Ali رضي الله عنه و أرضاه would have whipped the Shias of today

Download 2.18 Mb.
Size2.18 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   26


al-Hafidh Abdulaziz ibn al-Ahdar al-Janabezi  - rahimahullah – said: Abu Abdullah Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib – alaihuma salam, as-Sadiq. His mother Ummu Farwa her name Qareebah bintul Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as-Sadiq – radi Allahu anhu. And her mother Asma bintul Abdurrahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Sadiq and due to this, Jafar use to say: Abu Bakr bore me twice.

On the doubt about burning scripts.

February 20, 2012 at 2:44 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment









2 Votes

Sayf at-Tamimi in his “ar-Ridda wal-Futuh wal Kitab al-Jamal” (p 53) narrated with his chain till Suwayd ibn Qaflatah:

I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib – alaihi salam – said: O people! Allah, Allah, beware (about Him and about) extremism regarding Uthman and your words about him: The one who burned the scripts! BY ALLAH, HE DIDN’T BURN THEM EXCEPT BY ADVICE OF ALL COMPANIONS OF MUHAMMAD, ALL OF THEM. He (Uthman) said: What do you say about this variant of reading that people differ in? Man comes to man and says: My recitation is better that your recitation, and my recitation is better (afdal) that your recitation. And this is resemblance to disbelievers. We (Ali says this) said: What is your opinion O COMMANDER OF FAITHFUL? He said: I see that (we should) gather people around one script, and if you differ this day, the day after yours the difference would be greater. (Ali said) and we said: What a good opinion.

The same text this report was transmitted by ibn Abi Dawud in “al-Masahif” (1/77), and it was authenticated by al-Hafidh in “Fath al-Bari” (9/18).

Hiding the ugly truth of the Shia

February 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies, Taqiyyah | 2 Comments









2 Votes

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

This is a topic for those who have a very good idea about how the Shia function, and they usually function in two groups both having the same goal but the second group is much more dangerous, meaning the likes of Khomeini who has the most evil of beliefs and intentions in his heart but outwardly talks about “Unity” and “Love” between Twelver Shia and Muslims. Sometimes however this “beautiful mask” that hides the vile truth of the shia is exposed by none other than the Shia scholars themselves, and as you know Shiism in its true form can never spread among the Muslims or the non-Muslims and this is one of the main reasons for hiding it. A Shia has to deceive in order to get under people’s skin, in order to earn their trust and loyalty, then he starts spewing his poison.

The Almighty says in his glorious book:
{ [Allah praises] those who convey the messages of Allah and fear Him and do not fear anyone but Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. } [al-Ahzab : 39]

The Shia Imams usually act like they never read the above verse, this is why we find narrations of lies and Taqqiyah constantly attributed to them and by God they are Innocent from this accusation, but this religion has chosen to take the path of lies.

Some Shia scholars as you will see in the following example are too shy to disclose the “message of Allah” and would rather keep it hidden, this is because the “message of Allah” according to their religion is to curse and slander against Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) and all of their lovers. Shia scholar and Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani was commenting on what the other Shia scholar and Muhaddith Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri wrote in his book concerning the great Shia Safavid (Safawi) scholar ‘Ali bin al-Hussein al-Karaki, (and it is quoted in Lulu al-Bahrain (p 148):

قال مولانا السيد نعمة الله الجزائري في صدر كتابه شرح غوالي الئالي … وكان رحمه الله لا يركب ولا يمضي إلا والباب يمشي في ركابه مجاهراً بلعن الشيخين ومن على طريقتهما

“Mawlana al-Sayyed Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri wrote at the beginning of his book Sharh Ghawali al-Laalee … And He (al-Karaki) may Allah have mercy on him never used to ride his horse or walk the streets unless he had his servant walking in front of him cursing the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr & ‘Umar) and cursing those who follow their way

So here we see what the situation was when the Shia were in a position of power and when they had a strong state, al-Karaki used to have people walking with him for the sole purpose of cursing the companions, this is how deep the hatred runs. So al-Bahrani criticizes al-Jazaeri for uncovering the truth of their great scholar because it caused harm to many of the Shia living in Islamic countries, He said:

أقول: إن ما نقله عن الشيخ المزبور من ترك التقية والمجاهرة بسب الشيخين خلاف ما استفاضت به الأخبار عن الأئمة الأخيار الأبرار عليهم السلام ، وهي غفلة من شيخنا المشار إليه إن ثبت النقل المذكور ، وقد نقل السيد المذكور أن علماء الشيعة في مكة المشرفة كتبوا إلى علماء أصفهان من أهل المحاريب والمنابر : أنكم تسبون أئمتهم في أصفهان ونحن في الحرمين نُعذَّب بذلك اللعن والسب ، انتهى ، وهو كذلك

“I say: What he related to us from the sheikh about leaving Taqqiyah and publicly cursing the two sheikhs as opposed to what is found in the countless narrations from the pious Imams (as), this is a mistake from our sheikh if it is proven to be true, and the Sayyed also mentioned that the Shia scholars in Mecca wrote to the Shia scholars of Isfahan saying: { You curse and insult their Imams in Isfahan and we in Mecca and Madinah have to face their wrath. } And this is true.”

Source: Lulu al-Bahrain page 147by Yusuf al-Bahrani.

Since most of the Shia narrations that curse the first three caliphs never do this by stating their name, they instead refer to them as “The first and the second” or “Fulan and Fulan” where the word “Fulan” “فلان” in Arabic is like saying “so-and-so”, for Taqqiyah purposes usually their names aren’t mentioned publicly BUT anyone who is familiar with the Shia religion even the Shia laymen know exactly who is being talked about , I shall provide a sample of this:

The Iranian grand Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi who lived in the Persian Safavid state would discard Taqqiyah and state the obvious as to who “the first and the second” are.

al-Qummi wrote in his Tafseer 2/106: from al-Hassan bin ‘Ali from Salih bin Sa’ad: I heard abu ‘Abdullah (as) explain the saying of Allah: Surat al-Nur verse 40: {Or (they are) like Darknesses} means Fulan and Fulan, {within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves} meaning Na’athal, {upon which are waves} meaning Talha and Zubair, {over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others} Mu’awiyah and Yazid and the Fitnah of bani Umayyah, {When one puts out his hand} in the Darkness of their Fitnah, { he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light.} meaning an Imam from the children of Fatima (as), he doesn’t have the light of an Imam which will guide him on the day of judgement.

