Questions that Sunnis can never answer

Ya_ali_madad · December 29, 2002, 7:16pm

Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na’eemi of Sahiwa’al, Pakistan was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research converted to the Shi’a Ithna Asharee Faith. The rationale for his conversion was that he had questions that he found the Ahlul’ Sunnah Ulema could not answer satisfactorily. These are those questions; they 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.

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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ya_ali_madad · December 29, 2002, 7:18pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Janu_Jia · December 29, 2002, 7:18pm

DOESNT THT CALLED RACISM ?
wht u have just posted here

Ibn_Sadique · December 29, 2002, 8:41pm

These are very old questions and have been rebutted many times over.

I am ‘copying and pasting’ the answers for from the link given below:

www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/azarinni/answers.htm

Twenty Famous Questions of Shia that "converted a Sunni Scholar!"
Personally I think one should be very, very naive and hopeless to become a 12er Shia by hearing these questions. The funny thing is that except the question number 20, other questions have nothing to do with 12ers Shia. You can be a Zaidi, Esmayeelee and even a moderate Sunni and raise the same questions. Problem is that 12er Shia think by proving a fault on (say) Omar, you can prove that there are 12 infallible Imams and the 12th is now in occultation. If the story of the converse of that Sheikh is true I should say that I am happy he never faced one of the Christian missionaries (or have not seen their site where they have done all their efforts to bring doubts in the mind of Muslims) as by the same token he could become a Christian.
I see Shia repeating these questions and as no Sunni as far as I know bothers enough to give them answer it seems like Shia really believes that these are really something.
Here are my own responses to these questions. . I wrote these just out of my mind as I am (at the moment) not in a situation to give proper references. I am giving these very short replies and God knows that my only intention is to help you understand that things are not that easy that some people thought.
I am repeating the questions for the convenience of readers.
Besmellah:
1. History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh1 . Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship2 . Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?
Answer: Yes there is, read the history in works like Seerah Ibnu Hishaam etc. ,you will see that during the same period Aboobakr who was once a wealthy man ended up with almost no money because of his efforts to help Muslims. Omar was also very active during this period to support Islam. Refer to the records of that period in Sunni books of history. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial? (see Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).
Answer: No records even from Shia sources implies that people prevent Fatima's burial near his father. Also there are no records that she had requested to be buried next to his father. Aboobakr and Omar had requested to be buried next to the prophet. That easy. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior.
If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next"3, so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?
Answer: There are many records of the prophet praising Aboobakr and calling him his brother( see Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, virtues of Abu Bakr), of course Shia considers all of them to be fabricated!. The fact that he did not choose him as his brother when he divided the companions cannot reduce any thing from Aboobakr. He has his own rank and Ali has his own. Aboobakr was friend of the holy prophet from before his prophet hood until his passing away. This is a fact that even Shia sources confess to. It is also referred to in Quran, the verse of Qar . Also the Prophet choose him to be his fellow companion during migration and he was his partner in the cave. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
4. The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narrations far exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as)? Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?
Answer: The answer is very easy and it shows the ignorance of the designer of the question. Unlike the Shia ahadith, the vast majority of Sunni ahadith are those that the narration goes back to the prophet. It is obvious that Ayesha and Aboohorayrah were adults when they were with the prophet, while Hasanayn were kids. Ebne Omar was older than hasanayn at the time of the prophet so he had more chance as compared to them to narrate from the prophet. Apart from this, the political situations made Hasanayn engaged with many things. Ebne Omar was not like this. Also it's up to the individuals whether they like to narrate something or not. As for Ali (RA), Omar (RA) and Aboobakr (RA) too have very low number of Ahadith. Does that mean that Bukhari didn't like them?! Also Fatimatuz Zahra passed away only about three months after the passing away of the prophet, how many ahadith does one expect to be recorded from her in these critical three months? The question actually should be directed to Shia. How many ahadith does Shia have from Hasanayn? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
5. If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir's is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?
Answer: Many Sahabah remained in the city for other purposes, as they were perceived as unique sources of knowledge, do you have any evidence that they all gone except Ali? So would you say that they were all against Omar?! There is in the history that Hassan was participating in the attack on Tabarestan. Also we know that Salman (one of the best followers of Ali according to Shia) got the authority from Omar to rule Fars. In what basis would you say that giving consultancy and advice to Omar while being against him is fine (as Ali did) but participating in fighting with Koffar and Moshrekin (which Ali endorses in Nahjul Balagha) is not fine for Ali? Read Najhul Balagha and you see that Ali endorses the war. Refer to the 146th ceremony of Nahjul balagha (or one before or after, depending on the edition). It's a pity that we try to attribute our own hostility and hatred to Ali to prove our points. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl'ul 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?
Answer: Look at the situation just now. We all know about Palestine yet we waste our time over the net. Same for that time. This is while at that time there were no media to let people know what is going on. One cannot cover the grave sin of those so called Shia people who betrayed Hussain, by asking about why others didn't defend Hussain. Did any Shia defend Zayd ibn Ali when he was left alone against Bani Omayyeh? Of course I agree that it is a disaster and disappointment that the grand son of the holy prophet is being killed this easy and people are remained silent. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

