Indian Muslims- Are they trustworthy?

[By Sujit Das]

Janani Janma-bhoomischa Swargadapi Gareeyasi.

(The Mother and the Motherland are more significant than paradise itself.)

                                                        – Lord Rama exclaims in Valmiki Ramayana


India is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic country, and Muslims constitute the largest minority group. Though Indian Government gave them enough incentives and provided them facilities to participate fully in education along with other sections of population they are the most backward section of society, standing at bottom position in the educational field when compared to the general population of India. The scholars who studied the life and politics of Muslims in contemporary India soon became aware of the following odds.

1) They blindly obey their obscurantist and separatist leaders. These communal leaders guide them on narrow community issues rather than broader collective or national interests. In many Muslim-dominated areas, they do not even have individual opinion and cast their votes as per the fatwa of their religious leaders.

2) There is no common civil code for all the citizens of India. The religious leadership and the political leadership have very aggressively taken the stand that Sharia is divine and there should be no secular interference in it. The clerics strongly resist any effort to reform Sharia or even reinterpret it according to contemporary conditions and needs.

3) They subject their religion to a thorough socio-historical critique.

4) They believe in the supremacy of their religion and cannot give equal validity and relevance in their thinking to other religions. Most of them have immense hatred for their progressive Hindu and Christian counterparts because of their own backwardness. This makes them suffer from strong inferiority complex.

5) They are narrow-minded and are making themselves more narrow-minded against India’s ancient cultural heritage instead of adopting it. A Muslim, although born in India, does not belong to Indian Civilization; rather he belongs to the Arab culture. He has no appreciation for the ancient Vedic Tradition. An Indian Muslim family is a poor imitation of an Arab family within the principled confines of Islam. Therefore, it is very easy to isolate them as a religion-centric society that exploit in the name of Islam.

6) Crime rate amongst Muslims is very high in India. Most of the Indian mafia lords are Muslims. According to official reports Muslims are significantly overrepresented in prisons. As example, in the western state of Maharashtra, where Muslims are little more than one-tenth of the general population, they are almost a third of those convicted or facing trial.

7) They look toward Pakistan and Arabia for inspiration and leadership whom they see as their Guardian angels. They are less supportive to Indian democracy than the rest of the population, and are easily excited by the Kashmir issue or Israeli-Palestinian issue.

8) Muslim leaders try to dictate on foreign policy matters to the Indian government. For example, they succeeded for a long time in keeping India from having full diplomatic relations with Israel and making India tilt in favor of Palestine and other Arab nations which are seen as inherently hostile to India because they are Islamic countries.

It’s a fact that the Muslims in India have problems, but I would like to add that almost all the problems are by no means exclusive to them; these are their own making. Muslims believe in their cultural superiority over the Hindus and are so obsessed with the loss of their prior, inequitable privileges that they hardly seem to be in a mood to be content with the mere rights of equal citizenship with the Hindu majority India. It is despite the fascinating fact that in this Hindu majority India they are better equipped than in Muslim majority neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh.

For a Muslim religion comes first. In the Islamic world, the law itself says this. With a few patriotic, culturally proud and honorable exceptions, the vast majority of Indian Muslims are not open to the idea of a separation of religion and state. This Hindu majority India offered them equality and protection, but what they gave the Nation in return? The reason I ask is because I came across several quite disturbing words from the Muslim leadership.

Hindustan (India) is Dar-ul-Harb since Muslim rule ended there. It is most important that Islamic rule is established there.” (Maulana Husain Ahmed Madni, President, Jamait-ul-Ulema Hind and Congress Member of Parliament)

A country like India, which has once been under Mohammedan rule, must never be given up, and it was incumbent on them to strive to regain their lost control.” (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, President of All India Congress)

The havoc, that the Muslims would play, would put to shame what Changez Khan and Halaku did.” (Feroz Khan Noon, a leader of the Muslim League)

The Government of India is spending in billions (INR 5.95 billion in 2007 and INR 7 billion in 2008 – mostly from the “Kafir” Hindu tax-payers money), as subsidy to Hajj pilgrims. No other country in the world, even Muslim countries, offer subsidy to Hajj pilgrims. Offering financial assistance to a religious group for fulfilling a religious duty goes against the secular spirit of the Indian Constitution. It is also to be noted that Indian Government does not provide any subsidy to Hindu pilgrims who go to visit Kailash-mansarovar in China, or to Amarnath in Kashmir or Gangasagar in West Bengal. On the contrary, the Government imposes direct and indirect pilgrimage taxes on them. In addition, there are other facilities, e.g. paying monthly salary to Imams of mosques, expanding Madrasa education, renovating mosques, providing quota for Government jobs, providing easy bank loans, scholarships for Muslim students etc. In spite of this, the Nation is failing to earn their loyalty. Rather more and more Muslims are vocal with their stanch support for Islamic terrorism and anti-Indian motives.

Against the non-Muslim [Indian] Government, Islam prescribes only sword, protracted battle and the cutting of throats.” (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad)

There is not an inch of the soil of India which our forefathers did not once purchase with their blood. We cannot be false to the blood of our fathers. India the whole of it is therefore our heritage and it must be reconquered for Islam… Our ultimate ideal should be the unification of India, spiritually as well as politically under the banner of Islam. The final political salvation of India is not otherwise possible” (F. K Khan Durrani, Author)

The overwhelming body of Muslim opinion supports violence, either openly or secretly, against their own Nation. Religious sympathy for violence and desperate measures is overwhelmingly present in them. There is no sense of gratitude at living in a democratic society with constitutional protections and legal institutions. They will never agree that they were better off in their Indian freedoms than Pakistanis in their Islamic state.

If Mohammed-Bin-Kasim and Mahmood Ghaznavi could invade India with armies composed of a few thousands, and yet were able to overpower lakhs of Hindus, God willing a few lakhs of Muslims will yet overwhelm crores of Hindus.” (Ghaznafar Ali Khan, the health minister in the Viceroy’s Interim Government headed by Pandit Nehru)

Every Muslim should be a terrorist.” (Zakir Naik, Preacher)

Kashmiri Muslims burning the Indian flag

Kashmiri Muslims burning the Indian flag

Nationalism provides a sense of belonging that arises from the deep bottom of the heart. It cannot be taught; it needs to be cultivated to create a common national identity through a true commitment to a national unity. As for the Indian Muslims this is different – a strange sense of Islamic nationalism drives their ambitions and desires.

However painful it may be, the fact is that it is impossible to observe Islam faithfully and still be a good citizen of India” (M.R.A. Baig, veteran scholar and political elite.)

In spite of contradiction it would seem in the final analysis that neither Quran nor Mohammed advocated humanism and even co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims and that Islam with all its apparatus was conceived and designed as the religion to end all religion.” (M.R.A. Baig)

Muslim Indian thinkers will never see themselves in a larger context. They deliberately deny the fact that they are heirs to a millennium-long civilization, one of the greatest in modern history, replete with the highest philosophical, architectural, artistic, and literary accomplishments.

The politics of socialism and secularism is totally unsound. I do not like any Muslim to adopt socialism and secularism as his political ideal.” (Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a leader of Jamait-e-Islami)

The Muslim community of India also welcomed the idea of a secular state, because they feared the alternative would be a Hindu State. Many of them seem to believe that the state must remain secular, but the Muslims should be saved from secularism.” (Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, author)

Shall the Muslims with all their ideology merge into sweeping current of secularism or change the current itself and establish the sovereignty of Islam? That is the serious question which confronts the Muslims of India today. Islam has been born to turn the whole world into Islamic. We have to change this secular rule in Bharat and establish Islamic rule in its place. The idea of secular rule is itself a contradiction of Islam. We have, therefore, to slowly work for the establishment of the sovereignty of Islam here.” (Syed Ahmad Hussain, a leader of Jamait-e-Islami)

Pakistan is constantly attempting to destabilize India by fanning secessionist movements in Punjab and Kashmir. Muslims of India are willing pawns in the games played by Pakistani rulers despite the fact that the makers of Pakistan jeopardized the safety of millions of Muslims who chose to continue living in India, and thanks to partition became a despised and mistrusted minority. The flow of Gulf money for mosques and other Islamic institutions has strengthened the fundamentalists among the Muslim leadership who are trying to wean the Muslims away from their Indianised Islam towards a stubborn Arabic version of the faith, removing from it practices which built cultural bonds with the neighboring Hindus. Even the Urdu they advocate is heavily Persianised and Arabicised.

The Quran divides humanity in two parts. The Muslims, Party of God, and the rest, Party of Satan.” (Maulana Maududi, President, Jamait-e-Islami)

The analysis so far is simple. The Buddhists (even though they have practically disappeared from the land of the Buddha), Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Persies all belong to India, because they think of India as their native land. They treated India as the land of their birth because this is where they and their religious traditions were born. They are, in that sense, “original”, “natural” Indians – as I can say – part of the fabric of India. They have significant contribution to the economic, intellectual, social, and political development of India. The case of the Muslims of India was another matter altogether. By shedding their “national” culture, they came to think of themselves as belonging to the Arab and Mughal communities. Rulers like Aurangzeb, and later on the British, always preached that the Muslims have been the governors of this country, and that their direct links are with Arabia, Persia, and Turkey. Their language, appearance, religion, and practices are all different from those of the Hindus. They did not think of the other people living in India as their own and cut themselves off from Indian civilization and culture. It is noteworthy that the Buddhists did not start calling themselves Chinese or Japanese; the Anglo-Indians did not call themselves British; and the Persies did not call themselves as Iranians.

When people of every other community joined in a united struggle against the British, the Muslims stood aside because they had a different agenda. They made separatist demands, played into the hands of the British, and were rewarded, finally, with the prize of Pakistan – from where Hindus and Christians were now being driven out.

Muslims should have ruled India after the departure of the British, and not the Hindus. Population growth helped Muslims to annex a large part of India for creating a separate Islamic State of Pakistan. Such efforts on the part of the Muslims should be continued to gradually convert the rest of India into Dar-ul-Islam.” (Syed Shahabuddin, MP, the leader of Samata Party)

The treacherous words of these hate-mail heroes speak volume. Thus, to my mind, if the Muslim leadership is accused of largely encouraging fanaticism and hate to their Hindu counterpart, the accusers are very much in the right. Indian Muslims view India as a kind of unfinished job. The dominance of Qur’anic law in the entire India is their final goal – Muslim’s book of terrorism, the “Holy” Qur’an confirms it.

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (Q: 8.39)

The Hindu majority India is a land of Saints and Rishis. Many Gods and Rishis have taken avatar in this land – Rama, Krishna, Mahavir, Bhuddha, Adi Shankara, Guru Nanak, etc. That’s why this sacred land, the Mother India, is also called DevbhoomiPunyabhoomi, etc. In present day, a fanciful poet sang the praises of Mother India and danced in joy,

Yeh Duniya ika dulhan hai, dulhan ke mathe pe bindiya, Yeh mera India”. In English, “This world is a bride, on the forehead of this bride is a ‘Bindiya’ (a colored dot worn by Indian women on forehead). This is my India, I love my India”.

In every culture certain symbols are created through popular art. In India, Hindi films often play this role. Certain songs from films have become deep-rooted in Indian culture as symbols. There is one such song from a film made in 1974 – Upkar. It goes,

Mere Desh ki dharti, sona ugle, ugle heere moti, mere desh ki dharti.

(The land, the soils of my country, they produce gold, they produce diamonds.)

For a true Indian, a pinch of soil of India is more precious than gold. Those who follow the culture of ‘half humanized half ape’ Arab Bedouin barbarians can never be true Indian. How can we expect loyalty from the ideological offspring of those Muslim invaders who lived by aggression and pillage, and attacked this peaceful land with sword in one hand and a demonic book ‘Qur’an’ in other hand? Did we forget Mir’jafar?

Mir’jafar was a Muslim traitor who had sold India to British for personal political gain. In Indian languages, the word “Mir’jafar” has become a synonym for traitor, particularly one who collaborates with the foreign invaders and the enemies of the native land for personal benefit in the same manner as Vidkun Quisling in Norway, Benedict Arnold in the United States, and Philippe Pétain in France. For the Indian writers and journalists the word “Mir’jafar” is a magic word. If the Indian critics, literates and the media had been asked to invent a new word for traitor… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters, i.e., “Mir’jafar”. In India, one who is called by the name “Mir’jafar” does not need any further introduction. Though this Muslim traitor “Mir’jafar” died a humiliating death, History did not forgive him, as History does not forgive anybody. The noun has survived and will survive as long as Islam survives in India. After all, long history of Islam in India is also an equally long history of treason. So we need to use this term every now and then.

A vast majority Indian Muslims are Mir’jafars by heart – either secretly or openly. There is not a single atom of patriotism in them, rather they openly wish for the downfall of India and Hindu Civilization. Dr. Ali Mohammed Naqvi, a follower of the Deoband School of Islamic ideology that totally thwarted the concept of nationalism and democracy, authored a book, Islam and Nationalism, in which he unequivocally stated,

Nationalism is incompatible with Islam… The concept of a ‘nationalist Muslim’ is as absurd as that of a ‘religious Communist’ or ‘capitalist Marxist’. ….. When the ideology of Islam expands, nationalism is destroyed, and when nationalism grows, Islam is annihilated.

Another Muslim author, Hamid Dalwai rightly revealed the attitude of Indian Muslims in his book,Muslim Politics in India, where he unambiguously stated,

In sum, Muslims cannot reconcile themselves with the nationalism of any country, where they are in a minority.”

Because of their disloyalty and antinational sentiments, India has no other option but to deal with them with concern. Many Muslims across the Nation have refused to sing Indian national anthem, Vande Mataram – the cultural ethos of Indian civilization, and the soul of the Nation. This refusal reveals their true color. Today there is very little recruitment of Muslims into the Indian Army – less than 3 %. This reflects the Nation’s lack of trust in their patriotism. Attaullah Suhrawardy, a senior leader of the National Conference of Kashmir, and former minister and deputy speaker of Kashmir, unequivocally asserted in his speech in the state legislative council,

I am first a Muslim and then an Indian. Islam does not need the support of anyone for its spread. It is spreading on its own. At the time of partition, there were only four and a half crore Muslims in the country. However, in spite of the bloody communal riots in Bhiwandi, Moradabad, Aligarh and other areas, killing thousands of Muslims, the population of Muslims has increased to 14 crores. …As for the question of conversion of all to Islam, it is the fundamental duty of a Muslim to strive for conversion and any Muslim who does not remember this duty, does not deserve to be called a Muslim.”

Syed Abdullah Bukahri, the Imam of Jama Masjid Delhi, poured out these poisonous statements in two separate occasions,

Secularism has no place in Islam. Propagation of Islam is the first duty of Muslim. Muslim youths will propagate Islam with swords in their hands.

I consider Islam greater than the country. I am first a Muslim, then everything else…. For me there is no meaning to Independence Day (of India)….. I have told Muslims thousands of time and telling them again to burn down bungalows of Muslim ministers of the Congress Party, cut off their legs and throw them away. Islam is first, nation afterwards.”