al-Majlisi commented on the above narration by his predecessor in Bihar al-Anwar 32/306: What is meant by “Fulan and Fulan” are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and “Na’athal” is ‘Uthman , his enemies used to call him Na’athal likening him to a sheikh with long beard in Egypt who used to be an idiot, it also means a male Hyena .”

al-Kulayni narrated in al-Kafi 8/334: Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Qummi from his uncle ‘Abdullah bin al-Salt from Yunus bin ‘Abdul-Rahman from ‘Abdullah bin SInan from Hussein al-Jammal from abu ‘Abdulah (as) regardin the saying of Allah: Surat Fussilat verse 29: {Our Lord, show us those who misled us of the jinn and men [so] we may put them under our feet that they will be among the lowest} He (as) said: It is They, then He (as) said: and Fulan was a devil.

al-Majlisi said in his Bihar al-Anwar 30/270: What is meant by ”Fulan” is ‘Umar . . meaning the Jinn mentioned in the verse is ‘Umar, he used it as reference for him because he was a devil, either because he came from the devil as he was the son of an act of adultery, or because he was a trickster and a deceiver like the devil, and it is possible that “Fulan” here means Abu Bakr.

Many of the Shia scholars did not like their beliefs to be exposed in this way, Grand Ayatulla Muhammad Asif al-Muhsini criticized al-Majlisi for this, because according to him declaring their names would only harm the cause of the Shia and would make the Muslims hate them, al-Muhsini said in Mashara’at Bihar al-Anwar 1/167:

لم يمسك المؤلف رحمه الله قلمه عن السب ، والتفسيق ، والتكفير ، والطعن في جملة من أجزاء بحاره بالنسبة إلى قادة المخالفين ، والله يعلم أنها كم أضرَّت بالطائفة نفساً وعرضاً ومالاً ، على أنه هو الذي نقل الروايات الدالة على وجوب التقية وحرمة إفشاء الأسرار ، وأصرَّ على التصريح بمرجع ضمائر التثنية في الروايات مع أن عوام المؤمنين يعرفونه فضلاً عن خواصهم فأي فائدة في هذا التفسير سوى إشعال نار الغضب والغيض والانتقام ؟ ولا أظنه قادراً على بيان جواب معقول على سلوكه هذا

“The author (al-Majlisi) did not restrain his pen from cursing and insulting and making Takfeer and Tafseeq in his book of Bihar on the leaders of those who differ with us (sunnies), and Allah knows how much this harmed the sect in many ways, it was he who reported the narrations that state that we must hold on to Taqqiyah and that it is forbidden to reveal the secrets, but he insisted on declaring what those pronouns were referring to in the narrations, although the laymen from the believers (shia) know their meaning and so do the scholars, so what benefit can we draw from such explanations other than igniting the flames of anger and revenge? I don’t believe he has a legitimate excuse for what he did.”

- end -

Hasan made a treaty between two great groups of Islam

February 15, 2012 at 3:07 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment









Rate This

This hadith is present in our books, just quoting it from shia book “Awali al-Ali” of ibn  Abi Jumhoor (p 102):

 فقال النبي ص إن ابني‌ هذاسيد و إن الله تعالي يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين

Messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: This son of mine is chief! Allah would make a treaty by him between two big Islamic groups.

Imam Hasan made treaty with the group of Muawiyah.

Athar: Did Ali cursed Anas?

February 14, 2012 at 2:42 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | 2 Comments









Rate This


Salam alaikum, in the net at famous sites of heretics, you would see such claim against companions:

When Ali said to Anas: “Why don’t you stand up and testify what you heard from the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir?” He answered, “O Amir al-Mumineen! I have grown old and do not remember.” Thereupon Ali said: “May Allah mark you with a white spot (of leprosy; Alphosis) unconcealable with your turban, if you are intentionally withholding the truth.” And before Anas got up from his place he bore a large white spot on his face, Thereafter Anas used to say, “I am under the curse of the righteous servant of Allah.”

They gave as a reference 3 books.

This athar isn’t saheeh or hasan, but it is weak.

First of all we don’t know where did these misguided quoted this version from! Because neither in Hilliyatul Awliyah, nor in Musnad of Imam Ahmad, doesn’t stated that this person which was cursed by Ali, was Anas. In Hilliyatul Awliya it comes in the volume 5/pages 26-27, without naming Anas, and in Musnad (#964. thk: Arnawut) where stated that 3 person didn’t say that they remember such words, and Ali prayed against them. And again no names.

Second.  Chain in Hilliya weak due to uncertainty in narrator which suppose to hear this from Ali – Umeyrat ibn Sad al-Hamadani. Yahya al-Qattan noticed that this man wasn’t from those who relied upon. (see Mizanul itidal 3/298).

In Musnad this hadith come in the additions of Abdullah, and chain is also weak due to uncertainty of Walid ibn Uqba and Simak ibn Ubayd.

Thirdly, even in Maaref of ibn Qutaiba stated that author said regarding this report that it has no base.

InshAllah would be updated.

Our brothers which revolt against us

February 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment









1 Votes

Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318),

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

And in the same book, at page 93, hadith 313:

جعفر ، عن أبيه : أن علياً  كان يقول لأهل حربه : « إنّا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ، ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ، ولكنّا رأينا أنّا على حق ، ورأوا أنهم على حق

Jafar from his father: Ali use to say about those who fought against him: We don’t fight them due to our takfir upon them, and don’t fight them due to their takfir upon us, just we see that we are upon thruth, and they see that they are upon truth.

Houses of wives and inheritance question

February 8, 2012 at 11:26 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment









Rate This

Quote from  ”as-Samtu Thamin fi manaqib Ummahat al-Muminin” (p 27), by Muhib ad-Deen at-Tabari:

The shiahs hold (opinion) that a prophet’s property is also inherited and these houses (of the wives) were inherited by his wives. This contention is false and even if that was so they would have got only one eight share. Sayidah Fatimah would have got half share while the remaining would have gone to the asbah (relatives on the father’s side). However, we come across no evidence of anyone having received a share of having waived his or her share, or permission sought from any of the asbah to bury Sayydina Umar (in the house of Aisha), or to enclose the houses in the mosque.

