[Ngwkgczx]

Im a Sunni....the questions have not been put down by me, but by a Shia 'claiming' he wants Sunni-Shia unity, on another forum. The questions were not posed to me but to Sunnis in general

Now the the only reason i've put the questions down here, is not to reply to him, i dont have the time and im not that knowledgable, but for my own benefit.

Shamefully I dont know the answer to the vast majority of them...and so i was hoping some people on here could enlighten me...im sure it will benefit other Sunnis who are just as less clued up as me....

The next post will be quite long.....

Thankyou

Wasalam....

[Ngwkgczx]

A Scholarly Road to Sunni Shia Unity:
Some Questions for Sunni Brothers and Sisters

Background

Many amongst our Sunnis brothers and sisters are curious about the Shia beliefs and traditions. They ask polite questions about the Shia sect; some of them also invite their Shia friends to convert to the Sunni sect. There are a few questions in our mind. If a Sunni brother or sister can offer convincing answers to these questions, many misunderstandings between Sunni and Shia may disappear. Jazakallah.

Preamble to the questions

Before you answer to the main questions, it is important to identify and establish a scholarly basis of inquiry. The following 'pre-questions' may help you in providing a scholarly answer:

1. In your view, which ones are the most authentic sources of Islam? (Particularly in terms of those Islamic laws and traditions which are not explained in the Qur'an, e.g. the way we perform prayer or the way we understand the Prophet's life and his Sunnah).
2. Which ones are the most authentic sources of the hadith in your view? When were they compiled? Who compiled them? When were they first recorded? When were they first published? Why do you prefer those sources to others? Have you ever consulted those sources yourself? Whose interpretations and study of those sources do you rely on? What is your rationale for the choice of those scholars?
3. Which ones are the most authentic sources of Seerah and other aspects of early Islamic history? When were they written? Who wrote them? When were they first recorded? When were they first published? Why do you prefer those sources to others? Have you ever consulted those sources yourself? Whose interpretations and study of those sources do you rely on? What is your rationale for the choice of those scholars?

The questions

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

2. Hadhrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) died 6 months after her father (s.a.w.w.), Hadhrat Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrat Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and not Hadhrat Fatima (a.s.)? 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 Hadhrat Abu Bakr is viewed by Sunnis as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) not select him to be his brother when he (s.a.w.w.) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) chose Hadhrat Ali (a.s.) saying “You are my brother in this world and the next” , so on what basis is Hadhrat Abu Bakr closer?

4. The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrat Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narrations far exceed those relayed by Hadhrat Ali (a.s.), Hadhrat Fatima (s.a.), Hadhrat Hassan (a.s.) and Hadhrat Hussain (a.s.). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) declared “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate”, did Hadhrat Ali (a.s.) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) than these individuals?
5. If Hadhrat Ali (a.s.) had no differences with the first three Khalifas 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 Khilafat 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 (a.s.) 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? And what did they do after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s.) to punish his killers?

7. If Hadhrat Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) to give an instruction in writing, 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 (s.a.w.w.) 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 death of any one of those Prophets, his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did some of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.)’s companions abstain from his funeral ?

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 (s.a.w.w.)’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 Medina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them”. (The Qur’an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.). After the Prophet (s.a.w.w.)’s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (s.a.w.w.)’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 those 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?

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 (s.a.w.w.) 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” . Does any hadith exist in which the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?

16. During her lifetime Hadhrat Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrat Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (a.s.) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrat Uthman as a victim and mobilize opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrat Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrat Ali (a.s.)?

17. If failing to believe in Hadhrat Aysha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?

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 kafir did the prominent companion Hadhrat Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafat? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (s.a.w.w.)’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 Hadhrat Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummayya clan .

19. The Sihah Sittah have traditions in which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) foretold the coming of twelve khalifas after him . 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 ? Was the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states ‘He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’ then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifas are.

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 Hadhrat 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?

21. In the Musnad of Imam Hanbal, (Egyptian edition, Vol. 6, Page 274) it is written that upon the demise of the holy Prophet [s.aw.w.], Hadhrat Aysha beat her chest along with the other women, what is your opinion regarding this act of the Ummul Mu'mineen?

22. Maulana Maududi writes that by calling Marwan back from Medina, Hadhrat Uthman bin Affan violated the holy Prophet's ruling. Do you reproach this act or support it?

