In the name of God, Most Merciful, Most Kind

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

Understanding Shia/Imaami/Jafari Islam

Topics covered are:

• 20 questions for Sunnis

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

For more information about Shia Islam visit

http://www.answering-ansar.org
Al-islam.org
 Our 20 questions…
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/20questions/en/index.php
Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na'eemi of Sahiwa'al, Pakistan
was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research
converted to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari Faith. The rationale for
his conversion was that he had questions that he found the
Ahlul' Sunnah Ulema could not answer satisfactorily. These
are those questions; they remain unanswered to this day.
Tragically he was martyred for his beliefs, may Allah (swt)
reward him and grant him a place in Paradise. Footnotes
have been added for the purposes of further clarity.
1) History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saww)
declared his Prophet hood (saww), the Quraysh1 subjected
the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took
the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they
remained for three years, suffering from immense
hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath
Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did
they not help the Holy Prophet (saww)? If they were
unable to join the Prophet (saww) at the Shib Abi Talib is
there any evidence that they provided any type of support
(food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh
boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?
2). Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her
father (saww), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half
years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their
later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to
the Prophet (saww) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she
request that she be buried away from her father? If so,
why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number
546)
3). Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed
as the most superior on account of his closeness to the
Holy Prophet (saww). If this is indeed the case then why
did the Holy Prophet (saww) not select him to be his
brother when he (saww) divided the companions in to pairs
on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saww)
chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this
world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu
Bakr closer? (See The History of the Khalifahs who took
the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by
Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers)
4). The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions
narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah
Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by
Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan
(as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case?
When the Prophet (saww) declared
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
"I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it’s Gate”, did
Hadrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the
Prophet (saww) than these individuals?
5). If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first
three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles
that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad
against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the
Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time,
then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties
unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of
Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?
6). If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were
responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the
majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they
were in the majority, there were millions of such
individuals, what was their position at that time?
7). If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the
dying request of the Holy Prophet (saww) on the premise
that the 'Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7
hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing
the Holy Prophet (saww) of speaking nonsense?
(See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)
8) . Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind.
Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these
Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral
preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If
no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet
(saww)'s companions follow this approach?
"the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so
important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's
funeral" - taken from Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p
175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall,
Karachi).
9). Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what
evidence is there that they left everything for their
followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did
the Prophet (saww)'s wives not give all their possessions to
the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the
wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul'bayt,
this being the case why did they hold on to their
possessions?
10). We read in the Holy Qur'an "And whoever kills a
believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall
abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on
him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great
torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the
battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives.
What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not
applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the
Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading
fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position
on the Day of Judgement?
11). Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur'an "And of the
people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You
know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101).
The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the
lifetime of the Prophet (saww). After the Prophet (saww)'s
death where did they go? Historians record the fact that
two groups emerged following the Prophet (saww)'s
demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and
their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join?
12).Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an,
Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles
adopted by the parties during their discussions about the
Prophet's successor at the Saqifa?
13).If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to
apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn
Mu'awiya will lead to such persons being raised as
betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who
rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?
This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of
Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9
hadith number 127)
14). It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties
have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be
right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will
both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven,
because both were right?
15). The Holy Prophet (saww) had said "I swear by the
one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a
shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". Do
any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saww) had
guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi,
Hanbal and their followers? (Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al
Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7)
16). During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe
critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated
his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to
rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers
should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah,
portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise
opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her
desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by
her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath
Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever",
see: History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14,
p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid,
v16, pp 220-223
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr
what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?
Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu'awiya (Tarikh al Islam,
by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)
18). It is commonly conveyed that the companions were
brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time
worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their
bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffirs
did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during
the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain?
How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath?
If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers
it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet
(saww)'s order refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty
of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and
instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his
relationship to the Ummaya clan. (Al Faruq by Allamah
Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by
Muhammad Saleem, Ashraf Publishers)
19). The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy
Prophet (saww) foretold the coming of twelve khalifas after
him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve
Imams from the Ahlul'bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out
the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn
Mu'awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet
(saww) really referring to such a man? When we also have
a hadith that states 'He who dies without giving bayah to
an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of
jahiliyya'(3) then it is imperative that we identify and
determine who these twelve khalifas are.
1. "The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted
as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added
from Quraish" (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number
4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui).
2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers
Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).
3. ibid, page 175
20). Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur'an
states quite categorically that no one has that right "And it
is not for a believing man or woman that they should have
any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have
decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his
Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying". With this
verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih
prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one
sitting and the formula 'Prayer is better than Sleep' in the
Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah
(swt)'s orders in favour of his own?
(Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338,
English translation by Muhammad Saleem, Ashraf
Publishers)
 Origins of Shi’a
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/origins_of_shia/en/index.php
Islam is a deen that passed through 124,000 Prophets, it
came bit by bit. Imagine a jigsaw. Each Prophet brought a
piece of the puzzle, starting with Hadhrath Adam (as) until
the final piece of the puzzle came in to the hand of
Hadhrath Muhammad (saws). This role of Prophet hood
was explained beautifully by the Prophet (saws) himself:
"My relation to the long chain of Prophets can be
understood by the parable of a Palace. The Palace
was most beautifully built. Everything was complete
therein except the place for one brick. I have filled
in that place and now the Palace has been
completed".
[Towards understanding Islam by Sayyid Abu'l Ala
Maudoodi, page 49 Editors footnote quoting Sahih Bukhari
and Muslim (Islamic Foundation publishers) ]
During the lifetime of the companions, the Holy Prophet (s)
was the Practical Guide to the inner and outer meanings of
the Qur'an. With his death, did this type of guidance end?
Clearly the need for guidance would have been much more
necessary for future generations that had never benefited
from the Prophet (s)'s company.
Some people assert that the companions fulfilled this role
of guidance. This contention is not supported by hadith, for
the Prophet (s) had warned the companions not to become
kaffirs by killing each other.[Sahih Bukhari V 9 # 198 -
200]. He (s) also said that afflictions would fall on to their
homes in the same way that rain drops fall(1) and that
some would become apostates after him(2) with the
majority perishing in the fire(3). [(1). Sahih al Bukhari V 9
#182 (2). Sahih al Bukhari V8 # 586 (3). Sahih al Bukhari
V 8 # 587 ]
In the same way that a Doctor after identifying a condition
prescribes medication for his patient, the Prophet (s) had
likewise told the companions where they should turn to for
guidance. During his farewell sermon at Arafat he (s)
declared "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you
follow them you will never go astray, they are the
Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". [Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, page
662-663 ]
The sermon was announced to the Companions, thus
proving that even they were liable of going astray if they
turned away from these two sources. Those muslims, that
have clung to these two sources as an eternal form of
guidance are called the 'Shi'a' (partisans), defined by the
Sunni scholar Ibn Manzur, as "those people who love
what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are
loyal to such Progeny". [Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur,
vol. 8, p189 ]
We consider the Ahl'ulbayt as the designated guides
appointed by Allah (swt). While past Khalifas were in
positions of power, they did not inherit the knowledge,
position and wisdom of the Holy Prophet, who specifically
told the companions that Hadhrath Ali (as) had inherited
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
the Qur'an and Sunnah from him. [Riyadh al Nadira, by
Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 3 p 123]
The inheritance of religious guidance passed through 12
designated Imams from Ahl'ulbayt, there are numerous
hadith where the Prophet (s) declared that Islam would
remain intact until the passing of 12 khalifas. [Mishkat al
Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5]
This fact is strengthened further by the hadith recorded by
the recognized Sunni scholar Al-Juwayni in which the
Prophet said that he would have 12 successors the first
being Imam Ali, the last being Imam Mahdi. [Fara'id al-
Simtayn, pg 160]
As for the Shi'a of the Ahl'ul bayt, numerous Sunni scholars
have recorded hadith in which the Prophet (s) had said
that the group that Allah (swt) describes as "the best of
the creatures" (Qur'an 98:7)" are Ali and his Shi'a and
that they will enter paradise. [Tafsir Durre Manthur
commentary of verse 98:7 Volume 6 page 379 ]
If the Prophet (s) said the best of creations are Hadhrath
Ali (as) and his Shi'a, then in the same way that this verse
is applicable until the end of the world, Ali (as)'s Shi'a will
likewise exist to provide a practical commentary to it. The
Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that 70,000 Muslims will enter
paradise without answering any questions and Anas bin
Malik, narrates that the Prophet (s) said that the 70,000
were Ali and his [Shi'a Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by
al Maghazli (An ancient Shafi scholar)]
The Shi'a have despite centuries of persecution and false
propaganda maintained their affiliation with the Imams
from the Ahl'ul bayt clinging to the "two weighty things"
- seeking solace in the guarantee of the Holy Prophet (s):
"Recognition of the family of Muhammad is freedom
from the Fire. Love of the family of Muhammad is
crossing over the Sirat. Friendship for the family of
Muhammad is safety from the fire". [ Ash-Shifa, page
142 by Qadi Iyad, (d.544 Hijri) English translation by
Ayesha Bewley, Madinah Press 1991.]
With such a clear hadith it is little surprise that the Prophet
(s) declared: "O Ali four people will enter heaven first
of all. Me, you, Hasan, Hussain and your
descendents will follow us and our wives will follow
our descendents and our Shi'a will be to the left and
right of us". [ al Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 159, by Ahmad
ibn Hajr al Makki ,Cairo edition ]
These hadith need to be pondered over carefully.
Remember, the Prophet (s) said in a well known hadith
that Muslims would be divided in to 73 sects of which
only one would attain paradise, one hopes that this article
has been able to shed light on which group that is.
 To know the Shi’a
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/to_know_the_shia/en/index.php
The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur (1), means "those
people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves,
and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah
Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party
which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed
(PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering
him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in
temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan
p121
The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the
Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a
Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt)
informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of
Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of
Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83, 2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15
It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down
the following revelation: "Those who believe and do
righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their
reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens,
below which flow rivers, they will abide there
forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are
well pleased with Him. [The Holy Qur'an 98:7]
Numerous recognised Sunni scholars have in their
commentaries recorded that following the descent of this
verse the Prophet (s) declared: "I swear by the one who
controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a
shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
[Tafsir Ibne Jarir, V 33 p 146, Cairo edition]
We view Imam Ali as our guide, Hadhrath Abu Bakr does
not come within this definition in his inaugural speech he
indicated that he would be turning to others for guidance:
"Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of
you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I
do well; rectify me if I do wrong" [Tarikh al-Tabari,
English translation Volume 9 p 201]
Compare these words to the challenge of Imam Ali (as)
related by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab who said: "None of the
Companions say, Ask me (about anything you like)!
except for Ali". [History of the Khalifas by Suyuti,
translated by Abdassamad Clarke, p178 (Taha Publishers)]
How can we turn to others, when Allah (swt) says in His
Glorious Book: "On the Day when some faces will be
bright and some faces will be black, And as for
those whose faces will have turned black, it will be
said 'What did you disbelieve after believing, taste
the chastisement for your disbelief'. And as for
those whose faces are white, they shall be in the
Mercy of God, they shall abide therein forever".
The Holy Qur'an 3:106-107
It is clear from this verse that the successful Party on the
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Day of Judgement will be those, whose faces are bright.
Now apply this verse to the following hadith, taken from
two recognised Sunni works: "Three things have been
revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al
Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen
(Imam of the Pious), and wa Qa'id ul Ghurrul
Muhajj'ileen (Leader of the bright) face people on
Yaum al Qiyamah". [Al Mustadrak, Hakim, p 137 & 138]
So Ali (as) will be the leader of the bright face people, the
bright face people will follow him i.e. they will be his Shi'a
and it is this group which will attain Paradise. The Prophet
(s) said in a Sahih hadith that Muslims would be divided
into 73 sects of which only one would attain paradise. It
is for this sole reason that we connect ourselves with Ali
(as). Our Sunni brothers ascribe to the view that "Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) did not nominate his successor
nor left any explicit an instruction on the question
of selection or appointment of his successor". An
introduction to Islamic State and Government, by
Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, p 56, (Islamic Bk Publishers,
Kuwait).
We rely on an event that took following the completion of
the Final Hajj when the Prophet (s) stopped at a place
called Ghadhir Khumm, and addressed the companions
"Do I have more authority over you than you have
over yourselves? To which the people said 'Yes'. He
then said Of whomsoever I am Mawla Ali is his
Mawla" [Musnad, by Ahmad bin Hanbal Vol 3 p116 Sader
Printing 1969] It is the issue of Imamate (Leadership)
which is the key difference between the two schools, we
however are yet to find a better explanation of the position
of an Imam than that offered by Shah Isma'il Shaheed:
"The Imam is the Prophet's successor; the Imam
has the same relations with Allah as the Prophet
had with Allah. The Imam is the leader, in the same
way the Prophet had the right to lead the people,
the Imam also has the same rights over the people.
We read in Surah Azhab 'The Prophet is awla
(authority) to the believers', and the Prophet will be
a witness to this fact on the Day of Judgement. The
Prophet has rights over the people, as does the
Imam, both in this world and the next, which is why
the Prophet said 'Don't I have more authority over
the people than they have over themselves, to
which the people replied 'Yes'. The Prophet then
said 'Of whomsoever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla'.
This is why Allah says in the Qur'an that on the Day
of Judgement you will be called according to your
Imam (3:17), and why when Allah says 'And stop
they are to be questioned' (37:24), we will be asked
about the Wilayat (The Mastership) of Ali on the
Day of Judgement" [Mansab-e-Imamat, by Shah Isma'il
Shaheed, p 71 (A Famous Deobandi Scholar)
 Imamate; the perfection of deen
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/imamate_perfection_of_deen/en/index.php
In Surah Rum verse 43, Allah (swt) tells "Then set your
face upright towards the established religion before
that day comes from God, when there will be no
escape". We are told to turn to Deen before the Day of
Judgement when people will be separated. The verse tells
mankind to search for that perfect deen. It is not until we
are able to identify perfect deen that we will be able to
turn to it. What is the perfect Deen, we know that it is
Islam. What is Deen? Deen is a way of life made up of
rules / regulations, it does not present itself, it is identified
through those persons whose actions define all aspects of
deen, whose deeds act as practical commentaries to the
Qur'an.
At a glance we know that the perfect example of Deen was
Hadhrath Mohammed (saww), deen can be recognised
through his Sirat (life). With the departure of Mohammed
(saww) from the world, did Deen come to an end?
Certainly not! Alhumdolillah deen will remain until the Day
of Judgement, but it still requires recognition through
individuals whose actions are practical definitions of deen,
who follow the Prophet (saww) step by step. If such
persons do not exist then deen will not be perfect, because
we have no examples to turn to. Deen can only be
recognised through individuals who are 100% practical
reflections of deen, which is why Allah (swt) says in his
Glorious Book "Verily in the Prophet you have a
perfect example". After the Prophet (saww) we argue
that Allah (swt) continued to provide the Ummah with
perfect examples, if we deny this then Allah (swt) is not
just having bestowed an example to the Sahaba and
ignored all generations that followed.
During his lifetime Islam was recognised through the
Prophet (saww) and after him, Islam is recognised through
his Imam. This is clear from the fact that the Prophet
(saww) told his followers 'He who dies without giving
bayah to the Imam of his time, dies the death of one
belonging to the days of jahiliyya'.[Munsub e Imamate
(The position of the Imam), by Shah Ismail Shaheed ]
Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an, that the sole reason for
creating Man and Jinn is so that they worship Him. We are
here to worship Allah (swt), who also says in the Qur'an
"Fear Allah and find a wasila to him (5:35)".
The wasila we need for true guidance will therefore have to
be the 'perfect individual' who will not err, who you can put
your faith in, which will act as source of guidance in
everything that you do. We know that there is a wasila,
and that there is a duty to recognise our Imam of our time.
Clearly, these two must be interlinked, the Imam is the
authorised guide who will act as the wasila to Allah (swt),
but 'do we have any clear signposts which will help us to
recognise these Imams'? Well what better guide is there
than the hadith of the Prophet (saww): "The religion will
continue to be established till the
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
hour comes as there are twelve Caliphs over them,
everyone of them coming from the Quraish" [Mishkat
al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5 ]
Think carefully, deen is attached to the ruling of 12
Khalifa's. The number 12 is of significance here, it can not
apply to political leadership, Jalaladeen Suyuti in Tarikh ul
Khulufa recounts that there were 4 Rightly guides khalifas',
14 khalifas' from Banu Ummayah and 49 Khalifas' from the
Banu Abbasids. The number 12 does not fit anywhere here,
because the Prophet (saww) was not talking about leaders
appointed by men. The Prophet (saww) was referring to
absolute religious leadership, through which deen can be
identified, it started at Ghadhir Khumm when the Prophet
(saww) declared before a gathering of 124,000 Sahaba "Of
whomsoever I am Maula (Master) Ali is his Maula".
It was here that the succession to Prophethood, Imamate
was declared. What is crucial is the verse which descended
following the sermon declaring Ali (as)'s Wilayat.
"Today, I have perfected your religion and
completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied
that you religion be Islam" (Qur’an 5:3).
This verse makes it clear Allah (swt) did not declare the
perfection of religion, the completion of his bounties and
his satisfaction until Hadhrath Ali (as)'s Imamate was
formally declared at the end of the Prophetic mission.
It is incumbent that we search for that wasila through
which deen can be recognised. Allah (swt) tells us in his
glorious book "Guide us to the right path, the path of
those you have favoured" (1:6-7) and your priority
should be to seek those persons on the right path who will
likewise guide you to it. This point can not be ignored;
particularly when Rasulullah (saww) warned that the
Ummah would be divided in to 73 sects and that only one
would be saved. At the same time the Prophet (saww) told
us which party would be saved, when he said "I am
leaving amongst you two things, the Qur'an and my
Ahl’ulbayt, if you follow them you will never go
astray". [Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663 ]
The Prophet recounted this tradition to his Sahaba, which
proves the Sahaba could go astray if they turned away
from these two sources of guidance. Muslims are
dependent on Islam while Islam is dependent on the
Ahl’ulbayt, that is why when a prominent sahabi advised
Imam Hussain (as) to pledge allegiance to Yazid the reply
from the Imam was "by my doing so do you think
Islam will remain on the earth?".
It is the Party which has taken hold of both the Qur'an the
Ahl’ulbayt who are on the right path, for they have grasped
the Qur'an which sets out deen and the Imams from
Ahl’ulbayt who are walking commentaries of deen, through
which Islam can be recognised.
 Separating the Qur'an from the Family
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/quran_and_family/en/index.php
Among the arguments put forward from the Ahl' ul-Sunnah
to justify the adallah (justice) of the Sahaba is that they
complied the Qur'an. To question their trustworthiness is to
question the authenticity of the Qur'an. Hence even if the
Sahaba are in the wrong, we must interpret in such a way
to protect their integrity (even if it means degrading the
position of Prophethood. (Examples of this exist in the
chapter on the will of the Prophet (saw) for such an
example.)
All the references from this section have been taken from
Shah Waliyullah's book 'Izalatul Khifa' setting out the
merits of the four rightly guided khalifas. Much of what
Shah Waliyullah writes can also be found in Suyuti's
analysis of the Qur'an 'al Itqan' - (Expect if otherwise
indicated)
Shah Waliyullah writes: "At the time of the death of the
Prophet (saww) the Qur'an had not been compiled
in to a book form. Surah's and Ayats were scattered
amongst the people" (sic).[ Izalatul Khifa by Shah
Waliyullah, Vol 4 p 252, publishers Kadheemi Kutubkhana,
Karachi]
We have cited the tradition from Shah Waliyullah’s work in
your detailed article, which we are summarizing here as.
1) At the death of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) the
Qur'an was scattered among the people.
2) Zaib bin Thabit regarded it easier to move one mountain
then to compile the Qur'an.
3) That the Prophet [saww] died without clarifying the
locations of the Surah of the Qur'an, so it was up to
Uthman to decide the position of Surah al-Tawbah.
4) Hadhrath Umar was afraid that the Qur'an would be lost
so he wanted to compile the Qur'an. Whilst the Prophet did
not take heed of such a matter because he[saww] did not
make any attempt to compile the Qur'an.
The Qur'an we have today in book form is the form
collated by these 4 men.
We also have the following unnerving statement in the
same book where we read the following: "Hadhrath Ali
compiled the Qur'an during the lifetime of the
Prophet [saww] but Allah's taqdir prevented this
from coming forward". [ Izalatul Khifa, by Shah
Waliyullah Volume 4 p 497 ]
The above evidences from the most regarded sources
including the Sahih of al-Bukhari begs the many rational
questions among those we are citing some in this flyer:
1) If the Qur'an had not been compiled during the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet then why did he during his
farewell pilgrimage tell the companions the following: "I
am leaving amongst you two weighty things the
Book of Allah (Kitabullah) and my Ahl’ulbayt"?
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
The word al-Kitab here obviously signifies a single and
united entity. It is not applied to a text which is scattered
and not collected, let alone one which is unwritten and
preserved in memory only.
2) Hadhrath Umar said "The Book of Allah is sufficient
for us", when the Prophet (saww) asked for a pen and
paper on his deathbed did? Why say 'Book' and not just
say Qur'an?
3) If the Qur'an was not compiled then whey did this
verse descend "Today, I have perfected your religion and
completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that
your religion be Islam" (Qur'an 5:3)? This is especially true
when the narration of Tirmidhi states of the Prophet[saww]
died without specifying the location of Surah al-Tawbah.
Would this therefore not imply that Islam was incomplete
because Muslims did not know the positions of the Surah's?
