Ahlel Bayt

Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending Shias

Admin — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:56:29 +0000

Imam Bukhari declared:

“I don’t see any difference between praying Salah behind a Jahmi or a (Shia) Rafidhi and a Christian or a Jew. They (Jahmis/Rafidhis) are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their testimony to be accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.”

(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)

When the matter is so severe that we should not send our greetings to them nor befriend them nor even visit them, then how deviated is the Manhaj of those who call to unity with the Shias!

www.ahlelbayt.com

Protected: The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case: Response to “Rape Victim Gets Lashes”

Admin — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:49:46 +0000

Video: Shia Scholars Cursing and Insulting Prophet’s Wife

Admin — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:55:47 +0000

This video was created by the brothers at the SunnaIran website:

Note: Team AhlelBayt is not to be held responsible for the content of any external internet sites, including YouTube and the SunnaIran website.

Marriage With the Intention to Divorce

Admin — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:35:43 +0000

Question:

Anonymous says

“ We Sunnis oftentimes criticize the Shias for their belief in Mutah, and we refer to it as immoral. But one Shia girl responded to this by pointing out that the Sunnis believe in the permissibility of “marriage with the intention to divorce.” In other words, a man can marry a woman with the secret intention that he will divorce her after some time. So isn’t this like Mutah, or even worse than Mutah? At least in Mutah the woman knows and agrees to a temporary arrangement, but in this Sunni version, the woman is in the dark and one day the man will come home and tell her that he divorces her after he has enjoyed her. Therefore, my question is: do we Sunnis actually believe in the permissibility of marriage with the intention to divorce?

The Shia girl showed me a fatwa written by Shaykh Bin Baz, and she also pointed out that Shaykh Bin Baz is the biggest Salafi scholar in recent history. She also said that the Hanafis and Shafi’is hold the same position as well. And she also said that allowing this sort of marriage was “one of the two opinions” held by the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah. In other words, according to her, the Salafis, the Hanafis, and the Shafi’is all permit this sort of marriage, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah whom we call Shaykh al-Islam.

If this is true, then aren’t we Sunnis hypocrites for accusing the Shias of being immoral because they practice Mutah, but we allow the exact same thing under the guise of marriage with the intention to divorce?

”

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

I am not a scholar, but I did have a face-to-face discussion on this matter with Shaykh Suhail Hasan, the son of the late Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar Hasan. For those who don’t know who that is, then it should be stated that Shaykh Abdul Ghaffar and Shaykh Bin Baz were very close friends and advisers to each other. I have also discussed the matter with other scholars and students of knowledge, so I will relate to you what I have learned.

The dominant opinion amongst the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is that marriage with the intention to divorce is valid but impermissible. At first, this sounds like a contradiction: how can something valid be impermissible? Yes, at first, these two words (validity and permissibility) seem to be synonymous, but this is not the case in the Islamic lexicon. We say that the Nikah (marriage) contract would be valid, and by this we mean that it is a legally binding document as per the laws of the land. However, it is an impermissible action in the eyes of Allah.

This is like all other contractual agreements under the Islamic Shari’ah. A marriage contract requires two witnesses. Similarly, a business contract involving loans also requires two witnesses. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:

“O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing…and call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses.”

(Quran, 2:282)

Let us imagine that a debtor enters into a contractual agreement with a lender. The two men prepare a written document in which the debtor promises to pay back two hundred dirhams to the lender. If the debtor signs the document but secretly harbors the intention to default on the loan, then we say that the contractual document itself is still valid and binding, but we say that the action of the debtor was impermissible. If six months down the line the debtor confesses to his friend that he never planned to pay back the money, and then this friend informs the authorities about this, then would the state declare the contract null and void? Would the state say that the contract is invalid and that the debtor does not owe the lender any money? No government would operate in this manner. The state would back the validity of the contract and would demand of the debtor that he should change his intention and pay back the loan. In other words, the contract is valid in the eyes of the state, but the action done by the debtor is impermissible and sinful in the eyes of Allah. This is the difference between validity and permissibility.

The same is the case with a man who wishes to marry a woman with the secret intention to divorce her. The Nikah contract would still be valid and legally binding on both parties. In the eyes of the government, man and wife are married. However, the act (i.e. entering a marriage with the intention of divorce) is impermissible in the eyes of Allah, and the scholars have said that it is sinful. If the man confesses to his friend that he married the woman with the intention of divorcing her, and if that friend informs the authorities of that, then the state would insist on the validity of the Nikah contract. The man would be urged to change his intention and to fulfill his vows.

Imagine if the state would suddenly have declared that the Nikah contract was now invalidated. This would certainly make the situation very beneficial to womanizers, who could simply marry women, enjoy them sexually for a few days, and then confess that they had married with the intention of divorce; suddenly, such men would no longer be married and they would be absolved of any obligations to the women at all!

Indeed, invalidating a Nikah contract based on someone’s secret intention poses serious problems. How is it possible to look into peoples’ hearts and judge what their intentions are? For example, a married woman who is having an affair can simply tell the judge that her husband married her with the intention to divorce and thus her Nikah contract is invalid and she should be allowed to marry the other man. How could the judge verify the husband’s intention? There is no way to look inside the man’s heart and reveal his true feelings and intentions. Or what of an angry mother-in-law who wishes to invalidate her son’s marriage by claiming that her son married with the intent to divorce? Or how about an evil-doer who wishes that the punishment of Zinnah be levied on another man by declaring his Nikah contract invalid on the grounds of his alleged secret intention? How could such claims be verified or negated by the state? We find that this is opening up pandora’s box!

This is why the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah have stated that the Nikah contract is valid in the eyes of the state, but the action is impermissible in the eyes of Allah Almighty. Only Allah the Most Glorious can look into the hearts of people and judge by intention. In this world, men will be judged by the law based on their outward actions, whereas in the next life men will be judged by their inner feelings and intentions. It is quite impossible for human beings to make rulings on what people intend or feel. For example, if a man intends to donate money to a certain charity but he does not end up doing it for some reason, then the government will not be able to reward him for that; he would not be given any tax deduction for that. On the other hand, such a man would get reward from Allah Almighty for his noble intention. This is the difference between limitations of man and the greatness of Allah Almighty.

Two Opinions

The scholars are split into two groups over this issue. Some of them say as I said above, i.e. valid but impermissible. But others hold an even stricter opinion, and they say that marriage with the intention of divorce is both invalid and impermissible. It seems that this difference in opinion existed for a very long time, and I base this on the following Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 86, Number 91:

…Ali said, “Allah’s Apostle forbade the Mutah marriage on the Day of the Battle of Khaybar and he forbade the eating of donkey’s meat.” Some people said, “If one, by a tricky way, marries temporarily, his marriage is illegal.” Others said, “The marriage is valid but its condition is illegal.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/086.sbt.html#009.086.091

There are therefore two valid opinions on the matter, and neither one of these two views support the permissibility of marriage with the intention of divorce.

Rulings of the Scholars

Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Rida said:

The fact that the scholars of the earlier and later generations emphatically forbade mut’ah (temporary marriage) implies that marriage with the intention of divorce is haraam, even though the fuqaha’ said that a marriage contract is valid if the husband intends it to be temporary but did not state that as a condition in the marriage contract; but his concealing that is regarded as a betrayal and deceit, and this contract deserves to be annulled more than one in which he stipulated the condition that it be temporary with the agreement of the husband, the wife and the wife’s guardian. This (marriage with the intent to divorce) leads to many evil consequences as it is abusing this great bond which is the greatest of human relationships, and going along with one’s whims and desires. When this condition is not stated clearly, that is cheating and betrayal which leads to other bad consequences such as enmity, hatred and loss of trust even of sincere people who want to get married in the real sense, which means protecting the chastity of both partners and cooperating in establishing a righteous home…

(Fiqh al-Sunnah by al-Sayyid al-Saabiq, 2/39)

islam-qa.com

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, one of the three great Shaykhs, said:

With regard to my opinion on this matter, I say that this marriage contract is a valid contract, but it involves deceit and betrayal, so it may become haraam because of that.

It is deceit and betrayal because the wife and her guardian, if they knew the intention of this husband, and that his intention is to enjoy intimacy with her and then divorce her, they would not adept this marriage. So in that sense he is deceiving and betraying them.

If he tells them that he wants her to stay with him for the duration of his visit to that country, and they agree to that, then this marriage is mut’ah (temporary marriage).

Hence I think that it is haraam, but if anyone goes ahead and does it, then the marriage contract is valid, but it involves sin.

(Liqa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, Question 1391)

islam-qa.com

And the Shaykh said:

Marriage with the intention to divorce

Answered by: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen

Question:

A man wished to travel abroad because he is a researcher and he desired to maintain his chastity by marrying there for a specified duration of time, then afterwards divorce this woman without informing her that he will soon do so. So what is the ruling regarding this action?

