We read: The Zaydites also used these traditions (Hadith) in their attempts to gain control (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) A group from amongst the Zaydis revered twelve Imams, but they believed in a different set of twelve Imams than the Imami Shia. These Zaydis believed in the first four of the Imams of the Imami Shia, but they disagreed with the Imami Shia as to who the other eight of them were. This group of Zaydis, like the Sunnis, believed that the Caliphate was not limited to twelve, but the Zaydis argued that the twelfth would be Al-Qaim and he would lead an armed and political insurrection. A similar view was held by another heretical sect, namely that of the Ismailis who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to further their own set of Imams. And there were many other deviant groups who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphsand other Hadith in regards to Imam Mehdiin order to bring themselves to power. We read: (These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others like it were well-known by all Muslims back then and that deviant groups often used them in order to advance themselves politically. We read: But political rivalry amongst the Muslims encouraged some people to exploit this hope and to distort these Prophetic traditions (Hadith) in order to use them in their struggle for power. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) We read: The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21)

And we read, right from the mouth of this Shia historian himself, the following: These traditions (Hadith) were used by many Shiite groups to back up the claims of their leaders who aspired to power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.2) The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is so vague and obscure that it allows almost any group to exploit it and use it to further their own cause; it simply necessitates allocating a group of twelve leaders and then saying that the Hadith refers to them. We read: This obscurity allowed some Alids to use these traditions (Hadith) to support their own political aims (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154) The exploitation of this Hadith was not at all limited to Imami Shia. We read: Like the Imamites, the Ismailis had reported the (same) Prophetic traditions (Hadith)however, they interpreted some of these traditions (Hadith) in a manner which would support their struggle to gain immediate success in North Africa. Furthermore they applied other traditions (Hadith) narrated by the Imamites about al-Qaim al-Mahdi to their own concealed leader (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.111) The Hadith was also exploited by a group known as the Qaramita. We read: The Qaramitas use of the Prophetic traditions (Hadith)in their struggle to gain immediate political success (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.116) In fact, it was not only the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs which were exploited by the Shia but also many other Hadith which prophecized the coming of Imam Mehdi. We read: He also traces the use of the prophetic traditions (Hadith) regarding al-Qaim al-Mahdi by these groups in their struggle for power (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.11) We read further: Between the years 245-260/859-874 the Imamite and Zaydite traditionists were relating traditions stating that al-Qaim would be the twelfth Imam and urging people to join his side when he rose. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29) On numerous occassions did groups of Shia exploit the Sunni Hadith in order to claim for themselves political supremacy. We read:

The spread of such narrations (Hadith) encouraged the Imamites to expect the rise of al-Qaim in the near future and to link his rising with Abbasid rule. Some of them applied these traditions (Hadith) along with others concerning the signs of the rise of al-Qaim to the circumstances surrounding the Alid revolt which broke out in 250/864. Ibn Uqba relates that the leader of the rebellion, Yahya b. Umar, was expected to be al-Qaim al-Mahdi, since all the signs concerning the rise of al-Qaim alMahdi related by al-Sadiq occurred during the revolt. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29) We read further: It appears, however, that the Abbasid oppression did not deter the Shiite ambition to reach power. Many historians like al-Isfahani report that Alid revolts broke out in 250-1/864-5 in the areas of Kufa, Tabaristan, Rayy, Qazwin, Egypt, and Hijaz. These might have been directed by one group, or to be more accurate, by one leader. It is beyond the scope of this work to deal with the details of these revolts, but it is worth mentioning that the rebels employed the Prophetic traditions (Hadith) concerning al-Qaim al-Mahdi and the signs of his rising to achieve immediate political success. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.52) This game of playing with Hadith was also played by Caliph al-Mansoor, who named his son Muhammad al-Mahdi. We read: Moreover he (Caliph al-Mansoor) invested his successor Muhammad with the epithet al-Mahdi in order to turn the attention of his subjects from the Alid family toward the family of Abbas. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.28) Elaborating on this point, the Shia author states: It is reported that the Prophet said, The Mahdi is from my progeny. His name is similar to mine. (al-Tirmidhi)perhaps al-Mansur took this point into account when he called his son, Muhammad al-Mahdi (al-Bidaya) (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.165) What is interesting is that at first many of the Shia referred to Hasan al-Askaris mysterious son by the name Ali as opposed to Muhammad. However, the Shia later decided to switch to Muhammad so that it would more fully apply to the mainstream Muslim collection of Hadith which state that Muhammad is the name of Imam Mehdi. We read: They thought that he (the eleventh Imam) had left a successor whose name was not Muhammad but Ali. They said that al-Askari had no son except Ali, who had been seen by his fathers trustworthy followers. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.63) So we see that the Imami Shia were very adamant about lining up their beliefs so that they would find legitimacy in Sunni Hadith. It is therefore all too convenient that the Shia can now point to these Hadith as some sort of proof for Shiism.

The Twelve Caliphs Cannot be the Shia Imams The Hadith in question declares that the Imams will be from the Quraish. It is in fact this part that negates both the Shia and Ibaadi claims. It is well-known that amongst the three groups (i.e. Sunnis, Shia, and Ibaadis), it is only the Sunnis that necessitated that the leadership be confined to the Quraish after the Prophets death. The Sunnis argued that the leadership of the Muslims must always be given to that party which makes up the majority group. Based upon the principle of majority rule, it was only fair that the leadership be given to the Quraishis who at the time of the Prophets death made up the majority group from amongst the Muslims. On the other hand, the Shia claim that the leadership must be confined to the Ahlel Bayt whereas the Ibaadis claim that the leadership can be given to any Muslim regardless of if he belongs to a minority group un-representative of the majority desire. Therefore, if this Hadith were truly in relation to the Shia Imams, then it should have stated that the twelve Caliphs would be from the progeny of the Prophet ( ) instead of using the term from Quraish. Indeed, this is a fact that the Shia were well-aware of and it was based upon this that they blamed the Sunnis for having distorted the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, accusing the Sunnis of altering it from Ahlel Bayt or Bani Hashim to Quraish. Some Shia even refer to the Sunni Hadith of the twelve Caliphs as a censored or even chopped up version of the Prophets real words. The Shia then refer us to the un-censored version of the Hadith which is available in Shia books, as follows: (There will be) from my descendants eleven leaders (who will) be noble and receive and understand (knowledge). The last of them will be al-Qaim, who will fill the world with justice after it had been filled with tyranny. So we see that while the Shia have historically used Sunni Hadith to back their claims, they end up having to distort these Hadith in order to make them apply more correctly to the Shia paradigm. The fact that the Shia need to mend the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order for it to work for the Shia belief is proof enough that the Hadith cannot be used as a proof against the Sunnis. A lay-person may argue that the Bani Hashim are within the clan of Quraish and therefore the Hadith still supports a Shia view. But such a person would be altogether ignorant of Arabic Balagha which necessitates that ascribing the Caliphs to the Quraish means that not all of them are from one particular clan of Quraish but rather they are from different groups from amongst the Quraish; otherwise, there was absolutely no reason that the Prophet ( ) did not say that the Caliphs will be from Bani Hashim. Having stated that, ignorant Shia youth arguing over the internet will insist that the Hadith can still be applied to the twelve Imams of the Shia since Bani Hashim is part of the Quraish. We simply ask these youths to be honest with themselves: why did the Prophet ( ) use the vague wording that the Caliphs will be from the Quraish, as opposed to clearly stating that the twelve Imams would be from his descendants of the Ahlel Bayt? Common sense dictates that there is no reason that the Prophet ( ) would have used the word Caliph as opposed to Imam, when in fact the Shia literature always refers to the twelve Imams, not the twelve Caliphs. Additionally, only two of the Imams served as Caliphs whereas the rest never became Caliphs. Furthermore, if the Prophet ( ) was willing the leadership to his descendants, then should he not state that specifically instead of saying that it was a position open to all the Quraish? We see that the Shia paradigm can only be forced upon this Hadith through brute intellectual force. A similar approach do we see from Qadianis who take our collection of Sunni Hadith and try to prove that their leader is the Mehdi. The truth of the matter is that the Shia would only have a clear

argument if the Hadith stated that there would be twelve Imams from the Prophets descendants. Instead, the Shia have an obscure Hadith in which they are trying to force upon it their own interpretation, much in the same way that Qadianis do with many a Hadith. The Identity of the Twelve Caliphs Almost all the deviant sects (including the Imamis, the Zaydis, the Ismailis, the Ibaadis, the Nation of Islam, etc.) claim to know exactly who the twelve Caliphs are; they state with certainty who are the twelve Caliphs, they forge false Hadith to name these Caliphs, and then they say that whoever does not follow these twelve is deviant. This methodology differentiates the sects from the mainstream Muslims who do not claim to know exactly who are the twelve Caliphs. The Prophets prophecies were vague, and nobody can know exactly who or what they refer to. The Shia propagandists will oftentimes attack the Sunnis by asking us who are the twelve Caliphs and then they will laugh with joy when we cannot answer them with any certainty. And yet, this is nothing particular or peculiar about our lack of certainty with regards to this one specific prophecy, but rather we are similarly uncertain about the bulk of the Prophets prophecies. In another Hadith, the Prophet ( ) has stated that a mujaddid (reviver of the faith) would appear after every century; if we ask the Sunni scholars to name who were all the mujaddideen of the Ummah throughout the centuries, we find that they will not be able to name them. In fact, there is no way that anybody can know for certain even a single of these mujaddideen, namely because to say something like that with absolute certainty would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah, which is considered a sin. Therefore, it is not fair for the Shia to demand for us to say for certainty who the twelve Caliphs are, when in fact our doctrine necessitates that we cannot talk about this with certainty as it being a thing only Allah knows. The vagueness of the Prophets prophecy is not at all limited to this one particular Hadith but can be seen in many other Hadith, such as the prophecy about Gog and Magog. Throughout the ages, people have guessed as to who Gog and Magog refers to, some saying that it refers to the Turks while others saying it refers to the Mongols, some say Gog and Magog have already come, whereas others say that they are yet to comebut nobody knows with certainty. Many of the prophecies of the Prophet ( ) were vague and we can only guess at their exact meaning; such is the nature of prophecies. So when we Sunnis are vague with who are the twelve caliphs in the Hadith, we are vague with all the prophecies in general, because we do not wish to speak about the Unseen without knowledge. Allah warns in the Quran: Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden aresaying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (Quran, 7:33) And Allah warns against Dhann (conjecture), saying: But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture! (Quran, 45:25) And Allah says further: Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only.

(Quran, 6:116) Allah warns again and again against conjecture on such matters: Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned. (Quran, 17:36) The Shia who claim that they know with certainty the names of the twelve Caliphs are only conjecturing and only doing this in order to follow their own desires to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. Allah says: They follow but conjecture and that which they themselves desire. (Quran, 53:23) We have only been given the knowledge that there will be twelve Caliphs but we cannot say for certainty who they are, as Allah says: You have been given but little knowledge. (Quran, 17:85) The Prophet ( ) made all sorts of prophecies, and the examples we could cite are numerous. In one Hadith, the Prophet ( ) says: By Him in Whose hand is my soul, the Hour will not come untila man speaks to his whip or his shoe, and his thigh will tell him about what happened to his family after he left. This has led some people to postulate that this Hadith refers to cell-phones, because cell-phones are placed in a mans pockets next to his thigh. People have further guessed that the whips were an attempt to describe wires. Whatever the case, we can only guess at the exact meaning, and this is the case for most of the Prophets propheciesincluding the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. Therefore, the Sunni scholars hold that we do not know for certain who are the twelve Caliphs referred to in the Hadith. Furthermore, it is speaking without knowledge to claim to know for certain who they are; unlike the Shia and other deviant sects who forge Hadith to back their own list of twelve Caliphs, the Sunnis resort to saying Allahu Aalim (Allah knows Best). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar says about the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs: No one has much knowledge about this particular Hadith (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari 16:338) The truthful scholars of Sunni Islam can only therefore guess at who the twelve Caliphs are, and it should be understood that these are guesses at best; only deviants manipulate the Word of Allah claiming certainty: the Imamis are adamant about their twelve, the Zaydis are adamant about their twelve, the Ibaadis (descendants of the Khawaarij) are adamant about their twelve, the Ismailis are adamant about their twelve, etc. We shall let these deviant groups bicker amongst each other about who the twelve Caliphs are. We urge our Sunni brothers not to fall into the traps of the Shia

propagandists who demand to know who the twelve Caliphs are, and then they enjoy to see the Sunnis replying with varying lists from different scholars, as if this is some sort of proof against Sunni Islam! Like all other prophecies, we cannot know for certain who or what it refers to; it is not only that we do not know, but rather even more than that, namely that we cannot possibly know for certain who the twelve are, as this would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah. This is a doctrinal view and it is what differentiates the mainstream Muslims from the deviant sects. Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to. The Rightly Guided Caliphs Perhaps the best guess is that the twelve Caliphs refers to al-Khulafaa al-Rashidoon (the Rightly Guided Caliphs). There is Ijma (consensus) on the fact that the first four Caliphs were Rightly Guided Caliphs and the term is most often used for them. However, in addition to these four, we say that Alis son, Hasan ( ), was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Prophet ( ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the rule of His Kingdom to whomever He wills. (Sunan Abu Dawood) Indeed, the rule of the first four Caliphs lasted twenty-nine years and six months; Hasan ( ) ruled for another six months bringing the rule of the Rashidoon to thirty years in conformity to the Prophets prophecy. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz ( Therefore, the twelve Caliphs refer to: 1. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq 2. Umar ibn al-Khattab 3. Uthman bin Affan 4. Ali ibn abi Talib 5. Hasan ibn Ali 6. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz This means that six of the twelve have come to pass, and six more will come to pass before the Day of Judgment, the last of whom will likely be Imam Mehdi. The Cacophonous Response of the Ahlus Sunnah The Shia claim that the Sunni response to who the twelve Caliphs are is cacophonous due to the fact that scholars do not agree as to who the twelve Caliphs are. This may in fact be true, but the Shia would be lying if they were to say that they were always united as to who were the twelve Caliphs. We read: ) is also included amongst the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

The Imamate during the life of the last six Imams of the Twelver Imamites (al-Imamiyya al-Ithna ashariyya) was distinguished by the many splits which occured after the death of each Imam, who was considered by the Imamites as one of the twelve Imams, over the recognition of his successor. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.56) In fact, after the death of each Imam, the Imami Shia ran around like headless chickens trying to figure out who was the next Imam; absolute confusion would descend into their ranks as to who was the next of the twelve Imams. After the death of each Imam of the Shia, numerous Shia sects emerged, each claiming that another person was the Imam! So if the Shia of today would like to laugh at the Sunnis for not knowing who the Imam is, let them also laugh at their own ancestors who did not know who the Imam was! The only reason that the Shia of today have some sort of unanimity with regards to who the twelve Imams are is because Shah Ismail I, the ruler of the Safavid Empire, forcibly enforcedby the sword his brand of Shiism upon the masses of Persia. By thus doing so, he succeeded in converting the masses to one strain of Shiism all of which followed one set of twelve Imams. And yet, even today there exist some minority sects of the Shiasuch as the Zaydiswho believe in a different set of twelve Imams. It is in fact impossible for the mainstream Muslims to say who the twelve Caliphs are when it is likely that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled! Once the twelve Caliphs have all come and passed, only then will it become clearer to the Muslims as to whom they are. To give an analogy, the Muslims living in the time of Abu Bakrs Caliphate did not know exactly who the Rightly Guided Caliphs (i.e. the Caliphate of Prophecy) would be; would it have been fair to ask them who is being referred to in the Hadith which says that the Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years? Of course, at that time they would not have known since the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled! Only after the prophecy was fulfilled was it possible to pinpoint who the Caliphate of Prophecy referred to. Another Twelve in Sahih Hadith It is altogether too easy to haphazardly apply vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause. If the Shia insist upon doing this, then let us point them to another twelve people mentioned in Sahih Muslim. The Prophet ( ) said: In my Ummah, there would be twelve hypocrites and they would not be admitted to Paradise and they would not smell its odor, until the camel would pass through a needles hole. (Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Number 6689, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/038.smt.html) The Khawaarij or the Nawaasib could argue that the twelve hypocrites here refer to the twelve Imams of the Shia. Do the Shia see how easy it is to twist vague Hadith in order to further ones own cause? Conclusion Shiism is an off-shoot of mainstream Islam, and many of the concepts of mainstream Islam were borrowed and incorporated. Not only this, but the Shialike deviant sects of any religionhave always sought to justify their own deviant beliefs by basing them, albeit loosely, in the books of the mainstream. At the time of Hasan al-Askaris death, the Hadith in regards to the twelve Caliphs was well-known amongst the Muslim masses. We read:

(These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18) Thus, the Shia terminated their Imamah at the number twelve in order to conform to the Hadith of twelve Caliphs, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Imams are twelve in number just as the Sunni Hadith says. We read: The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves. (The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21) The truth of the matter is that the Sunni belief in the twelve Caliphs and in Imam Mehdi differs dramatically from the Shia conception: the Sunnis do not believe that these Caliphs are infallible, nor are they appointed by God, nor are they superior to the Prophets, etc.

Question: hadith of the prophet wishing to commit suicide, slapping the angel of death, or moses running after a stone naked to prove to the public that he had no infection. All in sahih bukhari. Did prophet really attempt suicide? How can one slap an angel of death? Would allah open the awra of a man?

Hadith About the Prophet Contemplating Suicide


Answer:

Question:

A Shia person showed me the following Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111 Narrated Aisha: The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allahs Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship (Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, I do not know how to read. (The Prophet added), The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, I do not know how to read, whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?). Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generousup to.. ..that which he knew not. (96.15) Then Allahs Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, Cover me! Cover me! They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, O Khadija, what is wrong with me? Then he told her everything that had happened and said, I fear that something may happen to me. Khadija said, Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones. Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin Abdul Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her fathers brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew. Waraqa asked, O my nephew! What have you seen? The Prophet described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out. Allahs Apostle asked, Will they turn me out? Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly. But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, O Muhammad! You are indeed Allahs Apostle in truth whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. Rayat says

[This Hadith is] shocking. According to this narration, the Prophet Mohammed was suicidal, and ) from such blasphemy

we seek refuge in Allah (

How do we respond to this?

Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. To the Sunnis, there are six books of Hadith which are referred to as the as-Sihah as-Sittah which translates to the six authentic books. However, this does not mean that each and every single one of these books is 100% accurate to the Sunnis. For example, Sunan al-Tirmidhi is part of as-Sihah asSittah, but it is not considered 100% Sahih. In other words, yes Sunan al-Tirmidhi is referred to as part of as-Sihah as-Sittah but this is merely Islamic parlance. Likewise, with the Sahihayn (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), then it should be known that not every single letter in them is Sahih. Yes, they are referred to as 100% Sahih in Islamic parlance, but by this the scholars do not mean that every single letter is authentic. To give another example of how Islamic parlance can get a bit confusing: we hear many Sunni scholars saying that the Prophet was infallible. However, when a Sunni says that the Prophet was infallible, he does not mean this in the same manner that a Shia does. A Sunni means that the Prophet was infallible when it comes to delivering the message, not that the Prophet was infallible when it comes to agriculture, or to mathematics, or other things! So we see that in Islamic parlance, a Sunni will say that the Prophet was 100% infallible, but in reality this does not mean that the Prophet was 100% infallible in all aspects. Likewise, when a Sunni scholar says that Sahih Bukhari is 100% Sahih, then this does not mean that it is 100% Sahih in all aspects. For a non-scholar, this ambiguity in terminology is a bit confusing, but this is something that is wellknown amongst the scholars and there is no doubt in it. Shaykh GF Haddad said: This conclusion [that Bukhari is 100% Sahih] excludes the chainless, broken-chained reports, or unattributed reports sometimes adduced by al-Bukhari in his chapter-titles or appended to certain narrations. An example of the latter is the so-called suicide hadith one of al-Zuhris unattributive narrations (balaghat) which is actually broken-chained and therefore weak. It does not meet the criteria of hadith authenticity used by the lesser and greater hadith Masters, much less that of alBukhari who mentioned it only to show its discrepancy with two other chains whose versions omit the attempted suicide story, and Allah knows best. The above conclusion is proof that the position that everything that is found in the two Sahihs is rigorously sound refers only to full-chained reports positively attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. (source: Shaykh GF Haddad, http://www.livingislam.org/k/whb_e.html) If we look at the Hadith in question, it says:

the Prophet became so sad as we have heard (fi ma balaghana) that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains The narrator says fi ma balaghana which translates to as we have heard; a better translation is actually from what has reached us. Dr. SHM Jaffri, the renowned Shia author and lecturer, said: The phrase fi ma balaghani was used by the Seerah authors to denote a degree of doubt. To denote an even higher degree of doubt, they would use the term zaama (he alleged). (Dr. SHM Jaffri, Islamic Pakistan Studies, Lecture 2) Alfred Guillaume, the translator of Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, writes: A word that very frequently precedes a statement is zaama or zaamu, he (they) alleged. It carries with it more than a hint that the statement may not be true, though on the other hand it may be soundAnother indication of reserve if not skepticism underlies the expression fi ma dhukira li, as in the story of the jinn who listened to Muhammad as he prayedAn expression of similar import is fi ma balaghani. (source: The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaqs Seerah Rasool-Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. xix) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari that because this phrase fi ma balaghana was used in the Hadith, that we do not take that part to be authentic. This phrase fi ma balaghana (from what has reached us) is well-known amongst scholars of Hadith and Seerah: a narrator would use this phrase when there was some doubt in what he was narrating; it is classified as hearsay only. In other words, the narrator simply heard it and he himself does not say whether it is true or not. For example, we can say: From what has reached us, Iceland is cold. We ourselves have never been to Iceland but others have told us that it is cold; this may or may not be true, and it depends on the truthfulness of he who narrated it to us. The phrase fi ma balaghana is used as a disclaimer by the narrator, whereby he seeks to distance himself from the statement and take no responsibility as to its authenticity. The narration is Sahih in the sense that it is true that the narrator did in fact hear that from others; but it might not be Sahih from the angle that despite him hearing it, we dont know if who he heard it from was saying something accurate or not. As such, Imam Bukhari made no mistake when he included this addition, because this is really what the narrator did hear. But because it is hearsay, we do not necessarily accept the actual content. What is Sahih is that this information reached the narrator (fi ma balaghana); wether what reached was Sahih or not, that is a differen story. The inclusion of fi ma balaghanaand the addition of the Prophet attempting to throw himself off the mountainare from the mouth of Zuhri, not Aisha. Zuhri was one of the narrators of the Hadith. If we look at the Isnad of the Hadith, it reads as follows: Az-Zuhri said: Urwah told me on the authority of Aisha Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar explained in Fath al-Bari that this means that the addition of fi ma balaghana was an addition to the narration and it would be referred to as Balaghaat az-Zuhri only; Zuhri added it to Aishas narration based on what he had heard from other sources. Such an addition is considered Dhaeef (weak) because of the large gap between Zuhri and Aisha. Furthermore, this

story is found in other sources but without Zuhris addition. Zuhris narration is graded as Mursal; Mursal means that the chain is hurried and incomplete, so we are in doubt of its authenticity. Everything Mursal by az-Zuhri is considered Dhaeef (weak) by the scholars of Hadith. Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other! It should be noted that if we read the entire Hadith from beginning to end, we will not find any other place where the phrase fi ma balaghana (from what has reached us)or a similar wording of doubtis used. These are the words of the narrator, not of Aisha. They denote a level of skepticism at that part of the narration. Az-Zuhri heard it but did not affirm its authenticity or lack thereof; he merely reported it as hearsay. The fact that Zuhri specifically mentioned it at this particular place shows that this addition was of a different value than the rest of the narration. What is most likely is that this is one of the legends attributed to the Prophet. The masses attributed these legends to great events in history. To give an example dear to the Shia, we refer the reader to the event of Karbala which took on legendary attributes in the Shia mind. Ibn Katheer said: Al-Tabarani mentioned in this chapter very strange reports indeed and the Shia went overboard concerning the day of Ashoora, forging many hadiths that are gross lies such as the sun being eclipsed on that day until the stars appeared, no stone was lifted except blood was seen under it, the celestial region became red, the sun and its rays seemed like blood, the sky seemed like a blood clot, the stars were hurling against one another, the sky rained red blood, there was never redness in the sky before that day, and the like among other lies and forgeries of which not one report is sound. (source: al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8:201-202) These types of phrasessuch as the sun being eclipsed, no stone was lifted except blood was seen, and the stars were hurling against one anotherare all examples of a real event taking on a legendary aspect. Likewise, the Prophet was indeed worried at the start of his mission, but the phrase throw himself from the tops of high mountains is part of the legendary lore. The commoners adored Imam Husayn and so they attributed these legends to him; likewise, the people adored the Prophet and so they too attributed legends to him. The Shia professor Dr. SHM Jaffri said: It became difficult to differentiate between Muhammad the man and Muhammad the legend. But even the legends have importance insomuch as they give us insight as to what was going on in the minds of the people at that time. Therefore, modern historians do not doubt the historicity of such legends in determining the popular culture and folklore at the time if not the actual veracity of said event (Dr. SHM Jaffri, Islamic Pakistan Studies, Lecture 2) Today, many Muslims tell their children stories about the Prophet before putting them to bed. Likewise, back then the people used to tell stories about the Prophet and unfortunately the commoners are not careful about accuracy and are known to exaggerate. This can be seen even today: many people from the Indian subcontinent, for example, are known to narrate stories without care for authenticity. This problem is prevalent on the internet as well, and we all have seen the email about the legend of how some janitor in Mecca had a dream, etc etc. In other words, what Zuhri narrated was simply what had reached him and he indicated that there was doubt about its authenticity, indicated by the words fi ma balaghana. The Hadith is Sahih in the sense that Zuhri did in fact hear it from the people (and soas Dr. SHM Jaffir saysit gives us insight in the thinking of the people), but it is not Sahih in the sense that what the people were saying may simply have been a thing of legends.

Shia says

Even if you say it is a legend, then why did Sunnis narrate a legend which is offensive to the

Prophet?! How can you narrate a legend that says the Prophet tried to commit suicide which is a grave sin????

We disregard the addition of Zuhri because of the weakness of its narration; the usage of fi ma balaghana, the grading of Mursal, and the reliability of Mursal narrations via az-Zuhrithese are all factors which force us to grade this addition as being Dhaeef (weak). This addition is graded as Dhaeef based on its Isnad (chain of transmission), not its Matn (content). In fact, the Matn (content) is not blasphemous as the Shia claim. If it is, then we ask: how is it blasphemous? Rayat says

suicide is a terrible deed [i.e. sin]

This event took place at the very beginning of the Prophets mission, right when he was appointed as a Prophet. As such, the Shariah had not yet been expounded. The legend says that the Prophet tried to throw himself off mountains, but this was before suicide was declared as a sin. It was only much later that the Quranic verse (4:29) and the Command from Allah condemning suicide was revealed. The Shariah was expounded gradually and progressively over the course of many years. In fact, at the start of the Prophetic mission, there were Sahabah who used to drink alcohol. This was not a sin because the legislation prohibiting it had not yet been revealed. It would be totally inappropriate to accuse these Sahabah of sinning when the legislation forbidding it had not been passed as of yet. Another example is that of Purdah; it was not ordained on women in the beginning and so we cannot say that Muslim women were sinning for not observing Purdah. It was only at a later point in time that this was ordained. There was no sin before the action was declared Haram. Likewise, even if we say that the Prophet was attempting suicide, then this was before suicide had been declared Haram and so there is no sin in that. Shia says

Even if suicide had not been declared Haram yet, it is still a deplorable act. Even the Westerners

think of suicide as a despicable act and they are not Muslim! It is like murdering children: yes that might not have been definitively declared Haram till much later, but still, would you find it appropriate if we claimed that the Prophet did that in the beginning of his mission before it was declared Haram? Nauzobillah! Suicide is intrinsically evil and the Prophet would have known that. Suicide is very wrong. I dont think it was ever right in any culture on Earth. It feels wrong at every level.


In fact, this Shias analogy (i.e. of murdering a child) is not appropriate at all. This is a matter of impinging on someone elses rights (i.e. of the child) and therefore all peopleregardless of their religionwould admit that it is a wrong thing. However, suicide does not harm anyone else; it does not take away anyone elses rights. Therefore, it is like comparing apples with oranges. Having said that, it should interest these Shia to know that there were in fact Sahabah who used to before the Islamic injunctions forbidding itengage in female infanticide. And yet today we respect these Sahabah immensely. The point is that no blame can be put on a person before the Shariah declared it Haram. Burying a baby is worse than suicide, and yet we Sunnis do not have much problem with the fact that some upright Sahabah used to engage in that before Islam forbade it. Furthermore, this Shia polemicist has mentioned that even Westerners look down on suicide despite not being Muslim. In fact, the Westerners come from the Judeo-Christian culture; they are descendants of an Abrahamic faith. Allah had declared suicide Haram to the people of Moosa and the people of Eesa. The proof of this is that we can find this prohibition in their religious books. So Westerners look down on suicide because it was something that permeated their culture from their religious beliefs which are originated from the same source as our own. Suicide is evil because Allah said so, and it is not intrinsically evil, in the sense that if a man were left all to himself on an island since birth, then there is no way he would himself figure out that it was an immoral thing to do. As proof of this, we give the example of many Eastern cultures in which suicide is not looked down upon. In fact, suicide is looked at as an honorable act in Japanese culture. When Samurais were defeated by their enemies, they would often take their own lives as opposed to become prisoners. When Japanese people failed in certain tasks, they then took their own lives to compensate for that; this was an act of devotion and not of desperation. In the Indian culture, a woman is supposed to commit suicide after her husband dies and if she does not do it then she is looked down upon! This is proof that the assertion that suicide is wrong in every culture is patently false. Because suicide is one of those sins that does not directly harm others, there is no way that humans could figure out on their own that it is wrong. Allah had to tell us that it was. Before he was declared a Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to engage in Tahannuth atop Mount Hira. Then one day out of nowhere the Arch-Angel Jibraeel descended on him and declared him to be a Prophet. But after this initial revelation, there was then a pause in the revelation. This was a period in which no message was sent to the Prophet by Allah. This interruption or pause in revelation is known in Arabic as Fatrah. This is mentioned in the Shia Tafseer of the Quran available on Al-Islam.org: In the beginning of the ministry of the Holy Prophet there was a short interval during which he received no revelation. The pagans jeered at him as one forsaken by Allah, and slandered and persecuted him as well as those who believed in him (Pooya/Ali Commentary 93:3, http://www.al-islam.org/quran/) We read: Subsiding of the Revelations

Muhammad expected the revelations to guide his path from day to day, but they subsided. Gabriel did not appear for some time, and all around him there was nothing but silence. Muhammad fell into solitude, separated from himself as well as from the people. His old fears recurred. It is told that even Khadijah said to him, Does it not seem that your Lord is displeased with you? Dismayed and frightened, he returned to the mountain and the cave of Hira. There, he prayed for God fervently, seeking assiduously to reach Him. Particularly, he wanted to ask God about the cause of this divine displeasure. Khadijah did not dread these days any less than Muhammad, nor was she any less fearful. Often Muhammad wished to die, but he would again feel the call and the command of his Lord which dispelled such ideas. It was also told that he once thought of throwing himself down from the top of Mount Hira or Mount Abu Qubays, thinking what good was this life if his greatest hope therein was to be frustrated and destroyed? Torn between these fears on one hand and despair on the other, revelation came to him after a long interval. The word of God was as clear as it was reassuring: By the forenoon, and by the night as it spreads its wings over the world in peace, your Lord has not forsaken you; nor is He displeased with you. Surely, the end shall be better for you than the beginning. Your Lord will soon give you of His bounty and you will be well pleased. Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? Did He not find you erring and guide you to the truth? Did He not find you in want and provide for you? And as for the favor of your Lord, rehearse and proclaim! -Quran, 93:1-11 The Call to Truth Alone Oh, what divine majesty, what peace of mind, what joy of heart and exaltation to the soul! Muhammads fears dissolved and his dread was dissipated. He was overjoyed with this fresh evidence of his Lords blessing and fell down in worship to God and praise of Him. There was no more reason to fear, as Khadijah had done, that God was displeased with him, and there was no cause for his dread. God had now taken him under His protection and removed from him every doubt and fear. Henceforth there was to be no thought of suicide but only of a life dedicated to calling men unto God and unto God alone. (source: Hayat Muhammad, Chapter From the Beginning of Revelation to the Conversion of `Umar) The Prophet had become depressed because he thought that he had earned the displeasure of Allah. The Prophet thought that Allah had forsaken him due to some failure on his own part and as such he wished to end his life. So we see that even if we accept the addition that the Prophet wished to commit suicide, then we find that this does not disparage the character of the Prophet, but rather it shows the Prophet could not live with the fact that he had displeased and failed his Lord. The proof that the Prophets worries were due to his fear that he had angered Allah can be found in the Quran itself: By the forenoon, and by the night as it spreads its wings over the world in peace, your Lord has not forsaken you; nor is He displeased with you. Surely, the end shall be better for you than the beginning. Your Lord will soon give you of His bounty and you will be well pleased. Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? Did He not find you erring and guide you to the truth? Did He not find you in want and provide for you? And as for the favor of your Lord, rehearse and proclaim! (Quran, 93:1-11)

We have already discussed how suicide was not a sin at that time, and that the suicide legend was not one that disgraces the nature of the Prophet because it was only due to the Prophets noble devotion and worry that he had displeased His Lord. But let us now play along with the Shia and forget the fact that suicide had not been declared Haram yet. We find that even if we pretend that suicide was a sin back then, even so the Prophet did not at all commit a sin if the legend was true. Simply inclining towards a sin is not a sin; in fact, if one inclines towards a sin but refrains from it, then this is counted as one thawab (reward in Paradise). In his book Minhaj as-Sunnah, Shaykh alIslam Ibn Taymiyyah brings up the example of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph). He was being seduced by a very attractive woman named Zulaykha and this story is narrated in the Quran. Allah says in verse 12:24 of the Quran: wa laqad hammat bihi (and she did desire) wa hamma bih (and he also desired) lawl an ra burh na rabbihi (had it not been for him seeing the burhan of his Lord) kadh lika lina rifa `anhu as-s a wa al-fa sh a innahu min `ib din al-mukhla na (Thus it was, that We might ward off from him evil and lewdness. Lo! he was of Our chosen slaves.) In the Tafseer of Shafi Uthmani, we read: In this verse, the word hamm (thought, desire, etc.) has been attributed to both Zulaykha and Sayyiduna Yusuf both, as in: wa laqad hammat bihi (and she did desire) wa hamma bih (and he also desired) Prophet Yusufs hamm to commit zinnah (adultery) is similar to any hamm Prophet Muhammad may have supposedly had about committing suicide. As Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah makes clear: we do not say that Prophet Yusuf committed sin when he had that hamm, so why would we attribute sin to the Prophet when he had similar hamm? And we think that zinnah is a worse sin than suicide or at least of a similar nature. So if the hamm of Prophet Yusuf as mentioned in the Quran does not negate the nobility of his Prophethood, then similarly we say that the nobility of the Prophethood of Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not affected even if he did have any hamm to commit suicide. The Prophet said: Allah has forgiven the scruple and thought of sin for my Ummah if not put into practice. (Sahih Bukhari) Therefore, neither Prophet Yusuf nor Prophet Muhammad were given any sin for having the thought because neither of them put it into practice. Allah says: if a servant (of Mine) intends to do a sin, but then does not do it due to the fear of Allah, then write one good deed in his or her book of deeds in lieu of that sin. The Quran says: wa hamma bih (and he also desired) lawl an ra burh na rabbihi (had it not been for him seeing the burhan of his Lord). What does burhan mean? It translates to miraculous evidence. The scholarsboth Sunni and Shiaare agreed that this is not the same as daleel

(evidence) but rather this is a miracle from Allah. The burhan that Prophet Yusuf saw at that moment was some miraculous vision. Some say that this burhan was Arch-Angel Jibraeel while others say that it was a vision of Prophet Yaqoob. Ibn Katheer says: As for the evidence as to (exactly) what Yusuf saw at that moment, there are conflicting opinions to what it was. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari said: The correct opinion is that we should say that he saw an Ayah from among Allahs Ayat that repelled the thought that crossed his mind. This evidence might have been the image of Yaqoob (Jacob), or the image of an angel (i.e. Gabriel), or a divine statement that forbade him from doing that evil sin, etc. There are no clear proofs to support any of these statements in specific, so it should be left vague, as Allah left it. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer) We read in Tafsir al-Jalalayn provided by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought: Ibn Abbas said: Yaqoob was made to appear before him (Yusuf), and he struck his (Yusufs) breast, whereupon his [sexual] desire withdrew [from his body] through his fingernails (Tafseer al-Jalayn) We read in Tafseer Ibn Abbas: (She) the woman (verily desired him, and he) Joseph (would have desired her if it had not been that he saw the argument of his lord) if he had not seen that the chastisement of his Lord would befall him; it is also said that this means: if he had not seen the figure of his father; and it is also said that this means: if he had not seen the proof of his Lord. (Thus it was, that We might ward off from him evil and lewdness) adultery. (Lo! he was of Our chosen slaves) who are protected from adultery. (Tafseer Ibn Abbas) We have come to the conclusion that Prophet Yusuf had hamm and that hamm was removed by the burhan, which was either the image of Yaqoob, the appearance of the Arch-Angel Jibraeel, or something similar. Is this not the same case as the hamm of Prophet Muhammad which was removed by the appearance of the Arch-Angel Jibraeel? The Hadith reads: every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Jibraeel would appear before him and say, O Muhammad! You are indeed Allahs Apostle in truth whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. (Sahih Bukhari) The Shia say that we take away the Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophets by accusing him of having this hamm. They say: Allah would prevent the Prophet from such thoughts as committing suicide. We say: did Allah not show His burhan and thereby do exactly that? So yes, Allah would protect his Prophet from such sin and that is why the Prophets thought was removed when he saw the burhan. And this is the very definition of the Ismah of the Prophets, and this is keeping in line with that. The Prophets could have hamm but Allah removed that hamm and in this way the Prophets are protected from such major sins. Prophet Yusuf and Prophet Muhammad both had hamm, but Allah removed any such hamm through His burhan. The Shia and the groups like them claim that the Prophets are intrinsically infallible, but we say that it is only through the Grace of Allah that they are made infallible.

The Shia would say that the Prophets do not have hamm and they say that this does not befit their nobility, but we say that it only increases them in their nobility. If, for example, one were to argue that Prophet Yusuf had no desire at all, then in that case what would be the big deal in him avoiding that woman? If, for example, a man is being seduced by a very ugly woman for which he has no desire for, then it is no big accomplishment on his part that he refrained from her. But if this were a very beautiful woman whom he had a great desire for and yet even still he refrained from her due to his fear of Allah, then this shows the strength of his faith. It is overcoming the desirenot the absence of desirethat is what exalts the human being over the angels. The angels cannot have hamm: they lack desire and free-will. As such, they are incapable of committing sin. And yet Allah exalted Prophet Adam over and above the angels, and the reason for that is that Allah gave him desire and free-will and even so he stayed away from sin. Prophet Yusuf stayed away from sin even when there was desire; Prophet Muhammad refrained from ending his life even when the weight of the world was placed on his shoulders. From this we find that the one who cannot have hamm is at a lower position and rank than the one who can have hamm but turns away from it out of fear of Allah. It should be further noted that there are different types of hamm. We do not say that Prophet Yusuf and Zulaykha had the same type of hamm; rather, the hamm of Zulaykha was of one of evil intent, whereas Prophet Yusufs hamm was that of the uncontrollable urges that come with being human. Likewise, if the Prophet had any hamm about ending his life, then this was not of an evil intent but rather an uncontrollable urge that comes with being human. Rayat the Shia says

The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he

received revelation.

