Unique Similarites B/w Judaism And The Shia Cult

[muawiyah]

SHIA CULT and Judaism share a lot of unique teachings unfound in other religions and cults. Thus strengthening the fact that Shiaism is a deviated cult founded by the jew Abdullah ibn Sabah and oriented by talmudic teachings and zoroastrianism(or magianism) principles.
these are the unique similarities:
the Shii qoutes are in bold whereas the similar Jewish qoutes are in italics
Mohammed bin Al-hassan Toosi reports on the authority of Ishhaq bin Ammar, that Abu Abdullah said "The wealth, the property and everything which belongs to a Sunni is actually yours (is legal for you)" (Tahzib-ul Ahkam, Vol. 2 Kitabul Makasib, p. 116, published in Iran) above in this Shi'ites book it states that all Shi'ites can steal from any Sunni Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with that
let us now look at what Jews have to say with regards to non-jewish(gentile) properties
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews, Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
Sanhedrin 76a . God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Moallah Khonas reported that Abdullah said "snatch the possessions of a Sunni whereever you find it and hand over my share (ie. One fifth) to me" (Tahzib ul Ahkam). Brothers and Sisters in Islam these Shi'ites think that they can steal our possessions and who knows what else they would like to do to us Sunni Muslims

This is what the Shi'ites say what will happen when their so-called Imams will return "When Qaem alaihissalam appears, he will start slaughtering Sunnis and their Ulema before slaughtering the infidels (kaffar)." (By the term "Quem" the Shi'ites mean Imam Mahdi, their twelfth Imam) So here the Shi'ites state that we are not Muslims, and that we are worse than the infidels (kaffar)
IT IS PERMITTED TO TAKE THE BODY AND LIFE OF A GENTILE." TALMUD: Sepher Ikkarim III c 25.
Every Jew who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." TALMUD: Bammidber raba c 21 & jalkut 772
A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands." TALMUD: Abodah Zara, 4b

So dear Brothers and Sisters, how can the Shi'ites expect us to be freinds with them when they Insult us and call us Kaffar behind our backs. So when a Shi'ite Insults a Sunni he is also Insulting all the Schollars and all of those pious people in Islam, can't these Shi'ites see what is wrong with their own beleifs???

[Ruqayyah]

Asalaamualaikum brother,
Heider(iam), never gives straight answers so thought id try you. Inshallah yours will make more sense anyhow. What is Kerbala? Sounds like the word used for Jewish mysticism!!! Haider(iam) has just been harping about some Eid he's celebrated, that has something to do with the kerbala(????????)

Your sister in Islam, Rukaya.:confused:

[caliph]

Kerbala is a town in Iraq. It was the area where Hussein (RA) fought Yazid's army for the Caliphate.

[Ruqayyah]

Jazakullah brother Caliph. That was kind of a stupid question. I feel a bit dumb. Its just that lots of terms Heideriam uses, and the people he seems to rate(the imams for instance), are all foreign to me. Shiaism really does seem very different from Islam.

[Changezi]

Please stop fighting between one another and unite against the real enemies of Islam!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol 2 of Tahzeeb ul-Ahkam is solely Kitab-us-Salaah. Have you even read the book?

Kitab ul-Makasib is in Vol 6, and starts on page 321.

And there is nothing about what you quote from Tahzeeb on page 116 on any of the ten volumes.

In Kitab ul-Makasib, there are two only ahadeeth similar to yours…

Therein it states:

Hadeeth No. 274:
An Mu'alla ibn Hunais qaala: Qaala Abu Abdillah (A): "Khuz il-Maal an-Nasibi haitho ma wajadta wadfa' alaina Khumsahu."
(Mu'alla ibn Hunais narrates that Abu Abdillah [A] said: "Take the wealth of the Nasibi wherever you find it, and send to us a fifith of it.")

Hadeeth No. 275:
An Is'haq ibn Ammar: Qaala Abu Badillah (A): "Maal un-Nasibi wa kullo shai'in yamlikahu Halalun laka illa imra'atah..."
(Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women...")

where does it say Sunni or Ahl us-Sunnah?

A Nasibi is somebody who bears enemity towards the Ahl ul Bait (A). Such a person is a Kafir in our eyes.
Nasibis are a small group who call themselves Muslim, and are NOT Sunni.


************************************************** *******

The above is taken from http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t19023.html

for further details and real facts about what Shia believe in and NOT the propaganda and lies about Shias...

Please visit http://www.answering-ansar.org/

************************************************** *******

[Debater]

Please stop fighting between one another and unite against the real enemies of Islam!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol 2 of Tahzeeb ul-Ahkam is solely Kitab-us-Salaah. Have you even read the book?

Kitab ul-Makasib is in Vol 6, and starts on page 321.

And there is nothing about what you quote from Tahzeeb on page 116 on any of the ten volumes.

In Kitab ul-Makasib, there are two only ahadeeth similar to yours…

Therein it states:

Hadeeth No. 274:
An Mu'alla ibn Hunais qaala: Qaala Abu Abdillah (A): "Khuz il-Maal an-Nasibi haitho ma wajadta wadfa' alaina Khumsahu."
(Mu'alla ibn Hunais narrates that Abu Abdillah [A] said: "Take the wealth of the Nasibi wherever you find it, and send to us a fifith of it.")

Hadeeth No. 275:
An Is'haq ibn Ammar: Qaala Abu Badillah (A): "Maal un-Nasibi wa kullo shai'in yamlikahu Halalun laka illa imra'atah..."
(Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women...")

where does it say Sunni or Ahl us-Sunnah?

A Nasibi is somebody who bears enemity towards the Ahl ul Bait (A). Such a person is a Kafir in our eyes.
Nasibis are a small group who call themselves Muslim, and are NOT Sunni.


************************************************** *******

The above is taken from http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t19023.html

for further details and real facts about what Shia believe in and NOT the propaganda and lies about Shias...

Please visit http://www.answering-ansar.org/

************************************************** *******

Who is fighting man?
In Urdu this is called, 'Chore ulta kotwaal ko daantay'.

It is not us who are fighting, but it is shias who have been fighting with us for 1400 years.
Shias should review their religious literature, in which they have offended our sentiments.
They indirectly abuse our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, they directly curse and abuse Ummahat-al-Mumineen ('Aishah and Hafsah radhiyAllahu 'anhuma), they abuse our Caliphs and other sahabah (companions). SO NOW YOU TELL ME WHO STARTED THIS PROXY WAR AGAINST ISLAM?

Still you want us to watch all the shamelssness from you people?

In shi'ism, Nasibi is a term used for a Non-Shia (Muslim) who doesn't believe in Ali as a Ma'sum (infallible) imam, and since shias are in Minority they don't call us a Nasibi openly, and make use of Taqiyyah.

And suppose they don't call us Nasibi, whoever these Nasibis are, how can it be lawful for you shias to STEAL the wealth of Nasibis for no reason. This is an enough proof that Shi'ism teaches TERRORISM.

SubhaanAllah, just read once more, the saying of their Precious Imam:
Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women..."

[Changezi]

Who is fighting man?
In Urdu this is called, 'Chore ulta kotwaal ko daantay'.

It is not us who are fighting, but it is shias who have been fighting with us for 1400 years.
Shias should review their religious literature, in which they have offended our sentiments.
They indirectly abuse our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, they directly curse and abuse Ummahat-al-Mumineen ('Aishah and Hafsah radhiyAllahu 'anhuma), they abuse our Caliphs and other sahabah (companions). SO NOW YOU TELL ME WHO STARTED THIS PROXY WAR AGAINST ISLAM?

Still you want us to watch all the shamelssness from you people?

In shi'ism, Nasibi is a term used for a Non-Shia (Muslim) who doesn't believe in Ali as a Ma'sum (infallible) imam, and since shias are in Minority they don't call us a Nasibi openly, and make use of Taqiyyah.

And suppose they don't call us Nasibi, whoever these Nasibis are, how can it be lawful for you shias to STEAL the wealth of Nasibis for no reason. This is an enough proof that Shi'ism teaches TERRORISM.

SubhaanAllah, just read once more, the saying of their Precious Imam:
Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women..."

Yeah Right.... It really shows who is fighting!

بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم

To start with... its not only your Prophet (P.B.U.H)... FYI our beliefs are similar to yours: "There is no God except Allah and Mohammad (P.B.U.H) is the Messenger of Allah" and we also say that Ali (A.S.) is a friend of Allah. If you think its wrong then do let me know... Will satisfy you on this one.
Secondly, We don't abuse Ummahat-ul-Momineen S.A. It's only a propaganda started by some Nasibi's and innocent people like you fall into their trap and start dancing to the tunes they play.
Give some examples of "shamelessness" that we do? With Proof.
If you are not Shia then you how can you come to a conclusion so confidently that Nasibi is a term used for Non-Shias.... If you want to be a Nasibi then I can not help that.
To answer your question about "stealing" as you said.... Then my friend first let me know what do you mean by Maal-e-Ghaneemat? And why do we take that as our right?

Looking forward to your kind reply.

Just a thought:
Leave Shia and Sunni alone... We should look deep inside ourselves and ask our selves DO WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CALLED AS MUSLIMS????
These are not the teachings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) to hate (let alone Muslims) even if you think somebody is a Kaafir.... then also Prophet (P.B.U.H.) proved through his kindness and his honesty and so many other qualities of a great human being to a Kaafir or a Mushrik that ISLAM is the right religion and ISLAM is a religion of peace.

So my dear brother, if even you think that I am not a Muslim then what are you doing about it??? Posting a reply full of hatred? No... You should give a message of Islam... a message of peace... not this.
Leave that question about you, me, Sunni, Shia, Muslims, christians, jews, hindus.... First we should find out if we are acting as a Human Being???? Because all the religions are for Humans and not Animals.

[Changezi]

Who is fighting man?
In Urdu this is called, 'Chore ulta kotwaal ko daantay'.

It is not us who are fighting, but it is shias who have been fighting with us for 1400 years.
Shias should review their religious literature, in which they have offended our sentiments.
They indirectly abuse our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, they directly curse and abuse Ummahat-al-Mumineen ('Aishah and Hafsah radhiyAllahu 'anhuma), they abuse our Caliphs and other sahabah (companions). SO NOW YOU TELL ME WHO STARTED THIS PROXY WAR AGAINST ISLAM?

