Search the Community

SALAAM PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST AND UNTIL THE LAST FULL STOP. SUSPEND JUDGEMENT OF THE TITLE.: I BELIEVE CONSERVATIVE-LIBERTARINISM IS THE WAY IN THE MODERN WORLD. HERE'S WHY: Libertarian Islam by S. Hammad Haider | Feb 12, 2017 A commonly used epithet to describe Islam is ‘The Religion of Peace,’ but this is inaccurate and confusing. The phrase became more commonly used after 9/11 by politicians. The Quran never describes the faith in these terms. It is more accurate to describe Islam as a religion of non-aggression and justice. The Non-aggression principle (NAP) is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism. Many libertarians today like to bend, or flat out break this principle, however, a Muslim can be a Rothbardian libertarian, like Ron Paul, who manages to encompass economic and sociological theories while using the NAP as an axiom. Libertarians who want to learn more about the NAP are blessed to have the many resources such as the Libertarian Institute, the Scott Horton Show and the Ron Paul Liberty Report. The other day I found some time to listen to one episode of the latter. Afterward, the live chat feature remains open, where many libertarians sing praises for Dr. Paul. To my surprise, in the live chat, there were many libertarians or those who call themselves libertarian, who rejected the NAP! If libertarians are wavering on the NAP, then how can a Muslim, who is supposedly in an inherently aggressive religion, adopt this principle? Again, there are many resources available to libertarians who want to better understand how Muslims can adopt libertarian ideals. Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad is a scholar and libertarian activist who ran for US Senate as the Libertarian Party candidate. He is currently the President of the Minaret Freedom Institute, a libertarian Muslim think tank. I urge those who want to know more about Islam and libertarianism to read his publications. Furthermore, the roots of Muslim libertarianism are historically much deeper. Dr. Denise Spellberg, an associate professor in the Department of History, at the University of Texas-Austin has a fascinating interview online about her book on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran. She explains that Jefferson saw a place for Muslims in his free society through the writings of John Locke: “Neither pagan nor Mahometan,” meaning Muslim, “nor Jew ought to be excluded from the rights of the commonwealth because of his religion.” It may also be a surprise to some readers that Muslims have a rich tradition of secularism. According to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the father of secularism is the influential Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes. In his work The Decisive Treatise he provided the justification for the separation of state and religion. Dr. Gary Adler Jr., an associate professor at Penn State University, summarized Ibn Rushd’s secularism in his book on Secularism, Catholicism and the Future of Public life: “In other words, secularism can be seen as an instrument of the Divine, ensuring that the righteous Muslim would be wise in matters affecting them on earth in the same way as the Quran ensures his correct path with respect to matters eternal.” (Secularism, Catholicism and the Future of Public life Adler; p.86). The Prophet Muhammad himself can be an example of the NAP in practice. Imam Tahir ul-Qadri, the scholar who controversially issued a 600-page fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing, spoke to the United States Institute of Peace about the life of the Prophet. According to Qadri, the Prophet of Islam had a military career for thirteen years, and he only fought back any aggression imposed on him by the enemy. The scholar summarized five verses in the Holy Quran, Islam’s holy book, which mentions ‘self-defense,’ was revealed to the Prophet in the city of Mecca. He believes the word ‘Jihad’ to have many meanings but in a military context as a ‘defensive war’. Jihad, he maintained, is not an aggression, rather it represents self-protection according to the Quran. Ron Paul, a champion of the NAP and libertarianism, echoes this idea of defensive wars, by consistently clarifying his position of non-interventionism, not isolationism. If you have read this far you may assume