For Those Promoting Unity: Sunni Scholars Labeled as Nasibis

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Question three:
Kulaini in Al-Kafi (1/397) has a chapter that he titled: “ the rise of Imam
(establishing an authority) will lead by the laws of the Jews”. He proceed by saying;
“…they will never request for an evidence nor witness (in dealing with issues regarding
evidence)” (then the murder of who ever is not a shi’ite will be rampant whether he is the
one with convincing argument or not in any lawsuit).
In the book “Biharul Anwar”(52/354) Majlisi said; “when Mahdi appears, he will
come with a new Religion, a new book (scripture) and new laws/decrees”. Nu’umain also
corroborated this in the book of “kitabul Ghaibati” pp 154
It was reported in the a fore mentioned book that Ja’afar As-Sadiq said; “I can
forecast/prophesize Mahdi when he will appear in the Ka’abah between Ruknul Yamani
and Maqamu Ibrahim, he will be pledging to people on an authority to follow a new
scripture and not the Qur’an”. The above was reported in the book; “Biharul Anwar”
(52/135)
However, Majlisi in the above book (Biharul Anwar) said; “when Mahdi appears,
by the time people notice how he will commit murder, they will have wished he had
never appeared.” He continued; “… Majority of citizens will doubt him as a blood
relation to the Prophet, sallahu alaihi wassam because if he is a member of the (Prophet)
household, he is bound to be merciful.
My question here is, why is it that if your Mahdi appears he will be governed by
the laws/decrees of the Jews? Is it not that prophet Muhammad; sallahu alaihi wassalam
decree has abrogated all laws before it? Why should they leave the Qur’an aside? Is this
not a pointer that the origin of your Religion is from Jewish Religion joined with Magus
(paganism), wrapped with Paganism and named Islam?


Question four:
What is the relationship between your Religion (Shi’ism) and the parsian
language? This is because you disregard Arabic language completely, and you give high
esteem to Parisian and their language above any language or person. Before you
disconcour let me give an example that will clarify my intent.
Your books revealed that if your Mahdi appears, he will murder the Quraysh, and murder
the Arabs, Further more, among his names is “Kisrul Magus” The king of pagans! You
already confess that “Choesroes” the King of Persia that tore the letter of the Prophet
sallahu alaihi wassallam as you say out of disrespect will dwell in the hell fire but hell
fire is prohibited against him. However, your books also gave more priority to Salmanul
Farisy over almost all the companions of the Prophet, Abu Lu’luata, a pagan that kill
Umar is earning great respect in your doctrines, you also visit his grave yard.1 Al-Gharithi in the introduction/preface of his book “Aqdud durar fi Baqri Badri Umar” said;
Abu-Lu’luata is entitled to Allah’s mercy even though he is not a Muslim. Visiting his
graveyard and praying for him is among the great deeds that earn rewards, because of the
great act he deed for the murder of Umar, the in-law of the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi
wassalam !!!!
Don’t you see how Al-Ahqaqi in his book “Risalatul Islam” pp 324, he protested
against what people that are filthy, devils and thoroughly bad “as he said” did to
sanctified woman of Paris (Pagans) when it was conquered. He is referring to the
compaions of the Prophet sallaju alaihi wassalm !!.
The place of Karbala located at Iraq (Persia) is better than Makkah and Madinah
under your doctrines. This reached to the extent that the degree of Ka’abah in comparison
with Karbala is like what a needle will carry of the water from an ocean; this is the
assertion of Majlisi in Biharul Anwar (98/106).
Indeed, today Iranian nation has adopted Parisian language as an official language
as provided under the provision of Iranian constitution P3. This shouldn’t be a surprise
looking at the fact that, most of the recognized and authorized scholars of shi’ite, that are
allowed to give their respective opinions in religious matters are foreigners (Ajami) i.e.
they don’t speak Arabic language. Scholars like Khumaini, Khamna’ei, Rafsanjani, and
Khatame, even Sistani “Sayyidul Muhaqqiq” the real leader of the shi’ate scholars of this
time. All of them do not speak Arabic! Just some year’s back, Al-jazeerah channel has
an interactive session with the leader of Nigerian shi’ite, but Arabic was translated to him
and he responded in English language! Don’t you notice that? !!! before then, he
confessed that he could not not read Arabic text without vowel singns !!!.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Questions On (Imamah) Leadership
The Religion of Shi’ism is based on the doctrine that Aliyu bin Abi Xalib
Radiyallahu Anhu is the first successor or rather leader (Khalif), This is how the name,
Imamiyyah, was derived and attributed to them. They insinuate that the Prophet sallahu
alaihi wa sallam willed the succession of leadership to Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, and the
progeny of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu should be the train of the Will.
This doctrine was the main reason why the shi’ites viewed the companions
especially those that succeeded the Prophet before Ali as leaderships taken by force,
tyrants’ unfaithful to the Prophet and his will/bequest. This issue regarding leadership is
of utmost importance to the Shi’ite, because they take it as the greatest pillar of Islam
which the other pillars can’t stand if it is not established, they reached to the extent of
saying that it is even more than prophet hood in importance.2
Question 5:
Why is this great pillar of Religion not mentioned in the Qur’an jus like the other
pillars whom you think they are not as important as it (Imamah). Allah has mentioned so
many things in His detailed book (Qur’an). Lets take prayer as an example, not even the
prayer it self , purity, ablution, ceremonial ablution, qibla & even excrement were
discussed in the Qur’an.
Further more, what is prohibited or otherwise were mentioned and discussed in
the Qur’an the blessed book, as Allah says;
“When he hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – Except
under compulsion of necessity…” Q6: 119.
However, not even things that are compulsory or otherwise even those that are
recommended and discouraged are discussed in the Qur’an. Things like loan, hunting,
have almost four verses revealed.3
Why is it that a verse wasn’t revealed to declare the leadership of Aliyu, this is
evident because there is no verse that shows Aliyu to be the first leader of Muslim
Community after the demise of the prophet. Why is the name of Aliyu not mentioned in
the Qur’an but the name of Zaidu is very clear in Suratul Ahzab?
It’s a known fact that Shi’ite scholars had a consensus that Aliyu’s name is
provided in hundred of Qur’anic verses but the companions removed it. This is clear in
their holy book; Alkafi. A million-dollar question here is where is the safety and guard
Allah has promised regarding the Qur’an?