Still you want us to watch all the shamelssness from you people?

In shi'ism, Nasibi is a term used for a Non-Shia (Muslim) who doesn't believe in Ali as a Ma'sum (infallible) imam, and since shias are in Minority they don't call us a Nasibi openly, and make use of Taqiyyah.

And suppose they don't call us Nasibi, whoever these Nasibis are, how can it be lawful for you shias to STEAL the wealth of Nasibis for no reason. This is an enough proof that Shi'ism teaches TERRORISM.

SubhaanAllah, just read once more, the saying of their Precious Imam:
Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women..."

بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم


One more thing my friend....
How can you say "Shi'ism teaches TERRORISM"? Prove.
And please don't give any of your proofs through www.kr-hcy.com/index2.shtml (http://www.kr-hcy.com/index2.shtml)
Because it's not at all true what is stated on that website. Infact that is a Propaganda by some extremist. The videos that they have their are not of Shias but of some Kafirs. If you want to really see what our Aalims say in our Majalis why don't you attend some. Nowadays they are shown on TV as well.


May Allah Subhanuhu Wa Ta AaLah guide us all to the right path. Aameen.

[Debater]

You are a true shia, changezi, full of Taqiyyah (deceit).

To prove your lies, and the LOVE you shias show for our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, his Wives and his Companions, I will use your own sources:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51888

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45049

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42778

And see how these WORST KUFFAR IN THE UNIVERSE abuse our Mother, 'Aisha Tayyibah radhiyAllahu 'anha, whose chastity is declared by Allah in His own Book:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50596

Now, will you still keep trying to deceive us?

[Debater]

بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم




One more thing my friend....
How can you say "Shi'ism teaches TERRORISM"? Prove.
And please don't give any of your proofs through www.kr-hcy.com/index2.shtml (http://www.kr-hcy.com/index2.shtml)
Because it's not at all true what is stated on that website. Infact that is a Propaganda by some extremist. The videos that they have their are not of Shias but of some Kafirs. If you want to really see what our Aalims say in our Majalis why don't you attend some. Nowadays they are shown on TV as well.


May Allah Subhanuhu Wa Ta AaLah guide us all to the right path. Aameen.
Why would I believe that you are true and they (kr-hcy) are not?
If they do propaganda and they are extremists then what you do on your Scared ShiaChat?
Do you spread flowers of love there?
Whatever kr-hcy do in their forum is a response to what you have been doing to us for 1400 years.
We can't offer flowers to you shias, when you abuse our Mothers of Believers and even our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

[Debater]

To answer your question about "stealing" as you said.... Then my friend first let me know what do you mean by Maal-e-Ghaneemat? And why do we take that as our right?

There is no mention of any fight/war in the sayings of your Precious Imams, just read them once again, they simply want you to become ROBBERS:

Hadeeth No. 274:
An Mu'alla ibn Hunais qaala: Qaala Abu Abdillah (A): "Khuz il-Maal an-Nasibi haitho ma wajadta wadfa' alaina Khumsahu."
Mu'alla ibn Hunais narrates that Abu Abdillah [A] said: "Take the wealth of the Nasibi wherever you find it, and send to us a fifith of it."

Hadeeth No. 275:
An Is'haq ibn Ammar: Qaala Abu Badillah (A): "Maal un-Nasibi wa kullo shai'in yamlikahu Halalun laka illa imra'atah..."
Is'haq ibn Ammar narrates: Abu Abdillah [A] said: "The wealth of the Nasibi and everything he owns is halal for you, except their women..."

[Moayidd]

Kerbala is a town in Iraq. It was the area where Hussein (RA) fought Yazid's army for the Caliphate.

It is true that Karbulaa is a town in Iraq where Al Hussien was slain but it wasn't a battle for the Caliphate. If I remember correctly he was asked to pay Jizya to pass through it which he refused to do and was attack by an Army (Yazids army) after only 80 of the faithful remained around to defend him.

If memory serves me it wasn't to do with the Caliphate.
.
.
.

[*IslamicGirl*]

It is true that Karbulaa is a town in Iraq where Al Hussien was slain but it wasn't a battle for the Caliphate. If I remember correctly he was asked to pay Jizya to pass through it which he refused to do and was attack by an Army (Yazids army) after only 80 of the faithful remained around to defend him.

If memory serves me it wasn't to do with the Caliphate.
.
.
.

:start:

:salams

Actually it was to do with yazzids tyrannay, Hussain (RA) stood up for justice, where yazzid was a drunken bad person. Yazid even stopped water going to their tents for days on end!

About this whole sunni-shia, i'm not inputting, but about the events of Karbala, which every Muslim should reflect. Why would yazzid kill or even touch the hair of the Prophet :saw: 's family?

If it was about Jizya, then why did it alst for 10 days, why were so many of the Prophet's :saw: family murdered, and even little kids denied water?

That man yazzid and his army were tyrants :mad:

:salams

[Debater]

:start:

:salams

Actually it was to do with yazzids tyrannay, Hussain (RA) stood up for justice, where yazzid was a drunken bad person. Yazid even stopped water going to their tents for days on end!

About this whole sunni-shia, i'm not inputting, but about the events of Karbala, which every Muslim should reflect. Why would yazzid kill or even touch the hair of the Prophet :saw: 's family?

If it was about Jizya, then why did it alst for 10 days, why were so many of the Prophet's :saw: family murdered, and even little kids denied water?

That man yazzid and his army were tyrants :mad:

:salams
In fact majority of Muslims have been fooled like you by shias. There is little truth in the famous Tales of Karbala.
Stories of Karbala have been fabricated around 200 years after the murder of Hadhrat Husain. The inventor of these stories is Abu Makhnaf (Lut bin Yahya) who is a shia.

Before touching this theme you must keep in mind that the people of Kufah (shias) invited Hadhrat Husain against the Caliphate of Yazid. Remember that most of the Muslims had accepted the Caliphate of Yazid. But when Hadhrat Husain sent his messenger (Muslim bin Aqil) to Kufah and was killed on orders of the governor of Kufah, 'Ubedullah ibn Ziyad who was a shia and whom Hadhrat Ali appointed as the Governor of Kufah and Yazid just continued him at his post.
When the people of Kufah saw this action of the Governor they given away the support of Hadhrat Husain but by then Hadhrat Husain had arrived Karbala according to famous stories.

There the soldiers of Ibn Ziyad Shia seiged Hadhrat Husain and his family. And over the suggestion of Shimr (shia), who was the brother in law and body guard of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Husain was killed.

Though the other side of story is that when Hadhrat Husain arrived the point of Nainwa which was close to Karbala, he found out that his so called shias betrayed him and killed his cousin, Muslim bin Aqil, he intended to go to Yazid in order to give him the pledge of allegiance, shias considered this the failure of their devious plan, and they killed him.

In any case the charge of this murder can't be put on Yazid, because we don't have any historical evidence in which it can be confirmed that Hadhrat Husain was murdered (martyred) on his orders, though the history goes in favour of Yazid, proving it was never his intention to kill him.

The most important thing is that, there is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, according to which Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam had given the glad tiding of Maghfirah to an army of Muslims which ceized the city of Qaiser and as a matter of fact, this army which ceized the city of Qaiser was led by Yazid and Hadhrat Husain and other Sahabah fought under Yazid's Command. So after this authority it is not lawful for we Muslims to curse Yazid or blame him for something about which there exists no evidence. Yazid is already forgiven by Allah, if we believe in our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

[Changezi]

You are a true shia, changezi, full of Taqiyyah (deceit).

To prove your lies, and the LOVE you shias show for our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, his Wives and his Companions, I will use your own sources:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51888

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45049

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42778

And see how these WORST KUFFAR IN THE UNIVERSE abuse our Mother, 'Aisha Tayyibah radhiyAllahu 'anha, whose chastity is declared by Allah in His own Book:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50596

Now, will you still keep trying to deceive us?


بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم


Good that you have pasted those links, dear brother. I urge all the people to follow those links and struggle to find answers. It is very fortunate for most of us that we are "Born Muslims" Following without research is ignorance. Please spend at least one hour of your time daily in research on Islam.

Before researching perform "Wudoo" and recite Sura-e-AlHamd three times with Salawat on Mohammad (P.B.U.H) before and after. Insha Allah, Allah will guide us all to the right path.

[Changezi]

Why would I believe that you are true and they (kr-hcy) are not?
If they do propaganda and they are extremists then what you do on your Scared ShiaChat?
Do you spread flowers of love there?
Whatever kr-hcy do in their forum is a response to what you have been doing to us for 1400 years.
We can't offer flowers to you shias, when you abuse our Mothers of Believers and even our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم


Dear Brother, Ask yourself in a Neutralized state if its a propaganda on kr-hcy or not? I am sure that one day you will realize.
Extremist are in every religion. We should not let our emotions take over our mind. If some people are extremists then it means that they are very weak in their beliefs.
A true Shia never abuses Mothers of Believers.
Astagh-Fir-Ullahi-Wa-Atoobu-Illayhi...! My dear brother, Once again I urge you to first think and research before you conclude.Fear Allah! We don't curse our beloved Prophet (P.B.U.H) THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO ARE TRULY KAAFIRS!
Allah knows the best and HE will send his Worst Azaab on the enemies of Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) and the enemies of his Family (Ahl-ul-Bayt) ع.
Please open your eyes... Free your mind from Fitna. Always ask Allah to protect us against the cursed Satan and his allies.

[Changezi]

In fact majority of Muslims have been fooled like you by shias. There is little truth in the famous Tales of Karbala.
Stories of Karbala have been fabricated around 200 years after the murder of Hadhrat Husain. The inventor of these stories is Abu Makhnaf (Lut bin Yahya) who is a shia.

Before touching this theme you must keep in mind that the people of Kufah (shias) invited Hadhrat Husain against the Caliphate of Yazid. Remember that most of the Muslims had accepted the Caliphate of Yazid. But when Hadhrat Husain sent his messenger (Muslim bin Aqil) to Kufah and was killed on orders of the governor of Kufah, 'Ubedullah ibn Ziyad who was a shia and whom Hadhrat Ali appointed as the Governor of Kufah and Yazid just continued him at his post.
When the people of Kufah saw this action of the Governor they given away the support of Hadhrat Husain but by then Hadhrat Husain had arrived Karbala according to famous stories.

