Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ali Mahdi

20 more Questions for Sunni's

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Our 20 questions...

Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na'eemi of Sahiwa'al, Pakistan was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research converted to the Shi'a Ithna Asharee 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 (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), 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 (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) 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?

1. "the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka'bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with 'Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but 'Abu Lahab 'Abd al Uzza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went with the Quraysh supporting them against 'Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was sent secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them". (Taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 page 81 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W.Montgommery & M.V. MacDonald).

2. "These days were very hard with them and very often they had to feed on the leaves TALH or plantain" (taken from Siratun Nabi by Shibli Numani Vol 1 p 218, English translation by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni.

2.

Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), 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 (saaws) 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 (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) 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 Khailfahs 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 (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) 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 (saaws) 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 (saaws) 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 (saaws)'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 Sharra 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 (saaws)'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 (saaws). After the Prophet (saaws)'s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws)'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 (saaws) 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 ressurection". Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) 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

17.

If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?

Hadhrath Aysha 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 kaffir's 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 (saaws)'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 (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa's 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 (saaws) 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 khalifa's 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. Sharra 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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams

I have seen that these questions have been answered at the following site:

www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/azarinni/answers.htm

I am ‘copying & pasting it here for your convenience.

*******

TWENTY FAMOUS QUESTIONS OF SHIA THAT "CONVERTED A SUNNI SCHOLAR!"

Personally I think one should be very very naive and hopeless to become a 12er Shia by hearing these questions. The funny thing is that except the question number 20, other questions have nothing to do with 12ers Shia. You can be a Zaidi, Esmayeelee and even a moderate Sunni and rise the same questions. Problem is that 12er Shia think by proving a fault on (say) Omar, you can prove that there are 12 infallible Imams and the 12th is now in occultation. If the story of the converse of that Sheikh is true I should say that I am happy he never faced one of the Christian missionaries (or have not seen their site where they have done all their efforts to bring doubts in the mind of Muslims) as by the same token he could become a Christian.

I see Shia repeating these questions and as no Sunni as far as I know bothers enough to give them answer it seems like Shia really believes that these are really something.

Here are my own responses to these questions. . I wrote these just out of my mind as I am (at the moment) not in a situation to give proper references. I am giving these very short replies and God knows that my only intention is to help you understand that things are not that easy that some people thought.

I am repeating the questions for the convenience of readers.

Besmellah:

1. History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood

(saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh1 . Hadhrath Abu

Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they

remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship2 . Where were

Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah

so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join

the Prophet (saaws) 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?

Answer: Yes there is, read the history in works like Seerah Ibnu Hishaam etc. ,you will see that during the same period Aboobakr who was once a wealthy man ended up with almost no money because of his efforts to help Muslims. Omar was also very active during this period to support Islam. Refer to the records of that period in Sunni books of history. The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), 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 (saaws) 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 Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).

Answer: No records even from Shia sources implies that people prevent Fatima's burial near his father. Also there are no records that she had requested to be buried next to his father. Aboobakr and Omar had requested to be buried next to the prophet. That easy. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior.

If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select him

to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the

Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as)

saying "You are my brother in this world and the next"3, so on what basis

is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?

Answer: There are many records of the prophet praising Aboobakr and calling him his brother( see Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, virtures of Abu Bakr), of course Shia considers all of them to be fabricated!. The fact that he did not choose him as his brother when he divided the companions cannot reduce any thing from Aboobakr. He has his own rank and Ali has his own. Aboobakr was friend of the holy prophet from before his prophet hood until his passing away. This is a fact that even Shia sources confess to. It is also referred to in Quran, the verse of Qar . Also the Prophet choose him to be his fellow companion during migration and he was his partner in the cave. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

4. The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by

Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narrations far

exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath

Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as)? Why is this the case? When the

Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate",

did Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than

these individuals?

Answer: The answer is very easy and it shows the ignorance of the designer of the question. Unlike the Shia ahadith, the vast majority of Sunni ahadith are those that the narration goes back to the prophet. It is obvious that Ayesha and Aboohorayrah were adults when they were with the prophet, while Hasanayn were kids. Ebne Omar was older than hasanayn at the time of the prophet so he had more chance as compared to them to narrate from the prophet. Apart from this, the political situations made Hasanayn engaged with many things. Ebne Omar was not like this. Also it's up to the individuals whether they like to narrate something or not. As for Ali (ra), Omar (ra) and Aboobakr (ra) too have very low number of Ahadith. Does that mean that Bukhari didn't like them?! Also Fatimatuz Zahra passed away only about three months after the passing away of the prophet, how many ahadith does one expect to be recorded from her in these critical three months? The question actually should be directed to Shia. How many ahadith does Shia have from Hasanayn? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

5. If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the three Khalifa's why did

he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns,

particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir's 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 unsheath his sword and participate in the

battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?