Question 6:
On the day of conquest of Makkah, the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalm
borrowed the key to the door Ka’abah from the tribe of Banu Dalhatu who are the
custodians to the keys; this was an inherited custom from time immemorial.
When the prophet conquered Makkah, he requested the key to open the door of
Ka’abah, this was a very tragic event to Banu Dalhah that the end of their custody to the
key has come, and this led them to crying. Immediately Qur’an was revealed on the issue
where Allah says;
“Allah doth command you to render back your Trusts To those to whom they are due;
And when ye judge Between people That ye judge with justice: verily how excellent is the
teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He who heareth and seeth all things.”
In response to above verse, the Noble prophet took back the keys to Banu Dalhah,
he further make a pronouncement that re-affirm their custody of the key till the day of
resurrection and said;
“Take the keys O Banu Dalhah, it stays with you forever, and no one will take it away
from you except a tyrant.”
Our question here is, if an issue of just the keys to Ka’abah the prophet sallahu
alaihi wassalam was so direct and clear for establishing the trust of the custodians, and
the trust is just for custody and not ownership, then why is there no any bequest or
pronouncement regarding the leadership of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu that you always
claim? Why didn’t the Prophet make such a pronouncement and say; “take this leadership
o the family of Ali, forever and no one will take it away from you except a tyrant” why
didn’t the prophet sallahu alaihi wa sallam do this? Is the concept of leadership more
important than any thing as your insinuation asserts?
Question 7:
You always claim that your twelve leaders are infallible. If you are asked to give
proof /authority, you would say the reason of their leader ship as well asa being
infallible that the Noble Prophet clothed Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain and said; “Oh
Allah! These are my household, and then remove all abomination from them, make them
pure and spotless”
However, since Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala purifies them then they are regarded
as infallibles (ma’asum).
Our question here is, why didn’t you call Fatima as (ma’asumah), we didn’t see
her name among your leaders because that Prophetic tradition is the evidence of
leadership in your doctrine!! Further more, where are the cremaining nine leaders in that
verse or the Prophetic tradition?


Question 8:
During the life of Muhammad sallahu alaihi wassalam many people from
different cities did come and convert to Islam at Madinah, After that, they returned to
there various cities. Many of them met the Noble Prophet once, twice or thrice. These
kinds of people have never heard of anything as regard the leadership of Aliyu
Radiyallahu Anhu as the one the prophet bequeath leadership to as you always claim.
Our question here is, is their Islam complete or is yet to be completed? Are they
having a mini-Islam? !!! If you say there is reduction and is a mini Religion, then why
9
didn’t the Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam complete it for them and explain this
important pillar? But if you believe their Religion is complete, then what is the essence of
the statement that Religion is incomplete without attesting to the leadership of Ali
Radiyallahu Anhu.
Is this an affirmation that the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam has shorten his
message as Khumaini profess in his book “Kashful Asrar” he believed that “The Prophet
sallahu alaihi wassalam has not completed the message of Allah regarding Aliyu as he
completed Allah’s message of his Prophet hood”?
Question 9:
It is a known fact that the Shi’ites claim that Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu is the
person who own the right of leadership, and those successors before him are tyrants that
were in power by force, then why was he a member in a constituted six man committee
during the demise of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu, and from among them, a successor would
be selected.
The detail is as follows; when Umar Radiyallahu Anhu was in the process of
demise after he was stabbed while praying, he became optimistic that he will die, Umar
Radiyallahu Anhu then announce six names, and from among them a new leader shall
emerge. He testified that all of them are equal to the task and qualified, and that their
relationship with the Noble Prophet was cordial.
These six people are; Uthman bin Affan, Aliyu bin Abi Dalib, Abdurrahman bin
Auf, Dalhatu bin Ubaidullah, Zubair bin Auwan, Sa’ad bin Waqqas. They were given the
ultimatum of three days to announce who shall be the next leader, and an interim
government was constituted.
During the first sitting of that committee (Shurah), they agreed that three should
step down and let the contest be between the three others. However, one of them i.e.
(contesting three) stepped with the consensus that he shall choose between the remaining
two i.e. Uthman and Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. Abdurrahman bin Auf was now the one that
was given three more days to decide who shall be the new leader, after various
consultations with the Muslim ummah, he nominated Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu who
emerge as the new leader (Khalif) of the Muslims.
Our question here is, why didn’t Ali Radiyallahu Anhu told them that he was the
initial chosen person by Allah , Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala and the rest shall automatically
withdraw? Why then did he accept the membership of the Shurah if he knew that his right
would be taken away from him? If he knew the initial bequest of the Noble prophet
Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam, then what is the essence of contesting for the office?

