Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Imam Ali (peace be upon him), used to listen well to the words of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He used to obey the Holy Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) instructions and, in all his actions, was perfectly submissive to them. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) always helped and assisted the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and struggled in the way of righteousness.

During the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), a group amongst the Muslims were friends of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and, together with Imam Ali (peace be upon him), strove and struggled for the advancement of the "religion of Islam". These Muslims always used to take example from Imam Ali's (peace be upon him) speech, behavior, manners and morals, and, like Imam Ali (peace be upon him), they used to obey the instructions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to speak to Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and that distinguished group in this fashion; "O Ali! You and your 'Shia' are the best people on the earth."

Also, sometimes when he (peace be upon him) saw Imam Ali (peace be upon him) with his friends, he would point to them and say, "This youth and his 'Shia' are the successful ones." This distinguished group, who really had conviction, was named by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as 'Shia or Shiite'.

So, from that very day, a Muslim who followed Imam Ali (peace be upon him) in behavior, speech, ethics, morals, and righteousness, was called a Shia (Shia means follower or friend).

We Shia believe in what our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, that, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), twelve Imams (Ithna Ashari), one after the other, have attained to leadership and Imamate. The first Imam is the Holy Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and the twelfth Imam is the Holy Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him).

And We made them leaders guiding (men) by Our Command and We sent them inspiration to do good deeds, to establish regular prayers and to practice regular charity; and they constantly served Us (and Us only). Holy Qur'an (21:73)

Shia Islam or Shiite Muslims

The term "Shia or Shiite" is an adjective used for Muslims who follow the Imams from the Family (Ahlul Bayt) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Sunni Muslims use it not for the reasons of sectarianism or for causing divisions amongst Muslims.

Shia or Shiite Muslims use it because the Holy Qur'an uses it, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used it, and the early Muslims used it - before words such as Sunni or Salafi ever came into existence.

"And most surely Abraham was among the Shia of him (i.e., Noah)" (Holy Qur'an 37:83)

(Notice that the word "Shia" is explicitly used, letter by letter, in the above verse.) In another verse, Holy Qur'an talks about the Shia of Moses (peace be upon him) versus the enemies of Moses (peace be upon him):

"And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shia and the other being his enemy, and the one who was of his Shia cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy..." (Holy Qur'an 28:15)

In the above verse of Holy Qur'an, one is named the Shia of Moses (peace be upon him) and the other one is named the enemy of Moses (peace be upon him), and the people at that time were either the Shia of Moses (peace be upon him) or the enemy of Moses (peace be upon him). Thus Shia is an official word used by Allah in Holy Qur'an for His high rank prophets as well as their followers.

If somebody calls himself a Shia, it is not due to any sectarianism, nor any innovation. It is because Holy Qur'an has used the phrase for some of His best servants.

Conversation of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) with Shias

On a certain evening Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was departing from the Mosque. The surroundings were bright due to the moonlight. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) saw behind him a group of people walking towards him. He enquired as to who they were? They said: "We are your Shias." Imam Ali (peace be upon him) looked at their faces carefully and said:

"Why is it that your faces do not exhibit any sign of you being a Shia?"

"Master, what are the signs of a Shia?"

"Their faces are pale due to excessive worship and the fear of Allah, their backs are bent due to prolonged prayers, too much fasting causes their abdomen to touch their backbones, their lips become dry be repeating endless invocations, and their hearts are filled with the fear of Allah."

Who is true Shia or Shiite?

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him), once said to one of his companions: "O Jabir! It is not enough that a person says; I am a Shia and I love the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Holy Prophet Muhammad's family (Ahlul Bayt) and the Imams (peace be upon them). By Allah, a Shia is the one who is perfectly pious and obedient to Allah's commands. Anyone else is not a Shia no matter how much they say they love Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and no matter what they call themselves."

"O Jabir! Our Shias are known by these signs:

They are truthful, trustworthy and loyal;
They always remember Allah;
They offer their Prayers, observe fasts, and recite the Holy Qur'an;
They act nicely towards their parents;
They help their neighbours, take care of orphans, and say nothing but good of people;
They are worthy of people's trust and confidence."

Jabir was listening attentively. When the Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him) finished, Jabir said: "O son of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) among the Muslims there are very few who possess these qualities."

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him) replied: "Allah forbid you imagine that just to claim to love us is enough to be a Shia. No not at all. A person who says I love Imam Ali (peace be upon him) but doesn't follow Imam Ali (peace be upon him) in actions is not the Shia of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). Similarly, if a person says I love the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but doesn't follow the actions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), his claim will be of no use to him."

"O Jabir! Our real friend and Shias are obedient to the commands of Allah, and everyone who is disobedient to Allah is our enemy."

"O Jabir! Always be pious and chaste, and perform good deeds so as to enjoy the blessings of the Paradise. Know that the best and most honourable before Allah are the pious and the chaste."

"O Jabir! Without 'ita'ah' (obedience and submission), nobody can attain proximity to Allah. We do not like them to claim to be our friends if they do not fulfil all the conditions. A sinful person is our enemy. Without good deeds and abstinence from sins, any claim of friendship to us is of no avail."

The True Shias are Those Who Follow (Obey) the Imams (peace be upon them)

Yes, we can give the title of 'Shia or Shiite' to that individual who follows the Imams (peace be upon them) in all aspects of character and speech. Thus, Bab-ul-Hawaij (The Door to Fulfilling Peoples Needs) Imam Musa al-Kazim (peace be upon him) says: "Our Shias are only those who follow us (in every respect), walk in our footsteps and imitate our actions."

Who is Shia or Shiite? The true follower of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them)

Perhaps, one may think that the Shia of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) is someone who is born in a Shia family, or someone who participates in the Azadari of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) or someone who only claims to love the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and His Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon him), but has nothing to do with obedience to the teachings of Islam.

Imam Ali (peace be upon him): My Shias! By God! The forbearers, the knowledgeable of God and His religion, actively following Him and His orders, guided by His love, appear weak because of worship, seekers of seclusion for their piousness, of pale complexion because of their night prayers, their eyes are weak because of weeping, their lips are dry because of remembrance of God, their stomachs are sunken because of eating in moderation, their faces reveal Godliness, and simplicity is apparent from their appearance, they are guiding lights in every darkness, they are not recognized even when seen, they are not remembered when not present, these are my pure Shias and my respected brothers. Ah! I wish so much to meet them.

Imam Ali (peace be upon him): Our Shias are those who are Gnostics of God, they act according to the orders of God, they possess excellences, they speak only truth, their food is limited to gaining strength, their dress is simple, their behaviour is humble, you think that they have lost their senses, but its not like that, instead, the greatness of their Lord has made them oblivion and His power has overwhelmed their hearts and taken over their intellects. So when they strongly wish of Him, they promptly strive to do pure actions before God, the most High; they are not happy with few good actions, and they never take their abundant good actions to be sufficient.

Imam Ali (peace be upon him): Our Shias, they spend on each other for the sake of our Wilayah, they love each other for the sake of our love, they visit each other for the sake of keeping alive our affair, they never oppress if they become angry with someone and they never become extravagant in their happiness, they are mercy for their neighbours, and a source of peace and security for those who live with them.

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him): No one is our Shia except by the fear of God and His obedience, and they are not recognized except by their humbleness, reverence, trustworthiness, and abundance of remembrance of God.

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him): You shouldn't be mislead by different views (in Islam), for by God nobody is our Shia except by obedience to God, the powerful and magnificent.

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him): (describing the attributes of Shias): They are like strong fortress, their chests are trustworthy, they are men of prudence and self-control, they are not extravagant, they are neither oppressors nor ostentatious, they are devoted worshippers in night and brave like lion in day.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): Our Shias are those who are pious and men of solid opinion, they are loyal and trustworthy, they are men of piety and worship, they pray fifty one (51) Rak'ats prayers during day and night, they are usually awake in the night, they observe fasts during the day, they purify their property (by paying poor-rate [Zakat]) they perform Hajj of Holy Kaaba, they abstain from all that which is forbidden.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): He is not from our Shia who lives in a population of several thousand people and someone else is more pious than him among them.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): He is not from our Shia who accepts us by only his tongue and is against our actions and our legacy.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): Test our Shias on three occasions: At the time of prayers as to how they safeguard their prayers, and when they have a secret as to how they keep them from our enemies and by their properties (and wealth) as to how they spend on their brethren.

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): Verily the Shia of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) is the one who is purified of (influence of) stomach and sexual desires, and intense is his struggle and his action is for his creator, and his hope is for divine reward and he is afraid of his end so if you see someone like that, then that is the Shia of Jafar (Imam Jafar Sadiq).

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): He is not from our Shias who denies four things: Miraj (heavenly ascension of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)), and questioning in grave, and creation of heaven and hell and Shafaat (intercession).

Imam Jafar Sadiq (peace be upon him): Verily our Shias are known for their following attributes: By their generosity towards their brethren and by their praying of fifty one (51) Rak'ats of prayers during night and day.

Imam Musa al-Kazim (peace be upon him): The Shia of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) is the one whose action testifies his words.

Imam Musa al-Kazim (peace be upon him): He is not from our Shia whose heart is not afraid of God in his loneliness.

Conclusion: So, it is not easy to claim for a Muslim to be a Shia or Shiite, the true follower of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them). It demands a lot of continuous struggle and hardship in the way of God to become a true follower of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon him). That is why the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has said: The Shia of Ali, they will be successful on the day of Judgment.

PLEASE VIEW THIS SITE

http://www.ezsoftech.com/Akram/introductiontoislam.asp

Its just one of the sites that are available about this religion

ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SITE TALKS ABOUT UNITY OF SHIA AND SUNNI BORTHERS
The centuries old Shia Sunni differences are the major obstacle to Muslim unity (Shia Sunni unity). The enemies of Islam to their benefit have always fanned these differences. Unfortunately, some so-called Muslim scholars on their payroll have also played a key role in keeping these differences alive.

Although I was born into a Sayyid Sunni family, I did not know of many differences while growing up as a child. Our families always respected Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) and his parents and participated in ceremonies marking the anniversary of his martyrdom (the 10th day of the month of Muharram which is called Ashura) by reciting the first chapter of the Holy Qur'an (al-Fatihah) and other chapters and verses of the Holy Quran and fasted on the ninth and tenth days of that month.

Now when I give lectures on Islam to non-Muslims, one of the questions they always ask me is if I am Shia or Sunni. I ask them if they know the difference. They have no knowledge, other than what has been given to them by the media. So they say Shias are the ones who are the bad guys, the militant version of Islam, and cause all the trouble in the Middle East these days.

These non-Muslim American audiences of mine are surprised to learn that some of the known tyrants like Saddam Hussain and troublemakers like the PLO and Hamas are all Sunni's, just as they are surprised to learn that Tariq Aziz (Former Iraq's Foreign Minister) was Christian and not a Muslim.

This is what I say to them about Shiite. "If Ali ibn Abu Talib (cousin of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) was a Shia, then I am a Shia. If he was a Sunni, then I am a Sunni [i.e., a follower of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)]." In Islam there are five recognized schools of Divine Law: 1) Hanafi; 2) Shafi; 3) Maliki; 4) Hambali and 5) Jafari.

The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also follows those of Ali ibn Abu Talib and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), are called Shia. The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunni's are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shiism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali ibn Abu Talib become successor of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Around every successful popular figure, there are some admirers whose own future interests rest with the rise of their leader. Thus in Indiana, we have "Friends of Lugar Club", who are hoping that some day Senator Richard Lugar will become a US President. Nationally, we now have a "Hillary Rodham Clinton Fan Club" with 4,000 members! Thus, there were the Followers of Ali ibn Abu Talib Club, which later on became a political movement. During the initial battles with unbelievers, Ali ibn Abu Talib, the Sword of Islam, was in the forefront and defeated and killed many of their leaders whose children and grandchildren, even when they became Muslims, always remembered who killed their father (animosity).

Ali ibn Abu Talib was raised by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a child so he knew Islam very well. Thus, when Ali ibn Abu Talib became a judge, his judgments were based on strict Islamic principles, much to the disappointment of many who expected him to be lenient to the rich and powerful. Ali ibn Abu Talib was so well respected and trusted by both Caliph Abu Bakr and Umar, that in difficult cases they asked his opinion.

Nevertheless, I tell my non-Muslim audience that both Shia and Sunni have many things in common. They both believe in One God (Allah), follow the same Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last Prophet, offer five daily prescribed prayers, perform the prescribed fast in the month of Ramadan, go to Makkah for the Hajj pilgrimage, read the same book of Allah, Holy Qur'an, and pay the poor-due (Zakat).

However, my answers can only satisfy my uninformed non-Muslim audience. The Sunni brothers, misguided by western propaganda, who are ready to embrace non-Muslims (especially the white ones), in the pretext of invitation to Islam, will not do so for Shia. They are ignorant Sunni's. Our job as a missionary should be to invite both groups to the true Islam and not chase them out. There is a movement in the Sunni world to have Shias labeled as disbelievers. I have been told that Shaykh Bin Baz of Saudi Arabia has declared an edict that the meat of the People of Book (Jews and Christians) is permissible for Sunni Muslims to eat but not the meat slaughtered by Shias.

There are scholars on both sides, like Imam Khomeini and Shaykh Shaltut of al-Azhar who have done their best to minimize these differences and bring unity, but it is not working due to the misinformation prevailing in the common masses of Sunnis about Shiism. Thus I am listing their misconceptions of Shia belief and practices. For answers, I have consulted two Shia scholars in America. Dr. A. S. Hashim of Washington and Imam Muhammad Ali Elahi of Detroit.

Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr wrote to me "to ignore and not waste time in responding to such wrong allegations." He also mentioned that "a great deal of money and effort is being spent in the last few years to fan the fire of hatred between Shia and Sunni in the Persian Gulf region with obvious political and economical fruits for powers to-be." However, in the interest of Islamic unity, I must deal with the questions rather than shun them. Please note that Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), founder of the Shia school of law, was the teacher of Imam Abu-Hanifa (peace be upon him).