Answer: Many Sahabah remained in the city for other purposes, as they were perceived as unique sources of knowledge, do you have any evidence that they all gone except Ali? So would you say that they were all against Omar?! There is in the history that Hassan was participating in the attack on Tabarestan. Also we know that Salman (one of the best followers of Ali according to Shia) got the authority from Omar to rule Fars. In what basis would you say that giving consultancy and advice to Omar while being against him is fine (as Ali did) but participating in fighting with Koffar and Moshrekin (which Ali endorses in Nahjul Balagha) is not fine for Ali? Read Najhul Balagha and you see that Ali endorses the war. Refer to the 146th ceremony of Nahjul balagha (or one before or after, depending on the edition). It's a pity that we try to attribute our own hostility and hatred to Ali to prove our points. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing

Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl'ul Sunnah not come to his

aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such

individuals, what was their postion at that time?

Answer: Look at the situation just now. We all know about Palestine yet we waste our time over the net. Same for that time. This is while at that time there were no media to let people know what is going on. One cannot cover the grave sin of those so called Shia people who betrayed Hussain, by asking about why others didn't defend Hussain. Did any Shia defend Zayd ibn Ali when he was left alone against Bani Omayyeh? Of course I agree that it is a disaster and disappointment that the grand son of the holy prophet is being killed this easy and people are remained silent. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the

Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur'an is sufficient for us'

(Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for

accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari

Vol 5 number 716)

Answer: No one accused the prophet of speaking nonsense. They were saying that the pain of death has overcome the prophet. Unlike Shia, Sunnies do not hold a super human position for the prophet and any one else (refer to the last verse of Sura of Kahf). Just like any human being, it could be possible that a prophet say something unconscious. God has promised to keep Quran safe, but at the same time you can see that the prophet is being corrected in Quran many times. If you believe that what ever the prophet is saying is correct then how would you justify those numerous verses (read the Shia Tafsir of the first verses of Sura Mojadeleh for instance, where God corrects the wrong fatwa of the prophet). To make a fuss out of this to accuse people who had given anything for Islam is very stupid. Specially when people who accuse them has done very less for Islam. Remember that the prophet was alive and conscious 3 days after the incident. If it was really necessary to say something he could say at those days. It is very baseless that Shia assumes that the prophet wanted to talk about Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. please read our article on the pen and paper incident for more information.For more detailed info on this matter click:

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/azarinni/Pen.htm

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 (saaws)'s

companions follow this approach?

Answer: Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn't stay without a leader. Also the situation is very different. It's very stupid to ask for evidence like this. Each prophet has passed away in different situations and there were no unique attitude of their followers among them. The question is: Is there any evidence that there were chain of non-prophet successors from a prophet, all being infallible, all being in the same generation? With no mention of their names in their holy books? Is there any evidence that one of them goes to occultation for centuries while still being in this world? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

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 (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions

to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be

Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did

they hold on to their possessions?

Answer: This is again a complete ignorance. You can read in Osoole Kafi the hadith were it says that prophets do not leave any heritage. Imam Khomeini in one of his books of Fiqh endorses the correctness of this hadith. As for the wives of the prophet, you need to read the history to see how the prophet made each one of them a house of her own, it wasn't a heriatge or a gift. Comparing Fadak (a land captured by Muslims) to the houses of the wives of the prophet is very funny. As for giving living money to the wives of the prophet, it is very natural thing. They could not be married again and they had no properties, many of them had no proper relatives to rely on. What do you expect them to do for living at that time if you were the Caliph? Begging?! It is narrated in a hadith (in Bukhari ) to the effect that some of the wives of the prophet went to Ayesha in the time of Omar to encourage her accompany them to Omar's house to ask for heritage from the prophet, Ayesha rejected and said prophets do not leave any heritage, as the result they also changed their mind. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

10. We read in the 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 and murder, what will be their position on the Day of

Judgement?

Answer: It all depends on their intention. Al'Aamalo Bennyat. If their intention was to bring Fitnah among Muslims or to get their own personal benefit then they have done a sin (no matter if they were in Ali's army or Muawiyah's army). As for their position in the hereafter, we are not God to judge about it. Read letter 58 (or one before or after depending on the edition) of Najhul Balagha to see what does Imam Ali think about people of Siffin. Of course I do agree that the right was with Ali (ra) and not Ayesha (ra) or Moawiah. I do agree that Ali (ra) was oppressed in these incidents but I cannot judge about the intentions of every individual who was involved. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an "And of the people of Medina 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 (saaws). After his (saaws)'s death where did they

go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the

Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their

supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version

is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom

they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe

the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.

Answer: This is very deceiving question. To say that the hypocrites were not among those 4 has nothing to prove against the Sahabah. Read Shia Tafasir to see what were the features of these hypocrites. Even the Shia tafasirs do not consider them among the popular sahabeh of the prophet. The Hypocrites mentioned in the Quran were Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his henchmen. Ibn Ubayy died during the lifetime of the Prophet and with that the hypocrites too eroded. Their features certainly are not of the features of great Sahabah like Omar ,Aboobakr , Talha and Zobayr. Read your own sources like Al-mizan and you will see. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

12. Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad

and Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these

principles applied?

Answer: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself. In this way you might say it was based on Sunnah and ijtehad. On the other hand there are absolutely no clear evidence for the doctrine of having 12 Imams in Quran and Sunnat. So the same question applies to Ithna Ashari themselves. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what

of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided

Khalifa?