There is a Hadith in which the Prophet says: No prophet has suffered as much as I have suffered. And this is known to mean that no human being has ever been put to the test as much as the Prophet. As such, any feelings of anxiety, sadness, or even suicide, are understandable. But the fact that the Prophet pushed through these feelings and rose above them is indicative of the steadfastness of his character. The fact that the Prophet had feelings of distress and foreboding at the start of his mission in fact tells us of the greatness of the task that he accomplished. Shia says

Allah would protect the Prophet from having such thoughts, because the Prophets are infallible!

Exactly! And this is exactly why Allah showed His burhan to Prophet Muhammad just as He had showed His burhan to Prophet Yusuf. We believe that Allah does indeed protect his Prophets from such thoughts, and this is why Allah showed His burhan and took away those thoughts of suicide (and of temptation in the case of Prophet Yusuf). Every single time Prophet Muhammad had any

such thoughts, then Allah sent His burhan (i.e. Arch-Angel Jibraeel) and thereby prevented the Prophet and maintained his infallibility. The Shia are actually arguing over a non-issue; the Hadith conforms to the idea that Allah protected His Prophets from such thoughts, because it shows that Allah removed them from their minds. Rayat the Shia says

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Claims The Holy Prophet ( ) was Suicidal, Naudhobillah

That is just one spin on it. A more accurate statement would be: Sahih Bukhari Hadith shows that the Holy Prophet was protected from any suicidal thoughts by Allah and His burhan, Al-Hamdu Lillah! We recall the story of the Prophet during his youth: the Prophet had gone to a wedding party in which there was music playing. But Allah protected him from that by putting him into a deep slumber. The Prophet said: I wanted to go down to Mecca and entertain myself as the young men did. I went down to the first house in Mecca where I heard music. I entered and asked: What is this? Someone answered: It is a wedding party. I sat down and listened but soon went into a deep sleep. I was awakened by the heat of the sun. I went to my fellow shepherd and told him what happened to me. I never tried it again. (narrated by Ibn al-Atheer, classed as Sahih by Hakeem) In other words, the Prophet could have the normal instincts and thoughts, but Allah then prevented him from indulging in that, and in fact, Allah removed all avenues and ways to that. If we take out the Shia book of Hadith, al-Kafi, we find that they ascribe many qualities of Allah to their Imams. This is similar to what the Christians did with Prophet Eesa. Prophet Eesa did many miracles but in actuality these miracles were not done by him, but rather they were from Allah. However, soon the Christians thought that the source of the power was from Prophet Eesa, but the Islamic belief is that human beings have no power and the source of all power is Allah Almighty alone. Likewise, the Shia have exalted the status of the Prophet and their Imams. All of Prophet Muhammads greatness came from Allah the Almighty. Prophet Muhammad himself could not read, but Allah gave him the power to read when Arch-Angel Jibraeel embraced him. The Prophet had told Jibraeel multiple times that he could not recite, but then Allah gave him the power to do that. The Prophet was also a human being so he could forget things, but Allah then protected the Prophet from forgetting any of the verses of the Quran. The Prophet could feel fear, but then Allah sent His Sakeenah (divine tranquility) down on him which would remove any fear he felt. The point is that the Prophet was a human being but then Allah bolstered him with His Power. Likewise, the Prophet could feel hamm but then Allah removed it. Rayat the Shia says

1) The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he

received revelation. He supposedly said, What is wrong with me? It is completely wrong to claim the Prophet was in that confused and poor state of mind regarding his Prophethood, and it is a borderline attack on his holiness and nobility.

How is it in any way an attack on the Prophets holiness and nobility to claim that he was in a state of shock when he was first announced a Messenger of Allah? This was a monumental announcement and the Prophet would not have been a human being if he were not shocked by this news. It should be noted that the Prophet went through various stages, and this event happened at the start of his mission when he had just begun his ascent. Ibn al-Qaiyim mentioned the stages that the Prophet went through: The First (stage): The period of true vision. It was the starting point of the Revelation to Allahs Messenger. The Second: When the angel invisibly cast in the Prophets mind and heart, (but) without being seen The Third: The angel used to visit Allahs Messenger in the form of a human being.. The Fourth: The angel came to him like the toll of a bell and this was the most difficult form because the angel used to seize him firmly and sweat would stream from his (the Prophets) forehead The Fifth: The Prophet saw the angel in his actual form The Sixth: What Allah Himself revealed to him in heaven, i.e. when he ascended to heaven and received Allahs order for Salah. The Seventh: Allahs Words to His Messenger at first hand without the mediation of an angel Some religious scholars added a controversial eighth stage in which they state that Allah spoke to the Prophet directly without a curtain in between. (source: Zadul-Maad, 1/18) The Prophet was elevated in status throughout his mission. When Arch-Angel Jibraeel first informed the Prophet of his missionand when the suicide legend occurredthis was only at the beginning when the Prophet was on the lowest of the stages above. But then Allah slowly elevated him to higher and higher levels. At the start of his mission, the Prophet was a normal human being who had all the feelings and thoughts associated with our species; but then Allah raised him to the rank of Messenger, bolstered him, and elevated him to higher and higher levels of Prophethood. It should be noted that the Shia also believe in stages of Prophethood, as they describe how Prophet Ibrahim went through various stages and ranks. The point is that the confidence with which Prophet Muhammad strode into Mecca as a conquerer at the end of his mission would differ from the feelings

of apprehension he had at the start of his mission when he was first announced as a Messenger of Allah. Rayat the Shia says

Narrated Aisha:

Then Allahs Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, Cover me! Cover me! They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, O Khadija, what is wrong with me? 1) The Sunnis claim the Prophet was terrified and did not know what happened to him when he received revelation. He supposedly said, What is wrong with me? It is completely wrong to claim the Prophet was in that confused and poor state of mind regarding his Prophethood, and it is a borderline attack on his holiness and nobility.

After Arch-Angel Jibraeel declared him a Prophet, Prophet Muhammad was so shaken up by this that he went to his wife who covered him up with a cloak to stop his shivering. How can the Shia deny this when Allah revealed about this: O you wrapped up in the cloak! Arise and warn! (Quran, 74:1-2) This is when Allah commanded the Prophetwho was shivering beneath the cloakto embrace his noble task of Prophethood. This mighty command took the Prophet from his sleep and his comfort, to struggle and continue under hardship. (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, p.92) Once again, this does not at all call to question the Prophets nobility, but rather it raises the status of the Prophet as it shows that he rose above any fears in order to serve His Lord Most High.

Conclusion
The story of the Prophet contemplating throwing himself off a mountain is a legend which is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Shaykh Uthman al-Khamees, in his refutation of the Shia, stated that the issue need not be discussed since it was a Dhaeef addition by Zuhri to the Sahih narration by Aisha. Additionally, the legend is not offensive to the Prophet because it proves that the Prophet was protected from suicidal thoughts by none other than Allah.

Questions- please provide detailed answers and explanation, and if possible please refute all shia claims in relation to the questions. Question: Three years after the advent of islam the verse (26:214 and warn thy nearest relations) was revealed, after which the prophet organized the feast of the clan (dawat dhi lashira) and announced Ali bin Abi Talib as his successor my brother, my successor, my caliph akhi, wasiyyi, khalifati. Why was Ali not the first caliph after such a clear statement?

Answer: Question: Events of Ghadir Khumm. How do sunnis justify it?

Answer:

Question: Does 66:9 prove lanat to be acceptable? Along with multiple other instances in the Quran that state that anyone who betrays the prophet and his family should have lanat upon them?

Answer:

Question: How can all four schools of thought be correct with such large contradictions, from food restriction, to prayer times, etc and how can this be simply limited to four scholars as many more interpretations can be shown of these hadith, or if all are correct then why have they not settle on only one to follow?

Question: Aeisha being 6 at the time of marriage? Shia say she was older. How does the marriage of a six year old make sense?

Answer:

Question: Why did umar (r) annul mutah? How did he have the authority to do this since the prophet did not? Answer: Shiism encourages Mutah, a form of prostitution, which is not only permissible in Shia
fiqh but is actually considered Mustahabb (highly recommended). In Mutah, a man pays a woman a set amount of money (Mehr) after which he is temporarily married to her and can engage in sexual relations with her until the agreed upon time limit runs out, which can be as little as one hour. The articles below will examine the immoral institution of Mutah.
y

Mutah
Mutah translates literally to pleasure in Arabic. In the Shia context, Mutah refers to a temporary marriage. In the Shia faith, Mutah is actively encouraged and is considered Mustahabb (highly recommended). In reality, Mutah is an abomination, and is nothing less than prostitution.

Al-Shia.com on Rewards for Doing Mutah


The popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has an entire book on Mutah, titled Narrations About the Rewards for Doing Mutah. This book contains authentic Shia Hadith about Mutah. We have copied and pasted them here. These Hadith are troublesome, to say the least.

A Plea from a Muslim Sister


Every day, more and more girls in our community are falling victim to the idea of Mutah. These girls are helpless in asking anyone for help, especially their parents.This is the experience of one young Muslim girl who was tricked into doing Mutah. Her experience should serve as a lesson for us all.

More Shia Hadith on Mutah


Mutah is not only allowed in the Shia religion, but it is actually actively encouraged. Al-Kafi is the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. Here are some Hadith from that book; it should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah rejects these Hadith as Shia fabrications.

The Mutah Pimps

According to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teenage girls in prostitution, or rather, Mutah. The magnitude of this statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. Officials of the Social Department of the Interior Ministry are worried about the increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

Mutah and Hypocrisy


The Shia leaders keep telling the masses how there is nothing wrong with Mutah, and they will even say how Mutah is a very good thing and that society needs it. But how many of these scholars would give their own daughters in Mutah?

Ayatollah and Mutah


Ayatollah Khomeini is considered by the Shia to be the Wilayat Mutlaqah, or the Absolute Authority from Allah. He is the sole representative of the Hidden Imam. Here, we examine one of his statements about the institution of Mutah.

The Fiqh of Mutah


The following are Shia Hadith which expound the Fiqh of Mutah. It is abundantly clear that these so-called Hadith advocate prostitution and Zinnah, and go against the chastity that is a central tenet of true Islam.

Legalized Whore-Houses in Iran


The Iranian government recently passed legislation which created legal whore-houses, brothels which would be officially liscensed under law as Chastity Houses. Such a name is of course the epitome of Orwellian terminology, and the irony of the name should not be lost to anyone.

Supreme Leader Khamenei on Mutah


In response to a question about Mutah, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei responded and declared that Mutah (temporary marriage) is not only permissible but rather it is Mustahabb (highly recommended). Here, we shall quote the Grand Ayatollahs official website where he answers questions and passes Fatwas. This should shatter any misconception about the greatness of Mutah in the Shia faith.

In Mutah, Man Does Not Provide Support to Woman Nor Child


According to the Shia Fiqh, a man who has Mutah with a woman is not obligated to provide for her at all. In fact, even if she gets pregnant, the man still does not need to provide! In this article, we examine the religious edicts of Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Lankarani.

Mutah is Haram
The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah compeletely rejects Mutah. This article will show how the Prophet ( ) completely forbade it, and how it is pure blasphemy to slander the Prophet ( ) by saying that he would encourage prostitution. This article refutes certain non-truths spread by Shia propagandists who attempt to prove Mutah via Sunni sources.

Making a Living from Mutah Prostitution


Using the institution of Mutah, it is very possible for women to gain a living by doing Mutah with one man and then immediately marrying another man, and so on and so forth. To the unbiased observor, this woman would be nothing more than a prostitute. The following question was asked on Al-Islam.org, the

authoratative Shia website. The scholar passed the following Fatwa. No comments necessary, as it speaks for itself.

Grand Ayatollah Sistanis Fatwa: Virgin Girls Can Do Mutah


Fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who sanctions virgin girls to be given in Mutah.

Shia Hadith: Woman Who Does Mutah Twice Will Become Pure
Here, we shall examine certain Shia Hadith which dictate that a woman will be forgiven her sins if she engages in Mutah twice. It seems that the Shia religion is immoral, and it advocates the exploitation of women via the institution of prostitution. Here, we see the deviant idea that women who give themselves in sexual pleasure to men (the definition of Mutah is literally pleasure) will be made pure and forgiven their sins. We wonder: how could fornication and prostitution make anyone pure? Logic tells us that it is nothing but an immoral act.

Fatwas: Permission of Wali Not Required for Mutah; Shia Guy Can Take Sunni Girl in Mutah
Shiism is a truly dangerous religion, and parents should be made aware of this Shia threat to the honor of Sunni girls. May Allah protect our women, as well as the women of the Shia who are also susceptible to being exploited by their Shia men. These Shia men can literally take away girls and have Mutah with them, without even the permission of the girls parents. And not only this, but these men believe themselves to be rewarded for this act of Mutah.

Misyar Marriage is Not Like Mutah


This craze to equate Mutah with Misyar is one of the desperate attempts of the Shia propagandists to conflate simple issues, just like they conflate abrogation with Tahreef. This is to hide their embarassment over their filthy religion which allows women to be rented by the hour.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani on the Only Difference between Mutah and a One Night Stand
Here, Grand Ayatollah Sistani implicitly admits that the only difference between Mutah and the American one night stand is nothing but a contract. In all other aspects, there is no difference between the two. Sistani has attempted to equate having sex with friends to marriage, completely oblivious to the fact that marriage is not only about having sex but raising a family together, long-term companionship, and a life of commitment. How far removed is marriage from friends having sex or Mutah/prostitution!

Shia Website Al-Islam.org Says A Woman Who Enters Into Mutah is Rented
If one reads Shia Hadith, it becomes very clear that the woman is treated as rented property. In this article, we examine quotes from the Shia website Al-Islam.org in which women are described as being rented.

USA Today: Pleasure Marriages (Mutah) Regain Popularity in Iraq


Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and womens rights activists are complaining that the contracts have becomean outlet for male sexual desires.

Marriage With the Intention to Divorce

In this article, we clarify the stance of the Ahl as-Sunnah with regards to the issue of marriage with the intention of divorce. Such marriages are not permissible.

The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says: On this point there are specified hadith as well as the general hadith which state that a woman who enters into muta is rented. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm) In another place, Al-Islam.org continues: In other words, she has been rented for the purpose of sexual intercourse (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) If one reads Shia Hadith, it becomes very clear that the woman is treated as rented property. In fact, the Shia books of Fiqh contain a section entitled The Loaning of Vaginas. It is perplexing that the Shia scholars of Hadith would use terminology (i.e. renting women by the hour) that perhaps only a street hoodlum would use. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says the following about Mutah: If the role of the time period is to contain a stipulated number of sexual acts, whenever the number is finished, the woman is free of any further obligation to the man. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm) Mutah is very similar to prostitution: after the woman does a certain number of sexual acts on the man, then she is free from him after that. Is this not the attitude of the Kufaar who have the vulgar philosophy of wham, bam, thank you maam? Subhan-Allah, can this really be the religion of guidance which allows such a thing? According to Shia Fiqh, a man rents a woman for a specified number of hours or days during which he can have sex with her. But if on certain days she doesnt have sex with him, then the price he pays for her goes down. The exception is her menstruation days since it is impermissible to have sexual relations on those days. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says: A man came to the Imam Jafar and said: I concluded a contract of muta with a woman for one month for a given amount, But the woman only came to me for part of the month, and part she stayed away. The Imam replied: An amount should be held back from her dower equivalent to the amount she stayed from you, except for the days of her menstruation, for those belong to her. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm) The price the man pays the woman (i.e. the dower) goes down if she doesnt have enough sex with him; it would not be a stretch to say that the Shia scholars are nothing but pimps who closely regulate the institution of prostitution under the guise of religion. In the Shia Mutah, the man can regulate when he wants to see the woman; it is very common, for example, for the man to stipulate that he only wants to see her at night-time. In other words, he

simply wants to have sex with her and does not want to have anything else to do with her for the rest of the day. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says: It is permissible for the contract to stipulate as a condition a particular time for meetings between the husband and wife, such as daytime or night-time. As already mentioned, it is also permissible for a given number of sexual acts for a given period to be stipulated, as for example, during one day or over the whole period of the marriage. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) The Shia Ulema make it clear that Mutah is done for sex, and that this is the basic aim. We read: In contrast to permanent marriage, the basic aim of muta is enjoyment, not the production of offspring. [10] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) In a marriage, the basic aim is to create a family bonded by love and affection for all time. On the other hand, the Shia Mutah is just for enjoyment, whereby a man can enjoy renting out women, without any responsibilities on the man. He can, for example, practice Azl (coitus interruptus, i.e. removal of the penis from the vagina just prior to ejaculation) in order to prevent a pregnancy. We read that there is: a consensus of the ulama on this point. They say the consensus derives from a hadith reported from the Imam Jafar: That [semen] belongs to the man: he may expend it as he wishes. [9] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) The right of coitus interruptus is reserved with the man, who can engage in this without the consent of the female, even if she wishes to conceive. On the other hand, the woman has been given no such right. Grand Ayatollah Sistani says: Q146: [Is it permissible for women to practice] Coitus interruptus (azl), by which they prevent their husbands from depositing the semen in the vagina during intercourse. A: They do not have the right to do that. (FM, p.429) If the woman becomes pregnant during Mutah, then the husband has the option of seizing custody of the child: If the woman becomes pregnant such that the pregnancy derives from the period of muta, the child belongs to the husband, even if he performed coitus interruptus. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) So the man has the right to seize the custody of the child, but in Shia Fiqh, the man can have his cake and eat it too. If he simply wants to deny the child, then he can also do that. In other words, the man has the right to either seize the custody of the child or simply abandon the child, based upon his own whim. We read:

However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the sworn allegation required in permanent marriage is not necessarysworn allegation is unnecessary in mutahis word alone will be accepted and there is no need for him to make a sworn allegation (i.e. that the child is not his)in the case of denying parentage, by a consensus of the ulama it is unnecessary for the man to make the sworn allegation. (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm In other words, a man can have sex with a woman by renting her, but absolve himself of all responsibilities; if the woman should get pregnant as a result of the Mutah, he can simply deny it and the Shia court would not even require the man to take an oath to God about the matter! In fact, the Shia Fiqh is very specific on this point, namely that the man is excused from swearing to God about such a matter. The consequence is that the poor woman would be forced to take care of the child as a single mother without support from the father. Even the Kufaar living in the West have better morals than this, for they force a man to pay child support if he engages in fornication that results in a pregnancy. On the other hand, the woman who does Mutah has no such rights; to explain this, we read what Al-Islam.org says: Al-Shahid al Thani, al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claim consensus on this question. They point out that the bed of muta does not hold the same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by muta is a rented woman. [13] On this point two hadith have been recorded. [14] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) The man can demand sex whenever he pleases and this is stipulated in the Mutah contract, which is binding on the woman after that. This is a right granted only to the man, and the woman has no right in that. We read: Moreover, the woman cannot demand a right to sexual intercourse in temporary marriage, a demand which is essential in the establishment of forswearing in permanent marriage. The only thing the woman may demand is the dower, to which she is entitled as a rented woman. [18] (source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm) After reading this it really shocks me that any girl would remain Shia. May Allah save us from such a religion which exploits and defiles women for pleasure and enjoyment.

Question:

Anonymous says

We Sunnis oftentimes criticize the Shias for their belief in Mutah, and we refer to it as immoral.

But one Shia girl responded to this by pointing out that the Sunnis believe in the permissibility of marriage with the intention to divorce. In other words, a man can marry a woman with the secret intention that he will divorce her after some time. So isnt this like Mutah, or even worse than Mutah? At least in Mutah the woman knows and agrees to a temporary arrangement, but in this Sunni version, the woman is in the dark and one day the man will come home and tell her that he divorces her after he has enjoyed her. Therefore, my question is: do we Sunnis actually believe in the permissibility of marriage with the intention to divorce?