Answer:

This is marriage with the intent to divorce and it is not free from one of two situations; either it will be stipulated in the contract that he will marry her for the duration of a month or a year or until his studies are finished, and this is the marriage of Mut’ah and it is Haraam (Forbidden). Or either he will make intentions to do this without it being stipulated. And that which is well known from the Mathhab of (those who follow) Imaam Ahmad is that it is Haraam (Forbidden) and that the marriage contract is null and void. That is because they say the intention is just like the stipulation and that is based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw) :

“Indeed actions are based upon intentions and everyone will have that which he intended…” (Bukharee and Muslim)

…it is not Mut’ah because the definition of Mut’ah is not applicable to this type of marriage but it is Muharram (forbidden) from the angle that it is deception upon the wife and her family and the Prophet (saw) has made Ghish (Deception) and Khida’a (betrayal) Haraam, and because if the woman was aware of the fact that this man didn’t want to marry her except for this particular duration she would not marry him. And likewise, her family wouldn’t marry her to him. Just like he wouldn’t be pleased with someone marrying his daughter and his intention is to divorce her once his need (for her) has been fulfilled. So how is it that he is pleased for himself to deal with someone else with the likes of that which he would not be pleased with? This opposes Eemaan! Based upon the statement of the Prophet (saw):

“None of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself” (from the hadeeth of Anas ibn Maalik found in Bukharee and Muslim)

(Fatawah for the Woman, p.114)

madeenah.com

Shaykh Faisal Mawlawi, Deputy Chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, stated:

Marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible. However, if one has this intention at the time of contracting the marriage then the marriage itself is valid but the intention is invalid and corrupt and one should renounce it. I find no reason for this intention as the Shari`ah gives the husband the right to divorce the wife if there is a valid reason for terminating the marriage whether he had this intention to divorce from the very beginning or not.

There is no need for or benefit in this intention and I advise any Muslim living in the West to abide by the Shari`ah rulings and do not have the intention of divorce at all as long as he can end the marriage if there is a valid reason for doing so.

islamonline.net

FatwaIslam echoes this view:

Question:

A person is going abroad to study and he wants to protect his chastity there by getting married for a specific period of time. Afterwards, he will divorce his wife although he does not inform her that he is planning on divorcing her after a specific time period. What is the ruling concerning such behaviour?

Answer:

Marriage with the intention of divorce must fall into one of two cases.

First, it is explicitly stipulated in the marriage that the marriage is for a month, a year or until he finishes his studies and so forth. This is known as Mut’ah. This is forbidden.

The second case is where the person has that as his intention [in his heart] but it is not put as a stipulation in the contract. The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void. They say that what is intended is equivalent to what is actually stipulated, since the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) said, “Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what he intended.”

fatwaislam.com

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

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

Al-Islam.org says

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

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

Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum:

(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50

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

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

What I mean to say here is that the methodology of the classical scholars was that they would first list the various possible opinions, and then they would state their final verdict after having done that. Just because a scholar lists something as a possible opinion, it does not mean that he agrees with it. In fact, this is a very beautiful methodology used by the scholars: it is as if they are thinking aloud. They will narrate to the reader the various views, and then they will explain how they themselves graded each of them and came up with their final verdict on the matter. As for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, then he stated that there were two possibilities with regards to marriage with the intention to divorce, i.e. permissible or impermissible. He then established his own final opinion on the matter which was that such marriages were forbidden. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said:

And Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad Al Luhaydaan who is the president of the high judiciary committee of major scholars in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) mentioned in his introduction to the book: “Marriage with the intention to divorce,” that the final opinion of Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymeeyah supports that fact that this type of marriage is prohibited.

madeenah.org

The Hanbalis

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said:

“The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void.”

fatwaislam.com

The Malikis

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

The Shafi’is

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

The Hanafis

Mufti Ebrahim Desai said:

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

Ask-Imam.com

Shaykh Bin Baz

There is no doubt that Shaykh Bin Baz was one of the most eminent scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnah. And yet that does not mean that he (or any other scholar) was infallible. With regards to the Shaykh’s opinion about marriage with intention to divorce, then it is known that his opinion on the matter is considered Shaadh (i.e. an anomaly). An opinion that is considered Shaadh is worse than a weak opinion but rather it is lower than that and considered invalid. A Shaadh opinion is not within the realms of valid ikhtilaf; therefore, it is not a permissible opinion to take by anyone. We love and respect the Ulema as-Sunnah, but we should not be shy to disassociate ourselves from opinions that go against the Quran and Sunnah. One Shaadh opinion cannot possibly overcome the majority opinion of the rest of the Ulema. So we say that Shaykh Bin Baz made a sincere mistake and there is no blame in that.

It is important to remember that the Sunnis do not have popes or ayatollahs with the ability to declare Halal and Haram; that is something we believe only Allah Almighty can do. If someone contradicts Allah’s Laws, we are free to reject those opinions, and in fact, we must do that. At the same time, we should not attack Shaykh Bin Baz, because we know that all great scholars in the past had mistakes and nobody was perfect. Indeed, it is a truism that what defines a good scholar is that out of one hundred rulings, ninety-nine of them will be good and only one of them will be Shaadh. This differs from the poor “scholar” who out of one hundred rulings will have ninety-nine or a hundred Shaadh opinions. We say that Shaykh Bin Baz was of the former group; just because he had a Shaadh opinion on this issue, this does not mean that we can condemn him for that, and if we did that, then we would have to condemn all the great scholars of the past, since so many of them had one or two Shaadh opinions. I truly believe that Allah Almighty showing us the imperfection of even the greatest scholars is His Way of reminding us of His Own Perfection and Supreme Nature.

Yes, we admit that Shaykh Bin Baz did hold this view, but we believe he made a sincere mistake and as such, it is not a proof against Ahl as-Sunnah. The truth is that the Shaykh did not know what the ramifications of his ruling would be, and had he known it, then it is likely that he would not have passed this fatwa. Shaykh Bin Baz only intended his fatwa to be used by a man who was traveling to a far off land for studies for a few years. Bin Baz thought that a man could marry one woman whilst he was there in that land, and after he was done with his studies and left that country, then he could divorce her. Had the Shaykh known that people would abuse his ruling by traveling to various countries for the sole intent of marrying women and doing this multiple times for sexual pleasure, then he would have never passed such a fatwa. This view was alluded to by Shaykh Uthaymeen:

Because I have heard that some of the people have taken this (i.e. fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz) as a means to another affair which no one (from the people of knowledge [a reference to Shaykh Bin Baz]) has supported and that is they travel to different countries for marriage only! They go to these countries for the sake of marriage and they remain there masha Allaah with this woman whom he has made intentions, in his marriage to her, to be appointed, then return to his homeland. This is also a major prohibition and closing the door in this issue is what is more appropriate and that is because of what it entails of Ghish (deception) and Khida’a (deceit) and Taghreer (seduction with vain hopes) and because it opens the likes of these doors. And because the people are ignorant and most them, their Hawah (desires) won’t prevent them from transgressing the prohibitions of Allaah. And Allaah knows best.

madeenah.com

Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan, president of the high judiciary committee of major scholars in Riyadh, told Shaykh Bin Baz that his opinion on the matter was incorrect, as we read in the book “Marriage With Intention to Divorce”:

The fatawas given in support of the permissibility of this type of marriage are not based upon any proof (Daleel), and they have nothing (in them) that would remove this type of marriage from its characteristic of being Haram…And I pointed to the fact, on numerous occasions, of that which occurred between me and His eminence our shaykh ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn Baaz and His Eminence ‘Abdur Razzaq Al ‘Afifi in reference to this issue and he wasn’t successful in his response nor in his justification may Allaah pardon him and Have mercy upon him…

madeenah.com

Imam Ahmad explicitly forbade one to look for Rukhas (i.e. exemptions to make life easy) by seeking the Shaadh opinions from amongst the scholars. Sulayman al-Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you.” In other words, every scholar has something wrong, and this is the result of being a human being. But what would be evil would be to compile all the wrong points from the various scholars and then follow them, and this is the way of Ahl al-Bidah. So you will find that Ahl al-Bidah will seek to collect all the Shaadh opinions in order to find Rukhas, thereby taking the opinion of one scholar who said that music is Halal, and another opinion of a different scholar who permit shaking hands with women, and another opinion of a scholar who said that Shi’ism is an acceptable fifth Madhab, and another opinion from a scholar who declared that we need to pray three times a day only instead of five. And by doing this, a person would have destroyed his religion.

What the Shias do is look for the Shaadh opinions from amongst the thousands upon thousands of Sunni scholars, and then they say “see, you believe in that too!” This is not, however, a proper way to look at things, especially since Ahl as-Sunnah places such a large importance on the concept of Ijma (consensus). No scholar, no matter how big he is, can compete with the Ijma once it has been established. Likewise, a Shaadh opinion–a viewpoint that has been rejected as invalid by the consensus–cannot be taken as valid, even if it is Shaykh Bin Baz himself who held that view.