Answer: I don't believe that rejecting a Khalifa is tantamount apostasy, however as Ali says in Najhul Balagha, letter 6, the rejecter has gone astray from the way of Muslims. Not all people who fought Ali actually rejected his Caliphate, many started the fight because they wanted to arrest the killers of Uthman (again refer to 58th letter in Nahjul Balagha or one before or after depending on the edition), The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

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?

Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portions of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah's army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali's army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah's act of fighting Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

15. The Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life

that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of

ressurection" . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had

guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their

followers?

Answer: No and there are also no ahadith to indicate the followers of Imam Sadiq have guaranteed the paradise. So what?! Zaideis are also the followers of Imam Ali, same for Ismailis but they consider you as misguided same as you consider them as misguided, are they all go to paradise according to Ithna Ashari Shia because they are followers of Ali? Does following Ali only means to be an Ithna Ashari? Are you 100% sure that Malik Ashtar had the same doctrine of Imamat as Ithna Asharis? Can we say that Sunnis are not followers of Ali only because they also respect and follow the other Sahabah? By the way, all the imams you talked about are imams in Fiqh not in Aqeedah. So your comparison is irrelative. Also the hadith (if accepted as authentic) does not imply that these are THE ONLY ones who go to paradise. Do you think there are no other ahadith that indicate the holy prophet promising heaven to any one other than Ali? Have you ever read the verse of Quran that talks in praise of Mohajerin and Ansar and encourages those who follow in their path (Tawbah :100)? Can an Ithna Ashari Shia consider himself as one of the people who this verse is talking about (one who follows the path of Sahabeh)? In another verse (Hashr :10) Allah says that people who are not among Mohajers and Ansar must pray to Him not to put any ill thought about those Sahabah in their hearts, have you ever prayed and requested this from Allah or are you practicing cursing Sahabah and spreading ill thoughts about them? Read the fist verses of the Sura of Momenoon to see in general who are the people who go to paradise, can you see any mentions of the followers of certain Imams there? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

16. During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath

Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that

following his slaying 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 oppostion from Basrah. Was

this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it

motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali (as)?

Answer: The narration that Ayesha was a severe critic of Uthman to such an extent that she stated: "Kill this Nathal because he became a Kaffir" is reported in Sunni works by a person called "Nasr ibn Muhazim"..This person was an extermist Shii and the scholars of rijaal have considered this person to be a liar and a fabricator. So this narration is simply inauthentic. Can you honestly claim that you know the motivation of your best friend that you have known and see all the time in your life when he/she wants to do anything? How can we talk about the motivation of a woman who was living 1400 years ago with all these conflicting pieces of records from history? Instead of casting doubt about her motivations, is it not closer to Taqwa if we respect her as the beloved wife of the prophet and as our mother (if we consider ourselves Momin). Is it not closer to cautious if we observe the verse in Sura of Noor who warns people of thinking ill about Ayesha. Is it not closer to Taqwa to observe the verse that says "avoid uncertain accusations, as most of them are sin"?

17. If failing to believe in Hadhrath Aysha is an act of Kufr what opinion

should we hold with regards to her killer?

Answer: Here the questioner tries to place the impression that Muawiyah killed Ayesha. By refering back to Tarikhul Islam, vol.2 by najeefabadi we found THAT THERE IS NO SUCH NARRATION THAT STATES MUAWIYA KILLED AYESHA. It only says that Ayesha died a natural death and was buried in Janntul Baqiyaah. Now here we can see the dishonesty of the apostate to Shiism as he fabricates lies and uses deception.The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

18. It is commonly conveyed that the Sahaba were brave, generous,

knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to

determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's

did the prominent Sahaba 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 refused to go the Kaffir's

prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no friends and

instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of he relationship to the

Ummayah clan - against the obligation placed on him by a direct command of

the Holy Prophet.

Answer: How many did Salman or AbuDhar kill? How many did Miqdad or Ibn Abbas kill? Daft question! The designer of the question is very much affected by the dictatorship of his country. The prophet did not encourage people to shot up when he asked for something. He used to listen to the second opinions and many times he would accept it. I haven't read the story that is referred to in the question but to me it makes a perfect sense. It was the Sunnah of the Arabs to support their relatives. The prophet himself used this Sunnah many times. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shiism is the right version of Islam.

19. The Saha Sittah have traditions in which the Prophet (saaws) foretold

the coming of twelve khalifa's after him . Who are they? We assert that

these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlulbayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst

setting out Hanafi aqeedah states that the 6th khalifa was Yazid ibn

Mu'awiya? Was the Prophet (saaws) 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' then it is

imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are.