There the soldiers of Ibn Ziyad Shia seiged Hadhrat Husain and his family. And over the suggestion of Shimr (shia), who was the brother in law and body guard of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Husain was killed.

Though the other side of story is that when Hadhrat Husain arrived the point of Nainwa which was close to Karbala, he found out that his so called shias betrayed him and killed his cousin, Muslim bin Aqil, he intended to go to Yazid in order to give him the pledge of allegiance, shias considered this the failure of their devious plan, and they killed him.

In any case the charge of this murder can't be put on Yazid, because we don't have any historical evidence in which it can be confirmed that Hadhrat Husain was murdered (martyred) on his orders, though the history goes in favour of Yazid, proving it was never his intention to kill him.

The most important thing is that, there is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, according to which Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam had given the glad tiding of Maghfirah to an army of Muslims which ceized the city of Qaiser and as a matter of fact, this army which ceized the city of Qaiser was led by Yazid and Hadhrat Husain and other Sahabah fought under Yazid's Command. So after this authority it is not lawful for we Muslims to curse Yazid or blame him for something about which there exists no evidence. Yazid is already forgiven by Allah, if we believe in our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Brother, you have been fed a whole bunch of lies. Please don't believe in all those things and they are totally wrong. Don't just believe in something which is just taught to you verbally. Search for answers in the history yourself.
I am highlighting some of Yazid's Characteristics through some authentic Sunni Books.

Hadith referring to Yazeed

Abu Hurraira sought protection from the events of 56 Hijri

1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 114

2. Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 10 Kitab al Fitan

3. Tareekh al Islam (Dhahabi) Volume 2 page 339 Dhikr Abu Hurraira

4. Al Isaba Volume 4 page 200 Dhikr Abu Hurraira

5. Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 6 page 228


Abu Hurraira would walk through the markets and 'O Allah don't accept the events of 56 Hijri and I don't see this boy's reign'

In Fathul Bari Ibn Hajr states that:

"Abu Hurraira was referring to the youth of Quraysh"

Abu Said al Khudri's condemnation of 60 Hijri

1. Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 3 page 128, Surah Maryam verse 59

2. Mujmu al Zadaad Volume 6 page 231

3. Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 3 page 38

4. Fathul Qadeer Volume 3 page 329

5. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 230


Ibn Kathir states:

"The Sahaba Abu Said al Khudri narrates that he heard Rasulullah (s) say after 60 Hijri undeserving people shall ignore prayers and enter the deepest part of Hell".

This hadith is also a condemnation of Yazeed since he became the Leader immediately after 60 Hijri…. (Page 219)

Rasulullah (s) said Yazeed will destroy my religion

We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 231 Dhikr Yazeed:

Justice shall rule my Ummah until the first individual who shall destroy my Deen, from the Banu Ummayaa his name shall be Yazeed.

Yes, imam of the Nasibis Yazeed is accused of destroying the Deen by the Holy Prophet (saws) himself. I say we destroy the Deen of the Nasibis. Their Deen is different to that of other Muslims, Shia or Sunni.


The family of Umar's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed
We read in Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 80:

"Mu'awiya asked Abdullah ibn Umar to give bayya to Yazeed. Mu'awiya then sent 100,000 dirhams to Abdullah ibn Umar, he refused to accept this. He then sent a treasure chest to Hifa with the message that he gives bayya. Ibn Umar said 'These dirhams are because he is chasing bayya'


The family of Uthman's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed and Mu'awiya's use of bribery to secure compliance

We read in al Imama was al Siyasa Volume 2 page 184:

"At the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, Uthman's son Sa'eed approached Mu'awiya, and said 'Commander of Syria, on what grounds are you making Yazeed your successor, and why are you ignoring me? After highlighting some of his own faults he [Sa'eed] then said 'If you object to making me the khalifa then at least give something to me'. Mu'awiya said 'I'll give you the province of Khurasan. Sa'eed accepted and recited a eulogy 'Even if may father Uthman were alive he would not give me as much as Mu'awiya just did'.

We read in Tareekh ibn Asakir Volume 6 page 159 Dhikr Saeed bin Uthman:

"The people of Medina liked Saeed bin Uthman disliked Mu'awiya. At the time of the bayya to Yazeed, Sa'eed came to Mu'awiya, and Mu'awiya asked him 'My brother's son why did the people say what they say?' Saeed replied by citing a Madinan poem 'Verily by Allah, Yazeed is not deserving of khilafat, after Mu'awiya our leader is Sa'eed'. Saeed then said 'Which part of this poem offended you?' Sa'eed then began to highlight his own faults saying 'Sa'eed is mischievous and witty'. Mu'awiya sought to resolve the matter by sending him 100,000 dirhams and appointing him as Governor over Khurusan".

Abu Sulaiman is chanting that his Imam Yazeed obtained the ijma of the Sahaba. The fact is, in the first instance the leading families of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman wore opposed to the khilafat of Yazeed, and Mu'awiya secured their consent via political assassination, intimidation and bribery. Only the family of Ali (as) refused to be bought, and around them rallied the last sincere companions, who were killed by Yazeed when they rallied to the side of Husayn (as) at Karbala.


Marwan's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed and Mu'awiya's use of bribery to secure his compliance

We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa Voume 1 page 164, Bayya Yazeed:

"At the time that bayya was given to Yazeed, Marwan became perturbed, he reached Damascus and began to outline his own personal merits such as his age [experience over Yazeed]. Mu'awiya then gave Marwan a 1000 dinar reward."

That did the trick and shut him up, Marwan was also on board now! We read in Muruj al Dhahab Volume 3 page 38

"When bayya was administered to Yazeed, Marwan became concerned and went to Damascus, and began to cite his own merits citing his age. Mu'awiya calmed him down and said 'After my successor, the Khilafat shall go to you'. Yazeed then appointed Marwan as his successor and sent him back to Medina"

That's right Yazeed, keep the khilafat in the family.


The opposition of the Arab tribes to the bayya of Yazeed

We read in Thalkhees ibn Asakir Volume 5 page 92 Dhikr Khalida bin al Mu'ammar

"When the Commander of Syria [Mu'awiya] initiated his desire [to appoint Yazeed] the tribe of Rabia opposed this and the tribe of Abid al Qays joined them (i.e. refused to give bayya). The tribe of Barr bin Wa'l and the tribe of Khalid bin al Mu'ammar also joined in opposition. When the tribe of Rabia refused to give bayya other Arab tribes followed suit. This perplexed Mu'awiya immensely."


Nasibi Hujjaj bin Yusuf's admission that he used violence to secure the khilafat for Yazeed

We read in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 20 about the assassination of witnesses to Yazeed's playboy lifestyle in Mu'awiya's palace:

"Hujjaj bin Yusuf once told Mu'awiya's grandson Khalid bin Yazeed

'Listen, I killed one hundred people with this sword, as they deemed your father [Yazeed] to be a kaafir, and they would testify to his drinking, to the point that that their blood on this sword would testify that Yazeed was the khalifa.'"

Is this how this ijma was achieved - through the slaughtering of opponents and witnesses? Is this the 'legitimate' method via which the people happily gave bayya to Yazeed? If the people had been silenced through such methods, it does not in any way mean that they deemed Yazeed's khilafat to be rightful. When they saw that Yazeed was not even prepared to spare the life of the grandson of Rasulullah (s) they simply adopted taqiyyah through fear of death. Securing allegiance under the threat of death can never constitute ijma. We see a situation in which the whole Ummah was terrified of being killed by Mu'awiya's de facto secret police unless they gave bayya to Yazeed.


Banu Hashim's opposition to the bayya of Yazeed was the reason for their genocide

We shall now quote directly from al Imama wa al Siyasa page 163:

"Mu'awiya sent a letter to Husayn that stated 'Banu Hashim, Salaamun Alaykum, accept Yazeed's leadership and refrain from opposing me'.

Husayn replied saying:

'Mu'awiya your actions are those of a Zaalim [unjust and also sadistic, cruel person]. Shaytaan is working with you. You are shedding the blood of pious Muslims. You have declared Ziyad bin Sumayya [Abu Sofyan's bastard son] to be your brother and he has turned your khilafat into an unjust one. It is clear from your actions that you are not from the Ummah of Muhammad, Allah (swt) shall never forgive you for appointing that youth [Yazeed] as a successor who plays with dogs [civil expression for bestiality] and drinks alcohol….'… Not a single member of Banu Hashim accepted Yazeed as Khalifah. Sa'd wrote to Mu'awiya and said the people of Medina had not accepted Yazeed as khalifah, and none of Banu Hashim have accepted Yazeed's khilafat".


Sources of the above research are:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/index.php
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap7.php
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap2.php
You can follow this link for a whole chapter after chapter with references from Sunni Books.

[Changezi]

In fact majority of Muslims have been fooled like you by shias. There is little truth in the famous Tales of Karbala.
Stories of Karbala have been fabricated around 200 years after the murder of Hadhrat Husain. The inventor of these stories is Abu Makhnaf (Lut bin Yahya) who is a shia.

Before touching this theme you must keep in mind that the people of Kufah (shias) invited Hadhrat Husain against the Caliphate of Yazid. Remember that most of the Muslims had accepted the Caliphate of Yazid. But when Hadhrat Husain sent his messenger (Muslim bin Aqil) to Kufah and was killed on orders of the governor of Kufah, 'Ubedullah ibn Ziyad who was a shia and whom Hadhrat Ali appointed as the Governor of Kufah and Yazid just continued him at his post.
When the people of Kufah saw this action of the Governor they given away the support of Hadhrat Husain but by then Hadhrat Husain had arrived Karbala according to famous stories.

There the soldiers of Ibn Ziyad Shia seiged Hadhrat Husain and his family. And over the suggestion of Shimr (shia), who was the brother in law and body guard of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Husain was killed.

Though the other side of story is that when Hadhrat Husain arrived the point of Nainwa which was close to Karbala, he found out that his so called shias betrayed him and killed his cousin, Muslim bin Aqil, he intended to go to Yazid in order to give him the pledge of allegiance, shias considered this the failure of their devious plan, and they killed him.

In any case the charge of this murder can't be put on Yazid, because we don't have any historical evidence in which it can be confirmed that Hadhrat Husain was murdered (martyred) on his orders, though the history goes in favour of Yazid, proving it was never his intention to kill him.

