Search the Community

Every single Salafi following their Aqeedah believes Allah has two literal eyes he sees out of, but these two eyes are not like ours. Ibn Khuzaymah writes: “”Our Creator and Lord has two eyes, by them He sees what is under the soil, what is under the seventh earth and what is above the heavens.” [Kitab al-Tawhid, Ibn Khuzaymah] Ibn Taymiyyah writes "The Hadith means that Allah hears through his ears, and sees through his Eyes" (screenshots above] Now look at what Imam Muhammed al-Baqir (as) has said : علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن حماد، عن حريز، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام أنه قال في صفة القديم: إنه واحد صمد أحدي المعنى ليس بمعاني كثيرة مختلفة، قال: قلت: جعلت فداك يزعم قوم من أهل العراق أنه يسمع بغير الذي يبصر ويبصر بغير الذي يسمع، قال: فقال: كذبوا وألحدوا وشبهوا تعالى الله عن ذلك، إنه سميع بصير يسمع بما يبصر ويبصر بما يسمع، قال: قلت: يزعمون أنه بصير على ما يعقلونه، قال، فقال: تعالى الله إنما يعقل ما كان بصفة المخلوق وليس الله كذلك. (sahih) (صحيح) [Imamiyya website translation] Salafis respond by saying 'His eyes are not like our eyes'. To that, here's a Sunni Maturidi-Hanafis response:

Pakistan is Majority Sunni but you can find Shias in Significant number. Since it is believed that Quaid-e-Azam (Founder of Pakistan) was Ismaili Shia. But I see Wahabis and Deobandis are very much in Power. Barelvi is the only Sunni Branch which you can say is Shia Friendly but even Barelvis have lost their Control. Multan (City of Pakistan where I live) is City of Saints and filled with Shrines but people are are now thinking celebrating death anniversiry of Saints is something wastage of time. So SHOCKING point for me is Founder of Pakistan was Shia but today Wahabis are in power. It feels like in some years Pakistan will just be like Saudi Arabia.

As-Salam-u-Alaikum everyone, I am currently a Masters by Research student studying the relationship between Sunni and Shia groups in Britain, my research is completely unbiased with no political or religious agenda whatsoever. I myself come from a mixed religious and cultural background and contradicting opinions on religion have been part of my upbringing, as such I very much appreciate a healthy debate. I have focussed on the relationship between Salafi and Shia groups in Britain and how that relationship has potentially evolved since the initial emergence of Salafism in Britain in the 1980s. I wanted to ask the people on this forum for their potential insight into these groups? Particularly what you think may be the biggest influencing factor: whether that might be essential theological differences, international or British politics or societal factors? Again, I would really appreciate any feedback you may have and thank you all in advance. If you would prefer to contact me directly my email address is misha.monaghan.2016@live.rhul.ac.uk Jazakumullahu Khair

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/18/saudi-arabia-talks-alliance-rebuild-iraq-return-arab-fold It seems a serious hole in the Shia world is in the making. Iraq is drifting towards its Arab neighbour Saudi Arabia, leaving Iran further isolated. The article says that Muqtada Sadr has long been a critic of Iran's influence. And Saudi Arabia is opening a consulate in Najaf. All this is very ominous of a greater Wahabi influence in the Muslim world and beyond. I personally think Iraq should move closer to KSA ONLY under the condition that they restore Jannat ul Baqi and agree to joint control of Mecca and Medina by all Muslim nations. What do you guys think?

Can anyone here give me some channels/sites where I can learn more about the beliefs of Shia, Sunni, Salafi, science etc. Because Ramadan is about learning too! Now I am a Shia, and I have the proof for the Shia are right, but I want to know what my brothers believe in (But I do not think Salafi see me as a brother...)

I am talking about Dr Bilal Philips who is a very popular sunni speaker amongst millions of muslims who admire him. Here is a comment of his on Ashura on Facebook: (2013) "If anyone is stupid, it is you, for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not teach us to remember the martyrdom of his own beloved uncle, Hamzah, so why should we have to remember that of his grandson?" This is height of jahliyat(ignorance) and it just goes to show how irresponsible sunnis are when they accept a hypocrite leader like him. I think we are witnessing the signs of judgement day when we have such leaders representing Islam.

https://www.medinaminds.com/is-banning-salafi-literature-the-answer/

So here I have a kind of question on the most popular criticism used bu Sunni/Wahabbis against shias. This is what I am talking about : http://www.sunni-news.net/en/articles.aspx?article_no=27879 Summary:Sunnis say that the beliefs of christians and shias are same as they take their prests/imams as gods other than Allah. Like in the case of Ali and Jesus, Christians believe that Jesus was a God but so week to die on a cross, while shias believe that Ali (a.s) is on higher rank than Prophet Muhammad and strong like God but so week to protect Islam after Prophet Muhammad and had to accept all kinds of accusations against him. (ASTAGFIRULLAH) Question : Now my question is that how can we prove them wrong ? Are we really saying that Ali has attributes of God ?

This a the last music video of Hamed Zamani, Iranian revolutionary singer.