Question 10:
If what you are claiming is a fact, that the Noble prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam
wished Ali Radiyallahu Anhu to be his successor, he even made an effort to inform his
companions. But it is a known fact that under Islamic doctrine, a leader is the one who
supposes to lead prayers. Why didn’t the Noble prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam instruct
Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu to lead prayers even if it was just once before the demise of the
Prophet.
Either from our books or yours, our source of history or yours, is their any source
that established Ali Radiyallahu Anhu to have led prayers even if it once? From both our
10
books and yours we knew that Abubakar Radiyallahu Anhu led prayers. But there is no
any source that informed us Ali Radiyallahu Anhu has led prayers, why? And you say he
is the leader by bequest/will!!!
Question 11:
Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu accept so many offers of appointment on
different occasions during the reign of Umar Radiyallahu Anhu? Example; when Umar
Radiyallahu Anhu was to leave for Qudus to collect the keys to the third 3rd most
important and sacred masjid after was conquered under the leadership army of Khalid bin
Walid. During that time Umar Radiyallahu Anhu appointed Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as the
acting Khalif of Madinah (Governor), at that time, the office was like the office of Vice-
President. Because he will be an automatic President (Amirul Muminin) of the interim
administration i.e. de facto president before the new president is elected as de jure.
Why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu take the office of a Special Adviser, and
Governorship office under the reign and administration that the Shiite termed it as an
Unislamic and tyrant? See Nahjul Balagah pp 325 & 340.
Further more, when Umar Radiyallahu Anhu was on his way to wage war against
Iraq and later changed position and returned to Madinah, he appointed a representative
who was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu as Governor of Madinah (Vice-President). Salmanul
Farisy also was once a Governor at Madinah under the reign of Umar, Ammar bin Yasir
was the Governor at Kufah under the same administration, and these two companions are
close associates of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. See Siyaru A’alamin Nubala’I (1&547, &
422).
Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu was also a Judge during the same reign, why didn’t he
claim and profess his leadership, and for that reason he should have denied to serve under
the administration of Umar?

[abdulwahhab]

There can be no unity if you believe that someone who curses the wives of Rasoolullah isn't a kaafir or someone who curses the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم أجمعين is a kaafir. That is because the Qur'an has vindicated them all for all eternity. Part of the tenets of imaan is belief in all the books and all the prophets. The Qur'an has promised jannah and the pleasure of Allah تبارك وتعالى for the sahaba so if we curse them, we are going to be among those who will be cursed by Allah تبارك وتعالى. Allah تبارك وتعالى has purified the wives of Rasoolullah and vindicated them from every accusation so if we curse them, we incur the wrath of Allah تبارك وتعالى. So, cursing any of the wives or the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم أجمعين is tantamount to kufr and to hate them is to hate those who are beloved to Allah تبارك وتعالى.

It is not part of our aqeedah to believe that the sahaba were sinless and faultless. But just how we don't go around advertising the faults of our mothers and fathers, we also refrain from doing so for the sahaba because they had the unique honour of having the suhbah of Rasoolullah and not just him, but Allah vindicating them and promising them jannah.

Abu Talib was not a sahabi as he never embraced Islam.

I don't want a list of your "ulama" who do not believe in Tahreef. Give me a list of your "ulama" who go to the extent of saying that to believe in tahreef is kufr. You'll be very hard pressed to find someone like that because many of the "greats" of Shi'ism have held this belief and the furthest those "ulama" you've listed have gone is saying that they (those that believed in tahreef) were wrong, not kaafir. Muslims are united on the belief that anyone who believes in the tahreef of the Qur'an is a kaafir.

Also, the Shi'a do not understand the concept of naskh. Nor do they understand that not all the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم were present during the revelation of every surah nor did all the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم have perfect memory. You also didn't shy away from including weak or even fabricated "narrations" - that is very Shi'a-like of you. Some of the narrations you've posted, one doesn't even have to look at the matn to realize that they're false. How was it possible that "Suyuti narrate[d] from Ayesha"? Why are you even referring to what has been found in tafaseer as some sort of evidence against the Qur'an? Most of the time, the narrations found in the tafaseer are not authenticated and are there to emphasize a point.

If it was true that the various sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم were dissatisfied with the compiled Qur'an, we would see resistance by the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم أجمعين against it during the time of Umar .