that I am a typical Muslim apologist. My intention is not to be an apologist, but to offer you a line of reasoning which allows Muslims to fully adopt the NAP. That said, as a believer in the NAP, I fully condemn all forms of terrorism including that from radical Muslims. The Islamic State is led by Sunni Muslims who follow a radical interpretation of Sunnism in order to feed their aspirations. These radical interpretations are rooted in The Ridda Wars conducted after the death of Prophet Muhammad and in the writings of Sunni thinkers Ibn Taymiyah and Abdul Wahab. The Ridda Wars, or Apostasy Wars, were a bloody and influential innovation in the name of Islam, especially from a libertarian perspective. Many libertarians believe in a voluntary tax system, whereby the citizenry can hold the state accountable. Well, in 7th century Arabia, the Prophet Muhammad held a voluntary tax system, and never fought a war for taxes. This took a drastic change after his death when the Islamic empire began to spread by the sword. The beginning of this evil expansion is exemplified in the Ridda Wars, where the first caliph implemented the first statutory taxes. The caliph mandated that anyone who did not recognize his leadership, and held back taxes in opposition to this authority, was an apostate, and an enemy of the state. This began the killings for Apostasy, and taxes, which were never conducted under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (Sunan an-Nasa’i volume 5, Book 37, Hadith 3978, Eng. Ed., Sahih Darussalam). Ibn Taymiyah and Abdul Wahab aimed to give an academic relevance to this form of terrorism against apostates. Richard Bonney was a History Professor at the University of Leicester, and he wrote the book titled Jihad: Quran to Bin Laden. In his book, he describes Ibn Taymiyah and Abdul Wahab as the inspiration for Osama bin Laden: “Ibn Taymiyah thus should be seen as a revivalist of the doctrine of jihad…His fatwa regarding the Mongols established a precedent: in spite of their claim to be Muslims, their failure to implement shariah rendered the Mongols apostates and hence the lawful object of jihad. Muslim citizens thus had the right, indeed duty, to revolt against them, to wage jihad. For Osama bin Laden, Ibn Taymiyah, along with Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, is one of the great authorities to be cited to justify the kind of indiscriminate resort to violence which he terms jihad (Jihad: Quran to Bin Laden Bonney; p.121-2). Libertarian Islam is an oxymoron under the violent interpretations of Sunnism, but all major religions have a history of violent and peaceful interpretations. This gives an added importance to Muslims, and fellow libertarians, to use the NAP as a foundational principle. A principle of non-aggression can have the power to unite people. Libertarianism in its purest form has a profound attraction to people of all backgrounds, and I am proud to call myself an American libertarian Muslim. Like many Americans, I am a small business owner, a husband, and a father of two young girls. Yes, I do sport a full beard and my wife wears a headscarf. Yet we still attended the Republican caucuses and proudly wrote in Ron Paul as our vote for president in 2012, not only due to Dr. Paul’s unwavering NAP-based philosophy but due to our belief in wholly American ideals. Freedom of religion is an important part of our society, and if we want American libertarianism to triumph then we should trust our ideals. Scott Horton, a founder of the Libertarian Institute, summarized it best on his podcast. He described the difficulties we will face if we reject Muslims based on their faith, and do not give them a place in our society, as envisioned by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson: “The Islamic state has been saying ‘see fellow Muslims, the Westerners, the Christians, and the Jews, they hate us and they will always hate us. We have no place in the west!’ In other words, pushing for a clash of civilizations that they need because War is the health of the (Islamic) state… Instead of (the Trump administration) arguing that, oh yeah, we believe in the enlightenment and freedom of religion… Muslims absolutely have a place in our society, plenty of places in our society… instead this (immigration) policy plays into the hands of those on the other side.” Salam Ya Ali Madad