4) Hadhrath Umar wanted to collate the Qur'an into book
form because he was concerned that it would get lost. How
can this be the case when Allah (swt) states categorically
"Certainly We sent down the Dhikr (i.e., Qur'an), and
certainly we shall protect it" (Qur'an 15:9), did Hadhrath
Umar not have faith in this verse?
5) Why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr opt to choose Zaid bin
Thabit as compiler when prominent Sahaba famed for their
knowledge of the Qur'an such as Ubayy bin Ka'ab and
Abdullah ibne Masud present. The latter were
acknowledged as the foremost in their knowledge of the
Qur'an excepting the Holy Prophet himself.
6) Hadhrath Uthman went even further and appointed,
with the presence in Madina of some of the greats amongst
the companions who were famed for their knowledge of
the Qur'an, companions who were mere boys during the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet. If one analyses their ages we
learn Abdullah bin Zubayr was born in 2 Hijri, Saeed bin
Aas in 1 Hijri, Abdur Rahman bin Harith in 1 Hijri, the
eldest Zaid bin Thabit was 11 years of age at the time of
the Hijrath. The last verse of the Qur'an descended in 10
Hijri that means all four were very young - in fact children,
three of whom were still not even Baligh (attained the age
of adolescence). Why were these four preferred to
prominent Sahaba such as Abdullah ibne Masud and Ubayy
bin Ka'ab?
7) Za'id began to compile the Qur'an during Hadhrath
Abu Bakr's life. The task stopped and did not start again
until Hadhrath Uthman's khilafath. Why was there this
pause, especially since the mighty Hadhrath Umar
prevented any civil instability in and around Madina, which
was not the case with the first and third khalifas whose
rules were marred by civil war in and around Madina? What
more tranquil, relatively speaking, an opportunity,
especially since the compilation of this Qur'an was the
suggestion of Hadhrath Umar himself - why this gap period
of in excess of no less than 10 years? When Hadhrath
Umar was so concerned that the Qur'an be collated why
ensure that the task was completed during his ten year
reign? He said that he was worried that reciters were dying
on the battlefield. Many more wars occurred during his
own khilafath so why did he lose that concern?
8) Rather than go to the extraordinary length of appointing
a four man committee to collate the Qur'an in to book
fashion, a pain staking process would it not have been
easier to use the Qur'an that had been compiled by
Hadhrath Ali (as)?
Here are a further to questions for our Salafi
brothers:
1) Did the Sahaba not commit bidah by compiling the
Qur'an when the Prophet (S) did not?
2) Are you not committing bidah by keeping the Qur'an at
home when according to Sahih al Bukhari did NOT compile
the Word of Allah (swt) in Book form? If all bidah's are in
the fire then is this bidah not also in the fire?
Clearly, this makes no sense. It is a gross slander to
suggest that the Prophet[saww] would fail to collate the
revelation in to a book form. We believe that he arranged
for the compilation during his lifetime - this is simple
rationality - and entrusted the Gate of Knowledge Imam Ali
(as) with the task, as confirmed by Shah Waliyullah. To
suggest that this did not happen because Allah (swt) did
not want this compilation makes no sense. How could
Imam Ali (as) be removed from this instrumental role when
the Prophet [saww] had stated: "Ali is with the Qur'an
and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate
until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar".
[ Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124 ]
If Imam Ali had collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of
the Holy Prophet [saww], it is clear that he must have
done so under the specific command of the Holy Prophet.
The question now arises - why, after the death of the Holy
Prophet, was this version not taken as the official version
by Hadhrath Abu Bakr? There is left little room but to
contemplate the fact that this was another step in the
conspiracy against the family to separate the Qur'an from
the Ahl’ulbayt so that no one turns to them for guidance.
This was, in other words, a form of ostracization, one that
in fact amounted to censorship of the Qur'an till the state
had officially eliminated Imam Ali from any claim towards
its compilation, an achievement they would take the credit
for, and one that if acknowledged would have brought the
masses to Imam Ali and not to them for guidance. The
khilafath of man had originated in the connivance of men
to establish an alternative form of khilafath to that
intended by the Holy Prophet. This khilafath was in
opposition to that intended by the Holy Prophet, which had
been a khilafath that was from a lineage within the family
of the Holy Prophet, a lineage that also linked to the
Qur'an. The khilafath had been snatched from the family
The other easy means of approach for guidance, the
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
Qur'an, was also snatched.
The issue so alarmed the Sunni scholar Mahmud Abu
Riyyah that he wrote the following:
"The strangest thing and embarrassing point is that
they have never even included the name of Ali
within those incharged with collecting and writing
down the Qur'an, neither during the reign of Abu
Bakr nor that of Uthman! Mentioning instead the
name of those lower than him in degrees of
knowledge and fiqh! Was Ali unable to undertake
such a task! Or was he among those untrustworthy
men? Or among those who were incompetent to be
consulted or committed to shoulder this
responsibility?
While in fact reason and logic necessitate that Ali
should be the foremost and most competent man
entrusted with this job, due to possessing attributes
and merits of which all other Companions were
deprived. He was reared and grown up under the
care of the Prophet [saww], living long under his
protection, attending the Wahi from the first days of
revelation up to the day of cessation, in a way that
he did not miss even one of his verse?!
So if he was not to be called for such a critical task,
what thing else would he be called for?! And if they
invented justifications for ignoring him (Imam Ali)
in regard of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, never
consulting him or seeking him or seeking his
opinion about it, what excuse they can give for not
inviting him to the task of writing the Qur'an? Is
there any logical reason for this behaviour? What
judgement can be issued by any just judge? What a
surprising matter it is, and we have nothing to say
but: May God help you O Ali! They have not treated
you with equity in anything!"
[Adwa' ala' al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah page 300, by
Mahmud Abu Riyyah - English edition published by
Ansariyan publications 1999]
Hence from the above discussion we get that the two
copies of the Qur'an were of course preserved by Allah -
since Allah writes that He has preserved His dhikr in the
Qur'an - there was no difference on this between the
Qur'an as compiled by Imam Ali and that compiled by
Hadhrath Uthman - but the fact remains - the followers of
Imam Ali received guidance through the Qur'an from the
very moment of the death of the Holy Prophet. The clarity
of the Shi'i vision is unfolding. The conclusions of this
section are quite clear:
1. The Qur'an is with Ali and Ali is with the Qur'an.
2. The Shi'i, being the party of Imam Ali, have had
Uninterrupted communion with the Word of Allah.
The Shi'i and only the Shi'i can claim this amongst all
Muslims.
 Ijtihad and the companions
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ijtihad/en/index.php
This article is our reply to Nasibi’s defences of Hadhrath
Ayesha and Mu'awiya - namely that their acts of insurgency
and rebellion against Imam 'Ali (as) were based on Ijtihad
for which they shall be rewarded.
In Islam all people are equal in the eyes of Allah (swt). As
Muslims we are required to live our lives in accordance with
the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we look at the
Muslim countries today we see leaders plundering the
nations wealth; they commonly put friends and relatives in
to positions of power, they likewise plunder the state's
wealth. They commit acts that cause revulsion amongst the
public, and yet they are 'above the law' you cannot
question their actions. We hate this, we believe they should
be brought to task; accountability is a key component in
Islam. We all must comply with it and we are all
responsible if we break it, no matter who you are, who you
know, who you are related to. We have the verse in the
Qur'an making it clear that we will be judged according to
our actions on the Day of Judgement. Furthermore we
have the following incident recorded in books of hadith:
"A woman belonging to a high and noble family was
arrested in connection with a theft. The case was
brought to the Prophet, and it was suggested that
she may be spared the punishment of theft. The
Prophet replied: "The nations that lived before you
were destroyed by God because they punished the
common man for their offences and their dignitaries
go unpunished for their crimes; I swear by him
(God) who holds my life in his hand that even of
Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad has committed
this crime, then I would have amputated her hand".
[Human Rights in Islam, by Abul A'la Maudoodi page 35-
36, published by the Islamic Foundation, United Kingdom
1976]
This event makes it absolutely clear that:
1) All are accountable for their actions
2) You will be accountable irrespective of nobility
This is the justice of Allah (swt) the justice which Islam
proclaims. With this clear evidence how would you feel if
legislation were passed stating that you can never question
the actions of members of the ruling party, no matter what
they do? Would the reasonable person accept such a law?
Certainly not, on the contrary this would be a clear
violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Bearing this in mind it
is most unfortunate that the majority sect has formulated
an opinion that if the companions perform such violations,
they are not in error and hence NOT accountable before
Allah (swt), as their actions were due to mistakes in their
Ijtihad.
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
The verdict of Ahl'ul Sunnah on the disputes
between the companions
This is the Fatwa of the Wahabi scholar Shaykh
Muhammad Al-Saleh Ul-Uthaimin on this matter:
"We believe that the disputes that took place
among the Prophet's companions were the result of
sincere interpretations they worked hard to reach.
Whoever was right among them would be rewarded
twice, and whoever was wrong among them would
be rewarded once and his mistake would be
forgiven" [The Muslim's Belief, by Shaikh Al Saleh Al
Uthaimin, translated by Ar Maneh Hammad al Johani, p 23]
What sort of justice is this? If the companions commit any
wrongdoing, not only are they unaccountable they are
forgiven and rewarded for it! If the beloved daughter of
the Prophet (s) is not above the law, then why are the
companions?
Why adhere to such a belief?
The reality is that this concept has been developed by the
scholars to in effect provide blanket immunity for those
companions who committed major wrongs. Whilst the
casual reader would be horrified by their actions his
childhood beliefs that the companions actions were
mistakes for which they would be rewarded have
effectively subdued the majority to not think about what
they read.
Never has the desire to believe in mistakes in Ijtihad been
more important for the followers of the companions than
when looks at the battles of Jamal and Sifeen. Here two
groups of companions met each other on battlefield and
fought one another. The same companions who had sat
with the Prophet (s) were killing one another. As these
battles are undeniable facts, and uncomfortable reading for
scholars whose attitude has been all the companions are
just, the concept of Ijtihad has proved to be a 'protection
clause' a means of maintaining beliefs in the presence of
facts which would other wise creates doubts in those
beliefs. Ibn Khaldun exemplifies this thinking as follows:
"Beware! Do not speak ill of anyone of them. One
ought to find some justification for each faction for
they deserve to be rated highly by us. They differed
on principle and rightly fought the battle. All those
who were killed or were slain were fighting in the
way of God for upholding truth and justice. Rather,
I think that their differences were a blessing for the
latter generations so that every one may choose
anyone of them as his guide and Imam. Keep this in
mind and try to understand the divine wisdom
governing the world and the beings". Tarikh e Islam
by Akbar Shah Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 145. Quoting
Muqqadimah, by Ibn Khaldun p. 172
The Ijtihad attributed to the companions who rose
against Imam 'Ali (as) contradicts the Qur'an, the
Sunnah and sheer common sense
It should be pointed out that both Sunni and Shi'a adhere
to the concept of Ijtihad as a legitimate source of Islamic
Law. We however assert that Ijtihad can only be exercised
when there is no clear ruling within the Qur'an or Sunnah
with regards to a particular matter. Ijtihad is therefore
essentially the last resort, it cannot be utilised when
solutions are evident in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and
crucially Ijtihad can never be exercised when it is in
violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
What gave one party the right to rebel and behave in this
way against a Khalifa whom the vast bulk of Muslims
deems rightly guided? Do these actions not therefore set a
precedent that if you do not agree with a Khalifa you can
mount armed rebellion against him? Would the common
man ascribe to the view that ousting a Leader over a
difference of opinion through armed rebellion is not only
good but will be rewarded even if it is wrong? The Holy
Qur'an states quite categorically: "And whoever kills a
believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell,
he shall abide therein and God's wrath
(Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse
(lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment"
(Surah Nisa, v 93). With this verse in mind, history
testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800
Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers
here? Does this verse not applicable to them? If these
individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were
responsible for spreading Fitna (dissension) and murder,
what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?
If for arguments sake, this concept is indeed correct then
why should any disputes be resolved in court? After all if
there is a dispute between two groups of Muslims, why
should they be punished? Can they not advance a defence
that they were following the way of the companions and
that whoever was right will receive one reward from Allah
(swt) and whoever was wrong will get one reward and be
forgiven. Should they not be encouraged to continue to
fight and kill one another in the same way that the
companions did?
Defending the indefensible
Despite such clear evidence - namely the verdicts of the
Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Sahaba and the Ahl'ul Sunnah
Ulema themselves, the majority school still maintain the
belief that all the companions should be revered and
committed mistakes in Ijtihad. In doing so they fall deeper
into the quagmire of contradiction, inconsistency and
absurdity. The perfect example of contradiction is evident if
one analyses the rulings of the Wahabi scholar Shaykh
Naasir al-'Aql whilst setting out the creed of the Ahl'ul
Sunna wa al Jamaah. He proudly proclaims in the preface:
They are called the Jamaa'ah because they are the
ones who gather upon the truth and do not split-up
in their Religion; they gather upon the legitimate
rulers and do not rebel against them; and they
follow the consensus (ijma') of the Pious
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
Predecessors of this Ummah". The General precepts of
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, p 12.
Perhaps the Shaykh should also answer this question 'was
Imam Ali (as) a legitimate ruler?' Clearly he was, he is
deemed the fourth rightly guided Khalifa in the eyes of Ahl
ul Sunna. To rebel against the legitimate leader according
to Al' Aql takes you out of the Jamaa'ah. Did prominent
companions not break ranks and rebel against Imam Ali?
Rising against Ahl'ul bayt can never be deemed a
mistake in Ijtihad
The Prophet (s) had made an explicit instruction during the
farewell pilgrimage, namely "I am leaving you two
weighty things, if you follow them you will never go
astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". sahih
al-Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663
This meant that in all circumstances it was incumbent upon
Muslims to attach themselves to the Family of the Prophet
(s). At no point did he (s) ever say that it would be
permissible to fight them, at no time did he state those
that fought them would be rewarded because they
exercised Ijtihad. On the contrary, Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr
narrates: “I saw the Messenger of God pitch a tent in
which he placed 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn. He
then declared: 'O Muslims, I am at war against
anyone who wars against the people of this tent,
and am at peace with those who show peace toward
them. I am a friend to those who befriend them. He
who shows love toward them shall be one of a
happy ancestry and good birth. Nor would anyone
hate them except that he is of miserable ancestry
and evil birth". [Abu Ja'far Ahmad al-Muhib al-Tabari, Al-
Riyad al-Nadira (Cairo, n.d.), Volume 2, page 199 ]
Is there anything more explicit than this instruction? Those
who fight them are fighting the Prophet (s). Can fighting
the Prophet (s) ever be deemed as a mistake in Ijtihad for
which the perpetrators will be rewarded? By Hadhrath 'Abu
Bakr's own admission fighting the Ahlul'bayt is on par with
fighting the Prophet (s) so how can Ijtihad be used as a
defence for those that fought Hadhrath 'Ali (as)?
The Sahaba never proclaimed that they had mad
mistakes in Ijtihad
This is a very interesting point. There exists no statement
from history in which any Sahaba who fought Imam Ali (as)
declared that they had exercised Ijtihad that was wrong
but they would be rewarded for it. Their advocates have
only formulated this - years after their departure. Hadhrath
Ayesha's own damning confession proves clearly that she
did not believe that Allah (swt) would forgive her for her
opposition to Ali (as). "Hadhrath Ayesha narrates the
Prophet said 'Allah asked me 'Whoever doesn't
accept Ali's khilafath and rebels and fights him is a
kaffir and will perish in the fire" Someone asked her
"Why did you rebel and fight him?" She replied "I
forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal,
I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and
I asked for Allah's forgiveness, I don't think that I
will be forgiven for this sin" Mawaddatul al Qurba p 32
by Sayyid 'Ali Hamdani, Chapter "Mawaddathul Saum"
 Obedience to the Prophet[saww]; the pen & paper episode
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/obedience/en/index.php
Is obedience to Rasulullah (s) conditional option about their decision: if any one disobeys
or unconditional Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly
We read in Surah al Hadeed "Oh you who believe, fear
Allah and believe in his Prophet". The words "oh you
who believe" illustrate that Allah is addressing the Muslims
and in particular addressing the Companions of the Prophet
during the time of the verse's revelation. Allah's command
to the Companions to "believe in the Prophet" suggests
that even during the Prophet's (s) lifetime there existed
those who believed in Allah but did not possess a correct
belief in the Prophet (s), hence necessitating the revelation
of such a verse. Thus, as Muslims we cannot truly believe
until we believe in the Prophet (s). Consequently if we have
doubts in what the Prophet says and commands, then
naturally our belief in the Prophet is flawed.
Clear Unconditional Obedience
Surah al Maidah verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his
Prophet and worry, and be warned that the
Prophet's duty is only to deliver the message
clearly"
Surah Mujadilah verses 12-13 "Perform Salat (Prayer),
give Zakat and Obey Allah and his Prophet"
Both these noble verses clarify the matter unambiguously.
Allah commands the Muslims in the Qur'an to obey Allah -
unconditionally - and furthermore to obey the Prophet -
once more, unconditionally.
Duty only to convey the message clearly
Surah Nur verse 54 "Obey Allah and his Prophet and if
you dispute, then on him is what is imposed on him,
and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you
obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty
on the Prophet save the clear delivery".
This verse also makes it clear that if one obeys the Prophet
in this way, only then will one be rightly guided, and that
the Prophet's duty is only to convey the message.
Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the
Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does
not love the disbelievers"
Never dismiss the words of the Prophet (s)
Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah
and His Messenger, and turn not away from him
when ye hear (him speak)."
No one can overrule anything that the Prophet (s)
said
Surah AL-AHZAB, verse 36: "It is not fitting for a
Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been
decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
wrong Path"
Thus, whatever decision the Prophet makes, is from Allah
and any attempt to change this by a Muslim shows that
this person has gone astray from the Right Path.
An invitation to Ahl'ul Sunnah to ponder and think
Now with these verses in mind let us turn to the famous
sermon delivered by the Prophet (s) during the Hajj at
Mount Arafat: "I am leaving you two weighty things,
if you follow them you will never go astray, they are
the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". The words here "Lum
ta'zilo bah'dee" is an absolute guarantee that if one follows
these two things, one will never go astray. The sermon
was announced to the Companions, thus proving that even
they were liable of going astray if they turned away from
these two sources, since the Prophet was informing the
Companions - and all Muslims who hear the message - that
if they leave these two sources, they will go astray.
The traditions (s) relating to the pen and
paper episode
The Prophet (s) wanted to compose a will
We learn from the traditions that towards the end of his
noble life, the Prophet's (s) condition was deteriorating.
The majority opinion holds that the Prophet (s) left no will
before his death, and made no attempt to do so. However,
according to the Qur'an it is absolutely obligatory on all
Muslims to leave a will. Allah (swt) says in his Glorious
Book:
"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one
of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes
a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in
goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an
2:180).
We may thus ask the question: Would the Prophet of Allah
(s) of all Muslims - the one whose Sunnah we are obliged
to follow - disregard an order stipulated in the Holy Qur'an?
The Holy Prophet (s) requests that writing materials
be brought to him
This is what we read in Sahih al-Bukhari as narrated by Ibn
'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet
approached while there were some men in the
house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab,
the Prophet said:” Come near let me write for you a
writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar
said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the
Qur'an, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The
People in the house differed and disputed. Some of
them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may
write for you a writing after which you will not go
astray," while the others said what 'Umar said.
When they made much noise and quarrelled greatly
in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away
and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a
great disaster that their quarrel and noise
prevented Allah's Apostle from writing a statement
for them. [Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9
hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 573 ]
The Prophet asks to write final instructions before his
death, and evidently these instructions were to be his last
will and testament, to prevent the Muslim Ummah from
going astray. He commands in the capacity of the Seal of
the Prophets and Allah's Messenger: 'Bring me a bone of
scapula, so that I may write something for you after
which you will never go astray.' What is our obligation
as Muslims here at this crucial time in particular? No doubt,
to hear and obey, for as the Qur'an says in Surah al Maidah
verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and
worry, and be warned that the Prophet's duty is
only to deliver the message clearly";
But what is the reaction of the Companions to the
Prophet's apparent attempt to write his will, and to guide
the Ummah? Bukhari reports from Ibn Abbas: 'The people
differed in their opinions although it was improper
to differ in front of a prophet, They said, 'What is
wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense
(delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no
sense). [Sahih Bukhari V 9 #468] Indeed, not only did
they disobey the Prophet and quarrel with each other in
front of him in contradiction to the clear command of Allah
to obey the Prophet and not to turn away from him, they
even spoke down to the Seal of Prophets: "What is
wrong with him?"
The Holy Prophet (s) was accused of speaking
deliriously
The Prophet was clearly not asking something out of the
ordinary - just a pen and paper. Yet we read that some of
the companions intervened and said the Prophet was
talking no sense! The phrase 'no sense' is in itself
extremely insulting, particularly since it was directed to
someone as great as the Prophet (s) the greatest man of
all time. The words they used in response to the Prophet's
order were 'this man is speaking yahjur'; the word
actually means 'incoherent speech - nonsense'. In that
there is no doubt, Yahjur comes from the root word
"hajara". According to Hans Wehr's "A Dictionary of
Modern Written Arabic edited by J. Milton Cowan"
Hans Wehr's "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic"6
edited by J. Milton Cowan, 3rd edition - Publishers Ithaca,
New York" - page 1019
Hajara means "To emigrate; to give up; to abandon; TO
TALK NONSENSE"
In other words, the Companions actually accused the
Messenger of Allah [s] of being in a state of delirium. In
the English translation of Tabari, the translator has
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
remained faithful to the Arabic text. He narrates from Ibn
Abbas: "The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet
(lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write
for you a document, after which you will not go
astray". Some people said that the Messenger of
God was talking deliriously". [History of Tabari, Volume
9 translated by Ismail. K. Poonawala p 175 ]
Elucidation of the Truth
The words used by Rasulullah (s) are particularly of
significant: "Come near let me write for you a writing
after which you will never go astray." The Prophet (s)
at Arafat said similar words as we have mentioned "I am
leaving among you two things if you follow them
you will never go astray". These two sources - the
Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt -complimented one another, and
would be the eternal source of guidance. Whilst some
people may assert that no one can pre-empt what the
Prophet (s) wanted to write, there is nevertheless a clear
link between what the Prophet (s) was saying on his death
bed and what he had said at Mount Arafat. At Arafat the
Prophet spoke of two things, adherence to which would
prevent the people from going astray for all eternity.