Misconception #1: Shias have a different Holy Qur'an. They add another 10 chapters to the original Holy Qur'an.
Response: Not true. I have checked many times Holy Qur'an kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Holy Qur'an. More recently, I took care of an Iranian lady patient hospitalized here. I saw a copy of the Holy Qur'an by her side. I borrowed it from her and browsed through cover-to-cover. In Arabic it was the same as our Holy Qur'an. Of course, since I did not know the Persian language, I can't say much about the translation. It is a sin to even say that the Holy Qur'an can be changed or added to by Shia when Almighty God protects it.
Misconception #2: Some Shia considers Ali ibn Abu Talib as God.
Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali ibn Abu Talib, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali ibn Abu Talib as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death.
Misconception #3: Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer.
Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali ibn Abu Talib is a friend of God or Ali ibn Abu Talib is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.
Misconception #4: Shias do not perform Sunnah prayers. Sunnah prayers are non-obligatory prayers performed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Response: Shias do perform non-obligatory prayers, 36 cycles per day in total, but call it Nawafil and not Sunnah.
Misconception #5: Some Shia believes the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and prophet hood was meant for Ali ibn Abu Talib and not Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Response: Not true. No Shia thinks of such false claims. "Only demented minds think of such questions."
Misconception #6: Shias slander and ridicule the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) and Prophet Muhammad's wife, Ayesha.
Response: Shia considers the first three caliphs as companions and administrators, but not spiritual leaders (Imams). Imam Jafar as Sadiq (peace be upon him), whose mother and grandmother came from the line of Abu Bakr, said of Abu Bakr, "He gave me birth twice." Ayesha is respected by Shias as the "Mother of Believers," as Ali ibn Abu Talib respected her when he sent her back from Basra to Madinah after the Battle of the Camel. If some Shia do slander the three caliphs and Ayesha, they do it out of ignorance and should ask God's forgiveness. (As we have witnessed how Imam Khomeini, The Shia bravely declared death of Salman Rushdie - The author of Satanic Verses who abused the wife of Prophet Ayesha and Shia Leader declared blasphemy, just for his Fatwa the whole western countries became against Iran. See how much price did Shia pay to defend Ayesha - while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc. etc. as the Sunni government were silent they did not defend Ayesha. Now who loves Ayesha?)
Misconception # 7: Shias combine all five prayers into one prayer in the evening.
Response: Not true. In Shia mosques, whether in Iran or the USA, all five daily prayers are performed. Shia do combine noon and afternoon and evening and night, but Shia scholars recommend performing them separately. Such combinations may not be ideal, but better than not praying at all. How can a Sunni who does not pray at all be better than a Shia who combines prayers?
Misconception # 8: Shias do not pay zakat (poor-due).
Response: Not true. They not only pay 2.5% left over from savings as zakat, but also an additional 20% as Khums or general charity. However, they prefer to pay directly to the needy rather than corrupt Sunni government.
Misconception #9: Shias practice temporary marriages (Mutah).
Response: Temporary marriages (Mutah) was allowed during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and he himself practiced it. Ibn Zubayr was born out of the temporary marriage. Later on Caliph Umar prohibited it due to social reasons as the Islamic world was rapidly expanding. Shias discourage Mutah but do not consider it prohibited. Some do abuse this. As a temporary privilege during travel, it is better than adultery.
Misconception #10: They consider Imams infallible and above the Prophets.
Response: Not true. All prophets are born Prophet but as mentioned in the Holy Qur'an about Abraham that after passing the test, a prophet becomes a leader (Imam). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Prophet (Nabi), Messenger (Rasul) and leader (Imam). Imams are carriers of the message of Islam. Shias consider Ali ibn Abu Talib only as an Imam and not prophet.
With the little knowledge I have, I tried to do my best as a Sunni in defending my Shia brothers in Islam with the hope and prayer to God Almighty that He will "instill love in the heart of the believers" and bring us closer to each other so that we jointly can fight our common enemy, Satan and his followers.

May God forgive my mistakes in this article and this book (Amin).

"Knowledge is better than wealth because it protects you while you have to guard wealth. It decreases if you keep on spending it but the more you make use of knowledge, the more it increases. What you get through wealth disappears as soon as wealth disappears but what you achieve through knowledge will remain even after you."

nismo wrote:Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to speak to Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and that distinguished group in this fashion; "O Ali! You and your 'Shia' are the best people on the earth."

Also, sometimes when he (peace be upon him) saw Imam Ali (peace be upon him) with his friends, he would point to them and say, "This youth and his 'Shia' are the successful ones."

False & fabricated Hadith. The Messenger [saw] never made such a statement, nor did Imams ever made any of the quoted statements.
Let me put clear in black & white, for you or for any scholar of yours:

There ain't a single "Authentic" Hadith or a narration in Shi'i traditions that you can prove based on your own "Shi'i criteria" for authentication. Mark my word. And, for your Info, the Shi'i criteria for an Authentic Hadith or a narration, is:

To be reported by an upright, precise, Imami Shi'ite, from the like upright precise Imami Shi'ite, down to the infallible, free of abnormality and/or a defect.

So based on this ISO 9001-2000 criterion for an authentic Hadith, please, and for God's sake, presnt us one single authentic Shi'i Hadith. Pah Leez. Will ya?

Habib wrote:

nismo wrote:Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to speak to Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and that distinguished group in this fashion; "O Ali! You and your 'Shia' are the best people on the earth."

Also, sometimes when he (peace be upon him) saw Imam Ali (peace be upon him) with his friends, he would point to them and say, "This youth and his 'Shia' are the successful ones."

False & fabricated Hadith. The Messenger [saw] never made such a statement, nor did Imams ever made any of the quoted statements.
Let me put clear in black & white, for you or for any scholar of yours:

There ain't a single "Authentic" Hadith or a narration in Shi'i traditions that you can prove based on your own "Shi'i criteria" for authentication. Mark my word. And, for your Info, the Shi'i criteria for an Authentic Hadith or a narration, is:

To be reported by an upright, precise, Imami Shi'ite, from the like upright precise Imami Shi'ite, down to the infallible, free of abnormality and/or a defect.

So based on this ISO 9001-2000 criterion for an authentic Hadith, please, and for God's sake, presnt us one single authentic Shi'i Hadith. Pah Leez. Will ya?

at least they dont brew hatred for sunnis and others
these things have been written by doctors and imams in the states and have resources for publishing these articles , you cannot publish things there without citing your info

THIS SITE IS VERY FASCINATING

TALKS IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE TOPIC OF ISLAM AND SHIASM

http://al-islam.org/peshawar/toc.html

YOU CAN VIEW THESE TOPICS MORE IN DETAIL HERE

A VERY FASCINATING LINK TALKING ABOUT ISLAM AND SCIENCE

http://www.acryfromanhonestsoul.com/

I WILL KEEP POSTING MORE INTRESTING LINKS HERE

THIS IS ONE GREAT FORUM FOR SHIA PEOPLE

SO IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT MORE , JOIN THIS SITE AND LEARN

HABIB I INVITE YOU TO JOIN THAT SITE AND PUT FORTH YOUR ARGUEMENTS THERE

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?

IT COVERS A WIDE VARIETY OF TOPICS

nismo wrote:
HABIB I INVITE YOU TO JOIN THAT SITE AND PUT FORTH YOUR ARGUEMENTS THERE

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?

IT COVERS A WIDE VARIETY OF TOPICS

I know all about it, they refused to debate me, and eventually banned me out of fear I convert their members from Shi'sm to Islam. So, "been there, done that".

Edited by Mod

Habib , they are afraid you turn peace loving muslims into fanatics

i actually never knew sunni's hate their fellow muslim shia'ites this much.


this is a deep rooted burning hatred, worse than jews.

ebonics wrote:i actually never knew sunni's hate their fellow muslim shia'ites this much.


this is a deep rooted burning hatred, worse than jews.

not all shia hate sunni ,and not all sunni hate shia
majority live happily togehter

its only a few that have been misguided by politics and propaganda ,
if you notice the old sayings :

"Divide and conquer "


this method are a very strong way of ruining countries , and its what we see happenig in iraq and most of the middle east

and thanks to dummies like Habib there , he is not making anything any better

Well said nismo - I'm sunni, but I don't agree with all that Habib has written.

It is sometimes very difficult to extricate the political motives from the teachings of religions.

Divisions within religions is not limited to Islam or Christianity - all religions have their violent factional fighting, even peace-loving Tibetan Buddhists.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Well said nismo - I'm sunni, but I don't agree with all that Habib has written.

It is sometimes very difficult to extricate the political motives from the teachings of religions.

Divisions within religions is not limited to Islam or Christianity - all religions have their violent factional fighting, even peace-loving Tibetan Buddhists.

Cheers,
Shafique

this is very true shafique, political games , curroption , money hungry governments all contribute to these violence , as long as their is some fighting going on and instability , few curropt people will make good profit of it.

at the end of the day its all about money to these people, they use religion and a few stupid people as a tool for making their $$$

nismo and shaf was Hazarat Ali a shia before and after Muhammad's (PBUH) death?

Hadhrat Ali wasn't shia according to sunnis - he was the leader of all the Muslims and the 4th rightly guided Khalifa.

Shia is just short for the words 'the party of Ali' and refers to those who believed Ali should have been the first successor and not the 4th.

Sunnis believe that Ali was a courageous and strong leader and was blameless in the political split that later became a theological split.

(A good analogy would be to ask whether Muslims believe Jesus was a good Christian or not - we don't believe he was a Christian but a Jewish Prophet and the Messiah for the Jews, it was later followers that elevated him to a God according to Muslims.)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Hadhrat Ali wasn't shia according to sunnis - he was the leader of all the Muslims and the 4th rightly guided Khalifa.

Shia is just short for the words 'the party of Ali' and refers to those who believed Ali should have been the first successor and not the 4th.

Shafique

To clear it up further, Ali [may Allah be pleased with him] was the fourth Guided Caliph. The title "Ameer al-Mu'mineen" (Chief of the believers, or Head of the believers) started with the 2nd Caliph Omar bin al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and subsequently thereafter each successor was given this title.

As for the word "Shi'a", it was used for both parties of Ali & Muawiyah [ra], thus there were Shi'ites of Ali and Shi'ites of Muawiyah. With time, the usage of the word was kept to minimal as new ideological concepts were introduced by those claiming to be supporters of Ali. Eventually, it became a title for the innovators and cultists. They are also well known by the title "Rafidha" meaning "Rejectors" which became synonymous to "Shi'a".

All Grand Muslim scholars, such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Zur'a al-Razi, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, Imam Sufian al-Thawri, Imam Sufian bin Uyaynah, Imam Ibn Taymiyah, and 100s others have all unanimously agreed that this particular sect is out of the realm of Islam. Imam al-Bukhari was quoted saying: I could careless if you prayed behind a Jahmite or a Rafidi, or if you prayed behind a Jew or a Christian" meaning they are all the same in their disbelief, and such a prayer is worthless.

And Allah knows best.

shafique wrote:Hadhrat Ali wasn't shia according to sunnis - he was the leader of all the Muslims and the 4th rightly guided Khalifa.

Shia is just short for the words 'the party of Ali' and refers to those who believed Ali should have been the first successor and not the 4th.

Sunnis believe that Ali was a courageous and strong leader and was blameless in the political split that later became a theological split.

(A good analogy would be to ask whether Muslims believe Jesus was a good Christian or not - we don't believe he was a Christian but a Jewish Prophet and the Messiah for the Jews, it was later followers that elevated him to a God according to Muslims.)

Cheers,
Shafique

cool. i guess the shias would say no, he was a shia .

well I thought being a muslim was to submit yourself to God and how can you do this when the Shias "consult" with their imams to get through to God?

Islam says that there is one God and Muhammad is His last Messenger and ofcourse there are 5 pillars of Islam and the Quran. Do the Shias believe in all of these? Do they believe that Muhammad is Gods last messenger? Do they believe in the Quran and its sayings? What about the 5 pillars of Islam?

The title of the thread is: True Shia Islam. If I may ask: What is true about it? Will someone answer me please?

Habib wrote:The title of the thread is: True Shia Islam. If I may ask: What is true about it? Will someone answer me please?

786---5-12-14
Please find the truth with references below:

The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121

The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.
The Holy Qur'an 98:7

Numerous recognised Sunni scholars have in their commentaries recorded that following the descent of this verse the Prophet (s) declared: "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
Tafsir Ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) narrated from Hadhrath Muhammad bin Ali (as); Tafsir Durre Manthur by Jalaladeen Suyuti, Volume 6 page 379 -3 separate chains; Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition)

If the Prophet (s)'s said the best of creations are Hadhrath Ali (as) and his Shi'a, then in the same way that this verse is applicable until the end of the world, Ali (as)'s Shi'a will likewise exist to provide a practical commentary to it. The Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that 70,000 Muslims will enter paradise without answering any questions (1) and Anas bin Malik, narrates that the Prophet (s) said that the 70,000 were Ali and his Shi'a (2). There are no traditions, in which the Prophet (s) guaranteed paradise for any other companion and his followers. These hadith prove that the Shi'a were not a Sect founded by fictitious Abdullah bin Saba but were adherents to Ali (as) who existed during the lifetime of the Prophet (s).
1. Islam: The Basic Articles of Faith - According to the Beliefs of the Ahl al Sunna wa al Jama'a - a Modern English translation of Bahar-e-Shariat Part One (Unnamed author) page 67 - quoting a hadith to this effect
2. Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by al Maghazli (An ancient Shafi scholar)

Unable to refute the hadith the tendency has been to provide an 'alternative' explanation. The highly respected Sunni scholar Al Muhaddith Shah 'Abd al-'Aziz Dehlavi in his discussion of hadith relating to Ali and his Shi'a writes:

"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close to him, they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri"
(NB: 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifeen).
Tuhfa Ithna 'Ashariyyah, (Gift to the Twelvers) (Farsi edition p 18, publishers Sohail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan)

Although we believe that the title Shi'a goes back before this date, as this book is a 'revered anti Shi'a masterpiece', we will gladly accept this definition. Dehlavi states the first Shi'a, were the Muhajirun and Ansar, in other words they were the Prophet (s)'s Sahaba who sided with Ali (as) against Mu'awiya.