There are many Sunni, Salafi, Deobandi, Barailvi, Ahl-e-Hadees and Wahabi Ulema that converted to Shi’a, especially in the Indian Subcontinent, many who were subsequently killed by Sippah-e-Sahaba (Lanatallah Aley On The Nasibi Wahabi Kuffar!). I’m only writing the ones that are common knowledge. List of the names of those Ullema who converted from the Sunni Schools of thought to Shia'ism: Maulana Wazeer Turabi - From Bhawalpur who was ex Deobandi, he has converted scores of people including Sunni Mullah's to Shi'asim Muhammad Tijani Simaoui - A Sunni Aalim born to a Sunni Aalim. Maulana Ismail Deoband Ex Deobandi converted to Shi’a. Was a big time debater and was responsible for converting entire villages to Shi’a when defeating their Mullah’s in debates. He also converted scholars to Shi’a when they lost such as Hafiz Sayfullah (Wahabi) and Saeed’ur Rahman Alavi (Deobandi). Killed when his car brakes mysteriously failed (Nasibi Wahabi). Hafiz Sayfullah - Read above Saeed'ur Rahman Alavi - Read above Maulana Ghulam Husayn Naeemi Ex Deobandi debated in Punjab Martyred by SSP (Lanatallah Aley On Nasibi Wahabi). Allamah Talib Husayn Kirpalvee (ex Barelvi) wrote over 50 books on the life of Rasul (s), Maula ‘Ali and Ahl’ul bayt . Martyred by SSP (Nasibi Wahabi!). Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq Ex Barelvi authored 40 books refuting Nasabi lies against Shi’a appealed to the common man, converted many to Shi’a. Martyred by SSP (Nasibi Wahabi). Allamah Shah Zaeem Fatami was a Deobandi, infact the son in law of their leader Ataullah Bukhari, authored ‘Purdah ut tha hai’ [veils are lifted] when he converted. Was poisoned by his family (Laanat on Dushman-e-Ahlul Bayt). AM Abdul Qayum Alavi He was not just a Wahaby but was infact the side kick of Maulana Ghulamullah of SSP. He wrote one book when he was Sunni but exposing the Wahaby’s Tareekh Nasabi, and then wrote Tareekh Nasabi V2 when he became Shia. (Slap on the face of the Nasibi Wahabis) Maulana Tawakkul Husayn Ex Deobandi alive and kicking Ex Deobandi, very harsh volatile speaker Maulana Hafiz Younis Gujjar Ex Barelvi he is quite popular amongst the Punjabi speaking audiences. Maulana Tajideen Haydheri Ex Barelvi, converted in 70’s and a major debater, defeated all these Nasibi Mullah’s and was the lone Maulana who appeared in court in the 80’s (Karachi) when SSP filed a petition to declare Shi’a Kaafirs (Laanat on Dushman-e-Ahlul Bayt). Hafiz Muhammad author of the famous Fulq un Najaath A Sunni Maulana who authored this to counter all the Hate mail he’d received when he became Shi’a Allamah Haroon Gilani - converted four years ago from a Sunni family of Ulema and Pirs. Maulana Abdul Saqi Ex Barelvi scholar I heard when he was Sunni and after he was a Shi’a, good speaker really knows his stuff. Maulana Zahid-u-Rashdi - General Secretary of SSP (Sindh area) who became Shi’a in Prison I heard him speak in Rawalpindi but his name has slipped my mind. Maulana Imran - One of the SSP leaders stationed in Rawalpindi. Hakeem Syed Mahmoomd Gilani - Ex Ahle-Hadith became shia after research of famous books - wrote famous books : Aylia, Ohm aur Ali etc - He was Ahle Hadith before. from Sialkot. Danish Alvi - Big name from Charsada N. W .F .P, recently killed by SSP (Lanatallah Aley On The Nasibi Wahabi Kuffar!). He was a very learned man who converted 100s to Shia'ism. Shaykh Marwan Khleefat - author of 'Raabtul safinah' (I boarded the ark of salvation) Shaykh Mutasim Sayid Ahmed author of 'AlHaqeeqa AlThaia' (The lost Truth) Shaykh Isam Imad, he had a debate with the Wahabi sheikh and compulsive liar Uthman AlKhamees which ended in Uthman AlKhamees pulling out of the debate. This is the link for the debate, http://www.shiaweb.org/monadarat/Real/munazara1.html Sheikh Abu Muhammad Ordoni - Previously a Wahabi scholar wrote the book 'Fatima the Gracious'. This is online in english, http://al-islam.org/gracious/ Abdul Hakeem Buturabi - Converted from Sunni to Shia Ghulam Abbas (Spanish lawyer) converted to shiaism first he became sunni then he converted to shia after reading Ayatullah Shaheed Mothari articles on web. Idrees AlHussainy - Author of the book 'Laqad Shayyaany AlHussain' - 'Hussain made me a Shia' Maulana Abdul Hakeem - from Sunni to Shia Maulana Abdul Hakeem Carney - American Christian to Sunni to Shi'a Aalim Allama Muhammed Basheer more popularly known as "Fateh taxela who converted the full village of Taxela to the Shia'ism. Sheikh Jihad Ismael from Sydney reverted to Shiaism. Professor Ali Ibrahim - From Hindu to Sunni to Shia. Shiekh Hamidu - South Africa, Sunni to Shia Shiekh Safiyullah Khan - South Africa (former student Al-azhar), Sunni to Shia Shiekh Shaheed Matti - South Africa (former Al-azhar Student) Shiekh Usama Abdulghani- Was a sunni, then became shia Alim -USA Dr Hamid Algar - An author and speaker, he become shia after converting from chritianity to sunnism. Moulana Zakariya - from south africa Sheikh Abdillahi Nassir - An East African Sunni scholar/'alim became a Shi'a. Juma Omari Mayunga - a staunch Wahabi scholar became a Shi'a and has written tafsir of Qur'an with commentary in Kiswahili. Maulana Waheeduzaman - The first person who translated Sahih Bukhari to Urdu, a big Wahabi aalim, converted to shiaism in his last days. Shiekh Ali Grant - Argentinian, Sunni to Shia, His lectures are available at: www.hyderi.org Sakhawat Hussain - Recites majalis in Canada and America. Known for converting many Sunnis. AM Maulana Osama Al Mughani - Washington, USA, became shia from sunni, converting most of his family too. Sumiaki (Ruhollah) Religious researcher and computer engineer (Japanese) Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Ali Imam of a mosque in the province of Al-Anbar, Iraq (Iraqi) Leonard Peter Surenson (Dutch) Crystal Edwinson (Swedish) Doris Cluzin Music expert (German) Professor Lekenhowzin (American) Professor Istwili Claude (French) Hassan Shuhata (Egyptian) Roberto Arcadi (Italian) Dahir Hassan (American) Roberto Raico (Italian) Dr. Ali Linistad (Norwegian) Dr. Ali Kruger (German) Dr. Hussein Labiyal (German) Dr. Abdul Khaliq Aiman (Egyptian) Dr. Harish Waldman (Austrian) Amer Abu Tariq (British) Salih Al-Wardani (Egyptian) Yusif Kabisof (Russian) Ahmed Hanif (Canadian) Abdul Salam Al-Lagmish (Belgian) Fujiro Lumunuku (Italian) Abdul Wahid (Russian) Hassan Shamsuri (Malaysian) Ibrahim Zinco (African) Michael Buth (American) Dr. Ali Al-Shiekh (Iraqi) Abdul Baqi (Algerian) Mohammad Nadhim Zainalof (Russian) Shams Al-Arif (Indonesian) Mrs. Kazrum (Fatima) (Russian) Mrs. Hasina (British) Mrs. Nosrat bint Mohammad Isa (Malaysian) Mrs. Zainab Al-Hisi (German) Sheikh Hussain Al-Durghami (Egypt) Sheikh Hassan Shehate (Egypt) Sheikh Atallah Al-Saeed (Egypt) Sheikh Qandil (Egypt) Sheikh Mahmood Rajab (Egypt) Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Muhran (Egypt) Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Bakr (Egypt) Sheikh Mousa Saleh (Egypt) Sheikh Muhammad Abdulhafiz (Egypt) Sheikh Muhammad Al-Antaki (Syria) Sheikh Ahmad Al-Antaki (Syria) Sehikh Jamal Al-Halabi (Syria) Sheikh Seed Dahdooh (Syria) Sheikh Abdulmuhsen Al-Serawi (Syria) Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Qaderi (Syria) Sheikh Hussain Al-Raja (Syria) Sheikh Muhammad Naji (Syria) Sheikh Abdulaziz Kan'an (Syria) Sheikh Yaser Al-Hasaani (Syria) Sheikh Ahmad Al-Ghezali (Syria) Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Al-Tijani (Tunis) Sheikh Mubarak Beghdash (Tunis) Sheikh Ahmad Saleh (Tunis) Sheikh Hamad Al-Reeh (Sudan) Sheikh Mutasem Sayd Ahmad (Sudan) Sheikh buqroon (Sudan) Sheikh Ali Al-Hashemi (Kuwait) Sheikh Muhammad Al-Sehil (K.S.A) Sheikh Muhammad Al-Rabeei (K.S.A) Sheikh Dr. Marwan Khalifat (Jordan) Sheikh Hassan Al-Saqaf (Jordan) Sheikh Mustafa al-ordoni (Jordan) Sheikh Dr. Isaam Al-Imaad (Yemen) Sheikh Zakaria Al-Hadhrami (Yemen) Sheikh Hassan Al-Aeidroos (Yemen) Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Al-Mughli (Algeria) Sheikh Abdulbaqi Gerna (Algeria) Sheikh Mousa Shaki (Morocco) Sheikh Al-Maqdesi (Palestine) Sheikh Muhammad Shehada (palstine) Sheikh Alawai Al-Atas (indonesia) Sheikh Eidroos Al-Saqaf (indonesia) Sheikh Hussain Al-Kaf (indonesia) Sheikh Uloomaldeen Saeed (philippine) Sheikh Ahmad Qaemi (Turkey) Sheikh Muhammad Al-Amedi (Turkey) Sheikh Murad Bazkin (Turkey) Sheikh Hassan Kooni (Burkina Faso) Sheikh Hussain Sorabi (Burkina Faso) Sheikh Shareef Ahmad (Burundi) Sheikh Alfa Umar Bah (Ghuinea) Sheikh Ahmad Kolibali (Mali) Sheikh Tijani Malem (Niger) Sheikh Idrees Tijani (Nigeria) Sheikh Abdullah Naser (Kenya) ..................................... The list is never ending continuous slap on the face of the likes of Nasibis like Yasir, Canadian, The fake profiled Ali Raza and their Wahabi likes. Even today, members of such groups as SSP and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are enlightened by the call of Allah and love for the Ahl-e-Bait. Maybe it is time for you Munafiqs to follow the footsteps of your forefathers and embrace Islam once and for all.