Asalam Alaikom Brothers and Sisters, I have a question in regards to wudu. Today i received an injury on my right palm. The doctor said that I'm unable to wash the area. However, now my concern is that I am unable to perform wudu for my obligatory prayers. To my understanding and research I am able to perform wudu al jabireh, but that requires using my right hand to pour water on my face, arms etc. My question is, am I able to perform wudu using my left hand? If not, please provide me alternative ways. I do taqleed of seyid al Sistani. Wasalam, Servant of God

Imam Hasan (pbuh):"Difference between right and wrong is 4 fingers, anything that you see with your eyes is right and may be hear with ears very wrong.

Imam sajjad (the fourth Imam) in his valuable treatise that is written on “rights” has said: “the right of yourself incumbent upon you is that you employ it in obeying God; then you deliver to your tongue its right, to your hearing its right, to your sight its right, to your hand its right, to your leg its right, to your stomach its right, to your private part its right, and you seek help from God in all that.” Since we are created by God and God is aware of our interest, so to employ in obeying God lead us to felicity and perfection. So, the meaning of “right” in the word of Imam is the command of Lord. Hence, we must use tongue in a way that is in accordance with God’s command and also the eyes and ears and other God-given limbs.

Salaam Alaykum, Does anyone know of a Hadith which I believe is from our 4th Imam (as) narrating what differentiated truth from falsehood in the event of Ashura in Karbala? It went something like this: "Both camps were Muslims in Karbala but what differentiated truth from falsehood was that one camp believed in Ali (as) un-Waliullah". Thanks in advance