The most important thing is that, there is a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, according to which Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam had given the glad tiding of Maghfirah to an army of Muslims which ceized the city of Qaiser and as a matter of fact, this army which ceized the city of Qaiser was led by Yazid and Hadhrat Husain and other Sahabah fought under Yazid's Command. So after this authority it is not lawful for we Muslims to curse Yazid or blame him for something about which there exists no evidence. Yazid is already forgiven by Allah, if we believe in our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Dear Brother, Since it has been you who has been passing some remarks about Shia'sm. I would like to ask you a couple of questions because I also want to understand Ahl-al-Sunnah beliefs and I think you could rightly guide me as you seem to be a strong believer in all your beliefs.

Would you please be kind enough to clearify the following:

1.

It is an established fact that all things are recognised by their name, even Allah (swt) first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl' ul Sunnah or Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur'an wherein any of these names have been indicated.

2.

If these titles cannot be located in the Qur'an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such 'mutawatir' 'marfuu' or 'saheeh' narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl'ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.

3.

If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.

4.

What were you famously known as before adopting these names?

5.

Why have you forsaken your previous title?

6.

According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid'a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid'a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid'a?

7.

Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl'ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?

8.

Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?

9.

Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?

10.

Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?



11.

The title 'Shia' is present in the Qur'an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?

12.

If you do accept this, then what you do mean by 'Millat e Ibraheem' in your sect? And if you don't accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi'a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?

13.

Does opposition to the title 'Shia' not constitute opposition to the Qur'an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)?
Please see our article "To know the Shia'a" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/to_know_the_shia/en/index.php)

14.

If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?

15.

The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe'een what titles were used?

16.

Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.

17.

If it is Shi'a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe'een and Taba Tabe'een were Shia'a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?

18.

With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi's martyred Imam Husayn (as)?

19.

What is the definition of Shi'a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.

20.

Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.



21.

Do you believe in the 'Tawheed' of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?

Wajibul Wujood:
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations

Mumkinul Wujood:
Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existance), may be He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.

22.

If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:

Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,
Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam

Give us a detailed account of it.

Hulool:
Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being's body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.

23.

Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur'an, "Sahih al Bukhari" Volume 6 hadith number 371:

"The Prophet (saws) said, "The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: 'Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say 'Qat! Qat!" (Enough! Enough!)"
Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, Hadeeth 371 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/bokhari_v6_h371.jpg)

I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?

24.

Is Allah not the possessor of the power of 'Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can't he just limit hell with a simple command?

25.

Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah[swt], mean that Allah[swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.

26.

You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called 'Radde Kufr' wherein you do tabarra. Like in:

Fatabarra'tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.
I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.


Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?

27.

If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi'a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?

28.

'Laa tudrukuhul absaar' are Qur'anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of 'Lan Taraani'.

29.

When the holy prophet went on Mi'raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).

30.

If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?



31.

What is the basis of your doctrine of God's visibility, the Qur'an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur'an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God's words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur'an.

32.

Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?

33.

To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi'a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?

34.

If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur'an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet's household of the same right.

35.

If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn't from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.

36.

The slogans "Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali" have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one "Naara Khilafat Haq Chaar Yaar" which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prophet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names.
Please see our article "Imamate; The perfection of Deen" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/imamate_perfection_of_deen/en/index.php)

37.

Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim 'Our Four Rightful Men' out of modesty considering it as an abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?

Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work "Yaar", which can also be used as "very close friends". In India & Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.

38.

It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.

39.

What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (sa)?

40.

If she was a Mu'menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil ( Just ), is following one of them a way of salvation?

41.
If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry."
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/bokhari_v5_h61.jpg)

42.

If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession.
Please see our article "Burning the house of Fatima[sa]" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/index.php)

43.

If Hadhrath Fatima's displeasure towards the two shaykhs was not against Islam then why is it important upon the general mass to love them? Allah[swt] deemed His anger and Fatima's to be the same, and Syeda Fatima left the earth angry with the 2 Shaykhs.

44.

You are of the opinion that there had been no opposition between Hadhrath Ali (as) and the three companions. Suppose I accept that, but let me tell you, I have a very deep respect and honour for the pure lady Fatima (as) who was part of the flesh of the holy prophet (saww) and she has this esteem to her credit that whenever she appeared in the presence of the holy prophet (saww) he used to stand up as a welcoming gesture of honour to her. Therefore, will following such a respectful personality be a cause of salvation or not? Decide by keeping Bukhari and Muslim before your sight.

45.

While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saww) leave the Qur'an with the ummah or not?

46.

If he did then why did the need for the collection of the Qur'an arise? And why were the Ummah kept without the Qur'an till the period of Uthman?

47.

If the holy prophet (saww) did not leave the Qur'an with the Ummah prior to his departure then the task of Risallah was not accomplished because the purpose of his arrival was to convey the message of Allah to the ummah. How then is the religion complete?

48.

You make a long list of Muslims who compiled the revelations which proves the fact that the holy prophet (saww) had himself been causing the Qur'an being written and preserved it. But to our surprise, after the holy prophet (saww) up until the period of Uthman, people could not get the Qur'an. Could you explain why this gap occurred?

49.

You are proud of the memorizers of the Qur'an and even claim the fact that there had been many such people among the companions of the holy prophet. Then, tell us, from among Ali (as), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman who knew the Qur'an by heart? Give your answers with complete sources and refer to your books.

50.

If none of the three companions had been Haafidh of the Qur'an then why scoff the Shias despite the presence of many Haafidh among them?



51.

In a reliable book of your sect, 'Itteqaan' by Suyuti, vol. 1 page 59, it is narrated that Ali (as) had once told Abu Bakr that an addition was being made to the Qur'an and that my heart tells me that apart from the salaam, I am not going to wear my robe up until I have collected the Qur'an, to which Abu Bakr said, you saw the right thing. This report has been received from Akramah who is a reliable leader of the Sunnis and every Sunni accepts this report as correct. Is this not a sufficient proof that after the departure of the holy prophet (saww), according to your sect efforts were made to interpolate the word of Allah (swt) and obviously the doers of that were Muslims themselves? What evidence can you then produce in support of the Qur'an being free from Tahreef (addition)?

52.

It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur'an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word's correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur'an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur'an and Rasul'Allah? If Rasul'Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur'an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur'an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one?
See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/sunan_abudawud_p350.jpg)

53.

In your innumerable books of hadeeth, there are various reports that the Qur'an has Tahreef in it. For instance it's mentioned in al Itteqaan that Surah Ahzaab had two hundred verses before and now it has 73 verses. What happened to the rest? If they were abrogated then refer us to those verses that came down to abrogate them? Similarly in Itteqaan, vol. 2, page 25 Abdullah Ibn Umar states that none of you should ever claim to have received the whole Qur'an, rather what remains. The presence of such reports shows that according to your sect the Qur'an has been changed. Can you elaborate?

54.

Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur'anic verse?

55.

Is anyone from among the ummah authorised to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?

56.

Allamah Shibli Nu'mani in al Farooq page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim that Umar had said that two Mut'a were allowed during the time of the holy prophet but I disallow them from now and these are the Mut'a of Hajj and the Mut'a of Nisaa. On what religious authority did Umar forbid what the apostle and Allah (swt) allowed? Clarify this point.

57.

The Qur'an says that 'Qaala Mumin min aale firaun yukassim imaanahu' a believer from the Aal of Firaun had concealed his belief and hence its shown that the concealment of belief out of fear is not disbelief or abhorrent on the part of a believer. Why then is the Taqiyyah of a Shia abhorrent to you?

58.

Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 4, page 123 Egyptian edition reports from Hassan Basri that 'Al taqiyyah baaqiyata ila yawmil qiyaamat, (Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgement). When taqiyya is proved to be permissible from both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth, why then your sect attacks the Shi'a practice of taqiyyah?

59.

Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply?
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_qadhi_khan_p98.jpg)
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_qadhi_khan_p821.jpg)

60.

The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah). Could you justify this claim?
Fatawa Siraajiya, Page 75 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg)





61.

Every chapter of the Qur'an begins with Bismillah but Surah tawbah doesn't begin with it, why?

62.

When the start of every Surah of the Qur'an has been made with Bismillah, why then do you not start the Surahs in your salaat with Bismillah?

63.

Prove 'Thanaa' Eulogy from the Qur'an.

64.

Point out Assalaatu minan nawm to us from the Qur'an if not then at least from an authentic hadeeth.

65.

Prove that these words had been used as part of the Adhan during Abu Bakr's period.

66.

Prove to us that the prayers of taraweeh had been said in congregation during the time of the holy Prophet[saww] and during the period of Abu Bakr.

67.

You only have nine reports at your disposal as far as praying the salaat by folding your arms is concerned. On the principles of the transmitters of hadeeth, prove their chains as 'Saheeh' correct. And prove all the transmitters as reliable.

68.

From the period of Abu Bakr, present any example or a report to prove that Abu Bakr said his prayers by folding his arms. If you can, why do the Malikis keep their arms straight while saying their prayers?

69.

The Qur'an instructs us to fast till night "thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail", and night enters when darkness casts in. Why do you open your fasts early? Why were Umar and Uthman opening their fasts after Maghrib prayers?
Nuqaa' Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth 351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi

70.

You claim that the Shia'a Qur'an contains forty parts, prove its source from the four Shia key books (Kutub Al-'Arba'a).





71.

If Mut'a is Haraam, why did Asma Bin Abu Bakr do it? For evidence, refer to Tafseer Mazhari Qadhi Thanaa Allah , page 577.

72.

In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abu Bakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]'s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?

73.

If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.

74.

If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense?
Please see our article "Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[sa]" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/index.php)

75.

Can your prayers be complete without darood? If yes then come up with full evidence and if not then how come the blessings are just sent upon Muhammad[saww] and his progeny and not upon his companions and wives? When the prayers can be complete without sending blessings to the wives and the companions, why does Ahl'ul Sunnah add the names of these groups to Darood in their religious gatherings?

76.

Cite a saheeh and authoritative text hadeeth of the apostle with a complete source wherein it is reported that it is obligatory to send darood upon all the companions and wives of the holy prophet (saww). And also tell us if it is obligatory then how can the prayers be in order without them?

77.

You believe that the Khilafat can either be established by public votes or the way of ijma (consensus). Could you verify this with evidence from the sayings of the apostle himself?

78.