The Shia girl showed me a fatwa written by Shaykh Bin Baz, and she also pointed out that Shaykh Bin Baz is the biggest Salafi scholar in recent history. She also said that the Hanafis and Shafiis hold the same position as well. And she also said that allowing this sort of marriage was one of the two opinions held by the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah. In other words, according to her, the Salafis, the Hanafis, and the Shafiis all permit this sort of marriage, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah whom we call Shaykh al-Islam. If this is true, then arent we Sunnis hypocrites for accusing the Shias of being immoral because they practice Mutah, but we allow the exact same thing under the guise of marriage with the intention to divorce?

Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I am not a scholar, but I did have a face-to-face discussion on this matter with Shaykh Suhail Hasan, the son of the late Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar Hasan. For those who dont know who that is, then it should be stated that Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar and Shaykh Bin Baz were very close friends and advisers to each other. I have also discussed the matter with other scholars and students of knowledge, so I will relate to you what I have learned. The dominant opinion amongst the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is that marriage with the intention to divorce is valid but impermissible. At first, this sounds like a contradiction: how can something valid be impermissible? Yes, at first, these two words (validity and permissibility) seem to be synonymous, but this is not the case in the Islamic lexicon. We say that the Nikah (marriage) contract would be valid, and by this we mean that it is a legally binding document as per the laws of the land. However, it is an impermissible action in the eyes of Allah. This is like all other contractual agreements under the Islamic Shariah. A marriage contract requires two witnesses. Similarly, a business contract involving loans also requires two witnesses. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writingand call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. (Quran, 2:282) Let us imagine that a debtor enters into a contractual agreement with a lender. The two men prepare a written document in which the debtor promises to pay back two hundred dirhams to the lender. If the debtor signs the document but secretly harbors the intention to default on the loan, then we say that the contractual document itself is still valid and binding, but we say that the action of the debtor was impermissible. If six months down the line the debtor confesses to his friend that he never planned to pay back the money, and then this friend informs the authorities about this, then would the state declare the contract null and void? Would the state say that the contract is invalid and that the debtor does not owe the lender any money? No government would operate in this manner. The state would back the validity of the contract and would demand of the debtor that he should change his intention and pay back the loan. In other words, the contract is valid in the eyes of the state, but

the action done by the debtor is impermissible and sinful in the eyes of Allah. This is the difference between validity and permissibility. The same is the case with a man who wishes to marry a woman with the secret intention to divorce her. The Nikah contract would still be valid and legally binding on both parties. In the eyes of the government, man and wife are married. However, the act (i.e. entering a marriage with the intention of divorce) is impermissible in the eyes of Allah, and the scholars have said that it is sinful. If the man confesses to his friend that he married the woman with the intention of divorcing her, and if that friend informs the authorities of that, then the state would insist on the validity of the Nikah contract. The man would be urged to change his intention and to fulfill his vows. Imagine if the state would suddenly have declared that the Nikah contract was now invalidated. This would certainly make the situation very beneficial to womanizers, who could simply marry women, enjoy them sexually for a few days, and then confess that they had married with the intention of divorce; suddenly, such men would no longer be married and they would be absolved of any obligations to the women at all! Indeed, invalidating a Nikah contract based on someones secret intention poses serious problems. How is it possible to look into peoples hearts and judge what their intentions are? For example, a married woman who is having an affair can simply tell the judge that her husband married her with the intention to divorce and thus her Nikah contract is invalid and she should be allowed to marry the other man. How could the judge verify the husbands intention? There is no way to look inside the mans heart and reveal his true feelings and intentions. Or what of an angry mother-in-law who wishes to invalidate her sons marriage by claiming that her son married with the intent to divorce? Or how about an evil-doer who wishes that the punishment of Zinnah be levied on another man by declaring his Nikah contract invalid on the grounds of his alleged secret intention? How could such claims be verified or negated by the state? We find that this is opening up pandoras box! This is why the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah have stated that the Nikah contract is valid in the eyes of the state, but the action is impermissible in the eyes of Allah Almighty. Only Allah the Most Glorious can look into the hearts of people and judge by intention. In this world, men will be judged by the law based on their outward actions, whereas in the next life men will be judged by their inner feelings and intentions. It is quite impossible for human beings to make rulings on what people intend or feel. For example, if a man intends to donate money to a certain charity but he does not end up doing it for some reason, then the government will not be able to reward him for that; he would not be given any tax deduction for that. On the other hand, such a man would get reward from Allah Almighty for his noble intention. This is the difference between limitations of man and the greatness of Allah Almighty.

Two Opinions
The scholars are split into two groups over this issue. Some of them say as I said above, i.e. valid but impermissible. But others hold an even stricter opinion, and they say that marriage with the intention of divorce is both invalid and impermissible. It seems that this difference in opinion existed for a very long time, and I base this on the following Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 91: Ali said, Allahs Apostle forbade the Mutah marriage on the Day of the Battle of Khaybar and he forbade the eating of donkeys meat. Some people said, If one, by a tricky way, marries temporarily, his marriage is illegal. Others said, The marriage is valid but its condition is illegal.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/086.sbt.html#009.086.091 There are therefore two valid opinions on the matter, and neither one of these two views support the permissibility of marriage with the intention of divorce.

Rulings of the Scholars


Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Rida said: The fact that the scholars of the earlier and later generations emphatically forbade mutah (temporary marriage) implies that marriage with the intention of divorce is haraam, even though the fuqaha said that a marriage contract is valid if the husband intends it to be temporary but did not state that as a condition in the marriage contract; but his concealing that is regarded as a betrayal and deceit, and this contract deserves to be annulled more than one in which he stipulated the condition that it be temporary with the agreement of the husband, the wife and the wifes guardian. This (marriage with the intent to divorce) leads to many evil consequences as it is abusing this great bond which is the greatest of human relationships, and going along with ones whims and desires. When this condition is not stated clearly, that is cheating and betrayal which leads to other bad consequences such as enmity, hatred and loss of trust even of sincere people who want to get married in the real sense, which means protecting the chastity of both partners and cooperating in establishing a righteous home (Fiqh al-Sunnah by al-Sayyid al-Saabiq, 2/39) islam-qa.com Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, one of the three great Shaykhs, said: With regard to my opinion on this matter, I say that this marriage contract is a valid contract, but it involves deceit and betrayal, so it may become haraam because of that. It is deceit and betrayal because the wife and her guardian, if they knew the intention of this husband, and that his intention is to enjoy intimacy with her and then divorce her, they would not adept this marriage. So in that sense he is deceiving and betraying them. If he tells them that he wants her to stay with him for the duration of his visit to that country, and they agree to that, then this marriage is mutah (temporary marriage). Hence I think that it is haraam, but if anyone goes ahead and does it, then the marriage contract is valid, but it involves sin. (Liqa al-Baab al-Maftooh, Question 1391) islam-qa.com And the Shaykh said: Marriage with the intention to divorce Answered by: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen

Question: A man wished to travel abroad because he is a researcher and he desired to maintain his chastity by marrying there for a specified duration of time, then afterwards divorce this woman without informing her that he will soon do so. So what is the ruling regarding this action? Answer: This is marriage with the intent to divorce and it is not free from one of two situations; either it will be stipulated in the contract that he will marry her for the duration of a month or a year or until his studies are finished, and this is the marriage of Mutah and it is Haraam (Forbidden). Or either he will make intentions to do this without it being stipulated. And that which is well known from the Mathhab of (those who follow) Imaam Ahmad is that it is Haraam (Forbidden) and that the marriage contract is null and void. That is because they say the intention is just like the stipulation and that is based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw) : Indeed actions are based upon intentions and everyone will have that which he intended (Bukharee and Muslim) it is not Mutah because the definition of Mutah is not applicable to this type of marriage but it is Muharram (forbidden) from the angle that it is deception upon the wife and her family and the Prophet (saw) has made Ghish (Deception) and Khidaa (betrayal) Haraam, and because if the woman was aware of the fact that this man didnt want to marry her except for this particular duration she would not marry him. And likewise, her family wouldnt marry her to him. Just like he wouldnt be pleased with someone marrying his daughter and his intention is to divorce her once his need (for her) has been fulfilled. So how is it that he is pleased for himself to deal with someone else with the likes of that which he would not be pleased with? This opposes Eemaan! Based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw): None of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself (from the hadeeth of Anas ibn Maalik found in Bukharee and Muslim) (Fatawah for the Woman, p.114) madeenah.com Shaykh Faisal Mawlawi, Deputy Chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, stated: Marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible. However, if one has this intention at the time of contracting the marriage then the marriage itself is valid but the intention is invalid and corrupt and one should renounce it. I find no reason for this intention as the Shari`ah gives the husband the right to divorce the wife if there is a valid reason for terminating the marriage whether he had this intention to divorce from the very beginning or not. There is no need for or benefit in this intention and I advise any Muslim living in the West to abide by the Shari`ah rulings and do not have the intention of divorce at all as long as he can end the marriage if there is a valid reason for doing so. islamonline.net FatwaIslam echoes this view:

Question: A person is going abroad to study and he wants to protect his chastity there by getting married for a specific period of time. Afterwards, he will divorce his wife although he does not inform her that he is planning on divorcing her after a specific time period. What is the ruling concerning such behaviour? Answer: Marriage with the intention of divorce must fall into one of two cases. First, it is explicitly stipulated in the marriage that the marriage is for a month, a year or until he finishes his studies and so forth. This is known as Mutah. This is forbidden. The second case is where the person has that as his intention [in his heart] but it is not put as a stipulation in the contract. The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void. They say that what is intended is equivalent to what is actually stipulated, since the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi-wasallam) said, Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what he intended. fatwaislam.com

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah


It is incorrect to state that Shaykh al-Islam permitted marriage with the intention to divorce. On the contrary, he forbade it. The Shia girl you know said it was one of the two views of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is a typical deception of the Shia propagandists, and they use this tactic frequently. For example, we read: Al-Islam.org says

In this place [Ghadir Khumm], the following verse was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 5:67). Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum: (1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50

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

And yet, if we open up this book by Fakhr ar-Razi, then we find that he first lists nine opinions on the matter. He provides nine different possibilities of when this verse was revealed. After first stating the various opinions, he then gives his final verdict on the matter. The opinion that it was revealed about Ali ibn Abi Talib was actually listed by Fakhr ar-Razi as the weakest of the nine opinions, and he discredited it.

What I mean to say here is that the methodology of the classical scholars was that they would first list the various possible opinions, and then they would state their final verdict after having done that. Just because a scholar lists something as a possible opinion, it does not mean that he agrees with it. In fact, this is a very beautiful methodology used by the scholars: it is as if they are thinking aloud. They will narrate to the reader the various views, and then they will explain how they themselves graded each of them and came up with their final verdict on the matter. As for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, then he stated that there were two possibilities with regards to marriage with the intention to divorce, i.e. permissible or impermissible. He then established his own final opinion on the matter which was that such marriages were forbidden. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said: And Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad Al Luhaydaan who is the president of the high judiciary committee of major scholars in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) mentioned in his introduction to the book: Marriage with the intention to divorce, that the final opinion of Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymeeyah supports that fact that this type of marriage is prohibited. madeenah.org

The Hanbalis
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said: The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void. fatwaislam.com

The Malikis
We asked Shaykh Muhammad al-`Amwaawi, a Maliki scholar, and he stated that the relied upon position of the Malikis is that such a marriage is valid but impermissible, which is the same view that I have outlined above.

The Shafiis
Imam an-Nawawi quoted Imam Malik as well as Imam al-Awzaaee, another Maliki scholar, declaring that although the Nikah contract was valid, the act itself was detestable and hated.

The Hanafis
Mufti Ebrahim Desai said: If a temporary marriage is conducted without any statement of time limit, the marriage will be (considered by the law) a permanent one. However, the parties will have to change their intention and be committed to a permanent marriage. They cannot deliberately enter into a marriage with the intention of being temporary partners. If they do so, they will be abusing the sacred institution of Nikah against the purpose it was established for. Ask-Imam.com

Shaykh Bin Baz

There is no doubt that Shaykh Bin Baz was one of the most eminent scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah. And yet that does not mean that he (or any other scholar) was infallible. With regards to the Shaykhs opinion about marriage with intention to divorce, then it is known that his opinion on the matter is considered Shaadh (i.e. an anomaly). An opinion that is considered Shaadh is worse than a weak opinion but rather it is lower than that and considered invalid. A Shaadh opinion is not within the realms of valid ikhtilaf; therefore, it is not a permissible opinion to take by anyone. We love and respect the Ulema as-Sunnah, but we should not be shy to disassociate ourselves from opinions that go against the Quran and Sunnah. One Shaadh opinion cannot possibly overcome the majority opinion of the rest of the Ulema. So we say that Shaykh Bin Baz made a sincere mistake and there is no blame in that. It is important to remember that the Sunnis do not have popes or ayatollahs with the ability to declare Halal and Haram; that is something we believe only Allah Almighty can do. If someone contradicts Allahs Laws, we are free to reject those opinions, and in fact, we must do that. At the same time, we should not attack Shaykh Bin Baz, because we know that all great scholars in the past had mistakes and nobody was perfect. Indeed, it is a truism that what defines a good scholar is that out of one hundred rulings, ninety-nine of them will be good and only one of them will be Shaadh. This differs from the poor scholar who out of one hundred rulings will have ninety-nine or a hundred Shaadh opinions. We say that Shaykh Bin Baz was of the former group; just because he had a Shaadh opinion on this issue, this does not mean that we can condemn him for that, and if we did that, then we would have to condemn all the great scholars of the past, since so many of them had one or two Shaadh opinions. I truly believe that Allah Almighty showing us the imperfection of even the greatest scholars is His Way of reminding us of His Own Perfection and Supreme Nature. Yes, we admit that Shaykh Bin Baz did hold this view, but we believe he made a sincere mistake and as such, it is not a proof against Ahl as-Sunnah. The truth is that the Shaykh did not know what the ramifications of his ruling would be, and had he known it, then it is likely that he would not have passed this fatwa. Shaykh Bin Baz only intended his fatwa to be used by a man who was traveling to a far off land for studies for a few years. Bin Baz thought that a man could marry one woman whilst he was there in that land, and after he was done with his studies and left that country, then he could divorce her. Had the Shaykh known that people would abuse his ruling by traveling to various countries for the sole intent of marrying women and doing this multiple times for sexual pleasure, then he would have never passed such a fatwa. This view was alluded to by Shaykh Uthaymeen: Because I have heard that some of the people have taken this (i.e. fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz) as a means to another affair which no one (from the people of knowledge [a reference to Shaykh Bin Baz]) has supported and that is they travel to different countries for marriage only! They go to these countries for the sake of marriage and they remain there masha Allaah with this woman whom he has made intentions, in his marriage to her, to be appointed, then return to his homeland. This is also a major prohibition and closing the door in this issue is what is more appropriate and that is because of what it entails of Ghish (deception) and Khidaa (deceit) and Taghreer (seduction with vain hopes) and because it opens the likes of these doors. And because the people are ignorant and most them, their Hawah (desires) wont prevent them from transgressing the prohibitions of Allaah. And Allaah knows best. madeenah.com Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan, president of the high judiciary committee of major scholars in Riyadh, told Shaykh Bin Baz that his opinion on the matter was incorrect, as we read in the book Marriage With Intention to Divorce: The fatawas given in support of the permissibility of this type of marriage are not based upon any proof (Daleel), and they have nothing (in them) that would remove this type of marriage from its

characteristic of being HaramAnd I pointed to the fact, on numerous occasions, of that which occurred between me and His eminence our shaykh Abdul Aziz ibn Abdullaah ibn Baaz and His Eminence Abdur Razzaq Al Afifi in reference to this issue and he wasnt successful in his response nor in his justification may Allaah pardon him and Have mercy upon him madeenah.com Imam Ahmad explicitly forbade one to look for Rukhas (i.e. exemptions to make life easy) by seeking the Shaadh opinions from amongst the scholars. Sulayman al-Taimi said: If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you. In other words, every scholar has something wrong, and this is the result of being a human being. But what would be evil would be to compile all the wrong points from the various scholars and then follow them, and this is the way of Ahl al-Bidah. So you will find that Ahl al-Bidah will seek to collect all the Shaadh opinions in order to find Rukhas, thereby taking the opinion of one scholar who said that music is Halal, and another opinion of a different scholar who permit shaking hands with women, and another opinion of a scholar who said that Shiism is an acceptable fifth Madhab, and another opinion from a scholar who declared that we need to pray three times a day only instead of five. And by doing this, a person would have destroyed his religion. What the Shias do is look for the Shaadh opinions from amongst the thousands upon thousands of Sunni scholars, and then they say see, you believe in that too! This is not, however, a proper way to look at things, especially since Ahl as-Sunnah places such a large importance on the concept of Ijma (consensus). No scholar, no matter how big he is, can compete with the Ijma once it has been established. Likewise, a Shaadh opiniona viewpoint that has been rejected as invalid by the consensuscannot be taken as valid, even if it is Shaykh Bin Baz himself who held that view.

The Salafis
The Salafis take the view of either Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (valid but impermissible) or the view of the Hanbalis (both invalid and impermissible). After Shaykh Bin Baz passed his ruling on the matter, there were many Salafi scholars who criticized this opinion, as did Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad alLuhaydaan above. In fact, when I opened up the fatwa book in which Shaykh Bin Bazs ruling on the matter was stated, I turned to the very next page to find that Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen had over-ruled Shaykh Bin Bazs opinion. And it is this opinion, that of Ibn Uthaymeen, that has become the dominant opinion amongst the Salafis, and to state otherwise is completely dishonest. Shaykh Saalih Ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan endorsed a book which rejected the permissibility of such marriages: I have examined the book called Marriage with the intention to divorce and its essentials and its principals and its impact by the Noble shaykh the Doctor Ahmad Ibn Musa As Sihli. And I found it to be very beneficial in its subject matter and it will treat this dangerous problem that has emerged between the youth and the people of Ahwah (desires). And I hope that Allaah will benefit with this book and that it will be the reason for those who have involved themselves in problems to return to guidance. And since the emergence of this problem I used to warn against falling into it and I see, marriage with the intent to divorce, to be Haraam and with Allaah is the Tawfeeq and may the Salat of Allaah and His Salaam be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his companions. madeenah.com As a strong proof that the Salafis do not hold this type of marriage to be permissible, we remind the reader that the Institute of Islamic Religious Law (based in Mecca) banned marriage with the intent

to divorce, because it involves deception and fraud. We see that the Institute did not take the Shaadh opinion of Shaykh Bin Baz, but rather took the stance of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. Is there any doubt then on what the Salafi opinion is on the matter?

Conclusion
We conclude with the words of Shaykh Haitham Hamdan, professor at the American Islamic University: The majority of contemporary scholars from Ahl us-Sunnah are of the opinion that marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible. The Muslim World League (MWL), which enjoys a category A observer status in the United Nations, was founded by members from over twenty-two Sunni countries. The MWL banned marriages with the intent to divorce. So how is it then that the Shias can even claim that we Sunnis accept this sort of marriage? No, we vehemently reject it! Marriage with the intention to divorce is immoral, and we of the Ahl as-Sunnah reject it like we reject Mutah. The man who marries a woman with the intention of divorce has committed a grave sin, of deceit and of treachery. This act is Haram and sinful in the eyes of Allah. I hope that I have shed some light on the matter and that I have not erred in any way. I tried with the best of my abilities to transmit to you what I heard from Shaykh Suhail Hasan and others from amongst the Ahl al-`Ilm. And Allah is the Source of all Strength.

Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer

This questionabout whether or not the Imami Shia are Muslimis a very emotional one. The humble author of this article is not qualified to pass verdicts on such matters; however, this article will merely serve as a purview of all the various opinions cited by qualified Sunni scholarship, and to hopefully make sense of it all in a constructive manner. The truth of the matter is that the answer to this question cannot be a simple yes or a no. Unfortunately, some conservative Sunnis will jump to declare all Shia to be Kufaar (disbelievers)

and engage in Takfeer of all Shia they come in contact with. On the other hand, some liberal Sunnis will reflexively defend all Shia no matter how odious or deviant their beliefs are, including even their Ayatollahs and leaders. Indeed, to draw a hasty conclusion is not appropriate; Imam Ibn Abidin states: It is difficult to make a general statement and judge all the Shia to be disbelievers. (Radd alMuhtar, 4/453) Some Shia are considered Muslims, and some Shia are considered Kufaar. Various Shia have different beliefs: some have beliefs which constitute Kufr, whereas others do not. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shias: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)shias that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute KufrSuch Shias can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq). source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 Shaikh Abdul Wahab al-Turayree, a professor of Al-Imam University, says: We cannot say that all the Sh`ah are unbelievers. On the other hand, there are many sects of the Sh`ah who advance claims that are tantamount to unbelief. Anyone who believes such things would be an unbeliever. source: IslamToday.com, http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=274&main_cat_id=37 Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says: What we say about interacting with the Shiah depends on the situation. The innovated beliefs of the Shiah vary. If it [their belief] is something that does not put them beyond the pale of Islam[it] is rather regarded [merely] as drifting away from the right path [as opposed to Kufr][in such a case] they are Muslims who have committed acts of innovation and sin that do not put them beyond the pale of Islam. source: Islam-qa.com, http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=48984&ln=eng&txt=shia Therefore, depending on his beliefs, a Shia person can be Muslim or Kaafir. What then are the beliefs which constitute Kufr? There are quite a few beliefs which constitute Kufr that would take one outside the folds of Islam, but we shall herein only discuss those relevant to the Sunni-Shia dialogue. (1) The superiority of the Imams over the Prophets. This is perhaps the most important issue. It is in fact the crux of the debate between Sunni and Shia. The doctrine of Imamah (i.e. belief in twelve Infallible Imams) is what separates the Shia from mainstream Islam. Too often than not, Sunnis will argue that Shia are disbelievers because they curse the Sahabah or something else along those lines, but in reality, the focus of the debate should be around the issue of Imamah.

Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan quoted by Sunni Path states: Shi`ah fall into three categories: 1. ghli (ghult): they repudiate the necessities of religion[They are Kaafir because they] elevate Sayyiduna Ali and other Imams above the Prophets[They are Kaafir even] if these Imams are held to be higher than even ONE prophet. Those who hold the above and other such statements that amount to disbelief are Kaafirs by Ijma (consensus). All dealings with them are similar to those with apostates. It is in fatawa Dharhiriyyah, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Hadiqatun Nadiyyah: they are to be dealt with as apostates. Nowadays, most of the Rafidhis (i.e. Shia) fall into this category. Their scholars and commoners, men and womanall of them seem to profess the aforementioned beliefsexcept Allh willing otherwise. source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=598&CATE=10 Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan has hereby stated thataccording to himmost of the Shia alive today possess this belief and are therefore Kufaar. The author of this article agrees with him, but would like to point out that this may not be the case in the West: it seems that most Shia commoners living in North America and Europe have a more filtered version of Shiism, so whereas most Shia worldwide may hold such a belief, the Western Shia may differ in this. In any case, what we have established thus far is the fact that the belief that any of the Imams are superior to even one Prophet is Kufr. It should be noted that this concept is not peculiar or particular to the Shia, but rather to any person in general. If, for example, a Sunni were to claim that Abu Bakr was equal to or superior to Prophet Musa, then this would be grounds for Kufr. Muslims believe that the Prophets and Messengers are the highest in ranks amongst humanity, and that no person can rival them in this honor, neither can they be superior to them nor can they even equal them in status. It is, after all, for this reason that the Ahmadis are declared to be Kufaar, namely because they believe in a person who has a rank equal to or higher than the Prophets. It should be noted that all the Shia Maraje (top scholars) are agreed upon the fact that the Imams are superior to the Prophets, aside from Prophet Muhammad. For an indepth analysis of this Shia belief, please read this article: Imams Superior to Prophets. However, although the Shia scholarship is agreed upon this doctrine, the laity amongst the Shia (i.e. the masses) may be unaware of this. In fact, it has been my observation that most Shia lay-persons and commoners in the West have no idea at all about this belief. Many of them are even shocked if someone were to claim that the Imams are superior to Prophets. It has happened on numerous occassions that a Shia lay-person would accuse a Sunni of lying if the latter were to state that the Shia believe that Imamah is superior to Prophethood. Indeed, I have no doubt that most Shia lay-persons who read this article will themselves deny this fact, and therefore I strongly urge them to read the link above so that they can have the definitive proof of the beliefs of the Shia scholarship. In conclusion, the Shia scholars are Kufaar because they believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets. This includes their Ayatollahs, such as Khomeini, Khameini, Sistani, etc. It should be noted that these Shia scholars base this position on the Shia religious texts, which are very clear on this matter. The Shia Hadith literature and classical books statein no uncertain termsthat their twelve Imams are superior to the Prophets (aside from Prophet Muhammad).

However, the lay-persons, commoners, and masses of Shiaespecially in the Westmay not be aware of these religious texts, nor are they aware of the position of the scholars whom they supposedly do Taqleed upon. In a way, this ignorance is understandable. The masses of any faith are oftentimes not in tune with the actual beliefs written in the religious texts and held by the classical scholars. This holds true for Sunnis as well. For example, most Sunni lay-persons are completely unaware of the fact that music is Haram. However, the Sunni texts are clear on this matter and clearly state that music is Haram, and this is the view held by the Sunni scholars. In other words, just because the Sunni masses believe one thing, this does not mean that this conforms to what the Sunni religious texts say or what the Sunni scholars believe. Likewise, just because the Shia masses in the West may not believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets does not mean that this is what Shiism itself says. Most Muslim lay-persons may say one thing, but Islam can say another thing. Like I mentioned earlier, most Muslim lay-persons would say that music is Halal, but Islam actually says that music is Haram. Similarly, most Shia lay-persons would say that their Imams are not superior to Prophets, but Shiism actually says otherwise. Any Shia person who understands this belief and adheres to it (i.e. the superiority of Imams over Prophets) is a Kaafir. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say that a Shia lay-person could become a Kaafir simply by reading this article and the one I gave the link to. The reason I make such a bold claim is that prior to reading these two articles, a Shia person may not have been aware of the fact that Shiism holds that Imams are superior to Prophets. But now I have shown him that indeed this is what Shiism says about this matter. If such a Shia reader were to now adopt this viewpoint, then indeed he would become a Kaafir. In other words, a Shia persons ignorance of his own faith could serve as a protection in the sense that such a person is not a Kaafir because he does not believe in those parts of his religion which constitute Kufr. I would say that the masses of Shia in the West are unaware of this belief of theirs, and are therefore considered to be Muslims. It is only those who are aware of such a belief and adhere to it that would be outside the folds of Islam. The Shia scholarship are Kufaar but we do not say that the Shia masses are. (2) Claiming that a person after Prophet Muhammad received revelation from Allah like a Prophet. This is another belief which constitutes Kufr. Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi was asked what were the agreed upon acts which would constitute exiting the faith. To this, he stated: Claiming that a person after the time of Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a real Prophet from AllahIncluded in this is claiming that one has received revelation from Allah like a Prophet. source: Guiding Helper, www.guidinghelper.com The reality is that the Shia believe that their Imams received revelation from Allah like Prophets. However, they will not readily admit this fact and will in fact seek out loopholes to defend their beliefs, playing word games, and such stuff. Hence, I do not find any need to dwell on this matter, since it is much easier to prove the first belief above. The only reason I am mentioning this here is that it should be established firmly that it is a belief of the Muslims that no divinely appointed figure exists after Prophet Muhammad, and the belief in Imams is in contradiction to this. (3) The Quran is incomplete. Publically, the Shia will vehemently deny that they believe that the Quran is incomplete. The truth of the matter is that many of the Shia Maraje (top scholars) do believe in Tahreef (tampering) of the

Quran, but they hide this fact due to Taqiyyah and Kitman. And there may be many Shia people who do indeed hold such a belief but they hide this fact. If this is the case, then we cannot declare them to be Kufaar, as we were not sent to judge what is in the hearts and only Allah knows what are the true intentions of people. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: It should be remarked here that some members of the Shia community display outwardly not to have believes that constitute Kufr, but keep these beliefs in their heart, which they call Taqiyya. The case with such people is that if they did have such beliefs that constitute Kufr in their heart but outwardly denied them, then even though according to Allah and in hereafter they will be regarded as non-Muslims, but we will judge them according to their outward statements and actions. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is reported to have said: I have been ordered to judge people according to their outward condition source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 In common discourse, the Shia polemicists will vehemently deny such a belief, and it is only through a very tiresome process that we prove to them that Tahreef is a part of their faith. Therefore, once again, I would not advise bringing up this topic when discussing whether or not Shia are Muslim or not. Since the vast majority of Shia do not adhere to this belief, discussing this issue will only cause digression and tangential argumentation. (4) Cursing the Sahabah. Many hold the belief that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. However, this is an oversimplification of the issue, one which in fact weakens the position of the Ahlus Sunnah. A Shia propagandist would be very quick to show that in fact the Sahabah did fight amongst each other and one Sahabah would sometimes call another by a name, or the Prophets wives might do such a thing, etc. Therefore, we should be clearer and more specific instead of simply saying that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. Mufti Ebrahim Desais student says the following: The issue of abusing the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) takes on various forms. Hereunder follows some related points. 1. It is Haraam to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) 2. Normally, a person who does so is sinning, but would not be a Kaafir. 3. If, Allah forbid, a person falsely accuses Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiyallahu anha) or any of the other Ummahaatul Mumineen of Zinaa, he is a Kaafir. 4. If, Allah forbid, a person says that most or all of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) became murtad (renegade) after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), or become sinners after him, such a person is a Kaafir. 5. If one considers it permissible to abuse the Sahabah(Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is Kaafir.

6. If one regards it as a light matter to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is a kaafir. We trust this answers your question. And Allah Taala knows best Was Salaam E. Vawda for Daarul Iftaa CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai source: Ask-Imam, http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14285 Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says: Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: If a person slanders them [i.e. the Sahaabah] in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood. If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Quraan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Quraan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind [Aal Imraan 3:110 interpretation of the meaning] the first generation were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear. Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.

In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that. source: Al-Saarim al-Maslool ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591. Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said: This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, and hating them is kufr should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr. source: Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575. In fact, this has always been the position of the Ahlus Sunnah on the matter. Therefore, we should not misrepresent ourselves when we state that cursing the Sahabah is Kufr, but rather we should clarify this position and make it clear. Based on the above, we see that it is Kufr to hate the Sahabah if any of the following conditions are met: (a) One hates all of the Sahabah or at least the vast majority of them. (This could apply to the Shia, many of whom claim that the vast majority of the Sahabah apostatized.) (b) One hates a Sahabi for the fact that he is a Companion of the Prophet. (This could apply to NonMuslims, such as Abu Jahl, who would hate anyone who became one of the Prophets friends.) (c) One hates a Sahabi for some religious reason such as believing that he usurped the divinely appointed role of Imamah. (This no doubt applies to the Ithna Ashari Shia. Notice how the Zaidis believe that Ali was better suited to be the Caliph than Abu Bakr, but they do not believe that this is a religious difference but rather a political one. Therefore, we do not pass a verdict of Kufr on them for this. The Ithna Ashari, on the other hand, claims that this is a religious issue, one decided upon by Allah Himself.) (d) One who curses a Sahabi is sinning, but the one who thinks that it is permissible to curse Sahabah is Kaafir irrespective of if he himself does that or not. (This most definitely applies to the Shia, who believe that it is permissible to curse the Sahabah.) The reason that these things constitute Kufr is because they are disbelieving in the verse in the Quran in which Allah says You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind (Quran, 3:110) and And the first to embrace Islam, of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and also those who followed them exactly

(in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. (Quran, 9:100) And many other such verses. Because these verses are stated in the general sense, we only say that it is Kufr to make general condemnations of the Sahabah. However, Abu Bakr and Aisha were mentioned in the Quran specifically, in verse 9:40 and verses 24:11-26 respectively. Abu Bakr was declared the companion of the Prophet, and Aisha was declared innocent of adultery. Imam Ibn Abidin states: There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) And some scholars extend these verses to encompass other beliefs, such as negating those who say that Abu Bakr was evil or sinful (as the Prophet says in that verse that Allah is with us) or accusing Aisha of other things (because Allah says Allah warns you not to repeat the like of it again). This debate is beyond the scope of this article and the abilities of this humble author. Indeed, I am simply trying to prove the point that it is a much more involved topic than simply saying whoever curses the Sahabah is Kaafir. Having said that, realistically the Shia scholars would be Kufaar based on their slander of the Prophets wives and Sahabah based on the above conditions. However, it is unclear as to what the average Shia lay-person believes on such a matter and whether or not he understands the gravity of his belief. It is likely that the average Shia lay-person will deny having hatred for the Sahabah in general, and therefore, this is a dead-end issue to debate. (5) Other strange beliefs. Historically, various Shia sects have held many strange beliefs, such as that Ali is God, or that Angel Jibraeel made a mistake, or that Allah lies, etc. However, because the mainstream Shia do not believe in these things any more, it serves no point to dwell on these matters. And there are many other beliefs which the Shia do believe in which commonly come up in this debate. However, I strongly believe that none of them are important to discuss except the first issue which I stated, namely the superiority of Imams over Prophets. The Ruling The question about Shia and their position as Muslims (or not) is a multi-factorial issue. The crux of the issue, however, is the matter of Imamah and its superiority over Risalah (Prophethood). This is the one issue that the Shia scholars do not shy away from. They will do Taqiyyah when it comes to Tahreef of the Quran, they will obfuscate when it comes to Imams receiving revelation, they will become catty when it comes to hating the Sahabah, play word games on other issues, etc. But the issue about Imamah is one that the Shia scholarship has clearly stated, and it is this issue which casts out the Shia scholars into the realm of Kufr. Having said that, the bulk of the Shia lay-persons (at least in the West) are unaware of this belief and therefore do not believe in it. As such, they are not disbelievers and we should regard them as Muslims. Fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot There is one fatwa that has become notorious in the Sunni-Shia dialogue, namely the religious edict passed by Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot of Al-Azhar who claimed that the Jaffari Madhab was an acceptable fifth Madhab. Invariably, this fatwa will be recycled in the Sunni-Shia debates. However, this fatwa has absolutely no value because it was categorically denounced by the Sunni scholarship en masse. One scholars errant opinion cannot refute the Ijma (consensus) of the

scholars, but rather it is disregarded as baseless. Shaikh Faraz Rabbani responded to this claim of a fifth Madhab by saying: Jafari fiqh is not accepted as a sound school of law by Sunni scholarship. souce: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=6020&CATE=3400 Sidi Musa wrote a refutation of this bogus fatwa entitled Myth of the Fifth Madhab, saying: There is no fifth madhhab in addition to the four madhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnahthere is no madhhab in addition to the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah that is permissible for Muslims to followCan one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a? The answer is, quite clearly, no. In the second introduction to The Reliance Of The Traveler it is stated in regards to any so-called fifth Madhab: Ibn Salah reports that there is scholarly consensus on its [sic] being unlawful to follow The Shia propagandists will chime in that the fatwa advocating the fifth Madhab was passed by the prestigious Al-Azhar University. What they fail to mention is that after that errant fatwa passed by that one Shaikh, Al-Azhar University passed another fatwa many years later rebuffing the earlier fatwa. In fact, it is well-known that Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot was influenced by a Shia lobbyist of Dar al-Taqrib named Muhammad Taqi al-Qummi; although we respect the scholars, everyone makes mistakes and it is not acceptable to follow a scholar who has an errant opinion on a matter. Shaikh Nuh Keller called it madness to follow such a fatwa advocating a fifth Madhab. Disbelievers or People of Deviation There is no valid opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah that would place the Shia in any fifth Madhab, but rather there are only two opinions on the matter. Each and every Shia person is either part of the : 1) Kufaar (disbelievers) or 2) Ahlul Bidah (People of Innovation or Deviation) There is no other option. It should be noted that Ahlul Bidah can be broken down further into two arbitrary groups, namely: 1) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are simply ignorant. and 2) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are obstinate in their deviation. The second group should be shunned. As for the first group, however, we should seek to soften their hearts so that they educate themselves about the Straight Path and they abandon the Deviated Path. Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says:

Softening the hearts of some people is more effective than shunning shunning may make a person more rebellious and stubborn, and prevent further opportunities to advise and call him; in that case it should not be doneDo not forget to advise him (the sinner or innovator)Seeking to soften his heart with gifts, smiling at him and speaking kindly to him may be more effective than shunning him, so do that. If he refuses that from you, and does not respond to you, then there is no sin on you and you are not to blame for thatThe believer looks at what is in the best interests (of Islam). This does not contradict the idea of hating the kaafirs, innovators and sinners for the sake of Allaah and loving the Muslims for the sake of Allaah. Attention must be paid to what is in the general interest; if shunning is better then they should be shunned, but if the objectives of Islam dictate that ongoing dawah efforts should be made rather than shunning, then that is what should be done, following the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And Allaah is the Source of strength. Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said: Softening peoples hearts may be more beneficial in some cases than shunning. And shunning is more beneficial in some cases then softening hearts. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) softened the hearts of some people and shunned others. source: Majmoo al-Fataawa, 28/206 Therefore, the former group (the ignorant) should be softened and the second group (the obstinate) shunned. Clarification Amongst the Ahlus Sunnah, three opinions exist amongst the scholarship: 1) Those who say: The Shia are Kufaar. 2) Those who say: The Shia are Muslim. 3) Those who say: Some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar. However, the reality is that all three opinions are basically saying the same thing, and the difference in opinion is only lexical. It depends on how one defines the word Shia. For example, Opinion 1 is held by Mufti Ebrahim Desai of Darul Iftaa who says: Shias are not Muslims. (www.ask-imam.com) Mufti Ebrahim Desai defines the word Shia as a hypothetical and conceptual entity, as one who followsthe beliefs of Shiism based upon their texts and the opinions of their classical scholars. In other words, XYZ beliefs are Kufr, and XYZ beliefs are a part of the faith of Shiism; therefore, anyone who does not accept the XYZ beliefs is not a real Shia. Opinion 2 is held by Shaikh Faraz Rabbani: Notwithstanding the known disagreements between Sunnis and Shia, traditional Sunni scholarship has considered the Shia to be Muslim (www.SunniPath.com)

Shaikh Faraz Rabbani is defining the Shia in a practical and worldly sense, referring to anyone who calls himself a Shia. This particular fatwa was politically correct and in fact Shaikh Faraz Rabanis disciple, Sidi Salman Younas, clarified: Shaykh Farazs position is that a Shi`a is a disbeliever if he denies any of the necessary aspects of the religion, without sufficient shubha. Otherwise, he will not be considered as such. (Sidi Salman Younas) In fact, the Sunni Path website clarifies elsewhere: According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shias: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)shias that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute KufrSuch Shias can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq). source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 In other words, the difference of opinion is simply lexical, revolving around how the term Shia is used. Even those who declare that Shia are Kufaar are simply using a different definition of the word Shia. For example, above we have seen how the Ask Imam site says that Shia are Kufaar in one fatwa, but we find in another fatwa on the same site that the clarification is given: All the Shiites are not regarded as KaafirIf a Shiite does not believe in the above (beliefs) and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a Kaafir. source: Ask Imam, http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=8649 And this is also the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, wholike Mufti Ebrahim Desaiis Deobandi. Mufti Taqi Usmani is quite explicit in his fatawa Uthmani that the way of the scholars of Dar ul Uloom is to consider a Shia to be Muslim unless he holds certain beliefs which constitute Kufr. Therefore, the most appropriate way to phrase the position of the Shia is the third way, which is to refrain from blanket statements and to say that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar. This removes ambiguity and is most precise. Blanket statements such as the Shia are Kaafir or the Shia are Muslim cause confusion; even though the person who says such statements might know what he is really saying, the reader will be confused into thinking something else. Furthermore, such a person risks the chances of being misquoted. Some people mistakenly bring up quotes from past scholars and take them out of context in order to somehow prove that certain classical scholars passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Indeed, these quotes are using the word Shia in the same way as Mufti Ebrahim Desai used it, namely as one who adheres to the tenets of Shiism which includes XYZ beliefs. Oftentimes, when the context of the quote is shown, then this will clear up the matter. Many people have falsely claimed that all four Imams have passed Takfeer on the Shia, but this is not a blanket Takfeer and is only in regards to those who hold XYZ beliefs. Indeed, Ibn Abidin stated in his Radd Al Muhtar, which is the central reference for fatwas in the Hanafi Madhab, that none of the four Imams passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is known as being one of the harshest against the Shia, and indeed he did justifiably criticize those Shia who have beliefs which constitute Kufr. And yet, Shaikh Al-