The Salafis

The Salafis take the view of either Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (valid but impermissible) or the view of the Hanbalis (both invalid and impermissible). After Shaykh Bin Baz passed his ruling on the matter, there were many Salafi scholars who criticized this opinion, as did Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan above. In fact, when I opened up the fatwa book in which Shaykh Bin Baz’s ruling on the matter was stated, I turned to the very next page to find that Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen had over-ruled Shaykh Bin Baz’s opinion. And it is this opinion, that of Ibn Uthaymeen, that has become the dominant opinion amongst the Salafis, and to state otherwise is completely dishonest.

Shaykh Saalih Ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan endorsed a book which rejected the permissibility of such marriages:

I have examined the book called “Marriage with the intention to divorce” and its essentials and its principals and its impact by the Noble shaykh the Doctor Ahmad Ibn Musa As Sihli. And I found it to be very beneficial in its subject matter and it will treat this dangerous problem that has emerged between the youth and the people of Ahwah (desires). And I hope that Allaah will benefit with this book and that it will be the reason for those who have involved themselves in problems to return to guidance. And since the emergence of this problem I used to warn against falling into it and I see, marriage with the intent to divorce, to be Haraam and with Allaah is the Tawfeeq and may the Salat of Allaah and His Salaam be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his companions.

madeenah.com

As a strong proof that the Salafis do not hold this type of marriage to be permissible, we remind the reader that the Institute of Islamic Religious Law (based in Mecca) banned marriage with the intent to divorce, because it involves “deception and fraud.” We see that the Institute did not take the Shaadh opinion of Shaykh Bin Baz, but rather took the stance of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. Is there any doubt then on what the Salafi opinion is on the matter?

Conclusion

We conclude with the words of Shaykh Haitham Hamdan, professor at the American Islamic University:

“The majority of contemporary scholars from Ahl us-Sunnah are of the opinion that marriage with the intention of divorce is not permissible.”

The Muslim World League (MWL), which enjoys a category A observer status in the United Nations, was founded by members from over twenty-two Sunni countries. The MWL banned marriages with the intent to divorce. So how is it then that the Shias can even claim that we Sunnis accept this sort of marriage? No, we vehemently reject it! Marriage with the intention to divorce is immoral, and we of the Ahl as-Sunnah reject it like we reject Mutah. The man who marries a woman with the intention of divorce has committed a grave sin, of deceit and of treachery. This act is Haram and sinful in the eyes of Allah.

I hope that I have shed some light on the matter and that I have not erred in any way. I tried with the best of my abilities to transmit to you what I heard from Shaykh Suhail Hasan and others from amongst the Ahl al-`Ilm.

And Allah is the Source of all Strength.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Answering-Ansar’s Guru Says Current Quran is “Incomplete” and “Not Enough”

Admin — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:36:20 +0000

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Merciful.

Background

The Shia belief centers around the Imamah of Ali and the line of Imams after him. This belief is considered by the Shia to be one of the five Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion), and in fact they claim it to be the most important of them. Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghita writes in his book “The Origin of Shi’ite Islam and its Principles” (Asl ash-Shi’ah wa Usuluha):

“Those matters which concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion) and they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl, and Ma’ad.”

(“The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles”, Part II: Fundamentals of the Religion, Part II: The Fundamentals of the Religion, Section The Fundamental Beliefs, p.218)

Wilayah (i.e. the designation of the Imam) is considered a more important pillar than prayer, fasting, zakat, or hajj:

“Islam is founded on five pillars: prayers (salat), zakat, hajj, fasting (sawm), and wilayah.” Zurarah asked the Imam: “Which one is the most important?” The Imam answered: “Wilayah is.”

(Wasa’il al-Shia, Vol.1, p.40; Usool al-Kafi, Vol.1, p.462)

Denial of this doctrine (i.e. Imamah of the twelve) is considered by the Shia to be Kufr (disbelief) and one of the reasons that the Sunnis will be damned to eternal Hellfire in the next life. Shaykh Mufid declared in no uncertain terms:

Shaykh Mufid says

““اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار”

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

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

And yet, despite the overriding importance of this doctrine, we find absolutely no mention of the Imamah of the twelve in the Quran. None of the twelve Imams are mentioned in the Quran, nor is the doctrine even alluded to. How is it then that the central doctrine of the Shia cannot be found in the central book of the Muslims, i.e. the Quran? In the early times of Islam, this was the question that the Sunnis would ask the Shias. To this, the classical Shias responded by accusing the Prophet’s Companions (the Sahabah) of tampering the Quran, claiming that the Sahabah had removed entire verses and chapters from the Quran, including the Surah al-Wilayah which declared the Imamah of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This was the Shia belief of Tahreef (tampering/corruption) whereby they claimed that the present Quran we have today was incomplete and the complete Quran was hidden away with their Imam Mehdi who would reveal it at the End of Times.

This belief of the Shia was a direct violation of the Quranic verses which clearly said that (1) the Quran is complete and (2) that Allah would protect it from corruption. This belief that the current Quran was incomplete was of course considered by the mainstream Muslims to be Kufr (disbelief) and the Sunnis thereby declared the Shias to be apostates to be executed for grand heresy. And this was when the Shias invoked another one of their blasphemous beliefs, i.e. Taqiyyah. The Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) agreed that the belief that the Quran is incomplete would be too dangerous a position to pronounce publicly, and that it would threaten the very existence of the Shia. They feared that the Shias would be executed by the state on charges of grand heresy, and it was thus that for thousands of years the Shias would publicly deny that they believed that the current Quran with us today was incomplete.

And yet, despite this denial, the belief–that the current Quran was incomplete–persisted in their books. Even though the Shia scholarship hid this belief from their own awwam (masses), they themselves held onto it, and today we find this belief of Tahreef in many of their classical books. It remains a belief held by the Grand Ayatollahs of Shi’ism, but something which they do not declare publicly. The Shia propagandist has become so adept at denying the very existence of this belief that he has successfully fooled the Muslim masses. Most Sunni laypersons today do not believe us when we warn them of the Shia belief, and instead they are fooled by the Taqiyyah of the Shias. And yet, all the experts on Shi’ism know the truth, and we continue to expose them and reveal their true beliefs, hidden under the cloak of Taqiyyah.

Answering-Ansar’s Guru: Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq

One of the most popular Shia propaganda sites, Answering-Ansar, has led the charge in denying the belief in Tahreef. The Answering-Ansar website has become the flagship of the Shia propaganda juggernaut in the English language. How many dozens of Sunni laypersons have been led astray by their half-quotes, misquotes, and blatant lies? So it is today that we expose Answering-Ansar and reveal their true colors, and warn the mainstream Muslims of what lies underneath the facade. It is our sincere hope that this will once and for all convince those ignorant Sunnis who call to unity with the Shias, who refer to them as fellow Muslims, and who say such silly things as “the Shia only differ with us on very minor things.” No, these Shia scholars say that our Quran is incomplete and not enough, and they are on the same position as the Qadianis! In fact, not even the Qadianis dared to utter such things against the Quran; we will see how the Shias have gone so far as to say that the real Quran has a verse in it in which the name of Pakistan is mentioned. This is a claim that not even the leader of the Qadianis made.

The Answering-Ansar website was inspired by the Shia scholar, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq. He was a contemporary scholar who lived in Pakistan and preached throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It was Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq who was a heavy influence on Answering-Ansar’s work, and for all intents and purposes, he is seen by them as their guru. Answering-Ansar has spent a lot of its time translating his works. Let us read a few quotes from Answering-Ansar’s website wherein they praise the Allamah and detail their relationship with him:

Answering-Ansar says

“These one hundred questions are from the pen of Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, a name that needs no introduction for Urdu readers. A former Sunni scholar that converted to Shi’a Islam in the late 1960’s, he dedicated his entire life to defending the path of truth. Author of over thirty books, the vast bulk of his works were rebuttals to Nasibi texts attacking the Shi’a, and he managed to silence many leading lights of Mu’awiya’s cause, such as Dost Muhammad Qurayshi and Qadhi Mazhar Husayn. A continual thorn in the flabby sides of the Nasibi, the inability of the Marwani Mullah’s to refute his books, led to them seeking to ban his books through Court on the grounds that they constituted ‘disrespect of the Sahaba’. Despite such efforts, he continued his mission undeterred by Nasibi hate mail and death threats. Some of his most notable books include Furu-e-Deen, wherein he presented one thousand questions for the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema to refute and Chodha Masalai (replies to 14 questions typically raised against the Shi’a). A great orator as well as a prolific writer thousands of people in Pakistan converted to the path of truth, through him.