Did the holy prophet (saww) depart from this world without giving guidance on Khilafat? If yes, why then did the two shaykhs say 'ilaaimatu minal quraysh' (The Imams are from Quraysh) in saqeefa bani sa'da? Did they specifically lie for leadership? Also why oppose the holy prophet's Sunnah, why did Abu Bakr candidate Umar?

79.

In majmaul Bihar, Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes that Abu Bakr confessed that 'I am not a Khalifah but a Khalifah' if you regard him truthful then why do you not deny his caliphate?

80.

In Sawaiq Al-Muhriqah of Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki writes that there are three siddeeq ( truthful ), Habib an Najaar, Hazqeel and Ali (as), and that Ali (as) was better than the two. Why has Abu Bakr not been mentioned here?
See also: Tafseer e Kabir, Vol. 7, Page 317



81.

Was Umar the heir of the holy Prophet[saww]'s knowledge? If yes then why as is stipulated by Jalaludeen Suyuti 'Umar used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case when there is no Abul Hassan (History of the Khalifahs who took the right way (English translation by Abdassamad Clarke page 178)? And why did he confess that 'lau la Aliyyan lahalakal Umar'? If Ali (as) wasn't there, Umar would have perished (Tadkhiratul Khawwas, by Sibt Ibne Jauzi, page 127). Note: The comments in Dhikr-e-Hussain by Maulana Kauthar Niyazi are also worthy of note.

82.

Did the two shaykhs of Ahl'ul Sunnah participate in the burial rituals of the holy Prophet[saww], if you claim they did, then why do we read that both Sharh mawaqif and Al Farooq Shibli Nu'mani confirm their absence? If they did not participate then what type of friends are these?
Al-Farooq, by Shibli Naumani, Page 40 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/al_farooq_p40.jpg)

83.

In Musnad Ahmed Hanbal and so on, it is mentioned that Ayesha had named Uthman as Nathal, who should be killed and Murtakib Kufr. If you regard Ayesha as the truthful then you will have to accept what she called Uthman. And if she did not tell the truth then why do you call her the truthful?
Please see our article "Ayesha" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php)

84.

The soldiers that the holy prophet (saww) had prepared against Musailimah ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]'s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?
See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18

85.

In Muwatta of Imam malik, translated by Allamah Waheed al Zamaan, Page 147, hadeeth 603, Rasulullah (s) narrates that a companion had approached him, beating his chest and ripping his hair. If chest beating in the presence of Rasulullah (s) is allowed then why do you object to it?

86.

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddath Dehlavi in his book Midaaraj Nabaweeya, vol. 2, page 544 writes that the Mu'adhdhin of the apostle, Hadhrath Bilal Habashi (r.a) came to the Mosque of the Prophet[saww] beating his chest and complaining. What is your verdict regarding chest beating?

87.

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

88.

Hadhrath Ali Hajweeri Al Mash-huur Daata Ganj Bakhsh Lahori in his book Kashful Mahjoob, chapter 2, page 118, section 8 reports it from Umar, that the holy Prophet[saww] played as a camel for the then young Imam Hussain[as], meaning he made himself a replica of a camel. Following the Sunnah of the holy Prophet[saww] is it Sunnah (tradition) to make a replica of Imam Hussain[as]'s horse or is it a bid'at (Innovation)?

89.

Kanzul A'mal, Hayder Aabad edition, vol. 5, in the Musnad of Ali karramallahu wajhu, page 147, hadeeth 2403 it is written that, the holy Prophet[saww] used to wipe his feet during wudhoo, why do you not regard wiping as permissible? If the feet will go to hell by being kept dry during wudhoo then how is the wiping over the socks correct?

90.

In the Bai'at of Ridhwan, the Muslims took a covenant of not fleeing from the battle field. But the battle of Hunayn took place after the "bay'at of under the tree". Of those people who went against their covenants, what is your verdict with regards to them?



91.

The historian, Habib as Sayr writes regarding the battle of Hunayn that:

Purseed Abu Bakr wa Umar kujaa Budand? Guft aan neez dar goshe rafte budand.

Meaning when it was enquired where Abu Bakr and Umar were?, the narrator replied they had also fled to some corner. Contemplate over this narration, let it be very clear that in your Tafseer Qaweri, Tafseer Hussayni, Rawdhatus Safaa, Taareekhul Khamseen, Rawdhatul Ahbab, Ma'aarijun Nubuwwah, etc it is mentioned that the three gentlemen had fled from the battle of Hunayn. Why did they break the covenant of the Bay'at of Ridhwan? Reply after reading all these books.

92.

If these three men had been brave then show us from your book Tafseer Qaweri the names of these three men from among those who did not flee in the battle of Hunayn. And prove it to us from all of your books, how many non-believers had been killed by these three men in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn. How many non-believers did they inflict with harm? And how much harm did themselves sustain in their bodies? And just mention five names with complete sources from among those whom these people killed.

93.

If Umar has been brave then write the names of people who got killed at his hands in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn from historical sources compare Ali[sa] and Umar so that their doings in those two battles become known.

94.

In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr 'The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant'. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].

95.

In your Fataawa Qaadhi Khan, vol. 1, page 64, it is written that if a person who is in a state of prayers kisses a woman without lust then his prayer is valid. Is the time for it too short except in prayers? Where is the need for such a thing in prayers?

96.

Imam Ghazzali in sirrul Aalameen, Maqaalidul Ba'aa page 9, writes the desire for power had prevailed among the Sahaba and they first turned into opposition. They threw the holy Prophet[saww]'s message onto their backs, they demanded some payment in return for the foundation and they did a very bad trade. Could you please elaborate on this?

97.

You oppose the halaal Mut'a and do not hesitate terming it as adultery. But in your book Sharh Wiqaaya, page 298, it is mentioned that to your Imam Abu Hanifa, stated the expenditure of an adulteress is halaal and there is not any jurisprudential limit on one who rewards a woman for zinah. Is Mut'ah worse than this?

98.

By calling Marwan back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it?
Please see our article "Who really killed 'Uthman" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/index.php)

99.

It is an established fact in the books of Sunnis that Muawiyah had disputed with the Khalifah Rashid (the rightly guided caliph) and ordered the poisoning of Imam Hassan[sa] (check Mahram Naama, khwaja Hassan Nidhami) and why are the companions who made Ali[as] be abused on the pulpits considered as fair players? Give us intellectual and textual reasoning.
Please see our article "Mu'awiya" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/index.php)

100.

How and with whose instructions did the incident of Harra transpire? What happened to Medina and Ahl Medinah during the same? Please give a detailed account of it.



-----------------------------------------

To learn about the above questions, please visit
http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/en/index.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moayidd]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Dear Brother, Since it has been you who has been passing some remarks about Shia'sm. I would like to ask you a couple of questions because I also want to understand Ahl-al-Sunnah beliefs and I think you could rightly guide me as you seem to be a strong believer in all your beliefs.

Would you please be kind enough to clearify the following:

1.

It is an established fact that all things are recognised by their name, even Allah (swt) first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl' ul Sunnah or Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur'an wherein any of these names have been indicated.

2.

If these titles cannot be located in the Qur'an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such 'mutawatir' 'marfuu' or 'saheeh' narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl'ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.

3.

If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.

4.

What were you famously known as before adopting these names?

5.

Why have you forsaken your previous title?

6.

According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid'a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid'a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid'a?

7.

Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl'ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?

8.

Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?

9.

Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?

10.

Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?



11.

The title 'Shia' is present in the Qur'an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?

12.

If you do accept this, then what you do mean by 'Millat e Ibraheem' in your sect? And if you don't accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi'a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?

13.

Does opposition to the title 'Shia' not constitute opposition to the Qur'an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)?
Please see our article "To know the Shia'a" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/to_know_the_shia/en/index.php)

14.

If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?

15.

The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe'een what titles were used?

16.

Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.

17.

If it is Shi'a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe'een and Taba Tabe'een were Shia'a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?

18.

With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi's martyred Imam Husayn (as)?

19.

What is the definition of Shi'a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.

20.

Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.



21.

Do you believe in the 'Tawheed' of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?

Wajibul Wujood:
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations

Mumkinul Wujood:
Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existance), may be He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.

22.

If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:

Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,
Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam

Give us a detailed account of it.

Hulool:
Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being's body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.

23.

Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur'an, "Sahih al Bukhari" Volume 6 hadith number 371:

"The Prophet (saws) said, "The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: 'Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say 'Qat! Qat!" (Enough! Enough!)"
Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, Hadeeth 371 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/bokhari_v6_h371.jpg)

I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?

24.

Is Allah not the possessor of the power of 'Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can't he just limit hell with a simple command?

25.

Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah[swt], mean that Allah[swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.

26.

You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called 'Radde Kufr' wherein you do tabarra. Like in:

Fatabarra'tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.
I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.


Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?

27.

If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi'a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?

28.

'Laa tudrukuhul absaar' are Qur'anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of 'Lan Taraani'.

29.

When the holy prophet went on Mi'raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).

30.

If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?



31.

What is the basis of your doctrine of God's visibility, the Qur'an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur'an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God's words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur'an.

32.

Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?

33.

To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi'a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?

34.

If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur'an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet's household of the same right.

35.

If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn't from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.

36.

The slogans "Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali" have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one "Naara Khilafat Haq Chaar Yaar" which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prophet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names.
Please see our article "Imamate; The perfection of Deen" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/shia_viewpoint/imamate_perfection_of_deen/en/index.php)

37.

Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim 'Our Four Rightful Men' out of modesty considering it as an abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?

Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work "Yaar", which can also be used as "very close friends". In India & Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.

38.

It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.

39.

What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (sa)?

40.

If she was a Mu'menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil ( Just ), is following one of them a way of salvation?

41.
If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry."
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/bokhari_v5_h61.jpg)

42.

If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession.
Please see our article "Burning the house of Fatima[sa]" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/index.php)

43.

If Hadhrath Fatima's displeasure towards the two shaykhs was not against Islam then why is it important upon the general mass to love them? Allah[swt] deemed His anger and Fatima's to be the same, and Syeda Fatima left the earth angry with the 2 Shaykhs.

44.

You are of the opinion that there had been no opposition between Hadhrath Ali (as) and the three companions. Suppose I accept that, but let me tell you, I have a very deep respect and honour for the pure lady Fatima (as) who was part of the flesh of the holy prophet (saww) and she has this esteem to her credit that whenever she appeared in the presence of the holy prophet (saww) he used to stand up as a welcoming gesture of honour to her. Therefore, will following such a respectful personality be a cause of salvation or not? Decide by keeping Bukhari and Muslim before your sight.