Before anyone says that they are kafir or non-Muslim etc, this cannot be true because their shahada is same as any Sunni Muslim. To be a Muslim you have to agree to this shahada: لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله (lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh) There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God. Only difference is that they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Mahdi. I believe that technically the Ahmadiyya Muslims are Sunni Muslim, it is one of the branch of Sunni sect because it inherits majority of its teaching from Sunni school. Bear in mind that technically a certain branch comes under a certain sect according to whatever its teaching is inherited from. e.g. Shia Islam = Alawi, Twelver, Zaydi etc because it inherits its teachings from Shia school Sunni Islam = Ahmadi, Hanafi, Maliki, Wahabi, Salafi etc because it inherits its teachings from Sunni school Please share your intelligence. Here is the Ahmadiyya shahada which is exactly the same as any other Sunni branch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFiyt-Ijc0Y

So, i want to perform a social experiment. I want to gather as much ridiculous Wahabi Fatwas as possible that we see online. And trust me i have seen some really out of this world and totally just crazy, crazy fatwas by these Wahabi Thugs. The only condition is that they have to be in video format and if possible with English translations for all of us to enjoy the monkey show. #5291 - Saudi Cleric Ali Al-Malki: West Tampers with Burgers, Whiskey to Induce Birth of Girls among Muslims (Archival) http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5291.htm - This idiot read an article in China, never mentions the articles name, no source, who wrote it, who translated it, what exactly was mentioned in article but is willing to testify in front of God on day of judgement that since he read it in an article it must be true. I mean i am lost with words to be able to describe the shallowness of the intellect of this man and these are men who declare us Kafir and pray for us in the mosques to die and rot in hell.

To all Shia on this board: first my condolences from the United States to any of you who were touched by the brutal murder of Sheikh al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia. I am not a Shia or a Muslim but a human being who is disgusted by what took place and disgusted that our leaders here in this country do not have the courage to condemn this act of barbarism. I understand as well as you do that there is more at play behind the scenes and we all know that the US, for its faults, does not actually want anyone to be beheaded, let alone an innocent and holy man like the Sheikh. We are greedy and deceitful beings - all of us - and evidently whatever Saudi Arabia does for the US is calculated to be worth our morals and decency as a nation. I've said it before: some day, historians will look down on the US during this period for being so nakedly self-serving to the point of enabling medieval barbarism. That brings me to the second thing I want to say: please do not judge Americans by the conduct of our government. I know many of you are probably American but many are not, and the America you see on television and read about in editorials, kissing the ring of King Abdullah/Salamander and bombing people with robots. The truth is that most of us are too busy or too stubborn or unfortunately too ignorant to think a moment about the significance of what America does abroad. A large part of that is due to our history and our geography; we've never been invaded and most of us think that war is something that happens "over there" to "those people" because the media and even society feeds us that notion to keep us from knowing better. So the focus of attention in America shifted immediately from an inconvenient truth (that our "ally" "over there" is a deceitful barbarian) to a welcome truism (Iran cannot be trusted and doesn't respect international norms because it is radical). At best, or perhaps worst, you might hear a commentator speak of it as though Saudi and Iran are equally to blame or equally radical and bad. "The Shia and Sunni never get along," etc. Sadly you may even hear "well, they're fighting each other..." as though the Iraq-Iran War was a glaring success and not a bloody atrocity. All that Americans (and many other Westerners, but particularly Americans) understand is that Muslims seem to be engaging in violence everywhere. They don't know or ask which Muslims or what they are fighting about because if you work a 9-5 job and have to raise kids and pay your bills and all that, you don't think you have the time to learn about some exotic far away conflict; you just think: Muslims fight, it's what they do! This takes me to the third point I'd like to raise: that the Iranian reaction and prominent Shia reactions in general have either served the enemy's purpose and played into Saudi hands, or otherwise focused on the wrong things. I won't waste your time explaining how burning the Saudi flag/embassy is counterproductive or why cursing Saudi's Western enablers for supporting evil won't win converts. Please keep a level head now and in the immediate future - as Shia usually do - because if you do, you will win. What Saudi represents and supports is not only disgusting; it's unsustainable even in the medium run. This doesn't mean I encourage you to lie down and take it or to be silent; rather, I am encouraging you to operate within the bounds and norms of the law to shed the light on Saudi evil. Don't walk into the trap they set out of desparation; fight only from a position of strength when you are guaranteed a victory. You already have what is just on your side, just be patient with us and give us time to catch up! I know you will because as I mentioned previously, Shia are always at the receiving end of the salafi nonsense. They get attacked by salafi and then called a terrorist by the salafi governments in the Middle East. Eventually the superiority of Shia morality and intellect will lead to victory; I am not Shia and I can see that 10000 miles away.* A caveat: give em hell where they already are in Iraq and Syria!

Salam I was wondering about the view upon videos actually making fun of "Allahu Akbar". In the internet we typically see videos that make fun of this islamic term/sentence. So I was wondering what the islamic response to this would be because I feel kind of ridiculed by these videos. Like Allahu Akbar gets turned into a so called "meme" which for me is totally ridicolous because of these isis dogs. I don't know how to respond or react to this and I've met even muslims who don't mind and even they are making fun of it.