Further it is also baseless to say that the houses didn’t belong to prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) wives but they only had the right to stay there. We do  know that Sayyidah Sawdah had left her house for Sayydidah Aisha and Sayyidah Safiyah’s house was sold by her heirs. Sayyidah Aisha had also sold her house with the stipulation that she would reside there as long as she was alive.

Most of the scholars contend that the houses belonged to the wives of the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and they had not inherited them.

Muawiyah on Ali

January 30, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment









Rate This

From book Qisas wal Ibar by Ali Muhammad Ali Dahil, p 15:


“When the news of ‘Ali’s death reached Mu’awiyah, while he was sitting with his wife bint Qurthah on a summer day, he said: “To Allah we belong and to him we shall return. They have lost a great amount of wisdom and knowledge and virtue.”

His wife said: “yesterday you were criticizing him and now you praise him?”
He said: “Woe to you! you have no idea what they’ve lost from his knowledge and virtue and early accomplishments (In Islam).”

Source: Tareekh Dimashq al-Kabeer 42/583.

What about tayamum?

January 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Invented myths and legends, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment









Rate This

Salam alaikum.

Al-Hilli reported in his “Kashf al-yaqin” (p 58, manuscript):

أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ: إمْضِيَا إلَى عَلِيٍّ حَتَّى يُحَدِّثَكُمَا بِمَا كَانَ مِنْهُ فِي لَيْلَتِهِ وَأَنَا عَلَى أَثَرِكُمَا. قَالَ أَنَسُ: فَمَضَيَا وَمَضَيْتُ مَعَهُمَا فَاسْتَأْذَنَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، فَخَرَجَ إلَيْهِمَا. فَقالَ: يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ، حَدَثَ شَيْءٌ؟ قَالَ: لاَ، وَمَا حَدَثَ إلاَّ خَيْرٌ. قَالَ قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَلِعُمَرَ إمْضِيَا إلَى عَلِيٍّ حَتَّى يُحَدِّثَكُمَا بِمَا كَانَ مِنْهُ فِي لَيْلَتِهِ. وَجَاءَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ فَقالَ: يَا عَلِيُّ حَدِّثْهُمَا مَا كَانَ مِنْكَ فِي لَيْلَتِكَ. فَقالَ: أَسْتَحْيِي يَا رَسولَ اللهِ. فَقالَ: حَدِّثْهُمَا فَإنَّ اللهَ لاَ يَسْتَحْيِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ. فَقالَ عَلِيٌّ: أَرَدْتُ الْمَاءَ لِلطَّهَارَةِ وَأَصْبَحْتُ وَخِفْتُ أنْ تَفُوتَنِي الصَّلاَةُ، فَوَجَّهْتُ الْحَسَنَ فِي طَرِيقٍ وَالْحُسَيْنَ فِي طَرِيقٍ فِي طَلَبِ الْمَاءِ فَأَبْطَآ عَلَيَّ، فَأَحْزَنَنِي ذَلِكَ. فَرَأَيْتُ السَّقْفَ قَدِ انْشَقَّ وَنَزَلَ عَلَيَّ مِنْهُ سَطْلٌ مُغَطّى بِمِنْدِيلٍ، فَلَمَّا صَارَ فِي الأَرْضِ نَحَّيْتُ الْمِنْدِيلَ عَنْهُ وَإذَا فِيهِ مَاءٌ، فَتَطَهَّرْتُ لِلصَّلاَةِ وَاغْتَسَلْتُ وَصَلَّيْتُ. ثُمَّ ارْتَفَعَ السَّطْلُ وَالْمِنْدِيلُ وَالْتَأَمَ السَّقْفُ. فَقالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ لِعَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: أَمَّا السَّطْلُ فَمِنَ الْجَنَّةِ وَأَمَّا الْمَاءُ فَمِنْ نَهْرِ الْكَوْثَرِ وَأَمَّا الْمِنْدِيلُ فَمِنْ إسْتَبْرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ. مَنْ مِثْلُكَ يَا عَلِيُّ فِي لَيْلَتِكَ وَجِبْرِيلُ يَخْدِمُكَ. :

Anas ibn Malik has reported that the Messenger of Allah said to Abu-Bakr and `Umar: Go to `Ali and ask him about the last night event. I will follow you too. Anas further reports: Abu-Bakr, `Umar and I headed for `Ali’s house. Reaching there, we asked Abu-Bakr Has anything happened? Abu-Bakr said: If anything has happened, it is fair. Then, he said: The Messenger of Allah said to `Umar and me: Go to `Ali to inform you of the event which happened to you last night. At this time, the Messenger of Allah arrived and asked `Ali to tell us about the event of the last night. `Ali said: O Messenger of Allah! I am ashamed of telling the story. The Holy Prophet (s.a) said: Tell us the event, for God is not ashamed of telling the truth. `Ali said: O Messenger of Allah! Last night I was in need of water for purification but I could not find any. I was afraid my morning prayer be defaulted.Hence, I hastily sent Hasan and Husayn to two different directions to search for water but they were late and there was no sign of water. A kind of sorrow overwhelmed me for not having access to water. All of a sudden, I realized that the ceiling of the room cleft and a pail covered with a piece of cloth came down. When I uncovered the pail, I saw that it was full of water. Having purified myself with that water and having performed my prayer, I saw the pail of water going up to heaven and the cleft ceiling turned back to its former position! The Holy Prophet rejoicingly said: The pail was from heaven, the water was from Kawthar, and the cover was heavenly silk. Then, the Holy Prophet added: O `Ali, who could be like you last night when Gabriel was serving you?


If time of pray is ending, and you afraid that you would miss it, because there is no water for purification. What would you do?

a) You would miss prayer.

b) You would wait for a miracle.

c) You would make tayamum.

I remember shias mocked amiralmuminin Umar ibn al-Khattab, that he said to man who had no purification, to miss prayer. We like Muslims know that each companion was fallible. And Umar could simply forget. What happen with Ali?

Why to not make tayamum?

Iblis – believer?

January 25, 2012 at 11:22 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Invented myths and legends | Leave a comment









Rate This

Salam alaikum, we all remember shia habit of usage hadith: Whoever hate Ali is Munafiq, and his lover is Believer.