45.

While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saww) leave the Qur'an with the ummah or not?

46.

If he did then why did the need for the collection of the Qur'an arise? And why were the Ummah kept without the Qur'an till the period of Uthman?

47.

If the holy prophet (saww) did not leave the Qur'an with the Ummah prior to his departure then the task of Risallah was not accomplished because the purpose of his arrival was to convey the message of Allah to the ummah. How then is the religion complete?

48.

You make a long list of Muslims who compiled the revelations which proves the fact that the holy prophet (saww) had himself been causing the Qur'an being written and preserved it. But to our surprise, after the holy prophet (saww) up until the period of Uthman, people could not get the Qur'an. Could you explain why this gap occurred?

49.

You are proud of the memorizers of the Qur'an and even claim the fact that there had been many such people among the companions of the holy prophet. Then, tell us, from among Ali (as), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman who knew the Qur'an by heart? Give your answers with complete sources and refer to your books.

50.

If none of the three companions had been Haafidh of the Qur'an then why scoff the Shias despite the presence of many Haafidh among them?



51.

In a reliable book of your sect, 'Itteqaan' by Suyuti, vol. 1 page 59, it is narrated that Ali (as) had once told Abu Bakr that an addition was being made to the Qur'an and that my heart tells me that apart from the salaam, I am not going to wear my robe up until I have collected the Qur'an, to which Abu Bakr said, you saw the right thing. This report has been received from Akramah who is a reliable leader of the Sunnis and every Sunni accepts this report as correct. Is this not a sufficient proof that after the departure of the holy prophet (saww), according to your sect efforts were made to interpolate the word of Allah (swt) and obviously the doers of that were Muslims themselves? What evidence can you then produce in support of the Qur'an being free from Tahreef (addition)?

52.

It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur'an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word's correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur'an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur'an and Rasul'Allah? If Rasul'Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur'an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur'an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one?
See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/sunan_abudawud_p350.jpg)

53.

In your innumerable books of hadeeth, there are various reports that the Qur'an has Tahreef in it. For instance it's mentioned in al Itteqaan that Surah Ahzaab had two hundred verses before and now it has 73 verses. What happened to the rest? If they were abrogated then refer us to those verses that came down to abrogate them? Similarly in Itteqaan, vol. 2, page 25 Abdullah Ibn Umar states that none of you should ever claim to have received the whole Qur'an, rather what remains. The presence of such reports shows that according to your sect the Qur'an has been changed. Can you elaborate?

54.

Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur'anic verse?

55.

Is anyone from among the ummah authorised to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?

56.

Allamah Shibli Nu'mani in al Farooq page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim that Umar had said that two Mut'a were allowed during the time of the holy prophet but I disallow them from now and these are the Mut'a of Hajj and the Mut'a of Nisaa. On what religious authority did Umar forbid what the apostle and Allah (swt) allowed? Clarify this point.

57.

The Qur'an says that 'Qaala Mumin min aale firaun yukassim imaanahu' a believer from the Aal of Firaun had concealed his belief and hence its shown that the concealment of belief out of fear is not disbelief or abhorrent on the part of a believer. Why then is the Taqiyyah of a Shia abhorrent to you?

58.

Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 4, page 123 Egyptian edition reports from Hassan Basri that 'Al taqiyyah baaqiyata ila yawmil qiyaamat, (Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgement). When taqiyya is proved to be permissible from both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth, why then your sect attacks the Shi'a practice of taqiyyah?

59.

Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply?
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_qadhi_khan_p98.jpg)
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_qadhi_khan_p821.jpg)

60.

The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah). Could you justify this claim?
Fatawa Siraajiya, Page 75 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg)





61.

Every chapter of the Qur'an begins with Bismillah but Surah tawbah doesn't begin with it, why?

62.

When the start of every Surah of the Qur'an has been made with Bismillah, why then do you not start the Surahs in your salaat with Bismillah?

63.

Prove 'Thanaa' Eulogy from the Qur'an.

64.

Point out Assalaatu minan nawm to us from the Qur'an if not then at least from an authentic hadeeth.

65.

Prove that these words had been used as part of the Adhan during Abu Bakr's period.

66.

Prove to us that the prayers of taraweeh had been said in congregation during the time of the holy Prophet[saww] and during the period of Abu Bakr.

67.

You only have nine reports at your disposal as far as praying the salaat by folding your arms is concerned. On the principles of the transmitters of hadeeth, prove their chains as 'Saheeh' correct. And prove all the transmitters as reliable.

68.

From the period of Abu Bakr, present any example or a report to prove that Abu Bakr said his prayers by folding his arms. If you can, why do the Malikis keep their arms straight while saying their prayers?

69.

The Qur'an instructs us to fast till night "thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail", and night enters when darkness casts in. Why do you open your fasts early? Why were Umar and Uthman opening their fasts after Maghrib prayers?
Nuqaa' Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth 351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi

70.

You claim that the Shia'a Qur'an contains forty parts, prove its source from the four Shia key books (Kutub Al-'Arba'a).





71.

If Mut'a is Haraam, why did Asma Bin Abu Bakr do it? For evidence, refer to Tafseer Mazhari Qadhi Thanaa Allah , page 577.

72.

In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abu Bakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]'s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?

73.

If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.

74.

If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense?
Please see our article "Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[sa]" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/index.php)

75.

Can your prayers be complete without darood? If yes then come up with full evidence and if not then how come the blessings are just sent upon Muhammad[saww] and his progeny and not upon his companions and wives? When the prayers can be complete without sending blessings to the wives and the companions, why does Ahl'ul Sunnah add the names of these groups to Darood in their religious gatherings?

76.

Cite a saheeh and authoritative text hadeeth of the apostle with a complete source wherein it is reported that it is obligatory to send darood upon all the companions and wives of the holy prophet (saww). And also tell us if it is obligatory then how can the prayers be in order without them?

77.

You believe that the Khilafat can either be established by public votes or the way of ijma (consensus). Could you verify this with evidence from the sayings of the apostle himself?

78.

Did the holy prophet (saww) depart from this world without giving guidance on Khilafat? If yes, why then did the two shaykhs say 'ilaaimatu minal quraysh' (The Imams are from Quraysh) in saqeefa bani sa'da? Did they specifically lie for leadership? Also why oppose the holy prophet's Sunnah, why did Abu Bakr candidate Umar?

79.

In majmaul Bihar, Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes that Abu Bakr confessed that 'I am not a Khalifah but a Khalifah' if you regard him truthful then why do you not deny his caliphate?

80.

In Sawaiq Al-Muhriqah of Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki writes that there are three siddeeq ( truthful ), Habib an Najaar, Hazqeel and Ali (as), and that Ali (as) was better than the two. Why has Abu Bakr not been mentioned here?
See also: Tafseer e Kabir, Vol. 7, Page 317



81.

Was Umar the heir of the holy Prophet[saww]'s knowledge? If yes then why as is stipulated by Jalaludeen Suyuti 'Umar used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case when there is no Abul Hassan (History of the Khalifahs who took the right way (English translation by Abdassamad Clarke page 178)? And why did he confess that 'lau la Aliyyan lahalakal Umar'? If Ali (as) wasn't there, Umar would have perished (Tadkhiratul Khawwas, by Sibt Ibne Jauzi, page 127). Note: The comments in Dhikr-e-Hussain by Maulana Kauthar Niyazi are also worthy of note.

82.

Did the two shaykhs of Ahl'ul Sunnah participate in the burial rituals of the holy Prophet[saww], if you claim they did, then why do we read that both Sharh mawaqif and Al Farooq Shibli Nu'mani confirm their absence? If they did not participate then what type of friends are these?
Al-Farooq, by Shibli Naumani, Page 40 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/al_farooq_p40.jpg)

83.

In Musnad Ahmed Hanbal and so on, it is mentioned that Ayesha had named Uthman as Nathal, who should be killed and Murtakib Kufr. If you regard Ayesha as the truthful then you will have to accept what she called Uthman. And if she did not tell the truth then why do you call her the truthful?
Please see our article "Ayesha" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php)

84.

The soldiers that the holy prophet (saww) had prepared against Musailimah ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]'s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?
See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18

85.

In Muwatta of Imam malik, translated by Allamah Waheed al Zamaan, Page 147, hadeeth 603, Rasulullah (s) narrates that a companion had approached him, beating his chest and ripping his hair. If chest beating in the presence of Rasulullah (s) is allowed then why do you object to it?

86.

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddath Dehlavi in his book Midaaraj Nabaweeya, vol. 2, page 544 writes that the Mu'adhdhin of the apostle, Hadhrath Bilal Habashi (r.a) came to the Mosque of the Prophet[saww] beating his chest and complaining. What is your verdict regarding chest beating?

87.

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

88.

Hadhrath Ali Hajweeri Al Mash-huur Daata Ganj Bakhsh Lahori in his book Kashful Mahjoob, chapter 2, page 118, section 8 reports it from Umar, that the holy Prophet[saww] played as a camel for the then young Imam Hussain[as], meaning he made himself a replica of a camel. Following the Sunnah of the holy Prophet[saww] is it Sunnah (tradition) to make a replica of Imam Hussain[as]'s horse or is it a bid'at (Innovation)?

89.

Kanzul A'mal, Hayder Aabad edition, vol. 5, in the Musnad of Ali karramallahu wajhu, page 147, hadeeth 2403 it is written that, the holy Prophet[saww] used to wipe his feet during wudhoo, why do you not regard wiping as permissible? If the feet will go to hell by being kept dry during wudhoo then how is the wiping over the socks correct?

90.

In the Bai'at of Ridhwan, the Muslims took a covenant of not fleeing from the battle field. But the battle of Hunayn took place after the "bay'at of under the tree". Of those people who went against their covenants, what is your verdict with regards to them?



91.

The historian, Habib as Sayr writes regarding the battle of Hunayn that:

Purseed Abu Bakr wa Umar kujaa Budand? Guft aan neez dar goshe rafte budand.