I'd even say you don't understand what tahreef means. When there was a verse about stoning in the Qur'an, it was abrogated during the time of Rasoolullah . That is why Umar did not insist on reinstating the verse into the Qur'an when he could have - which would have been tahreef. The belief that many Shi'as hold is that the Qur'an we have today is not the same as the Qur'an at the time of Rasoolullah because the sahaba رضي الله تعالى عنهم changed it when nothing can be further from the truth.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Question 12:
Why didn’t Ali bin Abi dalib Radiyallahu Anhu climb the (mimbar) of the Noble
Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam even once just to inform the Ummah about his right?
For example; to say; “Oh people;! Remember the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi
wassalam instructed me to lead you, so go against these tyrant?” and this could be done
if the three successors that came before him are really tyrants as you claim?
Question 13:
Is Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu not a warrior? Where is the warrior ship? Why didn’t
he fight those that took away his sacred right? In the books of Shi’ah, it was written that
the leadership of Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu was a divine revelation from heaven, and Allah
subhanahu wata’ala referred to him as Amirul Muminin as it came in their popular book
“Al-kafi” authored by “Kulaini.” Then why didn’t Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu declare a
religious war against them to protect his sacred revealed right? Or is there any evidence
that there was a war between him and those that succeeded the Prophet before him? Or
did he request for any aid from the Ummah as the position of his son Hussain when he
made effort to fight Yazid as a tyrant?

Question 14:
In the book of “Nahjul Balagah” pp 136 one of the most outstanding book to
Shi’ites, it was said that; Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu has requested that the leadership should
not be given to him after Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu died, this was because of the
misfortune and calamity the Ummah was facing. A “Coup d’etat” was successful and the
plotters came from Kufah, they were very few, not more than two thousand (2000) men.
But they were left to actualize their mission because Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu
disallowed the people to counter their attack. Finally, they lunched their attack against
Amirul Muminin (President) and murdered him in his residence, in the sacred city of the
Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi wassalam. The following was the reported request of Ali
Radiyallahu Anhu as it came in Nahjul Balagha;
“Leave me alone and look for someone else, for me to be a minister to help the
president is better for you than I become the President (Ameer).”
Our question to the Shi’ites here is why didn’t he accept his right that was
revealed by Allah subhanahu wata’ala? Is he afraid? Then who is he afraid of after
Allah subhanahu wata’ala? If he was defeated and bullied at the initial stage, now that
chance was clear to establish Allah’s command has come, he should have use this
opportunity? Or is it a fallacy on what you always claim about Allah’s instruction?
Question 15:
Why did you exclude the family of Al- Hassan from leadership? But you establish
it to the family of Hussain? The following is the list of your leaders (imams) as recorded
in your books; none came from the family of Al-Hassan except him;
1, Aliyu bn Abi dalib
2, Hassan bn Ali
3, Hussain bn Ali
4, Ali bn Hussain (Zainul Abidun)
5, Muhammad bn Aliyu bn Hussain (Al-Baqir)
6, Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussein (As-Sadiq)
7, Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Al-Kazim)
8, Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Ar-Ridha)
9, Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (At-Taqiyyu)
10, Aliyu bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain
(Naqiyyu)
11, Alhassan bn Ali bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn Muhammad bn Ali bn
Hussain (Al-Askari)
12, Muhammad bn Hassan bn Ali bn Muhammad bn Ali bn Musa bn Ja’afar bn
Muhammad bn Ali bn Hussain (Mahdi)
Why is it that all your (Imams) leaders are Hussain’s lineage? Why was the
family of Al-Hassan not included? Is it not establishing the fact of the accusation against
you that, it is because Hussain is an in-law to Choesroes the king of Persia you give him
and his lineage high esteem because they have blood relation with Choesroes, who was
the leader and King of fire worshippers?
Historical source show that when Persia was conquered during the reign of Umar
Radiyallahu Anhu and the daughter of Choesroes the King of Persia was taken as a
captive name “Shaharbanu”, Umar Radiyallahu Anhu then showered his favour
and gave Hussain Radiyallahu Anhu that Princess as a gift, all the children of Hussain are from his
union with this slave girl, the daughter of the King of present (Iran). Looking at the fact
on how paganism and pagans were against Islam, coupled with the fact that Islam
succeeded to conquer and destroy their Religion (paganism), and their kingdom that was
built by their fore fathers, this triggered them to establish Shi’ism. The Religion was
built by their fore farthers, this triggered them to establish Shi’ism. The Religion was
however establish on household ship, connecting it to the Noble Prophet sallahu alaihi
wassalam but although the real image connected with for their yardstick, the king of
Persia. If you disconcur with this assertion, then we need an explanation of what
distinguish and make the image of Al-Hussain higher than Al-Hassan, as reported in your
books. Among others are;“Tanqihul Maqal” by Mamaqani (3/142) A’ayunus shi’ah
(1/26), Biharul Anwar (27/212), Kitabus Sulaimi ibn Qais pp 288.