Now let us break down that definition in to point form. The Shi'a were those who:



Pledged their allegiance to Ali (as)

Remained close to him

Followed his orders

Fought his enemies


Alhamdullillah that is exactly the same definition of the Shi'a today. All the above attributes of the Shi'a then, are still inherent in the Shi'a today. We reject claims that we have gone astray having failed to take our teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah from the Sahaba. As Shi'a we follow Ali (as) and take the Sunnah from him in accordance with the dictates of the Prophet (s) who said to Ali (as) in the presence of the Sahaba:

"You are my brother and inheritor", when the Companions asked what previous Prophets had left as inheritance, he replied "The Book of God and his Sunnah the teachings of that Prophet".
Riyad al-Nadira, by Muhibbuddin al Tabari, Vol 3 p 123

Ali (as) inherited the Qur'an and Sunnah and his Shi'a have likewise taken their knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah from him. We are Shi'a because we see no other Hadi (guide) which will lead us to the right path.

Allah (swt) says about the Prophet (s): "Verily you are a Warner and for every nation there is a Guide" (1). Numerous Sunni authorities of Tafsir (2) in their commentary of this verse have recorded that the Prophet (s) said: "I am Warner and Ali is the guide, he (s) then turned to Ali and said 'Ali people will be guided through you'". Other Sunni scholars have also recorded this hadith (3).
1. The Holy Qur'an Surah Ra'd verse 7
2. Tafsir Durr al-Manthur by Suyuti Vol4 p 45; Tafsir al Kabir, by Fakhruddin Razi in the commentary of the verse; Tafsir Ruh al Ma'ani, by Allamah Alusi
3. Mustadrak, by al Hakim, Vol 3 hadith 129 & 130

We view Imam Ali as our guide, Hadhrath Abu Bakr does not come within this definition in his inaugural speech he indicated that he would be turning to others for guidance:

"Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong"
Tarikh al-Tabari, English translation Volume 9 p 201

Compare these words to the challenge of Imam Ali (as) related by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab who said:

"None of the Companions say, Ask me (about anything you like)! except for Ali".
History of the Khalifas who took the right way, by Suyuti, translated by Abdassamad Clarke, p178 (Taha Publishers)

Ali (as) also acted as source of guidance for the second Khalifa, to quote the Wahhabi scholar Nadwi "Umar was often exacerbated if Ali was not available to solve an entangled problem. He often used to say: 'Umar would have been ruined if Ali was not there'.."
The life of Caliph Ali, by Abul Hasan Nadvi, page 202

When there exist clear hadith guaranteeing salvation for Ali (as)'s Shi'a on the Day of Judgement, why should we seek alternative groups to affiliate ourselves with? Our view is strengthened yet further when we read that Hadhrath Abu Bakr narrates that he heard the Prophet (s) say that: "No one will be able to cross the Sirat (Path) leading to Heaven on the Day of Judgement unless he gets the stamp of Ali".
Al Sawaiq al Muhriqa, by Ahmad Ibn Hajar al Makki, page 126 (A book written against the Shi'a)

How can we turn to others, when Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book: "On the Day when some faces will be bright and some faces will be black, And as for those whose faces will have turned black, it will be said 'What did you disbelieve after believing, taste the chastisement for your disbelief'. And as for those whose faces are white, they shall be in the Mercy of God, they shall abide therein forever".
The Holy Qur'an 3:106-107

It is clear from this verse that the successful Party on the Day of Judgement will be those, whose faces are bright. Now apply this verse to the following hadith, taken from two recognised Sunni works: "Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa Qa'id ul Ghurrul Muhajj'ileen (Leader of the bright) face people on Yaum al Qiyamah".
Al Mustadrak, by Imam Hakim, p 137 & 138
Riyad al Nadira, by Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 2, p 122

So Ali (as) will be the leader of the bright face people, the bright face people will follow him i.e. they will be his Shi'a and it is this group which will attain Paradise. The Prophet (s) said in a Sahih hadith that Muslims would be divided into 73 sects of which only one would attain paradise. It is for this sole reason that we connect ourselves with Ali (as). Our Sunni brothers ascribe to the view that "Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not nominate his successor nor left any explicit an instruction on the question of selection or appointment of his successor".
An introduction to Islamic State and Government, by Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, p 56, (Islamic Bk Publishers, Kuwait).

They believe that it is the duty of the public appoint an Imam and that it is so important that "the companions preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral" (1). The Shi'a believe that it was incumbent upon the Prophet (s) to appoint a successor. Even the least enlightened leader dies with at least indicating his preferred choice of successor. There is always a deputy to the Premier in case the Premier dies or is killed. The primary motive here is of course to ensure that in the event of war that the nation is not left leaderless with no commander-in-chief, for even the smallest time interval. Did the Prophet not care, about what would happen to his followers after his death?
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Sa'eed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi)

In the same way that the role of a GP is to identify the condition of his patients and potential risks to their health we can point to the fact that the Prophet (s) did just that. He told the companions not to become kaffirs by killing each other (1) and predicted that afflictions would fall on to their homes in the same way that rain drops fall (2) and that some would become apostates after him (3) with the majority perishing in the fire (4).
1. Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English, Volume 9 hadith number 198 - 200
2. Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English, Volume 9 hadith number 182
3. Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English, Volume 8 hadith number 586
4. Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English, Volume 8 hadith number 587

At the same time the Prophet (s) was fully aware of the threat imposed by the neighbouring Byzantine and Persian empires, what better time would there have been to attack the Muslims when their Prophet (s) had died. In the same way that a GP after identifying a condition prescribes medication for his patient, we believe that the Prophet (s) was fully aware of the risks facing the nascent Ummah and provided a remedy by fixing in to position an Imam (Leader) to guide the Muslims after him. This is clear from the hadith of our Prophet (s) recorded by the renowned Wahhabi scholar Shah Isma'il Shaheed (1): "If you make Ali your Khalifa, although I do not think you will, you will find him to be a Guide (Hadi), one who is Guided (Mahdi), and one who will take you to the Right Path (Siratul Mustaqim)" (2).
1. About Shah Isma'il, the editor of the English translation of Taqwiyatul Iman (Strengthening the faith) page 9 writes "The services which he has rendered for the reformation of Ummah (the mission of propagating Islam); especially after the previous works of Shaykhul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab are absolutely unforgettable". In his book 'Muslim heroes of the world' the Sunni scholar Muhammad Atiqul Haque quotes Allamah Iqbal on page 117 as saying "India has so far produced one great 'alim and his name is Isma'il".
2. Mansab-e-Imamat, by Shah Isma'il Shaheed, p 46

We rely on an event that took following the completion of the Final Hajj when the Prophet (s) stopped at a place called Ghadhir Khumm, and addressed the companions "Do I have more authority over you than you have over yourselves? To which the people said 'Yes'. He then said Of whomsoever I am Mawla Ali is his Mawla" (1). There is no doubting the authenticity of this narration it is a Mutawatir tradition (2) narrated by 110 Companions, the difference is over the word 'Mawla'. Those who define Mawla as 'friend' and hence view Ghadhir Khumm as an event in which the Prophet (s) reaffirmed Ali (as) was his friend are Sunni Muslims. Those who define Mawla as Master and assert that Ali (as) was declared the Master / Imam over the Muslims are Shi'a Muslims.
1. Musnad, by Ahmad bin Hanbal Vol 3 p116 Sader Printing 1969
2. Mutawatir means it has numerous chains of narrators

It is the issue of Imamate (Leadership) which is the key difference between the two schools, we however are yet to find a better explanation of the position of an Imam than that offered by Shah Isma'il Shaheed:

"The Imam is the Prophet's successor, the Imam has the same relations with Allah as the Prophet had with Allah. The Imam is the leader, in the same way the Prophet had the right to lead the people, the Imam also has the same rights over the people. We read in Surah Azhab 'The Prophet is awla (authority) to the believers', and the Prophet will be a witness to this fact on the Day of Judgement. The Prophet has rights over the people, as does the Imam, both in this world and the next, which is why the Prophet said 'Don't I have more authority over the people than they have over themselves, to which the people replied 'Yes'. The Prophet then said 'Of whomsoever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla'. This is why Allah says in the Qur'an that on the Day of Judgement you will be called according to your Imam (3:17), and why when Allah says 'And stop they are to be questioned' (37:24), we will be asked about the Wilayat (The Mastership) of Ali on the Day of Judgement"
Mansab-e-Imamat, by Shah Isma'il Shaheed, p 71

Habib wrote:The title of the thread is: True Shia Islam. If I may ask: What is true about it? Will someone answer me please?

786---5-12-14
I also would like to ask some questions, Could you please research and answer?

1.
History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?

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

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


2.
Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).


3.
Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?
See The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers)


4.
The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?


5.
If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?


6.
If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time?


7.
If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the 'Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Holy Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense?
(See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)


8.
Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s companions follow this approach?
"the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral" - taken from Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).


9.
Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul'bayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?


10.
We read in the Holy Qur'an "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?


11.
Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur'an "And of the people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After the Prophet (saaws)'s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws)'s demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join?


12.
Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles adopted by the parties during their discussions about the Prophet's successor at the Saqifa?


13.
If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn Mu'awiya will lead to such persons being raised as betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?
This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127)


14.
It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right?


15.
The Holy Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?
Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7


16.
During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever", see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223


17.
If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?
Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu'awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)


18.
It is commonly conveyed that the companions were brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (saaws)'s order refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummaya clan.
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)


19.
The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa's after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul'bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu'awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are.
1. "The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish" (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui).
2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).
3. ibid, page 175


20.
Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur'an states quite categorically that no one has that right "And it is not for a believing man or woman that they should have any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying". With this verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one sitting and the formula 'Prayer is better than Sleep' in the Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)

AthnaAshri wrote:
786---5-12-14
Please find the truth with references below:

The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121

I thank you AthnaAshri for taking the time to respond to my question. However, I must say I still find no truth in any statement made thus far. The Statement which you've attributed to Ibn Manzur is actually not his, rather he quoted al-Azhari. This is just to clear up Ibn Manzur.

I would say the term "Shi'a" initially did not exceed the "Political affiliation". Hence, we find in history books like al-Tabari's and others a reference to "Shi'te of Muawiyah" (ra) and "Shi'ite of Ali" (ra). It was not until later down the road when a cult was formed and developed over a century or two that the term became exclusive for this cult.

Furthermore, the term "Shi'a" refers to all the factions emerged thereafter from the orginal sect formed by the Jew Abdullah bin Saba'. Todate, the term refers to the Zaidis, Ismaelis, Nusairis (Alawis) and Ithna-Ashari (Ja'faris). Each and everyone of these sects claim to be the "True Shi'ites". In fact, historically, there were some 70+ sects of Shi'ism, all claiming love for the "Progeny" and "Ahlul-Bayt". Therefore, restricting the term on the "Ithna-Ashari" (Ja'fary) is certainly incorrect.

The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15

I beg to disagree with you on this issue. For if someone formed a cult today and called it "Jahannam" (Hellfire), does that give it any credibility or legitimacy simply because the term "Jahannam" is mentioned in the Qur'an?

Furthermore, you have failed to mention other verses where the term "Shi'a" was mentioned unfavorably, such as:


إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَفْعَلُونَ

Verily, those who divided their religion and became sects (Shi'ites), thou hast not to do with them, their matter is in God’s hands, He will yet inform them of that which they have done. (6:159)

and:

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لا يَعْلَمُونَ

مُنِيبِينَ إِلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُوهُ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلاةَ وَلا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ

Set thy face steadfast towards the religion as a seeker of God, according to the constitution whereon God has constituted men; there is no altering the creation of God, that is the standard religion, though most men do not know.

Turn repentant towards Him; and fear Him, and be steadfast in prayer; and be not of the idolaters.

Of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every party in what they have, rejoice. (30:30-32)

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.
The Holy Qur'an 98:7

Numerous recognised Sunni scholars have in their commentaries recorded that following the descent of this verse the Prophet (s) declared: "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
Tafsir Ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) narrated from Hadhrath Muhammad bin Ali (as); Tafsir Durre Manthur by Jalaladeen Suyuti, Volume 6 page 379 -3 separate chains; Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition)

I further beg to challenge you on this quotation, not that it does not exist, rather to prove the authenticity of the statement to the Messenger of Allah [PBUH]. As you and others know, many liars have attributed statements to the Messenger of Allah [PBUH] and the scholars have identified these narrations. Now, for the sake of a seriouse quest for truth, please provide us names of scholars who authenticated the Hadith or at least present us with the chain of narrators to examin them together, what say you?

Insha Allah after we clear this, we move forward for the rest.

Cheers

786---5-12-14

Thank you very much for your time and sharing your knowledge. Please keep in mind that in order to optimize our discussion, I mostly copy and paste the answers from some websites or other published sources. As you know, we are not the first ones engaged in a such a discussion and most of the answers are out there. It's just a matter to read and understand them. May Allah (SWT) guide us to the RIGHT path! Aameen!

Habib wrote:

AthnaAshri wrote:
786---5-12-14
Please find the truth with references below:

The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121

I thank you AthnaAshri for taking the time to respond to my question. However, I must say I still find no truth in any statement made thus far. The Statement which you've attributed to Ibn Manzur is actually not his, rather he quoted al-Azhari. This is just to clear up Ibn Manzur.

Ibn Manzur says the following in his lexicon Lisan al-Arab where he defines the Shi`as: > > The Shi`as are the people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, >and they are loyal to such Progeny. [ Refer > to p. 189, Vol. 8, of Lisan al-Arab lexicon by Abul-Fadl Jamal ad-Din >Muhammad Ibn Manzur (630 - 711 > A.H./1233 - 1311 A.D.)]. > > Commenting on this statement, Dr. Sa`id Abd al-Fattah Ashoor says: > > "If the Shi`as love whatever the Prophet's Progeny loves and are loyal >to such Progeny, who among the Muslims > would refuse to be a Shi`a?!"

Habib wrote:I would say the term "Shi'a" initially did not exceed the "Political affiliation". Hence, we find in history books like al-Tabari's and others a reference to "Shi'te of Muawiyah" (ra) and "Shi'ite of Ali" (ra). It was not until later down the road when a cult was formed and developed over a century or two that the term became exclusive for this cult.