Meaning when it was enquired where Abu Bakr and Umar were?, the narrator replied they had also fled to some corner. Contemplate over this narration, let it be very clear that in your Tafseer Qaweri, Tafseer Hussayni, Rawdhatus Safaa, Taareekhul Khamseen, Rawdhatul Ahbab, Ma'aarijun Nubuwwah, etc it is mentioned that the three gentlemen had fled from the battle of Hunayn. Why did they break the covenant of the Bay'at of Ridhwan? Reply after reading all these books.

92.

If these three men had been brave then show us from your book Tafseer Qaweri the names of these three men from among those who did not flee in the battle of Hunayn. And prove it to us from all of your books, how many non-believers had been killed by these three men in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn. How many non-believers did they inflict with harm? And how much harm did themselves sustain in their bodies? And just mention five names with complete sources from among those whom these people killed.

93.

If Umar has been brave then write the names of people who got killed at his hands in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn from historical sources compare Ali[sa] and Umar so that their doings in those two battles become known.

94.

In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr 'The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant'. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].

95.

In your Fataawa Qaadhi Khan, vol. 1, page 64, it is written that if a person who is in a state of prayers kisses a woman without lust then his prayer is valid. Is the time for it too short except in prayers? Where is the need for such a thing in prayers?

96.

Imam Ghazzali in sirrul Aalameen, Maqaalidul Ba'aa page 9, writes the desire for power had prevailed among the Sahaba and they first turned into opposition. They threw the holy Prophet[saww]'s message onto their backs, they demanded some payment in return for the foundation and they did a very bad trade. Could you please elaborate on this?

97.

You oppose the halaal Mut'a and do not hesitate terming it as adultery. But in your book Sharh Wiqaaya, page 298, it is mentioned that to your Imam Abu Hanifa, stated the expenditure of an adulteress is halaal and there is not any jurisprudential limit on one who rewards a woman for zinah. Is Mut'ah worse than this?

98.

By calling Marwan back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it?
Please see our article "Who really killed 'Uthman" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/index.php)

99.

It is an established fact in the books of Sunnis that Muawiyah had disputed with the Khalifah Rashid (the rightly guided caliph) and ordered the poisoning of Imam Hassan[sa] (check Mahram Naama, khwaja Hassan Nidhami) and why are the companions who made Ali[as] be abused on the pulpits considered as fair players? Give us intellectual and textual reasoning.
Please see our article "Mu'awiya" (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/index.php)


100.

How and with whose instructions did the incident of Harra transpire? What happened to Medina and Ahl Medinah during the same? Please give a detailed account of it.



-----------------------------------------

To learn about the above questions, please visit
http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/en/index.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Althought I disagree on what debator said, and his entire attitude as a matter of fact, I have to say you have made the same mistakes he did.
The mistakes are too numerous for me to point out and it seems you don't have a grasp on some of the basics.
It would have been far better for you to remind him that you, as a Shia, are a moslem too and that both sects have their pros and cons instead of falling into the same mistakes he has.

I really don't understand this Sunni Vs Shia attitude by both sects. Don't we have enough enemies as it is ?
.
.
.

.
.
.

[Changezi]

Althought I disagree on what debator said, and his entire attitude as a matter of fact, I have to say you have made the same mistakes he did.
The mistakes are too numerous for me to point out and it seems you don't have a grasp on some of the basics.
It would have been far better for you to remind him that you, as a Shia, are a moslem too and that both sects have their pros and cons instead of falling into the same mistakes he has.

I really don't understand this Sunni Vs Shia attitude by both sects. Don't we have enough enemies as it is ?
.
.
.

.
.
.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم



Dear Moid, I agree with you 100%. But just want the Debator to answer these questions. It is an invitation to do research. Nothing more... Nothing less. Don't mean to degrade anyone.

We as Muslims have just accepted Islam as a Religion because it was a religion of our forefathers. We should atleast do some research before we follow.

[Debater]

Hadith referring to Yazeed

Abu Hurraira sought protection from the events of 56 Hijri

1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 114

2. Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 10 Kitab al Fitan

3. Tareekh al Islam (Dhahabi) Volume 2 page 339 Dhikr Abu Hurraira

4. Al Isaba Volume 4 page 200 Dhikr Abu Hurraira

5. Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 6 page 228

Al Bidayah wan Nahayah, Fathul Bari and other history books are not the authority in Islam.

Let me remind you that the History of Islam has been corrupted by shias, who under the mask of Taqiyyah fabricated narrations and stories to slander/condemn Companions of our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

According to Usul al-hadith (principles of hadith), a narration which has been transmitted through shia narrators and the narration should promote beliefs of shi'ism, like cursing/slandering sahabah, the narration is never and never accepted.

And for your kind information, there are narrations in our hadith literature (even Sahih Bukhari) which have shia narrators, so we check every hadith for its authenticity.

Now this hadith about Yazid would be checked for authenticity. And you have to present the sanad (chain of narration) for this hadith. Though the matter of this hadith is evidently proclaiming that it would have been fabricated in Imamiah Hadith Factory, Kufah.

I hope you will provide me with the sanad of this hadith and others of the same type soon.

Justice shall rule my Ummah until the first individual who shall destroy my Deen, from the Banu Ummayaa his name shall be Yazeed.

I am sure this is another forgery of your Imam Ghayeb, who fabricated this narration and disappeared in the atomosphere.
If not, then where the sanad of this MASTER-PIECE is?

As for Banu Umaiyah, they preceded Bani Hashim in supporting Islam. Many of them are Sabiqoon Awwaloon (those who accepted Islam in the beginning).
Even that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam gave his 3 daughters to Umavis, only Hadhrat Fatimah married a Hashimi (Hadhrat Ali).
Even that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't marry any Hashimi Woman but he married the daughter of Saiyidina Abu Sufyan radhiyAllahu 'anhu (Ummul Momineen Umm Habibah).

I can understand why you shias hate Banu Umaiyah, because it was Banu Umaiyah who crushed shi'ism in the first century.
We read in Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 80:
"Mu'awiya asked Abdullah ibn Umar to give bayya to Yazeed. Mu'awiya then sent 100,000 dirhams to Abdullah ibn Umar, he refused to accept this. He then sent a treasure chest to Hifa with the message that he gives bayya. Ibn Umar said 'These dirhams are because he is chasing bayya'

I can straight forward say that this is a great slander on both great Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

And the proof is that Hadhrat 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar did give his bai'ah to Saiyidina Ameer Mu'awiyah. Only an enemy of Islam would claim that Saiyidina Mu'awiyah offerred bribe to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar, in order to get his bai'ah.

First of all, what would happen if Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar didn't give bai'ah to Saiyidina Muawiyah?

After all majority of Companions and majority of Muslims didn't give bai'ah to Hadhrat Ali, whose caliphate was established over a conspiracy by Munafiqeen of Yahood.

I can challenge you that this narration is a forgery by shias, and if you have a bit of courage, then give me the complete Reference of this narrations, because Fath-al-Bari is not a hadith book, but it is the Interpretation of Sahih Bukhari.

And without the chain of narration, no one would accept this.

We read in al Imama was al Siyasa Volume 2 page 184:...

...We read in Tareekh ibn Asakir Volume 6 page 159 Dhikr Saeed bin Uthman:

We read in Muruj al Dhahab Volume 3 page 38

You read in what?
You read in Quran or in Sahih Hadiths?
What is the source of these narrations?
Ibn Jarir Tabari (shia), Mas'udi (shia), Ibn Ishaq (Majoosi shia), Abu Makhnaf (shia), which one exactly.

These are the first so-called-historians who fabricated/made history which suits their religion. Majority of the Muslims historians who follow them, accepted these fabricated tales by these Taqiyyah practising shias. Even Hafiz Ibn Katheer and others accepted narrations from extremist shias like Abu Makhnaf.

That's right Yazeed, keep the khilafat in the family.

Wrong. Hadhrat Ali kept the khilafat in his family because Hadhrat Hasan took him over.

More accurately you shias want to make the Caliphate, the toy of Shahr Bano's family (shahr bano, the daughter of iranina ruler, Yazdgard Majoosi, and wife of Hadhrat Husain).

Nasibi Hujjaj bin Yusuf's admission that he used violence to secure the khilafat for Yazeed

Now your Lectures of Love have been exposed to all as everyone have seen that you are Cursing Yazid and now Hajjaj bin Yousuf calling them Nasibi.

I know why Hajjaj bin Yousuf is a Nasibi, because he restricted the follower of Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi in your precious Kufah.

Is this how this ijma was achieved - through the slaughtering of opponents and witnesses? Is this the 'legitimate' method via which the people happily gave bayya to Yazeed?

First of all, we are not discussing the Caliphate of Yazid, though majority of our scholars agree on the caliphate of Yazid. Yazid is included to our 12 Caliphs for whom there is a prediction by our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alaye wasallam, and if Hujjaj killed Munafiqeen in Kufah etc, then why you so easily forget that these only Munafiqeen made Muslims fight with each other, when they martyred Khalifatur Rasool, Saiyidina Uthman ibn 'Affan, and after that your shias kept doing Fitnah and caused 100,000 people killed during the 5 years of Hadhrat Ali's period.

And yes the rebellous people are to be killed to secure humans from fitnahs.

This is the favour of Saiyidina Muawiyah and after him the Caliphate of Banu Umaiyah that Shi'ism failed and couldn't cause more fitnah, otherwise we Muslims today would be in minority as in your Iran.

When they saw that Yazeed was not even prepared to spare the life of the grandson of Rasulullah (s) they simply adopted taqiyyah through fear of death.

You are forgetting, Taqiyyah is 90% of the Shi'ism, he/she who doesn't do Taqiyyah, is not a shia-momin. Have you forgotten this Golden-Saying of your Imams?

There is no condition of FEAR in order to do Taqiyyah.

Securing allegiance under the threat of death can never constitute ijma. We see a situation in which the whole Ummah was terrified of being killed by Mu'awiya's de facto secret police unless they gave bayya to Yazeed.

By the way, what do you mean by whole ummah?

The ummah of Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi?

Or the ummah of Malik Ashtar?

Or the ummah of your Ubedullah ibn Ziyad?

For your kind information it was the period of Hadhrat Ali, when ummah was facing threats of life. 100,000 people were killed during the period of Hadhrat Ali. There was no law and order and no peace during this period.

The 20 years of Saiyidina Muawiyah is the golden era after the Fitnah during Hadhrat Ali's period.