I found this on a site. I think it's convincing, so why won't shia come along and admit sunni as the right way 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. 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. All companions had different distinctions. Ali ® had the distinction of being selected as his brother along with many other distinctions, but Abu Bakr also had his share of distinctions…for instance · He was a good friend and neighbor of Prophet Muhammad (saw) before the revelation of Quran to Muhammad saw. · He was the first adult man and the first one outside the family of Prophet Muhammad saw to accept Islam. · He had the unique distinction of being given the titles of ‘Siddiq’ and ‘Atiq’ by the Holy Prophet. · Of all the companions, Rasool Allah (s) chose Abu Bakr as his companion for his journey to Madina for the Hijrat and he was his companion in Ghar e Sour about which the ayat of the Quran was also revealed. · The Holy Prophet appointed Abu Bakr as the first “Amirul Hajj” in the history of Islam. · Holy Prophet also appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi to lead the prayers in his lifetime. · In his last address at Masjid-i-Nabvi, the Holy Prophet ordered that all doors opening into the mosque should be closed except the door leading to the house of Abu Bakr. · The Prophet said, “If I were to take a Khalil, I would have taken Abu Bakr, but he is my brother and my companion (in Islam).” Bukhari How can anybody say and decide themselves that because Ali ® was selected as his brother – therefore he is the best and the closest and superior than the rest while it is a fact that Holy Prophet also declared Abu Bakr as his brother and companion in Islam. Moreover if seen without bias and prejudice what can be more superior than being the Amirul Hajj and the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi and that too during the life time of Rasool Allah and selected by him!!? 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. Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali ® all passed away soon after the demise of our Holy Prophet. Where as Aisha, Abu Huraira and Ibn Umar lived a long life…they had a longer time to interact with the next generation (Tabaeen) and pass on their knowledge to them. They had the time and the opportunity to establish hadith classes and teach hadiths to others. That is why there are few traditions related from Abu Bakr, Usman and Ali ® while Ayesha, Abu Huraira and ibn umar have more narrations from them. If you look at Shia books, they mostly have hadiths which do not even have a chain of narrators leading up to Prophet Muhammad let alone being narrated by Ali or Fatima. They reject hadiths from Ayesha – the Umhatul Momineen as the wives are titled in the Quran .Their most authentic Hadith book called Al Kafi was written by Yaqoob al-Kulyanee around 300 years after the death of Ali ®!! and also after the death of their 11 imams. Where as Sunii Hadith collection started during the life time of Rasool Allah and the first manuscript of hadiths was by ibn Habban who was the student of Abu Huraira and sunni hadiths books have narrations from all the companions including Ali ® and Fatima and others….. 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. It is a historical fact which the shia seem to ignore that Ali ® was an active member of the Khilafat during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and was in the Majlis e shora as he was expert in many fields and had a lot of knowledge. His opinion in court cases was sought which shows that he was busy in other matters and was not part of the army because his advice was needed more in the court then in the battle field. Secondly, this is proof in itself that Ali ® accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman ® as he did not rise against them and ask for his right of khilafat. If he was wronged and injustice was done against him, he being so brave, would definitely have risen against him as he did against the Caliphate of Muawiyah. So if he accepted the caliphate of abu bakr n umar n uthman and never rose to do jihad against them and ask for his right to caliphate then why can’t the shias accept their caliphate??? Do they want to imply that Ali ® was a coward (naauzobillah) during their reign? How come he suddenly became brave and fought against muawiyah? Was he brave or was he a coward!!!??? It is a well known fact that he was one of the bravest soldiers who fought many battles during the life time of Rasool Allah. He never kept quit at any injustice and it is not at all possible that he kept quiet during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman and did not wage any jihad against them. 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: Firstly there were no Shias or Sunnis at that time. All were Muslims. Read the history of Kerbala By Dr. Israr Ahmed to find out the truth about what exactly happened at Karbala from the following link. Briefly stating Hasan ® first of all he never expected this to happen and he never went to fight a war – as he went with very few men including his family with women and children. No one goes for Jihad with women and children!! He was traveling to Kufa on their invitations of support, not Jihad. So there is no question of other Muslims joining him for jihad as there really was no call for Jihad! and most of all at that time there was no media to inform others about what what happening as sending messages took time as journeys were on foot or camels or horses. Dont forget that the tragedy of kerbala happend in what is not Iraq and the Muslim mainland of Arabia was very very far off.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: Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 92 :: Hadith 468 Narrated 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 bin Al-Khatttab, 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 Quran, 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 some of them said what ‘Umar said. Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 716 Narrated Ibn Abbas: Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state ).” So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, “Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for.” Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, “Turn the pagans out of the ‘Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them.” (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, “I forgot it.”) Please read the Hadiths again, Umar ® never accused Prophet (s) of speaking nonsense. Also, Umar ® was not there alone, there were a number of Sahabas there and there was disagreement among them about this issue. Prophet (s) wanted to tell the people something which would prevent them from going astray. Quranis the Book of Allah and its sole aim is to guide mankind and prevent them from going astray that is why some sahabas, including Umar ® did not want to bother the Prophet (s) in his illness with the task of getting something written down. It was due to their love and concern for the health of the messenger. Why do we have to see the event in such negative light!! It is only the biased and the deviated who would think such a thing and it is shameful to think that Prophet (s) was so helpless that because of Umar ® he was unable to get his dying wish written down?!! Shias claim that Umar r got in the way of writing down the wish and they also claim that Prophet (s) died in the arms of Ali ® – why did he not get his dying wish written down then to his Ahle Bait? Where were the Ahle Bait when this event of the pen happened. This hadiths is narrated by ibn Abbas – the son of Abbas ® –whom the Shias regard , so why did he not himself get the wish written down? This event happend on a Thursday and prophet (s) died on Monday , Prophet (s) lived for three days after this event and if he wanted he could have gotten his wish written down somehow!! Shias also claim that in this event Prophet (s) wanted to give his will and select Ali ® as the khaleefah, however they also claim that Ali ® had been selected as the Khalifa at the Ghadir Khumm. – so why is this pen event so important. So there is great discrepancy amongst the Shia version of facts! Hadith clearly states that it was something for the Ummah which the prophet s wanted to get written down and not his will! [ The truth is he died in the house of Aisha ® in her arms and he was buried in the room of Aisha ®] The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 8. Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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: What the shias claim is false and Abu Bakr and Umar ® went to saqifa and then returned back to take part in the funeral preparations.It was Abu Bakar who informed the other companions that Prophets are buried where they die and this RasulAllah should be buried in the room of Aisha where he died. The question is is there any evidence to proof that they were not part of the funeral preparations??!! and 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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 and the question is totally illogical. If Fatima allegedly had a share in the land of fadak then wouldn’t the wives have a share in it too//???!! Why do shias forget this thing!!.If Abu Bakr was unjust in not giving the share of fadak to Fatima r.. he also did not give it to his own daughter Ayesha!! He stated that Prophets do not leave any inheritance to be shared by the inheritors.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 mindThe 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. 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 ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 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.