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

The Shi’ites you accuse the companions of changing the Qur’an, and many of
your narrations from your authentic books confirm that. You believe that our Qur’an is
fake, because you accuse the companions of hiding the original Qur’an, for example, in
the book of Biharul Anwar (24/305) it was reported from Abu Abdullah, Ja’afarus Sadiq
alaihis vsalam he said: “The Qur’an was revealed in four different categories; the first
category was revealed on us (household of the Prophet), the second category was
revealed against our enemies (companions), the third category are combination of
tradition and proverbs, the fourth is the composition of compulsory duties, and some
rules of authority. All the honors and dignity of the Qur’an is revealed on us”.
Imagine!!! A quarter of the Qur’an is bunch of proverbs; this is the base of their
argument against the companions, that they hide the first two categories of the Qur’an.
But if you read the whole of the Noble Qur’an from beginning to end, there is no place
where the companions were dishonored and accused but vice versa.
Our question here is if the companions hide some portion of the Qur’an where is
Aliyu? Why didn’t he unfold it? Or are they the only ones under obligation and Ali
Radiyallahu Anhu is not under that obligation? If he unfold it, then where? What did he
revealed? Where is the new Qur’an? Produce your proof if you are truthful.
Question 24:
If the companions hid half or the provisions of the Qur’an because they hate the
honor of the Prophet’s household, then why didn’t they hide the Prophetic traditions that
revealed their honor? They are evidenced in both your books and ours. At this juncture, I
will not give example with your books (Shi’ites), I will use our (Sunni) books that are our
pride.
After the Qur’an, there is no any book of high esteem and authenticity than the
books of Bukhari and Muslim. Let us bring some example from them as regards the
honor of the Prophet household. E.g. “ Whoever I am his close inmate then Aliyu is also
his close inmate.”
We can deduce that the whole Shi’ites creed is based on this tradition. It was reported
in Bukhari by more than 20 companions, in the science of hadith it reach the peak of
authenticity i.e. (tawatir), the companions reported it and we believe in it but our
argument is the misinterpretations given by you the Shi’ites.
The Noble prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam make this pronouncement on his
way back from the farewell pilgrimage at “Ghadir Khum” the Shi’ites refer to this place
as a junction where people disperse and follow their routes to their various town/cities,
and they claim it to be the reason that the Noble Prophet choose this location to inform
the Ummah that Ali Radiyallahu Anhu is his successor.
To authenticate this story; I traced the source and origin of this particular place
and asked resource persons in Saudi Arabia, it led me to know the particular place
(Ghadir Khum). It was established that the distance from Makkah to this place is 250
kilometers on your way to Madinah.
16
Lets use our reasoning and see whether it comprehends that pilgrim will take 250
kilometers before each will take his route? The people of da’ifa as an example, their town
is not more than 40 kilometers from Makkah, those from Iraq follow a different route
back nothing will connect them to Madinah. The people of Kufah, and Basrah will not
reach “Ghadir Khum” for them to take their routes. This also re-affirms that Ghadir
Khum is not junctions for disperse by pilgrims.
The fact of the story was that the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi qWassalam made
the pronouncement after all have dispersed, and warn the people going to Madinah
against what he was hearing against Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu. The main reason was that
Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu led an army, after the war, some of the companions wanted to
exhaust some booties and he denied them until they reached Madinah. The Noble Prophet
makes this pronouncement for them to identify the dignity and honor of Ali Radiyallahu
Anhu and whoever dishonors him will dwell hell fire.
We the Sunni’s believe that whoever dishonor Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu will dwell
hell fire, and there is no any Sunni who dishonor him. Go to places that Sunni are
dominants you will have many of their children named Ali, if we dishonor him how can
we name our children with his name?
Our question is why didn’t the companions hide the above tradition? And more
than 20 twenty of them narrated the tradition, it clearly shows the honor and dignity of
Ali Radiyallahu Anhu, how possible it is to believe that they hide some Qur’anic verses
on his honor and the Prophetic household at large?
2nd example:
The hadith of “Kisa” (cloth) is another base of the Shi’ites creed. The hadith
shows that the Noble Prophet covered Fatima, her husband and two of her sons Al
Hassan & Al Hussain and said;
“Oh Allah!! These are my household, remove evil deeds and sins from them and
purify them with thorough purification.”
The Mother of believers, Aisha Radiyallahu Anha and Ummu Salamah
Radiyallahu Anha, narrated the above hadith.
3rd example:
The hadith that portray the honor of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu and his position, it says;
“Your position to me is like Harun’s position to Musa.”
Harun is a junior brother to Musa likewise Ali a junior brother to the Noble
Prophet, but the first category are Prophets while in the second category Ali is not a
Prophet.
Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas was the narrator of the above hadith while the shi’ites refer
to him as an apostate because they claim he dishonor Ali Radiyallahu Anhu. The Hadith
was reported in Bukhari (3505).
17
4th example;
On the night of Khaybar, the Noble Prophet said; “tomorrow I will give a flag to
someone that loves Allah and his Prophet, also, Allah and his Prophet loves him & we
will be victorious”
Because of the above good fortune, all the companions wished to be in possession
of the flag. Umar Radiyallahu Anhu said; I leaped on that day for the Noble Prophet to
see me and call me, at that moment; the Noble Prophet called on Ali and gave him the
flag.
Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas & Salamah bin Akwa were the narrators of the hadith, and
reported also in Bukhari. Why didn’t these companions hide this honor but they hide
some portions of the Qur’an on Ali’s honor and dignity?
5th example:
A hadith that show the honor of Fatima and her children, are many. Among them
