1) We can see here baseless claim from author and muhaqiq. They claim that no one didn’t report this hadith in that time except Abu Bakr.
Kattani in “Nazmul mutanaseera min al hadeethal mutawateera” (272) wrote:
“Narration that no one inherits from prophets, everything that they leave behind is for charity
Suyooti in “Azhar” reported it via:
4) Sad ibn Abi Vaqas
6) Abu Bakr.
7) Abdurrahman ibn Auf.
8. Zubayr ibn Awam.
9) Abu Hurayra.
13) ibn Abbas.
13 sahaba in total
8 from “Ashara mubashara” reported this narration. So this hadeeth is close to “Who will lie upon me
Ibn Hajar in “Amaliya Muhraja ala muhtasaru ibnul Hajeeb al Asli” said: “This narration, is authetic and mutawateer”.”..
So on what base these filthy shia liars claim that no one didn’t report this hadith in that time? Nothing but stupid ignorance and their imagination force them to get this conclusion.
2) There are sound shia reports with exactly same meaning. See our discussion of Fadak.
Why Mufid and almost each other shia scholar turn to be deaf and blind when they face with such ahadeth in their books?
How is it possible to make a hint that Abu Bakr fabricated this report, if your OWN MASOOM IMAM NARRATED THE VERY SAME REPORT IN YOUR SOUND BOOKS IN SOUND FORM?
How is it possible to be such two faced?
Verily, OMAR the chosen name by the Ahl al-Bayt
September 11, 2012 at 3:04 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Take a few minutes to think on this, The NAME issue - lame Shia excuses | Leave a comment
… even if the polytheists get annoyed:
also ponder over the following, the hypocracy (and crocodile tears) of the Rafidah “Ayatullahs” is a bit more than obvious:
Inheritance in the Qur’an (Fadak related)
July 28, 2012 at 8:34 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | 2 Comments
By brother Farid:
Bismillah alrahman alraheem,
The follow is some material from a very useful book called Difa’an ‘an Al-Aal wal As’haab (p. 260). It goes without saying that this was originally in Arabic, but it was so useful to me, that I could not help but translate some of the content. I will be skipping some parts due to the length, so those that know Arabic should return to the original.
Even though the differences between Abu Bakr and Fatima (raa) was one in which both parties saw themselves as correct, it was the sensitivity of some in regards to Abu Bakr causes them to look at things differently, which is the problem for it will be used for the sake of the condemnation of Al-Siddique.
If we were to switch the characters in the story (Abu Bakr and Fatima) to two fuqaha or two marji’s then both would have their status without any such condemnation or accusation due to intentions, and we’d look at both with respect and appreciation since both have evidences for their arguments, even though one has the stronger evidence. However, the case here is different. Abu Bakr is an enemy to some, and since that is the case, then all evil is from him, and all his opinions are mistakes, and that is how (they) measure these issues. (They) measure with emotions that cannot be used to settle between any two people, so how can that be used when studying Islamic history and shari’ah?!
The objective person will not be led by emotions, but to truth wherever it may be. He will stand, and reflect, to put the dots on the letters, for Fadak is one of two things: It is either the inheritance of the Prophet (pbuh) to Fatima, or a gift that he gave her on Khaibar…
[Author goes on to quote narration.]
As for the authenticity (of the narration of “the prophets do not leave an inheritance”) among Ahlul Sunnah is known and doesn’t need clarification, and as for the Shias, then here it is:
Al-Kulayni narrated in Al-Kafi from Abi Abdullah, he said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…
[Author quotes Al-Majlisi’s authentication from Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111) and Khomaini’s reliance on the hadith in Al-Hukooma Al-Islamiya (93).]
The usage of the evidence that Allah said about Zakariya, “Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor, Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.” (Maryam 5-6) is a strange one that lacks the logic from all the necessary aspects for the following reasons.
Firstly: It does not fit a pious man to ask Allah for a son to inherit his money, so how can we expect this meaning to be attributed to the Prophet Zakariya (as) in that he would ask Allah for a son to inherit his money?! Rather, the pious ask for offspring that will benefit them on the day of judgement, so Zakariya wanted Allah to give him a son that would carry on the prophethood after him, and inherit the old glory of the Aal of Yaqoub in prophethood.
Secondly: It is known that Zakariya was a poor carpenter, so what kind of money did he have that made him ask Allah to grant him a son for the sake of monetary inheritance?! Rather, prophets, by default, don’t save up, but spend their money for the sake of good.