Ibn_Sadique · December 29, 2002, 8:43pm

If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur’an is sufficient for us’ (Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)
Answer: No one accused the prophet of speaking nonsense. They were saying that the pain of death has overcome the prophet. Unlike Shia, Sunnis do not hold a super human position for the prophet and any one else (refer to the last verse of Sura of Kahf). Just like any human being, it could be possible that a prophet say something unconscious. God has promised to keep Quran safe, but at the same time you can see that the prophet is being corrected in Quran many times. If you believe that what ever the prophet is saying is correct then how would you justify those numerous verses (read the Shia Tafsir of the first verses of Sura Mojadeleh for instance, where God corrects the wrong fatwa of the prophet). To make a fuss out of this to accuse people who had given anything for Islam is very stupid. Specially when people who accuse them has done very less for Islam. Remember that the prophet was alive and conscious 3 days after the incident. If it was really necessary to say something he could say at those days. It is very baseless that Shia assumes that the prophet wanted to talk about Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. please read our article on the pen and paper incident for more information. For more detailed info on this matter click:
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/azarinni/Pen.htm
Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet’s his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s companions follow this approach?
Answer: Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn’t stay without a leader. Also the situation is very different. It’s very stupid to ask for evidence like this. Each prophet has passed away in different situations and there were no unique attitude of their followers among them. The question is: Is there any evidence that there were chain of non-prophet successors from a prophet, all being infallible, all being in the same generation? With no mention of their names in their holy books? Is there any evidence that one of them goes to occultation for centuries while still being in this world? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
Of the 124,000 Prophets’ that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the wives to be
Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did
they hold on to their possessions?
Answer: This is again a complete ignorance. You can read in Osoole Kafi the hadith were it says that prophets do not leave any heritage. Imam Khomeini in one of his books of Fiqh endorses the correctness of this hadith. As for the wives of the prophet, you need to read the history to see how the prophet made each one of them a house of her own, it wasn’t a heriatge or a gift. Comparing Fadak (a land captured by Muslims) to the houses of the wives of the prophet is very funny. As for giving living money to the wives of the prophet, it is very natural thing. They could not be married again and they had no properties, many of them had no proper relatives to rely on. What do you expect them to do for living at that time if you were the Caliph? Begging?! It is narrated in a hadith (in Bukhari ) to the effect that some of the wives of the prophet went to Ayesha in the time of Omar to encourage her accompany them to Omar’s house to ask for heritage from the prophet, Ayesha rejected and said prophets do not leave any heritage, as the result they also changed their mind. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
We read in the 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 and murder, what will be their position on the Day of
Judgement?
Answer: It all depends on their intention. Al’Aamalo Bennyat. If their intention was to bring Fitnah among Muslims or to get their own personal benefit then they have done a sin (no matter if they were in Ali’s army or Muawiyah’s army). As for their position in the hereafter, we are not God to judge about it. Read letter 58 (or one before or after depending on the edition) of Najhul Balagha to see what does Imam Ali think about people of Siffin. Of course I do agree that the right was with Ali (RA) and not Ayesha (RA) or Moawiah. I do agree that Ali (RA) was oppressed in these incidents but I cannot judge about the intentions of every individual who was involved. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
Allah (swt) tells us in the 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 (saaws). After his (saaws)'s death where did they
go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the
Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their
supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version
is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom
they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe
the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.
Answer: This is very deceiving question. To say that the hypocrites were not among those 4 has nothing to prove against the Sahabah. Read Shia Tafasir to see what the features of these hypocrites were. Even the Shia tafasirs do not consider them among the popular sahabeh of the prophet. The Hypocrites mentioned in the Quran were Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his henchmen. Ibn Ubayy died during the lifetime of the Prophet and with that the hypocrites too eroded. Their features certainly are not of the features of great Sahabah like Omar ,Aboobakr , Talha and Zobayr. Read your own sources like Al-mizan and you will see. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.
Ahl’ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijtihad
and Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these
principles applied?
Answer: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself. In this way you might say it was based on Sunnah and ijtehad. On the other hand there are absolutely no clear evidence for the doctrine of having 12 Imams in Quran and Sunnat. So the same question applies to Ithna Ashari themselves. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.
If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what
of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided
Khalifa?
Answer: I don’t believe that rejecting a Khalifa is tantamount apostasy, however as Ali says in Najhul Balagha, letter 6, the rejecter has gone astray from the way of Muslims. Not all people who fought Ali actually rejected his Caliphate, many started the fight because they wanted to arrest the killers of Uthman (again refer to 58th letter in Nahjul Balagha or one before or after depending on the edition), The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.
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?
Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portions of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah’s army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali’s army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah’s act of fighting Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