No we want to introduce this believer for shias.

Saduq in his “Ilal ush Sharae” (p 145) narrated that Iblis said:



.. No I am not his Mawali, and not from his shias, BUT I LOVE HIM, no one hates him (Ali) except I am partner in his children and his property..

So, exactly as shias say that each one who hates Ali (r.a) was munafiq, we call them to accept Iblis as a believer.

Mu’awiyah’s Claim for the Caliphate

January 8, 2012 at 11:08 am | Posted in Defence of companions, History | Leave a comment









1 Votes

The following is evidence that Mu’awiyah’s true goal was not to become the caliph, but rather, his right for avenging Uthman.

From Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala:

قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله، إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، وأسلم له.
فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه

Rough translation: Al-Ju’fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book “Siffeen”): Ya’la bin Ubaid, from his father: Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people entered upon Mu’awiyah, and they asked, “Do you dispute Ali? Are you his equal?” He replied, “No, I am not, and I know that he is better than me, and deserves this (khilafa) more than me, but don’t you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him.” So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn’t hand them (the killers).


Ironically, the same narration can be found in Shia sources. See Waq’at Siffeen by Nasr bin Muzahim:

وإن أبا مسلم الخولانى قدم إلى معاوية في أناس من قراء أهل الشام، [ قبل مسير أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى صفين، ] فقالوا [ له ]: يا معاوية علام تقاتل عليا، وليس لك مثل صحبته ولا هجرته ولا قرابته ولا سابقته ؟ قال لهم: ما أقاتل عليا وأنا أدعى أن لى في الإسلام مثل صحبته ولا هجرته ولا قرابته ولا سابقته، ولكن خبروني عنكم، ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما ؟ قالوا: بلى.
قال: فليدع إلينا قتلته فنقتلهم به، ولا قتال بيننا وبينه.

Rough translation: And Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani came to Mu’awiya with a group of qura’a from the people of Al-Shaam, before Ali went to Siffeen. They said, “Why do you fight Ali? You are not in his level of suhba or hijra or closeness or earliness (in Islam). He said, “I don’t fight Ali with the claim that I am like him in suhbahijra, closeness or earliness, but tell me, aren’t you aware that Uthman was killed unjustly?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “They if he gives us the killers, we’ll kill them, and there will be nothing between us and him (Ali).”

Also, interestingly, the following, by Al-Tabari implies that Mu’awiyah was never seen as a caliph, until after the death of Ali, nor was he given bay’a:

(وفى هذه السنة) بويع لمعاوية بالخلافة بايلياء حدثنى بذلك موسى بن عبد الرحمن قال حدثنا عثمان بن عبد الرحمن قال أخبرنا اسماعيل بن راشد وكان قبل يدعى بالشأم أميرا وحدثت عن أبى مسهر عن سعيد بن عبد العزيز قال كان على عليه السلام يدعى بالعراق أمير المؤمنين وكان معاوية يدعى بالشأم الامير فلما قتل على عليه السلام دعى معاوية أمير المؤمنين

Rough translation: In this year, Mu’awiyah was given baya’a in Ilya’a. Musa bin Abdulrahman said that Uthman bin Abdulrahman said, Isma’eel bin Rashid told us that “he (Mu’awiyah) used to be called the ameer of Al-Shaam.” I was told that Abu Mushir that Sa’eed bin Abdulaziz said, “Ali used to be called Ameer Al-Mu’mineen in Iraq, and Mu’awiyah was called the ameer in Al-Shaam, but when Ali was killed, Mu’awiyah was later called Ameer Al-Mu’mineen.”

Also notice that Al-Tabari didn’t say that Mu’awiyah was given baya’a before this year. This implies that nobody gave Mu’awiyah a baya’a for the khilafa before this time.

Ibn Katheer also says, “When Ali died, the people of Al-Shaam pledged their allegiance to Mu’awiyah, as the Ameer Al-Mu’mineen, for there was nobody that could dispute them.” 

Words of ibn Rahaweyh on Muawiyah (r.a)

January 5, 2012 at 2:31 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis | Leave a comment









1 Votes

Praise to Allah, in one from our previous posts we explained that there is sound report in praise of Muawiyah.

But we can see shias using saying which is attributed to Imam al-Muhadith Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh, as if he has said: There is nothing authentic from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) in praise of Muawiyah.

We answer to this doubt:

1) Let us suppose that these words were correctly attributed to Imam. What would they mean? There is no sound reports in this as he said? No. That would mean that he didn’t come across with such reports. All that he has seen weak or fabricated reports about this.

2) This expression from ibn Rahaweyh was narrated by Hakim as it is in Siyar of Dhahabi (3/132) and “Fawaid al Majmua” of Shawkani from the way of al-Asm Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Asm, which said “narrated to me my father, which said: I heard ibn Rahaweyh saying”. And in “Fawaid” words “narrated to my father” were dropped. And it is established, (because) al-Asm didn’t hear from ibn Rahaweyh.

Yaqub ibn Yusuf ibn Maqal, Abu Fadl an-Naysaburi, father of al-Asm – status was unknown. His bio was given by al-Hatib in his history (14/286), and what added upon these words (of ibn Rahaweyh, that this Yaqub) came to Baghdad and narrated this from Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh. And from him narrated Muhammad ibn Mukhalad.


Murtada on majority of companions

September 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment









1 Votes

In his work “Shafi fi Imama” 3/114, Murtada said:

ومعلوم أن جمهور أصحابه وجلهم كانوا ممن يعتقد إمامة من تقدم عليه عليه السلام، وفيهم من يفضلهم على جميع الأمة

And it is known that majority of his companions, and most of them were from those who believed in the Imamate of those who were preferred to (Ali) alaihi salam, and between them were those who thought they (those who were before Ali) were best of all nation.

Obviously talk is about companions of Ali :ra anho: . If it about them, then it’s clear proof from great shia scholar that majority of those who were companion of Ali :ra anho: were close to ahle-sunnah rather to rafidah of our time.

Doubt refuted: Abu Huraira misquoted hadith and attributed words of Kaab al-Ahbar.