23. Is it logical that Muslims follow any individual, even if that individual was like Mu`awiyah who was known for his enmity against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)?

24. Why did Hadhrat Aysha rebel against the successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), while it is said in a clear Hadith that whoever rebels against the Imam of his time, he shall be considered rebellious and irreligious? Was not her rebellion against Amiral-Muminin in al-Jamal battle a frank contradiction to the Quranic texts, especially the well-known verse, "And stay in your houses..."[Holy Quran XXXIII: 33]?

25. What are the references and sources from which we can identify the Holy Prophet's sunnah? Why do some Sunni brothers and sisters ignore those traditions in which the Holy Prophet asked Muslims to follow the Qur'an and Itrat Ahl-e-Bait?

26. There is a hadith famous in Sunnis which states that: "If there had to be a Prophet after me it would be Umar". However, that being the case why did Hadhrat Umar not become the first Khalifa?
27. Do you know who Nasibis are? Do you know about their beliefs about Hadhrat Ali and other members of the Ahl-e-Bayt including Hadhrat Imam Hussain? In Sahih Muslim (Kitab-ul-Iman), Zirr reported that 'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (Mohammed) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse a grudge against me.' Do you know that many Nasibis who pretend themselves to be Sunnis have written a number of books and/or delivered lectures in which they have praised Yazid and Muawia and tried to tarnish the image of Hadhrat Ali and Imam Hussain? (Have you read Mehmood Ahmad Abbasi's book "Khilafat-e-Mu`awiyah-o-Yazid". Have you heard Dr. Zakir Naik's lecture in which he said Yazid (May Allah be pleased with him) and that the events of Karbala were a political battle between two tribal leaders (Hussain and Yazid). Do you know that Dr. Israr Ahmed has similar views about Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Imam Hussain?) In your view, do these Nasibis represent the Sunni sect? To what extent has the ideology of the Nasibis currently infiltrated into the Sunni thought?

Notes:

Some of these questions were compiled by Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na’eemi of Sahiwa’al, Pakistan. He was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research converted to the Shia Faith. The rationale for his conversion was that he had questions that he found the Sunni Ulema could not answer satisfactorily. Most of those questions remain unanswered to this day. Tragically he was martyred for his beliefs, may Allah (swt) reward him and grant him a place in Paradise. Footnotes have been added for the purposes of further clarity.

“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)

“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.

Here is an extract of the Hadith from Sahih Bukhari which reveals why Hadhrat Fatima was not buried next to her father. She remained angry with Abu Bakr and did not allow those people to participate in her funeral. That's why Ali (a.s.) had to bury her without informing Abu Bakr. This is a Sunni Sahih Hadith which describes that the lady (a.s.) remained angry with Abu Bakr till her last. The following Hadith may explain why Abu Bakr is so not held in high esteem by Shias.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546: Narrated 'Aisha:

"Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah's Apostle used to do." So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."

See The History of the Khailfas who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers).

The number of traditions narrated by Abu Hurraira are about 5,374, while Abu Hurraira didn't accompany the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) except in the last two years of the Holy Prophet's lifetime – after accepting Islam. As for Imam Ali (a.s.), who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) since his childhood until the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) died between his hands, there are only 537 traditions narrated from him (a.s.) in Sunnis books. This is so, while Imam Ali (a.s.) delivered the most remarkable orations and sayings especially during the time which he ruled over the Muslim ummah, which lasted less than five years. And in this five years he explained to the Muslims every minute rule and regulation in the Islamic shariah and the Prophet's sunnah. None of these orations and sayings has been mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari or Muslim.

What is the Sunnis' attitude in regard to the revolution of Imam Hussain (a.s.)? Every body recognizes the high rank of Imam Hussain (a.s.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) described Imam Hussain (a.s.) as the counter-balance (other part) of the Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.a.w.w.) declared that Hussain ibn Ali (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam whether he rises (rebelled against the oppressors) or not. He (s.a.w.w.) also insisted that the Muslims should love Imam Hussain (a.s.) and adhere to his teachings. In other words, Imam Hussain (a.s.) was the best person of his era along with his father and elder brother. As it is known that Imam Hussain rose up against the authority of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfil his duty toward the Holy Quran and his Holy grandfather (s.a.w.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad caliphs had exceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and injustice. Imam Hussain (a.s.) followed the tradition of his grandfather, namely,

"He who sees an oppressor and tyrant ruler, who is changing what is forbidden (haram) into what is allowed (halal) - those who broke their covenant with Allah and fight against the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). And in the face of this he doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler's illegal deeds neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in the same place where He shall put that tyrant."

Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist Imam Hussain (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they wrote to Imam Hussain (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same time, some of the companions, whom the Sunnis still eulogize, like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and many others, didn't give their allegiance to Imam Hussain (a.s.). We should ask why? Moreover, Abdullah ibn `Umar began calling the people to pay allegiance to Yazid, preventing them from assisting Imam Hussain (a.s.). This has been recorded by Sahih Bukhari (vol.IX, the book of riots, chapter: `if he said anything before the folk'), and in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal (vol.II, p.48) [This narration was conveyed by Naafi`].

The following are the actual hadiths of Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716: Narrated Ibn Abbas: Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, "What is wrong with him ? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state )." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for." Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I forgot it.") (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1)

What was the reason for the argument between the Muslims in the situation when some companions were preventing the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) from writing down his will? The holy body of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) was still lying on the bed when all those disputes occurred, concerning the matter of who shall succeed him after his demise. And if some of the companions had done what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had asked them (i.e. by bringing the ink and a pen) such catastrophes wouldn't have happened among the Islamic sects…. In a tradition narrated in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (vol.1, chapter no.83), it is said that the companions who were present during the moment of the Holy Prophet's death divided into two parties: a party called to bring the ink and pen to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), and the other party tried to prevent that… . And if the second party had obeyed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), would they therefore, need to fabricate a false character called Abdullah ibn Saba' and relate all the confusions to him, and free those companions who were the main players in this objection from any charge or responsibility? Is it possible for anyone who works in the field of researching and study history to be convinced with illogical interpretations of those events?

The above Hadiths of Sahih Bukhari clearly show the disobedience of Prophet (s.a.w.w.) by Umar and others even when the Prophet was his at death bed. One may ask what will be the reward of clear disobedience of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and making him angry because of their disagreement and making noise.

“the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral” - taken from Sharra Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi). Also think about this. Did the two Shaykhs of Ahl'ul Sunnah, i.e. Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar participate in the burial rituals of the holy Prophet. If you claim they did, then why do we read that both Sharh Mawaqif and Al Farooq (by Shibli Nu'mani) confirm their absence? If they did not participate then what type of friends are these? (see Al-Farooq, by Shibli Nu'mani, Page 40).

Can anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and saw him be considered a just Sahabi?
According to Sunnis, there is no doubt that any Muslim who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) is considered a Sahabi. The companions were very fortunate because they have seen the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and benefited from his holy existence and spirituality. But, at the same time, we have to say that this accompaniment does not protect the companion from falling in the wrong, and it cannot be anyone's ticket to enter paradise. Rather, true belief in Allah, good deeds, and adhering to the Islamic shariah is the real security. …… This is clear from the holy verses, especially the Surah of al-Asr. We don't have in our hand any hadith or narration conferring that anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) is infallible or just, or even pious. On the contrary, we have many verses declaring that some of the Holy Prophet's companions were hypocrite and they remained on their hypocrisy until they died. Thus, the Sunni opinion which says that all the Holy Prophet's companions are just, and that they must be obeyed is absolutely incorrect, rather it contradicts the Holy Quran. How can we regard all the companions to be just and that they must be followed, while some of them have accused the Holy Prophet's wife of having an illegal relationship? This event has been mentioned in the Holy Quran in the surah of al-Noor, verse 11. Some other companions were drunkards, like Qudamah ibn Madhoon who had been punished for this act….We see that the names of some of the companions have been mentioned in the Holy Quran. In these verses they have been considered irreligious, like Walid ibn `Uqbah about whom the Holy Quran has said, "O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat: 6].

Other companions had committed adultery! (See: Usd al-Ghaabah, vol. 4&5, where you can get more information about their names and shameful biography in details). How can we adhere to any companion, while at the same time when we find outright contradictions between what they say and what they do?