Answer: The hadith is Hadithe wahid (narrated only by one man), and the narrator was a kid when he was hearing it. No one can base all his religion in a hadithe wahed. Apart from this, the hadith does not put any obligation on Muslims. It is not ordering anything, it is reporting something. Also the hadith refers to these people as Amirs (few versions refer to them as Khalifs), non of the Shia Imams (except Ali and partially Hassan) became an Amir of Khalif. Moreover Imam Zainul Abideen refused to accept the post of Caliphate when the situation was very favourable. Even Bani Ummayah and the Syrians were ready to give him Baiaah but he simply refused. Likewise Imam Jaffar as Sadiq refused Caliphate in a scenario when the Alwis and Banu Abbas had uprooted Banu Ummayah and a large number of people were willing to give him Baiaah. Also it is only the Ithna Ashari who believe in the existence of the 12th Imam. According to other Muslims he never existed. Also there are many other ahadith that give different prophecies about the future of Muslims. One should look at them all and examine the narrators to be able to get a better picture. The hadith does not say that these Amirs themselves are very good Muslims, it says that in their time Islam has power and respect so I can see how Mulla Ali Qari looks at it.

As for the other hadith, you should read the ahadith of the same category to see the whole picture. The hadith as it is written above has not been considered as authentic by Sunnies, However there are ahadith that says who ever get apart from the community of Muslims (to the degree that he even does not know the leader of the society) will be dead like people of ignorant. This is nothing but the indication of importance of being socially & politically aware and active in Islam. This is very much in line with the 6th letter of Ali to Muawiyah in Najhul Balagha. It in no way indicates that there should always be a qualified Imam of time. It is clear that if there are no qualified Imams then the hadith will not be relevant to the situation any more. It says that if Muslims have a leader, you as an individual must recognize him; this is your political and social responsibility as a Muslim. So please see the correct version of hadith in its context to help yourself understanding it.

20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar

introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3

Talaq's in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute

Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?

Answer: Imam Khomeini said in one of his speeches that walye faqih can even order muslims to stop reading prayer if he finds that reading the prayers could harm islam. It is amusing to see his followers are now accusing Omar.

As for Omar, he never initiated Tarawih. It was started at the time of the prophet and the prophet let muslims doing it for 3 nights. The only reason that he put a halt in it was (according to the same ahadith that shia uses) that he worried it might become an obligatory task and become difficult for muslims. At the time of Omar, Islam was well established and the prophet was gone so there was no danger of it becoming obligatory and people liked to read it in Jammaat. The whole reason of forbidding the act had gone and Muslims knew (according to the hadith) that the act by itself had no problem (otherwise the prophet would mention it. He never said why are you doing innovation). You can see the significance of what Omar did these days when all Muslims do tarawih in Macceh, you can even see the effect on Shia people who desperately and interestedly look at it from their TV or live.

The other issues are the issues of Fiqh and ijtehad. Ali for the first time assigned zakat for donkey in his time because he found that at those days people use to have donkeys (refer to Forooe Kafi, the section on zakat), so is this changing the law or what? . To me, Omar's understanding of Islam was much better than Khomeini's. Despite clear evidences from Sunnah, Khomeini declared chess to be halal, same for music. In what basis do you give a right of ijtehad to Khomeini who never lived with a prophet and refuse to give the same right to Omar who lived with the best of the prophets? By the way, Shia is the pioneer of changing the laws of God and bringing innovation to religion. Which one is more innovation? What is referred to in the question or the act of Qame Zani (biting your head with sword) in Ashoora, adding another shahadat to Azan, making golden thumbs for your Imams and making pilgrimages to them, etc.

And Allah knows best.

*******

I hope that helps

Was-salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams

What we see here is the typical Sunni technique – don’t answer the question being posed, ask you own questions and then answer them instead. Whilst I havent got time to address all let me highlight some examples of this great technique. So here I’ve divided this up in Q. A.and COMMENT

1.History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood

(saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh1 . Hadhrath Abu

Talib took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they

remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship2 . Where were

Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah

so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join

the Prophet (saaws) 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?

Answer: Yes there is, read the history in works like Seerah Ibnu Hishaam etc. ,you will see that during the same period Aboobakr who was once a wealthy man ended up with almost no money because of his efforts to help Muslims. Omar was also very active during this period to support Islam. Refer to the records of that period in Sunni books of history. The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT

The question was asking what support the Shaykhayn gave to Rasul (s) in Shib Abi Talib, did they give him food, financial help? Our dear Nasibi friend failed to answer that, where not interested in their alleged outsiede activities, what support did they give to Rasulullah (s)? Answer is NONE and this Nasbi knows it.

2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), 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 (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima ? Did she request that she be

buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her

burial? (see Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).

Answer: No records even from Shia sources implies that people prevent Fatima's burial near his father. Also there are no records that she had requested to be buried next to his father. Aboobakr and Omar had requested to be buried next to the prophet. That easy. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: This qu. Is a technique in debating, it leads one being questioned to start thinking deeper – sadly Nasibi have no such brain cells so I’ll expand. If you read Sahih al Bukhari you will see Sayyida Fatima (as) left the world angry with Abu Bakr…she didn’t speak to him and was buried secretly in Jannathul Baqi. The qu. Should lead you to a thinking process what was Sayyida Fatima (as) seeking to show by being buried away from Rasul (s)?

3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior.

If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select him

to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the

Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali

saying "You are my brother in this world and the next"3, so on what basis

is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?