August 26, 2011 at 11:33 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment









1 Votes

Rafida raised doubt against companion by saying:

in sahih muslim chapter of jumu’a-chapter of “fadhl” yawm al-jumu’a hadith number 854:

854 وحدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا المغيرة يعني الحزامي عن أبي الزناد عن الأعرج عن أبي هريرة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال خير يوم طلعت عليه الشمس يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم وفيه أدخل الجنة وفيه أخرج منها ولا تقوم الساعة إلا في يوم الجمعة
abu hurairah said : the prophet (saww) SAID : the best day in which the sun has risen is the Friday, in it Adam was created …etc
but in sahih abi khuzaimah abu hurarah said :
محمد بن يحيى ، حدثنا قال : نا محمد بن يوسف ، ثنا الأوزاعي ، عن يحيى ، عن أبي سلمة ، عن أبي هريرة : خير يوم طلعت فيه الشمس يوم الجمعة ، فيه خلق آدم ، وفيه أسكن الجنة ، وفيه أخرج منها ، وفيه تقوم الساعة ، قال : قلت له : أشيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ قال : بل شيء حدثناه كعب

mohamed ibn yahya narrated mohamed ibn ussof narrated al-awza’i from yahya from abi salamah from abu hurairah he said : the best day in which the sun has risen is the Friday … so i asked him( abu salamah asking abu hurairah) : did you hear this from rasool allah ?? he ( abu hurairah) said :it’s rather something Kaab(Kaab al-ahbar ) told me !!!

here’s the hadith from sahih ibn khuzaimah :
محمد بن يحيى ، حدثنا قال : نا محمد بن يوسف ، ثنا الأوزاعي ، عن يحيى ، عن أبي سلمة ، عن أبي هريرة : خير يوم طلعت فيه الشمس يوم الجمعة ، فيه خلق آدم ، وفيه أسكن الجنة ، وفيه أخرج منها ، وفيه تقوم الساعة ، قال : قلت له : أشيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ قال : بل شيء حدثناه كعب
so did abu hurairah hear this from the prophet or from Kaab and if it’s from kaab how could he attribute it to rasool allah (saww) ???
but more confusion is coming from the book of malik : muwatta malik :
243 وحدثني عن مالك عن يزيد بن عبد الله بن الهاد عن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث التيمي عن أبي سلمة بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف عن أبي هريرة أنه قال خرجت إلى الطور فلقيت كعب الأحبار فجلست معه فحدثني عن التوراة وحدثته عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكان فيما حدثته أن قلت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خير يوم طلعت عليه الشمس يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم
narrated malik from yazeed ibn abdilleh ibn alhaad from mohamed ibn ibrahim ibn alharith altaimi from abi salamah ibn abdirrahman ibn awf that abu hurairah said : i went out… so i met Kaab Al-Ahbar so i sat with him and he told me about tawraat (Torah) and i told him about rasool allah , and amongst what i told him i said : the prophet (saww) said: the best day in which the son has risen is the The Friday …the hadith

Answered by brother Farid:

This deserves an explanation. First of all, let us collect the routes of the hadith in order to check which specific version was narrated by more narrators.
The narration from the Muwatta goes through Yazeed bin Abdullah bin Al-Had, through Mohammed bin Ibrahim bin Al-Harith Al-Taimi, through Abi Salama, to Abu Huraira. Abu Huraira is very specific in saying that he heard this hadith from the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), and that Ka’ab checked the Torah to confirm this.

The second hadith is the hadith in Saheeh Muslim, from Harmala bin Yahya, though Ibn Wahb, through Yunus, through Ibn Shihab, through Abdulrahman Al-A’araj, through Abu Huraira who indicates that he heard this from the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

The third is also in Saheeh Muslim, through Qutaiba bin Sa’eed, through Al-Mugheera Al-Hizami, through Abi Al-Zinad, through Al-A’araj, up to Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
A fourth can be found in Musnad Ahmad, through Yazeed, through Mohammed, through Abi Salama, through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Another chain can also be found in Musnad Ahmad through Mohammed bin Mus’ab, through Al-Awza’ee, through Abi Ammar, through Abdullah bin Furookh, through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Then again in Musnad Ahmad, through Yunus and Suraij, through Fulaih, through Sa’eed bin Al-Harith, through Abi Salama, that Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) narrated this hadith.
Al-Hakim narrated this through Abu Al-Abbas Mohammed bin Ya’qoub through Al-Rabee’ bin Sulaiman, through Abdullah bin Wahb, through Ibn Abi Al-Zinad, through his father, through Musa bin Abi Uthman, through his father, through Abu Huraira, to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). (Ibn Khuzaimah doesn’t include Abi Uthman though).

Notice the following:

The hadith is narrated by Abu Huraira through four of his students. They are the following:

Abi Salama – Al-A’araj – Abdullah bin Furookh – Abi Uthman
The following are the names of the students that narrated the hadith of each of their shaikhs up to Abi Huraira:
1- Abu Salama: Mohammed bin Ibrahim bin Al-Harith – Mohammed bin Amr bin Alqama – Sa’eed bin Al-Harith Al-Ansari
2- Al-A’araj: Ibn Shihab Al-Zuhri – Abu Al-Zinad
3- Abdullah bin Furookh: Abu Ammar
4- Abu Uthman: Musa bin Abi Uthman

So, here we have seven different chains up to Abu Huraira. Keep in mind that I am only limiting myself to what was quoted from the student of the student of Abu Huraira, since lists like this will never end. Plus, anything more is irrelevant. I also chose not to include a couple of other chains due to major weaknesses or due to them being disconnected.