Hindu–Muslim riots in India have caused immense human suffering. Based on official figures, more than 17,000 individuals were killed in riots in India between 1950 and 1995, including more than 4,600 killed during the period between 1982 and 1995 alone. In addition to these large human costs, riots also lead to the destruction of physical property and the disruption of economic activity. Azam Khan, the then MLA of UP Legislative Assembly burst into vile words against the motherland, India, at a public meeting in Kanpur on March 23, 1987,

Is this our motherland? This is a blood-thirsty mother. This is not mother; this is a witch.

This is the worst type of disloyalty. Salahuddin Oweisi, a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, publicly suggested,

There should be a separate Muslim state within each state of India.”

Can India survive these treacherous backstabbing parasites? Marcus Tullius Cicero commented,

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague”.

Despite India’s impressive aggregate economic growth rates of recent years, India is stuck in low per capita income, and suffers serious problems at sub-Saharan African levels for mainly Muslim-related problems. Muslims are major obstacles to the development of India. The clerics do not allow Muslims to accept birth control measures. This, together with the right of Muslim men to have four wives encourages a higher birth-rate creating the danger of the Hindus being swamped by the Muslims. In addition to this, the large scale one-way flow of Muslim Bangladeshi illegal immigrants into India is jeopardizing the security of India and putting a great strain on the Indian economy, as well as upsetting the demographic balance. These Bangladeshis are not to be seen as people searching for jobs, land and livelihood in Assam; they were “infiltrators” threatening all of India. While Pakistan has been aggressively trying to harm India, Bangladesh’s plan is more subtle and long term with disastrous consequences. Bangladeshi clerics and fanatics have been working on a plan to create “Greater Bangladesh” which will consist of West Bengal and Assam, and parts of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Assam violence is just a small example of it but the issue is becoming a major problem for the Nation. Statistics say that every day almost 6000 Bangladeshis cross over to Assam, and in the last 18 years only 1490 of them has been deported. The Muslim population of Assam has shown a rise of 77.2% in 1991 from what it was in 1971 whereas the Hindu population has risen 41.89% in that period. If this continues unabated it is only a matter of time that the whole of Assam would be merged with Bangladesh. In 1951, the Hindu and Muslim population in West Bengal was 79.40 per cent Hindu and 18.63 per cent Muslim, which changed to 77.10 per cent Hindu and 21.55 per cent Muslim in 1981, and reached 72.90 per cent Hindu and 25.37 per cent Muslim in 2001. Parts of West Bengal had already become mini Bangladesh.

Awakening about the fundamentalist Islam and dangers it is posing to the entire humanity has now reached every nook and corner of the Western and Christian world. It is mistake to think that a Muslim is an honest citizen of the country who just practices some other religion. Allowing Muslims into the country as immigrants is nothing but opening the doors for traitors. With high birth-rate and illegal immigration, when Muslims will become absolute majority, India will be declared Islamic country. It is unfortunate that in spite of this long bitter experience the political leaders, historians and opinion makers of Hindu India have failed to learn the lessons of history and educate the people about the real character of Islam and its fundamentals. As a result India will have to face a new and may be still bloodier civilization conflict with Islam along with the rest of the world in the days to come.



    1. A Foreign Hand From The East: Communally-inclined parties find Bangladeshis a rallying factor, by Saba Naqvi, Debarshi Dasgupta, Toral Varia Deshpande
    2. Bangladeshi Illegal Migration into Assam: Issues and Concerns from the Field, by Namrata Goswami
    3. Can a Muslim Be an Indian?, by Gyanendra Pandey.
    4. Crimes Against India: and the Need to Protect Its Ancient Vedic Tradition, by Stephen Knap.
    5. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, by Ashutosh Varshney.
    6. Hajj Subsidy: An Instrument of Muslim Appeasement in Indian Politics, by Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari.
    7. Identity and Religion: Foundations of Anti-Islamism in India, by Amalendu Misra.
    8. Muslim Indians: Struggle for Inclusion, by Amit A. Pandya.
    9. Muslim League, Jinnah and the Hindu Mahasabha, by Qalb-i-Abid and Massarrat Abid
    10. The Art of Wooing Muslim Votes in Indian Politics, by Sujit Das.
    11. The meaning of Pakistan, by F.K Khan Durrani

Sujit Das lives in Mumbai (India). He is the author of several articles critical of Islam and two books Islam Dismantled: The Mental Illness of Prophet Muhammad and The Allah Delusion available for online purchase at and in various book stores.

25 thoughts on “Indian Muslims- Are they trustworthy?

  1. YO HO HO MO,


    Does it make any sense that all the Jurists are deviated and deviating except you?

    ( Section : Misconceptions )

    Question :

    Does it make any sense that all the Jurists are deviated and deviating except you? Is Sheikh Yassir the only one who is guided and guiding? Is the Sheikh the only one who is more knowledgable and better rounded in matters of jurisdiction? When ones read in your website, he will discover that many Jurists are deviated? Your approach leads to disunity among the Shia! The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran put huge effort in spreading out the message of Ahlu Al Bayet peace be upon them? Why do you discredit them?

    Answer :

    In His Name the Most High,

    All praise is due to Allah, may peace be upon Muhammad and his pure progeny and may the curse of Allah be upon their enemies.

    The Office Answer:

    People wonder if our style in promoting Dawa is the only absolute Truth! Shia keep asking if our pathway was contributing to Unity among the Shia! Sheikh Yasser had never even claimed that all the Jurists are deviated and deviating. He had never even said that most of them are deviated and deviating. He respects all the well known Jurists in Najaf like Sayed al-Sistani, Sayed M. S al-Hakeem, Sheikhs Basheer and Ishaq Fayyad. He also respects all the known Jurists in Qum like Sayed al-Shirazi, Sheikh Wahid al-Khorasani, Sayed Sadiq al-Rohani and Taqi al-Qumi for example.

    If he differed with any of them on some viewpoints and edicts, he would not call them deviating scholars. It is normal that he would disagree with some of their viewpoints.

    Sheikh Yasser only differs with the Jurists made and appointed by governments or made by political parties. He openly and massively disagrees with so called Jurists who hold Batri and/ or Irfani tendencies, they are a small group; so really one could not jump to a final conclusion that he said that all Jurists are deviated and deviating, some yes, and they are a minority.

    Sheikh Yasser builds his assessment about Jurists on the narration recorded by Imam Al Askari peace be upon him:

    He said: “As for those Jurists who guarded themselves, protected their faith, opposed their desires and obeyed their Master, the ordinary Shia can follow them. That can only happen however with some of the Shia Jurists, not all of them. As for those who commit sins and offences similar to the scholars of general public, Bakris, you should not accept anything from their side. There will be plenty of mix up and misunderstanding of what we AhlulBayt have said. Immoral scholars will receive our words, but they will misinterpret our words due to their ignorance. They will fail in their rulings due to their lack of knowledge; others will tell lies and attribute them to us in order to gain worldly benefits. Such positions will lead them to Hell. Some scholars are Nasibis; they would not be able to discredit us. They will however learn our words and deceive the Shia by that and belittle us in front of our enemies. They will additionally increase our words with numerous lies from their part. Some Shia will listen to those fabricated tales and submit as though those tales are our won words, when such lies are not ours; those are deviated and deviating scholars. Their harm on our weak Shia is worse than the army of Yazid on Al Hussain (peace be upon him) and his companions”. Wasail al Shia vol 27, page 131.

    Please pay attention to the words of Imam Al Askari peace be upon him: “That can only happen however with some of the Shia Jurists, not all of them”.

    We conclude that we cannot have ALL those who appear as Jurists as good respectable, virtuous and decent scholars. There will be among them liars, deviators, Nasibis and immoral scholars who imitate the Bakris; and they are, their harm, is worse on the weak Shia than Yazid’s army.

    A true conscious believer has to review the reasons before he assesses the outcome. If you do so, you would be able to find whether the Sheikh was right in condemning those who claim to be Jurists while praising the killers of AhlulBayt peace be upon them or not. The Sheikh presents proof on the one who claims to be a Jurist, yet, orders the murder, imprisonment and oppression of innocent Shia. The Sheikh presents proof on those who claim to be a Jurist yet hold within his heart Mystical, Sufi Irfani deviated principles.

    As for sounding alarms or over simplifying the issue in such a dramatic way as though the Sheikh discredits all the Jurists, that can only be in line with the Bakri marketing and media tactics. The Bakris stress day and night that the Shia denounce all the Sahaba when we in fact condemn only some of their Sahaba, the hypocrite and deviated ones to be precise.

    We should teach ourselves that we can have a position against Jurists who are deviated.

    Sheikh Yasser never claimed that he was the guided and guiding one. He had neither claimed to be the most knowledgeable nor most aware of matters in Jurisdiction. When he was asked about some personalities, he could not butter up the answer and beat about the bushes and say something that may invoke Allah’s displeasure.

    If it would have been found out that he had been mistaken, he would be pardoned by Allah Al Mighty as he only positioned himself as enemy of those personalities for Allah’s Sake.

    For example: Sheikh Al Mufeed opposed his teacher Sheikh Al Sadooq, he discredited him and condemned his pathway in his refutation known as “Reply on the Beliefs”. We know he did not do that based on a personal grudge, but for Allah’s Sake and pleasure, he had his own edicts and rulings and no one is infallible except the 14 infallibles.

    Even if the Sheikh said that most of the Jurists are deviated and deviating, and he did not, but let us presume he said so, then such a position could be plausible. There are many verses and narrations that stress the fact the majority is now always right. “Only a small number of my servants are thankful” as recorded in the Holy Quran.

    We should remark that not all those who call themselves Shia are going to be saved on Judgment Day. In fact most of them would not be saved. Shia will be divided into 13 groups, 12 will be sent to Hell and only ONE will be saved. Imam Ali peace be upon him said: “Oh People! The Jews were divided into 71 groups, 70 will be sent to Hell and one to Paradise. This is the group that followed Joshua bin Noon; Christians will be divided into 72 groups, 71 will perish in Hell and one will be saved. This is the group that followed Simon the Disciple. Muslims will be divided into 73 groups, 72 will be sent to Hell and one to Paradise. This is the group that followed ME and he pointed to his chest”. He added: “13 groups of those 73 groups would pretend to follow and love ME. Only ONE of those 13 groups will end up in Paradise and 12 will go to Hell. This is the middle part group”. Sheikh Al Tousi in Al Amali page 524.

    For example, Sheikh Yasser dismisses anyone who assumes the position of a Jurist when such a so called Jurist does not fulfil the conditions of his assumed position. Khamanaei for example does not fulfil the condition of Belief. He mixes up his belief with Sufi doctrine and Philosophy. Khamanaei also lacks the condition of Ijtihad/ Jurisprudential Capacity to Derive Religious Rulings.

    Moreover, Khamanaei lacks the condition of Justice. Streams of blood that belonged to scholars and ordinary believers were shed under his watchful eyes in Iran. Thereby, Khamanaei is incapable of issuing religious decrees.

    Let us presume for argument sake that he was a qualified Jurist, and he is not, then he has no right to prohibit “discrediting the symbols of our Sunni brothers”, as his infamous so called edict stated.

    His prohibition was issued in the context of absolute forbiddance. Where was his religious evidence for that? If we had had to accept his ruling, we would have dropped our Imams peace be upon them to a position of erring. They have denounced the symbols of hypocrisy both openly and privately.

    Read the following examples on the advice and practice of our Imams peace be upon them regarding the symbols of deviation:

    Abu Bakir, Omar and Abu Oubayda were the top symbols of the infamous‪ ‬Saqeefa, yet Imam Ali peace be upon him faced them up and said to them in their faces:

    “أيتها الغدرة الفجرة! والنطفة القذرة المذرة! والبهيمة السائمة”

    Meaning: “Oh you licentious, shameless traitors whose origin was a filthy, mucky foul smelling sperms! You rose up, rolled up your sleeves in quest of deviation, you are seeking hypocrisy, and you are in love with ignorance and dissension, how awful what you are offering yourselves! Oh you are like the overflowing sewers / gutter…and so on!”! Ref: Ibn Al A’randas in Kashif Al La’ali.

    The point here is that Imam Ali peace be upon him did not just pray to Allah to dismiss his mercy from them, but actually swore onto them and insulted them in open language, he made reference to them in harsh terms resembling them to sewers, originating from mucky foul, tainted smelling semen and so on, this in fact comes very much in tune with the narration found in Al Kafi vol 2 page 375.

    The prophet peace be upon him and his family said according to Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him: “If you see the figures of deviation and innovation after me, show/ do your Bara’a of them, maximise your insults to them, attack/oppose them verbally, stun them with your sharp words so that they do not cause/ bring corruption to Islam and so that ordinary people get a warning against them and realise their innovations in faith. Allah will write for you rewards for this and will raise your status in the hereafter”.

    There is a common mistake or misconception that we cannot swear or insult the icons of evil, says who?

    Claiming that it is wrong to swear or insult the icons of evil is a fantasy according to the narration referred to above; you can send la’anat onto them and insult them as well.

    The problem is those who take up the podium do not read, and if they read, they do not understand how to put things into context, and if they do know how to do so, they refrain from sharing their findings with their audience (sensitive information that could offend the Bakris).

    The summarised list of scholars who approve that narration that allows to abuse Ahlul Bida’a, people of innovation, and the prominent figures of evil.

    The narration is to be found in al Kafi vol 2 page 375.

    Those scholars who say it is a credible, authoritative and authentic narration are:

    1- Al-Majlisi said this narration is Saheeh (Authentic) à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77

    2- Yoosuf al-Bahraani, al-Hadaa’iq al-NaaDirah, vol. 18, pg 164

    3- Murtada al-Ansaari (d. 1281), Kitaab al-Makaasib, vol. 1pg. 353

    4- al-Khoei, Misbaah al-Fiqaahah, vol. 1, pg. 354

    5- Jawad al-Tabrizi, Irshaad al-Taalib ‘ila al-Ta`leeq `ala alMakaasib, vol. 1, pg. 162

    Some readers, at this moment, might say:

    “But didn’t Imam Ali peace be upon him ask his companions during the war of Sifeen not to swear and insult the soldiers in Muawya’s army”?

    The answer:

    Imam Ali peace be upon him did not prohibit his soldiers in Sifeen from swearing, he advised them saying:

    He said “Karahatu lakum an takonou sabbabeen”. “I find it Makrooh for you to be using insulting language”.

    He said Karahtu, meaning its Makrooh, not Haram to insult the ordinary people/ soldiers who followed Muawya.

    Therefore, it is Makrooh to verbally abuse ordinary Bakris, Haram to verbally abuse believers, and believers is defined as those who endorse the Wilaya of AhlulBayt peace be upon them and Bara’a of their enemies, it is Mustahab, recommended, and sometimes Wajib, obligatory, to verbally abuse the senior past figures of Ahlul Bida’a like the Bakri unholy trinity (Abu Bakir, Omer and Aisha) for example and present icons like Qarathawi, Dymashqya and Arour. Never mind the la’anat which is dutiful on the past and present symbols of Ahlul Bida’a.

    More examples from the Imams of AhlulBayt peace be upon them from their Hadeeth on public naming and shaming of the first, second and third.

    Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him said as recorded in Bihar Al Anwar vol 30: “Abu Bakir and Omer are the two Idols of Quraish being worshipped”.

    Imam Ali peace be upon him said when praying against Omer as recorded in Al Jamal book by Sheikh Al Mufeed page 92: “Oh Allah punish Omer for he caused injustice even to rocks and boulders.”