Ibn_Sadique · December 29, 2002, 8:45pm

The Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection" . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers? Answer: No and there are also no ahadith to indicate the followers of Imam Sadiq have guaranteed the paradise. So what?! Zaideis are also the followers of Imam Ali, same for Ismailis but they consider you as misguided same as you consider them as misguided, are they all go to paradise according to Ithna Ashari Shia because they are followers of Ali? Does following Ali only means to be an Ithna Ashari? Are you 100% sure that Malik Ashtar had the same doctrine of Imamat as Ithna Asharis? Can we say that Sunnis are not followers of Ali only because they also respect and follow the other Sahabah? By the way, all the imams you talked about are imams in Fiqh not in Aqeedah. So your comparison is irrelative. Also the hadith (if accepted as authentic) does not imply that these are THE ONLY ones who go to paradise. Do you think there are no other ahadith that indicate the holy prophet promising heaven to any one other than Ali? Have you ever read the verse of Quran that talks in praise of Mohajerin and Ansar and encourages those who follow in their path (Tawbah :100)? Can an Ithna Ashari Shia consider himself as one of the people who this verse is talking about (one who follows the path of Sahabeh)? In another verse (Hashr :10) Allah says that people who are not among Mohajers and Ansar must pray to Him not to put any ill thought about those Sahabah in their hearts, have you ever prayed and requested this from Allah or are you practicing cursing Sahabah and spreading ill thoughts about them? Read the fist verses of the Sura of Momenoon to see in general who are the people who go to paradise, can you see any mentions of the followers of certain Imams there? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.
During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that following his slaying 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 mobilize opposition from Basrah. Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali (as)? Answer: The narration that Ayesha was a severe critic of Uthman to such an extent that she stated: "Kill this Nathal because he became a Kaffir" is reported in Sunni works by a person called "Nasr ibn Muhazim"..This person was an extremist Shii and the scholars of rijaal have considered this person to be a liar and a fabricator. So this narration is simply inauthentic. Can you honestly claim that you know the motivation of your best friend that you have known and see all the time in your life when he/she wants to do anything? How can we talk about the motivation of a woman who was living 1400 years ago with all these conflicting pieces of records from history? Instead of casting doubt about her motivations, is it not closer to Taqwa if we respect her as the beloved wife of the prophet and as our mother (if we consider ourselves Momin). Is it not closer to cautious if we observe the verse in Sura of Noor who warns people of thinking ill about Ayesha. Is it not closer to Taqwa to observe the verse that says "avoid uncertain accusations, as most of them are sin"?
If failing to believe in Hadhrath Aysha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer? Answer: Here the questioner tries to place the impression that Muawiyah killed Ayesha. By referring back to Tarikhul Islam, vol.2 by najeefabadi we found THAT THERE IS NO SUCH NARRATION THAT STATES MUAWIYA KILLED AYESHA. It only says that Ayesha died a natural death and was buried in Janntul Baqiyaah. Now here we can see the dishonesty of the apostate to Shiism as he fabricates lies and uses deception. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