was her position of the First lady in the Paradise, and her children as the youth leaders in
Paradise.
Further more, Al-Hassan was referred as a born leader and arbiter of two Muslim
camp/factions. So many narrations on how the Prophet cherishes them and his saying;
“Oh Allah I really love them so please love them also.”
The above traditions were narrated by Usamah bin Zaid, Barra’u bin Azib, Anas
bin Malik & Abdullah bin Umar among others and all are reported in Bukhari, why did
they unfold these traditions?
The tradition on the honor and dignity of Prophet household as regard their love
as obligation and hatred as great torment were all narrated by the companions. Why
should they hide the Qur’anic verses on that and reveal the prophetic traditions? Or does
Allah not guard the Qur’an? Why did he (Allah) guard the hadith and didn’t give the
Qur’an such guard? Lets think!!!
Question 25:
It an established fact, that the companions of the Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wasalam
narrated and reported the Qur’an directly from the Prophet. And the chain of narration for
Qur’an is (Mutawatir) i.e. peak of all chains in the study of transmission. We have ten
different narration of the Qur’anic rondos having two schools from each rondo, all the
narrators are Sunnis.
In the present world, three rondos are the most exposed, i.e. Nafi’u, Asim and
Abu Amrul Basri. The rondo of Nafi’u is well exposed by two of his schools of Warsh
and Qalun; the rondo of Asim is exposed through the school of Hafs while the rondo of
Abu Amrul Basri is exposed through the school of Duri. All the printed copies of Qur’an
even in Iran are one of these rondos, but is mostly published and printed with the school
of Hafs, which he narrated it from Asim, from Abu Abdurrahman As-Sulami, from
Uthman bin Affan, Ali bin Abi Dalib, Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy bin Ka’ab.
Our question is where does the Prophetic household narrate the Qur’an? Where is
your chain from Ali bin Abi Dalib? What of the chain of Al Hassan, Al Hussain & Zainul
Abidin?
Where is the chain of Ridha from Kazim, from Sadiq & Baqir?
What of Askari from Naqiyyu & Taqiyyu?
18
Are they not your claim as natural born leaders and Allah’s plea against his
creatures?
Did they teach everything with the omission of the Qur’an? Why should you refer
to unbelievers’ narration (as you claim)? Researched proved that there is only one
Qur’anic narration of rondo from the prophetic household which is the rondo of Hamza
Az-Zayyat (Sunni) narrated from Sadiq, from Baqir and from Zainul Abidin, where is the
shi’ites narration of this rondo? Why is it that Zayyat a Sunni scholar is the only narrator
and reporter? Why didn’t Kazim narrate from Sadiq? Or Askari from Naqiyyu? From
Taqiyyu from Kazim & from Sadiq? And this narration is very rare to find, why don’t
you publish and recite that rondo since is the only household narration?
We await your claim of Qur’anic rondo narration either (mutawattir or shadh)
from the Noble Prophet Sallahu Alaihi WAssalam.
Question 26:
The Qur’an of Fatima that you always make reference to, was mentioned in your
book “Al-Kafi” (1/239); a stranger came to the house of Abu Ja’afar and say; I want to
ask you a question but confirm weather there is secrecy in the house, he opened through a
curtain and replied; ask what ever you wish, the infallible Imam said; we really have a
Qur’an called the Qur’an of Fatima, is a Qur’an that triple your Qur’an, in the content of
our Qur’an, there is no any word which you have in your Qur’an.
What an amazing situation, a Qur’an without Bismillah? !!! Is the Prophet
Sallahu Alaihi WAssalam aware of the Qur’an or not? If he is aware, why did he not
inform his companions? Why did he hide it for the Ummah? While Allah says;
“Oh messenger of Allah! Proclaim (the message) which has been sent down to you by
your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed his message…”
But if you say he is not aware of it then how do you come across it? The fact is, a
Shi’ites scholar Dabrisi has revealed the secrete where he published a book titled;
“comprehensive explanation in confirming the changes of Allah’s book”.
He brought more than two thousand narrations of Shi’ites that confirmed that this
Qur’an is pirated/fake, he brought views of Shi’ites jurists, Shi’ites hadith scholars and
all that Shi’ites see them as the most highly respected scholars of their creed. He
concluded by saying; “it is imperative to believe that the present Qur’an of the Ummah is
fake”
However, sayyid Hashimul Bahrani the author of Al-Burhan said in the
introduction pp “49!” is my opinion that as this issue has been well researched and
confirmed, it is imperating to authorize every Shi’ite to believe as pillar of faith that this
Qur’an is not authentic. This was the aim of the tyrant leaders that rule before Ali
Radiyallahu Anhu, lets reason more and judge their actions”. Yes we reason, think and
confirm your fallacies.
Ni’imatullahi Jaza’iri, a Shi’ite scholar was giving a reply and challenge to those
that believe the Qur’an is original, he replied as follows;
“ Who ever believes that the whole of this Qur’an that is with the Ummah is the original
Qur’an revealed through Jibril has contradicted the narrations of our leaders, and friends,
because their narrations are (Mutawatir). But by believing in that, he is automatically not
a Shi’ite” (Al-Anwarun Nu’umaniyyah 2/357)
19
Further more, the following was reported from Al-kafi; “who ever thinks there is
an original complete Qur’an in possession of any being is a great liar. This is because no
one memorized it how it was revealed from Allah only Aliyu and the leaders that came
from his progeny”
Al-Khu’i, a great Shi’ite scholar of the contemporary time, as coated in the book
titled “Lillahi Summa lit Tarikh” pp 80 he said the following; “I urge you to use this
Qur’an of our present time before the Qur’an of Fatima is revealed”.
What a surprise!!! The Qur’an should be used for occasional purpose? When and
where is the original Qur’an? They are not in possession of Fatima’s Qur’an nor Is it in
their memory, we know there is no any special Qur’an left for Fatima.
The Shi’ites claim to have more than Fatima’s Qur’an, they have among others,
Al-Jami’ah, its details is found in Al-Kafi (1/239), Biharul Anwar (26/25).
They have another Qur’an called “An Namus”, it was mentioned in “Biharul
Anwar” (25/117). There is also another book/manuscripts which they claim was revealed,
it is called Al-Abitah, it was mentioned in Biharul Anwar (26/37), another one is called
“Zu’abatus Saifi” Biharul Anwar (25/56)
Lastly, they also have Al-jafar which they believed is a revealed book from Allah,
“Usulul Kafi” (1/24).”