Good that you mentioned this as I was also going to mention the same in my detailed post below.
But do you think you are doing justice by using the word "cult" for Shia's? Are you trying to say that love of Ahl-al-Bayt (A.S.) , the Household of our Prophet (PBUH) is a false belief? Please explain and give proper references of authentic ahadith and quranic verses.

Habib wrote:Furthermore, the term "Shi'a" refers to all the factions emerged thereafter from the orginal sect formed by the Jew Abdullah bin Saba'. Todate, the term refers to the Zaidis, Ismaelis, Nusairis (Alawis) and Ithna-Ashari (Ja'faris). Each and everyone of these sects claim to be the "True Shi'ites". In fact, historically, there were some 70+ sects of Shi'ism, all claiming love for the "Progeny" and "Ahlul-Bayt". Therefore, restricting the term on the "Ithna-Ashari" (Ja'fary) is certainly incorrect.

I will be posting a saperate article of this Abdullah bin Saba character in a short while as it is quite lengthy.

The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15

I beg to disagree with you on this issue. For if someone formed a cult today and called it "Jahannam" (Hellfire), does that give it any credibility or legitimacy simply because the term "Jahannam" is mentioned in the Qur'an?

Furthermore, you have failed to mention other verses where the term "Shi'a" was mentioned unfavorably, such as:


إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَفْعَلُونَ

Verily, those who divided their religion and became sects (Shi'ites), thou hast not to do with them, their matter is in God’s hands, He will yet inform them of that which they have done. (6:159)

and:

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لا يَعْلَمُونَ

مُنِيبِينَ إِلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُوهُ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلاةَ وَلا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ

Set thy face steadfast towards the religion as a seeker of God, according to the constitution whereon God has constituted men; there is no altering the creation of God, that is the standard religion, though most men do not know.

Turn repentant towards Him; and fear Him, and be steadfast in prayer; and be not of the idolaters.

Of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every party in what they have, rejoice. (30:30-32)

Brother, I would disagree with your logic here. Lets not try to play only with literal meaning of words. We should try to understand Quranic verses and not translate only a single word. More explanation is given in the detailed post below.

Habib wrote:

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.
The Holy Qur'an 98:7

Numerous recognised Sunni scholars have in their commentaries recorded that following the descent of this verse the Prophet (s) declared: "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
Tafsir Ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) narrated from Hadhrath Muhammad bin Ali (as); Tafsir Durre Manthur by Jalaladeen Suyuti, Volume 6 page 379 -3 separate chains; Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition)

I further beg to challenge you on this quotation, not that it does not exist, rather to prove the authenticity of the statement to the Messenger of Allah [PBUH]. As you and others know, many liars have attributed statements to the Messenger of Allah [PBUH] and the scholars have identified these narrations. Now, for the sake of a seriouse quest for truth, please provide us names of scholars who authenticated the Hadith or at least present us with the chain of narrators to examin them together, what say you?

Insha Allah after we clear this, we move forward for the rest.

Cheers

The reference are already mentioned, so why don't you begin examining them? Here they are again:
Tafsir Ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) narrated from Hadhrath Muhammad bin Ali (as);
Tafsir Durre Manthur by Jalaladeen Suyuti, Volume 6 page 379 -3 separate chains;
Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition)

Historic Background of Shiism

Clearly, as you have raised the same concern as many of our other brothers on Ahlisunnah.org, here is a clarification from answering-ansar.org.

Defining the word Shi'a

The writer states:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Shie'ah", "Shi'ah": a singular Arabic noun means group, party, sect, supporter".


After citing the verses where Shi'a is mentioned the unnamed author writes:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"During the conflict between Hazrat Ali bin Abu Taleb (Karramallah wajhah) and Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (Radhi Allahu Anh), both groups were referred to as Shi'atu Ali and Shi'atu Muawiyah. Hence, its early usage in the conflict between the two great companions Ali & Muawiyah [ra-both] was to denote who "sided" with who in its political context".


It should be stressed that this was far more than just a political difference over the breakfast table. This WAS a difference that lead to civil war.

Rather than watering the matter down to who "sided" with who, perhaps the writer should explain which 'side' was right and which 'side' was wrong. Were the Sahaba who 'sided' with Mu'awiya against Ali correct to do so?

It is indeed wrong to just water it down to a difference of opinion - this political context clearly had religious ramifications, because Allah (swt) says clearly in the Holy Qur'an "Obey Allah, his Prophet and those in authority among you".

Rasulullah (s) also said:

"After me people shall experience fitna, you will split in to groups, he then pointed at 'Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33016].

This is an absolutely clear hadith pointing to where the truth lay, again there is no room for the excuse that those who fought 'Ali would also receive a reward as they thought they were on the right path!

The problem here is the writer is REFUSING to distinguish truth from falsehood, he is happy to portray an image that everything was rosy in the garden and there was a political dispute, but fails to pass comment on which party was right and which party was in the wrong.


The dispute between Mu'awiya and Maula 'Ali (as)


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Was the dispute between Ali and Mu'awiyah religious in nature?

Absolutely not. The conflict started after the murder of the 3rd Khalif, Hazrat Uthman ibn 'Affan (Radhi Allahu Anh), and the existence of the murderers in the camp of Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh). However, to answer this question, we'll explore Nahjul Balaghah to see what Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) himself had to say about it, contrary to what the Shi'ah wish to present:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."

Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 58, p. 474



If anything Imam Ali (as) is expressing, is his concern at the mentality of the people of the time, both believed in the principles of Deen and yet they sought fit to rebel against the Ul'il Umr whilst such an act contradicts the Qur'an. Whilst the spilt was over Uthman's killers, there is no edict in Islam for an individual to rebel against the rightful Khalifa in order to get his own way.


Just a political dispute?

For the writer to assert that the matter was 'political' and not 'religious' in nature demonstrates his complete ignorance of even basic understanding of what Deen is. Islam is a complete ideology, political, judicial, economic etc, you CANNOT separate politics from Islam; it IS a part of Deen.

Had the writer actually sought to use logic rather than blindness, he would have been manifestly obvious that to deem the difference as political NOT religious carries serious ramifications for both sides. If it was not religious and political then he is in fact suggesting that both sides instigated fitnah based on personal enmity, leading to a 110-day battle in which thousands of people needlessly lost their lives. If these acts were based on political differences and NOT based on upholding religious rites then the end for both parties is the fire (astaghfirullah).

This is absolutely clear from the verses of Qur'an and hadith.

"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93)

Further, Abdullah Ibne Umar narrates he heard Rasulullah (s) say:

"Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another". Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 198

The Holy Prophet said "Your blood, property, honour and skin (i.e. body) are sacred to one another" Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 199

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud that

The Prophet, said, "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)." [Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 197]

So these ahadith and verse make it clear:

To kill a Muslim is an act of kufr
The intentional killing of a momin places the perpetrator in hell

Now with these facts in mind we should ask 'how many momins were intentionally killed at Sifeen?'

The ONLY way that these actions can be defended is if there is a clear provision in Islam that entitles an individual to fight and kill his Muslim brother. If no such provision exists and we accept Maulana's preposterous notion that the differences were NOT religious then in light of the Qur'an and hadith ALL the participants committed kufr, they are murderers and are therefore in hell. (astaghfirullah)


It was incumbent to obey Imam 'Ali (as)


To prove the religious dimension, we have the hadith of Rasulullah (s):

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]


This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to Hadhrath 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt). Hence any disobedience to him, IS RELIGIOUS because it is deemed disobedience to Allah (swt).

Rasulullah (s) said:

"'Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with 'Ali, the two shall not separate until they meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32912].

"'Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33018].


These two ahadith make it clear that every decision that Imam Ali (as) takes is Haqq and is supported by the Holy Qur'an and hence will ALWAYS be a religious decision. In other words if he declares war on Mu'awiya, it is the truth supported by the Qur'an, not influenced by political decision making.

If these hadith are not sufficient then we also have this clear hadith of Rasulullah (s) who said to his companions:


"Verily among you will be one who will fight for the meaning of the Qur'an in the same way that I fought for its revelation. People asked will that be Abu Bakr or Umar? Rasulullah (s) replied 'No, but he who is mending my shoes, that person was 'Ali" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32967].


This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of Hardhat 'Ali (as)'s is in defence of the Qur'an, to protect it from misinterpretation.


Mu'awiya's opposition to the Imam made him a baghi


Mu'awiya's opposition was clearly religious because it was a direct challenge the Head of the State. This can be proven from the hadith of Rasulullah (s):


"O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us" [Kanz al Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn Asakir, hadith number 32970]


The very fact that Mu'awiya rebelled against the Ul IL Umr Ali (as) (you deem to be the 4th Rightly Guided Khalifa) clearly proves that it therefore was a religious dimension, hence Rasulullah (s)'s referral to this group as "Baghi".

Mu'awiya's open rebellion to the Khalifa in violation to the Qur'an clearly proves this was a religious matter, and Imam Ali (as) was entitled as Ul il Umar to quash his insurgency. Imam Ali (as)'s actions were religious and in accordance with the dictates of the Holy Qur'an (Yusuf Ali's translation):


"[al-Hujurat 49:9] If two parties among the believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; But if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: For Allah loves those who are fair (and just)".


This verse is absolutely clear that it is a religious duty to fight baghis (rebels), of which Mu'awiya was the Head. So Imam Ali (as)'s decision to fight Mu'awiya was RELIGIOUS and was supported by the Qur'an.

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Therefore, if Hazrat Ali bin Abu T�leb (Radhi Allahu Anh) himself does not see the conflict religious nor his political opponents as Kafirs, then the love which Shi'ah claim to have for him and the claim that they follow him, is an unproven Chapter from their own sources. For if they do indeed love Hazrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) they will hold his views in this matter too, but they are people of no understanding".



Fighting Imam 'Ali (as) is on par with fighting Rasulullah (s)


The unnamed writer is absolutely right. Imam Ali (as) did not call them kaffirs, but fighting Imam Ali (as) is on par with fighting Rasulullah (s). This is proven by the testimony of Rasulullah (s):

Zaid bin Arqam narrates:


"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war" (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81; Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149)


Perhaps we should ask the author:

What is your opinion about this hadith?
What is his position of one who is at war with the Prophet, Muslim or Kaafir?

Rasulullah (s) said:


"Ali is the door of forgiveness, whoever enters it is a momin, whoever leaves it is a kaafir" [Kanz ul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi al Hind hadith number 32910]


This being the case what opinion should I hold on one who rather than enter the Gate turns his back on it and attacks it?


Abusing Imam 'Ali (as)'s opponents


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
Furthermore, Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) instructed his men as follows:


"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O' Allah! save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."

Nahjul-Balaghah, Sermon 205

Are the Shi'ah in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them, Sayyidina Ali bin Abu Taleb (Radhi Allahu Anh)? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah Ta'ala to be the Companions of His Holy Last Messenger, Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam".



Imam 'Ali (as) is telling his followers not to ABUSE his opponents, in that there is no doubt. The Shi'a don't use swear words, we distance ourselves (Tabarra) from the enemies of the Ahl'ul bayt (as). As for abuse, it is haraam to use swear words. The followers of Imam Ali (as) don't stoop to that depth because we follow those who never used abuse. Interestingly, abuse is the methodology of their beloved Imam Mu'awiya.


The late Deobandi scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his "Khilafath aur Muluiqeyath". On page 79 he writes:

"Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu'awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath 'Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam's position. This took such an extreme that this practice even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath 'Ali's family who would hear this abuse with their own ears (Tabari Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3" page 234, al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).



An Invitation to Ahl'ul Sunnah to ponder and think


Now the question we would like to ask the author is:


"Are the Sunnis in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them. Are you following the words of Rasulullah (s)?"


You see these are the words of Rasulullah (s):


"Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrisy"




Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;

Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;

Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;

Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128

Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202

Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p185

Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462



The Messenger of Allah said:


"Whoever hurts Ali, has hurt me"


Sunni references:


Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483

Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580, Tradition #981

Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129

al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p263

Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.



"Whoever reviles/curses Ali, has reviled/cursed me"


al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned this tradition is Authentic -

Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323

Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594, Tradition #1011

Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130

Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092

Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173

and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya'la, etc.


The Messenger of Allah said:


"Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into he Hell-fire."
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33


Rasulullah (s) said:


"Whoever leaves Ali, leaves me, whoever leaves me, leaves Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32974 - 32976, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar {through two chains} and Abu Dharr Ghaffari (ra).


As we have already cited earlier, Rasulullah (s) also said:


"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]


So these hadith tell us:

The sign of a Munafiq is hatred of Ali (as)
Whoever leaves, disobeys and curses 'Ali - in fact leaves, disobeys and curses Allah (swt)

Now we would like to ask this writer:

Did Mu'awiya curse 'Ali?
Is an individual who leaves, disobeys and curses Allah (swt) a Muslim?

This being the case, could the author of this 'masterpiece' kindly explain why it is that he (and his Ahl'ul Sunnah brethren) insist on giving Mu'awiya the title (ra)? Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him?


Hadith praising the Shi'a of 'Ali (as)


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
3 - Did the word Shi'ah (Sh�'atu-'Ali) exist during the era of Muhammad [saw]? "Anyone who claims that the word Shi'ah or Shi'ites was used by Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram (Sallallahu alayhi wa Salla) or during his era is a liar, and no proof whatsoever exists to support this claim".


Hadith in which Rasulullah (s) praised Ali and his Shi'a can be found in many classical Ahl'ul Sunnah texts, and have even been recorded by Ulema like Ibn Hajar al Makki in their books written against the Shi'a. For the sake of brevity we will cite just a handful of traditions to prove our point.

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation:


"Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him" (Qur'an 98:7)".

Muhammad bin Ali narrates in Tafsir ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) that the Prophet (s) said "The best of creations are you Ali and your Shi'as."

Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 - 911 AH) is one of the highest ranked Sunni scholars of all time. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 asnad (chains) of narrators, that the Prophet (s) told his companions that the verse referred to Ali and his Shi'a:

"I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
(Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)


The 3 Sahaba who narrated this hadith are (1) Ali (as) himself (2) Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (ra) (3) Abdullah ibne Abbas (ra). The majority school acknowledges them as truthful narrators of hadith. Had this been in a Shi'a book, you would have deemed it a forgery, but it's presence in your has really confused your Ulema.