As you have quoted, by Ibn Khuzaimah, the only chain that states that the hadith is that of Ka’ab Al-Ahbaar is that hadith of Yahya bin Abi Katheer through Abi Salama.
By this, he has went against seven other chains that state that this is the hadith of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), including three other students of Abi Salama that specifically reported that this is the hadith of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
This was my initial view of this hadith, and I was reassured even further when I found Al-Albani’s commentary in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah. He said (p. 2/836):
الحديث كله صحيح مرفوعًا بلا ريب، ويكفي أن مسلمًا أخرجه من طريق الأعرج عن أبي هريرة، ورواه المصنف من طريقين آخرين عنه، فلعل العلة من يحيى فإنه مدلس.
Rough translation: The whole hadith is authentic without a doubt, and it is sufficient that (Imam) Muslim quoted it through Al-A’araj through Abi Huraira, and the author (Ibn Khuzaimah) narrated it through two other chains (Musa bin Abi Uthman and Abdullah bin Furookh), and it seems as through the issue is with Yahya bin Abi Katheer who is a mudalis.
I say: Al-Albani seems to be correct. The only chains that attribute this hadith to Ka’ab Al-Ahbaar are the chains with Yahya bin Abi Katheer. However, it isn’t necessary for one to believe that this is due to Yahya bin Abi Katheer making tadlees, but it simply being an error on his part is a major possibility.
This is an important statement that everyone should keep in mind about these hadiths:

Imam Muslim narrated in Kitab Al-Tamyeez (p. 95):

حدثنا عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي حدثنا مروان الدمشقي عن الليث بن سعد حديثني بكير بن الأشج قال: قال لنا بسر بن سعيد: اتقوا الله، وتحفظوا من الحديث فوالله لقد رأيتنا نجالس أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه فيحدث عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويحدثنا عن كعب، ثم يقوم فأسمع بعض من كان معنا – يجعل- حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن كعب، وحديث كعب عن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم.
ٌٌٌRough translation: Busr bin Sa’eed said: Fear Allah and be cautious with hadith, by Allah we have sat with Abu Huraira and heard him narrated about the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and about Ka’ab Al-Ahbaar, then upon leaving, I hear those that are with us narrate the hadith of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) attributing it to Ka’ab, and the hadith of Ka’ab being attributed to the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

This is a very specific criticism by Busr, and it is really relevant when examining hadiths like the hadith quoted above.

It is due to this that we come to the conclusion that the errors here have nothing to do with Abu Huraira, since even his students are in agreement. However, it was only at the tabaqa of Yahya bin Abi Katheer that this issue arises.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that this hadith was narrated by other companions other than Abi Huraira.

A couple of notable examples are the hadiths of Abu Lubaba and Sa’ad bin Ubada, both can be found in Musnad Ahmad. Even though both of these hadiths are weak in theory, they do provide more evidence that the hadith is not by Ka’ab, but rather the words of the Prophet (pbuh).

Yet, a strong hadith does exist in Musnad Ahmad as well:

قال حدثنا حسين بن علي الجعفي عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر عن أبي الأشعث الصنعاني عن أوس بن أوس قال
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من أفضل أيامكم يوم الجمعة فيه خلق آدم وفيه قبض وفيه النفخة وفيه الصعقة فأكثروا علي من الصلاة فيه فإن صلاتكم معروضة علي فقالوا يا رسول الله وكيف تعرض عليك صلاتنا وقد أرمت يعني وقد بليت قال إن الله عز وجل حرم على الأرض أن تأكل أجساد الأنبياء صلوات الله عليهم
Rough translation: Hussain bin Ali Al-Ju’fi said: Abdulrahman bin Yazeed bin Jabir, through Abi Al-Ash’ath Al-San’aani, through Aws bin Aws, through the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The best of days are Fridays, it is when Adam was created, and died, and it is the time of the nafkh andsa’qa…”

Inshallah this is sufficient for the brothers that Abu Huraira has nothing to do with this, but rather, Yahya bin Abi Katheer. Especially if you are implying that his is attributing the hadiths of Ka’ab to the Prophet (pbuh) on purpose.

Alleged attack on Fatima – doubt refuted

August 6, 2011 at 7:58 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia doubts, So called assault on Fatimah (RA) | 2 Comments









4 Votes

إنّ عمر رفس فاطمة حتّى أسقطت بمحسن.

umar kicked fatima asws, and that caused abortion of mohsin asws”

Shia quoted this report as a proof for their views that Umar attacked Fatima.

Here full article from shia site.

InshAllah we will address all doubts here.

1) All reports should contain two things: a) Text. b) Chain of reporters.

This one doesn’t contain any chain. In books which were quoted by this rafidi, there is mention of only one narrator – Ibn Abi Daraam.

This in itself is enough to reject above mentioned report as non-established. In contrast to rafidis, which would quote even Oxford dictionary to proof their points, we as an ahlesunnah wal jamaa, wouldn’t accept story which would accuse noble companion without sound chain of reporters.

2) This report would be rejected even if it would contain sound report, because text of it is munkar and shazz to well known history facts.

This alleged attack onFatimawould contradicts to well known fact. Many of aimma from ahlalbayt named their sons – Umar.

Shias believe that after this alleged attack,Fatimasoon died due to this attack. After her death Ali married other women, and he named his son from them Umar?!!!

3) Let us back to ibn Abi Daraam.  Rafidi answered himself to his own doubt. First he said that scholars rejected ibn Abi Daraam because he was rafidi. And then he quoted other narrators, which we described as rafidi and we accepted as truthful by our scholars. Thanks to Allah, that he himself answered to his own doubt that our scholars judged reporters due to their sect.

So ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t simply rafidi, but he was a liar. And this is verdict of ibn Hajar and Dhahabi. Al-Hakim said he wasn’t truthful. (See Mizan 1/139, Lisan 1/268).

Rafidi quoted Siyar of Dhahabi, where he mentioned that ibn Abi Daraam was Imam and Hafidh. But as all other rafidis, this one closed his eyes on fact that in the very same place, Dhahabi said that ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t truthful in his narrations.

4) As for hadith which Dhahabi quoted from the way ibn Abi Daraam. Rafidi used words of Dhahabi that hadith is agreed upon, as some kind of proof for reliability of ibn Abi Daraam.

This is only due to ignorance of rafidi, because “agreed upon” doesn’t mean that each narrator of report is perfectly reliable. This term means that hadith was transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim! See Muhammad ibn Futuh al-Humaydi “Jami beyna sahihayn al-Bukhari and Muslim” #805.  Both (Muslim 107-1599 and Bukhari 52) narrated this report by chains which doesn’t contain ibn Abi Daraam.

5) As for doubt of rafidi that how it possible that imam would become rafidi liar, we have some good examples in our time. For sure shining star of modern rafd – al-Tijani wasn’t Imam or even scholar, he was layman soofe, but he became well known rafidi.