This is beside the mental, dogmatic, and political disputes that had happened between the companions themselves? When Abdul Rahman ibn `Awf said to Imam Ali (a.s.) in the gathering when `Umar was dying: I swear allegiance to you according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and the way of life of the two caliphs. Imam Ali (a.s.) said, "No! I accept your allegiance according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and my opinion! "This means that Imam Ali (a.s.) didn't agree to follow the way of life of the two caliphs. Thus, we can ask that:

(i)- Does investigating the companions' biographies and way of life contradict the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran itself discloses many facts and unveils many characters, the following verses are examples: (a) "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise"; ( "And of the dwellers of the desert are those who take what they spend to be a fine, and what they wait (the befalling of) calamities to you; on them (will be) the evil calamity"; © "And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) the nearness of Allah"; (d) "And as for the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars...and from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina(also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement" [Tawbah:98-100].

The narrations of Sunni sources have disclosed the name of this person whom the Quran is making reference to. A narration mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (the book of du`as) declares the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had said, "I am your missing baby near the pool. There, some men will be lifted unto me, but when I come down to lift them up, they will be scattered around me! At that time, I will say, `O my Lord! These are my companions!' He will answer me saying, `You don't know what they did after you!'

Many traditions have been narrated in The Sunni sources that are having such meaning – (Sahih al-Bukhari vol.8, pp.13,504,505. The truth is that many of the Holy Prophet's companions were pious and true believers, while there were some who were known for their false belief and hypocrisy. History shows us many examples of such individuals.

(ii)- Is it correct to close our eyes and ears, saying that all the companions were pious, good, and that all of their deeds were credible even if they had some deeds which were opposed to the Islamic law (sharia)?

(iii)- Is it right to justify their evil deeds, saying that they were practicing ijtihad, and that their wrong doings did not happen intentionally?

This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127)

Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7

History records that she said the following about Hadhrat 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.

In Musnad Ahmed Hanbal and so on, it is mentioned that Hadhrat Aysha had named Uthman as Nathal, who should be killed and Murtakib Kufr. If you regard Hadhrat Aysha as the truthful then you will have to accept what she called Hadhrat Uthman. And if she did not tell the truth then why do you call her the truthful?

Hadhrat Aysha was killed by Mu’awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)

Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English transl. by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)

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)

Sharra Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi).

ibid, page 175

Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)

Can't we consider this following as an open enmity against the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran had clearly mentioned that loving the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is the cause of receiving a great reward; thus, is it right to follow any fabricated Hadith or to call the Muslims to follow individuals like Mu`awiya who is not infallible. He is the one who had committed lots of crimes against Islam and its regulations. The most wicked among Mu`awiyah's deeds is his warfare against Imam Ali (a.s.) and the wicked ritual - enacted by him - to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit in every part of the Islamic country - this lasted until the ruling time of the Umayyad caliph `Umar ibn Abdil `Aziz. It is worthy to mention that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had already said, "Whosoever enacts a wicked ritual, then the penalty of enacting such a ritual shall be on him and those who follow this ritual."

Didn't Mu`awiyah fight Imam Hasan (a.s.), the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), and after he made a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) he broke his oath and planned against Imam Hasan (a.s.)? Didn't he kill all the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) such as Hijr ibn `Adiyy without any reason or accusation except for the reason that he loves Ali and adheres to his way? Didn't he order his gang to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit, in all states and provinces, which lasted until the period of `Umar ibn `Abdil `Aziz? Wasn't Mu`awiyah the one whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had cursed?

Wasn't it right that Mu`awiyah had broken the terms of the peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) by appointing his son Yazid as his successor? Wasn't it Yazid who killed the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) (i.e. Imam Hussain), invaded Makkah, and assassinated its inhabitants? Was not Mu`awiyah his son's partner in all those crimes?

Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) say, "O Ali! Whosoever fights against you, he is like that who fights against me; and whosoever makes peace with you, then he is making peace with me"? Now, according to this holy tradition, were not Mu`awiyah, `Aysha, Talha, and al-Zubayr fighting against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) when they rebelled against Imam Ali(a.s.)? Can we not discover the source of disputes by reading history and study its events? Those disputes which were the main reasons for the division of the Islamic ummah.

Allah said, "... and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back..." All the Islamic sects agree on the prophetic sunnah - no one has doubt in it. The dispute is in regard to the sources of this prophetic sunnah. Both the Shi`ites and Sunnis have narrated the well-known tradition in their books in which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) said, "I am leaving with you two weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all. They are the Book of Allah and my family. They won't separate from each other until they arrive to me near the Pool."