Similarly on his deathbed the Prophet (s) likewise wanted
to write a document in the form of clear and final
instructions which would ensure that the Ummah would
never go astray after him, and which would suffice as
written proof of the Prophet's last will. This can be read in
Commentary of al Bukhari, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani,
commenting on the Prophet's words, "I will write a
document" states that "the Prophet's (s) intention
was to nominate a successor after him". [Fath al Bari,
by Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, Vol 8 p 101]
The consequence of the Pen and paper
episode
Allamah Shahrastani in his famous books on divisions in
Islam states that the origin of dispute amongst the
companions owes its origin to this very tragic episode. He
writes:
"the first dispute that took place during the
Prophet's sickness, according to what the Imam
Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Isma'il al-Bukhari
relates on the authority of Abdullah b. Abbas, is as
follows: When the last sickness of the Prophet
became acute, he said, 'Bring me an inkpot and
writing material; I shall write something for you so
that you will not be led astray after my departure'.
Umar said, 'the Prophet has been overcome by pain,
God's Book is sufficient for us'. A noisy argument
arose among those gathered; whereupon the
Prophet said 'Go away there should be no
quarrelling in my presence'. Ibn Abbas says, 'What a
tragedy which prevented us from having some
writing of the Prophet!".
Al Mihal al Nahal, by Allamah Muhummud b. Add'al Karim
Shahrastani, page 18 - English translation by A.K.Kazi and
J.G.Flynn (publishers Kegan Paul International, First Edition
1984)
 Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/index.php
The 'actual' definition of Taqiyyah
Taqiyyah means 'concealing one's religion or faith due
to fear, but in one's heart, the person must believe
in the religion s/he is concealing'. In other words it is
a form of self-defence that encompasses defending one's
life, property, esteem and beliefs. According to Shariah, if a
person is caught up between two hardships and one of
them is intolerable, then to save one's self from the bigger
hardship, one should tolerate the smaller one. Therefore,
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Fakhruddin Razi wrote:
When faced with two hardships, one should go
through the smaller one to save one's self from the
bigger one. This is a recognized fact.
Tafseer-e-Kabir, Vol 5, P 746-750, published Istanbul
In the same Tafseer, Volume 2, Page 746, Publishers Dar-
ul-Taba Istanbul, Razi writes: "For a momin, taqiyyah is
allowed till the day of Judgement. And this is the
right act, for the reason that using self-control to
defend oneself against a hardship is a necessity."
Taqiyyah proven from the Qur'an
First verse
"Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters
unbelief except under compulsion his heart
remaining firm in faith but such as open their breast
to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs
will be a dreadful Penalty". Surah An-Nahal, verse 106
transliteration by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
All Muslim scholars agree that this verse descended in
relation to the suffering of Ammar bin Yasir (ra). Allamah
Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of this verse states:
The non-believers once caught Ammar-bin-Yaser
(ra) and they forced him to say praise their false
gods and to condemn Prophet Muhammad (s). They
forced him to an extent that Ammar bin Yasir (ra)
gave in an exceeded to their demands. After that,
when he returned to the Prophet Mohammed (s),
Ammar (A.S) narrated the whole story to him (s).
Prophet Muhammad (S) asked him, how do you feel
in your heart? To which Ammar (A.S) replied, I am
fully content with Allah's religion in my heart. To
this Prophet Mohammed (S) said, if non-believers
ask you to say the same again, say it. At which time
the following ayah was descended.
"Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters
disbelief (save under compulsion and even then his
heart remains firm in faith) on them is Wrath from
Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty"
Tafseer Durre Manthur Vol 4 page 132, Cairo edition
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Second verse
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers
Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in
nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way
of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from
them. But Allah cautions you (To remember)
Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."
Surah Al- Imran, verse 28 translation by Yusuf Ali
Allamah Fakhruddin Razi had commented on this verse:
Undoubtedly, there is no harm in practicing
Taqiyyah if a believer is caught up between non-
believers and his life or property is under threat
from them. In such circumstances he should conceal
his enmity from them. Infact, he should talk in such
a manner that his words should show passion. His
hear should not confirm what he is saying. Taqiyyah
does not have an effect on one's heart; it only has
an external effect.
Tafseer-e-Kabir, Volume 2, Page 626, Published Istanbul
Ibn Taymiyyah's commentary on verse
[3:28]
The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a
restricted exception. Not only is it forbidden to be
used against Muslims but it also does not give
permission to lie to others. What it means is that if
you oppose certain behaviours and you are in a
situation where condemnation would endanger
Islam or Muslim community you can keep silent but
you must avoid lying. Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj, V. 1 p.
213
In the above Fatwa, Ibn Taymiyyah introduced 2
conditions/ (innovations) at his own in the Islamic Sharia.
They are
1. Taqiyyah can only be done in the presence of Kafirs; it
cannot be practised before a cruel Muslim king.
2. One cannot lie (while one is practising Taqiyyah) i.e. one
can maintain silence, but should not lie.
Our Response
1. There is not a single verse of the Qur'an that prescribes
these conditions.
2. There is not even a single saying or practice of Rasul
(s), that stipulates these conditions.
3. Not even a single Sahabi understood Taqiyyah along
with these conditions (they practised contrary to these
conditions)
4. No Ahle-Sunnah Alim from the early centuries added
these conditions in Taqiyyah.
We invite the Nasibis to prove the innovations of Ibn
Taymiyyah from the above 4 sources. Contrary to Ibn
Taymiyyah's claim, all of these sources are refuting his
assertion.
The Qur'an refutes Ibn Taymiyyah
[Yusufali 16:106] "Any one who, after accepting
faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under
compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but
such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is
Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful
Penalty."
As you see, the Qur'an states "uttering unbelief". This
does not mean keeping silent. Uttering means either saying
or acting something in contrary to belief. What lie is bigger
than uttering unbelief? The onus is on the Nasibis to show
us these 2 conditions/(innovations) of Ibn Taymiyyah from
the Qur’an.
Innovations in Taqiyyah by Mufti of Sipah e
Sahaba
Did any Prophet ever practice Taqiyyah?
Mufti Khalid Mehmood (The most well-known Mufti and
debater of Sipah e Sahaba- Deoband) claims in his book
"Taqiyyah na kijiay" [Don't do Taqiyyah]" that Taqiyyah is
Haram for God Appointed People like Prophets and Imams.
On page 49 of this book, Mufti Khalid Mehmood challenges
Shi'a to show him if any other Prophet ever practiced
Taqiyyah.
Reply 1 - Rasulullah (s) practised Taqiyyah before
the newly converted Sahaba
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1,
Book 3, Number 128:Narrated Aswad: Ibn Az-Zubair said
to me, "A’isha used to tell you secretly a number of
things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I
replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O
'A’isha! Had not your people been still close to the
pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would
have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made
two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for
exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
Comment
Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to redesign the Ka’ba,
yes or no? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say
"Had not your people been still close to the pre-
Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would
have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made
two doors in it". If it was compulsory then why did
Rasulullah(s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account
of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?
If this silence is not proof of Taqiyyah then what is?
In his commentary of the above hadith (destruction of the
Ka’ba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih
al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm
makes an interesting comment: "Ibn Batil said the
following principle is established from the above
hadith, if a good act is carried out, but the fear of
Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
to opposition, then the decision to order such a
pious act should be abandoned."
In other words this Sunni scholar is saying that one can
practise Taqiyyah / remain silent on an order, if such an
order incites Fitnah. The tradition in al Bukhari clearly
demonstrates that Rasulullah (s) preferred practising
Taqiyyah to implementing an act that would cause
opposition from the Sahaba.
Reply 2 - According to of Ahlul Sunnah, Prophet
Ibrahim (as) recited Kufr in a state of Taqiyyah
We read in Tafseer Kabeer volume 4 p 77 by Imam Razi:
When at night Ibrahim saw the stars and said this is
my lord. These words are Kufr and the question
arises, how a Prophet would recite such Kufr… The
order on Ibrahim was propagation (Dawah), this
was an opportunity to do Dawah and the
temporarily recited this Kufr. His words at that time
were the word said in duress. This proves at a time
of necessity it is permissible to recite kufr since the
Qur’an confirmed when one's heart is firm he can
openly recite kufr when danger is clear reciting kufr
is permissible.
The Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah believe in the
legitimacy of Taqiyyah
It is interesting to see that the Nasibi brand Taqiyyah
deception, whilst their own aqeedah is lying i.e. deception
when necessary is not only allowed, but a must. Therefore,
Imam Nawawi wrote: All the scholars agree on the fact
that if a cruel man comes to kill a person who is
hiding, or comes to wrongfully take someone else's
possessions, and asks for information about that
(possession), then it is a must on everyone who has
any knowledge about it, to hide it and lie about it.
This is not just a lie, infact it is a must for the
reason that it is a means of protecting the weak
from the cruel. Sharh Muslim Nawawi, Volume 2, Page
106-266, Published Luknow
The Khwaarij are the only Sect that reject
Taqiyyah
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Ibn Asakir discusses the beliefs of
the Khwaarij in Tadheeb Volume 4 page 147, whilst
commenting on the life of Hasan bin Farokh. He states:
"The fourth characteristic of the Khwaarij is that
they consider it permissible to kill their enemies
women and children…the sixth characteristic of the
Khwaarij is they deem advocating (verbally) and
practising Taqiyyah to be unlawful".
We would like to make it clear that both Shi'a and Ahl'ul
Sunnah believe in the legitimacy of Taqiyyah and the only
group that deny it and deem it to be 'calculated deception'
are the Khwaarij and Nasibi who also deem shedding the
blood of their opponents to be an act for which they shall
be rewarded.
 Cursing Sahaba; Shari’i penalty
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/cursing_sahaba/en/index.php
Innovation with regards to the Shari`i
Penalty of Cursing Sahaba by "Sipah-e-
Sahaba"
The extremist worshippers of Sahaba are doing
propaganda and misguiding normal Muslims that it is
Haram to criticize the wrongdoings of Sahaba.
But it is against Islamic Sharia, which orders us not only to
criticize the wrongdoings of any personality, but in case of
some extreme "Wrongdoings" also send "Lanat" upon
them. Allah says in Qur’an:
[Yusufali 4:93] If a man kills a believer
intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide
therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of
Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is
prepared for him.
In order to conceal the wrongdoings of some Sahaba (like
killing of Ammar Yasir by rebellious group), these Sahaba
worshippers have innovated in Islamic Sharia, and
demanding that any one who criticises some Sahaba for
their wrongdoings, he should be put to DEATH.
Similarly, they declare Shi’as Kaffir while they criticize those
some Sahaba for their crimes. And not only they declare
Shi’as Kaffir for this, but also it becomes a tactical means
of shedding the blood of the innocent Shi'a. killing of
Shi'as are justified, for they curse the Sahaba
Shari'i Penalty of Cursing Sahaba according
to Sharia
The Islamic Sharia is very clear on this issue. Rasool Allah
[saww] said: Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet
(peace be upon him) said: The gravest sin is going
to lengths in talking unjustly against a Muslim's
honour, and it is a major sin to abuse twice for
abusing once. [Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number
4859 ]
So, abusing/cursing any Muslim unjustly is a gravest sin
and punishment for this is ABUSING ONLY ONCE IN
RETURN (And if someone abuses twice in return, it's again
a Major SIN). This is all what Islamic Sharia says about
abusing/cursing other Muslim (irrespective of being Sahaba
or normal Muslim). Abu Bakr also witnessed this fact.
Narrated Ab Bakr: Abu Barzah said: I was with Ab
Bakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot
words. I said: Do you permit me, Caliph of the
Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) that I cut off
his neck? These words of mine removed his anger;
he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said:
What did you say just now? I said: (I had said
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Permit me that I cut off his neck. He said: Would
you do it if I ordered you? I said: Yes. He said: No, I
swear by Allah, this is not allowed for any man after
Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4350
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated by Abu Huraira:
"One person was abusing Abu Bakr and Rasool Allah
(s) was watching it and smiling. When he didn't
stop, then Abu Bakr refuted him. Upon this, Prophet
Muhammad (s) stood up and left.
Hadhrath Abu Bakr said: "O Prophet of Allah, till the
time he was abusing me, you kept on sitting (and
smiling), and when I refuted him, why you became
angry?" Rasool Allah (s) said: "O Abu Bakr, when he
was abusing you, an angel was refuting him from
your side, and when you started refuting him, then
came devil and I cannot sit with devil".
Masnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, vol. 2, page 436
Narrated 'Urwa from 'Ayesha:
…(Zainab bint Jahsh complaint Rasool (saw)
against Ayesha) On that she (Zainab bint Jahsh)
raised her voice and abused 'Ayesha to her face so
much so that Allah's Apostle looked at 'Ayesha to
see whether she would retort. 'Ayesha started
replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet
then looked at 'Ayesha and said, "She is really the
daughter of Abu Bakr."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755, translated
in English by Saudi paid Alim Mohsin Khan
Narrated Abu Salih As-Samman:
I saw Abu Said Al-Khudri praying on a Friday,
behind something which acted as a Sutra. A young
man from Bani Abi Mu'ait, wanted to pass in front of
him, but Abu Said repulsed him with a push on his
chest. Finding no alternative he again tried to pass
but Abu Said pushed him with a greater force. The
young man (a Tabai) abused Abu Said(a Sahabi)
and went to Marwan and lodged a complaint against
Abu Said and Abu Said followed the young man to
Marwan who asked him, "O Abu Said! What has
happened between you and the son of your
brother?" Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 9, Number 488
Note: The word of "Tabai" in above parenthesis i.e. in (The
young man (a Tabai) abused Abu Said) are not ours but of
Salafi Translator of Sahih Bukhari Mohsin Khan.
Narrated Anas:
It was said to the Prophet "Would that you see
Abdullah bin Ubai." So, the Prophet went to him,
riding a donkey, and the Muslims accompanied him,
walking on salty barren land. When the Prophet
reached 'Abdullah bin Ubai, the latter said, "Keep
away from me! By Allah, the bad smell of your
donkey has harmed me." On that an Ansari man said
(to 'Abdullah), "By Allah! The smell of the donkey of
Allah's Apostle is better than your smell." On that a
man from 'Abdullah's tribe got angry for 'Abdullah's
sake, and the two men abused each other which
caused the friends of the two men to get angry, and
the two groups started fighting with sticks, shoes
and hands. We were informed that the following
Divine Verse was revealed (in this concern):-- "And
if two groups of Believers fall to fighting then, make
peace between them." (49.9)
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 856
Narrated Said:
Aban bin Said came to the Prophet and greeted him.
Abu Huraira said, "O Allah's Apostle! This (Aban) is
the murderer of the Ibn Qauqal." (On hearing that),
Aban said to Abu Huraira, "How strange your saying
is! You, a guinea pig, descending from Qadum Dan,
blaming me for (killing) a person whom Allah
favored (with martyrdom) with my hand, and whom
He forbade to degrade me with his hand.'
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 545
Sulaiman b. Surad reported that two persons
abused each other in the presence of Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) and the eyes of one of
them became red as embers and the veins of his
neck were swollen. Thereupon Allah's Messenger
(may peace be upon him) said: I know of a wording,
if he were to utter that, his fit of rage (would be no
more and that wording is): I seek refuge with Allah
from Satan the accursed.
Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6316
(Ayesha said): The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon
him) came upon me while Zaynab, daughter of
Jahsh, was with us. He began to do something with
his hand. I signalled to him until I made him
understand about her. So he stopped. Zaynab came
on and began to abuse Ayesha. She tried to prevent
her but she did not stop.
So he (the Prophet) said to Ayesha: Abuse her.
So she abused her and dominated her. Zaynab then
went to Ali and said: Ayesha abused you and did
(such and such)……..
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4880
Briefly, there are a lot of occasions when Sahaba cursed
each other in presence of Rasool Allah [saww], but he
never ordered the killing of people on this account.
Fatwas of Ulama of Ahle-Sunnah
Imam Hafidh Ibne Taymiyyah al-Damishqi
Imam Ibne Taymiyyah (Sheikul-ul-Islam of Salafies) wrote
in his book Al-Sarimul Maslool, page 579 (first published by
Taba Sa'ada Egypt), while giving arguments against Kufr of
person who insulted Sahaba: "And merely abusing
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
some one other than the Prophets does not
necessarily make the abuser Kaffir; because some
of those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e.
companions) used to abuse one another and none of
them was declared kaffir because of this (practice);
and (also) because it is not Wajib to have faith
particularly in any of the companions; therefore
abusing any of them does not detract from the faith
in Allah and His books and His messengers and the
Last day"
Imam Nawawi Al-Shafi
Imam Mohiyyuddin Al-Nawwawi Al-Shafi writes: "There is
a consensus of All Aima and Fuqha of Ahle-Sunnah
that abusing Sahaba Karam is Haram, but the
punishment for this is not killing" [Al-Nawwawi, Sharh
Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, page 310, published in Delhi ]
Hadhrath Umar Ibne Abdul Aziz
One of his representatives from Kufa wrote him:
"Please advise me about a person, who abused
Umar bin Al-Khattab. Should I kill him?"
He replied him: It is not allowed to kill any person
due to abusing any muslim, except in case of
abusing Rasool Allah (s). Thus, if anyone abuses
Nabi (s), then his blood is Mubah". [Al-Tabaqaatul
Kubraa, v. 5, p 369, published in Bairut.]
Mulla Ali Qari
"It is neither proved by Sahaba nor Tabaeen to kill a
person or declare him kaffir who insults Abu Bakr
and Umar. And the 3 Imams i.e. Imam Abu Hanifa,
Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yousuf are
unanimous that a person who insults Sheikhain
(Abu Bakr and Umar) is neither Kaffir nor Wajib-ul-
Qatl. According to Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu
Yousuf, even the witness of such a person is
acceptable. Silalatul Risalah, page 19, published in Jordan
In order to more clarify this fact, Mullah Ali Qari writes in
"Sharah Fiqh Akbar": "Then again from the opinion of
Imam Abu Hanifa that Ahle Qibla, even if he is Ahle
Bidah (innovator) doesn't become Kaffir due to his
sins, it proves that no one becomes Kaffir merely by
abusing Abu Bakr and Umar. To abuse Abu Bakr and
Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur as Salimi has
correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And it is
because the basis of this claim (claim that reviling
the Shaykhayn is kufr) is not proven, nor its
meaning is confirmed. It is so because certainly
abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as is proved by a
confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhayn(Abu
Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims)
in this rule; and also if we suppose that some one
murdered the Shaykhayn, and even the two sons in
law (Ali and Usman), all of them together, even
then according to Ahlussunnah wa al-Jamah, he will
not go out of Islam (i.e. will not become kaffir)
Sharah Fiqah Akbar, page 86 Matba Qayyumi, India
 Sunnis & Tahreef (distortions) in Qur’an
To read the entire chapter please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/creed_of_shia_explained/en/chap3.php
Are the Shi'a kaffir BECAUSE Tahreef pregnancy
traditions exist in their texts? admitted."
Nasibis often cite tahreef traditions from Usul al Kafi. In
reply to these traditions we will advance the following
arguments:
Hadith can NOT contradict the Qur'an
With regards to the traditions of Usul al Kafi that Nasibi
shamelessly quotes, we should point out that these
traditions have been deemed by the Ulema to be weak
narrations. In addition to this Allah (swt) takes the
responsibility of protection of the Qur'an Himself by
declaring: "Certainly We revealed the Reminder and
certainly We shall preserve it." ( Holy Qur'an 15: 9)
When Allah (swt) provides a guarantee that it is protected,
any hadith of tahreef automatically has to be rejected. We
do not deny that these traditions exist, but the Nasibis
should know that there is a difference between tahreef
traditions and basing one's aqeedah on those traditions.
The ultimate standard to determine the authenticity of any
hadith is the Qur'an, if it conflicts with Allah (swt)'s Book it
must be disregarded. This is also confirmed by al-Kulayni,
compiler of al-Kafi from where the Nasibis cite the tahreef
traditions to their followers.
Sunni traditions of tahreef
Despite this quite logical fact Nasibis and the fellow Nasibi
groups insist on declaring Shi'as kaffirs on account of
tahreef traditions. They are in effect forcing us to accept
that these traditions are a part of aqeedah. By that logic, if
Shi'as are kaffir then so are the Ahl'ul Sunnah for like the
Shi'a their texts also contain traditions of tahreef. We will
provide a few examples:
A missing verse on stoning?
Hadhrath Umar's saying that the current Qur'an is
incomplete. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8, pages 209-210,
we read this sermon delivered by Hadhrath Umar during
his last Hajj as Khalifa:
"Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and
revealed to him the Book. One of the revelations
which came to him was the verse of stoning. We
read it and understood it".
"The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after
him. I am concerned that if time goes on, someone
may say, 'By God, we do not find the verse of
stoning in the Book of God;' thus, the Muslims will
deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty
revealed.