    Imam Ali peace be upon him said in Bihar Al Anwar vol 53:“May Allah send la’anat on the son of Khatab for it had not been for him, no one would have committed adultery unless he was wicked, as Muta’a would have been suffice for Muslims instead of adultery”.

    A man came to Imam Ali peace be upon him saying: stretch your hand so I give you my allegiance! The imam peace be upon him said: “on what basis”? He replied: “on the Sunna and traditions of Abu Bakir and Omer”. The imam peace be upon him stretched his hand and said: “shake my hand on the basis that Allah cursed the two! I see you dead while still holding deviation in your heart”. Basair Al Darjat by Al Safar page 412

    Imam Ali peace be upon him cursed the two most sacred figures of that man in his face, in a public setting as allegiance is not paid in private.

    Whenever Omer’s name was mentioned before Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him, he said: “he was a son of adultery” and whenever the name of Abu Jaffar Al Dwaneeqi was mentioned before the Imam peace be upon him, he also called him “son of adultery”. Bihar Al Anwar vol 30.

    We all know Imam Al Hussein’s peace be upon him position towards Yazid, but no one dares to tell you of his position towards Abu Bakir and Omer:

    A man asked Imam Al Hussain peace be upon him about Abu Bakir and Omer, he responded: “By Allah both took away our divine right, took over the leadership position that belong to us, stepped on our necks and made people step on our necks as well” Taqreeb Al Ma’arif by Al Halabi page 243.

    In Taqreeb Al Ma’arif also, it is narrated in page 244 that Imam Zain Al Abedin peace be upon him described “Abu Bakir and Omer as disbelievers and whoever loved them two becomes a disbeliever”

    Talha , Aisha and Zubair were mighty symbols of the faith of the opponents of AhlulBayt peace be upon them, so when a group of men travelled from Basra to Medina and met Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him and asked him what do you say of the war of Ali against Talha, Zubair and Aisha?

    Our Imam peace be upon him did not back off, he said in a prolonged narration:

    “Aisha’s crime is huge, her sin is monumental and every drop of blood spilt that time is in her neck and the two necks of her partners”, Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him added: “That Talha and Zubair were two Imams of Disbelief”. Mustadrak Al Wasail vol 11, page 63.

    In Al Kafi vol 8, page 246, Imam Al Baqir peace be upon him said in an authentic narration according to our Shia criterion of accrediting narrations.

    “The two Sheikhs Abu Bakir and Omar departed life and did not repent and did not mind what they did to Imam Ali peace be upon him, May Allah , his angles and all the people send la’anat onto them both.”

    Where can we hide when we read in Al Kafi volume 3, page 342 that imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him used to say after each obligatory prayer, according to Abi Salamah Al Saraj: “May Allah curse Abu Bakir, Omar, Othman, Muawya, Aisha, Hafsa, Hind and Um Al Hakam, and he named them all and I heard him name them all”, said the narrator.

    In the famous Shaqshaqya Sermon in Nahju Al Balagah, Imam Ali peace be upon him described Othman as someone “like a farm animal whose main affair and purpose in life was to eat and discharge its own dung around itself, i.e. living to eat and release of leftovers around his own spot, yet putting a show as though he was self- important.”

    Now when we read the so called edict of Khamanaei that offers an absolute prohibition to “denounce the symbols of our Sunni brothers”, we have to conclude that Khamanaei dismisses the words of AhlulBayt peace be upon them in that regard.

    Some of his followers would respond in defence that he did make his edict linked to publicity; i.e., not to denounce and condemn those symbols in public forums.

    That line of counter argument is defected. Khamanaei failed to link his so called edict to prohibition of denouncement in public forums. He also failed to link his so called edict to permissibility in sequence or stages in order to comply with such counter arguments.

    Khamanaei issued his indiscriminate so called edict haphazardly and baselessly. That attitude can only be viewed as in defiance to the prophet peace be upon him and his pure family.

    It is a well known fact that his so called edict is a statement that aimed for gaining the endearment of the Bakris and serving the interests of his government. His statement was in search of worldly acquisitions.

    The prophet peace be upon him and his family said: “Oh Ali! Your Shia are those who are steadfast on the Truth and Straight Path. They do not aim for gaining the endearment of their opponents. They detach themselves from worldly affairs”. Amali Al Sadooq page 658.

    The prophet peace be upon him and his family said according to Imam Al Sadiq peace be upon him: “If you see the figures of deviation and innovation after me, show/ do your Bara’a of them, maximise your insults to them, attack/oppose them verbally, stun them with your sharp words so that they do not cause/ bring corruption to Islam and so that ordinary people get a warning against them and realise their innovations in faith. Allah will write for you rewards for this and will raise your status in the hereafter”. Al Kafi vol2 page 375.

    Denouncing the symbols of hypocrisy is a necessity. This duty can not be suspended from action only under a condition of Taqqya whereby a believer experiences severe testing conditions that deprives him of announcing the Truth and forces him to save his neck from the sword.

    You can not suspend this duty only because some people believe in the holiness of such symbols. Otherwise, one has to respect Satan as some people do worship him technically, Satanic Worshippers. Could any sane person say then that we have to respect Satan?

    It is true that one can denounce and deplore those deviated personalities by employing various means. On the first instance, one can use “shock therapy”, on other occasions; one can use a slow, step by step technique. It all depends on conditions and circumstances; however, one cannot by any means rule the basis of denouncement out totally.

    If one asked: “I live with a Bakri family, shall I use Bara’a openly and forcefully”?

    The answer is: the matter of exercising open Bara’a is up to that person. He has to assess the situation and choose what fits it. If a slow step by step technique works, then, that is fine. If not, then a “shock therapy” approach can be used.

    What is of paramount importance here is the fact that one should not give up his duty of calling for the Wilaya to AhlulBayt peace be upon them all and the rejection of their hypocrite enemies. The choice of the best approach is left to the individual to consider so long as religious boundaries are not violated.

    Sheikh Yasser al-Habib by the way uses both approaches according to overall circumstances and the intellectual potential of individual Bakri cases.

    When one sates that many people became Shia due to the Dawa and Tabligh effort of Khamanaei regime, one should bear in mind that many more people became Muslims due to the effort of the Saudi regime!

    The Saudi regime performs massive roles in spreading “their version of Islam” all over the world. There are hundreds of mosques and charities here in Europe that contributed to converting European youth into “their Islam”. Does that mean that we have to respect and recognise the role of the Saudi regime in that regard? Does that mean we have to feel grateful for their activities?

    Similarly, the regime of Khamanaei is performing massive roles in spreading “their version of the Shia faith”. They are not showing people the authentic version of our Imams peace be upon them. The version that is being spread is a brand that represents a combination of Batri, Mystical Sufi, Sufi/ Irfan ingredients topped with a rich layer of Philosophy.

    The motivation behind spreading out that brand is solely political. The Islam that is spread out by the Saudi regime is a deviated and void version of Islam that is driven by a political agenda as well.

    As for the one who is effecting disunity among the Shia, ordinary Shia need to register the acts of the “supreme leader” who issues baseless edicts and violates the human and religious sanctity of scholars. His regime arrested imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of believers in Iran, not to mention scholars. So who is now the party responsible for causing disunity among the Shia?

    We cannot remotely claim that our approach represents the absolute Truth! You will not find any scholar who will utter such a claim? Therefore, no objective person would say that our approach is infallible! In order to ascertain that, one would just have to read and listen to the replies offered whether on our website or in other forums. Those replies represent evidence that arguments and counter arguments are given room to no matter who the inquirer is.

    When a competent Jurist issues an edict, he cannot declare that his edict represents the absolute Truth. He is surely excused by the fact that he reached such a ruling based on the evidence he found. He therefore applies his knowledge according to his best abilities and intentions. Our approach and pathway is similar in that regard. We sincerely hope that all Shia do believe for example that Aisha is in Hellfire. Some ordinary and even Shia “scholars” do actually believe that she could be in Paradise for the sake of the prophet peace be upon him and his family.

    We would like those who oppose our approach in Bara’a to stop issuing statements of condemnation that serve as a soother for the Bakris. All they have to do is to say for example: “he represents himself, we are not under question here to defend any accusation aimed at us, and he is accountable for his own deeds”! We wish for them to appear before the Bakris dignified and honoured instead of undignified and dishonourable!

    A true Shia is someone who rebels against his surroundings if it were humiliating, he is not someone imprisoned by such dishonourable surroundings. A true Shia alters such surroundings. A True Shia provides freedom for himself and does not wait for others to provide him with freedom!

    The threats, intimidation and oppression of the Saudi regime against the Shia in the eastern province of “Saudi Arabia” were far greater during the Iraq – Iran war (1980-1988) than the time and occasion when we celebrated the death of Aisha. The Shia in the eastern province refused to denounce or reject Khomeini either formally or informally. They endured despite the loss of blood and souls then. However, the criterion has become unfortunately “who said what”? Instead of “what was said by whom”?

    The injustice caused by your nearest kingship is more ruthless or severe than the strike of a sword onto your body by an enemy, says a poet!

    25th Dhul Qi’dah 1433
    The office of Sheikh al-Habib in London

    Reading : 4361

  2. YO HO HO MO,


    Which narrations state that the locations of Abu Bakr and Omar in Hell are worse than the place of Satan?

    ( Section : Misdeed )

    Question :

    In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful.

    O Allah, send Your blessings upon Mohammad and the Family of Mohammad, and curse their enemies and make the sound of their punishment harm the people of Hellfire.

    The Wahabi Nawasib took a part of your blessed lecture out of its context with the purpose of leading people astray. However, this actually has led people to become guided, and it particularly led many Shi’a to search deeper into the true religion of Shi Islam.

    In essence, you said that most of the Shi’a do not know who their first and greatest enemy is…and then you said that if we go back to the narrations of Ahlul-Bayt; we’d discover that Omar is in the deepest part of Hell, and that Abu Bakr is placed a little bit higher than him, and that Iblees is placed a little bit higher than them both. Can you please mention this narration for us as well as the other narrations that specify the locations of Abu Bakr, Omar and Iblees in the Fire of Hell, and which state that Iblees has a higher position of Hellfire than these two? And can you please provide the sources?

    May Allah grant you the best.


    Answer :

    In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon our Master, Mohammad, and his good and pure Family, and may the curse of Allah be upon all their enemies.

    The office’s answer:

    May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.

    May Allah increase our rewards and your rewards.

    After consulting the Sheikh, he pointed to the following narrations:

    Al-Ayyashi (may Allah’s satisfaction be upon him) narrated in his Tafseer on the authority of Imam al-Sadiq (may peace be upon him), who said: «When the Day of Resurrection approaches; Iblees will be brought in seventy chains and seventy manacles. Thereupon Abu Bakr will look at Omar (being fastened) in one-hundred and twenty manacles and one-hundred and twenty chains. Iblees will then look (at Omar) and say: “Who is this man whom Allah has multiplied his punishment, whereas I have tempted all of this creation?!” Then it shall be said: “He is Omar!” Then he will say: “For what reason was he given this punishment?” Then it shall be said: “For his injustice caused upon Ali (may peace be upon him).» [1]

    Sulaim, son of Qais al-Hilali (may Allah’s satisfaction be upon him), narrated on the authority of Salman al-Farsi (may Allah’s satisfaction be upon him), who said: «When the Day of Resurrection approaches, Ibless will be brought tied in a rope of fire, and Omar will be brought tied in two ropes of fire. Upon then, Iblees will rush towards him and say: “May you be bereaved from your mother! Who are you? I am the one who has tempted the first and the last, and still I am only tied with one rope, whereas you are tied with two ropes!?” Then he will say: “I am the one who commanded people and was obeyed, meanwhile Allah commanded people and was disobeyed.”» [2]

    Al-Mufid (may Allah’s satisfaction be upon him) narrates on the authority of Imam al-Sadiq, who narrates of the Commander of the Faithful (may peace be upon them both), who said: «One day I went to the rear end of Kufa and Qanbar was walking in front of me. Suddenly, Iblees came towards us, and I said: “You are the evil old man!” He said: “And why do you say this, O Commander of the Faithful? Indeed, I shall narrate to you a conversation between me and Allah (Glorious and Exalted is He) alone, there was no third among us; when I fell to the Fourth Heaven, I cried: ‘O my God and my Master! I do not think You have created any creature more evil than me!’

    «Then Allah (Exalted is He) revealed unto me: ‘Yes indeed, I have created someone who is more evil than you. Go to Malik so he can show him to you.’ Then I went to Malik and said: ‘Al-Salam sends peace upon you, and He tells you to show me who is more evil than me.’ Thereupon Malik took me to Hellfire, and he removed the highest cover (of the highest level of Hell) and black fire came out, which I thought had taken me and Malik. He said to it: ‘Calm down!’ and it calmed. Then he took me to the second cover, and fire that was more black and more hot than the first came out.

    «He said to it: ‘Disappear!’ and it disappeared. And so it went all the way to the seventh cover, and each fire that came out from every level was more intense than the previous one. Then fire came out from it (the seventh) and I thought it had taken me and Malik and everything Allah (Glorious and Exalted is He) has created! Then I placed my hand on my eye and said: ‘Command it, O Malik, to disappear, and it shall disappear!’ He said: ‘You shall never disappear until a certain known time!’ Then he commanded it, so it disappeared.

    «Then I saw two men; in their necks were chains of fire that hanged them from above, and on their heads were people with whips of fire and they were whipping them. I said: ‘O Malik, who are these two?’ He said: ‘Have you not read what is written on the bottom side of the Throne: ‘There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah, You supported him and assisted him with Ali.’ Then he said: ‘These two are their enemies and oppressors.'”» [3]

    Sheikh Hassan, son of Sulayman al-Hilli, narrates on the authority of Huzaifa (may Allah’s satisfaction be upon him) who said in the long narration of Farhat al-Zahra, where he narrates of Allah’s Messenger (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family), who narrates of Allah (Exalted is He) who said the following in a Hadith Qudsi where he promised to curse and punish Omar (may Allah’s curse be upon him): «And I will burn him along with his companions in the deepest part (of Hellfire) to such a degree that Iblees will be treated better than him and curse him!» [4]

    Please pray for us.

    The 28th night of Muharram, year 1429

    The office of Sheikh al-Habib in London
    [1] Tafseer al-Ayyashi, volume 2, page 224
    [2] Kitab Sulaim bin Qais, page 164
    [3] Al-Ikhtisas, by Al-Mufid, page 108. The formulation above is taken from Bihar al-Anwar, by Al-Majlisi, volume 8, page 315
    [4] Al-Muhtadhir, by Sheikh Hassan, son of

    Reading : 168


    You know how some people insult Muslims by calling them crude names that are the equivalents of sodomites and bestialists (butt- and goat-f**kers)? It turns out at least the sodomite insult is true! We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.


    by Abu Nuwas:

    O the joy of sodomy!

    So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
    Turn not away from it–
    therein is wondrous pleasure.
    Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
    twisting on his temple
    and ride as he stands like some gazelle
    standing to her mate.
    A lad whom all can see girt with sword
    and belt not like your whore who has
    to go veiled.
    Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
    very best to mount them, for women are
    the mounts of the devils


    Surah 8:69: “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good.” (Yusuf Ali)


    “It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not.”