All sects have agreed on the chain of this hadith. Ibn Hajar, a Sunni narrator, has said, "This tradition has been conveyed by more than 20 companions. It is also mentioned in the sahih of Muslim, sunan of al-Daarimi, musnad Ahmad, and tens of sources. This clearly makes indicates that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) had shown us how to derive his sunnah and from which sources. There is no doubt that the main source of the Prophet's (s.a.w.w.) sunnah is the Aalul Bayt (a.s.). However, at the same time we see that the Sunni ulama do not paying any attention to this sahih hadith. Why? Is the Prophet's hadith not sufficient? Why do they follow the other tradition which says,"...the Book of Allah and my sunnah"? Now, suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) did word this tradition in this fashion, does it differ with the first one? Ibn Hajar had said that the Islamic ummah needs the Holy Quran, the sunnah, and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If we examine the text we shall be quite sure that it confirms the infallibility of the Imams and that they are unique intellectuals and political sources. Hence, we have no other choice but to adhere to them because they are the firmest link handle between us, Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.w.). The Sunnis believe that the traditions and the sunnah have not been recorded for about a century, i.e. from the caliphate of `Umar till the caliphate of `Umar ibn Abdil Aziz (the Umayyad caliph). Many traditions have been burned in the lifetime of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Can we expect any remaining of the traditions and sunnah after a century of prohibition? Even if we found some of them, we should ask how much and to what degree of accuracy were they recorded? Do we dare say that all the traditions existing in the Sunni sources remained safe from abrogation? And, if those traditions were all accredited and reliable, then why did Muslim choose only six thousand hadith from about three hundred thousand? Or why did al-Bukhari choose only four thousand hadiths from more than six hundred thousand - and left the rest? If all the traditions that are talking about the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) and his sunnah were reliable and trustworthy then why do the Sunnis practice ijtihad, qiyas and istihsan? Wasn't Abu Hanifa, and other scholars practicing qiyas and istihsan in order to derive certain rules of the Islamic law (shar`)? Doesn't this prove that the traditions do not contain religious rules? Even those which contain some religious rule, are not reliable. We read in the book titled "Kitaab al-Mawdhou`aat" (vol.1, Beirut edition, the last lines of the chapter called `fadhaa`il al-Khulafa'') that the two great and eminent scholars, i.e. al-Soyouti and Ibn al-Jawzi, had declared that most of the known narrations which eulogize the caliphs are fabricated and
not trustworthy!

Prohibiting the writing of the traditions led the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) to omit all these traditions containing the virtues of the Prophet's House, and in their place they fabricated thousands of traditions that eulogize their enemies! (See the first volume of tafseer al-Fakhral-Raazi? a great Sunni scholars when interpreting the phrase "BismAllah"; he says: The traditionalists have concealed many traditions that related the virtues of Imam Ali (a.s.) because they feared Mu`awiyah!!!
If the Sunnis are true when they claim that Muslims have to follow the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), then why do they refuse to narrate the traditions that eulogize the Holy Imams (a.s.), especially Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.). This is so, while in the same time they narrate many traditions about the Khawarij and Nawasib. For example, Bukhari narrated in his Sahih, from `Imran ibn Hittan (a Khariji) and also from Marwan (a Nasibi, the hater of Hadhrat Ali, see Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddad Dehlvi's Tohfa Isna Asharia, p.99).
For an introduction to the literal meaning of Nasibi we have relied on the definitions stipulated by several recognised Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars:
“Famhuus” page 53, Chapter “Al Ba”.
“Taj al Uroous page 277, Volume 4 Chapter “Al Ba Murtazi al Zubaydi”.
“Lisan al Arab” page 762, by Ibn Manzur.
“Hadiya al Sahil ay adalta al Masail” page 96.
“Tadhrib al Radhi” page 311 Allamah Jalaladeen as-Suyuti.
“Akrab al Muwarid” page 2 Chapter “Lananat Nusub”.

In “Lisan al Arab” by Ibn Manzur states: “Nawasib are those who hate Hadhrath Ali, and embrace that hatred as part of their faith”… May Allah’s curse be upon such people!

In “Taj al Uroous“, we read: “Nasibi are those who hate Ameer ul Momineen Ali bin Abi Talib and take that enmity as part of their faith”.