Unfortunately this fact, coupled with the spectacular inability of the Nasibi to refute his books, made him a direct target, and they silenced him in the only way that followers of Mu’awiya can, by fatally shooting him in Lahore in the mid nineties. Despite this tragedy his memory lives on, his writings continue to act as a huge source of inspiration and guidance for the Shi’a, and the Answering-Ansar.org team have been heavily influenced by his excellent texts.

These questions form the second portion of Abdul Kareem Mushtaq’s book, Usul-e-Deen. Although we have translated this book, it was felt that these one hundred questions are best placed as a separate document under the challenge section. Whilst the Allamah had cited Urdu editions of books, we changed the text, referring to English editions, to ensure that these references can be located more easily.

May Allah (swt) reward Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq for his efforts and grant him Paradise with the Imams (as). May his legacy (his books) continue to act as source of guidance for us all. May Allah (swt) also accept our intention, and bless Prophet Muhammad and his purified family.
Illahi Ameen.

source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/en/index.php”

(Note: It should be known that when the Shias say the word “Nasibis”, then they mean us Sunnis. Is it any wonder that these rejectors of the Quran have any basis to attack the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah, and have the gall to refer to us as “Nasibis”?)

We urge our readers to save screen-shots of Answering-Ansar lest they resort to their traditional strategy of making these articles disappear, all in the time-honored tradition of Taqiyyah.

Elsewhere, Answering-Ansar says:

Answering-Ansar says

“Abdul Kareem Mushtaq proved himself a prolific writer and wrote at least 40 other books that refuted all the lies churned out by the Nasibi propaganda machine. He was responsible for converting scores of people to Shi’aism and was his achievements will always remain in our minds. Whilst the followers of Mu’awiya sought to silence him by banning some of his books and then killing him, the writings of this great martyr are still readily available in the Indian Subcontinent and continue to bring people to the path of truth. We pray that his wonderful book act as a means of approach in the next world, and that Allah (swt) grants him Paradise in the company of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) – Ameen..

source: http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/usool_al_deen/en/index.php”

One of the famous books written by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq is “Hazaar Tumhari Dus Hamari”, a book in which the Allamah attempts to refute Sunni allegations and give many replies to the Sunnis. We have taken the liberty of opening this book, considered by the Shia to be a masterpiece work. Let us now expose the beliefs of this Allamah, and show to the world what these people believe! Let us unmask Answering-Ansar and shatter their reputation. Let us warn and advise those who believe in the Quran, who believe that the Quran is complete and sufficient for the Muslims.

When we open up the Allamah’s book and turn to pages 553-554, then we find that the Allamah claims that the Quran we have today with us (i.e. the Quran in its present form) is incomplete and insufficient. He says that the Shia belief is that the complete Quran is not with us but it is with Imam Mehdi who will return at the End of Times to reveal it. The Allamah then explains why our current Quran is incomplete and insufficient, claiming that the complete Quran with Imam Mehdi meanwhile has everything in it, including the name of Pakistan! Subhan-Allah, do we not see what heretics the Shias are; this is that sect which claims that the real Quran has the name of Pakistan in it! Then finally, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq attacks the Sunnis for not believing in this complete Quran, and he accuses the Sunnis of only believing in the incomplete Quran (i.e. the present Quran) and not the invisible one with Imam Mehdi.

We are afraid that this is a blow that Answering-Ansar cannot recover from! Let us proceed forth and expose them. Without further ado, we present to the reader the words of Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, the guru of Answering-Ansar:

Scan and Translation Provided Courtesy of A. Ansari

Translation

Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq says: “They (Shias) also accept this (present Quran) as the Word of Allah, whereas you (Sunnis) only accept that (Quran) which is present and deny the one that is absent. So whose Quran is intact: yours or ours?”

(Sunni) Objection 874:

“In Tafseer Safi, (you Shias claim that) Hadrat Umar asks Hadrat Ali: do you also know when the real Quran will be revealed? Hadrat Ali said: Yes, when from my children, Imam Mehdi will rise, he will present that Quran. (Tafseer Safi, 10/33) So from this, we find out that Hadrat Mehdi’s Quran is one thing and our present Quran is another; therefore, the one (Quran) that you (Shias) believe in is not present and the one that is present you don’t believe in it!”

Answer 874 (by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq):

No doubt the Quran that is with Imam Mehdi is complete. It has in it all Mansukh verses as well as the present verses in the same order they were revealed and all explanatory notes and explanations are present in it. It has the complete interpretation of the Prophet. It has in it all the issues of past, present and future. And in that complete book everything wet or dry is mentioned in it. And you people (Sunnis) don’t believe in that properly ordered Quran and only believe in this present Quran which according to you has lost a large part of it. That means that your (Sunni) belief is weak, whereas we (Shias) believe in that complete Quran which was never separated from the Ahlel Bayt.

That is why in the Times of Justice (i.e. the End of Times) this Quran would appear and will defeat falsehood, and it will prove Allah’s Promise that this Quran has explanations of everything dry and wet in it and then not even any impure person can corrupt it. But only the pure can touch it. When Imam (Mehdi) will reveal this Quran to the world, falsehood will vanish from this world and Truth will rule.

The Holy Quran we have now with us (i.e. the present Quran) contains verses of that same Quran (that is with Imam Mehdi) but its order of verses is not the same, and it also does not contain the explanations given by the Prophet. When we accept the present Quran as the Word of Allah, then how can you doubt our belief? The weakness of belief is present in your (Sunni) religion who only believe the present Quran to be enough, and don’t believe in that part which is invisible. However, they admit that a large part of the Quran went wasted but they don’t believe this lost part as the Word of Allah, but rather by denying it, they (the Sunnis) believe in a weak Quran.

Our belief is on both the visible (verses) and invisible (verses). So we (Shias) are complete in beliefs, whereas you (Sunnis) believe in the visible (verses), and deny the invisible (verses). That is why you (Sunnis) are incomplete in faith when you proclaim that you believe in the total Quran which is the present Quran.

Even the claim of Quran is that it has everything dry or wet mentioned in it, whereas in the total Quran in which you (Sunnis) believe in (i.e the present Quran), you cannot find the mention of the existence of Pakistan in it, but the total Quran in which we believe in, it has everything of the past and the future mentioned in it. And that complete Quran is present under the protection of a guardian in this world (i.e. Imam Mehdi) which impure people cannot corrupt.

The situation of your Quran’s protection is such that every pure or impure person in whatever condition can touch it. There exists the possibility of mistakes and errors in its manuscript. You cannot even show the name of the republic of Pakistan in it, whereas our claim is that the manuscript of the Holy Quran is safe under the guardianship of our Imam (Mehdi). It has all those things which have happened (in the past) or will happen (in the future). Hence, our belief is complete and your belief is faulty because you believe in the partial Word of Allah and deny the rest of it, whereas we are the believers of both the partial and total Word of Allah.

(“Hazaar Tumhari Dus Hamari”, by Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, p.553-554)

What more can we say? The Shias say that our present Quran is not complete nor is it enough for the believers. Meanwhile, their Shia Quran with Imam Mehdi has all things in it, dry and wet, past and future. It is a much better book than our present day Quran! The Allamah refers to our present day Quran as a “weak Quran”. And let us not forget to mention that their Shia Quran cannot be corrupted like our present Quran can be; notice his reference to the Sahabah: “not even any impure person can corrupt it”, by which he means to imply that the “impure” Sahabah cannot tamper it.

Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq’s assertion that the complete Quran with Imam Mehdi contains the name of Pakistan would be humorous if it were not outright blasphemous. Do the Shia scholars think that the Quran is some sort of encyclopedia or world almanac with an endless list of pointless facts and figures? Does the Quran of the Shia also contain information about who won the world cup in soccer, or if the Pakistani team beat the Indian team in cricket? How many volumes is this Quran? Surely there is not enough paper in the world to write such a voluminous book that contains every single pointless fact from the past and future! How are the Muslims who live in that time (i.e. the Times of Justice) supposed to read it all? Today, we read the Quran at least once during Ramadan; imagine how many lifetimes would be needed to read the Quran of the Shia! It will take a few industrial trucks to ship even one copy of this book. If this book is currently with the Shia Mehdi, then surely we could detect where he is simply by satellite image: we would only need to look for that large book that would be more visible than the Great Wall of China. What an utter mockery of our noble book! It is about time for the Shia laypersons to admit how utterly ludicrous the beliefs of their religion are. That website that they so strongly support (Answering-Ansar) is inspired by heretics. We can only imagine Answering-Ansar’s team running around right now trying to do damage control, and thinking of ways to spin the story. Surely there is now panic in their camp, and they are utterly exposed for all to see.

Conclusion

We urge the open-minded truth-seekers from amongst the Shia awwam (masses) to reject the heretical belief of Shi’ism, and to instead embrace true Islam. We are Muslims and we proclaim loudly and clearly that our Quran is complete and it is sufficient for all guidance. Nothing is missing from it; what we have in our hands (i.e. the present Quran) is the guide for all time. O Shia, ponder: how is it that Allah would deny the complete Quran to humanity for thousands of years? If the Quran of Imam Mehdi would bring the Truth and vanquish falsehood, then why did Allah deny it to the people for thousands of years, when He Himself promised to give the Quran as a guide to the people? What function is a holy book that is incomplete, and what use is a book that is not accessible to us? The Shias say that the complete Quran is not present, and the one that is present is not complete!