    Satan Attends Every Childbirth; He Touches Every Infant
    Except for Mary and her Son Jesus, all babies cry during their birth, because Satan touches them… (Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.641)
    Whenever a child is born, Satan pricks it; that is why the child cries. Only Mary and Jesus were not pricked by Satan…(Sahih Muslim, 30.5837, 5838)
    Say prayer during sexual intercourse, and Satan will not touch your child…(Sahih Bukhari, 4.54.503


    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.


    Islamic cleric confirms Muslim men really are sodomites
    You know how some people insult Muslims by calling them crude names that are the equivalents of sodomites and bestialists (butt- and goat-f**kers)? It turns out at least the sodomite insult is true! We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.
    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.


    “Anyone who consents to being called ‘Emir of the Believers’ is a passive homosexual. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example, who willingly assumed this title, was, without a doubt, a passive homosexual. The same goes for the caliphs Othman Ibn Affan, Muawiyya, Yazid, and the rules and sultans of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, as well as some of the rulers and sultans of our day and age.

    For example, the king of Morocco bears this title. This is how you know that he is a passive homosexual. This is in addition to the evidence revealed by Western media, which showed that the current king of Morocco is indeed a passive homosexual who belongs to the homosexual community. This was leaked from his palace by his assistants, his servants, and his ‘boys,’ whom he would penetrate and who would penetrate him. They fled to Europe, sought asylum, and exposed all this.

    Cleric Yasser Habib.

    It is told (in the hadith) that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus, a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him…
    A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless. he is penetrated again and again.

    The Shiites are undoubtedly protected from this disease, and from committing this abominable and hideous act. As for the Nasibis (who hated the prophet Muhammad’s family), they are definitely afflicted with this homosexuality.
    One of the devils is present at the birth of every human being. If Allah knows that the newborn is one of our Shiites, He fends off that devil, who cannot harm the newborn. But if the newborn is not one of our Shiites, the devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn, who thus becomes a passive homosexual. If the newborn is not a Shiite, the devil inserts his index finger into this newborn’s anus, and when he grows up, he becomes a passive homosexual.

    If the newborn is a female, the devil inserts his index finger into her vagina, and she becomes a whore. At that moment, the newborn cries loudly, as he comes out of his mother’s womb. Note that some children cry normally at birth, while others cry loudly and incessantly. You should know that this is the work of that devil, according to this narration.”

    Islam is NOT a religion, but an insane political system and sex cult populated by the severely mentally impaired.”

    When cleric Yasser Habib “says ‘passive homosexual’, he is referring to the receptive, submissive, female-equivalent partner. Dominant, inserting male homosexual activity is universally accepted in Islam. He has no problem with that. It’s grown men ‘catching’ that he has a problem with.”

    • Lucky, you’ve already said that many times. Muslims are sodomites? Yasser al Habib accused Sunni Muslims of sodomy? Who is Yasser al Habib? He is an insurgent. I call him a terrorist.


        Yasser Al-Habib
        Born 1979

        Religion Shia Islam


        Yasser al-Habib (Arabic: ياسر الحبيب) is a Shia cleric from Kuwait. He was born in 1979 in Kuwait and migrated to England in December 2004. He was arrested in November 2003 and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment by the Kuwaiti government on charges of cursing Abu Bakr, Umar and Aisha; in connection with an audiotape recording of a public lecture.
        In February 2004 he was released under an annual pardon announced by the Amir of Kuwait on the occasion of the country’s National Day, but his rearrest was ordered a few days later. Sheikh al-Habib fled Kuwait before he was sentenced in absentia to 10 years’ imprisonment.[1]
        In September 2010 Sheikh Yasser al-Habib angered the Sunni Muslims by calling Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha, “an enemy of God” which led Kuwait to revoke his citizenship accusing him of trying to stir up discord among Muslims.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
        In October 2010 Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tried to calm tensions between Shias and Sunnis by issuing a fatwa against insulting the Prophet’s companions and wives.[8]
        He recorded two lectures in English titled: Who killed the Prophet Muhammad and Why do Shiites hate Umar Ibn al-Khattab.[9] Al-Sha’ab newspaper described Sheikh al-Habib as a traitor and apostate in its main page, at the time that Al-Habib cursed Abu Bakr and Umar.[10]
        Yasser al-Habib said:
        “ Wahhabism is a criminal and violent ideology, founded by a mentally ill man named Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab about three centuries ago. Its main principle is that all Muslims who perform Tawassul by Awliya’ Allah (Prophets, Imams and the pious ones) and visit their graves are regarded as apostates and infidels. Therefore, the seizure of their life, property and women would, like that of the infidels, be religiously lawful and permissible![11]

        Bakris and Batris
        Sheikh al-Habib refers to Sunnis as Bakris. He says that the real Sunnis (Ahlul Sunnah) are the ones who follow the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. He continues that Sunnis today follow the Sunnah and teachings of Abu Bakr instead, having rejected Ali ibn Abi Talib and Ahlulbayt. He explains in one of his lectures titled Bakris think they are Sunnis, but in reality are not that when people wanted to distance themselves from the Shia, and follow Muawiyya, they started calling themselves the Jama’ah.
        He also refers to those personalities who claim that they belong to Shi’a but reconcile with the Bakri sect as Batris.
        He described Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah (the Lebanese marja who died in 4 July 2010)[12] as Batri. Al-Habib said that Fadlallah left a great number of doctrinal deviations, ignorant views and bad conduct which he introduced to the religion of Islam.[13]
        Shias who Oppose Al-Habib’s Insult towards Sunni Dignitaries
        After Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued the fatwah outlawing the insult of Sunni Dignitaries (Aisha, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattāb), Yasser Al-Habib responded by calling the Islamic Republic of Iran “oppressive”. He continued by referring to Ayatullah Khamenei as “so-called Ali al-Khamenei – who pretends to be a Shia scholar”. His reasoning for naming the Iranian government as “oppressive” was because the “regime in Iran today unjustly arrests anyone who celebrates the occasion of Farhat-ul-Zahra and prevents people from visiting the tomb of Abu Lulu”.[14]
        Senior Iranian cleric Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi has referred to Al-Habib as a “hired agent or a mad man”.[15]
        Egypt’s policy
        He described the Egyptian state security apparatus as notorious after arresting the Egyptian shia cleric Hassan Shehata.[16] Him and his organisation called Khoddam al-Mahdi Organisation (Arabic: هيئة خدام المهدي) gathered outside the Egyptian embassy in London to support the Shia converts who were unjustly arrested by the Egyptian police. They were headed by Hassan Shehata. The Egyptian police also expressed protest against the absurd charges presented against Hassan Shehata and the other Shias, some of which were:
        • Praying on a turba (a piece of clay) taken from the soil of Karbala.
        • Prohibition of calling the Adhan or call to prayer except behind a Shia imam.
        • Insulting the Sahaba (the companions of the prophet).[17]
        In June 2010 Sheikh al-Habib moved to a new office in London. The new office includes:
        • Hussainiyat Sayed al-Shuhada
        • Hawza of al-Imamain al-Askariyain
        • Khoddam al-Mahdi Organisation
        • Al-Menbar Media
        • Fadak Satellite channel
        • The Shia Newspaper
        • Alqatrah website
        • Masjid al Mohsin
        Books by Al-Habib
        • Obscenity: The Other Face of Aisha. Khodam Al Mahdi Organisation. 2010. ISBN 095662300X. (Arabic)
        1. “International Religious Freedom Report 2004 – Kuwait”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        2. “Financial Times”. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
        3. “Reuters”. Retrieved 23 September 2010.
        4. “Federal News Radio”. Retrieved 20 September 2010.
        5. Kuwait strips hard-line Shiite activist of citizenship after claims of blasphemy – 9-20-2010 12737 PM Newser
        6. Revoking Al-Habib’s citizenship premature Safar KuwaitSamachar
        7. Kuwait strips Shiite activist of citizenship
        8. “Tehran Times”. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
        9. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London – Video Youtube”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        10. “القطرة – موقع رؤى ومحاضرات الشيخ الحبيب – الطائفة البكرية تفتح النار على الشيخ الحبيب بالأكاذيب والافتراءات في وسائل الإعلام”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        11. The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London – Answers – What do Wahhabis believe in
        12. “Politics – Tuesday official mourning day for Fadlallah”. The Daily Star. 6 July 2010. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        13. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London – Sheikh al-Habib Hails our Great Scholars’ Refusal to pay tribute to Fadlullah”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        14. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London – Sheikh al-Habib takes an oath to ‘publicly’ voice opposition to the enemies of Ahlul Bayt and warns al-Khamenei”. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
        15. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London – Sheikh al-Habib remarks on Naser Makarem Shirazi’s statement”. Retrieved 18 October 2010.
        16. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London / Sheikh al-Habib expressed concern at the arrest of the great Egyptian scholar Sheikh Hassan Shehata”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        17. “The drop, Office of Sheikh Al-Habib in London / Sheikh Yasser warns at a demonstration against Hosni Mubarak:”. 29 July 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
        18. “The Drop – Sheikh al-Habib at the opening ceremony of the new headquarters”. Retrieved 27 September 2010.

        • Why do Shiites hate Omar Ibn al-Khattab?!

          Yasser Al-Habib

          Section : Articles || Date : 2010 / 06 / 17 || Reading : 10128

          One of the main points of contention between Shiite Muslims and other sects which claim to belong to the fold of Islam is the position taken towards the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          Shiites say that the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) are just like any other companions of previous Prophets (Peace be upon Them) among whom are pious believers who are to be respected, and evil hypocrites whom we must hate and to whom we must not show any respect.

          We can distinguish between the two groups by reviewing their roles in history. We respect and pray for mercy for those who were loyal to the Prophet and His pure Family (Peace be upon Them) and did not commit crimes or mortal sins. But in turn, as an expression of our rejection of their principles and morality, we loathe and curse those who were hostile to the Prophet and His Pure Family (Peace be Upon Them) and committed crimes and mortal sins. This is what Shiites say on the matter. This position is consistent with the rules contained in the Holy Quran and the Prophet’s Noble Sunna, into which time does not permit us to go now.

          In contrast, the Bakri sect insists on closing the door on researching this matter and steps back from studying the history of these companions claiming that it is our duty to believe that they were all sincere people and [true] believers, and that is our duty to be silent and turn a blind eye to their life story – to what Mortal Sins and heinous crimes there are in their career because they have all been forgiven.

          This is one of the fundamental differences between Shiite Muslim beliefs and Bakri beliefs. For whereas Shiites are open to history and to studying renowned individuals with scientific impartiality in order to separate the good from the bad, Bakris prohibit what they consider to be digging up the past and close their minds with faith that is passed on from generation to generation, faith that dictates belief in all those old figures and in a duty to respect them without any scientific basis [for doing so].

          The position on Omar Ibn al-Khattab is an example of the doctrinal division between Shiites and others.
          Shiites have studied the history of this man and found him to be a hypocrite, criminal and killer. One of his most heinous crimes was his involvement in a plot to assassinate the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and later, his direct involvement in killing his only daughter who survived him – Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) because of her stand against the coup which was set up by him and his companion Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa following the martyrdom of her father.

          However, the Bakri community refrain from in-depth study of the history of this man. Their leaders deny historical facts, which expose his crimes and mortal sins. They insist on denying them and use various tricks. But that is no longer good enough for the masses, for many members of this sect as a result of recent changes have become more open-minded. They have begun to study history in a scientific manner and reach conclusions which have led them to become Shiites.

          One of the things most often denied by the leaders of the sect is the fact that Omar Ibn l-Khattab carried out a brutal attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) which led to the miscarriage of her baby Mohsin (Peace and Blessings upon Him), one of her ribs’ being broken and her remaining sick until she died as a martyr after a period not exceeding three months after the death of her father the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          Leaders of the Bakri sect deny this even though many of their historical sources make specific mention of it. By way of example, all three of Shahristani, Safadi and al-Natham report that: “On the day of allegiance, Omar struck Fatima’s stomach causing her to lose her baby! He shouted: “Burn the house no matter who is inside! There was in the house no other than Hassan, Hussain, Ali and Fatima”

          After Abu Bakr and Omar seized power, the position taken by the Family of the Prophet (Allah’s Blessings upon all of Them) was to reject this unlawful coup. For this reason, they and a group of their supporters refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and to recognise him as Caliph.

          As an expression of protest, the Family of the Prophet shut themselves off from the world inside their house and did not go out. This prompted Omar Ibn al-Khattab to lead a mob of mercenaries from the tribe of Asslam to attack the rebels and drag them by force to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr.

          That day became known as the Day of Allegiance. On that day, Omar and his gang attacked the House of Prophecy where the rightful Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon both of Them) was engaged in worship and compilation of the Qur’an, while Our Lady Fattima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) was behind the door of the house because she had tried to confront the attackers and remind them that what they were doing was unlawful.

          Nevertheless, Omar took advantage of the opportunity to persecute her by attacking, once the door had been set alight. He stormed the house and beat the Greatest Lady of All Worlds, whom the Prophet had praised time and again and given repeated warnings against doing her wrong.

          At this point Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) cried out. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Peace and Blessings upon Them) heard her voice and rushed to her aid. He took Omar, threw him to the ground, stepped on his nose and was about to kill him but for the fact of his thinking back to the order given to Him by the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to be patient in the face of tyranny so long as his supporters were too few in number.

          The leaders of the Bakri sect try to sow seeds of doubt in this historical fact as recounted by al-Natham and allege that he had been influenced by Shiite culture. The truth is that this man cannot be further from the Shiites – he was one of their staunchest opponents! Thus, there is no possibility that he was lying or that he had been influenced by Shiite culture in reporting this.

          Who was al-Natham? He was Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sayyar His pupil Aljahidh says about him: “He was one of the fiercest people in condemning the Rafidis (Shiites) because of their vilification of the companions!” He also says about him: “al-Natham believed that Abu Bakr was superior to Ali, and that the correct order of succession for the four was as follows: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali”!

          So, al-Natham reported this event without giving any indication that it should be treated as a black mark on Omar’s record! This is a normal occurrence. The Bakri sect has from the very beginning sought to justify Omar’s actions no matter how repugnant they were with various excuses, including saying that such extremism was to protect Islam and maintain unity between Muslims – united behind a single Caliph!

          This is why they do not feel any shame in narrating these accounts, which contain indications that Omar hit women. For this reason, we find that Bukhari mentions in his Sahih an account of Omar’s hitting Abu Bakr’s sister (Umme Farwa) and hitting the women who came to mourn his companion Abu Bakr. He does not consider this to be a black mark on his record for which Omar deserves to be condemned or to be something which ought to be hidden and not included in his Sahih.

          al-Natham was also like Bukhari. He related this account, of Omar’s beating Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) without feeling any embarrassment to prompt him to cover it up. However, with the passage of time, leaders of the Bakri sect tried to cover it up because Fatima al-Zahra is not like any other woman.

          Attacking her is one of the biggest sins. Moreover, it is Kufr and abandonment of the religion of Islam.
          There are of course the statements of other Bakri scholars who confirm the fact that Omar carried out an attack on Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her). Among them is Ibn Abi Darm who said: “Omar kicked Fatima causing her to lose Mohsin”!