Answer: There are many records of the prophet praising Aboobakr and calling him his brother( see Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, virtures of Abu Bakr), of course Shia considers all of them to be fabricated!. The fact that he did not choose him as his brother when he divided the companions cannot reduce any thing from Aboobakr. He has his own rank and Ali has his own. Aboobakr was friend of the holy prophet from before his prophet hood until his passing away. This is a fact that even Shia sources confess to. It is also referred to in Quran, the verse of Qar . Also the Prophet choose him to be his fellow companion during migration and he was his partner in the cave. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Notice that the Nasibi has failed to answer the question. If AB was closest Rasulullah (s) would have chosen him he didn’t. This proves that he was NOT the closest. If AB really was referred to as the brother of Rasul (s) as Nasibi claims then he would have been selected NOT Maula ‘Ali (as).

4. The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by

Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration’s far

exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali , Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath

Hassan and Hadhrath Hussain ? Why is this the case? When the

Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate",

did Ali benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than

these individuals?

Answer: The answer is very easy and it shows the ignorance of the designer of the question. Unlike the Shia ahadith, the vast majority of Sunni ahadith are those that the narration goes back to the prophet. It is obvious that Ayesha and Aboohorayrah were adults when they were with the prophet, while Hasanayn were kids. Ebne Omar was older than hasanayn at the time of the prophet so he had more chance as compared to them to narrate from the prophet. Apart from this, the political situations made Hasanayn engaged with many things. Ebne Omar was not like this. Also it's up to the individuals whether they like to narrate something or not. As for Ali , Omar and Aboobakr too have very low number of Ahadith. Does that mean that Bukhari didn't like them?! Also Fatimatuz Zahra passed away only about three months after the passing away of the prophet, how many ahadith does one expect to be recorded from her in these critical three months? The question actually should be directed to Shia. How many ahadith does Shia have from Hasanayn? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT:

So Hasnayn were kids! Your trying to tell us they knew very few traditions from the grandfather! Yet we have Ayesha and Abu Hurraira narrating traditions such as Miraj when she wasn’t married to Rasul (s) and Abu Hurrayra narrating the Invitiation by Rasul (s) to his family when he had not yet met Rasul (s). Let us not forget hadith narrated by Marwan who expelled from Madina as a teenager and never saw Rasulullah (S) again yet he narrates hadith in Sahih al Bukhari. Omar and Abu Bakr not narrating many hadith! Well that because they were themselves anti hadith and set out on a program to ban / burn hadith!

5. If Hadhrath Ali had no differences with the three Khalifa's why did

he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns,

particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir's 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 unsheath his sword and participate in the

battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?

Answer: Many Sahabah remained in the city for other purposes, as they were perceived as unique sources of knowledge, do you have any evidence that they all gone except Ali? So would you say that they were all against Omar?! There is in the history that Hassan was participating in the attack on Tabarestan. Also we know that Salman (one of the best followers of Ali according to Shia) got the authority from Omar to rule Fars. In what basis would you say that giving consultancy and advice to Omar while being against him is fine (as Ali did) but participating in fighting with Koffar and Moshrekin (which Ali endorses in Nahjul Balagha) is not fine for Ali? Read Najhul Balagha and you see that Ali endorses the war. Refer to the 146th ceremony of Nahjul balagha (or one before or after, depending on the edition). It's a pity that we try to attribute our own hostility and hatred to Ali to prove our points. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Again no answer! This Nasibi should know that there’s a world of difference between advising and providing physical support. If Imam ‘Ali (as) or Salman offered advisory roles / positions to Umar that in no way means that they believed his rule to be right. Imam ‘Ali (as) and Salman gave advice for the betterment of Islam for dear ol Umar’s rulings were often so stupid that had Imam ‘Ali (as) not intervened Islam would have been turned into a mockery. Advice was for the betterment of the Ummah, Nasibi should know that Nabi Yusuf (as) was adviser to Pharoah that doesn’t mean he belived Pahroah’s rule to be right.

6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing

Imam Hussain then why did the majority Ahl'ul 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?

Answer: Look at the situation just now. We all know about Palestine yet we waste our time over the net. Same for that time. This is while at that time there were no media to let people know what is going on. One cannot cover the grave sin of those so called Shia people who betrayed Hussain, by asking about why others didn't defend Hussain. Did any Shia defend Zayd ibn Ali when he was left alone against Bani Omayyeh? Of course I agree that it is a disaster and disappointment that the grand son of the holy prophet is being killed this easy and people are remained silent. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Fact is the leading lights of Sahaba and tabieen had given bayya to Yazeed, and your Ulema have deemed Yazeed to be the rightful Khailfa. Majority didn’t support the Imam (as) because they believed that Khilafath was Yazeed’s right exemplified by Abdullah Ibn Umar. As for claim Shi’a betrayed the Imam (as) kindly see answering ansar’s article on Imam Husayn (as) that answers this lie.