Allah says in the Quran that the Book was sent as a guide for humanity and through it we will be guided, and yet the Shia scholars claim that it is incomplete and only their complete version will bring the Truth and destroy falsehood. Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq repeatedly says that their Quran with Imam Mehdi “would appear (in the Times of Justice) and will defeat falsehood”. But we Muslims say that this Quran–the one we have in our hands–was already sent down to do that! Allah says about the Quran:

“The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished!”

(Quran, 17:81)

Yet, Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq claims: “When Imam (Mehdi) will reveal this Quran to the world, falsehood will vanish from this world and Truth will rule.” But our Quran–the present day Quran of the Muslims–says quite clearly that the truth has already come! Why did not Allah say clearly in the Quran that “the truth will come with Imam Mehdi”? Instead, Allah said that the truth has come. Indeed, we true Muslims believe that the entire Truth was brought by Prophet Muhammad, whereas the Shias accuse the Prophet of being a failure, and they place their Imam Mehdi over and above the Prophet, by claiming that the Imam Mehdi will succeed in delivering the complete message whereas the Prophet only succeeded in delivering the partial Message.

Did not Allah say in the Quran:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all)!”

(Quran 5:67)

The Quran repeatedly says that the duty of the Messenger was to deliver the Message, so how is it then that the Shia accuse him of failing in this task and they say that Imam Mehdi will succeed in it?

Lastly, we would like to reflect on the Words of Allah, in which He says:

“The Word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.”

(Quran, 6:115)

Allah did not say that the Word of your Lord is partial or incomplete, or that the rest would come later. Rather, Allah said that the Word of your Lord is complete. He did not say will be completed, but rather stated emphatically that it had been completed and perfected. Allah says:

“Today I have perfected your religion and completed My favor upon you.”

(Quran 5:3)

The Book of Allah was perfected back then, and to claim otherwise is to condemn the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims, and the center of our religion. The reason that the Shia scholars need to make such claims about the incompleteness of the Quran is simply because their Shia doctrines cannot be found in the Quran. In the words of one brother who converted to true Islam from Shi’ism: “I could not find Shi’ism in the Quran!” This absence of Shi’ism from the Quran is what propelled the classical scholars of the Shia to claim that the Quran was incomplete, and this belief persists to this day, shielded from public view by the curtain of Taqiyyah.

Article By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Reply to an Email

Admin — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:56:06 +0000

Shia says

“ Once a person told me that Abu Bakr is more knowledgeable than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (Na’oozo Billah)! I asked him how come?! He said because Abu Bakr understood that he should assign a person as his successor to keep the system and community working in order. As it is well-known Abu Bakr assigned Umar as his successor. But the Prophet failed to realize this important task that the Islamic community needs a qualified leader after him, or perhaps it was not important for the prophet that who is going to take over the power after him! When I heard that, I started asking the following question from myself: Is it possible that the Prophet of Islam who has tried hard to implement Islam, and tolerated a lot of problems, disasters, and paid big price to establish Islam in Arabian peninsula, leaves people without assigning any person to keep this religion alive after him?! The religion that is to be the last religion of God for this world; the religion that was supposed to be for every nation all over the world both inwardly and outwardly (political authority). What happened that we Muslims are in this miserable situation in the world for centuries? What happened that the chain of successors/rulers (Ulul-Amr) has reached to people like King Fahd, King Husain, Saddam Husain, Husni Mubarak, …? Something is terribly wrong!

Yes, The problem is leadership and Guardianship. Was this problem not so important for prophet or he didn’t take it serious? Of course, he did take it serious and he must have assigned a chain of successors (Caliphs) who where the most qualified as the head of Islamic state and as the guardian of Shari’ah (divine law).

Another question that came out to my mind was that: Are Allah and His prophet more qualified to assign the Caliphs, or people? Is Islam on the basis of democracy (government of people over people) or on the basis of theocracy (Kingdom of Allah over the earth)? The history of Islam testifies that the government after the death of prophet was neither democratic nor theocratic. Just a few people gathered in “Saqifah bani Saaedah” and assigned Abu Bakr as Caliph while Imam Ali was busy of the burial of the holy prophet in Medina.

Is it our choice as to whom should be a Prophet or it is Allah’s choice?

Can we select Prophet by Shura? The same goes for assigning the successor of Prophet, for Allah knows best who is the most qualified for this position. It seems very strange that a deputy of a chief is assigned by any person other than him. Deputy of God (or prophet) is only assigned by God (or prophet), and it is not people’s business! There are many examples in Quran where Allah states that He is the one who assigns a successor on the earth. Allah, Exalted He is, states in Quran:

“O’ David, we assigned you as Caliph (successor) on the earth …” (Quran 38:26)

He also states: “… We have assigned you (Abraham) as Imam (leader) for people …”
(Quran 2:124)

As we see, Caliph/Imam for the mankind is assigned by Allah. See also 2:30
(about Adam).

”

Due to the fact that we get too many emails and we have limited time, we usually do not respond to such emails. However, a dear Sunni friend requested that this email be replied to and so we decided to deal with it. Let us proceed line by line, Insha-Allah.

Shia says

“ Once a person told me that Abu Bakr is more knowledgeable than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (Na’oozo Billah)!

”

A manifest lie. No Sunni in his right mind would ever say something like that. This is a lie propagated by yourself.

While there have been Shia sects that have claimed that Ali ibn Abi Talib was superior to the Prophet, we find no such Sunni group which has ever claimed that Abu Bakr was superior to the Prophet. This idea of raising people to a level equal to and above the Prophets is a distinct quality of the Shia!

Shia says

“ I asked him how come?!

”

Is this all part of your imaginary conversation you had with yourself?

Shia says

“ He said because Abu Bakr understood that he should assign a person as his successor to keep the system and community working in order. As it is well-known Abu Bakr assigned Umar as his successor. But the Prophet failed to realize this important task that the Islamic community needs a qualified leader after him, or perhaps it was not important for the prophet that who is going to
take over the power after him!

”

First off, it is incorrect to claim that the Prophet did not appoint a successor. Rather, the truth is that the Prophet did not directly appoint a successor but instead he chose to do so indirectly and implicitly, and he did this by nominating Abu Bakr as the Imam of the prayers, which was the Hujjah that the Sahabah used to nominate Abu Bakr as the Caliph.

The Prophet nominated Abu Bakr as his successor as Imam of the prayers. This was the Prophet’s indirect way of casting his “vote” for Abu Bakr without forcing it down people’s throats. Had the Prophet directly nominated Abu Bakr, the people would have construed this as a divine command and then felt that a leader was to be forcibly imposed upon them instead of chosen by their own free will. Therefore, in the egalitarian spirit of Islam, the Prophet allowed the Muslims to choose their own leader. But he definitely showed where his preference was.

There is a difference between the Prophet appointing a leader, and Abu Bakr appointing a leader. The difference is that if the Prophet had done so, then the Awwam (masses) would have interpreted this as a religious decree, and they would have felt that the successor after the Prophet was divinely appointed. And yet, we know that the Prophet was the last of the divinely appointed leaders. After him, there were only temporal leaders, Abu Bakr being the first.

If the Prophet had nominated Abu Bakr outright as the Caliph, then the people would feel that they had no right or say in the matter…and then there would be sentiments of outrage about this, since it would conflict with the “democratic” spirit of the pre-Islamic Arabs.

The Shia oftentimes claim that we Sunnis accuse the Prophet of leaving no mechanism behind that tells us how to nominate our leaders. And then the Shia ask us: “how is it possible that the Prophet would not leave behind a system to nominate his own successor, something so crucial?”

To this, we answer that the Prophet had no need to create such a mechanism because such a mechanism already existed far before Islam came to Arabia. The Arabs of that time already had the system of Shurah and Ijma, whereby the village elders and influentials would meet and nominate a leader from amongst themselves. This system had been working in Arabia for hundreds of years…and it was the same system which was used after the Prophet’s death to nominate Abu Bakr as Caliph.

This system used by the Arabs respected popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and self-determination. If the Prophet had circumvented that system and instead declared a successor, then this would be dictatorial and it would have gone against the more liberal and just system used by the Arabs of that time. The Arabs would have become discontent with such an imposition and the Caliph would be seen as a tyrant and dictator in the eyes of the people.

So this is why the Prophet did not appoint Abu Bakr, because this would be tyranny and imposition on the people. Indeed, the people would see the Prophet’s nomination as a religious decree and any who went against it would be in violation of Islam and be declared apostate. So it did not befit the Prophet to impose his will on the people.