Can someone tell me the name of a book or give me a working link which gives me all the information I need about the rights of everything over everything else. I will need an explanation of each right too.

The Path of Imam Hussein is The Path of The Messengers of Allah There were similarities between al-Imam al-Hussein’s revolution and the legacies of the Messengers of Allah. Allah had sent His Messengers to guide people to the right path and save them from the misconduct of the oppressors who humiliated the offsprings of Adam. These oppressors broke Allah’s covenant, rejected His signs, slayed His prophets, spread mischief and shed blood. The Messengers of Allah spared no effort to challenge those oppressors. The same position had been taken by al-Imam al-Hussein when he witnessed that the truth was concealed and falsehood was not prohibited. He observed Yazid the Umayyad ruler rebelling against Allah’s (Shari’a) and went on transgressing the Message of Islam and placing the book of Allah (al-Quran) behind his back and commanding what is evil and shameful. Karbala embodied the struggles of the Messengers of Allah and posed the greatest challenge to the Umayyad dynasty. Yazid exercised his authority in cruel, unjust and oppressed manners to compel al-Imam al-Hussein to choose one of two things: either to put him to the swords of his army or to accept humiliation. The aim of this plan was to distort al-Imam al-Hussein’s stature among Muslims in order to undermine his revolution. It is worth mentioning that it is impossible for al-Imam al-Hussein to accept humiliation for being the Vicegerent of Allah (khalifatul’Allah) on His earth, the proof of Allah (hujjatul’Allah) to his creatures who upholds the command of Allah, the most noble obedient to Allah, and the grandson of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) who is superior to all the angels who are near to Allah, the best of mankind and the leader (sayyid) of the sons of Adam. On the contrary, he denounced the tyrant rulers and held them responsible for permitting what had been forbidden by Allah, turning away from the traditions ( Sunna ) of the Messenger of Allah, and acting amongst Muslims sinfully and aggressively. He welcomed death and sacrificed his life for establishing justice. Death to him was nothing but happiness and living with tyrants was nothing but abject. According to this statement al-Imam al-Hussein’s happiness was correlated to the voice of justice to free the Muslim nation which was captured and imprisoned. Certainly, he was fully aware about the consequences of the battle. He made many statements in this regard. It was a divine mystery which was revealed at the battle of Karbala. It revived Islam, liberated Muslims from the hands of the oppressors and “provided them with determination and strength to defend their principles and live with honor and dignity” The swords which faced al-Imam al-Hussein at the battle of Karbala did not shake his stance. His purpose was stronger than them and greater. They made deep cuts in his sacred body but they did not subdue the inflammation of his revolution. From his wounds Islam overflowed again and his martyrdom changed the course of the Islamic history and sowed the seeds of freedom to enlighten the future Muslim generations to reject humiliation, save humanity, fight for justice, and spread love and peace. Every word al-Imam al-Hussein uttered on the sand of Karbala revealed the principles of his revolution and narrated to us that every unjust ruler and oppressor will come to an end. Those who fought against al-Imam al-Hussein and his principles vanished, but al-Imam al-Hussein remained alive in the consciousness of the Muslim nation. His legacy as well as in the consciousness of free men and women throughout history and became the symbol of freedom and the conqueror who wanted to establish the Divine justice (al-tawhid) on earth. That was the goal of the Messengers of Allah and al-Imam al-Hussein. Note: We are the International Media Unit in the holy shrine of Imam Hussain. Our main aim is to spread the message of Ahlul-Bayt worldwide. Please join our Facebook Group at شعبة الاعلام الدولي and follow our Twitter account @ImamHusainMedia Thank you, may Allah and the Ahlul-Bayt bless you.

(bismillah) Are there any ethical books written or lectures given concerning the subject of children's allowance especially non-working studying children. What are the obligations they have on this money and ethics on spending it. Wassalam.