During the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was a companion, which believed in Islam, left his hometown and made hijra to Abisiniyah and there accept Christianity.

So there is no problem in accepting fact that someone could change his religion.

In defence of Umar from offence of ahlal-nar.

July 13, 2011 at 1:25 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment









3 Votes

In defence of Umar from offence of ahlal-nar.


Recently in the net I came across with article from misguided rafidi, where he attacks sayidina Umar and Muslims in general. He raised some doubts around punishment of drunkard in Islamic tradition.

First rafidi quoted hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari from Ali: “I would not feel sorry for one who dies because of receiving a legal punishment, except the drunk, for if he should die (when being punished), I would give blood money to his family because no fixed punishment has been ordered by Allah’s Apostle for the drunk”.

Then this ignorant rafidi cited another report from Bukhari where stated that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) lashed people for drinking alcohol. And rafidi asks: Whom he should to believe? Because he see contradiction in two reports.

We say: Perhaps after prolonged participation in matams this misguided person injured his brains. Because there is no contradiction between these two reports.

In the very same sahihayn was reported that in times of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) indeed companions implemented hadd punishments on the drunkards by the order of Nabi (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

Bukhari in Sahih, Kitab al-Hudood narrated:

Narrated ‘Uqba bin Al-Harith: An-Nu’man or the son of An-Nu’man was brought to the Prophet on a charge of drunkenness. So the Prophet ordered all the men present in the house, to beat him. So all of them beat him, and I was also one of them who beat him with shoes.

Narrated Abu Salama: Abu Huraira said, “A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, ‘Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.’ “

So hadith of Ali should be understood in this way: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) indeed ordered to punish drunkards, but he didn’t set prescribed form of this punishment, as said Ali.

But it was also reported from Ali, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) preferred one way of punishment. We will discuss it little bit later.

The rafidi then mocks Umar, and blames him in innovation, because he prescribed that punishment should be increased till 80 lashes.

We would answer:

1) Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) in authentic report from Irbad ibn Sariyah ordered us to follow to sunnah of guided caliphs (see: 1,2,3). And in accordance to agreed opinion of Muslims, these guided caliphs are: shaykhan, then Uthman and Ali.

2) Umar didn’t increased punishment for no reason.

As it was reported in Bukhari, Kitab al-Hudood:

Narrated As-Sa’ib bin Yazid: We used to strike the drunks with our hands, shoes, clothes (by twisting it into the shape of lashes) during the lifetime of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and the early part of ‘Umar’s caliphate. But during the last period of ‘Umar’s caliphate, he used to give the drunk forty lashes; and when drunks became mischievous and disobedient, he used to scourge them eighty lashes.

Imam Muslim in Sahih, same chapter, narrated:

Anas b. Malik reported that a person who had drink wine was brought to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him). He gave him forty stripes with two lashes. Abu Bakr also did that, but when Umar (assumed the responsibilities) of the Caliphate, he consulted people and Abd al-Rahman said: The mildest punishment (for drinking) is eighty (stripes) and ‘Umar their prescribed this punishment.

And in same book:

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave a beating with palm branches and shoes, and that Abu Bakr gave forty lashes. When Umar (became the Commander of the Faithful) and the people went near to pastures and towns, he said (to the Companions of the Holy Prophet). What is your opinion about lashing for drinking? Thereupon Abd al-Rahman b. Auf said: My opinion is that you fix it as the mildest punishment. Then ‘Umar inflicted eighty stripes.

3) It was reported from Ali, that he agreed with Umar on this punishment, and named it: SUNNAH.

Imam Muslim transmitted in Sahih, Kitab al-Hudood:

Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported: I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now, and then said: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these fall under the category of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.

From this report it’s clear that Ali didn’t object to Umar on his implementing of this hadd.

Someone could say that this report contradicts to report where he said that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t prescribe special punishment. But that wouldn’t be correct. We can easily reconcile between these two narrations by saying:

Yes, prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) indeed lashed drunkard 40 times. But as we see in the narrations from Abu Huraira, and it was also reported from Abdurrahman ibn Azhar in Sunnan Abu Dawud,  some times drunkard was beaten by shoes, and other material at hand, in the presence of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). So Ali was right, when he said that there is no prescribed punishment for that. And he was right when he said that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) punished drunkard with 40 lashes.

Agreement of Ali with ijtihad of Umar in this issue was also narrated by Abu Dawud:

Book 38, Number 4466:

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and AbuBakr gave forty lashes for drinking wine and Umar made it eighty. And all this is sunnah, the model and standard practice.

And in reality that was their common ijtihad.

Imam Malik narrated in Muwatta:

Book 42, Number 42.1.2:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked advice about a man drinking wine. Ali ibn Abi Talib said to him, “We think that you flog him for it with eighty lashes. Because when he drinks, he becomes intoxicated, and when he becomes intoxicated, he talks confusedly, and when he talks confusedly, he lies.” (80 lashes is the same amount as for slandering) Umar gave eighty lashes for drinking wine.

And Allah knows best.

Aisha and slave woman – refuting the doubt of kuffar

July 11, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment









Rate This

Salam alaikum, recently I came across with thread at shia forum, where paranoiac kaafira, directly accused Aisha in being a pimp! La`natullahi alal kafirin!

Report #1

 Abu Bakr narrated, he said: Waki’ told, quoting Al-’Alaa Bin Abdul Karim Al-Yamani, quoting ‘Ammar Bin ‘Imran, a man from Zaydillah quoting a woman of them, quoting Aisha that she beautified a slave girl and walked around with her and said: May we catch some the young men of Quraysh through her.
إبن أبي شيبة – المصنف – كتاب النكاح – ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها – الجزء : ( 3 ) – رقم الصفحة : ( 461 )

- ( 259 ) ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها . ( 1 ) حدثنا أبو بكر قال : نا وكيع عن العلاء بن عبد الكريم اليامي عن عمار بن عمران رجل من زيد الله عن امرأة منهم عن عائشة أنها شوفت جارية وطافت بها وقالت : لعلنا نصطاد بها شباب قريش .

Only kuffar from rafidah, could use this report as evidence against mother of all believers.

Chain of this report contain several defects.

1) Unnamed woman from Zaydillah.

2) Ammar ibn Imran. His ahadeth are not authentic, as said ibn Hajar in Lisan, and Dhahabi in Mizan.