Islam Ibn Taymiyyah refrained from doing blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Unknowingly, many persons pass around the following quote: Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Raafidah, They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawaarij. [Refer to MajmooulFataawaa (28/482) of Ibn Taymiyyah] And yet, this is taking the quote out of context, because what Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said is not in regards to all Shia or even all Rafidhis, but only those who have specific beliefs which he mentions: Whosoever claims that the Sahabah became apostates after the Messenger of Allah (except for a small group that did not reach ten odd people in number) or that they majority of them were disobedient sinners, then there is also no doubt about the Kufr of this one. It is not a blanket Takfeer of all Shia but rather of this one with those beliefs. Indeed, in no uncertain terms, Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah says: And regarding the Salaf and Imams, they did not sway from their rejection of Takfeer upon the Murjiah and Shia and others like them. Nor do the texts of (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) differ in that he did not make Takfeer upon themand regarding the Khawarij and the (Shia) Rawafid, there is dispute and hesitation regarding Takfeer upon them from (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and others besides him. source: Majmoo` Fatawa Sidi Salman Younas, a disciple of Shaikh Faraz Rabbani, says the following when someone asked if Shia are Muslim or Kaafir: We asked Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf about this question and he pointed out the things Shias do that make them Kaffir, and he followed up with how we have Shias here in the U.S who are utterly unaware of major Shia beliefs (such as cursing the Khulafa); thus this fatwa (of Kufr) will not apply to them. Whether you label this Taqiyya or not, the point still remains that we do not judge their inner (selves). The Dangers of the First Way The First Way, which is to make general statements like the Shia are Kufaar, is dangerous because it hardens the hearts of the Shia lay-persons, many of whom are genuinely good people and may just be ignorant. They need Dawah and Naseeha, which require softness. Condeming them as Kufaar will only make their hearts turn harder and they will turn away from us. The truth is that they are not Kufaar, but rather only misguided by their Kaafir scholars. We should differentiate between the ignorant masses and the evil Shia leaders. By distinguishing the masses from their Ayatollahs, we are driving a wedge between the two groups. And this is what we want to do: our Shia bretheren have been under the brain-washing and programming of their Ayatollahs, and we have to save them from that. If we group them both together as Kufaar, then we are increasing the love between the two and increasing the power and status of the Ayatollahs. In reality, we should create disunity and disharmony in their ranks, driving the people away from the Shia leaders. It is the Shia leaders, not the masses, who propagate such deviant beliefs, who hate the Sahabah, who organize Shia death squads in Iraq, etc.

Many people have criticized the Ahlel Bayt website for the fact that we refer to the Shia as brothers but there is nothing wrong in this, because we are addressing the lay-persons and the commoners from amongst them, not their leaders. We seek to soften their hearts so they harken to the truth and reject their blasphemous leaders. The Dangers of the Second Way The Second Way, of making general statements like the Shia are Muslim, is obfuscation of the truth. It denies the reality that in fact we believe that Shiism is Kufr, all of the scholars of Shiism are Kufaar,and that even the remaining group are Ahlul Bidah. This confusion will cause problems, such as Sunnis marrying Shia, or Sunnis thinking that they can adopt Shiism as a possible Fifth Madhab, or the Shia feeling that their way is approved by the Muslims. On the Day of Judgement, these same Shia will point fingers at us and ask us why we did not warn them of the Kufr of their beliefs. Furthermore, it is very necessary to expose the Kufr of the leaders of Shiism. They have declared war on the true Islam, both by pen and by sword. Unity with them is not possible, and it is a part of their creed to accept the Ahlus Sunnah externally but to oppose us internally. If we allow ourselves to be fooled by false slogans of Muslim unity, we will only be left to one day deal with the Shia leaders stabbing us in the back, as has been the case historically and even today in Iraq. The Third Way There is much confusion as to the correct position of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah with regards to the Shia, and a lot of this has to do with the lexical distinctions made by various scholars. However, despite the seemingly contradictory statements, almost everyone (apart from some exceptions) is saying the same thing. I believe that the third way is the best way, and that the first two ways cause confusion. The third way, of saying that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kaafir, is the best methodology. One should be clear that Shiism is Kufr, and that some Shia are not Kufaar simply because they are ignorant of the beliefs of Shiism which constitute Kufr. In Hayate Shaikh by Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanfuri, we read: Hazrat Gangohi used to say that because of the ignorance of the masses, they are (only) faasiq (sinful), (even though) their Ulama are kaafir. Yet, despite our lenience towards the masses, we should be very clear in saying that Shiism is Kufr and call the people away from it and those who propagate such Kufr. The principle of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah is to pass condemnation in general terms, refraining from passing condemnation on people in specific. Therefore, we should make the general statement that Shiism is Kufr, but we should refrain from saying that Shia person is Kaafir. This is stated by Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: With regard to a specific evildoer, we should not curse him, because the Prophet forbade cursing Abd-Allaah ibn Himaar who used to drink wine, even though he had cursed the wine-drinkers in general; however cursing a specific person if he is an evildoer or promoter of bidah is a point of dispute among the scholars. Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said: The difference between cursing a specific person and cursing those who commit sin in general is that the former (cursing a specific person) is not allowed, and the latter (cursing the people who commit

sin in general) is allowed. So if you see an innovator, you do not say, May Allaah curse you, rather say, May the curse of Allaah be upon those who introduce innovations, in general terms. The evidence for that is the fact that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed some people among the mushrikeen and followers of jaahiliyyah and said: O Allaah, curse So and so, and So and so, and So and so, he was told not to do that when Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning): Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allaah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zaalimoon (polytheists, disobedients and wrongdoers) [Quran, 3:128] source: al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/226. Therefore, we should say that Shiism is Kufr (general statement) instead of pointing to individual Shia lay-persons and saying you are Kaafir (specific statement). The exception to this, of course, are those Shia leaders who propagate their views; it becomes necessary to condemn them publically so that people are warned to stay away from them. This condemnation would also apply to those non-scholars who become their foremost propagandists and who debate with us in an obstinate way, exceeding the limits. Mufti Mohammad Sajjad stated: Q. Is there any difference between scholars of Imami Shias and their laymen, as Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhanvi (rahimuhullah) didnt distinguish between them? A. If they, the laymen, hold the same beliefs as their scholars then there is no difference between them and their ruling is the same [i.e. they are disbelievers]. Therefore, it is important to notify the people of the Kufr of these Shia scholars, leaders, and selfappointed propagandists. We read: Question: Is it permissible to mention peoples names and characters when one wants to criticise them and their thinking? Response: If someone writes something that contradicts the pure Shareeah, and distributes that material, or if he propagates that view in the media, it becomes compulsory to refute him and expose the falsehood of what he says. There is nothing wrong in mentioning that persons name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobedience. Until this day, there are knowledgeable and believing people from the callers to the truth and bearers of the Shareeah fulfilling this obligation, sincerely for Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Taaala) and for the benefit of His servants, rebuking the wrong, inviting to the truth, warning others against those who propagate falsehood and destructive rhetoric. And Allaah is the Expounder of (all) success. Shaykh Ibn Baaz Fataawa Islaamiyyah - Volume 4, Page 279 Conclusion A very clear explanation of the status of the Imami Shia has been given by a student of Mufti Ebrahim Desai, who said:

Question: Are all shia Kafir? If not what makes them kafir or how can i identify if he is kafir? Answer: Firstly, hereunder are the criteria for declaring someone a non-Muslim: When a person openly calls himself a non-Muslim, i.e. he accepts that he is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. When a person negates, through his words or actions, something unanimously proven through Quran and Hadith. He will not be regarded a Muslim even though he claims to be one. Jawahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:23 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi) Secondly, although the Shias claim that they are Muslims, most of them have beliefs that negate the clear cut principles of Islam[such as] they regard the status of their twelve Imams to be higher than the status of the Ambiya (Alaihim Assalaatu Wassalaam). Aaapke Masaail aur Unka Hal Vol:1 Pg:188 (Maktabah Bayyinat) Thereafter, Shias are categorised into three groups in regards to the ruling they fall under: (1) Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam. Such Shias will be regarded as non-Muslims even if they do claim otherwise (2) Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion with the Muslims on saying that Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) was the most superior amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum). Such Shias will not be regarded as non-Muslims, but they will still be regarded as fasiqs (those who transgress the laws of Islam openly) (3) Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed. They will not be regarded as Muslims nor will they be regarded as non-Muslims. As a matter of precaution, inter-marriages with them will not be permissible and the meat from the animals slaughtered by them will not be Halal. Jawaahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:59-63 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi) As far as ties with Shias are concerned, it is not permissible to have close friendship with them. However, Islam encourages Muslims to have good conduct with them, and show good character. And Allah knows best Ml. M. Jawed Iqbal, Student Darul Iftaa Checked and Approved by: Mufti Ebrahim Desai Darul Iftaa, Madrassah Inaamiyyah

source: Ask-Imam, http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=b51e3af653960ec458e93c62cbbad9c8 In conclusion, we say that Shiism is Kufr, and there is no doubt about this; if one properly follows Shia doctrine, then such a person is a Kaafir. Based on this, we say that the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned onesincluding their propagandistsare Kufaar. As for the Shia lay-persons, then we generally refrain from passing Takfeer on them as a matter of precaution due to their ignorance which oftentimes saves them from Kufr. Therefore, we should make general statements such as Shiism is Kufr and the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones (including their propagandists) are Kufaar but refrain from specifically condemning individual lay-persons who are ignorant of certain Shia doctrines. We should shun the former (i.e. the learned ones) but we should soften the latter (i.e. the ignorant ones).

The 12th Imam of the Shia is Dajjal?

Introduction

The Shia are waiting for their Twelvth Imam to descend upon them. The evidence suggests that the person that the Shia will take as their Twelvth Imam will be none other than Dajjal, as prophecized in the Hadith of the Prophet. The Ahlus Sunnah should thus always keep in mind that the Shia are the future followers of Dajjal.
y

Jewish Law

The Qaem or Imam Mahdi of the Shia will rule according to the Laws of David and the family of David, according to the Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four books of Shia Hadith. All of the following Shia Hadith come from the same section in Al-Kafi reported by Al-Kulyani, located in Al-Kafi (Volume No.1, p.387-398):
Narrated Ali ibn Ibraheem -from his father-from ibn Abi Umair-from Mansour-from Fadhl al Aour-from Abi Ubaidah who reported:

When the Qaem of the household of the Prophet appears, he will rule according to rule of David and Solomon.

I heard Abu Abdullah[as] saying:The world will not fade away unless a person from us appears who will rule according to the rule of the family of David
Muhammad ibn Yahya-Ahmad ibn Muhammad-Muhammad ibn Sinaan-Abaan who reported:

I asked Abu Abdullah [as] :On what will you rule if you are made the rulers. He replied: By the rule of God and the rule of David. And if we are confronted by a situation which we cannot solve, Gabriel (Ruh al Quds) will reveal it to us.
AhmadAhmad ibn MuhammadIbn MahboobHisham ibn SalimAmmar as Saabati who reported: Muhammad ibn AhmadMuhammad ibn KhalidNazr ibn SuwaidYahya al HalabiImran ibn OueiynJaeed al HamdaniAli ibn alHussein [as] said: I asked him by which law will you rule? He said: By the rule of David, and if there is

something which we are unaware of, Gabriel (Ruh al Quds) will reveal it to us. I asked Imam Abu Abdullah [as]: By what will you rule? He replied: By the rule of God, and by the rule of David.
Ahmad ibn Mahran[ra]Muhammad ibn AliIbn MahboobHishaam bin SalimAmmar as Saabati reported:

Hebrew

Furthermore, the 12th Imam will speak in Hebrew:


Reported to us Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Saeed al Uqdah who said: Narrated to us Ali ibn al-Hasan at-Taymali who said: narrated to us al-Hasan and Muhammad the sons of Ali ibnu Yusuf, from Sadaan ibnu Muslim, from rajaal, from al-Mufadhaal ibn Umar who

Abdullah [as] reported: When the Imam Mahdi calls out, he will supplicate to God in Hebrew. [Al-Ghaybaa of an Numani, p.326]
said: Abu

Jewish Followers

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

According to Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Hidden Imam learns from a book called al-Jafr, which contains the knowledge from the Israelites: The Imams (a.s.) remained silent for a while and then said, With us there is al-Jafr (the parchment). What do they know what al-Jafr is? I then asked, What is al-Jafr (the parchment or a container) ? The Imams (a.s.) said, It is a container made of skin that contains the knowledge of the prophets and the executors of their wills and the knowledge of the scholars in the past from the Israelites. [alKafi, Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1]
y

Conclusions

All of these beliefs lead us to believe that the Shias 12th Imam is actually the Jewish Dajjal that the Prophet ( ) warned us about, who would mislead many and create destruction on earth. This is who the Shia are waiting for. According to the evidence, this is what we know about their Qaem: 1. He will rule according to the system of the family of David, using the Talmud. 2. His language will be Hebrew.

3. His followers will be of the Jews and Israelites, for he is the king of the Jews. 4. The Hidden Imam learns from the Talmud which is contained in the Jafr.
y

Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah

Let us now examine the true Hadith from the Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Jewish Dajjal that is prophecized to appear: The Prophet ( ) told us in Hadith that Allah will grant the Muslims victory over Dajjal and the Muslims will kill him and his shia; when the shia of Dajjal hide behind a tree or a stone, then the tree and the stone will say to the Muslim that there is a Jew behind me come and kill him. (Musnad Imam Ahmad #5099) Is it simply a coincidence that this Hadith uses the Arabic word shia to describe the followers of Dajjal? The Prophet ( ) said:

To every Ummah there is a magian and the magian of this ummah are those who reject the Qadr [pre-destination]. If anyone amongst them dies, do not attend their funeral, and if anyone amongst them becomes sick dont visit them and they are Shia-tul Dajjal and it is the right of God to join them with the Dajjal. (Sunan Abi Dawoud #4072) The Shia reject the concept of pre-destination and instead have adopted the Mutazallite school of thought which shuns Qadr. And who are the descendants of the Magians other than the Persians who mix Magianism with Islam? And perhaps most conclusive of all is the frightening Hadith in which the Prophet ( ) has said: The Dajjal will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan, having on themselves Persian shawls. [Sahih Muslim #5227] Today, we see the military alliance between Israel and Iran. Click here for more details. Why would the Jews be wrapped with Persian shawls? Today, Persia is Shia. Shouldnt the Ahlus Sunnah be prepared to deal with this alliance between the Jews and the Persian Shia? The Shia ask Allah to hasten the coming of their Hidden Imam who is locked up and hidden somewhere. The Prophet ( ) has promised that the Jewish Dajjal will also be locked away somewhere and hidden from the world, as reported in the narration of Tamim ad-Darri in Sahih Bukhari. Indeed, the founder of Shiism was the Jewish Abdullah ibn Saba and the so-called savior of the Shia will be the Jewish Dajjal. Of course, we dont know this for certain and it is only a theory, but the evidence suggests that it is a highly likely scenario.

Question:
Why there is a difference opinion between Shafi'i and Hanafi in a decision of prayer time? Which one is true actually?

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate The difference of opinion that exists between the four schools of Islamic lawthe Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali schoolsall return to plausible understandings of the Quran and the sunna of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). More often than not, the differences found in the legal literature of the four schools have a precedent in similar differences of opinions among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims. Someone who is (a) trained in legal reasoning and (b) has comprehensive knowledge of the Quran and hadith corpus will be able to appreciate first-hand that the jurists of all four schools were knowledgeable and intelligent men who had strong cases for their legal positions. Non-scholarslike uswill, at times, be able to come to such an appreciation and, at other times, will not. People like us may sometimes imagine that a particular hadith or a particular verse clearly supports the position of one school at the expense of another. This imagination stems from our lack of knowledge and expertise: if Allah Most High had blessed us with the knowledge and intelligence of the great imams, we would truly be able to appreciate their positions. For people like us, the scholarly validity of the four schools of law can be understood from the scholarly consensus that developed around the acceptance of these four schools over the last millennium. It is naieve to believe that we--after generations upon generations of sincere, knowledgeable, trained, and intelligent Muslim scholarshave stumbled upon a hadith or a verse that decisively invalidates a position of one of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence.

The answer to your question, then, is that as far as non-specialists like us are concerned, the positions of the Hanafi and Shafi`i schools are both valid to follow because this is an issue that was not decisively decided by a clear, unequivocal text of the Quran or sunna (this is the nature of all the disagreements that exist between the four schools). In actual fact, one of the two positions is the correct one and the other is incorrect. However, Allah Most High did not make it incumbent upon us to spend decades of our lives learning and mastering the various disciplines of Islamic knowledge in order to come to a personal conclusion regarding the matter. All that he has asked us to do is to ask those who know well, if you know not. (16:43) All four schools of Islamic law fall under this category. Instead of creating an atmosphere of intolerance and division between Muslims by debating the proofs of one school against the proofs of another, our focus should be on drawing closer to Allah Most High by learning one of these schools of law and putting them into practice in our daily lives.

At this point somebody may ask: "If all the Imams deduced the laws directly from the Qur'an and Hadith, how is it possible for them to differ on various aspects?" In order to understand the reality of these differences, we will have to go back in history right upto the time of the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhum). Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had just returned from a battle when he ordered the Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhum) to immediately proceed to the place of Banu Quraizah a clan of Jews who lived on the outskirts of Madina Munawwarah. The purpose was to lay a siege upon them for having broken the pact that they had made with the Muslims. In order to impress the urgency of the matter upon the Sahaaba (R.A.), Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said to them: "None of you should perform your salah al-Asr except in Banu Quraizah." While the Sahaaba (R.A.) were still en-route, the time of Asr arrived. Some Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhum) felt that they should perform their Asr immediately. They regarded the instruction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) as actually being a command to proceed very swiftly to their destination. It did not imply that the Asr salah could not be performed en-route. They

thus performed their salah there. Another group of Sahaaba (radhiallahu anhum.) viewed the instruction literally. They therefore continued and only performed their Asr salah after having reached Banu Quraizah. Later when Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was informed about this, he did not rebuke either group. [Sahih Bukhaari] Thus we find that the difference arose from a point of interpretation. However, this difference of interpretation is only entertained when it comes from a person who has in-depth knowledge of Deen and has attained a mastery in the Qur'an and Hadith and the other related aspects. At times a difference of opinion occurs due to the different narrations that are found with regards to a particular aspect. One Imam gives preference to one narration on the basis of various criteria while the other Imam, in the light of his knowledge, prefers the other narration. This is basically the manner in which these differences occur. However, just as Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) did not rebuke either of the two groups in the incident mentioned above, similarly since the Imams have attained the status of a mujtahid (one who is capable of deriving the laws directly from the Qur'an and Hadith), they will not be blame worthy even if they have erred. Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is reported to have said: "When ahaakim (ruler) passes judgement, and after having exerted his utmost effort he arrives at the correct solution, he gets a double reward. And if he errs after having exerted his utmost ability, he gets one reward." (Bukhari vol. 2 pg. 1092). Ibn al-Munzir (R.A.) while commenting on this Hadith writes that a ruler will only get this reward if he has thorough knowledge and in the light of his knowledge he passed judgement. (see footnotes of Sahih Bukhari; ibid). The four Imams had the ability and necessary knowledge to practice ijtihaad. Thus they fall under the ambit of this Hadith.