To this, the Shia argue: but then what about Abu Bakr? Did he not impose his will on the people by nominating Umar without doing Shurah and Ijma? However, this is based on ignorance. In fact, Abu Bakr did use Shurah and Ijma. Please refer to our article on Saqifah:

AhlelBayt.com says

“ The Nomination of Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه)

Answering-Ansar says: “Hadhrath Umar was not voted by the Muslim Ummah; Hadhrath Abu Bakr nominated him. ”

Response:

It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura. We read:

At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphate…following this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: “Umar’s internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all.” When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah…

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313)

In another narration, we read:

When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and Muhajirs. We read:

And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr–as well as other big leaders of the Ansars and the Muhajirs–so Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) who raised any objections to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , but then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , they both favored Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (رضّى الله عنه) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) secured the “consent of the governed”. We read:

…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”

Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”

Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)

We read:

Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure…He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:

(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?

The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)

Similarly, we read:

Then the Caliph (Abu Bakr) summoned all the people of Medinah to assemble in the court of the Mosque. He addressed them from the window of his house which opened into the court. (Abu Bakr said): “O people! I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab as my successor. He is not my relative, but he is the best among you. Are you satisfied with him? Will you obey him?” The people answered with one accord, “yes, we will obey him.” The Caliph was pleased and prayed for God’s favour on Umar and the Muslims.

(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.223)

So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all install Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) gave his suggestion as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the “consent of the governed” is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –the Caliph of an emerging super-power–had the modesty and decency to have his own will “proof-read” by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld.

Furthermore, Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari states:

According to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne (wali al-ahd) is only one of recommendation that requires approval from the nations prominent and influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa [i.e. consent of the governed]…the majority of the Umma’s scholars are of the view that if a Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in power, then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After his demise, the nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it.

(Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, www.sunnipath.com)

Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (The Rules of Governance):

“It is permissible for a Caliph to appoint a successor without the approval of those in power…without the backing and presence of the prominent figures of the community. The logical reason behind this is that appointing someone a successor to the throne is not appointing his Caliph, or else, there will be two Caliphs; thus there is no need for the influential people to be present. Yes, after the demise of the Caliph, their presence and approval is necessary…Caliphate is not established merely with the appointment of the (previous) Caliph, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah.”

(al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p.9)

One other point worth mentioning here is the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made it a point not to elect his own relative or son to the Caliphate. The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs disliked hereditary rule, as this is not the way of the Ahlus Sunnah; to create such a dynastic rule based on bloodline (on the Shia model) would be unjust and unethical. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said to the people:

“Nor have I appointed (as Caliph) a relative.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, p.147)

In another account, he said:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.314)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said on his deathbed:

“After holding consultations with the Muslims, I have selected the best among the Muslims to take care of them and look after their peace and welfare…(O Allah) make Umar a good Caliph…”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.315)

”

Additionally, as we have discussed earlier, there is a difference when Abu Bakr nominates someone and when the Prophet does. When the Prophet does, then everyone thinks this is a religious command, a part of Islam, etc. Whereas when Abu Bakr nominates Umar, then this is based on his own self that he made this decision and the people are free to disagree with him on it. Is that not why Abu Bakr asked various Sahabah what they thought about his nomination of Umar and some of them disagreed? And then Abu Bakr asked the entire Ummah what they thought and the Awwam did not construe it as a religious decree but rather as Abu Bakr’s personal opinion, which they then agreed with.

Shia says

“ When I heard that, I started asking the following question from myself: Is it possible that the Prophet of Islam who has tried hard to implement Islam, and tolerated a lot of problems, disasters, and paid big price to establish Islam in Arabian peninsula, leaves people without assigning any person to keep this religion alive after him?!

”

Three points are of significance here:

Firstly, as we have discussed, Abu Bakr was implicitly nominated as successor. So the idea that the Prophet left the Ummah with no clue who to succeed him is just untrue. In fact, the Sahabah came to the swift conclusion based on the proofs left by the Prophet that the most fit was Abu Bakr…there was no period of unrest, turmoil, etc, that was caused due to the Prophet not nominating a successor. Initially there was some squabbling but it lasted less than a few days and the matter was quickly resolved. The election process of the Muslims was swifter in fact than the election process in America which takes months to resolve! So our question to the Shia is: what exactly is the issue?

Secondly, the Prophet did not wish to impose a leader on the people, as we have discussed.

Thirdly, you say: “keep the religion alive after him”…is that not what Abu Bakr did? Is that not what Umar did? Is that not what Uthman did? Not only did Islam “remain alive” but rather it flourished! Abu Bakr crushed apostasy in Arabia, Umar expanded the Islamic lands by engulfing the Persian and Byzantine Empires, and Uthman further consolidated Islam. The state of the Muslim Ummah after the first three Caliphates was in fact excellent, and the Ummah had been transformed into a regional super-power. So contrary to the picture you paint, Islam flourished! And so we say that the Prophet did an excellent job when he didn’t nominate a successor directly! Had the Ummah fallen apart after the Prophet’s death, then perhaps the Shia could have used this as some sort of proof, but we find that Islam flourished under Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman!

Shia says

“ What happened that we Muslims are in this miserable situation in the world for centuries? What happened that the chain of successors/rulers (Ulul-Amr) has reached to people like King Fahd, King Husain, Saddam Husain, Husni Mubarak, …? Something is terribly wrong!

”

Here the utter weakness in the Shia argument unfolds!

Yes, we Muslims have been in a miserable situation for centuries…but you forget that this a recent phenomenon. As we have discussed, Islam flourished for centuries after the Prophet’s death, and the Muslims became a regional super-power. The Islamic empires expanded far and wide, even threatening to engulf the heart of Europe. Yes, today we stand weak in comparison to the Christians, but there was a time not long ago when we Muslims vanquished the Crusaders (no thanks to the Shia traitors) and when we Muslims were at the seat of power in the world today. So no, something was not “terribly wrong”. The Prophet did an excellent job and we believe that his mission was successful! This is the difference between us Sunnis and you Shia. We Sunnis say that our Prophet was a success, whereas you Shia say that he was a failure! And you say that your Imam Mehdi will succeed where the Prophet failed! If the Prophet failed to impose a proper leadership, then why do you say that your Imam Mehdi will do better than the Prophet?

So we see that your argument falls flat on its face. Yes, the Muslims today are in a bad position, but this was not so after the Prophet died, nor was it true during the reign of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the first three of which you so desperately hate. In fact, the three you so hate created the Islamic Empire and gave Islam its glory.

Shia says

“ Yes, The problem is leadership and Guardianship. Was this problem not so important for prophet or he didn’t take it serious? Of course, he did take it serious and he must have assigned a chain of successors (Caliphs) who where the most qualified as the head of Islamic state and as the guardian of Shari’ah (divine law).

Another question that came out to my mind was that: Are Allah and His prophet more qualified to assign the Caliphs, or people? Is Islam on the basis of democracy (government of people over people) or on the basis of theocracy (Kingdom of Allah over the earth)?

”

Now then, let us move to the situation today. You say that look at the leadership in the Muslim world today, and you say that this is a proof that Allah would never leave us without a divine leader. Well then, where is your divinely appointed leader today? Oh wait, we see that your Iran is led by Ayatollah Khamenei and before him Ayatollah Khomeini! Would you like to forward a guess as to how they were elected? Uh oh (for you), looks like they were elected by Shurah and Ijma! So how is it that you are OK with your Wilayah al-Faqih to be nominated by Shurah and Ijma, but suddenly you have a problem with this when Abu Bakr is nominated in the same way!

Please read our earlier article on this matter:

AhlelBayt.com says

“

Let us assume for the time being that the Ahlus Sunnah accepted the fallacious assumption that we need an Infallible Imam to lead us, and that it would not be justice from God to leave us without divine leadership. If the Ahlus Sunnah accepts this, then would it not be fair to ask the next relevant question, which is: “Where is this divine leader now?” Where is the Infallible Imam today? To this, the Shia will respond: “Oh, he has been hidden for more than 1,000 years and will come out near the end of the world.” Nice!

This means that the theory of Justice of God in terms of guidance worked only for about three hundred years (before the occultation)! Indeed, if the Shia want to argue that there is no way that the Ummah could be left leaderless after the death of Prophet Muhammad, then why would Allah leave his Ummah leaderless after the death of the eleventh Imam and the sudden disappearance of the twelvth Imam?

Imam means “leader;” how can a person be led when the leader is not contactable and accessible? Nobody has had direct contact with the Imam Mahdi during his Greater Occcultation which has lasted over 1,000 years. So what is the point of all this debate?