Saturday night turned into a horror movie at London’s Leytonstone underground station as an attacker slashed a person’s throat while shouting “this is for Syria.” Police, who had difficulty detaining the man with only a Taser, are now treating the incident as a terror act. The attack took place in the ticket hall at Leytonstone station. Witnesses described a horrific scene, with a pool of blood on the floor and the attacker shouting, while threatening to stab others. Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/324882-london-leytonstone-station-stabbing-syria/ NOTE TO ALL ARBAEEN: Please stay safe because the wahabi's have struck literally a day before Arbaeen so please be careful at the Arbaeen Procession 07 December 2015. Also be careful look after the muslimah sisters as well because there is no telling of a attack on them or us by Far Right Protesters.

So-called Muslims like Ibn Taymiyyah claim that – Allah forbid – Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was wrong in her claim over Fadak. At any rate, she should not have severed all communication from Abu Bakr and Umar. They were the rulers (haakim) of the time and she should have been cordial with them. Reply There is an interesting incident on the subject. At the end, readers can easily conclude whether Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was right or wrong and the message she sent across generations of Muslims by refusing to communicate with Abu Bakr and Umar. Being an infallible, there was complete wisdom in her stand that frustrates Muslims till date when they are called upon to answer the question – FOR MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE Who is the Imam of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)? Allamah Amini (r.a.) corners Muslim scholars Some Saudi Salafi scholars invited Allamah Amini (r.a.) – the author of the Al-Ghadeer, arguably the most decisive book on the event of Ghadeer – for dinner. However Allamah Amini (r.a.) turned down their invitation. They insisted that Allmah Amini (r.a.) accompany them. On insistence, Allmah Amini (r.a.) acceded to their request. However, he put a condition that there would be no discussion or debate over dinner. They agreed. After dinner, a Salafi scholar in the assembly (there were around 70-80 of them) attempted to initiate a discussion. However, Allamah Amini (r.a.) refused to be drawn into a debate. Some of them suggested that in order to increase divine blessings, every scholar in the gathering should narrate a tradition from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) so that the gathering is illuminated through it. Those present there were are renowned traditionalists (Haafiz-e-hadees), a title conferred on those who have memorized at least a hundred thousand traditions. They started narrating traditions one by one until it was Allamah Amini’s (r.a.) turn. Allamah Amini (r.a.) said – My condition for narrating the tradition is that when I have narrated the same, each one should confirm whether he considers this tradition authentic or not. All those present agreed. Thus Allamah Amini (r.a.) narrated the famous tradition of the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.): قال رسول الله (صلوات الله علیه و آله ) : من مات و لم یعرف امام زمانه مات میته جاهلیه ‘One who dies without recognising the Imam of his time dies the death of ignorance.’ Thereafter he asked each and every person to testify the authenticity of the tradition. Everyone testified that the tradition was indeed authentic. Then Allamah Amini (r.a.) said: Now that you all accept this tradition, I have a question for each one of you: Did Fatima Zahra (s.a.) recognise the Imam of her time or not? And if she did, who was the Imam of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)? All the scholars present fell silent for a long time, with their heads bowed down. And since they didn’t have any reply, they began leaving the assembly one by one. Clearly they were in a fix. If they claim – she didn’t recognize (her Imam), then they are saying Fatima Zahra (s.a.) left the world in a state of disbelief (Allah forbid), and it is impossible that the Chief of all Women of the Worlds dies a disbeliever (Allah forbid)! If they say she did recognize (her Imam), then they have to find another Imam for her in place of Abu Bakr, since Bukhari (the most prominent scholar of Ahle Tasannun) says: ماتت و هي ساخته عليهما Fatima (s.a.) left the world in a state of intense anger at Abu Bakr (and Umar – as the narration says علیهما i.e. both of them) Since the Ahle Tasannun scholars were cornered and had no option but to testify to the legitimacy and leadership Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.), they left the assembly with their heads hanging in shame.

I did not think a Salafi would ever think about talking and laughing with a Shia but it happened to me. I spent some time in my uni prayer rooms with a Salafi and other Sunnis, they were all cool even the Salafi. He still did think that shias came from Ibn Saba but I corrected him. Now I wonder, did this happen because he is not an extreme Salafi and he was ignoring some of his school's ruling or do Salafis not have a problem with Shias? Gotta say they really were curious about Mut'a.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS7Adu3lJ7s

(salam) (bismillah) One of our brothers from the HCY forum ([url Edited]) has complied a number of refutations of the RevisitingTheSalaf group (99% refuted apparently) and has asked for the link to this website to be distributed to Shi'a websites and circles for reading. www.twelvershia.net Enjoy. (salam)

(salam) The problem with Sunnis is that they never accept the reality and always try to twist and turn the facts and reality to suit their faith. The proper approach should be acceptance of truth and mold our faith and deeds according to the reality and truth. Now see the point in an authentic hadith Prophet (pbuh) said Sahih Bukhari Narrated by 'Ikrima Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious, aggressive group. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438 Instead of accepting the reality they will always try to twist the reality in their favor. Now see Sonador twisted its meanings to save corrupt and evil Muawvia (l.a) This is the same reasoning Amr bin Al-aas used against Imam Ali a.s when the army of Syria started to avoid fighting against Imam Ali a.s because of martyrdom of Ammar Yasir (r.a) by rebellious and hell bound Muawvia's army. Amr Bin Al-aas who was famous for his satanic politics, deception, lie and Muafiqat said to the people that "Factually, Imam Ali's is killer of Ammar Yasir (r.a) because he brought him r.a in the battlefield. If he a.s would not have brought him here, he would not have been killed". For the first time Imam Ali a.s came in the battlefield and gave a sermon that "O people of Syria do you think that Prophet (pbuh) is killer of Hamza (r.a) as Prophet p.b.u.h took Hamza to fight against Kufaar in Ohad? You are the killers of Ammar r.a". Can Mr. Sonodar can confirm us that he will go to heaven for sure? If no then he is a muslim how he can not claim this? Being Muslim does not save one from hell due to the bad deeds. Even Kharjiites were muslims but they are destined to hell fire. Two big groups of muslims does not necessarily mean that one of the group will never be hell bound. Actually it proves nothing. Muawvia (l.a)'s army was muslim though by name or apparently therefore, it has no point in his support.