7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the

Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur'an is sufficient for us'

(Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for

accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari

Vol 5 number 716)

Answer: No one accused the prophet of speaking nonsense. “They were saying that the pain of death has overcome the prophet

COMMENT: we suggest this Nasibi reads Saahih al Bukhari thatsays that Rasulullah (s) was accused of speaking yahjur that means NONSENSE so again Nasibi is lying. Its always good to quote all that the Sahaba said in the tradition not the part that you just like.

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 (saaws)'s

companions follow this approach?

Answer: Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn't stay without a leader. Also the situation is very different. It's very stupid to ask for evidence like this. Each prophet has passed away in different situations and there were no unique attitude of their followers among them. The question is: Is there any evidence that there were chain of non-prophet successors from a prophet, all being infallible, all being in the same generation? With no mention of their names in their holy books? Is there any evidence that one of them goes to occultation for centuries while still being in this world? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Again the question hasn’t been answered, its funny that the Nasibi had said “Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn't stay without a leader” and yet the same Prophet (s) fails to select a Leader and leaves the matter up in the air, no Sahaba ever bothers to ask him the process to select the Leader! If you consult the Qur’an we see that Allah (swt) appoints the Khalifa, why change now, in favour for the clown antics of Saqifa?

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 (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions

to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be

Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did

they hold on to their possessions?

Answer: This is again a complete ignorance. You can read in Osoole Kafi the hadith were it says that prophets do not leave any heritage. Imam Khomeini in one of his books of Fiqh endorses the correctness of this hadith. As for the wives of the prophet, you need to read the history to see how the prophet made each one of them a house of her own, it wasn't a heriatge or a gift. Comparing Fadak (a land captured by Muslims) to the houses of the wives of the prophet is very funny.

COMMENT: Fadak was also bequeathed to Sayyida Fatima (as) during Rasulullah’s lifetime, so if the wives could have a claim on their homes why not Sayyida Fatima (as). We shall inahallah address this lie in detail soon.

10. We read in the 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 and murder, what will be their position on the Day of

Judgement?

Answer: It all depends on their intention. Al'Aamalo Bennyat. If their intention was to bring Fitnah among Muslims or to get their own personal benefit then they have done a sin (no matter if they were in Ali's army or Muawiyah's army). As for their position in the hereafter, we are not God to judge about it. Read letter 58 (or one before or after depending on the edition) of Najhul Balagha to see what does Imam Ali think about people of Siffin. Of course I do agree that the right was with Ali and not Ayesha or Moawiah. I do agree that Ali was oppressed in these incidents but I cannot judge about the intentions of every individual who was involved. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Maybe its my stupiditiy but if I enter into battle with a sword am I not INTENDING on killing my opponents? These people had created Fitnah by rebelling against the rightful Imam, and their acts were a violation of the Qur’an and Sunnah – so the excuse of Niyah is a very feeble one. See answering-ansar's articles on Ayesha and Mu'awiya (LA) for further clarity.

11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an "And of the people of Medina 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 (saaws). After his (saaws)'s death where did they

go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the

Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their

supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version

is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom

they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe

the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.

Answer: This is very deceiving question. To say that the hypocrites were not among those 4 has nothing to prove against the Sahabah. Read Shia Tafasir to see what were the features of these hypocrites. Even the Shia tafasirs do not consider them among the popular sahabeh of the prophet. The Hypocrites mentioned in the Quran were Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his henchmen. Ibn Ubayy died during the lifetime of the Prophet and with that the hypocrites too eroded. Their features certainly are not of the features of great Sahabah like Omar ,Aboobakr , Talha and Zobayr. Read your own sources like Al-mizan and you will see. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Again the qu. Has NOT been answered.. This verse Surah Tauba descended in 10 Hijri, one of the LAST VERSES and even at that pt Allah (swt) was declaring the presence of munafiq in Madina. To suggest that the detailed verse referes to ONE who incidentally died during the life of Rasulullah (s) is laughable. If hypocrites really finished with his death, then perhaps the Nasibi could explain WHY Abu Dharr Ghaffari stated “After the death of Rasul (s) we would recognise the munafiq due to their hatred of ‘Ali” (Tarrekh ul Khulafa page 173).

12. Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad

and Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these

principles applied?

Answer: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself.

COMMENT: This was a very funny answer. “What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself”. So he told the Sahaba to leave his funeral arrangements meet at a secret rendezvous involving three Muhajireen and the Ansar then shout fight, swear and brow meet each other, and then select a Leader. Wow what Ijma. Nasibi should know that the the first source of Law is the Qur’an and when you have the answer (namely that Allah (swt) appoints the khalifa then you have no right to adopt comical social experiments such as Saqifa! If this really was legitimate Umar would have called it a sudden thing, Allah protected us from its evil (See Sahih al Bukhariand answering ansar's articleon burning the house of Sayyida Fatimah (as)

13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what

of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided

Khalifa?