There are no hadith in which the Prophet (s) guaranteed paradise for a specific Sahaba and his followers, with the sole exception of Ali (as) and his Shi'a.


Other Sunni scholars have also recorded this hadith from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari in their commentaries of the above verse.
[Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition) & Tafsir Fatha ul Qadir, Volume 5 page 477]

Hadhrath Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates "that when this verse descended the Prophet (s) said, 'Ali you and your Shi'a will be joyful on the Day of Judgement" (Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)

Ahmad ibn Hajr al Makki quotes from Imam Dar Qatany in his al Sawaiqh al Muhrriqa page 159 (Cairo edition) "O Abul Hasan, you and you Shi'a will attain paradise".


Ibn Hajr al Makki in his anti Shia book, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, records this tradition from Imam Tabarani:


"O Ali four people will enter heaven first of all. Me, You, Hasan, and Hussain, your descendants will follow us and our wives will follow our descendants and our Shi'a will be to the left and right of us".

Hadhrath Ali narrates in Tafsir Durre Mansur, Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) that Rasulullah (s) said to him:

"Have you not heard this verse "Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever"? This verse refers to you and you Shi'a, I promise you that I will be meet you at the Fountain of Kawthur".


The classical Shafii scholar al Maghazli records a tradition from Anas bin Malik that he heard the Prophet (s) say:


"Seventy thousand people will go to heaven without questions, the Prophet then turned to Ali and said 'they will be from among your Shi'a and you will be their Imam"
Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by al Maghazli al Shafii


We could cite more traditions if the author so wishes, let us remind ourselves about the writers confident proclamation:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Anyone who claims that the word Shi'ah or Shi'ites was used by Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram (Sallallahu alayhi wa Salla) or during his era is a liar".



Are the traditions of Ibn Hajar, Maghazli, Suyuti sufficient as proof or would you like us to present some more?



The origin of Hadith Compilation


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"It is no wonder that Ibn Abil-Hadeed, an extremist Shi'i clergyman, admitingly writes in his Sharh Nahjul-Balaghah:

"The origin of lies in Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi'ah who fabricated various Ahadith in the virtues of their Aimmah. It was the enmity they held against their adversaries that drove them to fabricate them" [Sharh Nahujul-Balaghah, vol.1, p.783 (Quoting from ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', p.19)]"


This proves that this alleged scholar does NOT even know basic facts. Ibn Abil Hadeed was NOT a Shi'a he was a Mutazzali scholar, throughout the book he cites the works of grand Mutazzali teachers like 'Abu Bakr Jahuri! It is indeed sad that when a Sunni praises Imam Ali (as) he is automatically labelled a Shi'a, if we follow this flawed premise then I guess the only Sunnis in the world would be Nasibis. Moreover the fact that he was not Shi'a is so obvious from the very quotation you cited, tell us if he was an extreme Shi'a why would he shoot himself in the foot by stating as follows:

"The origin of lies in Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi'ah who fabricated various Ahadith in the virtues of their Aimmah".

Would a Shi'a write this about himself? What utter nonsense. Now to counter Ibn al Hadid allow us to present the true facts re: the origin of hadith fabrication to you, from one of your own Sunni Ulema Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli Numani:


"Traditions were first formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years, throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia Minor and Spain, insulted the descendents of Fatima and got Ali openly censured in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to eulogize Amir Muawiya (taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani English translation, Volume 1 page 60).


Now, lets see who started this tradition of writing:


"Amir Muawiya was the first to encourage writings" (taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani English translation, Vol 1 page 18).


Now let me present to you the type of writings that he encouraged:

al-Tabari reported:


When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said:"Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past... The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from ABUSING Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God's mercy upon Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of Ali, keep at a distance, and don't listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them." (See History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123


The modern day Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul also makes this admission is his autobiography on the life of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as):


"During the Banu Umayya reign there was a complete prohibition on hadith and fatwas narrated by Ali (as)". [Taken from Subhai Sadiq by Mufti Ghulam Rasul, page 355).


So what what do we learn from these narrations:


Mu'awiya encouraged people to curse Ali (as)

The tradition of cursing 'Ali was practiced throughout the Banu Ummaya Empire.

At the same time hadith were first collected

Hadith narrated by 'Ali were prohibited



This is the 'love' that the khalifas of the Jamaah had for Ahl'ul bayt (as).


The development of Shi'a Islam


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"So when did Shi'ism evolve as a political party?
"Actually, neither the Shi'ah historians nor the Shi'ah clergymen have a consensus on the evolution of Shi'ism".



Now if the Shi'a emerged as a purely political party, why is it Rasulullah (s) said that Ali and his Shi'a will attain Paradise (see Reply 6)?

The author cites the leading Nasibi Ehsan Ellahi for his references. Let us analyse these 'alleged' inconsistencies:


First alleged contradiction


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
In his Firaq al-Shi'ah (The Shi'ah Groups), Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti, one of the foremost known Shi'i historians, believes that Shi'ism did not start until the demise of the Holy Rasul, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam:

"The Messenger [sawa] died in the month of Rabi' al-Awwal, in the year 10 of Hijra at age 63 and the duration of his prophethood was for 23 years, and his mother is Aaminah bint Wahab bin Abdi Manaaf bin Zuhra bin Kilaab bin Murra bin Ka'b bin Lu'ay bin Ghaalib. (At his death) The Ummah was divided into three groups. One group was called the Shi'ites, who were the Shi'ites of Ali bin Abi Taleb [as] and from them all Shi'i sects broke away. Another (group) claimed the right of succession, i.e., al-Ansaar, who called for the inauguration of Sa'd bin Ubadah al-Khazraji. A (Third) group tilted toward giving the Bay'ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahaafah, with an excuse that the Messenger [sawa] did not name a particular successor rather left it for the Ummah to chose whom it wills...." [Firaq ash-Shi'ah: pp. 23-24]



So al-Nubakhti is stating:

Shia'ism was formed upon the death of Rasulullah (s)
Shi'as were those individuals who attached themselves to Hadhrath 'Ali (as)

Remember Rasulullah (s) had already said that 'Ali and his Shi'a would attain Paradise. Clearly during the life of Rasulullah (s) there was no reason for a separate group to call itself the Shi'a of 'Ali. The Shi'as were those who right from the beginning viewed Imam Ali (as) the rightful successor of Rasulullah (s) and attached themselves to him. Hence that group that deemed Imam Ali (as) to be rightful successor of Rasulullah (s) and affiliated themselves with his cause were indeed his supporters - his Shi'a.


Second alleged contradiction


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Muhammad Hussain al-Muzaffari believes it was started by the Holy Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) himself, he thus wrote in his Tareekh al-Shi'ah (History of the Shi'ah):"The call for Shi'asm started with the day when Grand Savior Muhammad [sawa] shouted the word La Ilaha illallah in Makka's sections and mountains....and hence, the call to become a Shi'ite for Abu al-Hasan [as] (Ali) by the Prophet [sawa] went side by side with the call for the two testimonies" [Tareekh ash-Shi'ah, pp. 8-9, printed in Qum, Iran.]


so al-Muzzafari is stating:

The 'call' for Shi'aism started at the beginning of the Prophetic mission.

The 'call' for Shi'aism did indeed begin here. The writer is stating that the root of Shi'a aqeedah, namely that Ali ibne abi Talib (as) is the wasi and khalifa of Rasulullah (s) began right at the beginning of the Prophetic Mission.

The first command ordering the Messenger (s) to first proclaim Islam was to his close relatives:

"And warn your tribe of near kindred..." (The Qur'an 26: 214)

In accordance with the verse Rasulullah (s) summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:


"Banu Abd-al Muttalib, I don't know of any young man among the Arabs who has brought for his people something better than what I have. I bring the best of this world and the world after, since God has commanded me to summon you. Which of you will aid me in this matter, so that he will be my brother, my Wasi (guardian, caretaker) and successor (Khalifa) among you?" They all held back, and although I was the youngest and the most bleary eyed, pot bellied and spindly legged of them I said "I will be your helper Oh Prophet of God". The Holy Prophet then put his hand on the back of my neck and said "This is my brother, caretaker and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him".

This occasion is called the event of Dawath zula-e-shira and countless Sunni scholars have narrated it, in a similar way.

Tarikh, by al Tabari, Vol 2 p 217 and in the English translation by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91

Tafsir, by al Tabari, Vol 19, p 121

Tarikh, by Ibn Athir, Vol 2 p 62

Musnad, bu Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159

Kifayat al Talib, by al Ganji p 89

Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18

Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn Abi'l Hadid Muttazali, Vol 3 p 255

Sharh al Shifa, by al Khifaji, Vol 3 p 37

Tarikh, by Abul Fida, Vol 1 p 116

Tarikh, by Ibn Asakir, Vol 1 p 85

Durre Manthur, by Jalaladdin Suyuti, Vol 5 p 97

Jamial Jawami, by Suyuti, Vol 7 p 392

Tafsir, by Al Khazzin Alauddin Baghdadi, p 390

Tafsir al Khazin, by Alauddin al-Shafii, Vol 3 p 371

Shawahid al Tanzil, by al Hasakani, Vol p 371

Kanz al Ummal, bu al Muttaqi al hindi Vol 15, p 15

al Sirah al Halabiya, Vol 1 p 311

Dalail al Nabawiyyah, by al Baiyhaqi, Vol 1, p 428

al Mukhtasar, by al Fida, Vol 1 p 116

Life of Muhummud, by Husnain Haykal, p 104 (1st Arabic edition, mysteriously deleted in the second edition!)

Tadhib al Athar, Vol 4 p 62

Muhummud from the earliest sources, by Marin Lings, p 51



It was right at the beginning of his mission that Hadhrath Muhammad (sa) set out three guiding principles, that al-Muzzafari had correctly described as "the call for Shi'asm" namely that:


There is only one God

Hadhrath Muhammad (s) is God's Messenger

Ali is the brother, wasi and khalifa of Rasulullah (s)


In other words Shi'aism existed in all but name. The seed of Shi'a aqeedah was 'planted' at the Dawat as is stated by al-Muzzafari and blossomed as a clear group with the name Shi'a after the death of Rasulullah (s) as commented on by al-Nubakhti.

So (1) and (2) rather than contradict, in fact compliment one another.


Third alleged contradiction


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Abu Ishaq Ibn al-Nadim, a famous Shi'i writer, did not agree to neither of the above theories and wrote in his al-Fihrist that Shi'ism started at the Battle of Jamel"


Now these are the comments of Ehsan Ellahi NOT al-Nadim. Did he state he DID not agree with the above named scholars? He continues:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"thus explained: "When Talha and Az-Zubair disagreed with Ali and accepted noless than the revenge for the blood of Othman, and Ali mobilized his forces to fight them, those who followed him were then given the title, Shi'ites." [al-Fihrist, Ibn al-Nadim: p.249, from Ash-Shi'ati wat-Tashayyu' by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.25


Nadim is stating:

� Those that sided with Ali (as) at Jamal were called Shi'a

Since Elahi is deceased could the scholar who copied this unashamedly show us the words where the author states that this was the FIRST time that the words Shi'a was used? Nadim is stating that during the period leading up to the Battle of Jamal, the word Shi'a of 'Ali became absolutely prevalent, not according to divine sanction but according to the opinions of the people. Hence this was based on political affiliation, those that sided with Ali were his Shi'a - his political allies, it DOES NOT mean that Shi'as never existed before that! It was here that the title became absolutely clear cut, those individuals who fought with khalifa Ali (as) were called his Shi'a. How is this inconsistent with the previous narrations?


Fourth alleged contradiction


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
Another Shi'i Alim, Kamil Mustafa al-Shaybi, wrote in his book:

"The independence of the term indicating Shi'ism came about only after the murder of al-Husain [bin Ali bin Abu T�leb] whereby Shi'ism became an independent entity with a distinctive identity" [The Link Between Sufism & Shi'asm, p.23]



Again this is where the term was a clear religious dimension for those who had an unremitting adherence to the Ahl'ul bayt (as). He is referring to the correct usage of Shi'a. During the khilafath of 'Ali (as) there existed individuals who sided with Hadhrath 'Ali (as) but they deemed him the 'political' head of State, rather than the 'religious and political' head of State. They did NOT view him as their Imam in terms of religious adherence. Despite this they were counted as Shi'a BECAUSE they fought alongside Hadhrath 'Ali (as) in Sifeen. The clear proof of this comes from the example of the Khawaarij, were initially the Shi'a of 'Ali in the sense that they fought under his helm, but then they rebelled against him. The true Shi'a, separate from those that simply deemed the Imams as Political Heads of State, were those who had an unfolding adherence to the Imams and deemed them as religious guides. The clearest existence of this group of Shi'as existed with Imam Hussain (as), the Shi'a who laid their lives in the cause of their Imam. It did indeed become an independent identity, in that it did not recognize the Khalifas as the legitimate Heads of State, they deemed Imamate to be the exclusive right of the Imams from the Prophetic Household and attached themselves to the Imams. Hence Shi'as were now a clear independent group distinct from the followers of the khalifas.

Hence NONE of the references cited by Ellahi contradict one another, if anything they show, is the progression of the Shi'a School of thought.

The root of Shi'a thought began at start of the Prophetic Mission, when Rasulullah (s) declared 'Ali (as) to be his wasi and khalifa. Shi'as were those individuals who (following Rasulullah [s]'s death) attached themselves to Hadhrath 'Ali (as), deeming him to be the legitimate khalifa. Those that sided with Imam 'Ali (as) during the Battle of Jamal were likewise deemed to be his Shi'a. Following the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) the Shi'a (adherents of the Imams) were a clear distinct group easily identifiable from the majority.


Origins of the two sects


Now that we have clarified the matter on the origins of Shi'a thought, let us see where the Ahl'ul Sunnah pinpoint the original Shi'a to be.