"Stoning is in the Book of God. It is the right
punishment for a person who commits adultery if
the required witnesses are available, or there was
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
without marriage or adultery is
Hadhrath Ayesha also testified to a 'missing' verse
on stoning
"When the verses "Rajm" [Stoning] and ayah
"Rezah Kabir" descended, they were written on a
piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following
the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate
the piece of paper while we were mourning.
Sunan Ibne Majah, Vol 2, P 39, Published Karachi…
Has most of Surah Ahzab been lost?
Al-Muttaqi 'Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book "Mukhtasar
Kanz al-'Ummal" printed on the margin of Imam Ahmad's
Musnad, Volume 2, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33,
said that Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said:
'Umar said to me 'How many verses are contained in
the chapter of al-Ahzab?' I said, '72 or 73 verses.'
He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the
Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was
the verse of stoning.
Has most of the Qur'an been lost?
Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti records the following words of
Abdullah ibne Umar: "No one can proclaim that I have
found the Qur'an complete because most of the
Qur'an has been lost". " Tafseer Durre Manthur" as-
Suyuti Volume 1 page 104
A missing verse on suckling
Muslim also reported in the Book of al-Rida'ah (Book of
Nursing), part 10, page 29, that 'Ayesha said the following:
"There was in what was revealed in the Qur'an that
ten times of nursing known with certainty makes
the nursing woman a mother of a nursed child. This
number of nursing would make the woman 'haram'
(forbidden) to the child. Then this verse was
replaced by 'five known nursing' to make the
woman forbidden to the child. The Prophet died
while these words were recorded and read in the
Qur'an."
Did the Sahaba read verses containing 'Ali's
name?
Ibn Masud notes that he would read this verse from Surah
Ahzab as follows: "and enough was Allah for the
believers in their fight 'via Ali ibn Abi Talib'. Tafseer
Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 192
One should note that Hadhrath Abdullah bin Masud would
read these verses with name the 'Ali. His text contained
this, and he himself states that he read a verse
in this way in the presence of Rasulullah (s). Perhaps
Nasibis could shed light as to why we no longer find the
name 'Ali in the current Qur'an? The answer will of course
be that the name here was contained in Ibn Masud's
Tafseer of the Qur'an.
We likewise say exactly the same when explaining our
similar texts, we believe that the some Sahaba had the
name 'Ali inside verses in brackets, as an interpolation so
that they would know about whom the verse descended.
The words 'Ali (as) were NOT part of any verses, but
simply a way of 'remembering' that this verse descended in
praise of 'Ali. The Imams of Ahl'ul bayt (as) likewise
wanted to remind the people about whom these verses
descended.
The actual Shi'a position
Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (as)
"We did not make humans rulers, but we made the
Qur'an the ruler over humans. This Qur'an is free
from change but does not speak on its own accord,
an interpreter is needed for this task." Nahjul Balagha
part 6 page 7, Publishers Rehmania Egypt
Hadhrath Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as)
Ali bin Salam narrates from his father who asked
Imam Jafer Sadiq (as) "O descendant of Prophet
(S). What are your views on the Qur'an? Imam Jafer
(as) replied 'the Qur'an is Allah's book; it contains
commands of Allah; sent by Allah. It is not subject
to alteration, neither can anyone claim that it has
been changed, nor has anyone ever made such a
claim. Amali-al-Shaykh Saduq, Page 545, Published Iran
Shaykh Saduq (R.A)
The completeness of Qur’an is so indisputable among Shi’a
that the greatest Shi'a scholar of Hadith, Abu Ja’far
Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn al-Husain Ibn Babueyh, known as
"Shaykh Saduq" (309/919 - 381/991), wrote:
"Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah revealed
to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one
between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the
one which is in the hands of the people, and is not
greater in extent than that. The number of Suras as
generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen
...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater
in extent than that, is a liar." Etikadat Shaykh Saduq
93, Published Iran
Allamah Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai
This renowned scholar of the Qur'an writes in his very
famous exegesis, Tafseer-ul-Meezan, 12th edition, page
109, Published Iran:
The Qur'an, which Almighty Allah descended on
Prophet Muhammad (S), is protected from any
change.
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
Scholar's of Ahlul Sunnah that have
vouched for the Shi'a viewpoint
Allamah Abdul Haq Haqani Dehlavi
Up until the present time no Shi'a scholar, or for
that matter any adherent of the Islamic Faith has
held a belief that the Qur'an has ever been altered
or changed. The Shi'a scholars have reiterated this
point in their texts. Tafseer-e-Haqani, 1st Edition, Page
63, Published Lahore
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith
Dehlavi
Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehlavi, while acknowledging
that the Shi'a do not believe that the Qur'an had been
altered states: It is proven from all the traditions of
the Imamia that the Ahl'ul bayt used to recite this
same Qur'an and based their decisions in
accordance with it. The commentary of Qur'an by
Imam Hasan Askari is the commentary of this
(same) Qur'an. All his children, relatives and
servants studied 'this' Qur'an, and he used to order
them to recite this Qur'an when praying. It is due to
this fact that Shaykh Ibn-e-Bawia in his book "Al
Aqidath" denied that Qur'an had been altered. Tuhfa
Ithna Asharia, Page 281, Published Istanbul
Apart from the scholars cited, numerous other Sunni
scholars have also confirmed that the Shi'a do not believe
that the Qur'an is incomplete.
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shaykh Ghazzali of
Egypt in "Wafa an Al aqida wa Al Shariah" Page 265-266,
Publishers Al kutub Al hadisia, Egypt, 1985
Imam Abu Zahra Misri in "Al Imam Al Sadiq", Page 206,
Published Egypt
Ahmed Abraham Being Ustad Shaykh Shaltoot in
"Ilm Usul-e-Fiqh", page 21 published Egypt.
Allamah Sami Arif-ud-Din in "Al muslimun man Hum",
Page 98, Published Egypt.
Allamah Muhammad Ali M.A Lahore in "Jameih-al-
Qur'an", Page 111, Published Lahore.
Maulana Ghulam Dastagir Anjahani in "Imamate-ul-
Burhan", page 5, Published Lahore.
Principal of the Shariah Department of Al Azhar University,
Allamah Shaykh Muhammed-al-Madani in
"Risalah'thul-Islam", 11th Edition, Pages 382-383, 4th Part
Allamah Rehmatullah Hindi Dehlavi in "Izhar-ul-Haq"
2nd edition, Page 89-90, Publishers Mutabah Amira,
Istanbul
 Mut’ah; a comprehensive guide
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/en/index.php
What is Mut'ah?
Nawawai in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, defined
Mut'ah as follows: Nikah Mut'ah is marriage for a fixed
time on Mehr agreed with the woman, when the
time expires the marriage comes to an end.
[Nawawai. Sharh Sahih Muslim. Volume 4, p. 13 ]
Qur'anic Evidences for the Legitimacy of
Mut'ah
The Verse of Mut'ah (4:24)
[Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what
your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for
you, and all other women besides these are
permitted to you, so that you may seek them out
with your wealth, seeking chastity and not
fornication. So when you have contracted
temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then
give them their words. There is no sin on you for
whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is
Knowing, Wise. [Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24]
Allah (swt) has used the word istimta'tum, which is the
verbal form of the word Mut'ah. Many of the Sunni Tafsir
writers agree that this verse explicitly deals with Mut’ah for
example "Istimatum' here refers to Nikah Mut'ah and
this is a form of Nikah where a couple for a specified
time have ownership of one another, and when the
time expires they separate without Talaq" [Tafseer
Mazhari Volume 3 p. 18…]
We also read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Vol 2, P. 140 & 141
that Ibn Abbas(r) said: "Mut'ah was practised from the
outset of Islam and the Companions would read the
verse of Mut'ah with the words 'for a prescribed
period'.
Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Qur'an?
The first argument is that the verse of Mut'ah came down,
but this was abrogated when the verses dealing with
marriage came down, such as the opening verses of Surat
al-Mu'minun: "Successful are the believers, who are
filled with awe in their salat, who turn away from
vein talk, who give in charity, and who protect their
chastity, except with their wives or those whom
their right hands possess." Qur'an, Surah 23, Ayah 1-6
As anybody with even the most basic knowledge of Islam
knows that the Prophet (s) migrated from Makka to
Madinah, meaning he was in Makkah first. Allamah Shabbir
Ahmad Uthmani in Fath al Mulhim, Sharh Muslim Volume 3
page 221 in his discussion of the verse , 'And those who
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
preserve their private parts except with their
spouses or what their right hands posses' - states:
"The verse being referred to descended in Makka"
Whilst these verses descended in Makka, Sunni traditions
confirm that Mut'ah was practised much later, during the
battle of Khayber. This means that, according Nasibis, the
abrogating verse (nasikh) was revealed before the
abrogated verse (mansukh). This is, of course, a logical
impossibility: how can the verse of Mut'ah be abrogated by
the verses from Surat al-Mu'minun when the verse of
Mut'ah was revealed after those verses?
Allamah Baghdadi in his discussion of the verse 'And
those who preserve their private parts except with
their spouses or what their right hands posses' also
acknowledges this fact in his Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani Volume
9 page 10: "This verse is Makkan and descended
before the Hijrah [migration], since Mut'ah was
halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this
as evidence of the illegality of Mut'ah".
Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Sunnah?
Analyzing the claim that Mut'ah was made haraam
on the day of Khayber
It is often said by the critics of Mut’ah that Prophet(s)
forbade it at Khyber.
But we see that the Sunni scholars have rejected the
narration of Bukhari and Muslim wherein Mut'ah was
banned on the Day of Khayber. We shall rely on the
following authentic Sunni sources as proof:
In Fathul Bari vol.9 pg. 145 and Neel al Authar vol.6 p.
146, Sunan Baihaqi vol.7 pg.201 and Zaad al Maad Volume
1 pg. 443 Abu Awaanah is quoted as writing in his Sahih:
"I have heard scholars saying that the tradition
related of Ali only talked of the prohibition of the
eating of the meat of domestic asses and there was
no mention of Mut'ah, and the tradition is silent on
that matter".
Above all, Ibn Qayyim says in Zaad al Maad Volume 2 page
142: that “If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on
the Day of Khayber then what we are saying is that
cancellation occurred twice and this has never
happened in religion for sure and will not happen."
Analyzing the claim that Mut'ah was made haraam
at the time of the conquest of Makka
Ibn al Qayyim states in Zaad al Maad: "Most argue that
if this hadith were correct Ibn Masud would know
about it. It is even narrated that they (himself and
other companions) were practising it and that he
proved the legitimacy of Mut'ah by quoting verse 24
of Surah Nisa . He further adds: "If the tradition
was correct Omar would not say: 'It (Mut'ah) was
permissible during the time of Allah's Messenger (S)
but from now henceforth I declare it forbidden and
will punish those who practice it', he (Omar) would
rather have said "The Messenger of Allah (S)
prohibited it and forbade it.
This argument is irrefutable. As will be discussed below,
there is no doubt that it was 'Umar who forbade Mut'ah,
and did so in complete contradiction to the hukm of the
Prophet (s) and Allah (swt).
The Truth: That 'Umar banned Mut'ah
We cite the fatwa of Ibn Abbas(r), where he stated:
"Mut'ah was blessing of Allah upon the Ummah of
Muhammad and had Umar not prohibited it the only
person to fornicate would be a wretched person."
[Tafsir Durre Manthur Vol 2 p. 41 Ayat Mut'ah]
It has been established that the Qur'an bore witness to the
legitimacy of Mut’ah, and that it was originally halaal. All
arguments about other verses abrogating the verse of
Mut’ah have proven invalid. The only argument after this
was the belief that the Prophet (s) had abrogated it in his
Sunnah, but this was proven to be impossible: all of the
hadeeths dramatically contradict each other on this issue.
It is also well known that a large number of companions, if
not the majority of them, continued to practice Mut’ah after
the death of the Prophet (s). The only claim for the
abrogation of Mut’ah which remains, then, is the only claim
which is true: that it was "abrogated" by 'Umar, who of
course had no authority to do such a thing. This
acknowledgement is made in Ahl'ul Sunnah's esteemed
work al Awail, wherein we read: "The first to make
Mut’ah haraam was 'Umar"
Indeed, the Sahaba deemed Umar to be a liar when it
came to this issue. We read in Tafseer Kabeer p. 41:
"Imam Ali(as) said "Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then
the only person to fornicate would be a wretched
person."
Admission by Umar
We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 p. 12
hadith 369 that : "When Umar become Khalifa he
issued a sermon to the people of the Qur’an is the
same Qur’an and Rasulullah(s) is the same
Rasulullah(s). During the time of Rasulullah there
were two types of Mut'ah, Mut'ah of Hajj and
Mut'ah of Nisa."
It is stated in Kanz al Ummal Volume 8 p. 93 Bab Mut'ah.
"Ibn Qalaba narrates Umar said, 'During the lifetime
of Rasulullah(s) there were two types of Mut'ah, I
now prohibit them and shall inflict the punishment
of the Zina on its perpetrators."
Imam Malik issued a Fatwa that Mut'ah is halaal
We read in Fatwa Qadhi khan Volume 1 p 151 al Nikah
Fayl: "Mut'ah cannot be Nikah , Mut'ah is false,
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
it should not be practised, Ibn Abbas and Imam
Malik had differing views, in their views this was
practicable".
Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal deemed
Mut'ah to be Halal
We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 14, Surah Nisa
verse 24: "Ibn Abbas and other party amongst the
Sahaba narrated traditions that Mut'ah is halaal,
and Ibn Hanbal also said that it was practicable"
The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral
Critics of Mut’ah deem it immoral while an un-Islamic and
worst form of marriage is permissible among Wahabis
namely 'Zawaj al Missyar' or 'Marriage with the intention of
Divorce'. See the fatwa of Shiekh Bin Baz at
http://www.binbaz.org.sa/last_resault.asp?hID=323 where
he states: "…Response: Yes, this fatwa has come
from Permanent Council (of Muftis), and I am its
leader, and we have ruled that it is permissible to
marry with the intention of getting divorced, if this
intention is between the servant and his Lord. If
someone marries in a Western country, and his
intention is that when he finishes his studies or
finds a job or something like this that he will get
divorced, then there is absolutely no problem with
this in the opinion of all 'ulama…"
This is absolutely bizarre. Bin Baz has permitted something
that is in no way different from a temporary marriage. If a
marriage with the intention to divorce is not temporary
marriage, what is it? The only reason Bin Baz says Mut'ah
is invalid is because the man actually tells the woman this
beforehand, and that they agree on it, and that this
condition is binding. Basically this amounts to saying that
since Mut'ah is honest, it is haram. So if a man lies to a
woman and promises her a permanent marriage, and then
divorces her one-hour later, this is fine. But if a man and
woman actually agree together that the marriage is only to
last a month or what have you, then it is haram. For the
Bin Baz camp its perfectly legitimate for a man to marry a
woman [with the 'hidden' intention of divorcing her
afterwards] if this is not deception then what on earth is?
Few Facts About Mut’ah
Just like in permanent marriage, there is 'waiting period' or
'iddah' for woman in Mut’ah [Tafseer-e-Kabir", v 3, page
286 ; Wasai'l, vol. 21, p. 44, hadeeth #26489… ]
About the inheritance of child out of Mut’ah, it is well
known amongst the Shi'a that the child of Mut'ah is
considered legitimate and has all rights of inheritance.[See:
http://www.mutah.com/muta2.html ]
The child born out of such marriage is no doubt legitimate.
We can read that two beloved Sahaba of Sunnis Urwa and
Abdullah were indeed the products of this union when their
mother Asma bint Abu Bakr contracted Mut’ah with Zubayr.
Musnad Abu Dawud Vol 1, Page 309 Published Bairut; Al-
Maudhoorath Volume 2 page 96 by Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah
al-Raghib al-Isfahani.
 Burning the house of Fatima binte Mohammad [saww]
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/index.php
Introduction
This topic has been the subject of intense debate in the
world of Sunni / Shi'a polemics since the death of
Rasulullah (s). Discussions in connection with the attack on
the house of Sayyida Fatima always generate huge
emotions, so intense that they in effect force people to
think about which side of the Sunni / Shi'a divide they
choose to remain on. This tragic episode in effect explains
why it is that Shi'a Muslims bear enmity to some of those
individuals that Sunni Muslims deem to be their heroes.
The anger of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
"Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he
who makes her angry, makes me angry."
This hadith makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)'s anger
is on par with the anger of Rasulullah (s). This is all the
more significant when we recognize that one who incurs
the wrath of Rasulullah (s) also incurs the wrath of Allah
(swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that
we should steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah
(swt).
Analysing the event from classical Sunni
sources
There are many authentic Sunni sources where this
incident has been recorded but for the sake of brevity, we
shall cite some of them in this flyer.
First Reference - al Imama wa al Siyasa
Let us begin with Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim bin
Qutaybah (d. 276 Hijri) who in his famous book al Imama
wa al Siyasa pages 18-28 states as follows:
"When news reached Abu Bakr that the people had
gathered in the house of 'Ali and were refusing to
give bayya, he sent Hadhrath Umar in their
direction. Umar called out to Akraan who was in the
house of 'Ali, but he refused to come out. Umar then
said: 'I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, if
you people do not come out of the house I shall set
fire to it, and everyone inside shall perish. The
people said 'Abu'l Hafs (Umar), Fatima (daughter of
Rasulullah (s)) is also in this house'. Umar replied, 'I
do not care about this, people should leave the
house of 'Ali and give bayya'. 'Ali replied I have
sworn that I shall not set foot outside my home
until I have completed compiling the Qur'an.
[ Al-Imama Walsiyasa Page 12 ]
Second Reference - Tareekh Abul Fida
Sunni historian Abul Fida in his discussion on the attack on
the house of Fatima (as) recorded the event, in a very low
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
key / cautious tone, but as a scholar of integrity and
honesty he has refused to cover up history and has still
acknowledged that the event did indeed take place and
Umar threatened to burn Fatima (sa) alive: "Then Abu
Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab with the objective that
those 'people gathered in the house of Fatima and
Ali come out, and that if anyone objects to coming
out then you should fight them'. Hadrath Umar
approached with fire in his hands to set the house
ablaze. At this point Hadhrath Fatima approached
and said 'Would do you dare, Ibn Khattab? Do you
wish to set my home on fire? Umar said 'Give bayya
to 'Abu Bakr and enter into that which the majority
of the Ummah has agreed to.'
Tareekh Abul Fida Urdu translation by Maulana Karrem'ud
Deen al Hanafi pages 177-179
Third Reference - Iqd al Fareed
Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik in his book Iqd al Fareed Volume
3 page 283 states: "Those that were opposed to the
bayya of Abu Bakr were 'Ali, Abbas, Zubayr and Sa'd
bin Ubada, amongst whom 'Ali and Abbas were
sitting in the house of Fatima. At that time Abu Bakr
sent Umar with the order 'that you remove those
gathered in the house of Fatima, and if they refuse
to come out then kill them'. Umar brought fire to
the door and Fatima said 'Ibn Khattab have you
arrived in order to set my home on fire?'. Umar
replied 'I have come with the intention that you
people give bayya to Abu Bakr as others have
done".
Fourth Reference - Tareekh Tabari
The most renowned Sunni historian Ibn Jareer al Tabari
also recorded this event. We read in al Tabari (English
translation) Volume 9 page 187: Ibn Humayd - Jarir -
Mughirah - Ziyad b. Kulayb: Umar Ibn al-Khattab
came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some
of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar
cried out: "By God, either you come out to render
the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on
fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As
he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from
his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."
Sayyida Fatima (as) suffered a miscarriage
on account of Umar's actions
We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah's authoritative work Sharh
Kushaiji page 407 under the chapter Mubais Imamate as
follows: "Abu Bakr sent Umar when Ali had refused
to give bayya to Abu Bakr. Umar went with fire and
this caused Fatima distress as a result of which she
suffered a miscarriage".
What is this "distress" that led to Fatima (as) miscarrying
her child so that the infant was stillborn? If it was Santa
beating up a woman then Santa must surely also be a
murderer. Sunni scholar Salahuddin Khalil al-Safadi in his
book 'Waafi al-Wafiyyaat' under the letter 'A' cited the view
of Ibrahim Ibn Sayyar Ibn Hani al-Basri, well-known as
Nidhaam:
"On the day of 'Bay'aat' (paying allegiance), Umar
hit Fatimah (AS) on the stomach such that child in
her womb died."
Hanafi scholar al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in
Murujj al Nubuwwa "Chapter 4, the events of 2 Hijri
'Tajweez Fatima'": "Allah (swt) gave Fatima and 'Ali
the following five children, Hasan, Husayn, Zeyneb,
Umme Kalthum and Muhsin, who was martyred
following the Ummah's oppression, this illness and
pain led to the death of Fatima".
The Islamic penalty for one guilty of causing
Sayyida Fatima (as) to have a miscarriage
We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed page 531 "Dhikr Badr" as
follows: "Naqeeb Abu Jafer states that when Jabir
bin Asood who frightened Zeyneb causing her to
suffer a miscarriage, Rasulullah (s) deemed it
permissible (mubah) shed his blood. Had Rasulullah
(s) been alive he would have likewise deemed it
permissible to shed the blood of the individual that
frightened Fatima, to the extent that she had a
miscarriage".
The respect afforded to house of Sayyida
Fatima (as) by Rasulullah (s)
The exalted rank and respect afforded to the house
of Fatima (as)
Ahl'ul Sunnah's leading Sunni scholar of Tafseer Durre
Manthur Volume 5 page 51, al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in
Tafseer Durre Manthur, narrates from Ibn Marwaya - Uns
bin Malik - Burhaida:
"Rasulullah (s) recited this verse 'and amongst
houses is a house that Allah has ordered to be
exalted'. A Sahaba asked 'O Prophet of Allah whose
house is being referred to here?' He (s) said this
refers to the houses of Prophets. At this point Abu
Bakr pointed in the direction of the house of Ali and
Fatima and asked is the house of 'Ali and Fatima
included amongst the homes of the Prophets?'