          This statement is reported by the most prominent Bakri scholars such as Al Thahabi and Ibn Hajjar. Who is Ibn Abi Darm? He is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al Sirri bin Yahya ibn Abi Darm. Al Thahabi describes him as follows: “upstanding; scholar of hadith; from Kufa. So Ibn Abi Darm, considered by the Bakri sect to be an upstanding hadith teaching Imam admit that Omar committed this heinous crime against the daughter of the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          What do the Bakris do to get themselves out of this predicament? They claim that even though Ibn Abi Darm was a learned and upstanding man he began to lean towards the Shia towards the end of his life. For this reason we cannot accept this report of his.

          Al Thahabi reports that Mohammed bin Ahmed bin Hamad Al Kufi described Ibn Abi Darm as follows: “He was generally upstanding but then towards the end of his life, most of what was transmitted by him was slander!” i.e. that Ibn Abi Darm was a man who followed Bakri beliefs but became a Shiite at the end of his lifetime and began to teach people about the shortcomings of the companions in his classes. In other words, he would reveal their true crimes. For this reason Al Thahabi says: “He was known for memory and knowledge but he was a Shiite”!

          It really is reverse logic! Instead of examining themselves when they find one of their own scholars moving over to Shiism and speaking out and revealing the truth about Omar’s crime, they ignore him and ignore the reasons that prompted him to reject Abu Bakr and Omar! Then they say: “He was an eminent scholar and Imam but at the end of his life, he became a Shiite” because of his realisation about Omar’s crime against Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her)!

          If the man was an eminent scholar and Imam, this means that he would not recklessly abandon his faith towards the end of his life and change to another religion unless he was confident that this other religion was the correct one.

          In any event, Bakris insist on denying the truth of the brutal attack carried out by Omar against Our Lady Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings be upon Her) and on casting doubt on these hadith, which we have just been through by claiming that their chain of transmission is weak.

          That way, they expect the Shia to give up their hostile attitude towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab, even though the Shia are satisfied that the fact that the sinful attack took place has been proven to the level of Tawatur, i.e. that many hadith have been transmitted by a huge number of narrators from the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them), who are the descendants of Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her) and they know best what happened to their oppressed and martyred mother.

          The problem is that the Bakris boycott the hadith of the Infallible Imams (Peace and Blessings upon Them). They do not recognize them as authoritative. Through challenging the weakness of the chain of transmission, the Bakris imagine they can escape from the above hadith to prove that Omar hit Our Lady Fatima (Peace be upon Her) causing her to lose her baby but even if we were to give up on those explicit hadith, the hostile position taken by the Shia towards Omar Ibn al-Khattab remains the correct and lawful position.

          The Shia can still prove it with Bakri hadith “passed down through sound chains of transmission”, the authenticity of which cannot be challenged. We will provide an example here of one of those hadith. Ibn Abi shaiba al-Kufi reported that Omar Ibn al-Khattab said to Fatima al-Zahra (Peace be upon Her): “I swear by Allah, if that group [who refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr] gathered together that would not stop me from ordering them [meaning the attackers] to burn down their home!”

          This hadith is authentic, according to the criteria set by the scholars of the Bakri sect, i.e. all the narrators are honest and reliable. It is related on the authority of Muhammed bin Bashir, on the authority of Ubaidullah bin Omar, on the authority of Zaid bin aslam on the authority of his father Aslam (Omar’s Mawla) on the authority of Omar bin al-Khattab.

          The hadith contains explicit reference to Omar’s threatening and terrorising The Greatest Lady of All the Worlds (Peace be upon Her), so that no one, not even the Bakris, can deny that Omar threatened Fatima al-Zahra that he would burn the house down along with all those assembled in it who were refusing to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, such as Imam Ali (Peace be upon Him ), Miqdad, Salman and Zubayr.

          They just deny that the burning and attack actually took place. Well… Let us go no further than the threat made by Omar to terrorise the Daughter of the Greatest of Prophets (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and weigh it against the rules of law as contained in other Bakri hadith.

          firstly – This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a criminal and as a sinner. This is because Abu Dawood reports that the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to terrorise another Muslim.”

          Secondly – This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as a great tyrant. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) had said: “No Muslim should terrorise another Muslim. Terrorising a Muslim is grand tyranny”

          Thirdly – This act alone is enough for Omar to be considered cursed, cursed by the Angels. This is because Muslim reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: Whoever points a weapon at his brother – and terrifies him – is cursed by the Angels. ”
          Instead of pointing a weapon, Omar brandished a flaming torch.

          Fourthly – This act alone is enough for Omar to be treated as among those who perish on the Day of Resurrection those whom Allah will punish with terror and by throwing them in the Hellfire. This is because al-Tabaraani reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: “It is Allah’s right not to protect from the terrors of the Day of Resurrection whoever makes a Muslim afraid without just cause.”

          So, based on these hadith, Omar is a cursed, criminal tyrant who will perish in the Hellfire! This is because he carried out threats and intimidation which the Messenger of Allah forbade (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). How can those who call themselves “ahlu Sunnah” ignore this “Sunnah” i.e. hadith and cling stubbornly to their love and respect for the tyrant Omar Ibn al-Khattab?!

          We note that these hadith talk about terrorising an ordinary Muslim. Just imagine if that “Muslim” is the Best of all Ladies in Heaven and Daughter of the Seal of the Prophets?! There is no doubt that the sin would be many times greater. I wonder, how we would expect the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to react to Omar after seeing what he had done – threatening and terrorising his daughter whom he had described her as “Part of me” i.e. an inseparable part of His Holy Self?!

          Bkhari reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said: “Fatima is a part of me. Whoever angers her angers me” Based on this hadith, Fatima al-Zahra’s anger leads to the wrath of the Messenger of Allah, and the wrath of the Messenger of Allah clearly leads to the wrath of Allah. The result is that Omar angered Almighty Allah, because he angered Fatima al-Zahra and angered her father the Messenger (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          Whoever angers Allah is damned to Hell, because Allah (May He be praised and exalted) said: “the Wrath of Allah is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination.” Allah has warned us against turning for friendship to those with whom He is angry, and said: “O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves.”

          We do not have the time now to go through a huge volume of texts out of the many books which the Bakris have, such as Bukhari, Musnad ahmed ibn hanbal, Sunan al-Nisa’i, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and other approved texts, which are overflowing with accounts and passages, which show the truth of the position taken by Fatima al-Zahra (Allah’s Blessings upon Her) towards Abu Bakr and Omar, and what that dictates by way of Lord of the Worlds’ wrath upon them.

          Let us go no further than mentioning this account reported by ibn qutayba: “Abu Bakr and Omar walked in on Fatima and when they sat down she turned and faced the wall…:” She said: “Can you see yourselves acknowledging a hadith of the Messenger of Allah and acting upon it” They said: “Yes.”

          She said: “I implore you by Allah … Did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) say: “Fatima’s contentment is my contentment. Fatima’s anger is my anger; whoever loves Fatima, my daughter, loves me; whoever makes her happy makes me happy and whoever makes her angry makes me angry?”” They Said: “Yes … We heard that from the Messenger of Allah.”

          She said: “With Allah and the Angels as my witnesses, you have made me angry and have not made me happy. When I see the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) I will complain to him about the two of you and will supplicate against you both in every prayer I pray.” The meaning of this last hadith which says that Fatima al-Zahra (Peace and Blessings upon Her) is that she will supplicate against Abu Bakr and Omar in every prayer, or curse them.

          This is exactly what Shiites do because they believe it to be a lawful and moral stance which expresses their rejection of whoever did monstrous injustice to her who has no parallel, the Daughter of the Greatest of all Prophets (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          Omar’s crimes were not just limited to this one. There are dozens of other brutal crimes recorded by history as having been committed by this tyrant, including killing people without lawful cause, such as what he did to Sabigh bin Asal and such as the genocide of (Arab al-Saus) city in the Levant, in addition to his corruption of the Islamic religion and violation of many of its religious laws.

          For these reasons, Shiites hate and curse Omar Ibn al-Khattab. In fact, anyone who does not hate this vicious terrorist is not really a Muslim, because he rejects the teachings of Muhammad, the Messenger of Islam (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

          • Prophet Muhammad was murdered!

            Yasser Al-Habib

            Section : Articles || Date : 2010 / 06 / 17 || Reading : 15289

            This article is the transcription of a lecture delivered by His Eminence Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib, on “Who Killed Allah’s Messenger?”

            Even today the Muslims know very little of their Prophet’s history (Peace be upon him and his pure family). Therefore, they believe he died a natural death, but in fact, he had been assassinated. This fact should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the fact that the Holy Quran had predicted it clearly in Chapter Aal Imran as Allah the Almighty said:”And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful.” (144:3).

            Let’s pay particular attention to this section: “if then he died or is killed”. It confirms that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) would not die a natural death. Rather, it confirms that he would be killed. The conjunctive (or) in this verse means “Rather”. In Arabic, sometimes (or) indicates uncertainty and probability. In other contexts, it imparts correction. Since it is next to impossible that anyone should suspect Allah’s word, since He has insight into the unknown, Allah must have intended to impart the other meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is: “If he died, rather, he is killed, you turn upon your heels.” By analogy, Allah said in Chapter Al Saffat, speaking of Prophet Yunis (Peace be upon him); “And We sent him to a hundred thousand, or they exceeded.” (37:147) That is, “And We sent him to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded.”

            In Hadiths, even those reported by the Bakri sect, it is confirmed that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was martyred. For example, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Al-Tabarani and Al-Sanaani among other famous scholars of the Bakri sect, reported Abdullah Ibn Massoud, a companion to Allah’s Prophet, saying: “I am willing to take an oath nine times that the Prophet was murdered, but I am not willing to take an oath even once that he was not. This is because Allah made him a Prophet and a martyr as well.”(Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol I, Page 408; Mojam Al-Tabrani, Vol X, Page 109; Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol V, Page 268).

            How then was the Prophet murdered, and who were the perpetrators of such a heinous crime? In fact, it is from this point that the paths of Shiites and the Bakri sect diverge. While Bakri sect claim that the Prophet was poisoned by the Jews, Shiites stress that he was poisoned by his two wives Ayesha and Hafsa, as commanded by their fathers Abu Bakr and Omar. Let us take a look at the evidences of each party to decide which one is true.

            Bakri sect says that when the Prophet’s army won the Kheibar battle defeating the army of the Jews, a Jewish woman, Zeinab Bint Al-Harith invited him and his companions to a banquet. That woman wanted to take revenge upon the Prophet because her brother Murhab Bin Al-Harith, who was commander of the Jewish Army, had been killed by Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) and this had led to the victory of the Muslim Army. The Jewish leaders used the woman’s desire to take revenge and goaded her into assassinating the Prophet. She poisoned the meat she cooked for the Prophet and his fellows. The Prophet died after having the poisoned meat.

            This is the belief of Bakri sect, but it can easily be refuted by the following scientific evidence:

            Firstly, the Khaibar Battle took place in the seventh year of Hegira. While the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) died in the eleventh year. This means that there is a time gap of four years between the two incidents. It is very unlikely that a person dies because of a poison he had taken so many years ago. It is also because generally the effect of poison is immediate and even if it takes time it cannot exceed a few months in which the health condition deteriorates gradually. In the case of the Prophet, we notice that he had been in the peak of his health and throughout the said four years he had no unusual health complaints. He would participate in the battles to defend Muslims as usual. Thus, it defies any logic that his health deteriorated suddenly and he died of a poison he had had taken more than four years ago despite the fact that he enjoyed good health throughout that intervening period.

            Secondly, if we accept that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) consumed that poisoned food, it will be a proof of his not being a true Prophet– May Allah forbid! This is because it was the Jews and the woman who wanted to put the Prophet under trial by means of their scheme. Is he truly a Prophet who gets revelation from Allah? If he was a Prophet, he would know that this food was poisoned and would not consume it. If not, he would consume it. Authentic Hadiths provide that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) knew it and did not consume the food. He admonished his retinue not to consume it either. This was one of his miracles due to which the Jewish woman was so impressed that she converted to Islam, for that she earned the Prophet’s forgiveness and exemption from punishment.

            Al-Bukhari and Al-Darami and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect relate that “When Muslims won the battle of Kheibar, the Jews invited the Prophet to a banquet in which they had served poisoned mutton. The Prophet ordered his followers to call up all the Jews to speak to them. When they were present, he asked them: “If I ask you something, will you answer me honestly?” “Yes”, they answered. “Have you put poison in this mutton?” he asked. “Yes”, they answered. “Why?” he wondered. “We wanted to know whether you are a true prophet or not” they answered. “If you are a true prophet, this would not hurt you. But, if you are not, we would get rid of you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol IV, Page 66; Sunan Al-Darmi, Vol I, Page 33).

            Al-Khateb relates: “A Jewish woman cooked poisoned mutton and offered it to the Prophet and his retinue. The Prophet said to his retinue: “Do not consume this food. It is poisoned. He then asked the woman: “Why have you done this?”, to which question she answered, “So that I can tell whether you are a true or false prophet? If you are true, Allah will reveal you that this food is poisoned so you won’t consume it. But, if you were false, you would eat it and die. Thereby, I would relieve people of you.” (Refer: History of Baghdad, Vol VII, Page 384).

            Contrary to these Hadiths, there are other Hadiths that tell that the Prophet actually consumed some of that food. In the process, he admonished his followers to stop eating, and that one of them did really die. The Prophet ordered to have the woman killed. Obviously, these Hadiths are not authentic, and cannot be trusted. As we have already pointed out, this is because they mean that the Prophet was false, having discovered that the food was poisoned so late that one of his followers had already become a victim.

            It should be noted that Al-Baihiqi and Abu Dawood and other famous scholars of the Bakri Sect confirmed that the Prophet neither killed, nor punished Zeinab Bint Al-Harith. (Refer: Sunann Al-Baihiqi Vol VIII, Page 46; Sunan Abu Dawood , Vol II, Page 369).

            Al-Zohri, a great ancient scholar, confirmed that the Jewish woman was not killed although this was commonly believed by some people. Rather, she converted to Islam, and was forgiven by the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family). (Refer: Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol XI, Page 29, Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol III, Page 389).

            Third: a most significant Hadith as maintained by the Bakri sect to ascribe Prophet’s sudden death to the poisoning attempt by the Jews four years ago, is one that was reported by Bukhari from Ayesha. She relates: “Allah’s Prophet told me on his death bed, ‘Ayesha, since I consumed that poisoned food after the Kheibar Battle, I have been in pain. Now it is the time for my heart to stop beating because of that poison.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol V, Page 137).

            We cannot trust that Hadith for many reasons: one of which is the fact that Ayesha is an infamous liar. She would lie even to the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family). Al-Bukhari reported Ayesha saying: “Allah’s Prophet was eating honey at Zeinab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.)

            Ayesha knew that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had taken honey from his other wife, Zeinab Bint Jahsh. Being jealous of her, she agreed with her friend, Hafsa, to hurt the Prophet by claiming that he smelled foul when he consumed that honey. Thereby, he would stop eating it, and consequently stop visiting his wife, Zeinab.

            That was a lie. A woman, who would not abstain from lying to the noblest prophet, would not abstain from lying to ordinary people, either. Therefore, the Hadiths reported by her cannot be trusted, especially when she, herself, was accused of being involved in the murder of the Prophet. Naturally, she would try to divert suspicion by pointing fingers at others.