Why Sunnis Do Not Comemmorate Ashura

Shia says

Why do the Sunnis not comemmorate the death of Hussain (

), the Prophets

grandson?

Answer by the Ahlel Bayt Admin: There is no doubt in the minds of the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the great qualities of Hussain ( ). We ask Allah Almighty to accept him into the Highest Ranks of Paradise with the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. Anyone who denies the greatness of Hussain ( ) is deviant, and has gone away from the accepted creed of the Ahlus Sunnah. There is not a single reputable scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah that has ever said otherwise. Having said this, true Muslims must not take part in the Shia rituals on the day of Ashura. Although we recognize that the death of Hussain ( ) was a tragic event, it is a Bidah (evil innovation to Islam) to commemorate his death because the Prophet ( ) did not do so. How could the Prophet ( ) comemmorate his death when the Prophet ( ) himself died many years before the death of Hussain ( )? Additionallyand this point cannot be stressed enoughthere were many Sahabah who were killed in the Path of Allah, but the Prophet ( ) never mourned their deaths in the manner in which the Shia mourn Hussain ( ). The Prophet lost his own dear uncle, his own wife, and many of his dearest companions, but do we see that the Prophet ( ) ever resorted to self-flagellation or excessive mourning? The Shia can never provide such an example from the life of the Prophet ( ), probably not even from Shia sources. Therefore, we find that it is not part of the Sunnah to mourn in such an uncivilized manner and we shall never take part in it because of this. Islam-qa.com says

Neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor his rightly-guided

successors (the khulafa al-raashidoon) did any of these things on the day of Aashooraa, they neither made it a day of mourning nor a day of celebration. all of this is reprehensible bidah and is wrong. None of it has anything to do with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or the way of the Khulafa alRaashidoon. It was not approved of by any of the imaams of the Muslims, not Maalik, not al-Thawri, not al-Layth ibn Sad, not Abu Haneefah, not al-Oozaai, not al-Shaafai, not Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not Ishaaq ibn Raahwayh, not any of the imaams and scholars of the Muslims. The religion of Islam is based on two principles: that we should worship nothing besides Allaah Alone, and that we should worship Him in the manner that He has prescribed, not by means of bidah or reprehensible innovations.

source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=4033&ln=eng&txt=ashoora

There have been many other great heroes of Islam who have been killed in the Path of Allah, and we do not find the Ahlus Sunnah comemmorating any of these days. The Ahlus Sunnah does not comemmorate the martyrdom of Umar ( ), Uthman ( ), or Ali ( ). The reason is that we find all this to be Bidah, and forms of exaggeration like the Christians who comemmorate the death of Isa ( ). We find it interesting that the Shia do not celebrate the death of Ali ( ) or any of their other heroes. Ali ( ) was stabbed to death, and he suffered a horrendous death. So what is the reason that the Shia make such a big deal about the death of Hussain ( ) but not of Ali ( )? Ali ( ) is in fact considered superior to Hussain ( ) by the Shia. So why the death of Hussain ( ) and not of Ali ( )? The reason is obvious: the Shia celebrate Ashura to spite the Sunni Muslims. The Shia attest that it was Yezid who killed Hussain ( ), and they say that Yezid was a Sunni. This is the reason that they mourn Hussain ( ), because they blame the Ahlus Sunnah for this tragic event. The Shia mourning on Ashura is therefore a spiteful fist in the air against the Sunni majority. The Shia leave no stone unturned in their defamation of the Ahlus Sunnah, and thus they want everyone to remember that it was Yezid the big bad Sunni who was responsible. As can be seen, the Shia mourning on Ashura has little do with their love for Hussain ( ), but rather has more to do with their hatred of the Sunnis. Why else do they not comemmorate the martyrdoms of their other heroes, such as Ali ( ) or Hamza ( )? The truth is that Ali ( ) was killed by the Khawarij, a group of the Shia! This is why the Shia today do not make a big fuss about the death of Ali ( ) since it was a man from their own party who killed him. It is much better instead to make great fan-fare about Hussains death ( ), since the Shia blame the Sunnis for this death. Sometimes the Shia of today will encourage the Sunnis to comemmorate Ashura, using and exploiting the fact that the Ahlus Sunnah also loves Hussain ( ). We strongly urge our

Muslim brothers not to fall into this trap of the Shia! They want us to take part in rituals that were designed to defame the Ahlus Sunnah, and nothing more. We cannot accept the Shia way of life. Additionally, comemmorating Ashura with any special ritual would be adding to the faith of Islam, and this is Bidah. Bidah is considered part of Hell-Fire, and whoever invents a Bidah is promised Hell-Fire as well. SunniPath.com says

[It is a] delusion that such innovation [commemorating Ashura] is a pious deedNor has such

commemoration been Sunni practice at all - even for the death of the Holy Prophet, whose passing from this world is a much greater loss - whether on Ashura or any other time of the year As for love of Ahl al-Bayt it is an integral of Sunni belief but in a Sunni way, not a sectarian way chock-full with ill feelings fanned by fabrications. Ibn Kathir said in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (8:201202): Al-Tabarani mentioned in this chapter very strange reports indeed and the Shi`a went overboard concerning the day of Ashura, forging many hadiths that are gross lies such as the sun being eclipsed on that day until the stars appeared, no stone was lifted except blood was seen under it, the celestial region became red, the sun and its rays seemed like blood, the sky seemed like a blood clot, the stars were hurling against one another, the sky rained red blood, there was never redness in the sky before that day, and the like among other lies and forgeries of which not one report is sound. Success is from Allah, may He keep us on the path of His Prophet and his Companions, away from sectarianism and bad adab posing as love of Ahl al-Bayt. Hajj Gibril

source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4949&CATE=1

From a logical standpoint too, we wonder if the Shia expect us to comemmorate the death of all the great heroes in Islam? If this were the case, then there would not be a single day left in the year in which the Muslims could be happy! Surely, in the great long history of Islam, there has been a martyrdom on every day of the year. And even if we began the practise of comemmorating the deaths of martyrs, then there would be a long list of people whose death we would begin to comemmorate. On this list, Hussain ( ) would not be the first, and there would be many before him. For example, we would comemmorate the wrongful deaths of Umar ( ), Uthman ( ), and Ali ( ). Let us also not forget to give precedence to the deaths of past Prophets and Mesengers. So the Shia cannot accuse us of not loving the Prophets grandson; this is a childish accusation, and we refute it by asking the Shia why they do not mourn the other 364 days of the year in which other great heroes died.

And what about Prophet Isa ( )? Should we also celebrate Christmas and Easter like the Christians do to celebrate the birth and death of Isa ( )? Would it not be a great Bidah to take part in these Christian comemmorations? Can the Shia provide even one difference between these Christian holidays and the Shia holidays? Why do the Shia find it permissible to celebrate the Prophet Muhammads birthday ( ) and comemmorate Hussains death ( ), but then they would look down on a Shia who took part in Christmas and Easter? If the Shia say that the Sunnis do not love the Prophets grandson because they do not comemmorate Ashura, based on this logic cant we also infer that the Shia do not love Prophet Isa ( ) since they fail to comemmorate his birth and death? Surely this is faulty logic. In regards to the actual rituals of the Shia, these are barbaric practises of self-flagellation, violence, and paganism. How can the Shia actually ask us to partake in such displays? We shall do no such thing and rather we shall distance ourselves from them. Instead, we shall continue to call our Shia brothers to the path of true Islam of the Ahlus Sunnah, as followed by Hussain ( ) himself. We will not exploit the death of the Prophets grandson for sectarian agenda, as the Shia have done. And the truth of the matter, as we shall see in future articles, is that the death of Hussain ( ) was the fault of the Shia of Kufa. If the Shia want us to remember tales of Yezids debauchery, then let us also remind them of the Shia of Kufa whose cowardice, back-stabbing, and deciet led to the demise of the Prophets grandson.

Racism in Shiism

Shia Hadith
When the Prophet sent ambassadors to Persia and called them to accept Islam, the Persians responded with haughtiness. They rebuffed the lowly Arab ambassador and categorically declared that the great Persian race could never submit to the lowly Arabs. Indeed, racism in Zoroastrian Persia was rampant; the fire-worshipping Persians had the notion that they were racially superior to all other races. The faith of Shiism found many supporters in Persia, and slowly the fire-worshipping ideologies of the Persians was fused into the Shia faith. The racism of the Persians eventually seeped into the Shia canon. The following are some Shia Hadith that blatantly teach racism, all recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith. They are also available on Al-Shia.com, a very authoratative website of the Shia. These Hadith (shown below) are Sahih according to the Shia, as they are narrated by Ali bin Ibrahimwho is considered to be of the utmost reliability according to the Shia. He was one of the most prominent sources in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith.

We see that the Shia religion is very much against black people, and these Hadith use the term Zunj which is a common Arabic word used to refer to all black people. The Arabic of the Hadith can be found on the Al-Shia.com website: Al-Shia.com says

)1 ( ): : 2 - 9563 ) : (2 ( ) : 3 - 9564 ) .4 ( : ( ) .( 3) ( ): .(1 - 9562 ( ) :

___________________________________ ) : . : ( )(1 ) -: .( )(2 .14) : (3 ) -: . .( ) -: . (*)(4

].

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/index.html

Translation: 1. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Masadah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mumineen Ali [as] said:

Beware of marrying the Negroes (Zunj) for they are an ugly creation.(al-Kafi,
fil Furoo: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 1) 2. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Ismael bin Muhammad al-Makki, from Ali bin al-Husain, from Amr bin Othman, from al-Husain bin Khalid, from whom he entioned from Abu Ar-Rabi al-Shami said:Imam Abu Abdullah [as] said:

Do not [even] buy anyone who is a Negronever marry anyone of the Kurdish (people) for they are part of the Jinn (demons) (al-Kafi, fil Furoo: Book
of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 2) 3. (Narrated) Several of our fellows from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Musa bin Jafar, from Amr bin Saeed, from Muhammad bin Abdillah al-Hashimi, from Ahmad bin Yousuf, from Ali bin Dawood al-Haddaad said: Imam Abu Abdullah [as] said:

Marry not from the Negroes (Zanj) nor the Khazar, for they have near relatives whom are unfaithful. (al-Kafi, fil Furoo: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are
Disliked for Marriage, Narration 3) He further said:

India, Sindh and Qindhnot a single one of them [from there] is intelligent. (al-Kafi, fil Furoo: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage,
Narration 3) India of course refers to India, Sindh to Pakistan, and Qindh refers to Afghanistan. Khazar refers to the northern areas near the Black Sea. And the Negroes are of course from the West of Persia in Africa. If we notice, Shiism is racist towards everyone other than the Persians. People of every region surrounding Persia are considered inferior, including Africans, Kurds, Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Indians. The racism is also levied against Arabs and Arab culture. It is written in the Shia book Tareekh-alIslam that when Allah becomes happy, then He talks in Persian, and He only speaks Arabic when He becomes annoyed. (Tareekh-al-Islam, p.163) Another interesting point is that although the Shia believe in the superiority of the Prophets descendants, they only trace it (i.e. the Ahlel Bayt) through the progeny of Hussain. They ignore the progeny of his brother, Hasan. It does not take much thought to realize why this is the case. Hussain married a Persian, and thus his progeny was Persian. Therefore, the Shia found it prudent to abandon the non-Persian progeny of Hasan and instead they only trace their Imamah through the descendants of Hussain.

Ahlus Sunnah Rejects Racism


Whereas the Shia Hadith advocate racism, the Hadith of the mainstream Muslims completely rejects racism. Here are some Hadith considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah.

The Prophet said: An arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor has a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab, nor has a black man any superiority over a white man or a white man over a black man except by the criterion of taqwa (righteous practice). All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust. (AsSunan) The Prophet also said: Allah does not look at your shapes or your colors but He looks at your hearts (intentions) and your deeds. Creatures are the dependants of Allah and the closest among them to Allah are indeed the most useful to His dependants. Assabiyyah (nationalism/tribalism/bigotry) is strictly Haram (forbidden) based on the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah. The Prophet said: He is not one us who calls for Assabiyyah or who fights for Assabiyyah or who dies for Assabiyyah. (Abu Dawood) The Prophet said about Assabiyyah: Leave it. It is rotten. (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim) We ask our Shia brothers to look inside their hearts and ask themselves wether they would rather follow an Islam that preaches racism (i.e. Shiism) or an Islam that preaches racial equality (i.e. Ahlus Sunnah)?

Saying Ya Ali Madad is Shirk

The Shia are guilty of committing Shirk by giving characteristics of Allah to their Imams. The Shia even pray to their Imams and invoke their names by saying Ya Ali or Ya Hussain or Ya Nabi! They then proceed to make dua asking for whatever they want. The famous Shia prayer Ya Ali Madad means O Ali, help us! According to the very basic principles of Islam, this is Shirk (associating partners with Allah). What power does Ali have to grant our requests? What power does Prophet Muhammad have to grant our requests? Indeed, nobody save Allah has the power to grant our requests.

It is not permissible to ask Allah by the virtue of anyone, not even by the virtue of the Prophets or Messengers or Awliyaa or righteous people. No one can compel Allah to do anything. It is not permissible to ask Him in any way except by His Names and Attributes, as Allah says: And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him (Quran, 7:180) And yet we see the Shia saying things like Naad-e-Ali which means call on Ali! We should only call on Allah. Ali will tell these deviant Shia to stop calling him as he has no power, but rather to call Allah for help. In the same manner will Prophet Isa repudiate the Christians for calling on him as opposed to Allah. With regard to saying to the occupant of a grave, O So and so, help me, this is obviously Shirk, because it is a supplication to someone other than Allah. Asking by the virtue of someone is a means to Shirk, and calling upon a created being is Shirk in worship. How can a Muslim seek assistance from any other than Allah Almighty? Despite the fact that every Muslim must repeat the following words from the Quran in his prayer (salat) at least seventeen times a day: You alone do we worship, and Your aid alone we seek. (Quran, 1:5) We see the Shia saying things like Ya Ali and Ya Mehdi when they are distressed and need help. They will say Ya Ali Madad! These people cry out these names in times of distress when they wish for help. In true Islam, however, we should only say Ya Allah! Calling out anyone elses name for help is Shirk, because we believe only Allah can help us! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet, as well as the way of Ali. Allah Almighty says clearly in the Quran: And invoke not, besides Allah, [anyone since that] will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers). And if Allah should afflict you with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His grace. (Quran, 10:106-107) Humans, no matter their status, cannot help anyone or harm anyone. Only Allah Almighty can cause harm and only He can bring benefit to us. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: Say [O Muhammad]: I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as Allah wills (Quran, 7:188) If the Prophet could not even have power of good or harm over himself, then how can we say that he has such powers over others? If the Prophet himself declares that he cannot bring good or harm, then why are we asking him? Islam is a fiercely monothiestic faith, and rejects all forms of intermediaries with Allah. Intermediaries are none other than idols. The pagans believe that their idols are intermediaries, and they invoke them to ask God for help through them. So too do the Christians believe in Jesus as an intermediary to God. And so have the Imams become an intermediary and idols for the Shia. How often do we hear the Shia say: Ya Ali, give us [such and such] or Ya Hussain, rescue us! The Shia even go to the graves of their Imams, crying and rubbing their tombs; it is not unusual to see a

Shia kissing the grave of his Imam and invoking the deceased Imams name in dua. The Shia cry to their idols, kiss them, and invoke them. Then after doing all of this, the same Shia will say unashamedly about the Imam whose tomb they just cried to: I do not worship him. This fact is embodied in their dictum: Call upon Ali, the revealer of wonders. When these same people are asked if they worship Ali, they categorically deny this, despite the fact that they call upon his name (and their Imams) appealing for aid in obtaining their most demanding needs. This is exactly what modern day Hindus do. They worship idols, but if we ask them, they will look at us straight in the eye and say that they are monothiests. They claim that they arent worshipping the idols, and that the idols are just intermediaries to God. O Shia, come to the Call of Islam and to Absolute Tawheedullah (Oneness of Allah). La Illaha IllalahThere is no God except Allah! None is equal to Him and no partners and no intermediaries does He need. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: The most beautiful names belong to Allah; so call on Him by them (Quran, 7:180) Allah did not say: So call on Him by the names of the Imams, their shrines, etc. Allah Almighty also said in the Quran: And your Lord says: Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer). (Quran, 40:60) Allah did not say: Call on Me by the names of the Imams, I will answer your prayer. We should invoke Allah and Allah alone for Help, and asking anyone else is Shirk, the one sin Allah will not forgive. Allah Almighty says it so clearly in the Quran: Verily those whom you call upon besides Allah are servants like you. Therefore, call upon them, and let them listen to your prayers, if you are (indeed) truthful! (Quran, 7: 194) This is a challenge from Allah, whereby Allah dares anyone to ask others for help. Nobody can listen to our prayers and grant them except Allah the Almighty. Allah Almighty mocks those people who go to graves to supplicate invoking their Saints: If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.But you cannot make those hear who are in graves (Quran, Chapter 35) Islam shuns the superstitious (and useless) practise of visiting graves to worship (and in fact considers it Haram). Allah Almighty says in the Quran:

Call upon those whom you imagine beside Allah! They have not an atoms weight of power either in the heavens or in the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor does He need any of them as a helper. (Quran, 34:22) Allah Almighty says again in the Quran: Yet have they taken, besides Him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor Life nor Resurrection. (Quran, 25:3) Prophet Muhammad and Ali will say it proudly on the Day of Judgement that they are only slaves of Allah. In fact, the Prophet was asked by Allah if he would rather be a king of men or a slave of Allah. The Prophet chose to be a slave of Allah. There is no shame in this, and it is not belittling the status of either the Prophet nor Ali in the least in admitting that they cannot give benefit nor do harm even to themselves. The Christians may think that we are insulting Prophet Jesus by saying that he is only a slave, but the Quran says: Christ disdains not to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah).(Quran, 4:172) The Prophet and Ali would be included in those nearest (to Allah) who would not disdain to serve and worship Allah. All are powerless except Allah, and this is why we ask only Him for help. This is the essence of Islam. Anything other than this is Shirk and subsequent Kufr. The Shia teach their children to supplicate by calling out the names of their Imams, thereby inculcating the habits of polythiesm in their children from a young age. This must be rejected, and children must be taught to only ask Allah for help and do so by using His Names, as mentioned in the Quran. We will even find Shia who recite the names of Ali, Hasan, and Hussain whilst they do Tasbeeh, and claim that this is Dhikr. It is nothing short of Shirk, and Ali would burn such people on the stake if he knew that they were doing such things. In a similar manner did Ali burn the followers of Abdullah ibn Saba to the stake for the very same blasphemy. The Shia believe that their prayers are accepted because they invoke the names of their Imams. They believe that the names of their Imams are the key-factor for acceptance of their prayers and a major prerequisite for getting invocations answered by Allah. This is similar to the unfounded claim by the polythiests who say that their idols draw them nearer to Allah. The polythiests would say that the idols are a Waseelah to bring them close to Allah. And likewise, the Shia say that their Imams and Saints are the Waseelah to Allah, intermediaries who can bring them closer to Allah. This is the concept of Tawassul, but it is rejected by true Muslims, who believe that the only Waseelah to Allah is to be pious and to invoke Allah and Allah alone for help! Whoever worships Ali, know that he is dead and that he cannot hear our cries, and even if he could, he could do nothing to help us. But whoever worships Allah, let him know that Allah is Alive and can never die, and that He has promised us help if we just turn to Him and Him alone. We should say only Ya Allah Madad.