Rasulullah (s) replied 'Yes their home is superior to
their homes'.
It is tragic that a house that Rasulullah (s) had testified to
having such a rank, where guidance shone out from in
Paradise, was attacked with Umar threatening to set it on
fire! We ask those with open minds, can there be a more
heinous act than that? The devil had taken hold of Umar's
mind. The sheer impudence in his personality, the
arrogance with which he treated the Holy Prophet (saws),
cannot be forgiven.
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
Did Umar not think about the consequences of his actions?
He knew Sayyida Fatima (as) was in the house, if there
was any doubt that her (as) remonstrating with him,
confirmed this. Despite this he arrogantly replied to her
and made his intention clear that he was willing to kill her
and those in the house if bayya was not given to Abu Bakr.
Just imagine a madman like that in your neighbourhood-
you would warn your wife and kids not to go anywhere
near him…his actions would make the national news
headlines… "PSYCHO TRIES TO BURN PREGNANT WOMAN
AND HER CHILDREN TO DEATH"… indeed it is so shocking
it made the Islamic headlines also… all the great SUNNI
men of letters we quoted noted it...it's preserved there
over a thousand years later. Note that even in jihad, it is
forbidden to terrorise women and children…so what was
this man doing?
The reaction of Sayyida Fatima(as)
The fact of the matter was that it was so serious that
Sayyida Fatima despised Abu Bakr to the degree that she
did not even want him to participate in her funeral prayers
or attend her funeral. Sayyida Fatima (as) stipulated that
no one attends her funeral, who she was upset with, and
this testimony has been vouched for in the following books
of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
• Tabaqat ibn Sa'd, Dhikr Fatima page 19
• Mustadrak al Hakim Dhikr Fatima page 192
• Hilayath al Auliya page 43
Sayyida Fatima (as)'s eulogy of her suffering
Hadhrath 'Ali stated 'following the death of Rasulullah (s),
Fatima (s) went to the grave of the Prophet (s) and recited
these words:
"O my beloved father, since your death I have faced
such troubles that had these fallen on the day it
would have turned into night"
[ Tarikh Khamees p173, Murujh al Nubuwwath page 443
Dhikr Dufun Rasulullah (s) …]
These words have entered the Arabic language as a
mournful expression in prose, so powerful are they. These
words, used by countless Arab women ever since down to
the present, including the daughters of martyred fathers
falling at the hands of injustice, originate from those of
Sayyida Fatima (as) all those years ago and stand as proof
that she had suffered immense torment following the death
of her father - it is clear evidence that she was persecuted
and was so hurt by her treatment that she complained to
Rasulullah (s) after his passing.
The haunting memory of Fatima (as)'s pain is testified to
also in the fact that uniquely amongst those that died
during that period, her grave in Madina is unknown. She
was also buried at night. Why? Because the Umar and his
Cronies could not force themselves onto her funeral
procession.
 Fadak; The property of Fatima al-Zahra[as]
To read the entire book please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/index.php
Fadak is a controversial issue that has since the death of
Rasulullah (s) created an open wound between the Sunni
and Shi'a schools of thought. The best summary exists
from Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),'After the
death of Allah's Apostle Fatima,the daughter of
Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her
the share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle
had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without
fighting)which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said
to her, "the holy Prophet (saww) had said, 'Our
property will not be inherited; whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)."
Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry
and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued
assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima
remained alive for six months after the death of the
Holy prophet(saww).
The scholors of Ahle Sunnah have fought tirelessly to
uphold the decision of Abu Bakr as correct. The reason
that they do so is because so much hangs on upholding
Abu Bakr's stance. After all if he is proven wrong then they
will have to admit that the Khalifa coined a tradition to
justify the usurpation of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as).
The matter would not just end there it will raise more
serious issues such as.
1) The Justice of the Sahaba - If the 'best friend' of the
Prophet (s) could behave in such an unjust manner what
can we expect of the other Sahaba?
2) If Abu Bakr ruled in such an unjust manner then how
can he be deemed the rightly guided Khalifa of the Prophet
(s)?
3) If hatred for Abu Bakr is a sin then why did Sayyida
Fatima (as) hate Abu Bakr until her dying day?
General facts on Fadak
What is Fadak?
"Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of
travel from Madina. There were wells of water and
trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about
which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu Bakr, "My father
gave me this Fadak as a present". Abu Bakr asked
her in reply to produce witnesses."
[Tareekh-e-Khamees, v2, p88 …]
The income from Fadak
"Abu Dawud says that when Umar bin Abdul-Aziz
became Caliph, the income from the property of
Fadak was 40,000 Dinars.”
[ Sunan Abu Dawud, v3, p144 ]
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
How did the Prophet attain Fadak?
"When the Prophet (s) returned from Khayber, he
sent Muhisa bin Masood to propagate Islam to the
people of Khayber. The leader of the Jews of
Khayber at that time was Yusha bin Nun. The people
of Fadak refused to accept Islam, but offered to give
them half of their Land of Fadak. The Prophet (s)
took half the land and allowed them to live there.
This half Land of Fadak was property of the Prophet
(s), as the Muslims didn't ride horses over it".
[Tareekh Kamil, v2, p108, …]
The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as)
aquired Fadak
Allah declares in the Holy Qur'an:
And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also)
to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander
not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.
Al-Qur'an, Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali
We read in various tafsirs of Ahle sunnah that :
"Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas
narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights
to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima
Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her".
[Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177, …]
The contents of the written paper which
Prophet (s) gave Fatima Zahra (as)
In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al
Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the
written document:
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin
Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land,
whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima
Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her
children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it,
then it's sin is on his head. And Allah is "Sami" and
"Aleem".
Abu Bakr's rejection of witnesses'
testimony
Fatima [as] asked her right of Fadak which was
gifted to her by Prophet(s) but when Abu Bakar
rejected that stance, She (as) asked it throught law
of inheritence. The fact is that Abu Bakar accepted
Umme Kalthum (as) as witnesses to corroborate
her claim, but he rejected all of them.
“Fatima made a claim that Rasulullah (s) left
Fadak for her and she presented the
testimonies of Umm Ayman and 'Ali in her
favour, yet the criteria for witness numbers
was not met. There are differences amongst
the scholars as to whether a husband can
testify in favour of a claim made by his wife. It
can also be said that Fatima did not ask her
witnesses to make a claim on oath. People
have also said that Hassan, Husayn and Umm
Kalthum testified in support of Fatima's claim,
this is Batil, the testimony of offspring or
underage children in favour of their parents is
unacceptable.”
[Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Page 138 & 139 ]
When Abu Bakr felt like it, he would accept
a claim without the need for witnesses
Narrated Muhammad bin Ali: Jabir bin
Abdullah said, "When the Prophet died, Abu
Bakr received some property from Al-Ala bin
Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people,
"Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet,
or was promised something by him, should
come to us (so that we may pay him his
right)." Jabir added, "I said (to Abu Bakr),
Allah's Apostle promised me that he would
give me this much, and this much, and this
much (spreading his hands three times)."
Jabir added, "Abu Bakr counted for me and
handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and
then five-hundred, and then five-hundred."
[Sahih, Muslim, Volume 2 page 291, …]
All that it took was the word of Jabir that Rasulullah
(s) owed him money; no witnesses were presented
to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakr's opinion was
that the money should be returned to Jabir, without
the need for witnesses, he didn't say anything that
contradicted the Qur'an, yet when Fatima [as]
claimed that the land of Fadak was bequeathed to her as
inheritance, he refused to grant her the land, on the
premise that the stipulated witnesses required to give
evidence were not met.
Rules of Inheritance in the Qur'an
With regard to inheritance, we read the verse of
Surah Nisa 004.007, translated by Yusufali
“From what is left by parents and those
nearest related there is a share for men and a
share for women, whether the property be
small or large, a determinate share”.
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's
(Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of
two females: if only daughters, two or more, their
share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one,
her share is a half”.
Al-Qur'an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 11, Yusufali
These verse proves that a daughter of any person
whether normal or a Prophet(s) is the Waris of her
father.
Qur'anic proof that Prophets leave
inheritance to their offsprings
Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016:
“And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye
people! We have been taught the speech of birds,
and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things:
this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)"
We read in many sunni tafsirs including Tafseer Ruh al
Ma'ani vol 24,p 183: "Maqathil narrates that there
were one thousand horses, and Sulayman inherited
these from his father”
In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the
supplication of Prophet Zakariya:
“Praying: "O my Lord! Infirm indeed are my bones,
and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but
never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to
Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives (and
colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is
barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One
that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the
posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one
with whom Thou art well-pleased!"
Sayyida Fatima (as) left a will that Abu
Bakr be prevented from attending her
funeral
"When Sayyida Fatima died, Ayesha arrived with the
intention of coming in, but Asma physically
prevented her from entering. Ayesha complained to
Abu Bakr that 'this woman has prevented me from
participating in the funeral rites of the Prophet's
daughter' Abu Bakr then came himself and asked
'Asma why do you prevent the wife of the Prophet
(s) from, entering?' She replied 'The Lady had
personally ordered her exclusion'.
[al Istiab Volume 4 page 367,…]
 Ayesha
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php
The rebellion of Hadhrath Ayesha against Was Ayesha seeking Qisas for the blood of
Hadhrath 'Ali (as) Uthman ?
Hadhrath Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of
Jamal was a violation of the Qur'an
Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of
Rasulullah (s): "And stay quietly in your houses, and
make not a dazzling display, like that of the former
Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Qur’an 33:33
We read in Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196
commentary of Surah Ahzab, that: "When Hadhrath
Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in
your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like
that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Qur’an
33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used
to get wet with tears".
The prohibition on Hadhrath Hafsa that she not join
Ayesha proves that Ayesha was misguided
We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 231 that: "Hadhrath
Hafsa binte Umar made preparations to join Ayesha,
but (her brother) Abdullah Ibne Umar prevented her
from going".
Ayesha wanted to install herself as the Imam over
the nation
In Tadkhira al Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the
narrator states: "I was walking through Jamal and
witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels
and reciting poetry, another narrators states that
someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to
which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who
intends to become Ameerul Momineen".
Answering the Ibn Saba Defence Card
Nasibis seek to play down the situation with the claim that
the two parties had resolved hostilities and that the battle
of Jamal was in fact started by the followers of Ibn Saba
hiding within Imam 'Ali (as)'s army, hence they should be
blamed for the fitnah.
Ayesha's killing of the Shi'a of 'Ali at Basra destroys
the Ibn Saba defence card
"In Kufa Abu Burdha Azdi asked Hadhrath 'Ali, 'why
were people killed at Jamal?'. 'Ali replied 'They
killed my Shi'a and my officials without any
justification, then they fought me, despite the fact
that they gave me bayya, they killed 1000 of my
companions". [ Muttalib al Saul page 119 ]
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Imam 'Ali (as) rejects Ayesha's demand of Qisas for
Uthman
In Muttalib al Saul page 116 we read that when Ayesha
reached Basra, Hadhrath 'Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it
stated here:"…Tell me Ayesha what role do women
have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah?
You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood,
Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you
are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra".
Hadhrath Ayesha's incitement against Uthman
refutes the defence of Qisas
A woman who was so determined that she was willing to
go to war to avenge Uthman's death would have been just
as vocal in defending him during his lifetime. Curiously we
find that this was not the case and we have this testimony
by Imam 'Ali (as) in a letter written to Ayesha as recorded
in Seerath al Halabiyya Volume 3 page 356: "You have
acted in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)
by leaving your home, you have made demands for
those things that you have no right. You claim to
wish to reform the Ummah, tell me, what role do
women have in reforming the Ummah and
participating in battles? You claim that you wish to
avenge Uthman's murder despite the fact that he is
a man from Banu Ummayya and you are a woman
from Banu Taym. If we look in to the matter it was
only yesterday that you had said 'Kill Nathal May
Allah (swt) kill him because he has become a
kaffir".
Ibn Atheer in Nahaya page 80 Volume 5 record that:
"Nathal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha
said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was referring to
Uthman".
Hadhrath Ayesha's enmity towards Imam
'Ali (as)
'Ali Muttaqi al Hind in Kanz al-`ummal, Chapter 8 Kitab
“Mawa azafee katheeya'thul taweela” records the testimony
of Imam 'Ali (as): Hadhrath Ali said, "Ayesha fought me
because firstly being a woman she possessed a
weak judgement and secondly she bore enmity
towards me and it would open in the same way a
pot is opened. She would have never fought anyone
other than me in that way".
Ayesha's reaction at the death of Ali (as)
"When news of 'Ali's death reached Ayesha, she
said: And she threw down her staff and settled upon
her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return
home". [ al Tabari Volume 17 page 224 ]
Professor G. R. Hawting who states in the footnote on page
224: "…the verse is proverbial ands is cited indicate
pleasure at something".
Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, "One that
expresses happiness at the suffering of Ahl'ul bayt
(as) is a murtad"
In Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page
263: "What view should we hold of those people
who express happiness on Ashura when Imam
Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who
disrespect the family of the Prophet and the
descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer
to such individuals as Murtad".
Was Hadhrath Ayesha the most superior wife
of Rasulullah(s)?
Rasulullah said: "The most excellent of the women of
all worlds whom Allah chose over all women are:
Asiya the wife of Pharaoh, Mary the daughter of
Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, and
Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad" [ Sunan al-
Tirmidhi, v5, p702 ]
Hadhrath Ayesha's jealousy of Hadhrath Khadija is
clear proof that she was not the most superior wife
In Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.166 Ayesha herself narrates:
"I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the
Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not
see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very
often, and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he
would cut its parts and send them to the women
friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him,
"(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no
woman on earth except Khadija," he would say,
"Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had
children."
Jealousy is a trait inherent in a person who is envious of
the superior position of another, and Ayesha's admission "I
did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the
Prophet as much as I did of Khadija", is clear proof
that Ayesha was fully aware of the superior rank of
Hadhrath Khadija. Had Ayesha indeed been the most
superior wife there would have been no need for her to be
jealous.
Were Abu Bakr and Ayesha the most
beloved of Rasulullah (s)?
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
The most beloved are those individuals whose love
has been made compulsory in the Qur'an
Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the
love of those near of kin." (Qur’an 42:23).
Jalaladin Suyuti in Tafsir Durre Manthur under the
commentary of this verse records the following: Abdullah
ibne Abbas narrates 'When this verse descended the
people asked who are these close relatives whose
love had been made compulsory?' Rasulullah said
they are 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn'.
Hadhrath Ayesha's condemnation in the Qur'an is
further proof that she was not the most superior
wife of Rasulullah (s)
Some Ahl'ul Sunnah assert that since Ayesha was the most
superior wife then that means that she was the most
superior of all women. Not only is the claim that she was
the most superior wife baseless, the fact of the matter is in
Surah Tahreem, Allah (swt) also states this: "Perhaps if
he divorces you, his Lord will give him wives who
are better than you, who submit and believe (Qur'an
66:5)" - this clearly indicates that there were believing
women among the Muslims who were much better than
Ayesha.
Do the Shi'a slander Hadhrath Ayesha?
The Sahaba slandered the character of Hadhrath
Ayesha
"Hadhrath Ayesha was accused of illicit relations.
Those responsible for spreading this allegation were
Hadhrath Abu Bakr's cousin Mustha bin Hasasa and
the Prophet's sister in law Humna binte Hajash and
the poet Hasan bin Thabit. The Prophet ordered that
they be flogged and they were punished
accordingly" [al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page
160 Volume]
The 'true' Shi’a position with regards to
Hadhrath Ayesha
"The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against
drowning, and my Ahl alBayt protect my nation
against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs
differs from them, they will all then differ and
become the party of Satan." [page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-
Mustadrak ]
Had Hadhrath Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul
Momineen living a life of piety within the confines of her
home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed
respect that the wives of Rasulullah (s) deserve.
Unfortunately her envy and greed lead her to mount a
mass rebellion against the Imam of the time 'Ali ibne abi
Talib (as).
 Who really killed ‘Uthman?
To read the entire topic please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/index.php
The gist Nasibis has been to absolve the Sahaba of any
wrongdoing in the killing of ‘Uthman. They have done their
utmost to locate sources that protect the leading
companions, for they know too well that failure to do so,
in effect raises serious questions on the Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
aqeedah on the justice of the Sahaba.
Identifying ‘Uthman’s killers
Hadhrath Ayesha’s lead role in killing “The leaders of the group who killed ‘Uthman were
Uthman Abdur Rahman bin Adees, Hakeem-bin-Jaleeh and
Many of the books of Ahl’ul Sunnah record that Ayesha had
declared ‘Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Ibn Atheer
in Nahaya page 80 Volume 5 and Ibn Mansur in Lisan al
Arab Volume 11 Chapter "Lughuth Nathal" page 670 both
record that: "Nathal is one who has a long beard and
Ayesha said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was
referring to ‘Uthman".
In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 we read that:
"Musruq said to Ayesha, ‘Uthman died because of
you, you wrote to people and incited them against
him".
Sahaba had highlighted Ayesha’s shift in
policy on Uthman
In Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 100 Ibn Atheer records
that: "Ubayd bin Abi Salma who was a maternal
relative of Ayesha met her as she was making her
way to Madina. Ubayd said "‘Uthman has been killed
and the people were without an Imam for eight
days" to which Ayesha asked "What did they do
next?". Ubayd said "The people approached '‘Ali and
gave him bayya". Ayesha then said 'Take me back!
Take me back to Makka". She then turned her face
towards Makka and said, 'Verily ‘Uthman was
murdered innocently, and By Allah, I shall avenge
his blood'. Ubayd then said 'You are now calling
‘Uthman innocent, even though it was you who said
'Kill Nathal, this Jew".
Talha & Zubayr’s lead role in killing Uthman
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah al Zuhri records a conversation
between Imam ‘Ali (as) and Zubayr prior to the battle of
Jamal:
"Ali said: 'Zubayr, do you fight me for the blood of
Uthman after you killed him? May God give the most
hostile to Uthman among us the consequence that
that very person dislikes’. [Tarikh Tabari, V 4, p90]
We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 7 page 248
Dhikr Jamal: “Talha was killed in the battle of Jamal
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
by the arrow of Marwan, who then told Aban-bin-
Utham that I have taken the revenge for the blood
of ‘Uthman”.
Identifying the usual suspects
The Muhajir, Ansar and other faithful living
in Madina killed Uthman
We read in Iqd al Fareed page 215:
Abdullah-bin-Fadeek. They came to Madina and
with both, the Ansar and Muhajireen, surrounded
the house of ‘Uthman, they finally stormed it and
killed him”.
The Sahaba wrote to people inciting them
to rise up against ‘Uthman
The fact is the Sahaba had written letters inciting uprising
against ‘Uthman. We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa, page
64, that when Talha and Ayesha reached Basra, a man
approached Talha and said:
“O Talha, Do you recognize this letter?” Talha
answered, “Yes” to which the man said’ “Don’t you
feel ashamed that only a few days earlier, you wrote
letters to us inciting us to kill ‘Uthman and now you
ask to revenge his blood?”
In Iqd al Farid, Page 218, Volume 6, it is written that
Marwan told Ayesha that “‘Uthman was killed on
account of your letters”.
Talha and Ayesha were not the only individuals to wrote
letters, rather the Sahaba living in Madina had become
disillusioned with Uthman and encouraged those Sahaba in
other provinces to come to Madina and oppose Uthman. As
proof we present al Tabari, English version, v15, p184 who
narrates on the authority of Ibn Ishaq:
“When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the
companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other
companions who were scattered throughout the
frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to
struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of
Muhammad's religion. In your absence the religion
of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So
come back to reestablish Muhammad's religion."
Thus, they came from every direction until they
killed the Caliph (Uthman)”.
The Sahaba and their children colluded He (Mazani) replied, “No! By Allah we won’t follow
with the Egyptians to kill ‘Uthman your lead, for if we do, we will be counted amongst
We read in Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 385, Dhikr those who on the Day of Judgement shall proclaim
Fadail ‘Uthman: that our leaders misguided us”.
“When the Egyptian forces landed at “Ghafa” and
began to talk ill of ‘Uthman ‘Uthman, ‘Uthman got to Note here this Sahaba refuses to side with ‘Uthman – he
know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, did not deem him to be a victim, on the contrary he made
“O Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah it clear that to side with him would lead to punishment on
curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my the day of Judgment for following a misguided Imam.
shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have
also provoked people against me. Did ‘Uthman die a ‘martyr’?
There are some alleged hadiths in which Prophet(s) said
A Sahaba that pledged allegiance under the that Uthman will die a martyr and would attain paradise.
Worthy of note is the fact that Baladhuri in Ansab al
tree of Ridhwan commanded the Egyptian
Ashraf Volume 5 page 76 notes that, when the Sahaba
rebels Mujammi bin Jarriya al Awsi passed by Talha (during the
“Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman- siege), Talha asked how ‘Uthman was, Mujammi replied “I
bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” think that you will kill him”. Talha replied:
peace treaty, and he was also present at the
“allegiance under the tree”, “Allegiance of Rizwan”, “If he should be killed, he is neither an angel
and he was the commander of the group that came brought close (to Allah) nor a Prophet (sent by
from Egypt and surrounded the house of ‘Uthman him)”.
and killed him”. [Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203,…]
It is clear here from Talha’s statement that he had no
Mu’awiya’s cousin Muhammad bin Abi regrets should ‘Uthman die, for he did not have an
Hudhifa played a lead role alongside the esteemed rank in the eyes of Allah (swt). Could Talha
make such a comment if he was aware that Rasulullah (s)
Egyptians in killing ‘Uthman
said he would die a martyr that would attain paradise?