Doubt A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same. Reply1. Who killed Hamzah? 2. Role of companions 3. Yazid’s role 4. Who are the Shias? 5. Yazid’s forces were not Shias Back to TopWho killed Hamzah (a.s.)?Who killed Ammar? This lame excuse reminds one of the argument advanced by Yazid’s father nearly 1,400 years ago when he found himself similarly cornered in Siffeen on the count of being responsible for Ammar’s (r.a.) death, a fact prophesied by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). To deflect blame for killing Ammar b. Yasir (r.a.), one of the greatest companions for whom Paradise was assured, Muawiyah conveniently shifted the blame for the crime of murdering Ammar to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) by suggesting that since Ali (a.s.) had got Ammar to the Battle of Siffeen, he was the one responsible for killing Ammaar and not Muawiyah. Going by Muawiyah’s rationale the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is likewise responsible for killing his own uncle Hamzah who came to the Battlefield of Ohad on his (s.a.w.a.) instruction! Apparently, shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to those who are the farthest in committing it is the most favored response of these Muslims. Let us see how we can identify the perpetrators of other crimes using the rationale of these Muslims. Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)? 1. Of course, conventional wisdom suggests as backed by history that the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) lies with the infidels of Mecca who waged war against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Muslims. 2. And we have also seen that according to Muawiyah’s rationale, the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) was with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). 3. According to the rationale of these Muslims, the responsibility for Hamzah’s death lies with another group altogether. Let’s refer to the 153rd verse of Surah Aale Imran (3) to find the answer: ‘When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, the Apostle was calling you from your rear…’ Since according to these Muslims, the treachery of the Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.), it follows that the treachery of the companions in the Battle of Ohad killed Hamzah (a.s.). However, for obvious reasons these Muslims won’t admit this fact and will apply their rationale selectively against the Shias. Who killed Usman? 1. Conventional wisdom suggests that Usman was killed by the Muslims who laid siege to his house and ultimately killed him for his misguided policies. 2. But according to the rationale of these Muslims who put the blame squarely on those who act treacherously, the blame for killing Usman lies with his cousin – Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan. It is not a secret that the siege on Usman’s house lasted for over a month during which time he sent SOS to, among others, his cousin Muawiyah. However, for the period Usman was under siege which was considerable, Muawiyah did not send in his army to bail out Usman. This despite the fact that Muawiyah had a huge army at his disposal which only two years later took on the might of the entire Muslim army in Siffeen. If Muawiyah had shown the same alacrity and enthusiasm in sending help to Medina to rescue Usman, that his son Yazid showed after ascending the throne to demand allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) in Medina, Usman’s life could well have been saved. Regardless, does this mean that Usman was a victim of Muawiyah’s treachery rather than the Muslims who actually killed him? Going by the argument of these Muslims, the answer is yes – Muawiyah killed Usman. VISIT SERATONLINE.COM FOR MORE ARTICLES Back to TopRole of companionsWho killed Imam Husain (a.s.)? According to this group of Muslims, Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of treachery by the Shias. First and foremost if blame must be placed based on treachery, the companions and taabe’een displayed it in ample measure by not supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) against Yazid. Treachery of the companions and taabe’een In order to show Yazid in a positive light, these Muslims themselves claim that: ‘Several hundreds of companions despite being alive at the time kept aloof from the battle at Karbala to save the nation from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the companions who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Imam Husain (a.s.).’ So the companions stayed away from Karbala citing confusion between truth and falsehood and not wanting to create bloodshed. If the companions and taabe’een were indeed confused, then it is despite the fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had often declared that Imam Husain (a.s.) is the Lamp of Guidance and the Ark of Salvation. And that Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) were the Chiefs of the Youths of Paradise. And that both of them were his sons according to the Verse of Mubahelah in Surah Aale Imran (3): 61 when they along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their parents Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) confronted the Christians of Najraan for malediction and drove them into submission. Moreover, the Quran, which was a sufficient recourse for the Muslims after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise, has prescribed a solution for confusion: ‘…so ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (Surah Nahl (16): Verse 43) It is a common fact recorded by Sunni commentators of the Noble Quran that Imam Husain (a.s.) was among the People of the Reminder (Ahle Zikr). Scores of Sunni scholars over the years have recorded these and other virtues of Imam Husain (a.s.) in their books. Why did the companions and taabe’een, who were present in the time of Imam Husain (a.s.) and were witness to many of these narrations and incidents, lack the judgment to distinguish between Imam Husain (a.s.) and Yazid? More so when we find clear instructions from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) urging the Muslims to support Imam Husain (a.s.) as evident from the following narration: The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) companion Anas b. Haaris relates – I heard Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: ‘Verily my son, (Husain), will be killed in a land called Karbala; whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’ Tarikh-o-Damishq vol 14 p 223 Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is? It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise. Therefore we hold the companions responsible for abandoning their duty in supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala and in this way being responsible for killing him. Back to TopYazid’s roleYazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) Of course, notwithstanding everyone else who contributed to the turn of events in Karbala, Yazid’s role is unmistakable. He is the one who sought to subjugate Imam Husain (a.s.) into giving him allegiance as various historical records testify. We read in Maqtal al-Husain of Khaarazmi: Yazid wrote: ‘Force Husain, Abdullah b. Umar and Abdullah b. Zubair to give allegiance and don’t spare them.’ We also find in the same source: When he (Waleed) read Yazid’s letter for him (Marwan) and consulted him in the matter and said: ‘What do you think we shall do?’ He (Marwan) replied: ‘Send for them now and ask them to give allegiance and obey us. If they accept, we will let them go but if they reject you should arrest them and strike off their heads. This is clearly Yazid demanding allegiance and triggering the chain of events culminating in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) martyrdom. All other excuses like Shias killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) revolting against Yazid etc. have no merit and are only advanced to hide the real culprit – Yazid b. Muawiyah. Yazid’s letter to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad (l.a.) We read in Mataalib al-So’l: Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husain – I have received information that you have arrived in Karbala, and Yazid has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine. Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Taarikh al-Khulafaa: Yazid wrote to his governor in Iraq, Ubaidullah b. Ziyad, ordering him to fight him (Husain). Therefore, he (Ibn Ziyad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people led by Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqaas. Zahabi records in Siyar Aalam al-Nobala, vol.3 p. 305: Muhammad Ibn al-Dahak narrated from his father: When Husain marched, Yazid wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad: Husain is marching to Kufa and he is a problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved.’ Therefore Ibn Ziyad killed him (on Yazid’s beckoning) and sent his head to him (Yazid). Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husain (a.s.) on Yazid’s orders In Taarikh al-Kaamil, vol.4 p. 112, we find: He (Yazid) wrote to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad ordering him to march towards Medina and surround (Abdullah) Ibn Zubair in Mecca. He (Ibn Ziyad) replied: I can’t give both these things to this transgressor (Yazid), after killing the grandson of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.), I am not now going to assault the Ka’bah. Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Tareekh al-Kaamil: Ibn Abbas replied to Yazid’s letter stating: ‘… you killed Husain as well as the youths from Bani Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars; your troops marched towards them on your orders.’ Testimony of Abdullah b. Umar that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Maqtal al-Husain: Ibn Umar wrote to Yazid: Hasn’t your heart gone black yet? You murdered thefamily of the Prophet? Muawiyah b. Yazid’s testimony that his father Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We read in Hayaat al-Hayawaan: When Yazid’s son Muawiyah ascended the throne, in his very first sermon he confessed: We are certain about Yazid’s wrongdoing; he killed the family of the Prophet, deemed alcohol permissible, and tormented the Ka’bah. Yazid’s own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) We read in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar: Following the murder of Imam Husain (a.s.), Yazid declared: I avenged the killing of my relatives in Badr through killing of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) family. The testimony of Shah Abdul Aziz that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) When the cruel people of Syria and Iraq upon Yazid’s orders and with the efforts of the chief of hatred and corruption, Ibn Ziyad, martyred Imam Husain… (Tohfah Ithnaa Ashari (Urdu), p. 8 published in Karachi) The testimony of Shah Abdul Haqq al-Dehlavi that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): We read in Al Shiaath al Lamaat vol 4 p 623 Bab Manaqib Quraysh: It is unusual that some say Yazid did not kill Husain when he instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing. The testimony of Imam Zahabi that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Imam Zahabi in his authoritative work Taarikh al-Islam vol 5 p 30 states: I say: When Yazid did to the people of Medina what he did and killed Husain and his brothers and progeny, and Yazid drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. Allah didn’t bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas b. Adya al-Hanzali rose against him. The testimony of Ibn Khaldun that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): It is impermissible to support Yazid in the matter of killing Husain; nay (Husain’s) murder is Yazid’s deed that proves him to be a transgressor (faasiq) and Husain a martyr. (Al-Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun, p. 254) The testimony of Ibn Kathir that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) While discussing the events of 63 AH, Ibn Kathir, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, states: It is already mentioned that he (Yazid) killed Husain and his companions through Ubaidullah b. Ziyad. Al Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 243 Testimony of Qaazi Thanaaullah Panipati that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Qaazi Thaanaullah Panipati (exp. 1225 AH) was a Sunni scholar of the thirteenth century, who studied under Shah Waliullah Muhaddith-e-Dehlavi (exp. 1176 AH) while his son Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith-e-Dehlavi (exp. 1239 AH) would call Qaazi Thaanaullah the ‘Baihaqi of his time’. He was also the caliph of Mirza Mazhar Jaan-e-Jaanaan (exp. 1195 AH) who would refer to Qaazi Thanaaullah as ‘Alam al-Huda’ (the standard of guidance). His commentary of the Holy Quran, Tafseer-e-Mazhari, is very popular among these Muslims. Hence, his views about Yazid are extremely pertinent. Under the commentary of Surah Noor (24): Verse 55, (“…and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors…”) he records: It is possible that this verse refers to Yazid b. Muawiyah who martyred the grandson of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his companions; companions who were actually the members of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) family. Tafsee-e-Mazhari (Urdu), vol.8 p. 268 He also writes: Yazid and his associates did Kufr with the bounties of Allah. They deemed it as their aim to have a grudge against the progeny of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), murdered Husain (a.s.) unjustly. Yazid did Kufr with the religion of Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to the extent that Yazid recited the following couplets over the killing of Husain (r.a.): ‘Where are my ancestors, they should come and see that I have taken revenge from the progeny of the Prophet and Bani Hashim’. And the last verse was: ‘I would not be from the progeny of Jandab had I not taken revenge from the progeny of Ahmad for whatever they had done.’ Tafseer-e-Mazhari (Urdu), vol.5 p. 271, commentary of Surah Ibrahim (14):29 Yazid’s pride at killing Imam Husain (a.s.) Ibn Asaakir writes: ….when Husain’s head was brought before Yazid, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubairi: I wish my ancestors of Badr were here to see the fright of al-Khazraj (tribe) as the spears hit. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 204) Moreover, we read: Al-Qasim b. Bakt said: When the head of Husain was placed in front of Yazid b. Muawiyah, he struck his (Husain’s) teeth with his stick and remarked: His (Husain’s) and my example is same as the saying of Husain b al-Hamaam al-Mari: These swords split the heads of those men who pose harm to us and they were very disobedient and oppressors. Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol.8 p. 209 Consensus states that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.) Although the Muslims favoring Yazid would have us believe us otherwise, there can be no doubt in the minds of the unbiased student of history that the responsibility for Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing lies with Yazid alone. No amount of false propaganda and Shia-bashing is going to change this fact. The following renowned Sunni books firmly establish that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.): 1. Maqtal al-Husain al Khaarazmi, vol.2 p. 80 chap 9 2. Tareekh Yaqoobi, vol.2 p. 299 Dhikr Yazid 3. Mataalib al-So’l, vol.2 p. 26 4. Nur al Absaar p. 139 5. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaayah, p. 219 Zikr 63 Hijri 6. Tareekh al-Kaamil vol.4 p. 69 7. Tareekh al-Tabari p. 408 Zikr Ibn Ziyad 8. Akhbaar al Tiwaal p. 384 9. Tazkirah al-Khawaas p. 159 10. Hayaat al Haywaan vol.1 p. 88 11. Tareekh al-Khamees, vol.2 p. 301 12. Al-Sawaaiq al Muhriqah p. 134 13. Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar p. 73 14. Tohfah aI-Ithna al-Ashariyyah, p. 6 vol.1 15. Al Shiaath al Lamaat vol.4 p. 623 Bab Manaqib Quraysh 16. Shazarath al Dhahab, vol.1 p. 69 Zikr 61 Hijri 17. Tafseer-e-Mazhari vol.5 p. 21 Part 13 Surah Ibrahim 18. Aqaid al-Islam, p. 232 by Maulana Abdul Haqq Haqqaani 19. Imam-e-Paak aur Yazid-e-Paleed, p. 88 20. Aqaid-e-Nafsee, p. 113 21. Sharh al-Maqaasid, vol.2, p. 309 22. Nuzul al Abraar p. 97 23. Irfan al-Shariah, vol.2 p. 21 24. Al-Fataawaa by Maulana Abdul Hai p. 79 25. Shaheed-e-Karbala pp. 11-12 by Mufti Muhammad Shaafi In Irfan-e-Shariat, Yazid’s role is exposed: Yazid tore away a piece of the Prophet’s heart, starving him for three days and then killing him, together with his companions. Thereafter, he ordered for horses to trample his body after his martyrdom, as a result of which his body was ripped to shreds. His head was then mounted on a spear; this was a head that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) would kiss. The head was (shamelessly) exhibited at various places; people of the household were arrested and brought before the evil Yazid. Cursed is he who does not deem such acts as atrocious! Cursing Yazid is permissible for his role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) If Yazid was not responsible for killing Imam Husain (a.s.), so many Muslim scholars including the noted Sunni Imams like Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik b. Anas and Imam Shaafe’ee would not have permitted cursing him. Yazid’s role before and after Karbala The killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) was not a one week affair that began and ended in Karbala. Demand for allegiance in Medina, Marwan’s threat, Yazid’s replacing Noman b. Basheer with Ibn Ziyad along with clear instructions to subdue and kill Imam Husain (a.s.) if necessary, etc. suggest that killing Imam Husain (a.s.) was pre-determined and well-planned. Even if we accept the argument that Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of Shiite treachery rather than the oppression and tyranny of the progenies of Abu Sufyan, Marwan and Ziyad, this only explains the events of Karbala and Kufa. The events in the first and last legs of the journey in Medina and Syria respectively belie the claim that Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.). The following events that transpired in Syria clearly underscore the role of Yazid in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) as there is no sign of any Shiite element over here: 1. Insulting Imam Husain’s (a.s.) head Ibn Jauzi records in his book Al-Radd alaa al-Mutassib al-Aneed al-Maane’ le zamme Yazid, p. 58: Ibn Abi Dunya recorded from Salamah b. Shabib from Al-Humaidi from Sufyan from Salim b. Abi Hafsah from Hasan (al-Basri): Yazid Ibn Muawiyah was prodding with a stick the place that Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.) himself used to kiss. How shameful! 2. Disrespect to the Prophet’s (a.s.) household Ibn Imaad Hanbali records in his famed work Shazarat al-Dahab vol. 1 p. 61: When he (Imam Husain (a.s.)) was killed, his head, his women-folk and (his son) Imam Zain al-Aabedeen were taken to Damascus as slaves. May Allah destroy and disgrace whoever did this, whoever issued the orders and whoever was pleased with it! 3. Eid-like celebrations History is replete with narrations of Eid-like celebrations in Syria on the killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) and cheering on the parading of the children and women of Imam’s (a.s.) household. All the events of Syria, particularly those that transpired in Yazid’s court viz. insulting Imam Husain’s (a.s.) head and mistreatment of Imam’s (a.s.) household members are Yazid’s doing and there is not even a remote sign of a Shiite element over here, just as there is no sign of Shias in the events of Medina and Karbala. Back to TopWho are the Shias?Since these Muslims will not desist from accusing and blaming Shias for the blunders of their leaders, it is important to answer this question in a manner that will put to rest all accusations. A Shia is the one who believes in Allah’s Oneness (Tauheed), the Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) and the leadership of the divinely appointed Imams (a.s.). So long as he is steadfast on these cornerstones of belief he is a Shia. If he denies any one tenet he is outside the realm of belief and cannot be called a Shia. Those who betrayed Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala cannot be called as Shias any more than those who turned against Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in the battle of Siffeen and were later branded as Khaarijis can be called Shias. So, it is erroneous to claim that Imam Husain (a.s.) was killed by his Shias. These were his Shias until the time they were steadfast on their allegiance to him. When they severed their allegiance and fought against him they lost their identity as Shias and were just like the other Muslims in Yazid’s forces. Perhaps one of the more defining traditions about a Shia is from the Master himself – Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.): Even if I strike the nose of a believer (momin/Shia) with this sword for hating me, he will not hate me, and even if I pile all the wealth of the world before a hypocrite (munafiq) for loving me he will not love. This is because it is pronounced by the tongue of the beloved Prophet. O Ali, a believer will never hate you and a hypocrite (Muslim) will never love you. (Nahjul Balaghah Saying no. 45) According to this and other traditions of this nature, a Shia with even an iota of doubt about his Imam is outside the realm of faith (imaan) and in the realm of hypocrisy (nifaaq). Leave alone fighting the Imam, according to this tradition of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), the Shia will not even bear the slightest of hatred and indifference towards the Imam, even under the most trying of circumstances and attacks. Since the so-called Shias of Kufa carried a full-fledged frontal assault on Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions, they do not qualify as Shias. Rather they are hypocrites and to call them anything else is nothing but an attempt to spread mischief and confusion. The lovers of Ahle Bait (a.s.) know better who is a Shia and do not need others to identify Shias for them. Muslims of Kufa Being the center of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib’s (a.s.) government after the Battle of Jamal, Kufa was identified as a Shia hub and epicenter of resistance to Bani Ummayah. However, there were many Muslims who did not owe allegiance to any particular disposition – Alawi or Usmani. They were go-with-the-flow Muslims with a strong herd mentality guiding their disposition. They were the ones who paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman and followed up by giving allegiance to Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) as a matter of routine, with no particular love or admiration for Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) that would mark them as Shias. Even those who could be described as Shias did not invoke the confidence of the Imams (a.s.) as they were very fickle in their faith just like other Muslims. Their faith was up for grabs to the highest bidder and since Muawiyah bid the highest these so-called Shias remained in Kufa but acted according to Muawiyah’s bidding and later according to the bidding of Yazid/Ubaidullah b. Ziyad. This was the biggest challenge faced by Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his son – Imam Hasan b. Ali (a.s.) as all their attempts to rally these so-called Shias against Muawiyah came to naught. So to accuse these Shias of treachery and blame them for the calamity that befell on Imam Husain (a.s.) is missing the point. These Shias were never part of the equation as they did not invoke any confidence and Imam Husain (a.s.) was well-aware of the events unfolding in Kufa even as he was approaching it. Shias of Karbala These Muslims who talk of Shiite treachery conveniently ignore that Imam Husain (a.s.) had a small band of true Shia supporters who fought valiantly against Yazid’s forces in Karbala. These were the ones worthy of being Shias and were even called as such by Imam Husain (a.s.) and other Imams (a.s.) of the Ahle Bait (a.s.). If we go by the treachery argument advanced by these Muslims and consider that Shias were present in Yazid’s forces and Shias were also present in Karbala in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) army, then it was nothing but a battle between two Shia groups! However, no historian has concluded as such and to suggest it shows extreme bias against Shias and very poor understanding of Islamic history. Faith is based on the present not the past A person is labeled based on his current inclination and not his previous belief. Having disobeyed Allah, Iblis is no longer referred to as Allah’s worshipper in the Holy Quran and the blessed Sunnah, although he was once ranked alongside the angels. Nor do common Muslims refer to companions like Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman as infidels although they were the leading idol-worshippers of the time before the advent of Islam. As we find in the incident of Talut and Jalut in Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 249 “So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it…” All those who drank from the river and they were in the majority, were no longer among Talut’s companions and cannot be referred to as such. Likewise those who abandoned Imam Husain (a.s.) in Kufa and joined Yazid’s ranks cannot be called as Shias. They were ranked alongside Yazid’s forces and all attributes used for Yazid’s forces applies to these so-called Shias as well. We do not see Muslims accusing Talha and Zubair of treachery after they severed their allegiance and waged a ferocious battle against their Master and Imam – Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) resulting in the death of thousands of Muslims. Therefore singling out the Shias for their role in the events of Kufa and Karbala is nothing but a lame attempt to misguide the Muslims with regards Yazid’s role in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder. Back to TopYazid’s forces were not ShiasTo conclude the matter, it’s best to refer to the faith of the killers of Imam Husain (a.s.) both those directly and indirectly involved. If they were followers of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) then they were the Shias, else they were Muslims claiming to follow the Sunnah. 1. Yazid ibn Muawiyah Without doubt, the biggest contributor to the shedding of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) blood and its main proponent was Yazid b. Muawiyah. And there can be no two ways of his animosity and the animosity of his clansmen – the Bani Umayyah for the Bani Hashim. Under the circumstances, he was not a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) nor would he have liked to be referred to as such. 2. Ubaydillah b. Ziyaad Not having the courage to take on Imam Husain (a.s.) himself, Yazid got Ubaydillah to do the task for him just like his father Muawiyah got Ubaydillah’s father – Ziyaad to take on Imam Hasan (a.s.). The progeny of Ziyaad harboured extreme animosity against the Ahle Bait (a.s.), so there is no question of them being the Shias of Ahle Bait (a.s.). 3. Umar b. Saad Since Ubaydillah also lacked the courage to confront Imam Husain (a.s.) he appointed Umar b. Saad for the task. Umar b. Saad also cannot be called a Shia given his father Saad b. Abi Waqqaas’s ambivalence towards Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib and his refraining from giving him allegiance at a time when the entire Muslim nation with a few exceptions had given Ali (a.s.) their allegiance. Umar b. Saad was a cousin of Imam Husain (a.s.) but then so was Yazid. It is widely reported that Umar b. Saad undertook the crime of killing Imam Husain (a.s.) for the governorship of Ray (Suburb of Teheran, Iran). So there is no question of Umar b. Saad being a Shia of the Ahle Bait (a.s.). After naming the three biggest names responsible for killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and establishing their religious credentials as so-called Muslims who practiced the Sunnah, we now turn to their henchmen who were involved in the battle of Karbala. For brevity we have highlighted only a few and interested readers can refer Tarikh-e-Tabair for more examples. 4. Ka’b b. Jaabir Ka’b b. Jaabir was a warrior in Umar b. Saad’s army in Karbala. He was the killer of Burair b. Khozair, one of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) respected companions. He recited several couplets after Karbala to the effect that he had submitted his faith to the children of Abu Sufyan and wished to claim his reward from Ibne Ziyaad. 4) Muzaahim b. Haaris While battling Naafe b. Hilaal Jamali, a companion of Imam Husain (a.s.), in Karbala he declared: I am on Usman’s religion. (Taarikh-e-Tabari vol 6, p 229) 5) Amr b. Hajjaaj Amr b. Hajjaaj from Umar b. Saad’s army urged his soldiers to remain firm against those who abandoned religion i.e. Imam Husain’s (a.s.) army. Imam Husain (a.s.) rebuked him for his audacity. (Taarikh-e-Tabari vol. 6, p. 249) 6) Shimr b. Ziljawshan It is widely documented that it was Shimr who eventually killed Imam Husain (a.s.) when none dared to commit the heinous crime. Long before that, he was commanded explicitly by Ibne Ziyaad to take over the reins of the army if Umar b. Saad showed weakness in executing the plan to kill Imam Husain (a.s.). Shimr was always a part of Ibne Ziyaad’s coterie in Kufa and there is no question of his being a Shia given his animosity for the Ahle Bait (a.s.), although he did fight on the side of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) against Muawiyah in Siffeen. He was among the majority of the Muslims who took Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) as the fourth caliph and did not have any particular inclination towards Ali’s (a.s.) Mastership – the hallmark of a Shia. Who killed Imam Husain (a.s.) We revisit this question to end the matter conclusively. It is clear from the evidences advanced that the responsibility of killing Imam Husain (a.s.) lies entirely on Yazid’s shoulders. For those who go by consensus (ijmaa), this is indeed the verdict of the ijmaa. Blaming Shias for the crimes of Yazid and Ubaydillah b. Ziyaad is not the verdict of the ijmaa, it is the verdict of a niche group of Muslims, who find themselves in a corner and have no place to look out of the sheer embarrassment of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing. The motley group of so-called Shias they hold responsible for the crime can hardly be described as such as we have proved.