What better interpretation can there be than Al Muhaddith Shah 'Abd al-'Aziz Dehlavi who in his book written against the Shi'a states:

"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri" (NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifeen). Tuhfa Ithna 'Ashariyyah, (Gift to the Twelvers) (Farsi edition p 18, publishers Sohail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan).

The Muhajireen and Ansar (Sahaba) were the Shi'a of Ali (as).


As we have already stated, he (the unnamed author) is indeed wrong when he suggests that these were two political groups - The Shi'a of Ali and the Shi'a of Mu'awiya and no religious element came into it. Well that political link was inexorably linked to GUIDANCE because one party considered Mu'awiya their leader and adhered to his teachings, the other part considered Ali (as) to be their Leader / Imam and took their teachings from him.


As Shah Abdul Aziz states the true Shi'a were those who:



Regarded Imam Ali (as) as the Rightful Khalifa

They stayed close to him, following everything that he said

They fought his enemies



Alhamdolillah, the same virtues are inherent in today's Shi'a. We have always remained loyal to Imam Ali (as), following his teachings and opposing his enemies. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the extravagant claim that the Ahl'ul Sunnah follow the Ahl'ul bayt (as). Had this indeed been the case then could they explain how it is that rather than oppose his Ali (as)'s opponents, they have taken his enemies close to their hearts, praising and declaring their affiliation with Nasibis like Marwan & Mu'awiya? Is this not a clear contradiction? On the one hand they allege they are following Ahl'ul bayt (as) and yet they still love their enemies who fought and cursed them.

These principles (adherence to the Imam) were clearly demonstrated by the Shi'as of Imam Hussain (as) as vouched for by his killers:


Following the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) Ibn Ziyad said as follows:

"Praise be to God, who revealed the truth and the followers of truth. He has given victory to the Commander of the Faithful Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, and his party. He has killed the liar who is the son of a liar, al Husayn bin Ali and his Shiah". [Taken from The History of al-Tabari, English translation by I.K.A. Howard, Volume 19 page 167].


Again in the Court of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad proudly declared this to Yazid:


"O Commander of the Faithful I bring good news of God's victory and support. Al Husayn bin Ali came against us with 18 men of his House and 60 of his Shiah" [Taken from The History of al-Tabari, English translation by I.K.A. Howard, Volume 19 page 169].


Now, can the author explain to us, were the Shi'a of Imam Husain (as) who fought and were martyred with him a religious or political group?

Now what one should ask is where were the "Ahl'ul Sunnah at the time?" According to Shah Abdul Aziz:


"It should be known that the first Shias (who are the Sunnis and the Tafdiliyyah) in old days were known as Shias. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah did not like this name for themselves and so they took the name of Ahlu's-Sunnah wa l Jamaah. " [Shah 'Abdul 'l-'Aziz Dehlawi, Tuhfah Ithna Ashari] Nawalkishor Press, Lucknow, n.d; pp. 4, 11, 59]"


Now the absurdity of this argument has even been recognized by the Sunni scholar, Ubaydullah Amritsari, who after quoting the above claim in his book Arjahu 'l Matalib, says:


"To say that Sunnis in the beginning were known as Shias is merely a Chapter for which no proof can be found. Had the Sunnis been called Shi'a, then at least some of the Sunni elders should have been known by this name before the advent of the Zaydiyyah (in 120 A.H.) Moreover, had the Sunnis been known by this name, the Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah would never have tolerated this name for themselves (because of the enmity) and would have selected some other name for themselves." 'Ubaydullah Amritsari, Arjahu 'l-matalib, 2nd ed. Lahore, p. 608 (which is wrongly written as 164.)


Whilst according to Dehlavi this second group named itself Ahl'ul Sunnah at about 150 AH (following Zaid bin Ali (as)'s martyrdom) it is interesting that their ideology existed long before that. What ideology was that? Well let us see the comments of Mulla 'Ali Qari:


"The belief in the eyes of Ahl'ul Sunnah and Muttazalis is that the duty to appoint an Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public. In accordance with this belief, there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented" [Sharra Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhalla].


The foundation stone of Sunni aqeedah is set out here. The Imam is appointed by the public, individual character is of no relevance. Once ijma takes place, the khalifa is the legitimate Head of State. Once the people give bayya to the khalifa, ijma is obtained hence the 'Jamaah'. So when did we have the first declaration of this Jamaah? This concept developed from the Shi'a of Mu'awiya as is proven from your own esteemed Ulema:


al-Tabari recorded that:

"Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Mu'awiya transferred them in his days on the "year of the union (al-Jama'ah)". When the people of Iraq agreed [to recognize] Muawiyah [as caliph] after Ali, Muawiyah took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the cause of Ali, and to settle in their homes those people of Syria and al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it was they who were called the "transfers" in the garrison towns"

[The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the union as follows: ] Aam al-Jama'ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105) [ History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97]


Jalaluddin al-Suyuti mentions this very fact, with the utmost clarity in his work, History of the Caliphs (Tarikh ul Khulafa) with the following words:


al-Dhahabi says that Ka'ab died before Muawiyah was made caliph, and that Ka'ab was right in what he said, for Mu'awiyah continued for twenty years, and none of the princess of the earth contended with him, unlike others who came after him, for they had opponents and portions of their dominions passed out of their sway. Muawiyah went forth against Ali as has preceded, and assumed the title of Caliph. Then he marched against al-Hasan, who abdicated in his favor. He therefore became firmly established in his Caliphate from Rabi'iul Akhir or Jumadal Awwal 41 AH. The year was therefore called the Year of the Union (al-Jama'ah), on account of the gathering of the people under one Caliph. During this year Muawiyah appointed Marwan Ibn al-Hakam over Medina. [History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English version, p204 (Chapter of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan)]


This is the Jamaah that the Ahlul Bait homepage proudly claims to be a part of. The Jamaah that embraced Mu'awiya and every khalifa after him, whatever his character. The Jamaah developed into the religion perpetuated by the State - the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. This same Jamaah also gave bayya to Yazid, recognising him as the Ul il Umr Head of State. In the eyes of the Jamaah he WAS the legitimate Khalifa, hence it was NOT permissible to oppose him.

Indeed the clearest endorsement of this aqeedah came following the martyrdom if Imam Hussain (as). People in Madina rebelled against Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan urged a tough line against them:


"...fight them and ask for God's help against them. Indeed God will be your helper for they have opposed the Imam and left the unity of the community (jamaah)". [Taken from The History of al-Tabari, English translation by I.K.A. Howard, Volume 19 page 207].


So, by opposing the Imam Yazid, the people had left the Jamaah, the very Jamaah that the Ahlul bait Website proclaims to adhere to, a Jamaah that endorsed the khilafath of Yazid and stuck by him throughout his atrocities.

The most explicit endorsement of this aqeedah came from the mouth of Abdullah ibne Umar following the mass slaughter of the Sahaba who opposed Yazid and the mass rape of their women during the event of Harra:


Narrated Nafi':
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me." [Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227]


So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar the bayya of Yazid that Imam Hussain (as) opposed was "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle" i.e. Completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement.

So, Yazid was the khalifa of the Jamaah (that this writer claims he is a part of) and no matter how much the proponents of this Site seek to distance themselves from Yazid, Abdullah ibne Umar deemed his station as Imam to be in accordance with conditions of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s).


It is hence of little surprise that we read this proud admission by Maulana Akhund Dharweeza in Sharra Qaseeda Amali page 116:

"Curses can only be sent on Kaafirs and Yazeed was NOT a kaafir but was a Sunni Muslim".


Alhamdolillah the Shi'a are happy keeping away from a Jamaah preferring to be declared 'rafidis' (dissenters') than the followers of a Jamaah that endorses Yazid's khilafath as valid and deems him as a Sunni Muslim. The Shi'a always remained aloof from these tyrannical rulers. Those that remained with Hadhrath Ali (as) and his descendants seeking guidance in the deen from them continued to declare themselves as the Shi'a of the Ahl'ul bayt (as).

From the time of Mu'awiya's reign the two ideologies ran hand in hand, the State Religion (Sunni Islam) and the Religion of Ahl'ul bayt (as) - Shi'a Islam. It is clear that the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jammah was and shall remain the religion perpetuated by the State, whilst the Shi'a of 'Ali have and shall always remain those described by the Sunni Ibn Manzur, as "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny" (Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189)


The religion of the state versus the religion of 'Ali


Two clear belief systems ran parallel with one another, both claimed to adhere to the true teaching of Islam. One belief system was that propagated by the State. In this regard we have the words of Mu'awiya the fist Ummayad Khalifa. Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allmallakbul bil Mueen ibn Muhammad Sindhi (d. 1161 Hijri) in his Dhirasathul Labeeb page 97 states that:


"Mu'awiya had a forceful order that no one should approach him adhering to the madhab (religion) of 'Ali".


Had the words madhab of Rafidi been used here then there is no doubt that our opponents would have picked up on the fact that the rafidda did not adhere to mainstream Islam. In this reference Mu'awiya is stating his abhorrence to the madhab of 'Ali. If Mu'awiya's madhab was the same, why would he say such a thing? Clearly, he was opposed to the religion of 'Ali and the religion of 'Ali was undoubtedly the religion if Rasulullah (s) - pure unadulterated Islam. Mu'awiya's comments are clear proof that his beliefs, propagated by him at the helm of the State, were not the same as the religion of Imam 'Ali (as).

The clearest proof comes from the classical work of the renowned Hanafi Naqshbandi Scholars, Abdul Rahman Jami (ra):


"One day Hujjaj bin Yusuf said to his followers 'Bring me a follower of 'Ali so that I can attain closeness to Allah (swt). His guards replied "At the moment the only person that we know of is Kumber, and they brought him before Hujjaj. Hujjaj asked him, "Are you that Kumber?", to which he replied "Yes". Hujjaj then asked him "Are you a Servant of 'Ali?" He replied "I am a Slave of Allah (swt) and 'Ali is My Master". Hujjaj then said "Disassociate yourself from his religion", to which Kumber replied "Can you show me a religion better than his?". Hujjaj then said, "I'll kill you". Kumber said "You can kill me today or tomorrow, my Master 'Ali had foretold that I would be murdered by a brutal man". Hujjaj signalled to his executioner, who then killed Kumber". [Shawahid un Nubuwwa, by Abdul Rahman Jami page 285 (Urdu translation by Bashir. H. Nazim), publishers Maktaba Nabawiyya, Gunjbaksh Road, Lahore].


This PROVES that the religion of the State was not the same as the religion of Ali (as). Hujjaj was the Governor of the Eastern Province and was ordering Kumber to leave the 'religion' of 'Ali. Nasibis and Khwarijees may be proud by theses references but alhamdolillah the Shi'a have, despite centuries of persecution and false propaganda, maintained their affiliation with the Imams from the Ahl'ul bayt clinging to the "two weighty things" - seeking solace in the guarantee of the Holy Prophet (s):


"Recognition of the family of Muhammad is freedom from the Fire. Love of the family of Muhammad is crossing over the Sirat. Friendship for the family of Muhammad is safety from the fire" (Ash-Shifa, page 142 by Qadi Iyad, (d.544 Hijri) English translation by Aisha Bewley, Madinah Press 1991; Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, section 65, p370)


Abdullah ibn Saba


The author then goes to enormous lengths to cite lengthy traditions in which Shi'a scholars have referred to Abdullah ibn Saba and his extreme views. The simple question is, what do any of these references have to do with Shi'a Islam? Can the author cite any traditions that the Shi'a have taken from him? Abdullah ibn Saba did NOT tell us to follow the Ahl'ul bayt (as) Rasulullah (s) did. Rasulullah (s) guaranteed that the followers of Ahl'ul bayt would NEVER go astray. As long as the Shi'a attached themselves to Ahl'ul bayt they would never fall in to error. Hence the presence of Ibn Saba has no bearing on Shi'aism. Alhamdolilliah we can trace all of our teaching back to the Imams.


the Ithna Ashari Imams


Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"Who are the 12 Sayyid Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah that Rawafid Shi'ah claim to follow?
Abul-Hasan Ali bin Abi Taleb al-Murtada
Abu Muhammad al-Hassan bin Ali Az-Zaki
Abu Abdallah al-Hussain bin Ali Sayyid al-Shuhada
Abu Muhammad Ali bin al-Hussain Zainul-'Abideen
Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir
Abu Abdallah Ja'far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq
Abu Ibrahim Musa bin Ja'far al-Kazim
Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Musa al-Rida
Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali al-Jawaad
Abul-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi
Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Ali al-Askari
Abul-Qasim Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Mahdi"

Not only do we the "Rawafid" claim to follow them, we practically do. The onus is in the author to prove the contrary. We can prove from our books of aqaid, hadith, tafsir, that all of out aqeedah is based upon the sayings of our Aima that go back to Rasulullah (s). Hence we would ask him to demonstrate what they have taken from the Imams. How many hadith from the Imams are there in the Saha Sittah? Which of their tafsir's is based upon the commentaries of their Imams? Which aspects of their fiqh can be traced back to the saying of the Imams of Ahl'ul bayt (as)?

To suggest that the Imams were wal Jamaah" (read chapter 7 for the emergence of the Jamaah) is extremely flawed logic. Proof of this fallacy comes from the words found on the Home page of the Ahlul-Bait Homepage from where this article came. This is what it proclaims:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:
"It is to be made well-known that the Ahlul-Bayt Imams never promoted anything that would cause separation from the main body of the Ummah of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam. Thus Shi'ism was neither condoned nor propagated by these blessed A'immah (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala".


Yet again this site is re-iterating what we have proven througho

786---5-12-14

Habib wrote:

AthnaAshri wrote:
786---5-12-14
Please find the truth with references below:

The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121

I thank you AthnaAshri for taking the time to respond to my question. However, I must say I still find no truth in any statement made thus far. The Statement which you've attributed to Ibn Manzur is actually not his, rather he quoted al-Azhari. This is just to clear up Ibn Manzur.

I would say the term "Shi'a" initially did not exceed the "Political affiliation". Hence, we find in history books like al-Tabari's and others a reference to "Shi'te of Muawiyah" (ra) and "Shi'ite of Ali" (ra). It was not until later down the road when a cult was formed and developed over a century or two that the term became exclusive for this cult.