We read in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad
bin Abi Hudhifa: “The lead figure in inciting people
against ‘Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, ‘Uthman’s body was unattended for three
‘Uthman raised him for many years after his father days. Companions’ not burying him proves
had died. When people began to oppose ‘Uthman, that they did not deem him to be a martyr
Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 Page 190:
worsened the situation”. ‘Uthman’s body remained unattended for three days
after his murder,the Sahaba did not bury him.”
Talha advised the Egyptians during the
siege of ‘Uthman’s palace We read in Al Istiab Page 80, Dhikr ‘Uthman:
“Three days after the murder, ‘Uthman’s body
Whilst the Egyptians had surrounded ‘Uthman’s home, the
remained unattended near rubbish, and the Sahaba
presence of prominent Sahaba on the ground is what gave
did not bury him.”
their opposition momentum. Talha was present outside
‘Uthman’s residence during the siege. Qays bin Abi
Hadhim al Baj’ali narrates that a man had visited Conclusion
Talha during the siege and requested that he
intervene to prevent the death of ‘Uthman. Talha The best and shortest explaination about the issue of the
replied “No by Allah, not until the Banu Ummayya murder of Uthman was given by Sadf Ibn Abi Waqas as
surrender the right on their own accord”.[Tareekh stated in in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 218 and al
Damishq, by Ibn Asakr, Chapter “‘Uthman” page 407] Imama wal Siyasa page 45 that:

Sahaba that participated in Badr also "Sad ibn Abi Waqqas was asked 'who killed
‘Uthman? Sad replied, 'the sword was lifted by
participated in the killing of ‘Uthman
Ayesha and it was sharpened by Talha".
We read in al Istiab Volume 4 page 48, Dhikr Abu al Hasan
Mazani: “Abu Al Hasan Mazani was a companion of
Prophet Muhammad (s), and he was one of the
companions present in “Aqba” and Badr”. Zaid bin
Thabit, on the day of ‘Uthman’s murder said to the
Ansar from Madina that, “Shall we become the
helpers of Allah for a second time?”

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

 Who killed Imam Hussain[as]?
To read the entire topic please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_killed_imam_hussain/en/index.php
Nasibis had perpetuated the common lie that the Shia killed
Imam Husayn (as). In this refutation we shall analyse the
facts of history to expose the fallacy of such a claim. Their
argument can be summarised as follows:
1) The Shi’a invited Imam Husayn (as) by writing letters
and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can
recognise him as their Imam.
2) Imam Husayn (as) sent Muslim bin Aqeel (as) as his
representative to assess the situation
3) The Shi’a gave bayya to Imam Husayn via Hadhrath
Muslim bin Aqeel (as).
4) The same Shi’a subsequently abandoned him following
the entry of Abdullah ibn Ziyad.
5) The Shi’a failed to support Imam Husayn (as) as a
result he was killed.
The approach we have taken is to focus on the historical
sources in detail and then identify and expose the beliefs of
the Kufan people.
The beliefs of the people of Kufa
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Allamah Shibli Numani in al Faruq
states that Hadhrath Umar established Kufa city:
“The city was founded in 17AH and, as Omar had
expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge
forty thousand persons were built. Arab tribes were
allotted separate quarters under the supervision of
Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given clear instructions
with regard to the plan of the city as well as its
construction”. “In Omar’s lifetime the city came to
attain such greatness and splendour that the Caliph
called it the head of Islam”.
[al Faruq Volume 2 page 95-96]
The Kufan Arabs accepted the concept of khilafath that had
been established at Saqifa, and expanded by Hadhrath
Umar. The Kufans were those that deemed Ali (as) to be
the fourth khailfa, which is not the belief espoused by the
Shi’a who deem him (as) to be the rightful khalifa after
Rasulullah (s).
The mass extermination of the Kufan Shi’a
“I am al-Jamali.I believe in the religion of Ali.A man
by Mu’awiya’s Governor Ziyad called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying
One should also point out that any trace of Shi’a presence
that existed in Kufa was in effect eliminated with the
coming to power of Ansar.org’s Imam Mu’awiya. When
Ziyad bin Sumayya became Governor of Kufa he
slaughtered the vast bulk of the Shi’a of Ali, to the extent
that only a few were left.
[Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 3 P50, …]
In such circumstances how can we accept that the vast
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
bulk of Kufans were Shi’a? How can it be believed that the
Shi’a that had been obliterated by Ziyad all of a sudden
appeared again and were strong and confident enough to
summon Imam Husayn (as) to them.
Sahaba and Tabieen living in Kufa wrote to
Imam Husayn (as) and became the
Tawabun
Imam Dhahabi writes as follows: “Sulayman bin Surad,
the Leader of the al Khuza’i in Kufa, was a Sahaba
of Rasulullah, hadith have been narrated on his
authority. Ibn Barr states ‘He (Sulayman) was
amongst those that wrote to Imam Husayn [r] and
gave him bayya. They were unable to support him
and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged
war. I am of the opinion that he was a pious
religious individual, he joined the army on account
of his sin of failing to support Husayn [r], he made
tauba (asked for forgiveness) and left to avenge the
shedding of his (Husayn’s) blood, this army was
known as the army of the Tawabun”
[Sira Alam an Naba V 3 p 394 (Beirut edition)]
The participation of the Sahaba and their
sons in killing Hadhrath Muslim bin Aqeel
(as)
Dhahabi states “Umar bin Harith is counted amongst
the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) that had settled ion
Kufa…he is a Sahaba who narrated hadith from
Rasulullah (s). [Sira Alam Volume 3 page 417]
Later Ibn Kathir informs us about Umar bin Harith:
“Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad arrested Muslim bin Aqeel
and sent him to Umar bin Harith Makhdhoomee,
who was the Chief of Police”. [Tabari V 6, p 198]
The Shi’a of Uthman/Nasibis killed Imam
Hussain (as)
We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the
battlefield of Kufa, in Imam Husayn (as)’s army declaring:
“I follow the religion of Uthman”.Nafi replied,
“Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he
attacked and killed him” [Tabari V 19 P 136-137]
When Yazeed’s forces encircled Imam Husayn (as) and his
Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he
stated: “Stop the water of Husayn in same way that
Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”. [Tabari]
Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:
“Treat them in the same way that Amee’rul
Momineen Uthman was treated”. [Bidayah V 8 p175]
It is clear as day that those that killed Imam Husayn (as)
were those that deemed Uthman to be ‘Ameer’ul
Momineen’. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other
than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen; we do not
even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the
army of Yazeed considered Yazeed to be Ameerul
Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda. Those in Yazeed’s
army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani /
Nasibis. Upon receiving the news that Imam Husayn (as)
was making his way for Kufa Marwan bin Hakam wrote to
Ibn Ziyad, stating: “Husayn ibn Ali is heading in your
direction. He is Fatima’s son and she is the daughter
of Rasulullah (s). By Allah! We deserve nothing
greater than bringing him into our possession".
[al Bidayah Volume 8 page 165]
Naming & shaming the Nasibi killers of
Imam Husayn(as)
Shah Abdul Aziz states: “The Syrian forces upon orders
of Yazeed and the efforts of Chief of hatred and
fitnah Ibn Ziyad martyred Imam Husayn in
Kerbala”. [Taufa Ithna Ashari, page 9]
Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi has written similarly about
Marwan: “Mu’awiya’s rebellion and Marwan’s being
a Nasibi are proven facts” [Sharh Ahfaq Tasneef, p 270]
So who supports the Nasibi killers of Imam
Husayn (as)?
Shamir al Amiri: Shamir was one of Ibn Sa’d officers and
infact gave the final order to slay Imam Husayn (as). Imam
of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Tadheen al Ithidhab
Volume 4 page 365 states: “Shamir was an Uthmani,
Imam Nasai and Ibn Habban deemed him to be a
reliable authority”.
Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas: Dhahabi whilst
writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Sira al
Volume 4 page 349: “Umar bin Sa’d lead the army that
killed Imam Husayn (as), the Mukhthar killed him… Imam
Nasai has narrated traditions from him”.
Ubaydullah bin Ziyad: On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani
states: “Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad ibn Abi Sufyan…Abu
Sabir took traditions from him…he narrated
traditions on the authority of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas,
Mu’awiya, Maqil bin Sayyar and Banu Judha, Ibn
Ameer. Hasan Basri and Abu Maleek bin Asma took
traditions from him”.
[Tahbeel al Munfaath buzwahdh rijaal al Muthaa al rijjaatha
page 180]
Shabath bin Rib’I: He was the leading one who invited
Imam Hussain (as) to Kufa. Dhahabi writes on him:
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
“This is the individual that rebelled against Imam
Ali, he rejected the arbitration, and then
subsequently repented…he narrated hadith on the
authority of ‘Ali, Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’b
Kurdhee and Sulayman Timee took hadith from him
in Sunan Daud” [ Sira Volume 4 page 150 ]
Marwan: Ibn Arabi stated: "With regards to Marwan
and Yazeed, critics who assert that they were both
fasiq, are themselves fasiq. Marwan is in the eyes of
the Sahaba, tabieen and fuquha a just individual, he
was a high ranking member of the Ummah".
[al Awasim min al Kawasim page 88-89]
Did the tragedy of Karbala highlight the
Shia/Sunni schism?
Yes, because Hanafi School deems Yazeed to be the Sixth
Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). “Sharh Fiqh Akbar” by Mulla 'Ali
Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid and on the page 176 of
this book, He sets out 12 caliphs of Islam including Yazeed
as 6th one.
Yazeed was a Sunni Muslim
We read in one of the books of Ahlu Sunnah, “Sharh
Qaseeda Amali”, page 16: "Other than a kaafir, is is
not permissible to curse a Muslim and Yazeed was
not a kaafir but was a Sunni Muslim"
Conclusion
Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a
hadith on the authority Hadhrath Ayesha: "Oh Allah
never shower your blessings on the cursed, killer
Yazeed, he will rebel against my beloved Husayn
and martyr him"
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Hafidh Jalaladun Suyuti records this
tradition in “Khasais al Kubra” V2 p 125 on the authority of
Sahaba Uns bin Harith: "I heard Rasulullah(s) say
'Verily my son [Husayn] will be killed in a land
called Kerbala,whoever amongst you is alive at that
time must go and help him".
Taking these two traditions and the allegation that Shia
killed Imam Hussain (as) into consideration, following
questions arises in one’s mind…
1) Yazeed was cursed by Prophet(s). Now who deem him
to be the 6th rightfull caliph?
2) According to the words of Prophet(s), it was incumbent
to help Hussain (as). Now who deem those people as
reliable narrators, who didn’t help Imam Hussain (as) infact
lead a notorious role in the killing of Imam Hussain (as)?
To escape from such questions, our opponents have
discovered an excellent way propagated by their renowned
scholar Imam Ghazali that: "It is a sin for the people
to narrate the martyrdom of Hasan and Husayn, as
retelling the troubles of the family of the Prophet
(s), creates enmity towards the Sahaba".
 Azadari; Mourning for Imam Hussain [as]
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/azadari/en/index.php
Commemorating Muharam
We read in Surah Ibrahim verse 5:
PICKTHAL: We verily sent Musa with Our
revelations, saying: Bring thy people forth from
darkness unto light. And remind them of the days of
Allah. Lo! Therein are revelations for each steadfast,
thankful (heart).
We read in Kanz al Ummal Vol 4 page 320: "The day of
Ashura is Allah (swt)'s day". Hence reminding Ashura is
not against Islam as it is one of the days of Allah[swt].
Is Azadari against Patience?
In this connection we have the comments of Abdul Hamid
Ghazzali In his esteemed work, Ihya ul Uloom Adeen" Vol
4, page 126: "Weeping for the dead is not against
patience". Also we have numbers of incidents where we
see tha not only companions but Holy Prophet[s] also
lamented over the death of their beloved ones.
Rasulullah's blessing for those that weep
for Imam Husayn (as)
Allama Ibn Hajar Asqalani has recorded a tradition in his
renowned book 'Isaba' V 1, p 226 that: The Prophet(s)
said: 'whoever on the day of Ashura weeps for my
son Husayn, Allah will place that person in paradise
alongside the Ul'il Uzm Prophets.
When Rasulullah (s) himself has guaranteed Paradise for
those who weep for Imam Husayn (as) then who are the
Nasibis to give Fatwas against mourning. Whom should we
follow, the Prophet(s) or these Nasibis?
Reciting elegies (Marsiyah) for Imam
Husayn (as)
Many of today's Nasibis deem the recital of sad poetry in
praise of our slain Imam (as) to be an act of Bidah that has
no place under the Shari'ah.
While we read in history that Prophet Adam[as] recited
couplets over death of Habeel [Tareekh Yaqoobi V 1 p 30],
Ayesha recited couplets over Abu Bakar's death [Iqd al
Fareed V 3 p 204 ], Hassan bin Thabit recited elegies over
Prophet's death [Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, v 5 p 485 (urdu)]
and most importantly heaven / Genies recited elegies over
martyrdom of Imam Hussain[as] as heared and narrated
by Ume Salma (ra) [ibid, V 8 p 1106 ].
Majalis (Gathering) to remember the dead
Umm'ul Momineen Salmah obtained the approval of the
Prophet (s) to participate in a mourning ritual. We read in
Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work "Al-Jami al-Sagheer" by
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2005 • All Rights Reserved
al Tabrani page 206: "On one occasion Umm Salmah
appeared before the Prophet (s) and said 'O
Rasulullah (s) the women of Waleed bin Waleed
ibne Mugheera's of Bani Majhum are arranging a
mourning gathering, and I require your permission
to be present there He gave his permission. Umm
Salmah went and recited a couplet whilst crying…"
The Fatwa of Ulema e Ahle Sunnah
regarding the permissibility of Majalis e
Hussain(as)
Sunni Scholar of sub continent, Allamah Muhammad Shafi
Okarvi writes in his book "Shaam e Karbala" page 300:
"Hadhrath Shah Rafiuddin Mohaddith Dehalvi who
is also the translator of Holy Quran, says in one of
his edicts: 'Holding of Majalis for the remembrance
of Imam Hussain [as] in the month of Muharram, or
other than that, listening to Salams and elegies, and
crying and wailing for the martyrs of Karbala is
permissible and correct.'"
Wearing black attire
Some Nasibi says that black was the attire of the people of
Pharaoh and the people of Hell. For all such ignorant
people we would like to present some historical facts, for
example Gabriel came to Prophet [s]in black attire
[Tareekh Baghdad 4th Ed p 232 ], Prophet (s)'s shroud
was black [Sirat Ibn Hisham, 4th Ed p 665], Prophet (s)'s
turban was black [Sahih Muslim Hadith # 3146]. Moreover
we read in the prominent book of Ahlul Sunnah, Sharh
Shumail Tirmidhi, page 166 that: "On the day of the
murder of Hadrath Uthman, a party of people wore
black just as Imam Hassan (as) used to give
sermons whilst attired in black. Moreover his turban
also used to be black."
Hitting ones body (Matam / Zanjeer)
This is one of the favourite areas of exploitation for the
Nasibi and they enjoy making fun and insisting that these
practises are against the Shari'ah. We would like to present
incidents of Prophets and companions where they
lamented in such a way. For example in plenty of Sunni
books we read that "Rasulullah (s) was in a state
where he was hitting his chest." [Sahih Bukhari V 2 p
50 etc] Ibn Hajr Asqalani in the commentary of this
tradition in Fathul Bari V 3 p 90 writes: "This Hadeeth
demonstrates that it is permissible to bang your
hand at a moment of distress".
We read in renowned anti-shia book Tauhfa Ithna Ashari
page 523 that: "When Ayesha was defeated and Ali
saw the corpses on the ground he began to beat his
chest".
In Surah adh-Dhaariyaat we read that Hadrath Sara (as)
struck her face when she was told that she would conceive
a baby."Then came forward his wife in grief, she
smote her face and said (what! I) An old barren
woman?" Quran 51:29.
The slapping of Prophet Ibraheem (as)'s wife Sara is
proven from the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us to adhere to
the ways of the people of Ibraheem (as), so if the Shi'a
beat themselves whilst mourning for Imam Husayn (as)
such acts are lawful.
We also read in authority books that Prophet Yusuf[as]
beat his head when he came to know about dismal
situation of his father [Tafseer Kabeer V 5 p 158], similarly
we read in [Aqd al Fareed V 2 p 5] that Umer beat his head
over death of Numan ibn Muqran, Ayesha along with other
women beat their faces over Prophet's death [Tabari
History V9 p 183], Uthman's wives and daughter beat their
faces over his death [Tareekh Kamil V 3 p 89] and Hazrat
Owais Qarni broke all of his teath when he came to know
that Prophet's teeth has been broken during a war [Seerate
Halbia' vol II, page 295].
Creating and revering symbols (Sha'er
Allah)
We reading in Holy Quran: And (further) their Prophet
said to them: "A Sign of His authority is that there
shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an
assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and
the relics left by the family of Moses and the family
of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for
you if ye indeed have faith."
Al-Qur'an, Surah 2, Ayah 248, translated by Yusufali. Under
the commentary of this verse Imam Fakhruddin Razi
writes: "The Ashab narrate that Allah (swt) sent
some relics to Adam (as) which contained pictures
of the Prophets and these relics were inherited by
the children of Adam until they reached Hadhrath
Yaqoob (as)" [Tafseer Kabir Volume 2 page 506 & 507].
It is clear from this verse and tradition that Allah created
these pictures of Prophets and sent them to Hadhrath
Adam (as) who transferred it to his lineage. Hence paying
homage to the symbols/images of prophets stands as an
established fact. Why does the Ahl'ul Sunnah remain silent
when it comes to this matter? If the Shi'a produce images
of Karbala to commemorate the tyrannies faced by Ahl'ul
bayt (as), the aim is to recall the tragedy of Karbala in
people's minds. Our aim is not to worship these images. If
Allah (swt) sent pictures of Prophets that were kept by the
people to remember Him then why the objection when the
Shi'a create images to remember Karbala?
Street Processions (Juloos)
The Sunni Imam Ibne Qutayba in "Al-Imama wa Siyasa",
vol 1, page 42 states about the situation after the murder
of Uthman: "One of the ambassador of Mu'awiyah
told him: I have left 50,000 old people in such
Copyright © 2002-2005 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
State that they have made their beards wet with
tears, while they are weeping after looking at the
shirt of Uthman. And this shirt has been raised by
them on the spears."
And in authentic Sunni book "Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya",
page 268, vol 7, it is written:
"When the shirt of Uthman was kept on the Minbar
(in mosques), the people gathered around the
Minbar and started weeping. Afterwards, some time
it is kept there and some times it was taken away
from there. Whole complete year people wept upon
this shirt in this way."
These references make it beyond doubt that beard of
Uthman was pulled with an extreme force.These hairs and
Uthman's bloodied shirt were sent to Mu'awiyah in
Damascus, who did a lot of 'Azadari over them. Sometimes
they were kept on the Mosque pulpit, and at others they
were raised on the spears and shown to the shell shocked
Syrians. Processions wherein the shirt and hairs were
paraded went on for an entire year.
It's very sad that these so called Muslims show sorrow for
the killing of this 70 years Bani Umayyah tribesman but
when it comes to mourning the samily of the Propget (s),
who were slaughtered in state of thirst in Karbala, they
become machines of issuinn all manner of Kufr Fatwas
against such acts.
The weeping of the skies and Jinn for
Imam Husayn (as)
Ibn Hajr al Makki in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa records a tradition
wherein: "Ali, while passing through Karbala,
stopped at the place where Husayn was going to be
buried and said: "Here Husayn and his comrades
will be slain and the heavens and the earth shall
weep over them".
Hardline Nasibi scholar Ibn e Katheer writes: "When
Hadhrath Yahya bin Zakariya (a.s) was assassinated
the sky turned red, it also turned red when Imam
Husayn (r) was martyred..:After the martyrdom of
Husayn (r) fresh blood started to gush from
wherever stones were picked up. There was a solar
eclipse, the corners of the sky had turned red."
[Tafseer Ibn Katheer, volume 9, page 163, published in
Egypt]
The constant weeping of Angles for Imam
Husayn (as)
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Shaikh 'Abdul Qadir Jilani, in his
famous book, "Ghanyatul Talibeen", page 604; comments:
"70,000 angels came to the grave of Husayn bin Ali
after his martyrdom and they wept for him and will
keep weeping unto the Day of Judgment."
Nasibi say that the Shi'a commit Bidah by mourning the
tragedy of Husayn (as) every year, what Fatwa do they
have upon these 70,000 angels that mourn Husayn (as)
every day?
 Juloos; Religious mourning procession
Please visit us for comprehensive Islamic studies:
http://www.answering-ansar.org
What is happening?
What you are seeing here is a religious mourning
procession commemorating martyrdom of Imam Hussain
(P), grandson of Prophet Mohammad (P). Hussain was
raised in an atmosphere of piety, gentle kindness and
tender love. He was also educated to place the needs of
others above the needs of his own and to respect and love
his mother and father. Above all Hussain was taught that
the word of God was the source of salvation and
tranquillity. He was killed by Yazeed the Tyrant, some
fourteen hundred years ago in Karbala, Iraq.
Why was Imam Hussain (P) killed?
Yazeed sought endorsement of his oppressive regime
through the allegiance of Imam Hussain. Imam Hussain,
following on from the footsteps of his father Imam Ali (P)
and grandfather Prophet Mohammad could never have
given his support to such an oppressive ruler. We are sure
that there must have been people who despised Yazeed.