Turbah: Sajdah to the Imams

The Shia place a piece of stone or clay, known as Turbah, on the ground so that their forehead touches the stone when they prostrate themselves in prayer. The Turbahs are made out of the stone or clay from the shrines of Imams or saints. Oftentimes, the Turbah is made from the clay or stone from Imam Hussains shrine. The Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussains shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Kaabah. By praying to stones made from the shrines of their Imams and saints, the Shia are practising a polythiestic and paganistic act of grave-worshipping; they are quite literally making Sajood (prostration) to the Imams or saints. Indeed, praying to the Turbah of these Imams and saints is Bidah (evil innovation) and Shirk; it is not much different than idol worshipping. What is the difference between the idol that Hindus do Sajood to and the Turbah that the Shia do Sajood to? Both are considered Waseelah to bring them closer to God, and both of them are prostrated to. Shiism is rooted in Shirk; the Shia have allowed their so-called love for the Imams translate into polythiestic adoration.

Turbulent History of Imamah


y

The First Ten Imams

The cornerstone of the Shia faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal leadership of this Ummah after the demise of the Prophet ( ) is vested in the Imam, who is appointed, like the Prophet ( ) himself, by Allah, and who enjoys all the distinctions and privileges of a Prophet. (In fact, the Shia regard their Imams as superior to all of the Prophets aside from Prophet Muhammad [ ]) However, the Shia believe that Imamah, unlike Prophethood, can never come to an end. In this regard there is a well-known Shia hadith which says that the world cannot exist without an Imam, and another which says: if the earth were to be without an Imam for a single day, it would sink. Thus, when it came to pass that the first of those whom they regard as their Imams (Ali [ ]) left this world, a problem arose. Some of those who regarded themselves as his followers claimed that he did not in fact die, but that he was in occultation and would return to establish justice. Others said that he was succeeded as Imam by his son Hasan ( ), who was in turn succeeded by his brother Hussain ( ).

When Hussain ( ) died, there were some who claimed to follow his other brother Muhammad (known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah) as their Imam. When he died, his followers claimed that he was in reality alive, in occultation, and that he will return in due time. Others amongst the Shia took Hussains son, Ali, surnamed Zayn al-Abidin, as their Imam, and upon his death transferred their loyalties to his son, Muhammad al-Baqir. When al-Baqir died, there were once again elements from amongst the Shia who denied his death and claimed that he would return one day, while others took his son Jafar as-Sadiq as their Imam. When he died, there was mass confusion amongst the Shia: each of his sons (Ismail, Abdullah, Muhammad, Zakariyya, Ishaq and Musa) were claimed by various groups amongst the Shia to be their Imam. In addition to them, there was a group who believed that Jafar did not really die, and that he would return one day. More or less the same thing happened at the death of his son Musa. Some of the Shia denied his death, believing that he will return, and others decided to take as their new Imam one of his sons. Some of these chose his son Ahmad, while others chose his other son Ali ar-Rida. After him, they took as their Imam his son Muhammad al-Jawwad (or at-Taqi), and after him his son Ali al-Hadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi, they looked upon his son Hasan al-Askari as their newand 11thImam.

Death of the Eleventh Imam

Six years later, in 260 AH, Hasan al-Askari, at the very young age of 28, is lying on his deathbed, but unlike any of his forefathers, he leaves no offspring, no one to whom the Shia might appropriate as their new Imam. The Shia who had been regarding Hasan al-Askari as their Imam were thrown into mass disarray. Would this mean the end of the Imamah? The end of the Imamah would mean the end of Shiism and the Shia were surely not ready for this. The confusion that reigned amongst the Shia after the death of Hasan al-Askari is reflected by the Shia writer Hasan ibn Musa an-Nawbakhti (who was alive at the time), who counts the emergence of altogether fourteen sects amongst the followers of Hasan al-Askari, each one with a different view on the future of the Imamah and the identity of the next Imam. Another Shia writer, Saad ibn Abdullah al-Qummi, who also lived during the same time, counts fifteen sects, and a century later the historian al-Masudi enumerates altogether twenty separate sects. There were four major trends amongst these various sects: (1) There were those who accepted the death of Hasan al-Askari as a fact, and accepted also the fact that he left no offspring. To them, Imamah had thus come to an end, just like Prophethood came to an end with the death of Prophet Muhammad ( ). However, there were some amongst them who kept hoping for the advent of a new Imam. (2) The second trend was to deny the death of Hasan al-Askari, and to claim that he would return in the future to establish justice upon earth. This idea of occultation of the Imam is used by the Shia of various sects whenever it is convenient.

(3) The third trend was to extend the chain of Imamah to Hasans brother Jafar. (4) The fourth trend was the claim that Hasan al-Askari did in fact have a son, but that the son went into occultation. The Ithna Ashari Shia (i.e. Twelvers) are from this group.

Multitude of Shia Sects

Throughout the history of the Shia, there have been dozens upon dozens of sects, each claiming another lineage for the Imamah. And at each turn, either the Imamah goes to a son, a brother, or if not any of these, then the Imam must have gone into occultation; at each step, there are more schisms and consquently more Shia sects. Because of this, there have been somewhere near one hundred or even more sects of Shiism. Today, there are dozens of existing Shia sects (Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Usoolis, Imamis, Shaikis, Akhbaris, etc) but it should be remembered that for each sect in existence today, there are dozens more which died out. There are fiver, sixer, sevener, niner, elevener, twelver, fourteen-er Shia. In Shia belief, it is Kufr (disbelief) to falsely ascribe Imamah to an individual who is not really the Imam. As such, each Shia sect looks down upon the other Shia sects as Kufaar (disbelievers) since they follow a different chain of Imamah. An unbiased outsider would no doubt find this amusing, but the Ithna Ashari Shia is adamant when he looks down on Ismailis, Aga Khanis, Bohras, Druze, and other Shia sects, unable to see the same inaneness about himself. In their own circles, the Ithna Ashari Shia scoff at Ismailis and look at them as a silly minority of heretics. Little do these same Ithna Ashari Shia realize that the vast majority of the Ummah (namely the Ahlus Sunnah) looks down upon the Ithna Ashari Shia in the same way. Shiism is simply a collection of heretics of every different color. Even the way a Shia has to identify himself is reflective of the number of sects at every turn: the Shia must describe himself as not just an Ithna Ashari but rather as Ithna Ashari Imami Usooli Jaffari Shia. Twelver Ithna Ashari Shiism was never the predominant sect of Shiism like it is today; it was as marginal as the rest of the Shia sects. The only reason that the Twelver Ithna Ashari Shia have become so predominant is simply because of the actions of one man: Shah Ismail I, ruler of the Safavid Empire. He converted to Ithna Ashari Shiism because he wanted to oppose the dominant Ottoman Empire which was Sunni. So Ismail I made Ithna Ashari Shiism the official state religion and forced the entire Persian population to convert to Shiism or accept the penalty of death. This was the Shia Inquisition against the Sunnis of Persia, who made up the majority of the population in Persia up until this point. If it had not been for Shah Ismail I, the Ithna Ashari sect would have died out just like the other dozens of Shia sects died out; or at most, it would have been a marginal sect like all the other obscure Shia sects (including Ismailis, Druze, Bohras, etc). Had Shah Ismail I converted to the Druze Shia sect, then the majority of Shia today would be Druze. It was simply chance that the Ithna Ashari sect became the dominant Shia sect; had Shah Ismail I not been born, then the chances are that the majority of Shia alive today would not be Ithna Ashari. Despite the multitude of Shia sects, they are the same: they are all false religions which use their fabricated Hadith to justify their own Imams. These Shia criticize the Sunnis for not following the

Imams, but they themselves cant agree on who the Imam is! How fickle are the Shia that they can attribute divine appointment at whim! The truth is that there is no such thing as Imamah, and the Doors of Prophethood have forever been closed with the Prophet Muhammad ( ). There is nobody after him, and anyone who claims this is a Dajjal. The last Prophet was Muhammad ( ) and his name was mentioned in the Quran. Where are these other so-called Infallible Imams in the Quran? Why did Allah not include them? Certainly that would have cleared up the mass confusion amongst the various Shia sects. Will the Shia then not understand the folly in their ways and how far they have strayed away from the Quran?

The Quran Challenge

Crux of the Sunni/Shia Divide The center of the debate between the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia revolves around the issue of Imamah (i.e. Aimmatal Masoomeen). The importance of Imamah is so great that the Shia Ulema consider those who reject Imamah to be Kaffir. Likewise, the Sunni Ulema consider those who accept (in toto) the Shia doctrine of Imamah to be Kaffir. Most of the polemical debate between Sunni and Shia revolves around peripheral issues such as Mutah, Matam, Saqifah, Ghadeer Khumm, Fadak, and other such side issues. However, the fundamental issue of debatenamely Imamahis oftentimes ignored. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih: Every other disagreement the Shia have with the Sunnis [other than Imamah] has its roots in the Shia insistence on Imamah as a principle of Islam, both in belief and practise. From differing views and interpretations of history, entirely different systems of Hadith collection and authentication, and divergent manners of performing Islamic practises, all these dissimilarities can be traced back to Imamah as a doctrine in Shia faith. It is therefore only reasonable that the focus of any serious quest for truth would begin and end with the principle of Imamah in the mind of the truth-seeker. Trying to research about the differences between Shia and Sunni without considering the dogma of Imamah as a main sticking point will lead to dead ends and fruitless arguments. I have personally witnessed a number of [Sunni-Shia] discussions that quickly descend into chaos because one side or the other wishes to discuss a subject of peripheral importance. Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.5;Download book here It is safe to say that if the Shia did not believe in the concept of Imamah, then they would not be considered a separate sect. The other issues of contention between Sunni and Shia are simply a

consequence of Imamah. Hence, Imamah and its validity in the Quran is the main issue of contention between the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah and their Shia brothers. Imamah Before we proceed, it is important to state what exactly is the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Shia doctrine of Imamah: Apart from the Prophets, there are another group of God-appointed persons called Imams. These are people who possess Ismah (infallibility) and have access to a knowledge that is not accessible by ordinary people. The world cannot be empty of an Imam otherwise it will be destroyed. In the Islamic context, these individuals are twelve people among the descendants of the Holy Prophet ( ) who are appointed by nobody except Allah ( ) alone to lead the Muslims. Anyone who chooses a leader other than these twelve is misguided and not a complete believer. The twelvth (last) of the Imams is the Mehdi and, although he has been in occultation for more than one thousand years, he will return when Allah ( ) wishes and then justice will prevail. Importance of Imamah The above stated doctrine of Imamah is the core belief of the Shia. The Shia consider five articles of belief as fundamentals of religion. These are: 1. Tawheed (Oneness of God) 2. Nabuwwah (Prophethood) 3. Maad (Day of Judgement) 4. Adl (Justice of God) 5. Imamah (the above stated doctrine) Imamah is considered by the Shia to be one of the Usool-e-Deen [fundamentals of religion]. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih: In Shiism, the matters of religion are divided into Usool-e-Deen and Furoo-e-Deen. The Usool-eDeen are the principles of belief in the religion, analogous to the Pillars of Faith in Sunnism. The Furoo-e-Deen relates to the practises in the religion, such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and so on. To introduce the reader to what constitutes the Usool-e-Deen in Shiism, I will quote the following tract from Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghitas book The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles (Asl ash-Shiah wa Usuluha): Those matters which concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion) and they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl, and Maad. [The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles, Part II: Fundamentals of the Religion, Part II: The Fundmentals of the Religion, Section The Fundamental Beliefs, p.218]
In similar fashion, the Shia scholar Muhammad Ridha Muzaffar states: We believe that the Imamah is one of the fundamentals of Islam (Usool-e-Deen), and that mans faith can never be complete without belief in it. The [only] real issue of contention [between Sunni and Shia] is with respect to [the belief in] Imamah. As [the Shia scholar] Allamah Kashiful Ghita mentions: It is the question of the Imamah which

distinguishes the Shia sect from all other sects. Other differences are not fundamental; they are furooi (i.e. secondary) [Asl-ul-Shia wa Usuluha, p.221] Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.7;Download book here Thus, the importance of Imamah in Shiism is more than the importance of Salat (prayer); Imamah is considered Usool-e-Deen [i.e. fundamental] whereas Salat is Furoo-e-Deen [i.e. secondary]. It would be accurate to say that the Furoo-e-Deen are a direct consequence of the Usool-e-Deen. Imamah is considered the most important pillar of Islam. And by Imamah, we do not mean leadership since even the Sunnias well as any group of peopleconsider leadership to be an important issue. When we refer to Imamah we are referring to the specific Shia doctrine of Godappointed infallible leaders who must be followed. Denying Imamah The sheer importance that the Shia scholars give to Imamah can be seen by their views on those who reject Imamah. Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this: Al-Shia.com says

: .

(6)

Translation: Imam Al-Saduk says, Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets. Further, he states: And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] but rejects a single Imam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all of the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html Al-Shia.com says

Shaikh Mufid declared:

Translation: The Imamiyyah [Shia] are in agreement (Ijma) that the one who rejects the Imamah of one Imam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar23/a39.html

Therefore, we see that this issue of Imamah is not one to be taken lightly. On the one side, the Shia scholars say that those who reject Imamah are misguided and deserving of Hell-Fire. On the other hand, the Sunni scholars say that those who accept the Shia doctrine of Imamah in toto [i.e. in totality] are guilty of believing in false prophethood (i.e. Dajjals). Where is the Doctrine of Imamah in the Quran? We ask the reader: where is the doctrine of Imamah in the Quran? This is a very sound question. The Quran is the book of guidance and we have been told by the Prophet ( ) that whenever we feel lost, we can consult the Quran and it will never betray us. The Shia doctrine of Imamah is not a minor issue, but rather it is very important and it is the core belief of the Shia. Its importance is to the extent that the Shia Ulema hold that because of disbelief in this doctrine, 80% of Muslims are misguided and in fact not true believers. If this is the case, then we ask the reader: which verses of the Quran have given us this all-important doctrine of Imamah? If Imamah is central to Islam, and the Quran is the central book of Islam, then surely the Quran should have the belief of Imamah in it. And yet, for hundreds of years, the Shia scholars have not been able to answer the Quran Challenge. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah has repeatedly challenged the Shia to produce even one single verse in the Quran that outlines the Shia concept of Imamah. Time and time again, anyone who tries to seek proof for Imamah from the Quran fails to do so. The Quran Challenge This is an open challenge for the Shia to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can the Shia produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to support their interpretation, without Tafseer, and without their own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse? When the Shia is forced to produce the Quranic verses without any additions, he will find it impossible to even come close to fulfilling the Quran Challenge. Not a single verse in the Quran says anything even remotely close to O believers, after the Prophet, there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow them. The Shia can never produce a single verse in the Quran that shows anything evensimilar to this. In fact, the Shia will be forced to produce long Tafseer and circuitious arguments involving certain verses with added meanings to them; but if we ask the Shia to simply read the verse without any insertions, then suddenly they cannot produce even a single verse in the Quran to justify Imamah. Suffice to say that the Shia becomes polemically incapacitated if he is forced to use the Quran and Quran alone. The Shia have stated that Imamah is the fundamental of faith, and so there should thus be many verses in the Quran on this topic. Yet, the Quran Challenge only asks for the Shia to produce even a couple of verses from the Quran, yet even this is not possible. Not a single verse in the Quran

mentions the names of their Infallible Imams; not even Alis name ( ) is ever mentioned in the Quran. But more importantly than this, there is not a single mention of the very concept of Imamah. This is peculiar, to say the least; how can Imamah be part of Usool-e-Deen (a fundamental pillar of faith) and yet not be mentioned even a single time in the Quran? The truth is that the Quran mentions all the fundamentals of belief, and if something is not in the Quran, then that thing cannot possibly be a fundamental of belief. Imamah Not Mentioned in Quran Every single fundamental of Islam is mentioned in the Quran numerous times. Tawheed and the concept of Allah ( ) are mentioned over two thousand times. The concept of Messengers and Prophets [Risalah and Nabuwwah] is mentioned repeatedly; in fact, the words Rasool and Nabi is used over four hundred times. All of the other Usool-e-Deen (fundamental of religion), other than Imamah, are mentioned hundreds of times in the Quran. Yet, the Quran remains completely silent on the issue of Imamah. The Shia say that Imamah is one of the Usool-e-Deen, but we see that even the Furoo-e-Deen (the subsidiary and secondary parts of religion) are mentioned much more than Imamah is (which is actually never mentioned). Salat (prayer), the second pillar of Islam, is mentioned 700 times in the Quran. Zakat (charity), the third pillar of Islam, has been mentioned over 150 times. And yet, where is Imamah? The Quran is the complete guide for humanity, and yet the Shia are saying that the fundamental core belief (i.e. Imamah) is not in it. The Quran clearly says that Muhammad ( ) is divinely appointed as the the Messenger of Allah ( ) and that we should follow him. If there was another divinely appointed person we were supposed to follow after him, shouldnt his name also be mentioned in the Quran? Why is it too much to ask that the twelve Imams be named in the Quran? Or how about even one of them? Not even Ali ( ) is named in the Quran. For argument sake, we will not even demand names; what about even the very concept of divinely appointed Imams that will come after the Prophet ( ) and that we must follow them? We would argue that Allah ( ) should have included the names of such people for the book to really be complete, yet we are unable to find even a single verse in the Quran which describes even the concept of Imamah. Not a single verse can the Shia produce in this regard. The Quran is the ultimate guide for humanity. It contains all the fundamental beliefs of our faith. If Imamah was really a part of our faith, then it would be in the Quran. But Imamah is not in the Quran and we reject whatever belief is not justified in the Quran. There are many verses in the Quran that say that the believers are those who pray, give alms to the poor, do good deeds, and other such things; but why is it that not a single verse says the believers are those who follow and obey the Infallible Imam? Conclusion Both Sunni and Shia, as well as all other Islamic-oriented sects, have their own set of Hadith, Tafseer, historical accounts, and rituals. However, the Quran should be mutually agreed upon by both sides as being an authentic guide to the truth. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih, in order for a dialogue between Sunni and Shia to be fruitful, the Lowest Common Denominator should be found, a work that will be accepted as fully authentic in terms of its message and its integriy by both the Sunni and Shia sides. This book is, of course, the Noble Quran. Therefore, the first and most important place to look for resolving big differences of doctrine such as those between the Sunni and Shia sects should be the Quran.

Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.14;Download book here Thus, whichever group has basis for its beliefs in the Quran, it is this group that we should adhere to. A group whose beliefs are not in the Quran cannot be followed as this would be refuting the Word of Allah ( ). The Quran is complete in its guidance; Allah Almighty ( ) says: We have left nothing out of the Book. (Quran, 6:38) In Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia believe are Alis sermons and letters, Ali ( ) says: The Quran is the Hujjat (Proof) of Allah for his servantsit is the basis of Islamand the guidance for anyone who follows it and justification for anyone who takes it as his approach and the evidence for anyone who takes it as his supporter in his discussions and winner for anyone who uses it for making his arguments. [Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 198] Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in Shia Hadith: Anyone who comes to recognize the truth from any sources other than the Quran will not be saved from Fitnah. The importance of the Quran is stated clearly by the Infallible Imams of the Shia: If you come across two Hadiths narrated from us [Imams] then compare them with the Book of Allah; what is in accordance then take it and what is in disagreement then reject it. (Al-Istibsar, Volume 1, p.190) And again: Whatever comes to you related from us [Imams] then compare it with the Book of Allah; whatever is in accordance with it then accept it and whatever contradicts it then reject it. (AlIstibsar, Volume 3, p.158) The realization that Imamah does not appear in the Quran may come as a shock to our Shia brothers. We encourage them to look in the Quran for verses about the twelve Infallible Imams, and surely they will not find any. As stated by one brother: I did not find Shiism in the Quran.

You might also like