Ibn_Sadique · December 29, 2002, 8:48pm

Islam has power and respect so I can see how Mulla Ali Qari looks at it.
As for the other hadith, you should read the ahadith of the same category to see the whole picture. The hadith as it is written above has not been considered as authentic by Sunnis, However there are ahadith that says who ever get apart from the community of Muslims (to the degree that he even does not know the leader of the society) will be dead like people of ignorant. This is nothing but the indication of importance of being socially & politically aware and active in Islam. This is very much in line with the 6th letter of Ali to Muawiyah in Najhul Balagha. It in no way indicates that there should always be a qualified Imam of time. It is clear that if there are no qualified Imams then the hadith will not be relevant to the situation any more. It says that if Muslims have a leader, you as an individual must recognize him; this is your political and social responsibility as a Muslim. So please see the correct version of hadith in its context to help yourself understanding it.
20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar
introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3
Talaq's in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute
Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?
Answer: Imam Khomeini said in one of his speeches that walye faqih can even order Muslims to stop reading prayer if he finds that reading the prayers could harm Islam. It is amusing to see his followers are now accusing Omar.
As for Omar, he never initiated Tarawih. It was started at the time of the prophet and the prophet let Muslims doing it for 3 nights. The only reason that he put a halt in it was (according to the same ahadith that shia uses) that he worried it might become an obligatory task and become difficult for Muslims. At the time of Omar, Islam was well established and the prophet was gone so there was no danger of it becoming obligatory and people liked to read it in Jammaat. The whole reason of forbidding the act had gone and Muslims knew (according to the hadith) that the act by itself had no problem (otherwise the prophet would mention it. He never said why are you doing innovation). You can see the significance of what Omar did these days when all Muslims do tarawih in Makkah, you can even see the effect on Shia people who desperately and interestedly look at it from their TV or live.
The other issues are the issues of Fiqh and ijtehad. Ali for the first time assigned zakat for donkey in his time because he found that at those days people use to have donkeys (refer to Forooe Kafi, the section on zakat), so is this changing the law or what? . To me, Omar's understanding of Islam was much better than Khomeini's. Despite clear evidences from Sunnah, Khomeini declared chess to be halal, same for music. In what basis do you give a right of ijtehad to Khomeini who never lived with a prophet and refuse to give the same right to Omar who lived with the best of the prophets? By the way, Shia is the pioneer of changing the laws of God and bringing innovation to religion. Which one is more innovation? What is referred to in the question or the act of Qame Zani (biting your head with sword) in Ashoora, adding another shahadat to Azan, making golden thumbs for your Imams and making pilgrimages to them, etc.
And Allah knows best.

I hope that answers your questions

Fee Aman Allah

armughal · December 30, 2002, 6:20am

Jazak Allah brother Ibn Sadique for the answers....
leave the scholars' anwers on a side....
and let me attempt to answer these questions in simple language....