With the advent of Muharram, arrives the false propaganda against mourning and weeping over the dead from the so called followers of true Islam. While these Muslims disagree with the Shias on the point of whether to weep or not, let us see whether two of their very revered personalities, Umar and Ayesha had a common view on this issue. It is narrated from Saeed b. Musayyab that Ayesha mourned over her father after his death. When this news reached Umar, he ordered prohibition against it, but Ayesha rejected the caliph’s order. Then Hesham b. Walid was ordered to go to Ayesha and stop her from mourning loudly. As soon as the women acted as per Hesham’s order, they left the house and Umar addressed them saying, ‘Do you intend to chastise Abu Bakr by your weeping? Surely the dead are chastised due to weeping over them.’ (Sahih Tirmizi: tradition 1002) From the above incident it can be concluded that: 1. If the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had actually prohibited weeping over the dead (as Umar claimed), then by crying, Ayesha disobeyed the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) order. 2. It can be argued that she must have been overcome by her emotions, but when Umar ordered her not to weep, she did not obey him thereby disobeying the so-called caliph of Muslims. This makes Ayesha someone who a. did not follow the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) tradition b. was overcome by her emotions c. disobeyed the so-called caliph Yet, Bukhari has recorded many traditions from her in his Sahih. So these Muslims must: 1. Stop revering Ayesha for she disobeyed the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the so-called caliph 2. Stop revering Bukhari for he has recorded traditions from such a woman as authentic