So curse of Allah upon disbelievers, who use fabrications just to cast a shadow on the mother of believers.

Majlisi on bayah of Hasan and Ali to others

July 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Exposing shia lies | Leave a comment









Rate This

In his “Biharul anwar” (44/31) Majlisi said:

فأما البيعة فان اريد بها الصفقة وإظهار الرضا والكف عن المنازعة ، فقد كان ذلك ، لكنا قد بينا جهة وقوعه ، والاسباب المحوجة إليه ، ولا حجة في ذلك عليه صلوات الله عليه كما لم يكن في مثله حجة على أبيه صلوات الله عليهما لما بايع المتقدمين عليه ، وكف عن نزاعهم ، وأمسك عن غلابهم .

“As for this Baya’ah (of al-Hassan to Mu’awiyah) if what is meant by it is him showing his acceptance (of Mu’awiyah) and ending the dispute (over the Caliphate) then this has happened, and we explained why it happened and the reasons that made it necessary, and this cannot be used against him(al-Hassan) peace be upon him as it was the same for his father (‘Ali) peace be upon them both when he (‘Ali) gave the Baya’ah to the ones before him (first three Caliphs) and he ended the dispute with them and escaped their oppression.”

Contributed by brother TripolySunni.

Badruddin az-Zarkashi on accusations of Rafidah

May 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment









Rate This

Badruddin az-Zarkashi said:

12. After Quran clearly stated her purity, the one who accuse her becoming kaafir. The Hawarezmi (568/1172) from scholars of our school in his book “al-Kafi”, chapter on apostasy says: “If anyone would accuse Aisha in adultery he becomes kaafir. Because Quran revealed her purity. Stance of other women isn’t like this”.

Imam Malik (179/795) said: “The one who would abuse her should be killed”. Abul Hattab ibn Dihye (633/1235) in “Ajvibatul masail” says: “The book of Allah testify this view of imam Malik. Because when Allah mentioned in the Quran that mushriks attributed child to Him, He praised Himself.  He said: “(21:26) And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a ! son. Glory be to Him”. And when He mentioned Aisha, He said: “(24:16) And why did you not, when you heard it, say: It does not beseem us that we should talk of it; glory be to Thee! this is a great calumny?” Like this! How He praised (tanzih) Himself, He to purify Aisha again praised Himself. This was mentioned by Qadi Abu Bakr ibnut-Tayiib (1).

13. Whoever would reject that her father Abu Bakr wa sahabi, becomes kaafir. This was mentioned by imam Shafi (204/819).

Abu Abdullah Badruddin az-Zarkashi (d 794) “Al-Ijaba li iradi mastadrakahu Aisha alas sahaba” p 146


1) Just pay attention that when Allah rejected accuse against Himself, He said “Glory be to Him” and when he rejected accusation against Aisha, He said: glory be to Thee!

Few interesting reports from “Fadhail as-sahaba” of Daraqutni.

May 17, 2011 at 10:52 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment









2 Votes

Few interesting reports from “Fadhail as-sahaba” of Daraqutni. Darul Majid Asiriya.

#74 via double chain one till ibn Abi Umar and second till Uqba ibn Mukaram, both of them reported from Sufyan, which narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, which reported that his father Muhammad al-Baqir said: “Family (Ali) of Abu Bakr in the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was called family (Ali) of Muhammad”.

#75 via chain till Sarij ibn an-Noman which reported from Sufyan ibn Ueyna, which reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad words as above.

#76 via chain till Musadat ibn al-Yasa which reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad, which narrated from his father words as above.

#77 via chain till Hasan ibn Salih, which heard Abdullah ibn al-Hasan saying: Abu Bakr presented to Ali mother of Muhammad (ibn al-Hanafiyah)

#62 via chain from Jafar ibn Muhammad: “Sons of Fatima (alaiha salam) agreed in saying best from what is possible to say regarding Abu Bakr and Umar”.

#57, 59 from Abu Khalid al-Ahmar: I asked Abdullah ibn al-Hasan about Abu Bakr and Umar, he said: Sallallahu alaihima. And don’t salli upon those who don’t salli upon them”.

#53 via chain till Urwa ibn Abdullah al-Jufi, which said: I said to Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): You called Abu Bakr – as-Siddiq?” He answered: “Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) called him as-Siddiq. And may Allah doesn’t testify words of the one who didn’t name him as-Siddiq in this world and hereafter”.

#50 with chain till Fudayl ibn Marzuq which reported that Zayd ibn Ali in Husayn said: “As for me, if I would be on the place of Abu Bakr I would do the same what he did in the matter of Fadak”.

#48 via double chain till Zayd ibn Ali which said: “Baraat from Abu Bakr and Umar (is) baraat from Ali, may Allah be pleased with them”.

#41 with chain till ibn Abdullah as-Sairafi which said: I asked Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): What do you say about Abu Bakr and Umar?” He said: “By Allah I befriend with them and ask forgiveness for them and I didn’t met anyone from ahlalbayt except he would befriend with them”.

Did Aaisha [radhiallaahu anha] advocated murder of Uthmaan [radhiallaahu anhu]?

May 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | 7 Comments









2 Votes


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

A: The questioner has assumed as an historical fact the claim drawn from the named sources that Sayyidah A’ishah advocated the killing of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman. He labours under the common misconception that the simple fact that the moment something mentioned is in a history book it is an incontrovertible fact. He fails to understand the need for authentication.

The fact of the matter is that in order for narrated information to be regarded as a valid basis for making claims that affect one’s belief system, or influence the way one views personalities, the information HAS to be authenticated. Leave aside reports of history; even the ahadith of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam have to be authenticated by rigorous criteria before store can be set by it.

What does authentication entail? Does it amount to providing a mere reference to a source or two such as what the questioner has given? Anyone who regards this as authentication hasn’t got the vaguest idea of what authentication is or what it entails. The questioner and other like him would be well advised to equip himself with some knowledge of the discipline before venturing boldly into making claims that may well affect their destiny in the hereafter.

Coming now to the issue under discussion: The questioner provides the following four references for his claim that history records Sayyidah A’ishah as saying about Sayyiduna Uthman, “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever”:

1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206

2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
4. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   26

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page