As is the normal case such individuals are reduced to the
ranks of the ‘Silent majority’ - they despise their tyrannical
leaders but remain silent fearing the consequences of open
opposition. You will only get a handful of strong minded
courageous individuals who are willing to fight for what
they believe in, not fearing the repercussions, however
serious they might be. Imam Hussain was willing to
sacrifice all this and more to protect the faith and show the
world that mankind should never submit to tyranny.
When was Imam Hussain (P) killed?
In 680 A.D. Yazeed’s failed assassination attempt on Imam
Hussain resulted in his decision to travel to Iraq, so as to
avoid bloodshed. Imam Hussain set out on this journey in
May 680 A.D. and reached his destination Karbala, Iraq on
2nd of October 680 A.D. He was accompanied by 72 of his
companions including women and children from his family.
According to Arab culture, anyone accompanying women
and children with him is a sign of peace. It was here that
Hussain, his family and Shi’a (Partisans) were confronted
by the army of Yazeed. Hussain refused to pledge
allegiance to the tyrant and Yazeed declared war on him.
Hussain was forced to battle the army of Yazeed, but not
before the army had cut off their food and water supply for
three days. For three whole days and nights, enduring
temperatures around 55°C without food or water, the
males of the camp, totalling 72 (including the elderly and
children) fought valiantly and were all brutally slaughtered.
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Hussain was forced to witness the savage mutilation of
Abbas - his brother, the callous murder of his nephew
Qasim, the torture and execution of his innocent son Ali
Akbar and finally the depraved murder of his six month old
baby boy - Ali Asghar. Left alone finally Hussain was also
attacked, his body was showered with arrows, his head
was severed and the hooves of the horses of Yazeed’s
cavalry trampled on his body.
The aftermath of the battle led to the humiliation of the
women of Hussain’s camp. Their tents were looted and
burnt, leaving the women to the mercy of Yazeed’s
soldiers. The aggrieved children who had lost their fathers
were beaten. Headscarves were snatched off and they
were made to trek barefoot, chained and shackled, from
Karbala to Damascus, a journey of approximately 750
miles. The heads of all the males including that of
Hussain’s six -month old son were impaled on spikes (as
war trophies) and paraded through the streets. On arriving
at Damascus, they were paraded in the town, for all to see
and shun. A barrage of stones, rubbish and verbal abuse
bombarded them. They were kept in prison for over a year.
Why are we taking it to the roads?
Imam Hussain spent his life following the Divine order of
God, and was a brilliant leader, teacher and spiritual guide
for humanity. His determination to uphold the truth and
denounce the falsehood has given hope to all oppressed
peoples and strengthened our faith. We are here,
remembering his death, and are sending a message to his
killers and all tyrants, that the Truth can never be hidden
and no compromise will be made against tyranny.
It is vital that we remember the atrocities committed by
Yazeed, inorder to keep alive and propogate the message
of Imam Hussain to all humanity. Our men mourn the men
of Imam Hussain who were martyred, our women mourn
the helpless women of Imam Hussain’s family, and our
children mourn his children. “Azadari” the mourning for
Imam Hussain, is an important aspect of Islamic belief and
history. All Muslims are indebted to Imam Hussain for
keeping the religion alive and free from any distortions.
How often this mourning is observed?
This is observed on the 10th day of Islamic month of
Moharam. The mourners of Imam Hussain throughout the
world suspend their normal activities on this day, and
participate in this noble cause. We march today; to
remember, mourn and uphold the teachings and values of
Hussain and show our support for all oppressed peoples.
 Mu’awiya
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/index.php
Was Mu'awiya seeking Qisas for the death The callous killing of Hujr bin Adi (ra)
of Hadhrath Uthman? Mu’awiya instituted the bidah of cursing Ali(as) from pulpits
Mu'awiya exploited people's ignorance and greed to
attain support
Ibne Maghazli states in his Manaqib page 128 "Dhikr
Sifeen" that: "Imam 'Ali wrote a letter to Mu'awiya
stating 'Makka and Madina have given bayya to me
you should do the same so as to avoid a war
between the people of Iraq and Syria'. Mu'awiya
used Uthman's blood as an excuse not to give bayya
and he used this excuse to mislead the ignorant
Arabs, bribing people with money and land".
Mu'awiya's actual motive was power
What greater proof of the deviance of Mu'awiya can there
be than the admission of his key supporter Amr bin Aas.
We read in Ta'rikh Kamil Volume 2 page 139 "Dhikr Sifeen"
that Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya:
"Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we
are desirous of worldly power; upon hearing this
Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr".
Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz - one that fights 'Ali (as) is
a kaffir
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz comments in - Hadiyyah
Majeediyyah page 813 "One who fights 'Ali [r] with
enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul
Sunnah"
Also on the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect
Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come
within this definition since: "Mu'awiya and the people
of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman".
Mu'awiya's appointment of Yazeed as his
successor
Mu'awiya forced people to give bayya to Yazeed
Deobandi scholar Rasheed Akhtar Nadwi in "Tahzeeb au
Tamadhun e Islami" comments on page 1: "Mu'awiya
forced people to give bayya to Yazeed".
Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Raza the Syrian scholar echoes
similar words in his book "Imamate al Uzma" page 99:
“Mu'awiya introduced the bad practice of giving
bayya to Yazeed by force".
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
and whoever opposed to act on batil orders of Mu’awiya,
he was forced to death ,among such people there was a
pious companion of Holy Prophet(s) Hujr bin Adi(ra) who
was martyred as on Mu’awiya’s order , he was buried alive.
See "Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat" Under the chapter 4 "the
elimination of freedom of speech".
It is further written that :
"This incident shook the heart of the Ummah. Upon
hearing the news Hadhrath Ibn Umar and Hadhrath
Ayesha were aggrieved. Hadhrath Ayesha had
previously written a letter admonishing Mu'awiya.
Later on when she met Mu'awiya she said
`Mu'awiya did you not fear Allah even slightly when
killing Hujr?'. When Hadhrath Mu'awiya's Governor
of Khurusan Rabiya bin Ziyad heard this news he
shouted `O Allah if in your knowledge there is
anything good left on my part, take me from this
world'. [Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat, chapter 5, page, 165…]
The killer of Hujr shall receive the wrath of Allah
(swt)
In Kanz al Ummal Volume 7 page 87 we read that
Hadhrath Ayesha narrated that Rasulullah (s) said
"Whoever kills Hujr will incur the wrath of Allah".
The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as)
In this regard the comments of defender of Mu'awiya Ibn
Kathir Volume 8 page 17 are indeed of interest: "The
Sunnah is that there khalifa (Banu Umayya) be
referred to as Kings, because Rasulullah (s) said
that khilafath would last for thirty years, this would
be followed by kingdom. This (khilafath) remained
until the Rabi'ul Awwal 31 Hijri when Hasan was
left with no other choice but to make peace with
Mu'awiya"
Ibn Kathir's admission that Imam Hassan (as) was left with
no choice but to make peace is clear proof that the
khilafath was not happily handed over to Mu'awiya on a
silver platter as Nasibis would lead us to believe.
Mu'awiya's poisoning of Imam Hasan (as) and the
Reason behind this act
Mu'awiya despite gaining power saw in Imam Hasan (as) a
formidable opponent. As Nasibi admits Mu'awiya wanted
Yazeed to succeed him. This contradicted one of the
conditions stipulated in the agreement with Imam Hasan
(as) namely that in the event of Mu'awiya's death khilafath
would RETURN to Hasan (as). See Isti'ab, I, pp. 355…
Mu'awiya had no intention to comply with this, to ensure
the best approach would be to kill Imam Hasan (as) during
his own lifetime. Renowned Egyptian academic Dr Taha
Husayn in his book "'Ali wa banooh (Ali and his sons)"
(translated in Urdu as Hadhrath 'Ali (ra) by Maulana 'Abdul
Hameed Numani) on page 214 writes : "by poisoning
Hasan, Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas had made the
way clear for making Yazeed the next khalifa".
Mu'awiya the baghi (rebel)
It was incumbent to fight alongside Imam Ali (as)
Rasulullah (s) said: "O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will
fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever
does not support you on that day will not be from
us" [Kanz al Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn
Asakir, hadith number 32970 ]
Abdullah bin Umar's regret he didn't fight the baghi
Mu'awiya
Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-'Isti`ab narrates that Umm Habeeb
ibne Abi Sabith (ra) heard Abdullah ibn`Umar say: "I
regret that I did not join Ali and fight the rebellious
group". Abi Barr bin Abi Jaham (ra) narrates that he
heard Abdullah ibne`Umar say "I never regretted
anything in my life other than the fact that I did not
fight the rebels"
Mu'awiya instituted the bid'ah of cursing
Imam Ali (as)
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari
"Fathul Bari" states: "Mu'awiya issued an order to
curse Hadhrath 'Ali. Upon hearing this Sa'd bin Abi
Waqqas said "Even if you place a sword over my
head and demand that I curse 'Ali, I will refuse to
do so". [Fathul Bari, Vol. 7, Page 74, "Bab Manaqib 'Ali"]
The comments on this shameful practice of Pakistani
Hanafi scholar Maulana Raghib Rahmani in "Hadhrath Umar
bin Abdul Aziz" page 246, are indeed very poignant: "It is
indeed unfortunate that this bidah was introduced
that cut the nose of the cities, this bidah even
reached the pulpits and even shamelessly reached
the ears of those present in the Mosque of
Rasulullah (s). This bidah was introduced by Amir
Mu'awiya". [ Khalifatul Zahid, Page 246 ]
Cursing Ali (as) is tantamount to cursing Allah (swt)
Prophet(s) said : "Whoever curses (or verbally
abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever
has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever
has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into the
Hell-fire." [Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33 ]
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
Not a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya is
Sahih
The leading 'Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all
hadith praising Mu'awiya as fabricated. Al Hafidh
Jalaladeen Suyuti in "La'ali al-Masnu`aa fi ahadith al-
Maudu`aa" Volume 1 page 424 states: "Imam Hakim
claims that he never came across a single hadith in
praise of Mu'awiya that was Sahih".
Al Muhaddith Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in "Sharh Mishkat
Shareef" - Volume 4 page 716 (published in 1873) after
citing the hadith in praise of Mu'awiya comments: "It is
recorded in Jami` al-'Usul that many Muhaddith
scholars have concluded that there exists not even a
single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih".
Was Mu'awiya a Momin or Munafiq?
Let us cite the words of Hadhrath 'Ali (as): "By him who
split up the seed and created something living, the
Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave
me a promise that no one but a believer would love
me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge
against me. [Sahih Muslim, Tradition #141 ]
The hatred of Mu'awiya towards Ali(as) can be deduced
from the above mentioned acts of Mu'awiya. Now readers
can better decide that was Mu’awiya a momin or Munafiq!
Mu'awiya bin Hind was the product of
Nikah Ijtimah (Combined Nikah)
In Rabi'ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari Volume 3 page
551: "There were four people who were thought to
be Mu'awiya's father, Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir, Abi
Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and
Sabah [ Also see Sharh Nahjul Balagha V10 P 130 ]
It is a religious duty to expose the deeds of
a fasiq
"The testimonies of three people should be rejected:
The individual who openly indulges in bad acts, A
Zaalim Ruler and One who practices bidath" [Sharh
Muslim, by Nawawi Volume 2 page 322 ]
Famous Deobandi scholar and former chief of Jamaat-e-
Islami, Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi, after citing the words of
Hasan Basri in Tahfim ul Qur'an Volume 5 page 87, makes
these relevant comments: "It is imperative that we
highlight such individuals to prevent the risk of
running in to danger (from such individuals) if
narrators, witnesses and writers display such faults
then such weaknesses should not be hidden, rather
they should be conveyed"
 Yazeed (L’aeen)
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/index.php
Was there an ijma in Yazeed's Khilafath?
The families of well known Sahaba opposed the bayya of
Yazeed like family of Umar, Abu Bakar, Usman and
moreover Ahlul’bayt(as) were against the bayya of Yazeed.
We shall cite the stance of Usman's family here.
We read in al Imama was al Siyasa Volume 2 page 184:
"At the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed,
Uthman's son Sa'eed approached Mu'awiya, and
said 'Commander of Syria, on what grounds are you
making Yazeed your successor, and why are you
ignoring me? After highlighting some of his own
faults he [Sa'eed] then said 'If you object to making
me the khalifa then at least give something to me'.
Mu'awiya said 'I'll give you the province of
Khurasan. Sa'eed accepted and recited a eulogy
'Even if may father Uthman were alive he would not
give me as much as Mu'awiya just did'.
Threats of physical violence to secure the bayya for
Yazeed
In 'Abu Hanifa ki Siyasi Zindagee page 51' al Misra page
115 Volume 2 it is cited the way that Abdullah bin Umro bin
Aas gave bayya to Yazeed:
"When Ibn Sa'eed approached his door with
firewood, and said 'Give bayya to Yazeed otherwise
I shall set your home alight', Abdullah then joined
the majority by giving bayya to Yazeed".
Mu'awiya adopted evil methods to secure the bayya
to Yazeed
We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 73 Surah
Muhammad Part 29: "If people analyse history, they
shall realise how people were forced to give bayya
to Yazeed, and that Mu'awiya adopted every wicked
method to secure bayya".
Yazeed's Character
A Sahaba's testimony that Yazeed was an
incestuous drunkard
In Isaba we read:
"The Sahaba Maqil stated that 'Yazeed drank
alcohol, committed zina with his mahram relatives,
infact he performed every type of bad action"
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Yazeed was a homosexual
We read in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah page 64 Volume 9
"Dhikr Abdul Mulk" that: "Abdul Malik bin Marwan said
in a khutbah that unlike Uthman I am not weak and
unlike Mu'awiya I am not cunning / dishonest and
unlike Yazeed I am not a homosexual".
Yazeed used to copulate with his mother and sisters
We read in Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr
Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283 and many
other books that: "Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba
stated 'By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point
when we feared that stones would reign down on us
from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated with
his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol
and did not offer Salat".
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's rejection of the Qur'an
When the head of Husayn (as), the grandson of the Holy
prophet (saws), was presented before Yazeed he recited
the couplets of the kaffir Zubayri: "Banu Hashim staged
a play for Kingdom there was no news from the
skies nether was there any revelation"
[Tarikh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri… ]
Yazeed's killing of Imam Hussain[as]
Yazeed ordered his Governor Waleed kill Imam
Hussain[as]
We read in Maqathil Husayn al Khuwarzmee Volume 2 page
80 Chapter that: "Yazeed wrote a letter to Waleed the
Governor of Medina, in which he stated 'Force
Husayn to give bayya. Should he refuse then strike
off his head and return it to me.'
Ibn Ziyad's own admission that he killed Imam
Husayn on the orders of Yazeed
We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya page 219 Dhikr 63 Hijri
that: "When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering
him to fight Ibn Zubayr in Makka, he said 'I can't
obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah
(s) upon his orders, I'm not now going to assault
the Kaaba'.
Yazeed's pride at killing Imam Hussain[as]
We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 204: "Ibn Asakir,
writing on Yazeed, states then when Husayn's head
was brought before Yazeed, he recited the couplets
of Ibn Zubayri the kaffir 'I wish my ancestors of
Badr were hear to see the severed head of the
rebellious tribe [The Prophet's tribe of Hashim]."
Yazeed's treatment of the Ahl'ulbayt[as]
Yazeed's army looted the camps of the women of
Rasulullah (s)'s household and made them captives
We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 188: "Following
the killing of Husayn the tents were set on fire and
women and their possession were distributed and
scarves were removed from the heads of the
women."
Cursing Yazeed
The Fatwa of Imam Ahmad that Yazeed has been
cursed in the Qur'an
We also read in Tafseer Mazhari as follows: "Qadhi Abu
Ya'ala in his own book al Muthamud al Usul that
Saleh Ibn Hanbal asked his father Ahmad: 'Some
people state, 'We are the friends of Yazeed'. Abu
Hanifa replied 'If people have faith in Allah, then it
is unlikely that they also have faith in Yazeed, and
why should they for this is a man that has been
cursed in the Qur'an. I asked 'Where is Yazeed
cursed in the Qur'an?' He replied "Have fear… when
spread Fitnah through the land - these are people
that Allah has cursed" - can there be a greater
fitnah that killing Husayn?'"
Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed
In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 207, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn
we read as follows: "May Allah's curse be upon the
killers of Husayn and Ibn Ziyad".
The Shaafi Ulema deem it permissible to curse
Yazeed
We should point out that Ghazzali was an adherent of the
Shaafi madhab who tried to defend Yazeed. Another Shaafi
scholar Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi
Ulema on this topic as follows: "Amongst the Shaafi's
we are in agreement that it is permissible to curse
Yazeed" [Haseeya Nabraas page 551]
Yazeed's attack on Harra
"Muslim was ordered to ransack Medina for three
days. Yazeed committed a major sin. Sahaba and
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
their children were slaughtered openly; other
heinous acts were also perpetuated. We have
already mentioned that he had Ibn Ziyad kill the
grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his
companions. In those three days in Madina, it is
difficult to mention the type of acts that were
carried out. By doing this act Yazeed wanted to
secure his governance, in the same way Allah (swt)
broke the neck of every Pharaoh, the true King
(swt) also broke the neck of Yazeed". [al Bidayah
Volume 8 page 222 ]
One who attacks Medina is cursed
We read in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 223 that:
"Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice
and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse
(la'nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is
on such a person"
More on Yazeed
In Ahsan aur Meezan: "Yazeed was a fasiq, faajir, we
cannot rely on his narrations"
Yazeed was such a fasiq that not a single hadith of his can
be accepted, when this is the case then his khilafat cannot
be accepted either.
In Takmeel al Iman page 97 Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi
gives Yazeed a number of titles such as impure, fasiq
and drunkard.
Ahmad Reza Barelvi in Irfan al Shariat stated: "There is
an agreement amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah that he
was a fasiq and a fajir, the dispute is over whether
he was a kaffir".
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi in Fatawa said: "One should
refrain from calling Yazeed a kaffir, but there is no
objection to referring to him as a fasiq".
The Salafi and Hanafi Schools of thought have
graded Yazeed as the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
"Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen shall remain
strong as long as these twelve Khalifahs are at the
helm, and the twelve are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman,
'Ali Mu'awiya, Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid
bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul
Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazid bin
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik
bin Marwan"
[Sharh Fiqh Akbar p 50, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa p 12 Chap 3…]
The sixth Imam of truth according to Abu Sulaiman and
Azam Tariq is Yazeed, but this is a fact that these Ulema
often don't mention to the public.
 The names of Imam Ali[as]’s sons
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/names/en/index.php
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved

In this article we have set out to refute the false claim 4. Umar bin Suraqa Qurshee
made by Nasibis when they try to present the romantic 5. Umar bin Sa'd al Numaree
image of love / affection between Imam 'Ali and the 6. Umar bin Sa'd Salma
Khalifas. Nasibis are able to use their supernatural psychic 7. Umar bin Sufyan Qurshee
abilities to inform their followers that such was Imam 'Ali 8. Umar bin Abi Salma Qurshee
(as)'s love for these personalities that he named his sons in 9. Umar bin Amr Salmi
their memory. 10. Umar bin Abdullah
This is one of the greatest evidences that these Nasibi love 11. Umar bin Ikrima
to flash in our faces as 'proof' that Imam 'Ali (as) loved the 12. Umar bin Umar Laysee
three khalifas. If we examine the lives of the Arabs we see 13. Umar bin Ameer Ansari
that the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common 14. Umar bin Auf Nakhai
names, it was not exclusively reserved to a specific Arab 15. Umar bin Ghazia
tribe, so we would urge our opponents to at least examine 16. Umar bin La Haqq
in depth before arriving at a conclusion. The fact is these 17. Umar bin Malik bin Ukba
names were common amongst the prominent Arab tribes, 18. Umar bin Malik Ansari
and amongst those with these names were Kaffirs, Muslims 19. Umar bin Mu'awiya Ghazree
and munafiqs and hence these are not names that in any
way point to the superiority of the three Khalifas. Famous Arabs that were called Uthman
Incidentally, Ali (as) had 12 sons, thus the Nasibis are We are again quoting from Asadul Ghaybah Volume 3
mistaken in trying to give the impression that he had 3 under the letter "Ayn" that provides a list of 19 people with
whom he named after the 3 khalifas tribal ancestry that were called Uthman:

Famous Arabs that were called Abu Bakr 1. Uthman bin Arqam
In Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work Al Isaba Volume four 2. Utman bin Adhrak
"Dhikr 'Abu Bakr" Ibn Barr states: "The first was Abu 3. Uthman bin Haneef
Bakr bin Quhafa, the second Abu Bakr bin Shuab 4. Uthman bin Rabia
Laisy and the third was Abu Bakr Nafee bin al Harith 5. Uthman bin Shumaas
Saqfi." 6. Uthman bin Abi Talha
7. Uthman bin Abu'l Aas
In the Risala Taseemee'thul Isma page 4 we read that the 8. Uthman bin Amr
grandson of Prophet Ilyas (as) was called Abu Bakr. 9. Uthman bin Abd al Rahman
If our opponents are still not convinced then we shall cite 10. Uthman bin Abd' Ghanam
Sibt Ibn Jauzi al Hanafi's "Tadhkirathul Khawwas, under the 11. Uthman bin Ubaydullah
Chapter "Dhikr Abu Bakr" who provides a complete list of 12. Uthman bin Affan
those individuals that were called Abu Bakr along with the 13. Uthman bin Uthman Thaqfee
tribe that they belonged to: 14. Uthman bin Umar Ansari
1. Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman Mukhdhoomee 15. Uthman bin Umar
2. Abu Bakr bin Hamam al Hameeree 16. Uthman bin Qays
3. Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Muslim Qurshee 17. Uthman bin Muhammad
4. Abu Bakr bin Abi Maleeka al Timeemee 18. Uthman bin Fadhoown
5. Abu Bakr bin Sireen 19. Uthman bin Ma'dh
6. Abu Bakr bin Marwan ibn Muhammad al Thathree
7. Abu Bakr Younis bin Bakeer al Shaybanee We have proven from the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah that the
8. Abu Bakr al Bahili names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common
9. Abu Bakr al Sakhthayanai amongst the Arab tribes; these were the names of the sons
of various parents. Perhaps Afriki could try and use some
Famous Arabs called Umar honesty for once in his life, and answer this:
We are quoting from Ahl'ul Sunnah's leading work Asadul
Ghaybah Volume 4 under the letter "Ayn" that provides a 'What revelation did you receive that led you to
list of men from those tribes that had the name Umar: conclude that Imam 'Ali (as) had named his sons
1. Umar al Jamai after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman due to his love of
2. Umar bin Hakim Salma the three khalifas'?
3. Umar bin Salim Khuzamee
We should point out that in our Shi'a text Munthee'ala
Mahal Volume 1 under the Chapter "Shahadth" - we read
the testimony of Imam 'Ali (as) that he named one of his
sons Uthman because on the day he was born he (as)
stated:
"I shall name this child after my brother Uthman bin
Nat'eoon".