It is almost impossible to find any single Salafi writer or speaker on Shi’ism who will not mention one ‘Abd Allah b. Saba as the founder of the Shi’i madhhab. This Ibn Saba is their bogeyman, through which they seek to scare away the truth-seekers from objectively researching the origins of Shi’ism. Expectedly, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah has played this same card in his infamous Minhaj al-Sunnah. He is never left behind in such matters! This book therefore is a reply to Ibn Taymiyyah first and foremost, and then to his ilk. We have compiled and critically examined all the primary Sunni and Shi’i reports about Ibn Saba. We have equally proved, through in-depth rijali investigations, that it is impossible to establish his existence in the Sunni books, to begin with. In the same manner, everything that our Sunni brothers claim about ‘Abd Allah b. Saba – especially his alleged role in the bloody overthrow of ‘Uthman, his alleged tabarra from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and his alleged belief in the khilafah of Imam ‘Ali – are all nothing but popular fables and notorious rumours. There is not a single reliable Sunni or Shi’i report to prove any of them. In this book, we have presented the full findings to let the world see the ignorance and dishonesty of those who peddle(d) the Ibn Saba myth as evidence. IT CAN BE BOUGHT IN AMAZON. HERE IS THE LINK And it can be read or downloaded for free here: LINK The other books can be bought HERE too. And they too can be read or downloaded HERE. And the author can be contacted for comments, inquiries, suggestions, criticisms, corrections, etc through toyib.olawuyi@mail.com