it was ppl like Abu Bakar(ra) and Umar (ra) who helped the Prophet(sa) and his companions in those hard times....
do u think they wud have survived 3 years in that valley if they were not secretly helped by these ppl who were outside????
the Prophet(sa) had four daughters, 11 wives, and many companions....
how many do u think u cud burry on his side????
and does burrying anyone on the Prophet's side give them anything extra????
or did it take something away from Fatema(ra)????
unlogical and useless question....
Ali(ra) was the last one to migrate from Makkah to Madina (because the Prophet(sa) had ordered him so) and when Prophet(sa) reached Madina he made the Muhajireen, the brothers of the Ansaar, such that when Ali(ra) arrived, he was left alone, which made him sad....
so the Prophet(sa) made him his brother....
also Prophet(sa) made Zaid his son....
does that make Zaid the most superior amongst the companions????
closest companions, AbuBakar(ra), Umar(ra), Usman(ra), Ali(ra) all have very few narrations....
some ppl were involved in Jihad, some in the other affairs, similarly some in recording the sayings of the Propet(sa)....
we see many ppl writing books and many scholars who dont write even a single article....
does it mean that these scholars benefit less from their knowledge????
i dont think Ali(ra) stayed away from any battles....
exactly after becoming khalifa, AbuBakar(ra) sent around 11 troops on different missions like killing of false prophets, fighting ppl who refused to pay zakat and all....
and Ali(ra) headed the mission to go around Arabia and make flat all raised graves that were being worshipped....
if Ahl-Sunnah did not come to his aid, where were the Shiaas????
if u count Shiaas as the ppl who were crying in their houses when he was martyred, then atleast the ppl who were far away in Madinah can be excused somehow, but what bout those who were seeing all this and still just sitting and merely crying....
accusing the prophet(sa) of speaking nonsense!!!!
to prove ur point next u will say (out of the blue) that Umar(ra) did not even believe in his prophethood....
nonsense is what u ppl say....
and where is the proof that his companions left him without funeral????
and if they did, where was Ali(ra) and Fatema(ra)????
why did they not pray the funeral prayer and bury him????
everyone was in a state of confusion and they wanted to make sure they did the best thing so that no one wud cause any fitna....
as someone already said, what they held on to was not what the Prophet (sa) owned but what they owned....
Ali(ra) was also involved in these battles....
but was his intention, or anyone else's intention, just to make fitna and kill muslims just to put the muslim ummah in panic????
if yes, then all who had this intention will be punished as the Quran says....
and let us not be the judge of deciding who had what intention in his heart.... Allah knows best....
there were hypocrites in madina....
there were also jews and christians....
which grou did they join????
if they were loyal to anyone why wud they be called hypocrites....
hypocrites were the ones involved in the martyrdom of Umar(ra), Uthman(ra) and Ali(ra)....
also martyrdom of Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra)....
did they instead use the fiqah-e-jaafria or any shia principles for that purpose????
Quran says "Follow Allah and His Prophet, and Follow the Commander amongst u"....
so following the commander is an order of Allah....
those who turn down the orders r criminals....
and Allah knows best what will be the reward or punishment for everyone....
so both can be wrong, but both cant be right....
r u trying to say that Ali(ra) was wrong too????
he and his army also killed many mulims....
is there any hadith which says that u r right????
or any regarding khomeini or any other shia leader now????
ofcourse not, because none of these existed in the times of the Prophet(sa)....
similarly none of the four imams existed in the Prophet(sa)'s time....
so how do u expect any such hadith????
no sunni wud ever say that any o f these imams is comparable to Ali(rA) in his rank, surprising that shias think they r comparable....
Ayesha(ra) against Uthman(ra)????
this is a big lie, i wont believe it no matter who tells this to me....
same as u wud hold for the killers on both sides of the armies in the battles between Ali(ra) and Muawiyah(ra)....
during Badr Abu Bakar(ra) was standing in front of the Prophet (sa) to save any attack on him....
do u expect him to kill many ppl from there????
he was there just to shield the Prophet(sa) from attacks of any javelin or arrow thrown at him....
i dont think anyone counted the number or names of ppl killed by them....
and neither does anyone recall Ali(ra) killing many kufaar....
except some which were very prominent because Ali(ra) was a strong and brave person and was almost always the first one to be sent in for the one-to-one battle....
sahih bukhari reports on account of jabir bin samura that there will be 12 rulers after me who will rule over most of the world....
did he mean 12 imams shiaa believe in????
did Ali(ra) or Hassan(ra) or Hussain(ra) rule over the entire world????
and if u consider these 12 mentioned in the hadith as the 12 imams of shiaa then take Umar(ra) as the first imam....
no muslim ruler has ruled the extent of the world as he did....
Umar(ra) did not introduce tarawih, the Prophet(sa) did....
he dint pray in congregation all of the nights because he was afraid it might become a fardh for the ummah....
Umar(ra) strictly asked ppl to come for the tarawih prayer in congregation, he did not make a compulsion....
just like fasting outside ramadhan is not compulsory but if father makes his son pick up the habit to fast outside ramadhan to increse him in taqwa and make him more pious, it does not mean that he is changing the laws of Allah....

may Allah guide u to the right path....
and many muslims also convert to christianity and other religoins, it does not mean that Islam is wrong, just those ppl themselves have a problem in their hearts....
and verily Allah guides to the right who He wishes to, and makes astray who He wishes....

google · December 30, 2002, 7:27am

Brothers, Please.
Argue with Evidence and Proof supporting these facts and not blind faith or hatred. We don’t need more Shia/Sunni/Salafi fights.

Ya_ali_madad · December 30, 2002, 11:19am

ibn sidque

get your facts straight. hazrat Ayesha was against Usman recorded in your own hadiths, hazrat abu bakr did not attend the funeral because he had something MORE IMPORTANT than hazrat Mohammad(PBUH&HF), umar said "had ali not been here i would have been ruined",
It was Umar who set the house of Fatima(sa) on fire.

You guys are so ignorant that debating with ppl like you is useless.

Ya_ali_madad · December 30, 2002, 11:27am

just like typical sunnis, denying the facts. THESE HADITHS ARE FROM YOUR OWN BOOKS. I don't care what you say, umar did this, he did that because of this and that, who ever fought aginst ali(as) is not a believer, recorded in your own hadiths.

Akif · December 30, 2002, 1:25pm

Im closing up this thread......if you wish to see the results of such a debate, simply search for it in our archives. No need to open yet another one.