The Shia believe in Imamah and accuse the Ahlus Sunnah of not having a leadership system; well, at the end of the day, we all ended up at the same point, didn’t we? The Shia had no leadership system up until the Iranian Revolution, and the Irani system of “Wilayat ul-Faqih” (the current leadership system in Iran) is nothing but a man-made system in certain scholars do Shurah (mutual consultation) in order to elect a leader for them. Well, this is exactly what happened at Saqifah when people elected Abu Bakr, so what is all the fuss about? If the Shia are willing to accept Ayatollah Khomeini as the leader of the Ummah, then why not Abu Bakr? Why do the Shia find it OK for Khomeini to be the elected representative of the Hidden Imam, but they do not find it OK for Abu Bakr to be the elected representative of the Prophet?

The main pillar of Shi’ism is that we need a divinely appointed Imam and the leadership of the Muslims is divinely appointed. Without this pillar and buttress, the entire faith of Shi’ism collapses on itself. We again ask the Shia why they can follow Khomeini but not Abu Bakr? The truth is that Ayatollah Khomeini was elected by man, and so dies the entire argument of the Shia regarding how it would not be justice for God to leave us without divine leadership. Khomeini is certainly not divinely appointed, and most Shia agree upon this. Some of the Muslims have elected Usamah Bin Laden to be their leader; does Khomeini (the leader of the Shia) have any divine advantages to Usamah?

The point is that if the Shia had a live Imam who was supposedly infallible and had access to extraordinary knowledge, then we did not need this dialogue. Instead of all these debates, we would have asked a Shia to take us to his Infallible Imam and there surely the Imam could prove us his right by his extraordinary knowledge, character, and attitude. This is not the case now. If someone becomes a Shia these days, nothing will be changed for him in terms of guidance. He will combine the prayers and attend ceremonies for Hussain and pay Khums to scholars…but nothing in terms of being directed by a divine Imam.

So what exactly is all the fuss about? The Shia says it is obligatory to know the Imam of one’s time, but from the so-called Imam of their time what do they know? Anything more than his name and the fact that he will not come out till near the end of the world? So is it all about knowing a name rather than actual guidance?

We are fighting over a non-issue: The Infallible Imam doesn’t even exist.

The occultation of the Imam is 100% in variance with the very basis of the reason the Shia claim we need an Imam. The Shia belief is in fact not self consistent.

On the one hand, the very reason we need an Imam is to lead, but now the Imam has been in occultation, so what benefit does the Imam give now?

The whole foundation of Shi’ism is that the Shia needed an Imam after the demise of the Prophet and that it did not make sense for Allah not to divinely appoint a successor to the Prophet. Then what about today? Why have the Shia been living without any Imam for over 1,000 years? Why has Allah left the Ummah without a divinely appointed leader for over a thousand years?

To respond to this question, the Shia will say that the Hidden Imam still guides them while he is in occultation, but our question is: if the Hidden Imam (Mahdi) can guide the Shia without being alive with them physically, why couldn’t our Prophet Muhammad guide us without being alive with us physically? Thus, the Shia simply prove by their Aqeedah that their Twelfth Imam is higher and more superior than our Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) in everything.

”

Moving on…

Shia says

“ The history of Islam testifies that the government after the death of prophet was neither democratic nor theocratic.

”

Wrong. Our history testifies that the election of Abu Bakr fulfilled the spirit of popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and self-determination. Please read our Saqifah article for full details.

Shia says

“ Just a few people gathered in “Saqifah bani Saaedah” and assigned Abu Bakr as Caliph

”

Wrong again. First of all, representatives from the Ansars and the Muhajirs–the two major groups amongst the Muslims–were present at Saqifah. Secondly, over 33,000 Sahabah took the oath of allegiance at the hands of Abu Bakr. This is not “just a few people.”

Shia says

“ while Imam Ali was busy of the burial of the holy prophet Medina.

”

Yes, the Muhajirs did not disturb Ali by bringing him to Saqifah, and instead they allowed him to bury his cousin in peace. Please read our article on Saqifah for a full description of the event:

Saqifah: A Sunni Perspective

Shia says

“ Is it our choice as to whom should be a Prophet or it is Allah’s choice? Can we select Prophet by Shura? The same goes for assigning the successor of Prophet, for Allah knows best who is the most qualified for this position.

”

Of course it is not our choice as to who is to be our Prophet. But this mentality is another proof that the Shia are outside the folds of Islam because they find equivalence between the status of the divinely appointed Prophets and their (supposedly) divinely appointed Imams! We believe that the Shia claiming that their Imams are divinely appointed by Allah makes a mockery of the concept of the finality of Prophethood as mentioned in the Quran.

The Caliph is only a temporal leader, and he is not a divinely appointed figure. Any who claim that there is a divinely appointed figure after the Prophet Muhammad is a disbeliever and outside the folds of Islam.

Shia says

“It seems very strange that a deputy of a chief is assigned by any person other than him.

”

Do you say it seems very strange then that the leader of your country, Ayatollah Khomeini, was assigned by the people as opposed to Allah?

If any president of a Muslim country today claimed that he was divinely appointed by Allah to lead the people, then would you not say that this is an act of Kufr? If General Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan claimed that Allah had directly appointed him as leader of the people, what would we Muslims think of him? Surely we would all say that he has committed a grievous blasphemy that puts him outside the folds of Islam! Why then, O Shia, do you accuse the Imams of Ahlel Bayt of doing such a thing?

Shia says

“Deputy of God (or prophet) is only assigned by God (or prophet), and it is not people’s business!

”

And what about your Wilayah al-Faqih, the leader of Iran who claims to be the deputy of the Imam who is supposedly the deputy of the Prophet? If your deputy is appointed without divine ordinance, then why cannot our deputy be appointed by the people as well? How is it that you have no issue with Khomeini being elected by the people, but suddenly you have a problem with Abu Bakr? What happened to all the emphatic arguments about how it would not be proper for the people to choose their own leader and other such arguments that you had furthered earlier?

Shia says

“There are many examples in Quran where Allah states that He is the one who assigns a successor on the earth.

”

Can you cite one Quranic verse in which Ali is assigned as the Caliph of the Muslims after the Prophet? And what of the other Imams of the Shia? How is it that the Quran mentions the Caliphate of Prophet Dawood but not the Caliphate of the one most relevant to the Muslims at the time, i.e. the successor of the Prophet?

Shia says

“[random quotes from the Quran]

”

How come you cannot quote a single clear quote from the Quran which talks about how Allah has designated a successor to the Prophet? Is this information not important enough to mention? You Shia say that Imamah is one of the Usool-e-Deen, and yet we don’t find a single mention of who the designated Imam is in the Quran! Instead of providing clear verses, you are forced to cut and splice Quranic verses, assembling them again in a certain way as if the Quranic verses are lego blocks for you to play with.

You claim that we Sunnis accuse the Prophet of incompetence (we seek Allah’s refuge from that!) when we say that he didn’t directly appoint someone. Well, you accuse Allah–the Lord of the Worlds–of even greater incompetence when you say that He didn’t include one of the essentials of faith in His Holy Book which He Himself has said is complete and has everything in it. If you say that common sense dictates that the Prophet would nominate a successor, then we say that common sense dictates that Allah would mention something so dramatically important in the Quran, the book which was sent to guide us.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 11:73

Admin — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:50:48 +0000

This is in continuation to our previous article:

Tahreef (Tampering) of Verse 33:33

Please read that article before proceeding forth here.

In summary, the Quran mentions the term “Ahlel Bayt” twice, once in verse 33:33 and another time in verse 11:73, both times for a man’s wives. However, because this conflicts with the Shia doctrine–and because it exposes them as the haters of Ahlel Bayt–the Shia scholars must resort to the belief that there was Tahreef (tampering) of these two Quranic verses. We have already discussed what the Shia scholars say about Verse 33:33, so let us now move onto the second occurrence of the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the Quran:

She (Prophet Ibrahim’s wife) said: “O wonder! Shall I bear a child, seeing as how I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a strange thing!” They (the angels) said: “Do you wonder at Allah’s Decree? The Grace of Allah and His Blessings be upon you, O You Ahlel Bayt, for surely He is indeed worthy of all praise, Glorious!”

(Quran, 11:72-73)

It is clear that the angels referred to Prophet Ibrahim’s wife Sara as “Ahlel Bayt”, and so we know from this that a man’s wives are included in the term “Ahlel Bayt”. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad’s wives, Aisha and Hafsa, are similarly included in the Ahlel Bayt, and whoever hates them such as the Shia, are haters of Ahlel Bayt.

The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of the Quran along with commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by Answering-Ansar here, and hence there should be no question about its authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 11:73, this Shia Tafseer reads:

Translation: “…In the verse before this one, Hadhrat Sara (as) was addressed with the present feminine singular form and in this verse she was addressed with the singular masculine present form, which clearly shows that the people who are addressed in this verse are not the same people and this verse was inserted here (by the Sahabah) without any (justifiable) reason.”