According to Judicial Watch, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico is serving as a base for Islamic terrorists planning an imminent threat against the United States. Although few specifics are available, sources cited by the site indicate that militants are “planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED).” Federal intelligence officials from multiple agencies are reportedly on alert regarding the threat. “It’s coming very soon,” one source confirmed, adding that intelligence points to the possibility that terror organizations ISIS and al Qaeda could be involved in “an attack on the border.” A leaked document published by Breitbart confirms that agents tasked with securing the Mexican border have received such alerts and are taking the warnings seriously. Recent events have shown that the threat posed by Middle Eastern terrorists is not confined to that region as American citizens have been captured and murdered in Syria. Meanwhile, the domestic issue of securing our southern border and enforcing immigration laws continues to be a high priority for Americans worried about the threat to our safety and sovereignty as a nation. These two concerns seem to have collided in what is now being described as an imminent threat by Islamic terrorists positioned near the U.S.-Mexico border. Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/u-s-government-warns-imminent-threat-mexican-border/#r3iUu40dacjMiK7e.99 Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/u-s-government-warns-imminent-threat-mexican-border/ These Isis things are now in mexico planning a border attack on america.. But why mexico? It is such a random place for them to be in..

(salam) Here is a video over the stereotypical things we all have been hearing about the Shia school. It is sad to see so much ignorance about Shia's and so much accusations. I would like to discuss these misconceptions with you my brothers, we will answer them together so we could benefit and remove the misconceptions. Anyone who can contribute with answers backed up with sources would be nice.