            Let us not forget that the Holy Quran stated that Ayesha and Hafsa were sinful wrongdoers whose hearts deviated from the true path. Allah warned them that by merely marrying the Prophet, they would not be exempted from going to hell. This was set forth in the Chapter Al Tahreem: “If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah is his Guardian, and Jibreel and the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the helpers. (…) Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.” (66:10 &4)

            Two women who lie and receive harsh words from Allah in a full chapter would not abstain from lying. Undoubtedly, they were poised to commit any misdeed, even if it was the assassination of the Prophet himself.

            Let us not forget that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had described Ayesha as “The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan”. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect related: “The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha’s room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan’s horn emerges”! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23).

            A woman condemned by Allah as wrongdoer, and threatened to be tortured in hell if she does not repent, and one described by the Prophet as the spearhead of disbelief and Satan’s horn; one who confesses to having lied to the Prophet is a woman whose Hadiths cannot be trusted, especially if they seem to be in her favour.

            One of the reasons why we should not believe in Ayesha’s Hadith about poisoning the Prophet is that she contradicts herself in another Hadith. She claimed that the Prophet did not die because of the Jewish woman’s poison. Rather, the cause of his death was because of another disease! According to Abu Yoalla, Ayesha also said that: “Allah’s Prophet, (Peace be upon him), died of an ailment Dhatul Janb”! (Refer: Masnad Abu Yoalla, Vol. VIII, Page 258. Dhadul Janb is an internal tumour that forms on man’s side. It leads to death when it explodes.)

            Ayesha claimed that, although the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had ruled out the possibility of the Prophet developing such a tumour due to its being a demonic one that a Prophet would not develop. The Prophet said of that tumour: “It is Satanic, and I cannot develop it because Allah has delivered me from any of Satan’s powers”. (Refer: The Beginning and the End, Ibn Katheir, Vol. V, Page 245).

            It seems that Ayesha was confused while putting her point before the general public with regard to the issue of Prophet’s killing. When she claimed he died because of that Jewish woman’s poison consumed four years ago, people did not find that very plausible. Therefore, she came up with another cause of death. Therefore, she made up another reason, namely that of the lateral tumor. Thereby, she contradicted herself. This confusion itself points fingers at her and even gives rise to suspicions about her.

            Now that we are sure of the implausibility of the Bakri version of the Prophet’s murder (Peace be upon him and his pure family) due to the shortcomings, contradictions and poor evidence. Now, we can move on to the Shiite version.

            Generally, Shiite Hadiths are more credible. They are a set of the statements by the Imams from the Prophet’s family (Peace be upon them all). Undoubtedly, those Imams were far better informed of their grandfather’s, the Prophet’s, history and of his religion. None of them may lie, because the Quran confirmed their innocence against the sins. The Prophet had ordered that their words and deeds be followed. All Muslims agree to the fact that those Imams were very truthful, noble, faithful and chaste.

            The Imams confirmed that their grandfather, the Prophet, had been poisoned in his last days by Ayesha and Hafsa, at the order of their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar. Abu Bakr and Omar were conspiring to usurp the throne after the demise of the Prophet. However, the Prophet would also stress that his rightful successor would be his cousin, and the husband of his daughter, Imam Ali (Peace be upon him). He even coerced them once to pledge allegiance to him on the Ghadir Day.

            At the same time, the Prophet brought to light the fact that some of his companions and wives would turn against his successor. He warned his followers against this, stressing that it would be their test from Allah. Those who would show their allegiance to the rightful successor would pass the test and go to heaven. While those who would let him down and support the rebels, would go to the eternal hell since they would be apostates. That is, deserters who converted back to disbelief, even if they called themselves Muslims.

            Sometimes, the Prophet would confront Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa with the fact that they hated his heir, predicting in their presence that their conspiracy would succeed to oust him from power. The Prophet did that as ordered by Allah to put those four into a further test.

            One of the famous ancient Shia interpreters of Quran relates a Hadith as reported by the Imams that further elaborates on the Prophet’s assassination. That interpreter is Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Qommi, a great scholar who lived in the days of Imam Al-Hassan Al-Askry (Peace be upon him). He was known among Shias for his veracity and honesty in the way he related Hadith from Imams.

            The Hadith reported by Ali Ibn Ibrahim says: “The Prophet said to Hafsa: I will tell you a secret. If you divulge it, Allah, His Angels and people will curse you. So, what is it? wondered Hafsa. The Prophet said: Abu Bakr will be able to seize the Caliphate and power after me, and will be succeeded by your father, Omar. Hafsa wondered: Who informed you of this? Allah, the Omnipresent, the Omniscient informed me. On the same day, Hafsa divulged the secret to her friend, Ayesha. In turn, Ayesha divulged the secret to her father, Abu Bakr. So, Abu Bakr came to Omar and said: My daughter Ayesha told me a secret reported by Hafsa, but I cannot always trust what Ayesha says. So, you ask your daughter Hafsa, make sure and tell me. Omar went over to Hafsa, and asked her. In the beginning, she was startled and denied it. But, Omar said to her: If you have indeed heard this secret, then, tell us so we can immediately seize power and get rid of Muhammad”. So, Hafsa said, yes, he told me that. At this point, those four got together and conspired to poison the Prophet” (Refer: Tafseer al-Qommi, Vol II, Page 367, Bihar-ul-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 239).

            There is another great ancient scholar of the Quran, Muhammad Ibn Massoud al-Ayashi who also belonged to the Bakri sect, but was later divinely guided to the true faith and converted to Shia faith and believed in the Imams. That scholar lived till the end of Third Century Hegira. Scholars have ever since relied on his book that he wrote to interpret the Holy Quran (Tafseer).

            When this great scholar reaches the point where he interpreted the verse I have referred to earlier, he relates a Hadith reported by al-Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he confirms that Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa had committed the crime. Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) was sitting with a group of his followers, and asked them: “Do you know whether the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Allah the Almighty says: “if then he died or is killed”. The truth is that the Prophet was poisoned in his last days before he died. Ayesha and Hafsa administered poison in his food. Upon hearing this, the Imam Sadiq’s followers said that they and their fathers were among the worst villains ever created by Allah.” (Refer: Tafseer al-Ayashi, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, by Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 516)

            Al-Ayshi relates another Hadith attributed to Imam Al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he says: “al-Hussein Ibn Munther asked Imam Al-Sadiq about Allah’s words “if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels”. Does it mean that the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Imam Al-Sadiq said: In this verse, Allah refers to the Prophet’s companions who committed the misdeed”. (Refer: Tafseer Al Ayash, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, By Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XX, Page 91)

            These Hadiths confirm beyond doubt that the Supreme Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was killed by poison administered in his last days and not which was allegedly given four years prior to his death. They also confirm that the crime was an act of treachery by his two wives and their fathers. Jews had nothing to do with this.

            If we take a closer look at the Quranic verse that speaks of the Prophet’s death, we notice its consistency with these Hadiths. The verse says: “And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah and Allah will reward the grateful.” (3:144).

            In that verse, Allah addresses the Prophet’s companions and not the Jews. The verse associates the (Prophet’s death) and the (turning back), which means apostasy. We hereby understand that the assassination of the Prophet was to be followed by turning back and apostasy. This actually happened, and turned in favour of the rebels who seized power, i.e. Abu Bakr and Omar. Thus, it was addressed to the accused in the first place and not to the Jews who were no longer a threat in Medina .

            It is true that the verse was quoted in relation to the Uhud battle, to reprimand the Prophet’s companions who had let him down, by fleeing and leaving him alone with Imam Ali amidst the non-Muslim warriors. But, the verse also speaks of the future. It says that a group of people would turn back and become apostates. They would bring no harm to Allah, because they would actually be harming themselves as they would go to hell. On the other hand, another group of people would keep their faith and would be well rewarded by Allah and enter the Heaven. This is because they were grateful to Allah for His blessings by keeping their allegiance to His Prophet and his rightful successor.

            It is now evident that the crime was described by these Hadiths and this is in consistence with the Quran. Therefore, it is obvious that the Shiite version of the Prophet’s assassination is trustworthy.

            But is there any evidence in the resources of Bakri sect, that supports the Shiite version and shows involvement of the Prophet’s two wives in the crime?

            In fact, most of the Hadiths that reach us through the pious Imams from among the Prophet’s descendants (peace be upon all of them) are supported by Hadiths in Bakri resources, even if implicitly. It is here that the power of Shiism, as it does not rely only on Shiite resources. Rather, it brings forth supporting evidence from the sources of other sects for the facts put forth by the Imams.

            There is a Hadith related by the famous scholars of Bakri sect like Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Kathier. In that Hadith, Ayesha confesses that when the Prophet was sleep during his illness she put a strange substance into his mouth with the help of the other wives. Ayesha did it intentionally despite Prophet’s prohibition. When the Prophet woke up, he saw the residuals of the substance that they had put into his mouth. He angrily asked what it was and who had disobeyed his orders. Ayesha and her collaborators justified their action saying that it was just a medication. Following that, they accused the Prophet’s uncle, Al-Abbas Ibn Abdul Muttalib. However, the Prophet acquitted his uncle and ordered that those who were with him in the room should be punished by having the same substance put into their mouths.

            Ayesha relates: “When Allah’s Prophet contracted the terminal disease, he told us: Don’t put the medicine in my mouth. But we disobeyed him on the ground that every patient dislikes medication! So, we put the substance in his mouth. When he
            regained his senses, he wondered: Who did that? Have I not admonished you not to do that? So, we said: It is your uncle Al-Abbas who thought that you might have contracted a lateral tumour! The Prophet said: This disease is caused by the Devil. I cannot contract it. The Prophet ordered that everyone in the house must put the same substance into their mouths, except Al-Abbas, as the Prophet said: He was not with you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VIII, Page 42; Sahih Muslim, Vol VII, Page 42; Masnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol VI, Page 53; Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol. IV, Page 446).

            It seems that people were confused about what had happened to the Prophet. This was the matter that forced Ayesha to relate this Hadith in an attempt to falsify and conceal the truth. She wanted to hide the truth of the substance that she put into the mouth of the Prophet, claiming that it was a medication. She explained that what she made was “lad”, which means administering medication to a side of the mouth.

            What exactly was that strange substance? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators intend to put it into the Prophet’s mouth during his sleep? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators falsely accuse Al-Abbas of the crime? Why did the Prophet order to have them punished by putting the substance into their mouth? Basically… how could Ayesha and her collaborators disobey the word of the Prophet?

            These controversies prove that a serious crime was perpetrated against the Prophet. If there had been no crime, the Prophet would not have ordered to punish the perpetrators. If that substance had been indeed a medicine, the Prophet would not have forbidden it to be put into his mouth. This would not have stirred his anger.
            Therefore, that substance must have been the poison that the Prophet’s children spoke of later. Those who helped Ayesha prepare it must have been Hafsa, Abu Bakr and Omar whose names were not revealed by Ayesha in her Hadith on that strange substance. Their interest was associated with the Prophet’s homicide, as they were going to seize power and oust his family from there.

            There remains a question unanswered: Can the two wives of the Prophet dare to kill him? Is it possible that Abu Bakr and Omar, who were among the Prophet’s companions, dared to commit such a crime?

            The answer is: It is not unlikely at all, because the Quran mentioned that the two wives of the prophets, Noah and Lut betrayed them and would go to hell. These verses in the Chapter Al Tahreem were revealed in the first place to address Ayesha and Hafsa by citing this example. In the same chapter, Allah testified the infidelity and wrongdoing of Ayesha and Hafsa. He threatened them strongly should they fail to repent, as I explained earlier.

            Quran predicted that the Prophet’s companions would turn against him as I have said earlier. The Prophet had also predicted in his several Hadiths that most of his companions would go to hell. History reveals that most betrayals and acts of treacheries that occurred after the Prophets were committed by their wives and companions.

            Al-Bukhari related that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) said: “On doomsday, when I will be at the water pond delivering water to those who will be thirsty among my followers, a group of my followers will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell! And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Following that, another group of my companions will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell. And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Thus, only small number of my companions will escape like deserted camels in the desert.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VII, Page 206).

            No one can claim that Abu Bakr cannot be among those people who will be driven to Hell, since the Prophet himself did not exempt him from that.
            Imam of the Malki school of thought, Malik Ibn Anas, relates that the Prophet prophesied to the Muslim martyrs of Uhud that they would go to Heaven. So, Abu Bakr wondered: “Aren’t we their brothers who have submitted to Islam just as they did, and fought in jihad just as they did; so, why don’t you give us the good news that we will go to heaven? The Prophet said: “It is absolutely true that you are their brothers, but I do not know what you will do after my death”. (Refer: Al Muatta of Malik Ibn Anas, Vol II, Page 642).

            Therefore, we should not exempt Abu Bakr and Omar from the crime of having taken the life of the Prophet, especially when they had tried that once before when the Prophet was on his way back from the city of Tabuk. He had to go past a rough road up a mountain. That road is called Al-Aqaba by Arabs. Those who have to go down it, on a camel for example; must choose a camel with a very quiet disposition. Should it panic, it will trip and its rider will fall and die. Abu Bakr and Omar conspired with a group of the Prophet’s hypocrite companions. They would lie in wait for the Prophet at the time of his crossing this Aqaba to frighten his camel so that she falls and he dies. This fact was reported also by the Bakri resources in clear terms, but the Bakri people try to hide and deny this fact.

            Ibn Hazm Al-Alndulsi, a famous scholar of Bakri Sect, lashed at Al-Waleed Ibn Jamia, dismissing him as a liar. But why? Ibn Hazm says: “Because he related Hadiths that state that Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha and Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to kill the Prophet and made sure that he met with the accident in Tabuk”. (Refer: Al Mohalla of Ibn Hazm, Vol. IX, Page 224).

            Al-Walid Ibn Jamia was not a Shiite. He belonged to the Bakri sect. Contrary to what Ibn Hazm said about him, he is so widely known for veracity and credibility that Ibn Habban would say “May Allah be pleased with him”, whenever his name was mentioned. The famous scholar of Bakri Sect in this field, “Al-Thahabi” also testified the truthfulness and credibility of this man. If he had not been honest, he would not have his Hadiths related by the famous compilers of Hadith like Muslim, Al-Baihiqi, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Shabba.

            So, Al-Walid Ibn Jamia is not a liar. This proves that Abu Bakr, Omar and their group indeed tried to murder the Prophet as he was passing through Al-Aqaba on his way back from Tabuk. This is a famous incident in which Allah saved the life of His Prophet by a miracle. The Prophet forgave the perpetrators and refrained from punishing them.

            Thereby, we can be sure that Abu Bakr and Omar indeed wanted to kill the Prophet. Though, their plan in Aqaba failed, their next plan succeeded by collusion with their daughters Ayesha and Hafsa who administered poison to the Prophet during his sleep. Just as the Prophet forgave those who tried to kill him in Al-Aqaba, Imam Ali did the same after the martyrdom of the Prophet, fulfilling the will of the Prophet so that Allah’s test continues for them and for the humanity as a whole.

            In fact, the Prophet was just a normal patient. During his sleep, Ayesha and Hafsa administered this poison in the Prophet’s mouth, in order to hasten the seizure of power by their fathers, while ousting the rightful successor, Ali Ibn Abi Talib. It was in this way the greatest and the noblest Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) fell prey to the treachery of his two wives and companions. This is a fact that most Muslims are not aware of.