“Tadhrib al Radhi” provides the following definition: “Nasibi ideology means hating Ali and preferring Mu’awiya”.

“Hadiya al Sahil” elaborates yet further: “Nasibi ideology is a type of flawed character that is very bad, in its worst form is has a hatred for the Imam of Guidance Hadhrath Ali, and takes this as part of its Deen / Iman”.

A study of Islamic history tells us that Mu'awiya and Yazid were the founding fathers of Nasibis because both of them abused Imam Ali (a.s.) in the Khutba of Juma. Another leading Nasibi is Ibn Taymeeya, the most violent and biased Islamic historian and muhaddis, who is rejected and condemned by the majority of Sunni Ulema. For example: Ibn Hajr al Asqalani in his biography of Ibn Taymeeya lists the differing views amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars. For the purposes of this discussion it will suffice to quote the following.

"Others considered him a hypocrite [Munafiq] because of what he said about `Ali... that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the Khilafah and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's (s) saying (to `Ali): "Only a hypocrite would show you hatred". "al-durar al-kaamina fi a`yaan al-mi'at al-thaamina" by Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's in the biography of Ibn Taymeeya (printed in Hyderabad: Daa'irat al-ma`aarif al-`uthmaaniyya, 1384 H, vol. 1:153-155) . Another esteemed Imam of the Nasibis is Ibn Katheer Damishqi and today's Salafi will only deem his version of history (as set out on al Bidayah wa al Nihaya) as 'the truth'. Ibn Katheer's attack on Sayyida Fatima 's character: In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 5 page 289, Ibn Katheer makes the following comment: "If by denying Rasulullah (s)'s inheritance and the Estate of Fadak, Fatima became angry, one should point out that Fatima was just an ordinary woman, and she got angry in the same way that ordinary women do, after all she was not infallible". These types of comments clearly point to Ibn Katheer's enmity towards Sayyida Fatima , to the point that he was willing to lower her esteemed status so as to protect Abu Bakr. This Nasibi claimed that Sayyida Fatima 's anger was just like that of any ordinary woman, when we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61: "Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry." When Sayyida Fatima 's anger is on par with Rasulullah (s)'s anger then can we really deem her anger to be that of 'ordinary' woman?

[Ngwkgczx]

Once again these are not my views but the views of a Shia....now seeing as there is a resurgence in the confidence of Shia....and they are now more and more proclaiming their faith and beliefs openly...it is important that we know answers and refutations to their questions....

I study with and and live near many....if i was asked any of these questions, to be honest i would be too dumbfounded to reply. And Shias are now more and more especially at Universities and with their friends propogating their beliefs, critiquing Sunnism. We need to have atleast an inkling of why they are wrong, with evidence and some answers to their questions

Jazakallah for any answers, all dont have to be answered as long as some are

[9TWSg835]

That's an awful lot of questions!

[Hetgvwic]

Most of the history has no sources, weak and out of context. it just wasting of time, they never agreed to learn the truth, if it would be so, they would leave first their taqiyyah aqeedah.

[Ngwkgczx]

That's an awful lot of questions!

I know...

I thought i'd put them all down....if any can be answered at all...it would be much appreciated. At least i gain something from reading that monotonous post....

Im gonna have to log off now, but what i might do when i come back, is to filter the questions and see which ones i really want answering.

Jazakallah

[9TWSg835]

I know...

I thought i'd put them all down....if any can be answered at all...it would be much appreciated. At least i gain something from reading that monotonous post....

Im gonna have to log off now, but what i might do when i come back, is to filter the questions and see which ones i really want answering.

Jazakallah

Great idea

[Hetgvwic]

I know...

I thought i'd put them all down....if any can be answered at all...it would be much appreciated. At least i gain something from reading that monotonous post....

Im gonna have to log off now, but what i might do when i come back, is to filter the questions and see which ones i really want answering.

Jazakallah

this are not a person question it just cut paste job

ask that person to come with each and every story individuelly. believe me, he doesnt even know the context of those stories.

[Ngwkgczx]

Will i still be able to edit my post when i come back? That post is very long it might put people off from answering...

[markphata]

Yes, you should be able too Insha'Allah. Unless the mods were too lock it off, which I see no reason for.