Furthermore, the term "Shi'a" refers to all the factions emerged thereafter from the orginal sect formed by the Jew Abdullah bin Saba'. Todate, the term refers to the Zaidis, Ismaelis, Nusairis (Alawis) and Ithna-Ashari (Ja'faris). Each and everyone of these sects claim to be the "True Shi'ites". In fact, historically, there were some 70+ sects of Shi'ism, all claiming love for the "Progeny" and "Ahlul-Bayt". Therefore, restricting the term on the "Ithna-Ashari" (Ja'fary) is certainly incorrect.

Abdullah bin Saba

Identifying the usual suspects

Ansar.org states:
However, the people who rebelled against �Uthman are of two kinds:a. The followers of Abdullah bin Saba�a the Jew. Ibn Saba�a tried to misguide Muslims. He travelled to Hijaz, Basrah, Kufah, until he was expelled from Al-Sham. Then he got into Egypt. He lived there and established the doctrine of Raja�ah. He claimed that the successor to the Prophet peace be upon him was �Ali. Lots of people in Egypt were misguided because of him. Then Ibn Saba�a sent his missionaries to different parts of the Islamic world. He also wrote secret letters to some people to collaborate on killing �Uthman, and they are the second kind.


This is the favorite bogey man figure for the Ahl�ul Sunnah. In a murder case, the testimony of the affected is very important, �Uthman himself claimed in Al Tabaqat Al Kubra that he was murdered by Momineen, and Nayla, the wife of �Uthman told us who these Momineen are, and she stated these Momineen were from Madina, including Ansar, Muhajireen, Talha and Zubayr. Moreover, the testimony of neighbors and others is crucial in a murder case. In �Uthman�s murder case, people had testified that Amr bin Aas, Ayesha, Talha, Zubayr and people from both Muhajreen and Ansar murdered him. Neither Uthman nor Naila blamed Ibn Saba for inciting hatred that led to his overthrow. Their testimonies seem to be mysteriously devoid of Ibn Saba. Such a lack of witness testimony is comprehensive proof that this is a lie that Ibn Saba has been produced as a means of diverting attention away from the true killers of �Uthman.


Analyzing the isnad concerning the Ibn Saba report


Whilst Nasibi have sought to blame Ibn Saba and his followers for his murder, to date no research has proved the identity of Ibn Saba. If the Nasibi will point out the existence of the name of Ibn Saba from Sunni / Shi�a sources, the onus is on Abu Sulaiman to produce a full authentic chain setting out that Ibn Saba existed and his activities against �Uthman that led to his killing. Worthy of note is that Abu Sulaiman simply makes a comment without even citing a reference, why? Simple for he knows that the moment he mentions the Ibn Saba of Sunni texts who led the rebellion against �Uthman then the chain of narrators will be proven as fraudulent or non-existent.

We challenge Nasibi Abu Sulaiman to verify his claim. Show us with a complete isnad from the texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah the evil machinations of Ibn Saba who in his own words:



Traveled to Hijaz, Basrah, Kufah, until he was expelled from Al-Sham.

Arrived in Egypt preaching the doctrine of Raja�ah.

Claimed that the successor to the Prophet peace be upon him was �Ali. Lots of people in Egypt were misguided because of him.

Sent his missionaries to different parts of the Islamic world. He also wrote secret letters to some people to collaborate on killing �Uthman, and they are the second kind.


The fact is the sole individual that quotes the role of Ibn Saba against �Uthman in the manner that Abu Sulaiman had cited is Tabari. Nasibi such as Ibn Kathir of course grasped on to this and quoted these same references blindly. Unfortunately for Abu Sulaiman the basis of this argument falls apart when we examine the chain of narrators that Tabari had used. Let us delve into the report:

�It was was transmitted to me in writing by al-Sari-Shuhayb-Sayf-Atiyah-Yazid al-Faqasi: Abdallah b. Saba, was a Jew from San�a, and his mother was a black woman. He converted to Islam in the time of �Uthman, then roamed about the lands of the Muslims attempting to lead them into error. He began in the Hijaz and then [worked] successively in Basrah, Kufah, and Syria. He was unable to work his will upon a single one of the Syrians; they drove him out and he came to Egypt. He settled among the Egyptians, saying to them among other things, �How strange it is that some people claim that Jesus will return [to the earth], while denying that Muhammad will return, Now Almighty God has said, �He who has ordained the Qur�an for thee shall surely restore thee to a place of return�. Now Muhammad is more worthy than Jesus to return�

This gained the approval [of his listeners] and so he fabricated for them [the notion of] the Return [raj�ah] and they discussed it amongst themselves. Later on (Ibn Saba) said to them, Verily there have been a thousand Prophets (nabi); every Prophet has an executor (wasi) and ��Ali was the executor of Muhammad�. He continued, �Muhammad is the seal of prophets and �Ali is the seal of executors�. Then after that he said, �Who commits a greater wrong than a man who has not carried out the testament of the Messenger of God, who has attacked the executor of the Messenger of God, and who has usurped power over the Community?� Then he told them �Verily �Uthman has taken it without right, while this one [that is ��Ali] is the executor of the Messenger of God. Therefore champion this cause and set it going. Begin by censuring your governors. Proclaiming publicly the commanding of good and the forbidding of evil and you will win over the people. Summon them to this cause.

Then he dispersed his agents and wrote to those whom he had corrupted in the garrison towns. They returned his correspondence and secretly preached their notions [to others].
Taken from History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 page 145-147

The first name in this chain of narrators is al Sari. At some points Tabari refers to him as Sari at others he cites him as Sari bin Yahbee. Dhahabi in Meezan al Itidal Volume 2 pages 117-118 (Egypt edition) states:

�He has been mentioned as Sari, some have cited him as Sari bin Yahbee. He was born 57 years before Tabari, no one other than him was known by the name Sari�.

Imam of Ahl�ul Sunnah, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states Ihsan al Meezan makes no reference on the authority of Sari. In his other work Tadheeb al Itidal Volume 3 page 459 whilst discussing narrators that Tabari used, he states:

�Sari bin Ismail Hamdani was a resident of Ibn Aam, Ibn Jareer and others narrated hadith from him�there are some that deem Sari to be a liar and did not narrate traditions from him, Umar bin �Ali stated �I had never heard Abdul Rahman cite anything on the authority of Sari bin Ismail. Saleh bin Ahmad bin Hanbal cites on the authority of his father that his [Sari�s] testimony is unreliable. Ibn Moeen, Ibn Hatim, Jauzjani, Abu Daud, Nasai, Ibn Adi and Ibn Hajjan stated that Sari was unreliable, Ibn Jareer took narrations from him�.
Tafseel Tadheeb al Itidal Volume 3 pages 459-460

Another individual whom Tabari narrated this tradition from is Sayf bin Umar. Dhahabi citing the comments of Allamah Jarrah states:

�Abu Daud stated that his narrations bear no vale, Ibn Habban had declared him to be a Zindeeq (transgressor), Ibn Adi states his normal hadith were false�
Meezan al Itidal Volume 2 pages 205-206, printed in Egypt


An appeal to logic


Rather than jump onto the Shi�a attacking band wagon we would urge the Ahl�ul Sunnah to use some logic. If Ibn Saba was indeed that powerful, why didn�t �Uthman curb his power? Why didn�t �Uthman try to get Ibn Saba arrested? The texts of Ahl�ul Sunnah are clear that In Saba misled Abu Dharr who became his advocate. �Uthman took a very tough line against Abu Dharr, by sending him into exile, where he died - so why not apprehend the ringleader and banish him in a similar fashion? Does it make sense that �Uthman had allowed Ibn Saba to roam freely through the Islamic State where he took the opportunity to cook up dissension against the Khalifa. One should not forget that Ibn Saba�s presence was under �Uthman�s Nasibi cousin Mu�awiya. Is it believable that the nefarious activities were happening under the nose of Mu�awiya and he was just allowing it to continue? If Mu�awiya had the determination to arrest and deport Abu Dharr, why did he leave Ibn Saba alone? The fact is the activities concerning whipping up opposition to �Uthman, was the same as that committed by the Sahaba. �Uthman was not killed by Ibn-Saba, nor did he hatch any conspiracies. Try and deny it they might, but the fact is the Sahaba killed �Uthman with the lead perpetrators being none other than Ayesha, Talha, Zubayr and Amr bin Aas. We had cited early that Uthman�s wife have eyewitness testimony where she had implicated the Sahaba of Madina in raising the calls to kill Uthman. If Ibn Saba and his supporters were the murders of �Uthman, then how is it that Nayla fails to mention his name in the events that led to the death of her husband? To suggest that the Sabaites (early Shi�a) were involved in this act is nothing but lies spread by the followers of Mu�awiya. These three key characters, who were involved in the murder of �Uthman are not �family of Ibn Saba�, rather they are the relatives of Abu Bakr, Ayesha being his daughter, and the other two being his sons-in-law and Alhamdolillah none of them were Shi�as. Despite their actions these same individuals proceeded to incite dissension and go to war against Imam �Ali (as) demanding vengeance for blood that had themselves shed!

What sort of justice is Abu Sulaiman portraying? A legal system that allows the actual killers to go free preferring to place the problems at the door of a fictitious bogey man? To suggest a lone Jew was able to mislead the people including the prominent Sahaba Abu Dharr to such an extent that they were hypnotized into believing his cause and were able to create a revolution so powerful that no one could stop not even the Islamic army is ridiculous. Was Ibn Saba a super power that was able to single handedly defy a Khalifa - who had the victories of Iran and Iraq to his belt, so much so that Ibn Saba could mount opposition and have �Uthman killed in broad daylight with no one saying a word against him? It is the duty of any Government to maintain a strict vigil on all / any deviant elements in society, but �Uthman did not perform this duty, he simply allowed Ibn Saba, the Jew, to run havoc in his reign. What happened to Ibn-Saba for the murder of �Uthman? Was he swallowed by earth or he did he ascend in to the clouds? He did not get killed in either Jamal war or Siffeen war. Even during the reign of Mu�awiya, he wasn�t killed. Ibn-Saba is a fictional character, which was cooked up to hide the real culprits of �Uthman�s murder. It is a tactical ploy to hide the fact that the true killers of Uthman were the Sahaba.


The Sahaba wrote to people inciting them to rise up against �Uthman


On Ibn Saba�s activities, Abu Sulaiman claims that:

Ansar.org states:
He also wrote secret letters to some people to collaborate on killing �Uthman, and they are the second kind.


The fact is the Sahaba had written letters inciting uprising against �Uthman. We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa, page 64, that when Talha and Ayesha reached Basra, a man approached Talha and said:

�O Talha, Do you recognize this letter?� Talha answered, �Yes� to which the man said� �Don�t you feel ashamed that only a few days earlier, you wrote letters to us inciting us to kill �Uthman and now you ask to revenge his blood?�

Baladhuri in Ansab al Ashraf Volume 2 pages 229-230 similarly records that upon his arrival in Basra demanding vengeance for �Uthman, Abdullah bin Hakim al Tamimi produced by Talha inciting opposition to �Uthman that Talha acknowledged that he had written.

In Iqd al Farid, Page 218, Volume 6, it is written that Marwan told Ayesha that ��Uthman was killed on account of your letters

Talha and Ayesha were not the only individuals to write letters, rather the Sahaba living in Madina had become disillusioned with Uthman and encouraged those Sahaba in other provinces to come to Madina and oppose Uthman. As proof we present al Tabari, English version, v15, p184 who narrates on the authority of Ibn Ishaq:

�When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad's religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad's religion." Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman)�.

So Companions wrote the letters and the murder was committed by companions. If followers of Mu�awiya claim that fake letters were sent, then why did the Sahaba not distance themselves from their contents? Why did they not set the record straight and deny their authorship? Does their silence clearly not prove their acceptance of the claim that had been put to them?


Suspect two � the Egyptians


A revolution of this scale requires planning strategy and widespread support. Are we really going to believe a band of rebels were able to organize themselves in such a way as to mount armed opposition to the Khalifa by entering Madina and taking control of the city under the noses of the Banu Ummayya leadership and all the Sahaba who as Abu Sulaiman would like us to believe were standing beside �Uthman supporting him? So much strength / opposition by a rabble of misfits? No revolution to overthrow a leader is based on the activities of a handful of individuals in a region it requires grass root support at all levels. A movement to topple any leader of a State requires:

1. Widespread support
2. The support of the local population
3. Support of influential figures to give the movement some credibility

This movement could never have been achieved without the support of prominent Sahaba whose voices carried influence and would never have been achieved without the tacit support of the Sahaba living in Madina. Rebellions of this scale can only be achieved when support exists in the city where a leader resides. This is common sense. An individual living in Beirut may be opposed to King Fahad in Madina. Mass opposition and overthrow can only be achieved if these same individuals can convince those living in Riyadh to join them in the struggle. Similarly whilst we have no doubt that the aggrieved Egyptians rebelled against �Uthman, you can NOT eliminate the fact that amongst this group were the sons of the Sahaba and Sahaba who were giving their tactical support to the movement.


The Sahaba and their children colluded with the Egyptians to kill �Uthman


We read in Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 385, Dhikr Fadail �Uthman:

�When the Egyptian forces landed at �Ghafa� and began to talk ill of �Uthman �Uthman, �Uthman got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, �O Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.

We read in al Bidayah Volume 7 page 170 Chapter Dhik Qathal �Uthman:

In Egypt, a group was formed by the children of the Sahaba that would to incite people to rise up against �Uthman. Their leader was Muhammad bin-Abu Bakr, son of Abu Bakr the Khalifa, Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa was the second in command, he was the cousin of Mu�awiya.


A Sahaba that pledged allegiance under the tree of Ridhwan commanded the Egyptian rebels


�Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman-bin-Adlees was present at the time of �Hudabia� peace treaty, and he was also present at the �allegiance under the tree�, �Allegiance of Rizwan�, and he was the commander of the group that came from Egypt and surrounded the house of �Uthman and killed him�.