Answer: I don't believe that rejecting a Khalifa is tantamount apostasy, however as Ali says in Najhul Balagha, letter 6, the rejecter has gone astray from the way of Muslims. Not all people who fought Ali actually rejected his Caliphate, many started the fight because they wanted to arrest the killers of Uthman (again refer to 58th letter in Nahjul Balagha or one before or after depending on the edition), The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: Wrong those people that fought Imam ‘Ali (as) DID reject his Khilafath they refused to give him bayya / or revoked it so they did reject it. This qu. Is directed a Sipaah-e-Sahab Pakistan who are seeking to pass legislation namely rejecteding the khilafath of the Shaykhayn makes you a kaafir.

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?

Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portions of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah's army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali's army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah's act of fighting Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: What can we say to this type of comical answer? Common sense (Not Nasibi) dictates that you're either right or wrong not both! Now in Jamal and Sifeen Imam ‘Ali (as) was in the right, Rasulullah (s) said ‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali – so his opponents are automatically on falsehood. See answering-ansar’s article Ijtijhad and the Sahaba for further clarification.

15. The Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life

that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of

ressurection" . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had

guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their

followers?

Answer: No and there are also no ahadith to indicate the followers of Imam Sadiq have guaranteed the paradise. So what?! Zaideis are also the followers of Imam Ali, same for Ismailis but they consider you as misguided same as you consider them as misguided, are they all go to paradise according to Ithna Ashari Shia because they are followers of Ali? Does following Ali only means to be an Ithna Ashari? Are you 100% sure that Malik Ashtar had the same doctrine of Imamat as Ithna Asharis? Can we say that Sunnis are not followers of Ali only because they also respect and follow the other Sahabah? By the way, all the imams you talked about are imams in Fiqh not in Aqeedah.

Just note that the Nasibi doesn’t actually reject the tradition, just the fact that it doesn’t refere to the Ithna Ashari? Nasibi should know that we do deem Imam ‘Ali (as) as an Imam of Fiqh, we have ruling that go back through to him. As for qu. Whether Imam Jafer Sadiq(as) guaranteed Paradise for his Shi’a, he said he would speak on behalf of his Shi’a on the Day of Judgement provided they practised good deeds.

16. During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath

Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that

following his slaying she chose to rebel against Imam Ali on the

premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah,

portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise oppostion from Basrah. Was

this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it

motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali ?

Answer: The narration that Ayesha was a severe critic of Uthman to such an extent that she stated: "Kill this Nathal because he became a Kaffir" is reported in Sunni works by a person called "Nasr ibn Muhazim"..This person was an extermist Shii and the scholars of rijaal have considered this person to be a liar and a fabricator. So this narration is simply inauthentic. Can you honestly claim that you know the motivation of your best friend that you have known and see all the time in your life when he/she wants to do anything? How can we talk about the motivation of a woman who was living 1400 years ago with all these conflicting pieces of records from history? Instead of casting doubt about her motivations, is it not closer to Taqwa if we respect her as the beloved wife of the prophet and as our mother (if we consider ourselves Momin). Is it not closer to cautious if we observe the verse in Sura of Noor who warns people of thinking ill about Ayesha. Is it not closer to Taqwa to observe the verse that says "avoid uncertain accusations, as most of them are sin"?

COMMENT: Notice how this Nasibi attributed this saying to Nasr bin Muhzahim without any reference of the book. Fact is it is through different narrators and so true that many of your great Salaf recorded these meorable words, such as Ibn Atheer and Ibn Mansur.

17. If failing to believe in Hadhrath Aysha is an act of Kufr what opinion

should we hold with regards to her killer?

Answer: Here the questioner tries to place the impression that Muawiyah killed Ayesha. By refering back to Tarikhul Islam, vol.2 by najeefabadi we found THAT THERE IS NO SUCH NARRATION THAT STATES MUAWIYA KILLED AYESHA. It only says that Ayesha died a natural death and was buried in Janntul Baqiyaah. Now here we can see the dishonesty of the apostate to Shiism as he fabricates lies and uses deception.The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

COMMENT: This tactic is called playing ‘Call my bluff’ the book in qu. Was originally in Urdu and THEN the Salafi’s tranaletd it into English, which means delaying as and when they see fit. Najeeb Abadi cited Tareekh ibn Khaldun as his source and I have it and yes its in there.

18. It is commonly conveyed that the Sahaba were brave, generous,

knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to

determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's

did the prominent Sahaba 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 refused to go the Kaffir's

prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no friends and

instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of he relationship to the

Ummayah clan - against the obligation placed on him by a direct command of

the Holy Prophet.

Answer: How many did Salman or AbuDhar kill? How many did Miqdad or Ibn Abbas kill? Daft question!

COMMENT: So Nasibi fails to answer the question. It asked how many kaafir Umar killed. He had no answer so he counters it with the qu. How many did Salman kill! Thus confirming Umar didn’t even get a nosebleed in battle. You want us to answer how many Salman killed, well we don’t believe Salman was the great noble ferocious warrior, whilst you believe Umar was. So the onus is on you to back up your claim with sources showing Umar’s talent in Jihad that you have spectacularly failed to answer!

19. The Saha Sittah have traditions in which the Prophet (saaws) foretold

the coming of twelve khalifa's after him . Who are they? We assert that

these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlulbayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst

setting out Hanafi aqeedah states that the 6th khalifa was Yazid ibn

Mu'awiya? Was the Prophet (saaws) 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' then it is

imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are.