[FalHaitle]

interesting. most of these quesions shias have asked are just merely statements. what proof do they provide that this is exactly what took place. eg the first questions. what proof do they have abu bakr (ra) and umar (ra) wernt boycotted and that they provided no help

the second question is just silly it dont prove anything. it was well known faatima (ra) was an extremly modest woman, and her final will was that she be buried in the dark without anyone knowing. ali (ra) fulfiled this and buried her at night and informed no one. to bury her next to her father would of meant of sahabah finding out.

again shia use childish arguments in question three. sunnis also beleive the prophet (saw) said ' if there was to be a prophet after me then it would be umar (ra). but u wil never find any sunnis using this to proof umar (ra) is greater then abu bakr (ra). the prophet (saw) even used to call zaid (ra) (his adopted son) my son even though we know he aint his son. its jus an expression of love.

question for is again pathetic. sunnis beleive of all the sahabah that where closest to rasoolullah (saw) it was abu bakr (ra) and umar (ra) yet you would see many hadith from them. the major sahaba infact refrained from quoting hadiths due to the fear they may say something wrong.

as for the other questions il try answering them when i get time but again they are just mere statements theres no proof what the shias said took place. the reason why ali (ra) didnt partcipate in the battles during the 1st three khalifs is already answered somewhere on this forum

in the mean time just study www.ahlelbayt.com. all the shia lies and stories have been exposed

[Qeiafib]

I usually don't like to waste my time arguing with shia, but I would just like to point out not to get entangled with all these stupid questions. The shia are very good at rhetoric and sophistry, so don't be mislead into thinking these are strong arguments they make. Instead of arguing about the core issues (their innovations about the imamah, imams being greater than prophets, etc,...), and providing real evidence, they are all over the place and instead bring up completely unrelated things. They rely on ad hominem attacks against the sahaba and irrelevant questions, mostly in the form of "why so and so did this" "why wasn't it like this", based on completely arbitrary premises, and attempt to present them as logical arguments. Don't be fooled!

[replrobin]

Number 11 alludes that the Sahaba (Allah be pleased with them) were hypocrytes, including the first three Khalifahs (Allah be pleased with them). Ask your Shia friend, who were the witnesses at the wedding of Hadhrat Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah (Allah be pleased with them) and who paid for Hadhrat Ali's (Allah be pleased with him) dowry?

[Varbaiskkic]

The arbitration issue between Hazrat Ali (ra) and Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) is sufficient to silence Shias. They need to start with basics before getting smart.

[Ngwkgczx]

Im not going to edit the original question post as a few of you have posted after and it may confuse other posters if i suddenly edit it....However if any of the mods believe i should i will...

Im going to post a few questions, once i get answers, and i understand them i'll move on and ask a few more....

If anyone feels anything i have asked or say is wrong please forgive me and dont hestitate to tell me....

The first bunch will be questions i have always wanted to ask....Before i do, i agree with another brother who posted above, Shiaism to me has many theological unsound ideas and beliefs.....Imamate, Ali (Ra) made from the same Noor as the prophet....made before every other creature, some Shias believe he (ra) taught all Non-Imam Prophets, some believe that the Imams are higer than all the Non-Imam prophets. The dislike of most of the Sahabas (RA), which leads onto their love of cursing, Zanjeer Zani, Muta...e.t.c...e.t.c

So im not at all worried about what they think...for me its more important I KNOW and I am totally informed about why certain situations happened and what we as Sunnis believe. Also im sure theres more people who are in a similar situation as me...and hopefully they can read this and gain benefit.

My first bunch of questions are.....im going to try and go on a chronological order

Did Bibi Fatima (RA) die upset with Hazrat Abu Bakar (ra)? Why did she have her Janaza on the quiet and why wasn't anyone else told?

Was Mohammad bin Abu Bakar (ra) involved in the assasination of Hazrat Usman (RA) and now the original Shia poster claims Hazrat Ayesha (RA) also was encouraging rebellion against him....now seeing as she wanted his killers caught im assuming thats false...

Now i have a few more but i want to see how these questions are taken before i ask them....

Jazakallah...

[Ngwkgczx]

Could the replies be given with sayings and the beliefs of big scholars for example the four major Imams (RA)

[MYMcvBgl]

Assalaamu 'Alaikoem brother,

Brother it seems you copied pasted that from shiachat dot com . Brother I've seen many debates between Shia and Sunnism but these things are all irrelevant about what we believe.