          • YO HO HO MO,






            ( Section : Misdeed )

            Question :

            In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon the Master of those who have been sent by Allah, Abil-Qasim Mohammad and his good and pure Family, and may the infinite curse be upon their enemies till the Day of Judgment.

            May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.

            Noble Sheikh, Yasser al-Habib.

            May Allah make you among the ones who support the true religion, and among those who take revenge for the Family of Mohammad along with the Imam of Truth (may Allah hasten his noble reappearance).

            Noble Sheikh.

            I have read in the book “Memoirs of Mr. Hempher” that Mohammad, son of Abdul-Wahhab (may curse be upon him) said that Omar used to mix alcohol with water and then drink it, and that he used to say that such a mixed drink is neither impure nor forbidden! How true is this? It’s well-known that Omar was addicted to drinking alcohol even after his acceptance of Islam. Did he continue this habit even after he possessed the leadership over the Muslims? And is this mentioned in their (Bakri) books of history??

            Noble Sheikh, I know that you will reply to me with the best of replies, and that you’ll back up your arguments using excerpts from their (Bakri) books, and that you’ll give me strong arguments. Hence I thank you very much in advance, and I can personally not help you with anything but to pray for your success and ask Allah to gather you with those whom you love in His gardens.

            I hope the brothers who work on the site can help me with this, because I have many Albanian friends at work who wish to read more about the sect of Ahlul-Bayt in their own language…so is there any Albanian website that speaks about Shiism? I have searched a lot for such a website, but with no luck. Please guide me, may Allah reward you with the best.

            Your brother in the love of the Commander of the Faithful, Abu-Turab.

            Faez al-Jobory

            Answer :

            In His Name, Sanctified be His Names. May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.

            There is no doubt that Omar, son of al-Khattab (may the curse of Allah be upon him) was addicted to drinking alcohol during both the eras of Jahiliya (days of ignorance – pre-Islamic period) and Islam. As for his addiction on alcohol during the Jahiliya, he admitted by himself that he was one of those who used to drink alcohol the most! The following has been narrated in their (Bakri) sources: «I was the one among the people who used to drink it the most (i.e. alcohol) during the Jahiliya.» [1]

            As for his addiction on alcohol during Islam, there was none equal to him when it comes to drinking alcohol, despite the sequential verses that were revealed in declaring alcohol to be forbidden. That is because he used to make excuses saying that these verses were not clear and obvious enough when it comes to forbidding alcohol. He used to say that he rather wished to see a clear verse on this matter, or otherwise he would never stop drinking! The Bakris narrate the following: «When the forbiddance of alcohol was revealed, Omar, son of al-Khattab, said: “O Allah, give us an clear clarification on alcohol!” Then this verse of Surat al-Baqarah was revealed: “They ask you about alcohol and gambling. Say: ‘In them is a evil-doing…'” [2] Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) was then asked to abandon it (i.e. alcohol), so he said: “O Allah, give us an clear clarification on alcohol!” Then this verse of Surat al-Nisaa’ was revealed: “O you who believe, do not come near prayers while you are intoxicated…” [3] When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) used to call for prayers, he called that no intoxicated person should come near prayers. Omar was asked to abandon it, and it was read before him, and he said: “O Allah, give us an clear clarification on alcohol!” Thereupon, the verse in Al-Ma’ida [4] was revealed, and Omar was asked to abandon it, and it was read before him, and when the reciter reached the part: “WIll you then abstain?” [5] Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I abstain! I abstain!”» [6]

            Moreover, when the last verse that forbids alcohol was finally revealed, clearly stating the forbiddance of alcohol to such a degree that people such as Omar have no room to doubt whether or not it’s forbidden; Omar was hit by sorrow and sadness and he expressed his grief because Allah forbade it and lowered its value so much that He compared it with gambling! The following is narrated of Sa’eed, son of Jubayr: «When the verse “They ask you about alcohol and gambling…” [7] some people disliked it because of His saying: “…In them is a evil-doing…” and some people drank it because of His saying: “…and means of profit for people…” When the following verse was revealed: “O you who believe, do not come near prayers while you are intoxicated…” [8] they used to leave it when they would perform prayers and would drink it when they wouldn’t perform prayers. When the following verse was revealed: “Indeed, alcohol and gambling…” [9] Omar said: “May that day in which it was compared to alcohol be lost!”» [10]

            However, despite that he openly announced his repentance and abstention from alcohol, saying: «We abstain! We abstain!» he still continued doing so by making medical excuses and so on! As an example, he used to claim that it’s necessary to drink wine while eating camel meat in order to prevent any difficulties in digesting it! They have narrated the following saying of him: «I drink a wine that cuts through the flesh of the camel within my stomach so that it will not hurt us!» [11]

            It wasn’t sufficient to keep this habit for himself, but he also used to invite people to do so, claiming that drinking alcohol strengthens the backbone and helps digestion! He used to say: «Drink this wine in these vessels, for indeed, it strengthens the backbone and digests whatever is in the stomach, and it will not subdue you as long as you find water!» [12]

            He (may Allah curse him) was so addicted to alcohol that he expressed his immense passion for alcohol even at his death bed! Those who were around him said: «Which drink is the most beloved to you?» Upon which he said: «Wine!» [13]

            As for his allowance of drinking alcohol with the condition of mixing it with water in order to decrease its concentration, here is its source: «Omar, son of al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), said: “If you fear the intensity of a certain wine, then mix it with water.”» [14]

            Hence we find that Bakri jurists have permitted drinking wine with such a mixture. [15]

            Despite this ridiculousness of mixing wine with water to justify its permissibility, the Bakris still narrate that Omar (may Allah curse him) used to drink intense wine without mixing it with water!

            «It has been narrated of our Master, Omar (may Allah be pleased with him), that he used to drink intense wine and say: “We will slaughter the camels and their necks belong the family of Omar, and nothing can cut them except intense wine!”» [16]

            However, such a thing is to no surprise at all, because he who is so despicable and villainous to such a degree that he’s willing to transgress on the Mistress of the women of all worlds, the daughter of the Chosen Messenger, the pure daughter, Fatima al-Batoul al-Zahra (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon her, and may my soul be sacrificed for her) has to be a person where all kinds of filth, and impurity, and bacchanalism, and uncleanness join together. So may the curse of Allah be upon him, and upon his party, and upon everyone who is aware of his reality and still feels bad about cursing him and dissociating oneself from him.

            We ask Allah to give you, and us, and all believing men and women, all that is good. Peace. The 21th of the month of Shawwal, year 1426.

            [1] Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, by Ibn Katheer, volume 3, page 101

            [2] The Qur’an 2:220

            [3] The Qur’an 4:44

            [4] The Qur’an 5:91

            [5] The Qur’an 5:92

            [6] Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, volume 1, page 53

            [7] The Qur’an 2:220

            [8] The Qur’an 4:44

            [9] The Qur’an 5:91

            [10] Al-Durr al-Manthour, by Al-Suyuti, volume 2, page 317

            [11] Sunan al-Bayhaqi, volume 8, page 299

            [12] Kanz-ul-Ummal, by Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, volume 5, page 522

            [13] Sunan al-Bayhaqi, volume 3, page 113

            [14] Sunan al-Bayhaqi, volume 8, page 326

            [15] As an example, refer to the views of Al-Shafi’i in his book, Al-Umm, volume 6, page 156

            [16] Bada’i’-ul-Sana’i’, by Alaa’ul-Deen al-Kasani al-Hanafi, volume 5, page 116

            Reading : 548

    • Modest muslim.’ Are you kidding ,calling yourself ”modest muslim ” You muslims are nothing but barbarians, as was your mo-ham-mad [ may pi$s be upon him] who at the age of 52 married 6 years old girl Aisha, and also married his own daughter-in-law Zainab . Now see and Non muslims are waking up to see what barbarian you people are and what you did to non muslims when conquering their lands. mo-ham-mad was a paedophile ,rapist ,caravan Raider , who killed innocent people . You muslims still kill each other and non Muslims too from mo’s days

      • Surj, you’re a kid. You know nothing about Islam. 😀 Many Muslims and non-Muslims (like you) fool the world about Islam. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his descendants) was the greatest man ever. You are an idiot. If Muslims are terrorists then what does Islam has to do with them? Not all Muslims are terrorists; majority of Muslims is not involved in terrorism. Doesn’t that prove that Islam is a peaceful religion, according to your logic?

        Ali Sina (may curse be upon him) is a stupid narrow-minded swine. He studied Islam, failed to understand its simple message and abandoned it. You are following his path only. And never ever dare using insulting words here. That’s why the terrorists kill you morons. Stop being abusive and we will be able to handle Muslim terrorists.

        • YO HO HO MO,






          Women Muhammad proposed to but did not marry:
          1. Al-Kilabiyya: She was called Fatima Bint al-Dhahhak or Amra Bint Yazid al-Kilabiyya.(1) Narrators gave contradictory stories about the reason why Muhammad left her. In a tradition by `A´isha we read the following, “When she was brought in to him after marriage, he approached her, and she said, ‘I take refuge with God from you.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘You have taken refuge with the Great One; go back to your family.’ “(2) Some claim that Muhammad left her due to vitiligo alba (a mild leprosy),(3) and some said that she lost her mind after she refused him.(4)
          2. Asma´ Bint al-Nu`man al-Kindiyya: Ibn Abbas narrated: “The Messenger of God married Asma´ Bint al-Nu`man, and she was the most beautiful and elegant woman of her time. When the Messenger of God began to marry foreign women, `A´isha said, ‘His attention is now so drawn to the foreign ones that they nearly turned his face away from us.’ When the wives of the Prophet saw Asma´, they envied her and said to her, ‘If you want to have favour with him, take refuge with God from him as soon as he enters upon you.’ So when he entered, took away the veil, and stretched out his hand to her, she said, ‘I take refuge with God from you.’ He replied, ‘Go back to your family.’ “(5) Abu Usaid narrated: “The Messenger of God married a woman from Baljun, and ordered me to bring her. I brought her and stationed her in al-Shawt behind a blade of a henna flower in a square house. I came to the Prophet and said to him, ‘I have brought your wife to you.’ He went out on foot and I walked with him. When he reached her, he fell down on her to kiss her (the Messenger of God used to lean to the back and then kiss), so she said to him, ‘I take refuge with God from you.'(6) Muhammad was told that she was deceived and that she was quite young, but he never took her back.”(7)
          3. Qutaila Bint Qais: Ibn Abbas narrated: “When Asma´ Bint al-Nu`man took refuge with God from the Prophet, he went out and his face showed an immense anger. Al-Ash`that said to him, ‘Let this not bother you, Messenger of God. Shall I give in marriage one that is more beautiful and honourable?’ He asked, ‘Who?’ He replied, ‘My sister Qutaila.’ He said, ‘I marry her.’ So al-Ash`that left for Hadramawt and carried her. And when he had left Yemen, he learned that the Prophet died, so he took her back to his country and turned away amongst those who turned away.”(8)
          4. Malika Bint Ka`b al-Laithi: The Prophet married Malika Bint Ka`b who was known for her resplendent, magnificent beauty. `A´isha entered to her and said, “Are you not ashamed of marrying the killer of your father?” So she took refuge with God from him, and the Prophet divorced her among her folk, who said to him, “O Messenger of God, she is still young and she was deceived, so please take her back.” But he refused.(9)
          5. Bint Jundub: The Messenger of God married Bint Jundub. Muhammad Ibn ‘Amr said, “Our friends deny that and hold that the Messenger of God never married a woman from the tribe of Kinana.”(10)
          6. Sana Bint al-Salt: Muhammad married her but she died before she reached him. `Abdullah Ibn `Ubaid narrated: “A man from Banu Sulaim came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God, I have a daughter who possesses beauty and intelligence that none else possesses but you.’ So the Prophet was about to marry her, but the man said, ‘And another, O Messenger of God, who has never been afflicted with a disease while she was with me.’ The Prophet said to him, ‘We have no need of your daughter. Have you come to take away her sins? There is nothing good in a possession that cannot be humiliated, and a body that cannot be afflicted.’ “(11)
          Women Muhammad married but with whom he did not consummate the marriage, or women who had given themselves to Muhammad:
          1. 1. Laila Bint al-Khatim: Ibn Abbas narrated: “Laila Bint al-Khatim came to the Prophet while he had his back facing the sun, and tapped on his shoulder. He said, ‘Who is this? May the lions eat him.’ (He used to say this many times.) She replied, ‘I am the daughter of the one who feeds the birds and competes with the wind. I am Laila Bint al-Khatim and have come to you offering myself. Marry me.’ He said, ‘Your request is done.’ So she returned to her people and told them that the Messenger of God married her. They said, ‘What a bad thing you have done! You are a jealous woman and the Prophet is a polygamist. You may feel jealous over him and he would then call upon God against you. So ask him to release you.’ Thereupon she went back to him and said, ‘O Messenger of God, release me.’ He said, ‘I release you.’ Later Mas`ud Ibn Aws married her.”(12) `Asim Ibn `Umar Ibn Qatada narrated: “Laila Bint al-Khatim bestowed herself upon the Messenger of God, and he accepted her. She used to ride her mule in an obscene manner, as she was also ill-mannered. She said, ‘No by God! I shall not let Muhammad marry an Ansarite woman in this district. By God! I shall go to him and bestow myself upon him.’ She went to the Prophet while he was standing with one of his friends, and he was not aware of her till she laid her hand on him. He said, ‘Who is this? May the lion eat him!’ She replied, ‘I am Laila, the daughter of the master of his people; I have bestowed myself upon you.’ He said, ‘I have accepted you; go back until my command reaches you.’ She went back to her people, who said to her, ‘You are a woman who cannot bear adversaries [wives], and God has made it lawful for his Messenger to marry whomever he wills.’ She returned to him and said, ‘God has made women lawful for you and I am a woman of a lashing tongue and I bear no adversaries.’ She asked him to release her, and he did.”(13)
          2. Umm Hani´ Bint Abi Talib: Ibn Abbas narrated: “The Prophet asked Abu Talib for the hand of his daughter, Umm Hani´, in marriage in the Jahiliya. But Hubaira proposed to her and married her. The Prophet said, ‘My uncle, you married Hubaira off and left me out!’ He replied, ‘My nephew, we have become related to you by marriage, and the dignified man rewards [or is the reward of] the dignified man.’ Afterwards, she surrendered [adopted Islam] and Islam separated her from Hubaira. Then the Messenger of God proposed to her personally. She said, ‘By God! If I loved you in the Jahiliya, so how much more in Islam! But I am a woman with children and I hate that they would hurt you.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘The best women who ride on horseback are the women of Quraish; they are tender to their little children, and take good care of their husband’s possessions.’ “(14) Abu Salih, the guardian of Umm Hani´, narrated: “The Messenger of God proposed to Umm Hani´, Abu Talib’s daughter, who said, ‘O Messenger of God, I am the mother of orphans, and my children are young.’ So when her children attained puberty, she offered herself to him, but he said, ‘No, not now,’ because God revealed to him: ‘O Prophet, We have permitted you [to deal with] your wives to whom you have given their allotments, and anyone your right hand controls whom God has given you [as captives] and your paternal uncles’ and aunts’ daughters, and your maternal uncles’ and aunts’ daughters who have migrated along with you’,(15) and she was not among those who migrated. Another said, ‘She bore for Hubaira Ibn Abi Wahb, Ja`da, `Umar, Yusuf, and Hani´.’ “(16)
          3. Dhaba`a Bint Qirt Ibn Maslama: Ibn Abbas narrated: “Dhaba`a Bint `Amir was married to Haudsa Ibn `Ali al-Hanafi, from whom she inherited a great amount of money after his death. `Abdullah Ibn Jud`an al-Taymi was an impotent man. She asked him to divorce her, and he did. Hisham Ibn al-Mughira married her, and she gave him Salama, who was one of the best Muslims. Hisham died and she was widowed. She was one of the most beautiful and well-mannered women among the Arabs. When she sat down she would occupy a great part of the floor, and her body would be covered with her long hair. Her beauty was described to the Prophet, he asked her son, Salama Ibn Hisham Ibn al-Mughira, for her hand. He said, ‘[Wait] till I ask her permission.’ (Meanwhile the Prophet was told that she had grown old.) Her son went to her and told her that the Prophet asked her hand from him. She asked him, ‘What have you said to him?’ He answered, ‘I told him [to wait] till I ask your permission.’ She said, ‘Would someone need permission when the Prophet is the one involved? Go back and wed me to him!’ So he went back and told the Prophet, but the Prophet kept silent.”(17)
          4. Safiyya Bint Bashshama: Ibn Abbas narrated: “Muhammad proposed to Safiyya Bint Bashama Ibn Nadhla al-`Anbari, who was taken captive. The Messenger of God gave her the choice and said, ‘Whom do you desire: me or your husband?’ She said, ‘Nay, my husband.’ So he sent her away and Banu Tamim cursed her.”(18)
          5. Umm Shuraik Bint Ghaziyya: `Ali Ibn al-Husain narrated: “The woman who bestowed herself upon the Prophet was Umm Shuraik. `Ikrima mentioned in a tradition of his that she was the one meant by the verse: ‘And any believing woman who bestows herself upon the Prophet, provided the Prophet wants to marry her; such is exclusively for you and not for [other] believers.’ ” A tradition by Munir Ibn `Abdillah al-Dawsi says: “She is the one who bestowed herself upon the Prophet. She was from the Azd tribe. She offered herself to the Prophet, and she was beautiful but a little old. She said, ‘I bestow myself upon you and give myself to you as a free gift.’ The Prophet accepted her. `A´isha said, ‘There is nothing good in a woman when she bestows herself upon a man.’ Umm Shuraik said, ‘This is I.’ Then God called her “the believing” when He said, ‘And any believing woman who bestows herself upon the Prophet.’ When this verse was revealed, `A´isha said, ‘Indeed, God hastens to do what you desire.’ “(20)
          6. Khawla Bint Hakim Ibn Umaiyya: Hashim Ibn Muhammad narrated, quoting his father: “Khawla Bint Hakim was among those who bestowed themselves upon the Messenger of God, and he put her off. She used to serve the Prophet. `Uthman Ibn Maz`un married her and died while she was still alive.”(21)
          7. Umama Bint Hamza Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib: Ibn Abbas narrated: “The Messenger of God was constrained to [marry] Hamza’s daughter, but he said that she was his step-sister [or sister by nursing] and that this kind of relationship is forbidden. So the Messenger of God married her off to Salama Ibn Salama and the Prophet used to say, ‘Have you been rewarded by Salama?’ “(22)
          8. Khawla Bint al-Hudsail: al-Sharqi Ibn al-Qatami narrated that the Messenger of God married her but she died on the way before she ever reached him.(23)
          9. Shurafa Bint Khalifa: `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Sabit narrated: “The Messenger of God proposed to a woman from the tribe of Kalb and `A´isha was sent to look at her. She went and, after she came back, the Messenger of God said to her, ‘What did you see?’ She replied, ‘I saw nothing of value.’ The Messenger of God said to her, ‘I have seen something of value; I have seen a mole on her cheek that causes every hair of yours to stand on end.'(24) She said, ‘O Messenger of God, there is no secret hidden from you.’ ” Mujahid said, “The Messenger of God used not to propose again once he was refused. Once he proposed to a woman and she said, ‘Ask my father’s permission.’ She found her father and he gave her permission. Later she met the Messenger of God and told him, but he said, ‘We have found ourselves another mantle.’ “(25)
          1. There is no agreement on her name; some call her “Saba’ Bint Sufyan” (Tabaqat, 8:141).
          2. Tabaqat, 8:141; Usd al-ghaba, 5:525.
          3. Tabaqat, 8:142.
          4. ibid.
          5. ibid. 8:143; Usd al-ghaba, 5:396ff.
          6. Tabaqat, 8:144; al-Sira, 4:297.
          7. Ansab al-ashraf, 1:456.
          8. Tabaqat, 8:148; Usd al-ghaba, 5:532,533.
          9. Tabaqat, 8:148.
          10. Tabaqat, 8:148ff.
          11. Tabaqat, 8:148ff.; Usd al-ghaba, 5:483.
          12. Tabaqat, 8:150.
          13. ibid. 8:150; Usd al-ghaba, 5:542.
          14. Tabaqat, 8:151-153; Usd al-ghaba, 5:624.
          15. Sura al-Ahzab 33:50. Scholars are in disagreement concerning this verse as is mentioned in the story of Umm Shuraik below.
          16. Tabaqat, 8:153ff.
          17. ibid. Usd al-ghaba, 5:4995-496.
          18. Tabaqat, 8:1554; Usd al-ghaba, 5:490.
          19. Sura al-Ahzab 33:50; Tabaqat, 8:156.
          20. Tabaqat, 8:154-157.
          21. ibid. 8:160; Usd al-ghaba, 5:444.
          22. Tabaqat, 8:160; Usd al-ghaba, 5:399-400.
          23. Tabaqat, 8:160; Usd al-ghaba, 5:337.
          24. Tabaqat, 8:160; Usd al-ghaba, 5:486.
          25. Tabaqat, 8:160ff.