(source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 11:73)

Right off the bat, we should mention that this Shia Tafseer exposes the weakness of the arguments made by the Shia propagandists when they claim that there are grammatical reasons that Prophet Muhammad’s wives were not addressed as Ahlel Bayt in Verse 33:33. These Shia claim that the masculine tense was used when referring to Ahlel Bayt instead of the feminine which was used for the Prophet’s wives in the verse before. To this, we bring up the example of Verse 11:73 in which the masculine tense is used for Prophet Ibrahim’s wife, even though she was only one single woman who was being addressed as “Ahlel Bayt.” And we find that the Shia Mufassireen such as Farman Ali had no other option but to counter this by saying that there was Tahreef (tampering) of Verse 11:73!

It should be known that the Quran is a toy for the Shia which they can play around with; the verses of the Quran are to them lego blocks which can be assembled and jumbled up in any which way it suits them. Despite their vehement denials, the belief in Tahreef is found in their most important books, and in fact, this belief in Tahreef is the only way in which they can justify their main doctrines which conflict with the present version of the Quran.

It should also be known that the Shia do not love Ahlel Bayt as they claim but rather they hate it, as they scorn the Prophet’s wives. To justify their claim of being the lovers of Ahlel Bayt, the Shia try to use aggressive word games with Verse 33:33, but these same “grammatical” games fall apart when they are applied to Verse 11:73, forcing the Shia to adopt the opinion of their classical Ulema, namely that the Sahabah tampered with the Quran!

Most importantly, we come to the conclusion that Shi’ism cannot be found in the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims. The Shia claim to be the Madhab of Ahlel Bayt, but in fact the Quran does not point to their definition of Ahlel Bayt. The Quran uses the word “Ahlel Bayt” twice and both times it is for a man’s wives, and both times the Shia scholars have claimed that there was Tahreef.

Team Ahlel Bayt, www.ahlelbayt.com

Hadith About Shias Being Best of Creation [A Sunni Perspective]

Admin — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:17:04 +0000

In regards to the narration:

“You and your shias are the best of creation.”

It should be known that it is not authentic.

It was narrated in Tafseer at-Tabari in regards to Verse 98:7 of the Quran:

“Those who have faith and do righteous deads, they are the best of creatures.” (98:7)

29208 - حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا عيسى بن فرقد، عن أبي الجارود، عن محمد بن علي {أولئك هم خير البرية} فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: “أنت يا علي وشيعتك ”

From Ibn Humayd, Eesa ibn Farqad, from Abu Jarud, from Muhammad ibn Ali: “They are the best of creatures”, the Prophet said to Ali: “That is you and your shias.”

The narration is Mursal. The chain ends at Muhammad ibn Ali who did not see the Prophet, and as such, he could not witness the so-called event.

Additionally, the chain is extremely weak and goes through Rawaafidh (Shia extremists). The chain goes through Abu Jarud (Ziyad ibn Manzoor) and he was criticized by the scholars of Hadith.

Ibn Hajar said about him: “Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who was declared to be a liar by Yahya ibn Ma’een” (Taqreeb Al Tahzheeb 1/221), and he described him as a “liar and not trustworthy” (Al Jarh wal Ta’deel 3/454).

Dhahabi reported about Abu Jarud in Mizan (#2965):

قال ابن معين: كذاب. وقال النسائي وغيره: متروك.

Ibn Mueen said: “He is a liar.” Nasai and others said he is Matrook.

Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Hibban al-Busti in his book “Marjoohin” (p.306) wrote about him:

روي عن فضائل أهل البيت أشياء ماله أصول

“(He) narrated baseless stories about the honor of Ahlel Bayt.”

وقال أحمد أبو الجارزد متروك الحديث

And Ahmad said: “Abu Jarud is matrook ahadeeth.”

Ibn Abu Hatim reported in his book “Jarh wa tadeel” (#2462):

حدثنا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول زياد بن المنذر أبو الجارود كوفى ضعيف الحديث

From Abdur-Rahman: I heard that Abu Zura said: “Ziyad ibn Manzoor, Abu Jarud Kufi: Dhaeef (weak) al-hadeeth.”

Additionally, we find Eesa bin Farqad in the chain, and he is the one who narrates from liars and abandoned people (matrookeen) such as Jaabir Al al Ja’fee (Jaami’ Al Jarh wal Ta’deel, 1/122)–the Rafidhi (Shia extremist) who used to believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib is the beast of the earth and that he didn’t die and that he is in the clouds and that he will come back to this earth.

Article By: Abu Ali Efendi Abdullah al-Ujari, www.ahlelbayt.com

Hadith About Dying With Hatred Towards Ali [A Sunni Perspective]

Admin — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:40:07 +0000

In regards to the following narration:

“Whoever died and in his soul was hate towards Ali, died like a Jew or Christian.”

It should be known that it is not authentic.

Shawkani said in “Fawaid al-Majmua” (p.373, #72):

. رواه العقيلي عن بهز بن حكيم عن أبيه عن جده مرفوعا وقال في إسناده علي بن قرين كان يضع الحديث والجارود بن يزيد وكان يضع أيضا

“Narrated by Ukayli via Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather Marfuan. In the chain is Ali ibn Qarin: he fabricated; and Jarud ibn Yazeed: he also used to fabricate.”

In regards to Ali ibn Qarin, Dhahabi said in “Mizan” (#5913):

قال يحيى: لا يكتب عنه، كذاب خبيث. وقال أبو حاتم: متروك الحديث. وقال موسى بن هارون، وغيره: كان يكذب. وقال العقيلى،: كان يضع الحديث. وقال الدارقطني: ضعيف

Yahya said: “He is a wicked liar.” Abu Hatim said: “Matrook ahadeeth.” Musa ibn Harin and others said: “He used to lie.” Ukayli said: “He fabricated narrations.” Daraqutni said: “Weak.”

As for Jarud ibn Yazeed, Dhahabi said in “Mizan” (#1428):

كذبه أبو أسامة. وضعفه على. وقال يحيى: ليس بشئ. وقال أبو داود: غير ثقة. وقال النسائي والدارقطني: متروك. وقال أبو حاتم: كذاب.

Abu Usama said: “He is a liar.” Ali (ibn Madini) said: “He is weak.” Yahya said: “He is nothing.” Abu Dawood said: “Not truthful.” Daraqutni and Nasai said: “Matrook.” Abu Hatim said: “Liar.”

Article By: Abu Ali Efendi Abdullah al-Ujari, www.ahlelbayt.com

Hadith About No Sword Except Dhul-Fiqar [A Sunni Perspective]

Admin — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:22:19 +0000

In regards to the following narration used by the Shia:

لا سفيا إلا ذو الفقار ولا فتى إلا علي

“There is no sword except Dhul-Fiqar, and there is no brave youth except Ali”

It should be known that this is not authentic.

It was narrated by Ibn Adi in “Kamil” as a part of the following narration:

حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن يونس قال ثنا عيسى بن مهران ثنا مخول ثنا عبد الرحمن بن الأسود عن محمد بن عبيدالله بن أبي رافع عن أبيه عن جده أبي رافع قال كانت راية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم أحد مع علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه وكانت راية المشركين مع طلحة بن أبي طلحة فذكره بطوله وذكر فيه كل من كان يحمل راية المشركين فقتله علي حتى ذكر سبعة أنفس حملوها وقتلهم علي وقتل جماعة من رؤسائهم يحمل عليهم فقال جبريل يا محمد هذه المواساة فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنا منه وهو مني ثم سمعنا صائحا يصيح في السماء وهو يقول لا سفيا إلا ذو الفقار ولا فتى إلا علي

Eesa ibn Mihran is weak.

Ibn Adi said: “He narrated fabricated Hadith.”
Dhahabi said about him: “Liar” (Mizan, #6613)

Ibn Ubaydullah ibn Abu Rafi is weak as well. Bukhari said: “Munkar al-Hadith.” Ibn Mueen said his narrations are nothing. Abu Hatim said: “Extremely rejected.” (Mizan, #7904)

Via Ibn Abu Rafi it was also narrated by Tabari in “Tareeh” (2/197)…

Suyuti rejected this narration in “Leal al masnua” (1/333), and Dhahabi rejected it in “Talkhees Kitab al-Maudua” (1/126/#274).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

هذا الحديث من الأحاديث المكذوبة الموضوعة باتفاق أهل المعرفة بالحديث،

“This narration is from false, fabricated stories–in accordance to the ijma (consensus) of people who know the science of Hadith.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah)

Shawkani said in “Fawaid al-Majmua” (372/#68):

في إسناده عيسى بن مهران وهو رافضي يحدث بالموضوعات وقد أدخل هذا الحديث ابن الجوزي في الموضوعات

“And in the chain is Eesa ibn Mihran, and he is Rafidhi (Shia extremist), who narrated false stories. Ibn al-Jawzi included this narration in his book on fabricated Hadith.”

Article By: Abu Ali Efendi Abdullah al-Ujari, www.ahlelbayt.com