Thirdly: The word al-irth, isn’t specific to money, but it is used for knowledge, prophethood, kingship, and others, like when Allah says, “Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our bondmen.” (Fatir 32) And when Allah says, “These are the heirs, who will inherit paradise. There they will abide.” (Al-Mu’minoon 10-11)
Fourthly: The narration “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge,” is clear that denying that they left money as an inheritance, and this (argument) alone is sufficient.
Similarly, this is the case when Allah says, “And Solomon was David’s heir,” (Al-Naml 16) for Sulaiman (as) didn’t inherit the money of Dawud (as), but rather, his prophethood, his wisdom, and his knowledge, which is derived from these two reasons:
Firstly: Dawud (as) is famous for have a hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and he had many children. So, how is it possible that only Sulaiman inherited from him?! So, specifically mentioning Sulaiman (as) alone is not correct. (I, Farid, say: The opinion that Dawud had other children is agreed upon by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Refer to Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya by Ibn Katheer and 1 Chronicles – chapter 3.)
Secondly: If it was matter of inheriting money, then it wouldn’t be useful for it to be mentioned in the book of Allah. For it is natural for a son to receive the inheritance of his father, and receiving it isn’t a form of praise, nor to Dawud or Sulaiman (as), for even Jews and Christians leave inheritances, so what does Sulaiman gain by being singled out in this verse?! Furthermore, the verse is in context of praise for Sulaiman (as) and what Allah has specified for him in merit, and the inheritance of money is something normal that all people share like eating, drinking, the burying of the dead, and that which is like that isn’t narrated about the prophets, for it is useless, but that which is narrated is that what includes a moral and a benefit. The words of one who says, “He died and his son received his inheritance,” is like saying, “and they buried him,” or “they ate, drank, and slept,” and other things that shouldn’t be including among the stories of the Qur’an.
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral
July 19, 2012 at 10:04 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Q/A, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Asslam o alaikum..
Shia claims that Hazrat Abu Baker, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman were not present at time of Janaza e Rasool. Is it true? If no! Then plz provide some authentic proves about Janaza e Rasool..
wa Alaikum Salam.
Answered by Islamqa:
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral of the Prophet
June 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known about them from ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago, and they still have this hateful charcateristic.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the Shi’ah) are the most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the imams defined them as being distinguished by the fact that they are liars.
Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate from them, because they tell lies.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.
Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is not active in calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.
Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they fabricate hadeeth and take that as their religion.
This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri and Abu Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah, and this was his testimony concerning them.
These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.
None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done anything but attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is something so obvious as to need no proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dearer to them than their spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: No person was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they fabricate lies against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of people after the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and Muslim (2532).
The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they are the dearest of people to him.
There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need any evidence, as stated above.
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the brightest of all, and the day on which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had changed.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (5/239).
Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her father (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4462).
So where did these people get this fabrication?
But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be unaware of, and they denied that the Qur’aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted and that something was taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on which the ummah is unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things would come up with a fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].
We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its people.
May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
And Allaah knows best.
Hate of Sahaba has its own result
May 16, 2012 at 9:14 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment
Ibn Abu Dunya narrated in his book “al-Uqubat” (p 218, #312):
Ahmad ibn Abdul-Ala said: Abu Rahv which was shia, said to me: We were sitting near Forbidden Mosque in Mecca, when person, whose face was white from one side and black from other, stood up and said: O people! Take an example from me, I use to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. Once in the night, when I was (sitting) the man came to me and hit me on my face. He said: “O enemy of Allah, O sinner! Do you abusing Abu Bakr and Umar?” . When I stood up in the morning I seen myself in this condition.
And again in ”al-Uqubat” (p 218, #313):
Umar ibn al-Hakim narrated from his uncle: We were on our way to Mecca, and with us was the one who use to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. We wanted to stop him but he didn’t listen. When he separated from us to fulfil his natural need, bees attacked him. He asked us for help, and we tried. But when bees attacked us we have to run. Bees didn’t left him util tear him apart.
And again in ”al-Uqubat” (p 60, #82):
Hakim ibn Jabir narrated from his slave girl: I seen Hasan ibn Ali, he made ablution and was using towel. I felt hate towards him. When night came I slept, and when morning came I felt fire in my liver.