This is why the name Uthman was kept by Imam 'Ali (as) it
does not prove Uthman bin Affan's merit, not even in the
slightest.
With regards to Imam 'Ali (as)'s son Umar, we should point
out that one of Imam 'Ali (as) close Sahaba was Umar the
son of Umm'ul Momineen Salma (ra). Umar was brought
up by Rasulullah (s) and he fought alongside Imam 'Ali (as)
at Jamal, and was in fact one of his commanders during
that battle. During his reign Imam 'Ali (as) appointed him
as Governor over Bahrain and Faris. To prove our point we
suggest our opponents consult Asada al Ghaybah Volume 4
page 134 under the letter "Ayn". We assert that Imam 'Ali
(as) named his son Umar after this great faithful
commander. We are fully aware that the Nasibi will
advance some Sunni text claiming that Imam 'Ali (as)
named his son Umar after the second khalifa - but an Ahl'ul
Sunnah work can not be advanced as evidence to convince
us.
If keeping a name is proof of love of another person then
we should point out that amongst our Ahl'ul Sunnah
friends' names such as Abdur Rahman, Ubaydullah and
Ghulam Ahmad are very common. Abdur Rahman
Makhdoomee was the killer of Imam 'Ali (as), Ubaydullah
bin Ziyad was one of the killers of Imam Husayn (as) and
Ghulam Ahmad was a deviant who falsely proclaimed
himself to be a Prophet. So with these facts in mind we ask
our Ahl ul Sunnah brothers:
Do you love Abdur Rahman killer of Imam 'Ali (as)?
Do you love Ubaydullah killer of Imam Husayn (as)?
Do you love the false Prophet Ghulam Ahmad ?
If you do not love these individuals then why do you keep
these names? From here we can see that there is no harm
in keeping names, even if the same names were those of
kaffirs, munafiqs etc. To keep such names does not
constitute love of a particular kaffir / Munafiq / Nasibi
either.
Rasulullah (s) named one of his sons Uzza
If the claim is that Imam 'Ali (as) named his sons after
these three then Hanafi scholar Shibli Numani in Seerathun
Nabi Volume 1 page 191 quotes Imam Bukhari's "Tareekh
al Sagheer" that Rasulullah (s) named one of his sons
Abdul Uzza:
That is interesting as Uzza was the name of a false God, as
pointed out by Allah (swt) in Surah Najm verses 19-22
(taken from Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali's transliteration):
"Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third
(goddess), Manat?.....These are nothing but names
which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
which Allah has sent down no authority(whatever).
They follow nothing but conjecture and what their
own souls desire!- Even though there has already
come to them Guidance from their Lord!"
So whom was this Uzza that Rasulullah (s) called his son
Uzza on? Was it based on an idol (astaghfirullah)? If Ahl'ul
Sunnah are going to say Rasul(s) didn't name his son
because he loved an idol, we will also say Imam 'Ali (as)
didn't name his sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman on
account of his love for the three khalifas.
During the old times the names Abu Bakr, Umar and
Uthman were common place amongst the Arabs. Similarly
the name 'Ali was also common place amongst the Arabs.
Asadul Ghaybah cited thirteen people who were called Ali.
By the time of the Nasibi Banu Ummayya regime it became
an offence to keep the name 'Ali. In Ahl'ul Sunnah's
authority work Tahdheeb Volume 7 page 319 under the
chapter "Dhikr 'Ali bin Rahba" we read that:
"During the Banu Umayyad reign when information
was received that a child had been named 'Ali, he
would be killed".
Individuals named 'Ali, Hasan, Husayn were labelled as
Shi'a and were persecuted, even killed. Such was the
hatred vented by the State, that no Banu Ummayya soldier
was named 'Ali, Hasan or Husayn, neither did the
descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman keep these
names. The oppression of Banu Ummayya in effect forced
the Shi'a to bear enmity towards 'Abu Bakr, Umar and
Uthman.
In summary, Ali (as) had 12 sons - some had very common
names - like Ibrahim, Umar, Uthman, Abu Bakr. The latter
3 names are very common names amongst the Arabs like
Tom, Dick or Harry amongst the Christians, and were
common in pre-Islamic times also. To suggest therefore
that because a man with 12 sons has a couple with the
same names as his putative friends, and that he therefore
called them after them, when these are very common
names, is ridiculous - many men have friends called Tom,
Dick and Harry, and many will have sons also by that
name, but very few of these sons will have been named
after their fathers' friends. Means, there could have been a
case if a man's friends are called Engel Bert, Darwin and
Zebediah, and these are also the names of even some of
his sons, but the names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were
like Tom, Dick and Harry, and these names had no such
religious connotations in those early days… it was much
later on that they came to be associated with Sunni Islam.
Further, we have shown that Ali (as) actually named those
sons of his with these names after other individuals and
that the name "Abu Bakr" was not the name of the 1st
khalifa by which he was addressed but an epithet added
some years later - the oldest sources always refer to him
as Ibn Abi Quhafa (Son of Abi Quhafa).
 Students of Imam Ja’far[as]
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imam_jafar/en/index.php
A refutation of Nasibi allegation that 'Abu
Hanifa was NOT a student of Imam Ja’far
Sadiq (as)
Proving the Teacher - Student relationship
This is the perfect example of Nasibi resentment towards
Ahl'ul bayt (as). They are willing to deny an established
historical fact so as to lower the status of the Ahl'ul bayt
(as) in the eyes of actual Sunnis. Fortunately actual Sunnis
have caught on to the efforts of such individuals and we
present the lengthy text from modern day Hanafi scholar
Mufti Ghulam Rasul who has refuted lies such as this in his
excellent biography of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq "Subeh Sadiq".
We are quoting from pages 186 - 191:
"Imam Abu Hanifa is one of the distinguished
students of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as), as has been
confirmed by Ibn Hajar al Makki in his Sawaiq al
Muhriqa, Allamah Shiblinji in his Nur al Absar, Abdul
Haleem Jindi in his Mohqaq, Abu Zohra in his
various writings, and other Ulema. Imam Abu
Hanifa had previously studied under Imam Baqir
(as) and then subsequently Abu Hanifa extended
the link of knowledge with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq
(as). In this regard, Abdul Haleem Jindi writes that
Abu Hanifa stated that if he 'hadn't spent two years
of his life with Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as), he would
have been dead'. (Al-Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, page
162). Sunni research scholar Abu Zohra states that
these words of Imam Abu Hanifa's are widely
known namely 'if these two years had not been
available to me due to my good fortune, Numan
(Abu Hanifa) would have been dead. (Imam Ja'far
al-Sadiq, page 83). Imam Abu Hanifa had also
remarked 'I have never seen a greater scholar of
fiqh than Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as)'….."
We also cite the references of "Musnad Imam Azam"
rendered in to Urdu by Maulana Sa'd Hasan Sahib. The text
is a collection of traditions that have been narrated and
compiled by Imam Abu Hanifa. On page 23 of the preface
of the Musnad, Maulana Abdur Rashid Numani, whilst
giving an overview of the life of Imam Abu Hanifa states:
"Imam Abu Hanifa stayed for a long time in the pure
(city of) Madina and continuously attended the
circles of Imam Baqir (r). In jurisprudence (fiqh)
and traditions (hadith) he learnt many things during
his time with Imam Baqir (r) which he didn't know
before. Imam Baqir (r) passed away on 7 Dhu'l Hijja
114 AH.
After Imam Baqir's death, Imam Abu Hanifa had the
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
greatest respect for his son Imam Ja'far Sadiq (r).
He would attend Imam Ja'far's classes quite often
to acquire knowledge. Imam Abu Hanifa used to
hold the opinion about the Ahl al-Bayt that hadith
and fiqh, indeed all religious sciences, have surfaced
from their Household".
Pakistani Sunni Scholar Mohammad Hameedullah Khan in
his book "The Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence - A
comparative study, states in his brief biography of Imam
Abu Hanifa on page 61:
"He got an opportunity to meet Anas, a famous
companion of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), at the
age of 12 or 13 years and attended the lectures of
Imam Ja’far as Sadiq. Regarding his place in history
of Fiqh, Abu Hanifa said:
I have not seen a jurist of high rank like Imam
Ja’far as Sadiq [taken from Tabayeen page 69 by
Shah Moinuddin Ahmed Nadvi]"
Allamah Sharawi's admission that Imam Abu Hanifa
was Imam Ja'far (as)'s student
Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shaykh Sharawi Azhari in
his famous Egyptian Risala Al Ahraam ul Sunnah page 103
periodical number 32932 wrote:
"The Imam of the Shi'a Imamiyyah, Hadhrath Imam
Ja'far al-Sadiq was the teacher of Imam 'Abu
Hanifa. These are the Imamia Ja'fari who as we
previously explained adhere to a pure religion. It is
with regards to them that our Shaykh Shaltoot
issued a fatwa deeming it permissible to follow this
madhab because this is a legitimate Islamic
madhab, that acts as a source of guidance for its
adherents. In Egypt we have incorporated certain
principles of Shi'a fiqh on divorce and inheritance
into our Law".
Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as) also taught
Imam Malik
Yet again in this case Nasibi fails to cite any sources as
evidences for their accusation that Imam Malik was not the
student of Imam Ja’far Sadiq(as) .Like Imam Abu Hanifa,
Imam Malik also benefited from the knowledge of Imam
Ja'far al-Sadiq (as):
Abu Nu'aym Isfahani (d. 430 Hijri) wrote in Hilayat al-
Awliya page 199 Volume 3 that:
"Imam Malik bin Anas was a student of Imam Ja'far
(as). He attained knowledge from him and attended
his gatherings".
 Supporting the enemies of Muhammad[saww] & his Ahlul'bayt;
Political appointments
To read the entire article please go to the following URL:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/support/en/index.php
Hadhrath Umar played an instrumental role at the Saqifa
and Hadhrath Abu Bakr recognized and rewarded him for
this by appointing him as his successor. If we are to accept
the argument that the Prophet (saww) left no successor
then what right did Hadhrath Abu Bakr appoint a
successor? He should have likewise left the issue to the
Ummah to decide, as the Prophet (saww) did (according to
the Ahlul' Sunnah belief).
During his reign Hadhrath Umar the post as Governor of
Syria was successively given to the 2 sons of Abu Sufyan,
Yazid and then Mu'awiya. What was the aim behind these
appointments? These two men were not from among the
Muhajireen or the Ansar, they were not from amongst
those who had pledged allegiance at Hudaibiya, and on the
contrary they embraced Islam following the conquest of
Makka. Al Alwani writes that during his reign Hadhrath Abu
Bakr decided:
"…that everyone should receive an equal share from
the public treasury. 'Umar asked him: "How can you
consider one who entered Islam with misgivings to
be equal to one who left his home and wealth
behind, and migrated and migrated to be with the
Prophet? Abu Bakr however insisted that: "They all
entered Islam for the sake of Allah, and their
reward is with Him; this world is nothing". When
however 'Umar became khalifa, he differentiated
between people and paid the "stipend" according to
how early each person had entered Islam, whether
they had migrated, and how much they had suffered
for the sake of Allah".
[Usul al Fiqh al Islami - Source methodology in Islamic
Jurisprudence, by Taha Jabir Al Alwani, page 19, translated
by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo publisher Zain International, UK,
second edition.]
If Hadhrath 'Umar had taken such a staunch line when
distributing money amongst the faithful, salaries being
rewarded on account of when an adherent embraced Islam
and their subsequent service to the faith, why did he adopt
a completely different approach when it came to granting
positions of power? If those who had embraced Islam later
and had no service to Islam, received less money than the
early converts, why were these same individuals more
entitled to receive administrative control / 'physical power'
over an entire region? Why was preference given to them
over prominent Sahaba who had accompanied the Prophet
(saww) very early on in his mission? Why appoint them
when they had provided no service to Islam in the past?
This was a carefully thought out strategy. Hadhrath Umar
had once told Hadhrath Abdullah Ibne Abbas that the
Muslims felt that Imamate and Prophethood should not
exist in one household. This is in fact one of the most
consistently proposed arguments given by the scholars of
Brought to you by: Answering-Ansar.org Project
Copyright © 2002-2004 • All Rights Reserved
Ahl'ul Sunna to account for the attitude of Hadhrath Umar
with regard to Imam Ali. He sought to ensure that this
would not happen by providing positions to those who
would never tolerate the Ahlul'bayt taking the reigns of
government.
This scheme paved the way for Hadhrath Uthman to
become the next khalifa, once in power his position was
strengthened by the presence of Mu'awiya in Syria. This
would probably result in checkmate for Imam Ali, who was
hated vehemently by the Banu Ummaya since he and his
clan, the Holy Prophet's clan of Banu Hashim, had
slaughtered so many of their closest kin. A perfect example
of this is the reaction of 'Abu Sufyan when Hadhrath
Uthman was made the khalifa, Ibn al-Hadid records:
"…he went to Uhud and kicked at the grave of
Hamzah (the uncle of the Prophet) and said: "O Abu
Ya'la! See that the kingdom which you fought
against has at last come to us". [Sharh Nahjul-
balaghah, by Ibn al Hadid,Vol 16, p136 2nd edition, Egypt ]
Syria was an agriculturally rich land; it generated a high
amount of income. Hadhrath Umar knew that there was a
long standing hatred by the Banu Ummaya towards the
Banu Hashim, they would never tolerate a member of the
Ahlul'bayt becoming khalifa in the long run and that this
would cause inevitable rivalry....this happened on the
plains of Sifeen. Mu'awiya in fact justified his hostility
pointing to the fact that he was merely adhering to a policy
of opposition that had been created by the earlier Khalifa’s.
This is what he wrote in reply to a critical letter by
Muhammad bin Abu Bakr:
"We and your father during the lifetime of the
Prophet, used to consider the right of Ibn Abi Talib
binding upon us, and his excellence was well above
ours. Despite this when Allah chose for the Prophet
what he had in store for him…He took him to
Himself. Then your father and his Faruq were the
first to snatch it and oppose him, they both worked
together on this…If it was injustice, then your
father founded it and we are his partners. We
followed his guidance and imitated his action".
[Waq'at Sifeen by Minqari p118-120 (Cairo edition 1962)]
Hadhrath Uthman became Khalifa at the age of 74, again
the question arises why was he preferred to younger more
able Sahaba? This was part of Hadhrath Umar's thinking to
vest absolute power to the Banu Ummayya clan. This was
secured via the coming to power of Hadhrath Uthman.
Hadhrath Uthman appointed the enemy of the Prophet
(saww) his cousin Abdullah bin Sarh to quote Ameer Ali:
"…the satrapy of Egypt. This Abdullah was at one
time a Secretary to the Prophet, and when the
Master dictated his revelation he used to change the
words and 'denaturalise' their meanings".
[The Spirit of Islam, by Syed Ameer Ali, p 294 ]
He appointed Waleed as Governor of Kufa. Walid was a
transgressor according to the word of Allah (swt). Once
when ordered by the Prophet (saww) to collate Zakat from
a tribe, he lied alleging they had refused to hand over their
due, this lead to the descent of this verse:
"Oh you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you
with news try to verify it...” (49:6-7).
[See Tafseer of Surah Hujuraat by Bilal Philips,
commentary of the above verse ]
Most significantly Hadhrath Uthman appointed Marwan,
who to quote Baladhuri:
"…embraced Islam following the conquest of
Makka, but continued to insult the Prophet, as a
result Hakim and his sons were banished from
Madina, this ruling was upheld by Umar and Abu
Bakr. When Hadhrath Uthman came to power he
chose to ignore the Prophet (saww)'s order, he
called back Marwan and Hakim, and made Marwan
his Assistant and Chief Officer of the Court".
[Ansab al ashraf, by al Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 17 ]
So in these three key posts Hadhrath Uthman appointed
three men, one who the Prophet (saww) wanted executed,
a transgressor and a man who was banished by the
Prophet (saww). Even the revered Sunni scholar Sayyid
Qutb Shaheed was unable to mask his discontent over
these facts, he writes:
"the khalifa - in his old age, and his state brought
about by advanced age - did not possess control of
his affair to the expense of Marwan. It is difficult to
accuse the spirit of Islam in the person of Islam, but
it is likewise difficult to pardon him for the error of
the unfortunate occurrence of his taking the khilafa
whilst he was a weakened old man, who was
surrounded by evil courtiers from Banu Umayyah".
[ Al-Adaalat ul-Ijtimaa'iyyah by Sayyid Qutb Shaheed
p.189, 5th edition ]
When prominent pious Sahaba were still living why was
priority given to such men? The answer is that the
objective was to have a Caliphate that would permanently
belong to the Banu Ummaya. A clan whose supremacy had
been effectively extinguished with the coming to power of
Islam, now had the reigns of power, nothing no one,
especially their sworn enemies the Banu Hashim were
going to stand in their way or humiliate them again.
Absolute favouritism was given to the Banu Ummayya they
were rewarded with power and financial clout a means to
eliminate any likelihood of Banu Hashim attaining the
Khilafath. Hadhrath Uthman gave a fifth of the spoils of the
first expedition of Africa to his foster brother Abdullah Ibn
Abu Sarh. Marwan purchased a fifth of the second
expedition of Africa; then the Caliph gave him the whole
amount(1). Fadak land belonging to the Prophet (saww)
that Hadhrath Abu Bakr had confiscated and made a part
Copyright © 2002-2004 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved
of the State was awarded to Marwan (2). He gave his
cousin Harith a gift of camels that had been collected as
part of alms tax and brought to Madina(3). Is it not curious
that land that Hadhrath Abu Bakr stated belonged to the
State which Ahlul'bayt could not claim was 'given' to
Marwan? Hadhrath Uthman gave Harith the Zakat of Qud-
ah that amounted to 300,000 dirhams(4) and Abdul
Rahman bin Auf had 3 million dirhams(5).
1). Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, Volume 3 page 49 publishers, Dar
ul Kitan al Lubnani, 1973
2). al Ma'arif by Ibn Qutayba, page 190 edited by Tharwat
'Ukasha, Cairo edition 1960
3). Ansab al ashraf, by Baladhuri, Vol 5 p 28, edited by
S.D.F. Goitein, Jerusalem 1936
4). At Fitnah thul Kubra, by Taha Hussain, Volume 1 page
193 published by dar al Ma'arif, Egypt 1953
5). At Fitnah thul Kubra, by Taha Hussain, Volume 3 page
126 published by dar al Ma'arif, Egypt 1953
It may alternatively be viewed that Hadhrath Umar,
realizing the greed of the Banu Ummaya, stalled a civil war
by handing it over to them in all but name and thus
preserved the integrity of the Muslim state for a while
longer before the Banu Ummaya would tear it apart. This
also excluded Imam Ali.
It can be argued why did Hadhrath Umar not give the
khilafat to his son Abdullah bin Umar? Hadhrath Umar had
too much vision for this. Realizing the powerful threat of
the Bani Ummayya should his son have become khalifa his
end would have been at the hands of the powerful Banu
Ummayya, who were power hungry. In fact he made his
own son Abdullah bin Umar have the deciding ballot should
the council set up after his death end in deadlock, thus
favouring the Banu Ummayya represented by Hadhrath
Uthman. Abdullah bin Umar became a close ally of the
Banu Ummayya and a bitter enemy of Imam Ali's sons, in
particular Imam Hussain (as) whose genocide with the
majority of the remaining members of the family of the
holy Prophet he would sanction.
Either rational upshot of this plan makes it self-evident that
for historical purposes the khilafat of Hadhrath Umar can
be viewed as an interim period to effect a transition of
power back to the old overlords of pagan Makka - the Banu
Ummayya, the tribe of Abu Sufyan.
The unfolding events of history testify that this scheme
materialized as harsh reality. It explains the bitter irony,
noted by Sunni and Shi'i Muslims alike, of how it came to
be that the most bitter enemies of the Holy Prophet came
to the rule the Muslim Ummah within 30 years of his death.
It explains how the terrible wars of Jamal and Sifeen, the
first Muslim civil wars after the earliest period came to be.
It also explains the later genocide of the family of the Holy
Prophet (saww) and persecution of the Shi'i Imams. In
here lie further origins of Muslim disunity.