Brother I know these things are addicting to discuss since we believe all Sahabas are granted Paradise based on Qur'anic verses and authentic hadiths and this fact doesn't change because of the mistakes that history shows and Shi'as exaggerations.

The point is and this is many times avoided by Shi'as to discuss the main points like Imamate, Raj'a, Predestination, Attributes of Allah etc.

But brother you really need to study in a madrassah to see the beauty system of Ahlus Sunnah. I urge you to do this because with no knowledge about Ahlus Sunnah itself you will be sure captured by those Shi'a snakes since they are very active on the internet and translating their books in english whereas many Ahlus Sunnah books are mainly in Arabic. Also you need to learn to Usool al-hadiths, Shi'as are forging,twisting a lot of Hadiths and our devout predecessors didn't say for nothing that the Rafidah are the biggest liars which remains a fact till today.

I can advise you two good links to be satisfied insha Allah;

http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e94.html#3 (GF Haddad)
http://www.defending-islam.com/page78.html

The latter is the site of the member here DefendingIslam may Allah reward him for his good deeds and intention. The latter site is very good about what the difference is between Ahlus Sunnah and Shi'a so no need to go in details about the history which doesn't change any fact concerning the Religion. It shows definitely how weak their concept of Imamate is not even addressed in the Holy Qur'an.

The beauty of Ahlus Sunnah is the Usool ad-Deen our 'Aqeedah is based on crystal-clear verses which are impossible to have more meanings than one whereas Shi'a beliefs are all on verses with MULTIPLE interpretations and this is what we call Thanniyoe ad-Dalalah and 'Aqeedah deprived from verses with Dhanni meaning is not really safe and in Ahlus Sunnah it's invalid.

NOTE: Brother you might think that this has nothing to do with your question and I surely experienced your situation too because of lacking knowledge about Ahlus Sunnah. I only want to point out that we need to discuss the main points and getting in to details we will be discussing and judging without consciousness the Sahaba-i Kiraam which the Prophet (Sallallahoe 'aleyhi wa alihi wasallam) warned us.

[Snweyuag]

I think I should quit going futher after seeing the first question:

1. History testifies that when Hadhrat Muhammad (s.a.w.w.) declared his Prophethood, the Quraysh subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrat Abu Talib (a.s.) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship . Where were Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.)? Why were they not boycotted by the Quraysh? Is there any evidence that they were boycotted? Is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh's boycott all food/business transactions with Bani Hashim?" What a stupid question, I'm sorry but this is so ridiculous as it's so easy to make someone good look bad. The problem IS ALWAYS IN THE QUESTION. Because the Question tries to indicate that the successors, may Allah be pleased with them, were simply "chilling" probably was relaxing enjoying the good food, women, clothing, just "chilling" through the streets of Makkah, laughing with Quraysh as to what is happening (a picture of an evil arab laughing from kafir cartoons comes in mind).

The reason why it's a stupid question is because it's like asking "where was Allah" during such immense hardship? (astagfirullah) Why not start cursing Prophet Haroon for not putting an end to Calf worship when Musa was away at the mountain top? (astagfirullah) Why was Abbas on the enemy side at Badr, maybe we should start being suspicious? (astagfirullah)...point is it's a stupid question.

Allah knows best.

[Ngwkgczx]

Salam!

Sorry i havent replied earlier, been really busy...

I kinda agree with one of the brothers above, i think in my case i should focus more on my actions now than the actions of certain individuals in the past. Its not like if mistakes were made im gonna find Shiaism more palatable....there really is no alternative to Sunni Islam

Thankyou for all your replies

Jazakallah

[nemoforone]

Allah has not guaranteed the Eman of anyone in the Quran but people who accepted Islam on the day of “Fatha e Makkah”. Read Surah Nasar. People who consider Syedna Abu Sufyan to be any lesser Muslim should understand this.

سُوۡرَةُ النّصر
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

إِذَا جَآءَ نَصۡرُ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡفَتۡحُ (١) وَرَأَيۡتَ ٱلنَّاسَ يَدۡخُلُونَ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ أَفۡوَاجً۬ا (٢) فَسَبِّحۡ بِحَمۡدِ رَبِّكَ وَٱسۡتَغۡفِرۡهُ*ۚ إِنَّهُ ۥ ڪَانَ تَوَّابَۢا (٣