(Narrator) Sufyan said: Her liver became wrong because she felt hate towards son of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
al-Mufid shoots himself in the leg
May 1, 2012 at 5:06 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment
I came across something extremely dangerous written by the biggest of their scholar al-Sheikh al-Mufid, this man wanted to refute Ahlul-Sunnah and his argument is that: “Why do you Sunnies say that Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman are more worthy of caliphate? if these men fought and spent in the cause of Allah then there are also others who were much better than they are, others who spent more and fought harder, there are others who served Islam much more than they did.”
So he is teaching his Shia what to tell the Muslims when they debate with them, in his book “al-Ifsah fi Imamat Ameer al-Mumineen” pages 153-154-155:
م يقال لهم: إن كان لأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان الوعد بالثواب، لما ادعيتموه لهم من الإنفاق والقتال، وأوجب ذلك عصمتهم من الآثام، لأوجب ذلك لأبي سفيان ويزيد بن أبي سفيان ومعاوية(2) وخالد بن الوليد وعمرو بن العاص أيضا، بل هو لهؤلاء أوجب، وهم به أحق من أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وغيرهم ممن سميتموه، لما نحن مثبتوه في المقال.
وذلك أنه لا خلاف بين الأمة أن أبا سفيان أسلم قبل الفتح بأيام، وجعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله الأمان لمن دخل داره تكرمة له وتمييزا عمن سواه، وأسلم معاوية قبله في عام القضية(1) وكذلك كان إسلام يزيد بن أبي سفيان(2).
وقد كان لهؤلاء الثلاثة من الجهاد بين يدي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ما لم يكن لأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان، لأن أبا سفيان أبلى يوم حنين بلاء حسنا، وقاتل يوم الطائف قتالا لم يسمع بمثله في ذلك اليوم لغيره، وفيه ذهبت عينه، وكانت راية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله مع ابنه يزيد بن أبي سفيان، وهو يقدم بها بين يدي المهاجرين والأنصار.
وقد كان أيضا لأبي سفيان بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله مقامات ومعروفة في الجهاد، وهو صاحب يوم اليرموك، وفيه ذهبت عينه الأخرى، وجاءت الأخبار أن الأصوات خفيت فلم يسمع إلا صوت أبي سفيان، وهو يقول: يا نصر الله اقترب. والراية مع ابنه يزيد، وقد كان له بالشام وقائع مشهورات(3).
ولمعاوية من الفتوح بالبحر وبلاد الروم والمغرب والشام في أيام عمر وعثمان وأيام إمارته وفي أيام أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وبعده ما لم يكن لعمر
وأما خالد بن الوليد وعمرو بن العاص فشهرة قتالهما مع النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وبعده تغني الإطالة بذكرها في هذا الكتاب، وحسب عمرو بن العاص في فضله على أبي بكر وعمر تأمير رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله إياه عليهما في حياته(1) ولم يتأخر إسلامه عن الفتح فيكون لهما فضل عليه بذلك، كما يدعى في غيره.
وأما خالد بن الوليد فقد أمره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في حياته، وأنفذه في سرايا كثيرة(2).
[Then you(Shia) would say to them(Sunnies): If Abu Bakr and `Umar were promised the reward, because of what you had claimed for them from spending(in the cause of Allah) and fighting( in the cause of Allah), and that this necessities their safety from the sins, then this also should be applied to abu Suffian, and Yazid(bin abu Suffian), and Mu`awiyah, and Khalid bin al-Walid and `Amro bin al-`Aas, but rather they have more right to it and they are more worthy of it than Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman and the others which you have named, and we shall prove this to you.
This is because there is no disagreement between this nation that abu Suffian embraced Islam a few days before the Fath(of Makkah), and the Prophet (SAWS) promised safety to all those who entered his house in order to honor him and distinguish him from the rest, and Mu`awiyah embraced Islam one year before him during the year of al-Qadiyyah(al-Hudaybiyah), and as such was the Islam of Yazid bin abu Suffian. These three men had done more Jihad alongside the prophet (SAWS) than Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman, because abu Suffian did really good in the battle of Hunayn, and he (also) fought on the day of al-Ta'ef like we never heard any man fight on that day, and in it he lost his eye, and the flag of Rassul-Allah (SAWS) was with his son Yazid bin abu Suffian, and he was holding it and leading the Mouhajirun and the Ansar.
Abu Suffian also had many well-known stances in Jihad after the prophet (SAWS), he is the man of (the battle of) al-Yarmouk, and in it he lost his other eye, and it was reported that all the voices disappeared (on that day) and none were heard except the voice of abu Suffian as he said "Come closer O victory of Allah!" and the flag was held by his son Yazid, he also had (other) famous battles in al-Sham.