During the period of Ameerul Momineen Muawiyah, Jihad started once again which was stopped during Hadhrat Ali's period.

It was Ameerul Momineen Muawiyah who made the first Marine Army of Muslims.

And there is a glad tiding from Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam for the army which fought by sea for the first time and which seiged the city of Qaiser.

So you shia-tabarrai is not allowed to curse our Ameerul Momineen Muawiyah.

We shall now quote directly from al Imama wa al Siyasa page 163:

"Mu'awiya sent a letter to Husayn that stated 'Banu Hashim, Salaamun Alaykum, accept Yazeed's leadership and refrain from opposing me'.

Husayn replied saying:

'Mu'awiya your actions are those of a Zaalim [unjust and also sadistic, cruel person]. Shaytaan is working with you. You are shedding the blood of pious Muslims. You have declared Ziyad bin Sumayya [Abu Sofyan's bastard son]

I am surprised how ugly was the way of your Infallible Imam's speaking.

Is it what your so-called-religion teaches?

To call people with dirty swears?

I believe this is what your shi'ism teaches, because I know what dirty stories are written in your Usul Kafi regarding your imams, and your shias,

And I know what dirty language you use for our Mother, Siyidah 'Aishah Siddeeqah radhiyAllahu 'anha.

to be your brother and he has turned your khilafat into an unjust one. It is clear from your actions that you are not from the Ummah of Muhammad, Allah (swt) shall never forgive you for appointing that youth [Yazeed] as a successor who plays with dogs [civil expression for bestiality] and drinks alcohol….'… Not a single member of Banu Hashim accepted Yazeed as Khalifah. Sa'd wrote to Mu'awiya and said the people of Medina had not accepted Yazeed as khalifah, and none of Banu Hashim have accepted Yazeed's khilafat".

Sources of the above research are:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/index.php (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/index.php)

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap7.php (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap7.php)

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap2.php (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap2.php)

You can follow this link for a whole chapter after chapter with references from Sunni Books.

I request all Muslim brothers and siters to follow this site of shias, and see for themselves how deepest enemies are these shias to our Allah, our Prophet s.a.w and Quran.

[Debater]

Dear Brother, Ask yourself in a Neutralized state if its a propaganda on kr-hcy or not? I am sure that one day you will realize.
Extremist are in every religion. We should not let our emotions take over our mind. If some people are extremists then it means that they are very weak in their beliefs.
May I know why you are referencing kr-hcy again and again?
Have i quoted anything from that site?
I provided with the link from shias' own site, the shiachat.

A true Shia never abuses Mothers of Believers.
Astagh-Fir-Ullahi-Wa-Atoobu-Illayhi...!

There is only one condition, I can believe your words.
Say shahadah first and then proclaim that whoever curses Ummul Momineen 'Aishah bint Abu Bakr radhiyAllahu 'anha, is a Kafir.

My dear brother, Once again I urge you to first think and research before you conclude.Fear Allah! We don't curse our beloved Prophet (P.B.U.H) THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO ARE TRULY KAAFIRS!
Proofs?

[Debater]

بسم اللةالرحمن الرحيم






Good that you have pasted those links, dear brother. I urge all the people to follow those links and struggle to find answers. It is very fortunate for most of us that we are "Born Muslims" Following without research is ignorance. Please spend at least one hour of your time daily in research on Islam.


Before researching perform "Wudoo" and recite Sura-e-AlHamd three times with Salawat on Mohammad (P.B.U.H) before and after. Insha Allah, Allah will guide us all to the right path.

Yeah, I have seen your So good research over the shia site: http://www.answering-ansar.org/

[Debater]

Gifts for Changezi

TERRIFYING BELIEFS OF SHI'ITES


Allaah often lies and does mistakes. (usool-e-kaafi, page #328, yaqoob kulaini, vol1).(Note: Usool al-Kafi is the most authentic hadith book of shias, exactly as we have Sahih Bukhari)

The Munafiqeen (i.e. Sahaba) took very much out of Quran (took out the verses). (Ihtijaj-e-tibri, page #382).

When Imaam Mehdi comes he will bring with him the real and original Quran. (Ahsan-ul-maqaal, page #336, safdar Husain najfi).

The person who says that the present Quran is complete is a liar because the “complete Quran” was compiled by Hazrat Ali. (Fasl-ul-khitaab fee tahreef kitaab rab-ul- arbab, page #4, Noori Tibri).

Abu Bakr is kafir and the one who loves Abu Bakr is also kafir. (Haq-ul-yaqeen, page #690, Baqar majlisi).

Abu Bakr was kafir and Zandeeq. (Kashf-ul-asrar, page #69, khamini).(Note: Lanatullah Khomeni is the founder of today's Iranian Revolution)

There is no difference in Abu Bakr and mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani. (Jagir fidk, page #690, Ghulam Husain najfi).

Neither we believe the Allah nor the Prophet of the God whose khalifah is Abu Bakr. (Anwar-ul-nomania, page #278).

I don’t believe in that Allah who gives government to Usman and Ma’avia. (Kashf-ul-asrar, page #107, Khamini).

Umar was a real kafir and Zandeeq. (Kashf-ul-asrar, Khaminee, page #119).

When imam Mehdi comes he will make alive Hazrat Aa'ishah from death and whip her. (Tafseer saafi, line 16, page #108).

Abu Bakr and Umar were agents of Iblees. (Hulyat-ul-mateen, mulla baqar majlisi).

Hazrat Khalid bin Walid was not saif-ullah but saif-us-shaitaan. (Manazir-o-baghdad, page #100).

All the Prophets will become alive from dead and start the jihad under the leadership of Hazrat Ali. (Tafseer ayyashee, page #181).

Real Quran that is compiled by Hazrat Ali will come with imam Mehdi. (Anwar-ul-nomania, page #360).

All Prophets are beggar at the doorstep of Ali. (khalqat-e-norania, page #201, Talib Husain karpalwi).

All the prophets and Angels are the slaves of the 12 imams except Mohammad (saw). (kaleed manaazra, page #35, barkat ali).

12 imams are the teachers of all Prophets except Mohammad (saw). (Majmoa-e-majalis, page #29).

When imam Mehdi comes he will hang Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar at the holy grave of Hazrat Mohammad (saw). (Majma-ul-ma’arif, page #49).

If Gabriel and Mekael had loved Abu Bakr then they would have been in hell too. (Ameer mukhtar, page #8, mirza basharat Husain).

After the death of Hazrat Mohammad (saw) all the Sahaba become MURTAD except three. (Roza-e-kafee, page #245)

Hazrat Anas Bin Malik, Abu huraira, Amr bin Aas, Ameer Ma’avia and Aa'ishah were worst people of all times. (Makalmaat-e-husainia, page #59).

Man can have Nikah (marriage) with man and his mother, sister and daughter too. (Firqa-ul-shiat, Abi Mohammad-ul-Hasan Bin Moosa).

Hazrat Abu Bakr was Mushrik, Umar was Munafiq and Usman was Kafir. (Shia’an-e-ali aur inn kee shaan, page #54, ghulam husain najfi).

When imam Mehdi come he will be nude and the first person who Bay’ah him is Mohammad (saw). (Haq-ul-yaqeen, page #347, Baqar majlisi).

Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) was the leader of the Munafiqeen (hypocrites).

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prayed for the murder of Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu).

The day on which Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu), was murdered by the Persian kafir, Lu'lu', is the most auspicious day of the year.

Aa'ishah and Hafsah martyred Rasulullah by giving him poison. (Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Baqar Majlisi).

Thus these two male munafiqs (referring to Abu Bakr and Umar) and those two female munafiqs (referring to Aa'ishah and Hafsah) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering poison to him. (Hayat-ul-quloob, page #745, Baqar Majlisi)

If Changezi would claim to dissociate from all the above beliefs of shi'ism, then I will demand him to call these Khomeni, Baqar Majlisi and all those Kafir and Zindeeq who have such beliefs.

[Debater]

Allah Ta'ala says in the Qur'an:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/Umaahatul%20Mu'mineen.jpg

"The Nabi has a greater claim on the Believers than their ownselves. And, his wives are their mothers."


The Messenger of Allah says:
"Do not hurt me regarding Aa'ishah." (Bukhari-Muslim)

"The superiority of Aa'ishah over women is like the superiority of thareed (a kind of food) over all food." (Muslim)

"0 Aa'ishah! Jibraeel recites Salaam upon you." (Muslim)



Read what Kuffar say:

Mullah Baqir Majlisi, in his book, Hayatul Quloob - one of the most authoritative books of the Shiah religion - repeatedly described Hadhrat Aa'ishah and Hadhrat Hafsah (Radiallahu Anhuma) as munafiqs (hypocrites).

Hazrat Anas Bin Malik, Abu Huraira, Amr bin Aas, Ameer Ma’avia and Aa'ishah were worst people of all times. (Makalmaat-e-husainia, page #59).

In this book, Baqir also alleges:

"Aa'ishah and Hafsah martyred Rasulullaah by giving him poison. (Vol. 2, Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Baqar Majlisi)

(Maqbool Dehlavi, a Shiite translator of the Qur'ân His translation of Surah Ale Imraan: 134), quotes Imam Baqir as saying: 'Two women poisoned the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) before his death. These are the same two women (Aa'ishah and Hafsah). May Allaah curse them and their fathers (Abu Bakr and Omar respectively)

Accusing Sheikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar ra) and their daughters of conspiracy to murder Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Shi'i, Baqir writes in Hayatul Quloob on page 745 of Vol. 2:

"Thus these two male munafiqs (referring to Abu Bakr and Umar) and those two female munafiqs (referring to Aa'ishah and Hafsah) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering poison to him. "

Mutahhiri, a leading cleric of the Shiah religion, says:

"Now that we see Ali, and Ammaar, Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with Aa'ishah and az-Zubayr and Talhah, we do not feel any hesitation, for we see the second group as people with the look of criminals, that is, the effects of evil and treachery are evident on their faces: and when we look at their faces and their treacherous characters we guess that they are people of the Fire." (TEHRAN TIMES, 25th August, 1982)

From the above vile remarks made by one of Khomeini's leading Shi'i theologians, it will be evident that the Shiah religion describes Hadhrat Aa'ishah Siddiqah (Radiallahu Anha) the beloved wife of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as a criminal, evil, treacherous and among the people of Jahannum--Naauthubillaah!