This comment has been taken from the following four books of Ahl�ul Sunnah:

1. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203 Dhikr Abdul Rahman Ibn Adlees
2. Asadul Ghaybah Volume 3 page 444 Dhikr Ibn Adlees
3. Al Isaba fi Marifathul Sahaba Volume 2 page 403
4. Muruj al Dhahab Volume 2 page 352 Dhikr �Uthman

We learn in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 179 Dhikr Maqathil �Uthman:

�After killing �Uthman his murderers tried to remove his head and �Uthman�s daughter and two wives began to scream and shout and beat their faces. Abdul Rahman Ibn Adlees said �leave �Uthman in this state and they left him.


Mu�awiya�s cousin Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa played a lead role alongside the Egyptians in killing �Uthman


We read in al Istiab Volume page 322 Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa:

�The lead figure in inciting people against �Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, �Uthman raised him for many years after his father had died. When people began to oppose �Uthman, Muhammad incited the Egyptians, and this worsened the situation�.

We read in Asadul Ghaybah Volume 5 page 87 and Al Isaba fi Marifathul Sahaba Chapter �Dhikr Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa�:

�The individual that was most responsible for inciting people against �Uthman was Muhammad bin Abi Hudhifa, he was the son of Mu�awiya�s maternal uncle�.


Talha advised the Egyptians during the siege of �Uthman�s palace


Whilst the Egyptians had surrounded �Uthman�s home, the presence of prominent Sahaba on the ground is what gave their opposition momentum. Talha was present outside �Uthman�s residence during the siege.

Qays bin Abi Hadhim al Baj�ali narrates that a man had visited Talha during the siege and requested that he intervene to prevent the death of �Uthman. Talha replied �No by Allah, not until the Banu Ummayya surrender the right on their own accord�.
Tareekh Damishq, by Ibn Asakr, Chapter ��Uthman� page 407

Not only was Talha present at the time of the siege he was co-operating with one of the leaders of the Egyptian rebels Ibn Udays.

Tabari narrates from Abdullah bin Ayyash:

�I entered �Uthman�s presence and talked with him for an hour. He said, Come Ibn Ayyah, and he took me by the hand and had me listen to what the people at his door were saying. We heard some say, �What are you waiting for� while others were saying �Wait perhaps he will repent�. While the two of us were standing there, Talha bin Ubaydullah passed by; he stopped and said �Where is Ibn Udays?� He was told, �He is over there�. Ibn Udays came over to (Talha) and whispered something to him, then he went back to his comrades, �Do not let anyone go in to see this man or leave his house�.

�Uthman said to me, �These are Talha bin Ubaydullah�s orders�. He continued: �Oh God protect me from Talha b. Ubaydullah, for he has incited all these people against me�.
Taken from History of Tabari, English translation Volume 15 page 199

So this narration�s makes it absolutely clear that Talha was they key adviser to one of the Egyptian leaders � to the extent that they were heeding his advice on how to act. Interesting is also �Uthman�s admission that the presence of the people at �Uthman door was due to Talha�s incitement � he placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Talha. Whose opinion should we give greater credence to, Abu Sulaiman�s or that of the victim �Uthman?

Talha was the key figure guiding the Egyptians, he had ensured that all methods, no matter how extreme were used to pressure Uthman into abdicating his post, this included the action of cutting off water to Uthman. Naturally this fact is deeply embarrassing to �Abu Sulaiman who states confidently:

Ansar.org states:
�It is an obvious lie that Talha and Al-Zubair surrounded Uthman and prevented him from reaching to water. Where is the authentic attribution? And what reference did Al-Tijani rely on? I challenge him to bring to light one single authentic reference about that!�


The only thing that is �obvious� is the fact that Abu Sulaiman failed to do some homework before making such a claim! Had he done he would have steered away from such a challenge. For the purposes of his humiliation, allow us to present this fact from Tarikh al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15, pages 180-181

�Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: "I constantly saw Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman"

So �Abu Sulaiman in light of this reference could you answer these questions:



If Talha had nothing to do with this action, then why did Imam �Ali (as) approach Talha directly requesting that water be sent out to Uthman?

Could Imam �Ali (as) not have approached one of the Egyptians, if they were responsible?

If Talha had no association with this cruel act, then why was Imam �Ali (as) angry with him?

If Talha had no association with the rebels then how is it that water was allowed to reach Uthman AFTER Imam �Ali (as) remonstrated with Talha?

AthnaAshri wrote:786---5-12-14

Thank you very much for your time and sharing your knowledge. Please keep in mind that in order to optimize our discussion, I mostly copy and paste the answers from some websites or other published sources. As you know, we are not the first ones engaged in a such a discussion and most of the answers are out there. It's just a matter to read and understand them. May Allah (SWT) guide us to the RIGHT path! Aameen!

Actually, in order to optimize our discussion, we should refrain from copy & paste practice, and limit our discussion on certain and defined issues. I tolerated your initial lengthy post and planned to respond back to each point separately after we exhaust it in research. But to simply copy pages and pages of material and paste it, is in no way a fruitful method for a dialogue.

As you know, copy & paste takes seconds, and responding back may take hours. So I don't see it is fair game as is.

If you wish for me to continue on the same topic, then let's stay within the same point. Delete your post and concentrate on what's in hand. Once we are over, we move to the next, and so on & so forth.

Secondly, if we copied and pasted without having the references ready in hand, we'll be as Allah [swt] said in the Qur'an: Like an a/ss carrying scriptures. If I disputed your refrence, how can you defend your stand? I assure you that I will only quote references I have with me, and I, expect the same from you. (If the book you quote from is online in its entirety, by all means it is acceptable).

786---5-12-14

Habib wrote:

AthnaAshri wrote:786---5-12-14

Thank you very much for your time and sharing your knowledge. Please keep in mind that in order to optimize our discussion, I mostly copy and paste the answers from some websites or other published sources. As you know, we are not the first ones engaged in a such a discussion and most of the answers are out there. It's just a matter to read and understand them. May Allah (SWT) guide us to the RIGHT path! Aameen!

Actually, in order to optimize our discussion, we should refrain from copy & paste practice, and limit our discussion on certain and defined issues. I tolerated your initial lengthy post and planned to respond back to each point separately after we exhaust it in research. But to simply copy pages and pages of material and paste it, is in no way a fruitful method for a dialogue.

As you know, copy & paste takes seconds, and responding back may take hours. So I don't see it is fair game as is.

If you wish for me to continue on the same topic, then let's stay within the same point. Delete your post and concentrate on what's in hand. Once we are over, we move to the next, and so on & so forth.

Secondly, if we copied and pasted without having the references ready in hand, we'll be as Allah [swt] said in the Qur'an: Like an a/ss carrying scriptures. If I disputed your refrence, how can you defend your stand? I assure you that I will only quote references I have with me, and I, expect the same from you. (If the book you quote from is online in its entirety, by all means it is acceptable).

Dear Brother,
Be assured that this a/ss doesn't only carry scriptures but also reads and understand them.
You know a Shia is faced with all these false allegations and baseless blames right from his/her childhood. So before we even start reading books by Shia authors, we HAVE to read all books by the authors from Ahla-Sunnah and Wahabi cults. I don't know why we are the only ones who are questioned again and again and yet we do not have any problems with our fellow Muslims until and unless we are provoked.
But anyway, we have to put our hatred (specially the hatred towards the Members of Prophet's (PBUH) household {astaghfirullah}) aside and should try to research and listen to what Allah, His Prophet (PBUH) and members of our beloved Prophet's (PBUH) household have said about how to be a true Muslim. As you have correctly pointed out that there were many false narrations of ahadith from a lot of people so why not we only take the ahadith which are quoted from Ahl-e-Bayt (A.S.)?

The bottom line is, I can perfectly defend my stand if anybody tries to falsely dispute any of the quoted references. See, if your intentions are to know the right Shia Islam then you are welcome but if your intentions are only to add more fuel to the fire which has already gone out of control, then please stop and do something more useful. The way I see it, it is going to be an endless discussion with you like it has been in the past for many others. So I would just say "LAKUM DEENUKUM WA LIYA DEEN"

AthnaAshri wrote:786---5-12-14
Dear Brother,
Be assured that this a/ss doesn't only carry scriptures but also reads and understand them.

Well, it is surely a good news

But anyway, we have to put our hatred (specially the hatred towards the Members of Prophet's (PBUH) household {astaghfirullah}) aside

Why to hate them and make istighfar?!!! Isn't that weird? You should love them and respect them as AhluSunnah do. Love them and respect them in a fashion complying with the Shari'ah. Love them and respect them as human beings, not "gods" walking on earth.

As you have correctly pointed out that there were many false narrations of ahadith from a lot of people so why not we only take the ahadith which are quoted from Ahl-e-Bayt (A.S.)?

Who would reject an authentic Hadith reported by a member of Ahlul-Bayt, unless s/he is a fool straying away from the straight path?

The bottom line is, I can perfectly defend my stand if anybody tries to falsely dispute any of the quoted references. See, if your intentions are to know the right Shia Islam then you are welcome

I am, as everyone should be, looking & searching for truth. After all, Allah [swt] wants that from us. So let us hold a moderated dialogue, on any topic you wish to hold, from A to Z, specially topics of 'Aqeedah as our main conflict is over the oneness of Allah [swt] and His attributes.

Thus, if you wish, I would like to call on brother Shafique to moderate this discussion.

786---5-12-14

Habib wrote:

AthnaAshri wrote:786---5-12-14
Dear Brother,
Be assured that this a/ss doesn't only carry scriptures but also reads and understand them.

Well, it is surely a good news

But anyway, we have to put our hatred (specially the hatred towards the Members of Prophet's (PBUH) household {astaghfirullah}) aside

Why to hate them and make istighfar?!!! Isn't that weird? You should love them and respect them as AhluSunnah do. Love them and respect them in a fashion complying with the Shari'ah. Love them and respect them as human beings, not "gods" walking on earth.

As you have correctly pointed out that there were many false narrations of ahadith from a lot of people so why not we only take the ahadith which are quoted from Ahl-e-Bayt (A.S.)?

Who would reject an authentic Hadith reported by a member of Ahlul-Bayt, unless s/he is a fool straying away from the straight path?

The bottom line is, I can perfectly defend my stand if anybody tries to falsely dispute any of the quoted references. See, if your intentions are to know the right Shia Islam then you are welcome

I am, as everyone should be, looking & searching for truth. After all, Allah [swt] wants that from us. So let us hold a moderated dialogue, on any topic you wish to hold, from A to Z, specially topics of 'Aqeedah as our main conflict is over the oneness of Allah [swt] and His attributes.

Thus, if you wish, I would like to call on brother Shafique to moderate this discussion.

I couldn't believe my eyes! I am extremely disappointed with you. Which world do you live in and which religion do you follow? I am shocked to see that your general knowledge is at its lowest level. WHICH CULT OR WHICH PERSON CLAIMS THAT OUR MAIN CONFLICT IS OVER THE ONENESS OF ALLAH??????!!!! (NAOOZOBILLAH!) I understand that you know nothing about Islam and its history or maybe you pretend to do so... as Allah (SWT) says "SUMUN BUKMUN UMYUN FAHUM LA YARJAOON"

So, my dear brother, I would strongly suggest that you go back to school for at least a couple of years and once you are at least aware of the basics of Islam then please do return and only then it would be sensible enough to have a discussion with you. Education is very much stressed in our Islam and is a must for every individual. Thats why we, Shias, do not pretend to be ignorant and do not carry on useless and baseless debates unnecessarily.
You need to get educated and know some very basics, LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS, my friend. So, see you lets say after 2 years, which I think should be enough for you to come to an acceptable level.
Till That time, May Allah, His Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and Ahlul Bayt (AS) guide you to the RIGHT path. Peace be with you.

On the other hand, I am not disappointed with you, because most of those whom I met did not know initially, that according to 12vers cult dogmas, Ali (ra) is Allah Himself (Nastaghfirullah from this Kufr). But after a quiet & a civilized dialogue, they converted to Islam wal-Hamdulillah. The key word was "quiet & civilized". No screams & no insults, simply stating facts supported with hard evidences be it a video, audio or scanned pages materials + little (not much) reasoning. This being just a simple example of tremendous differences between Shi'ism & Islam on question of Tawheed.

One thing I promise the readers, is that this discussion will be interesting, informative and an eye opener. So what do you say to such an offer?

Habib wrote:On the other hand, I am not disappointed with you, because most of those whom I met did not know initially, that according to 12vers cult dogmas, Ali (ra) is Allah Himself (Nastaghfirullah from this Kufr). But after a quiet & a civilized dialogue, they converted to Islam wal-Hamdulillah. The key word was "quiet & civilized". No screams & no insults, simply stating facts supported with hard evidences be it a video, audio or scanned pages materials + little (not much) reasoning. This being just a simple example of tremendous differences between Shi'ism & Islam on question of Tawheed.

One thing I promise the readers, is that this discussion will be interesting, informative and an eye opener. So what do you say to such an offer?

Are you trying to teach me about what we Shias believe??? How ironic. I know your kind of people and it is because of you why most of Ahlay Sunnah are also misguided. You create nothing but FITNA in this world. You are the people because of whom innocent teenagers go to a Shia mosque and blast themselves. It is because of your kind of people that Shatanyat is at its peak. But I think this must be within your blood, maybe your ancestors were also in the group of Banu Umaya propaganda group who used to curse Ahlal Bayt (AS) before every Friday prayer. No doubt, it is because of your kind of people that Ittihad Bainul Muslimeen cannot be achieved in this era. It is because of your kind of people the 4 Qul soorahs were revealed in Quran. It is because of your kind of brains that this world will always be corrupted.
The cult that you are referring to is Ismailee and some other cults which were created by your kind of people to give Shia Islam a bad name. The words which you have written are ing and baseless blames by which your ancestors baptized you, so it would be next to impossible for you to understand Islam. You will be always a one way traffic, you would continue to point to the cults, who are by no means Shia and your cribbing would go on and on about every tom, d/ick and harry in this world, who you would present as a Shia.
But InshaAllah, on the Day of Judgment, when you will face Allah and his Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), they will for sure hold a nice and interesting debate with you and I promise my friend that I would love to hear THAT discussion and the verdict over there. Fear Allah and stop spreading these false allegations and baseless blames.