As for Mu`awiyah he had naval expeditions and he had his conquests of al-Roum(Christians) and of al-Maghrib(north Africa) and of al-Sham, during the caliphate of `Umar and `Uthman and his own Emirate and the caliphate of Ameer al-Mumineen (as) and after him, but `Umar never had this.
As for Khalid bin al-Walid and `Amro bin al-`Aas their battles alongside Rasul-Allah (SAWS) and after him are too famous and too numerous to collect in this book, it is enough to prove the superiority of `Amro bin al-`Aas that the Prophet (SAWS) had appointed him as Ameer(leader) over them both during his life (1), and his Islam was not later than al-Fath so that they(Abu Bakr & `Umar) would have a virtue over him as is claimed in other cases.
As for Khalid bin al-Walid the Prophet (SAWS) appointed him as Ameer(leader of an army) during his life and sent him in numerous battalions(armies).]
(1) – During Ghazwat That-ul-Salasil.
By this al-Mufid wanted to refute the claim of Ahlul-Sunnah that Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra) were superior and more deserving when it comes to Caliphate, what is more interesting is that al-Mufid regardless of his evil intentions, mentioned the virtues and good deeds of the Sahaba which the Shia hate the most.
So he’s telling us that Mu`awiyah (ra) served Islam more than the first two Caliphs, so if we declare their superiority then Mu`awiyah (ra) is more deserving of this, because of these good deeds which he testifies that he had.
But I don’t want this to be just another topic in which we attack the deviants, there should be benefits here for us all.
Now if we ask the Shia or any Muslim layman regarding the famous pro-Palestinian English MP, we ask: “Do you like George Galloway?” he will say: “Certainly, he speaks the truth and supports the cause and defends us.” So then we ask: “Do you like George Galloway’s `Aqeedah and beliefs?” Surely the answer would be: “No, I hate his Kufr and blasphemy.” This shows that you can like some things about a person and hate other things about that same person, and if this was the case with a Kafir like Galloway then how would it then be for a Muslim like Mu`awiyah (ra) who accompanied Rassul-Allah SAWS) and made Jihad alongside him and made the conquests and the expeditions?
This is the same when it comes to the Muslims, we make Du`ah for Mu`awiyah (ra) because of all of his great good deeds, but we do not praise him for Siffin in fact we condemn it and ask Allah to forgive those who took part in it, and we say `Ali (ra) is closer to the truth and the opposing team transgressed and strayed from the path because of their wrong Ijtihad.
As for Khalid bin al-Waleed (ra), he did a great mistake in the time of the prophet (SAWS):
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet sent (an army unit under the command of) khalid bin Al-Walid to fight against the tribe of bani Jadhima and those people could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna(We have submitted)” but they said, “Saba’na! Saba’na! ” khalid kept on killing some of them and taking some others as captives, and he gave a captive to everyone of us and ordered everyone of us to kill his captive. I said, “By Allah, I shall not kill my captive and none of my companions shall kill his captive!”
so what did he say to him? did he make Takfeer or Tafseeq? how did he handle the situation? The Hadith continues:
Then we mentioned that to the Prophet and he said, “O Allah! I am free from what khalid bin Al-Walid has done,” or “I disassociate myself from what Khalid had done.” and repeated it twice.
So as you can see the sin was great, but the prophet (SAWS) did not disown Khalid and make Takfeer on him, but he disassociated himself from the sinful act that Khalid (ra) committed and still appointed him to other matters.
And we as Muslims say “O Allah, we are free from and we disassociate ourselves from any act committed by any Sahabi, any scholar, any Muslim that contradicts the wisdom of the Quran and the Sunnah.”
Daughters of Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
April 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | 13 Comments
Shaykh of shias Abu Jafar at-Toose in his “al-Mabsoot fi fiqh al-Imami” (4/159):
ولأنه عليه السلام زوج بناته : زوج فاطمة عليها السلام عليا وهو أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله وسلامه عليه ، وأمها خديجة أم المؤمنين ، وزوج بنتيه رقية وأم كلثوم عثمان ، لما ماتت الثانية ، قال : لو كانت ثالثة لزوجناه إياها ، وتزوج الزبير أسماء بنت أبي بكر ، وهي أخت عايشة ، وتزوج طلحة أختها الأخرى