Answer: The hadith is Hadithe wahid (narrated only by one man), and the narrator was a kid when he was hearing it. No one can base all his religion in a hadithe wahed. Apart from this, the hadith does not put any obligation on Muslims. It is not ordering anything, it is reporting something. Also the hadith refers to these people as Amirs (few versions refer to them as Khalifs), non of the Shia Imams (except Ali and partially Hassan) became an Amir of Khalif. Moreover Imam Zainul Abideen refused to accept the post of Caliphate when the situation was very favourable. Even Bani Ummayah and the Syrians were ready to give him Baiaah but he simply refused. Likewise Imam Jaffar as Sadiq refused Caliphate in a scenario when the Alwis and Banu Abbas had uprooted Banu Ummayah and a large number of people were willing to give him Baiaah. Also it is only the Ithna Ashari who believe in the existence of the 12th Imam. According to other Muslims he never existed. Also there are many other ahadith that give different prophecies about the future of Muslims. One should look at them all and examine the narrators to be able to get a better picture. The hadith does not say that these Amirs themselves are very good Muslims, it says that in their time Islam has power and respect so I can see how Mulla Ali Qari looks at it.

As for the other hadith, you should read the ahadith of the same category to see the whole picture. The hadith as it is written above has not been considered as authentic by Sunnis, However there are ahadith that says who ever get apart from the community of Muslims (to the degree that he even does not know the leader of the society) will be dead like people of ignorant. This is nothing but the indication of importance of being socially & politically aware and active in Islam. This is very much in line with the 6th letter of Ali to Muawiyah in Najhul Balagha. It in no way indicates that there should always be a qualified Imam of time. It is clear that if there are no qualified Imams then the hadith will not be relevant to the situation any more. It says that if Muslims have a leader, you as an individual must recognize him; this is your political and social responsibility as a Muslim. So please see the correct version of hadith in its context to help yourself understanding it.

COMMENT: First of all Nasibi should know that this hadith is Sahih, had it been weak then it would appear in crucial books of Sunni aqeedah such as Sharh Fiqh Akbar. Secondly you need to understand that you don’t have to be sit on a throne to be khailfa! Khalifa means “to follow” like in the Qur’an the moon is called the khalifa of the moon. We deem the twelve Imams to be the khalifas of Rasulullah (s) in that they followed the foosteps of Rasulullah (s) and were the true inheritors of the Qur’an and Sunnah. We have thus interpreted the hadith in this way, now if you feel that this refers to great figures such as Yazeed so be it, but some how I don’t really believe that Rasulullah (s) would refer to Yazeed as the protector of religion, but with these Nasibi anything is possible.

20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar

introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3

Talaq's in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute

Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?

Answer: Imam Khomeini said in one of his speeches that walye faqih can even order muslims to stop reading prayer if he finds that reading the prayers could harm islam. It is amusing to see his followers are now accusing Omar.

As for Omar, he never initiated Tarawih. It was started at the time of the prophet and the prophet let muslims doing it for 3 nights. The only reason that he put a halt in it was (according to the same ahadith that shia uses) that he worried it might become an obligatory task and become difficult for muslims. At the time of Omar, Islam was well established and the prophet was gone so there was no danger of it becoming obligatory and people liked to read it in Jammaat. The whole reason of forbidding the act had gone and Muslims knew (according to the hadith) that the act by itself had no problem (otherwise the prophet would mention it. He never said why are you doing innovation). You can see the significance of what Omar did these days when all Muslims do tarawih in Macceh, you can even see the effect on Shia people who desperately and interestedly look at it from their TV or live.

The other issues are the issues of Fiqh and ijtehad. Ali for the first time assigned zakat for donkey in his time because he found that at those days people use to have donkeys (refer to Forooe Kafi, the section on zakat), so is this changing the law or what? . To me, Omar's understanding of Islam was much better than Khomeini's. Despite clear evidences from Sunnah, Khomeini declared chess to be halal, same for music. In what basis do you give a right of ijtehad to Khomeini who never lived with a prophet and refuse to give the same right to Omar who lived with the best of the prophets? By the way, Shia is the pioneer of changing the laws of God and bringing innovation to religion. Which one is more innovation? What is referred to in the question or the act of Qame Zani (biting your head with sword) in Ashoora, adding another shahadat to Azan, making golden thumbs for your Imams and making pilgrimages to them, etc.

And Allah knows best.

COMMENT: Taraweeh is Bidah because Umar described in his own words that this was bidah (Sahih al Bukhari) not a reinstitution of the Sunnah as Nasibi claims. On the exercise of ijtihad to absolve Umar, what Nasibi should know is you can ONLY exercise if when NO answer appears in the Qur’an/ Sunnah. Now the Qur’an stipulates that Talaq spans THREE mensrual cycles, and Sahih al Bukhari confims that the verse on Mta has NOT been abrogated, hence Umar’s ijtihad is Batil since he sought topass Fatwas that over rule the Qur'an!

Hope this helps.

wasalaam

agha malang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×