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

Question 29:
It is an established fact and a peak of narrations (Mutawatir) that Aliyu
Radiyallahu Anhu makes so many public pronouncements in the Prophet mosque as
follows; the best of this generation after the Noble Prophet is Abubakar, then Umar.
Why did he (Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu) praise them? You can reply by
saying is dissimulation. Then why don’t you all practice it? If you will engage in
practicing dissimulation, it would have been better!!!
Question 30:
Why was the Noble prophet buried in the room of an unbeliever in
your creed/doctrine and together with whom you regard as unbelievers? Under your
creed, Pharaoh is better than these two persons (Abubakar & Umar). Why was the
Prophet not protected against this evil? In this world they were his most intimate friends,
and presently they are still the closest and most intimate to him, but you believe they are
not together on the day of resurrection, why should Allah make them this close?
Why and where was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu when the Prophet was
buried in Aisha’s room? He should have discouraged it and never let it happened! Or
was his bravery at decline during the death of the Noble Prophet?
Question 31:
The shi’ites believed that the first three successors of the Noble
Prophet were unbelievers, why did Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu pledge his allegiance to
them? Fought religious war with them during their reign?
Some of your scholars answer the above questions with the reason for
not to have a violence breakout (fitna), but why did he engage in the battle of the camel,
were he fought against Aisha, & Dalha & Zubairu Radiyallahu Anhu, and the battle of
siffin, where he founght MA’awuya and his Muslim followers of Syria (Shams), the two
led to the massacre of over 70,000 seventy thousand Muslim from both sides.
The Sunni doctrine never see any fault in these battles he engaged
himself, because it was a destined violence breakout (fitna), which if it breaks out you
have no chance to escape. As a result of this breakout, the companions were of there
different opinions, some were with Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu because he is a legal Muslim
leader, some with Muawiyya for the argument and fight he claim against those
responsible for the murder of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu to be brought to book. Lastly the
category those hang on the fence without taking side but busy trying to reconcile the two
parties. This third category was the opinion of the majority of the Prophet’s companions
join and later many shared the same view, even Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu. But the shi’ites
never have this opinion as tangible, all that occur is nothing but Allah’s destiny5 we await
5 For detailed explanation, the book titled “kadara ta riga fata” “Allah’s destiny against the wish of shi’ite,”
2006
21
your response to the above question, and his reason that made him not to fight those
before him.
Question 32:
The shi’ites believed that the leaders before Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu
were tyrant and force themselves to power because of worldly benefits; they denied the
revealed leader as the Prophet pronounced because of selfish interest.
What did they accumulate during their reign? Who was rich among
them? When Umar died, there was debt of which the whole of his family and tribe men
cannot settle, but was only settled after some of the Quraish extend there helping hands.
Abubakar & Uthman were initially known as rich and clergy; their riches were disbursed
for the uplift of Islam during their life time. Who among them nominated his son as a
successor? If really there is a selfish interest, it should have been extended to their
siblings? You the shi’ites claim and say Ali Radiyallahu Anhu bequeath the leadership to
his son Al Hassan? Why didn’t Abubakar bequeath to his son Abdurrahman? Why didn’t
Umar bequeath to his son Abdullah? Why didn’t Uthman bequeath to his son Abanu?
Question 33:
What & which interest the rest the companions have for disobeying the
will of the Noble Prophet? What did Abubakar gave them (companions) or promised
them that led them follow him against Allah & Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wassaam
commands? Initially, they left everything and every one because of Allah, this action was
mentioned in the Qur’an 5:100 among others.
How can you reply a member of Khawarij creed and doctrine if he
accuses Aliyu’s Radiyallahu Anhu reign for a massive blood shed of innocent Muslims,
while the other three leaders before him establish the root of Islam, conquer Unislamic
countries & kingdoms and Islamatize them. During the reign of Uthman and the occasion
of his death, coup plotters came to Madinah and he denied any counter attack against
them with the reason for discouraging blood shed of Muslims, they attacked his house
and massacre him. While during the reign of Ali Radiyallahu Anhu he traveled as far as
Kufah & Basra to fight those that didn’t fight him but only presented a request prior, this
will make them give their allegiance & pledge, and this reason was what led to the battle.
What then shall be your response?
Further more, if he\ (Khawarij) poses the following again how will you
respond to him; the three leaders were aid’ed by Allah during their reigns, they fought the
greates dynasties on eath by that period and they were victorious. They past the message
of Islam to various nations successfully. While Allah didn’t aid Aliyu Radiyallahu Anhu
during his reign, because he never fight an enemy, nor did he extend the Islamic land
with a meter they were on the right path while Ali isn’t, that’s why his assassinators
were from his discifles who rebelled against him lastly. What shall be your response?.
The actual fact is that Sunni’s are the only ones that can defend Aliyu
Radiyallahu Anhu from all these accusations. We the Sunni’s that believe with the
leadership of the three successors, and that all their victories Ali Radiyallahu Anhu was
part of it. And what occurred during his reign was only what Allah destined but not his
will & wish as the leader. Almost all the accusations the Shi’ite accuse the leaders before
Ali were the same accusations the Khawarij point fingers against Ali Radiyallahu Anhu
22
in the eyes of a reasonable man, all the honor and dignity the Shi’ite elevate Ali is more
doubtful than if such elevation are positioned to the leaders before him.
23
Question 34:
Shi’ites accuse Umar of denying the Noble Prophet write what he said
will be the path to faith and that the Ummah will not go astray if they stick to it after his
death, you claim that it was his will for leadership but Umar denied bringing any paper.
In the narration of your books, you said that Umar even say that the
Prophet was demented, but our authentic books have no such added narration. What was
narrated in Bukhari and other Sunni books was; “Depression accruing to the illness of the
Noble Prophet is much, don’t increase his depression/illness. The book of Allah (Qur’an)
is enough.”
This was according to you the instruction of the prophet that he
destroyed and for that reason he is an unbeliever. He was responsible for the evil deeds
of the Ummah because he led them astray by living the Prophet died with sadness,
displeasure and sorrow of not delivering the last message.
Where was Ali Radiyallahu Anhu at that time? Why didn’t he follow
the Prophet’s instruction? Or was the instruction directed to Umar alone? Is Umar
stronger than Aliyu? Or is he more influential? Why didn’t he fight him or fight his
opinion against the Prophet’s opinion and make sure that the mission of the prophet was
fulfilled?
The reported narration in “Musnad” of Ahmad, it was Aliyu
Radiyallahu Anhu that replied and say; I can memorized it, say whatever you wish, the
Prophet Sallahu Alaihi Wassalam replied; I urge you to be firm in prayers, Zakah should
be given out as commanded and explained, I also urge you to be kind to your slaves.6
If the paper was not brought, who actually denied the paper to be
presented? Is it the one who said he can memorized or the one who said that depression is
much let us give him time to rest?
Question 35:
The above happened on Friday morning, why didn’t he request for
the paper during the whole daytime? After that, he has Saturday, Sunday and Monday
noon before he died, he never mentioned it again, he should have request for it again?
Question 36:
This sorrow that you said the Prophet died of which he wants to
pronounce, is it part of the Religion or not? If your answer is, “it is part of the Religion,”
are you insinuating that the Prophet died and the Religion was not complete because he
didn’t make the pronouncement? If it is not part of the Religion, what then is the need for
all these?

[abdulwahhab]

I have some more questions for Zeeshan:

1. Do you think anyone who curses the FAMILY of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه واله وصحبه وسلم is a Muslim?
2. Do you think anyone who calls the progeny of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه واله وصحبه وسلم kuffaar is a Muslim?

Muslims say that he most definitely is not a Muslim, just how anyone who curses and slanders the wives and the companions of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه واله وصحبه وسلم is a kaafir. According to your logic, people who do these things are surely still Muslims, right? In fact, they have a higher right of being a Muslim because the progeny of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه واله وصحبه وسلم are barely mentioned in the Qur'an except a mention of "Ahl al-Bayt", whereas the wives and the sahaba have been mentioned multiple times with words of praise and having earned the pleasure of Allah.

[abdulwahhab]

Brother Ali Asgar, you're going to scare the rafidha away!

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

There is a shia website called Answering-ansar.com and their other scholars have asked us many questions.

Here below is an asnwer to their 1000 questions by a sunni scholar.

http://peopleofsunnah.com/downloads/...-ka-jawab.html

[ALIASGAR_SHAH]

A gift for shia ithna ashari by Ahle Sunnah wal jamaah,
Below are the books for them ;

http://peopleofsunnah.com/downloads/...-rawafidh.html

http://www.maktabah.org/component/co...?directory=143