        • modest muslim ” You know nothing about Islam ” You may ne right ,but I know more than you know.Do you read quran? I do and tell you and others here that it is a manual of evil doers , is there any wonder you muslims have behaved and are behaving like barbarians right from the times of your so called profit mo-ham-mad. Quran Sura 2:161”The Infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of allah, the angels,and all people.Under it they shall remain forever, their punishment shall not be lightened.nor shall they be given respite ” And you call your allah merciful? Are you mental, as all other muslims ? I suggest you read your evil quran properly.

    • Modest Muslim ”Sujit Das.. You’re spreading hatred against muslims here.” And what do you think your evil quran is doing, not spreading hatred? Quran Sura 4:56 ”Those who deny our revelations .We will burn in Hell-fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than we shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste Our scourge .Allah is mighty, wise ” Your quran is a manual of evil does and full of hate towards Jews and Christians. So what the hell are you talking off, about HATE? You muslims are the most hateful people towards non muslims on the planed… Now see and

      • Indeed, those who denied the revelations and failed to understand them just like Ali Sina, the greatest moron ever born, did; God will burn them in hell. Those who understood God’s message and acted upon it just like Newton and Einstein did (may God bless them); God will reward them in the Other World. Not a single verse of Qur’an incites hatred and violence. Qur’an is the word of God and God is like our father. When a father scolds his son or when a teacher shows his anger towards his pupil, that’s not called hatred or violence. Qur’an condemned the evil deeds of Jews and Christians and complaint that they had disobeyed God. Just read Isaiah in Bible; Qur’an has repeated the same message.

        • modest muslim ” ..just like Ali Sina ,the greatest moron ever born. God will burn them in hell ” First of all you muslims hate any one who exposes the evils of islam as do Dr Ali Sina. How do you know that God will ” BURN THEM IN HELL? ” Are you the agent of God. to know that? No, because your Quran /Allah says non believers and who don’t believe in him ‘ will burn in hell ‘ Quran Sura 48:13 ”And if any believe not in Allah and his messenger ,we have prepared for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire for the disbelievers ” ………. ” Those who understand God’s message and acted upon it just like Newton and Einstein did (may God bless them ) ” ….Defiantly NOT your false Allah. ” Quran is a word of God and God is …” Just see or type ” the hidden origin of quran ” in search box and listen carefully. You will learn some thing for the first time in your life.
          ” Quran has repeated the same message ” Yes, your mo-ham-mad[ may pi$s be upon him] copied 99% of quran from Talmud, Thora, and Bible. The problem with you muslims is you are brainwashed by your Quranand will NEVER reform as has Jews and Christians have. Tell me how come your Mo married his own daughter-in-law Zainab ? Read Sura 33:37 .

          • Surj, Ali Sina is the one who hates Muslims. He wants to kill all Muslims. He thinks that Muslims should not be given human rights. He is the one who uses bad wordings for us. So please ask that jerk to be decent and polite first. There are many morons like him who think they can disprove Islam however each and every one of them just repeats the same old thing. There’s nothing novel about them. Nobody comes with new arguments. Qur’an is the word of God and Muhammad is His messenger. You pick up one verse of Qur’an and begin to mourn over it saying, ‘Look, it is evil.’ However you must study it after understanding the philosophy of Islam first. Every religion has its own philosophy. Every religion is founded by a philosopher. The world is progressing very fast and now everyone knows that saying, ‘That religion is pure evil’ is nothing but mere prejudice. That video! Come one, man. That’s shit. I’ve visited many of such Websites (which you linked before) and listened to many videos like that one. There’s nothing new in it. Same old arguments. Grow up, kid. Reform? 😀 Muslims need to reform in the light of Islam. Islam is already a reformed shape of Judaism and Christianity. The Prophet copied Qur’an? No, Qur’an is different from Bible. Take one example. Bible says that God took rest after the Creation however Qur’an says that no weariness touched God. Another example. Qur’an refrains from repeating the family tree of Jesus. Bible gives a totally inappropriate lineage of Jesus (that begins with his so-called father Joseph) however Qur’an calls Jesus ‘Son of Mary’. These examples show that even if Muhammad was an ordinary man who reproduced Bible, he was a genius scientist as he omitted all kind of shitty crap from Bible (that was added up by the Jews) and produced an authentic version of Bible, without any historical or scientific mistake. Pick up just one scientific error from Qur’an, dude, and you have me convert.

            And he never married his own daughter. Just saying, ‘X is just like my son’ doesn’t make X my real son or his sister my real daughter or his wife my real daughter-in-law. And stop using insulting words otherwise that’s the end of debate. You must debate in a decent and polite manner. Just see what I’ve done with that sucker named Lucky. When he was polite, I was super-polite. When he was rude, I pissed him off. Be polite and we’re at yor service, sir. Be impolite and we’re rude, dude. 😀 That’s simple. So if you wanna discuss these matters seriously, let’s act serious.

      • YO HO HO MO,


        YES! YES! YES!


        Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer

        This question–about whether or not the Imami Shia are Muslim–is a very emotional one. The humble author of this article is not qualified to pass verdicts on such matters; however, this article will merely serve as a purview of all the various opinions cited by qualified Sunni scholarship, and to hopefully make sense of it all in a constructive manner.

        The truth of the matter is that the answer to this question cannot be a simple “yes” or a “no.” Unfortunately, some “conservative” Sunnis will jump to declare all Shia to be Kufaar (disbelievers) and engage in Takfeer of all Shia they come in contact with. On the other hand, some “liberal” Sunnis will reflexively defend all Shia no matter how odious or deviant their beliefs are, including even their Ayatollahs and leaders. Indeed, to draw a hasty conclusion is not appropriate; Imam Ibn Abidin states:
        “It is difficult to make a general statement and judge all the Shia to be disbelievers.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453)

        Some Shia are considered Muslims, and some Shia are considered Kufaar. Various Shia have different beliefs: some have beliefs which constitute Kufr, whereas others do not. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

        According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shi’as:
        a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam.

        b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq).
        source: Sunni Path,
        Shaikh Abdul Wahab al-Turayree, a professor of Al-Imam University, says:

        We cannot say that all the Shî`ah are unbelievers. On the other hand, there are many sects of the Shî`ah who advance claims that are tantamount to unbelief. Anyone who believes such things would be an unbeliever.


        Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of says:

        What we say about interacting with the Shi’ah depends on the situation. The innovated beliefs of the Shi’ah vary. If it [their belief] is something that does not put them beyond the pale of Islam…[it] is rather regarded [merely] as drifting away from the right path [as opposed to Kufr]…[in such a case] they are Muslims who have committed acts of innovation and sin that do not put them beyond the pale of Islam.

        Therefore, depending on his beliefs, a Shia person can be Muslim or Kaafir. What then are the beliefs which constitute Kufr? There are quite a few beliefs which constitute Kufr that would take one outside the folds of Islam, but we shall herein only discuss those relevant to the Sunni-Shia dialogue.

        (1) The superiority of the Imams over the Prophets.
        This is perhaps the most important issue. It is in fact the crux of the debate between Sunni and Shia. The doctrine of Imamah (i.e. belief in twelve Infallible Imams) is what separates the Shia from mainstream Islam. Too often than not, Sunnis will argue that Shia are disbelievers because they curse the Sahabah or something else along those lines, but in reality, the focus of the debate should be around the issue of Imamah.

        Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan quoted by Sunni Path states:
        Shi`ah fall into three categories:
        1. ghâli (ghulât): they repudiate the necessities of religion…[They are Kaafir because they] elevate Sayyiduna Ali and other Imams above the Prophets…[They are Kaafir even] if these Imams are held to be higher than even ONE prophet….
        Those who hold the above and other such statements that amount to disbelief are Kaafirs by Ijma (consensus). All dealings with them are similar to those with apostates. It is in fatawa Dharhiriyyah, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Hadiqatun Nadiyyah: they are to be dealt with as apostates.
        Nowadays, most of the Rafidhis (i.e. Shia) fall into this category. Their scholars and commoners, men and woman–all of them seem to profess the aforementioned beliefs–except Allâh willing–otherwise.
        source: Sunni Path,

        Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan has hereby stated that–according to him–most of the Shia alive today possess this belief and are therefore Kufaar. The author of this article agrees with him, but would like to point out that this may not be the case in the West: it seems that most Shia commoners living in North America and Europe have a more “filtered” version of Shi’ism, so whereas most Shia worldwide may hold such a belief, the Western Shia may differ in this. In any case, what we have established thus far is the fact that the belief that any of the Imams are superior to even one Prophet is Kufr.

        It should be noted that this concept is not peculiar or particular to the Shia, but rather to any person in general. If, for example, a Sunni were to claim that Abu Bakr was equal to or superior to Prophet Musa, then this would be grounds for Kufr. Muslims believe that the Prophets and Messengers are the highest in ranks amongst humanity, and that no person can rival them in this honor, neither can they be superior to them nor can they even equal them in status. It is, after all, for this reason that the Ahmadis are declared to be Kufaar, namely because they believe in a person who has a rank equal to or higher than the Prophets.

        It should be noted that all the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) are agreed upon the fact that the Imams are superior to the Prophets, aside from Prophet Muhammad. For an indepth analysis of this Shia belief, please read this article: Imams Superior to Prophets.

        However, although the Shia scholarship is agreed upon this doctrine, the laity amongst the Shia (i.e. the masses) may be unaware of this. In fact, it has been my observation that most Shia lay-persons and commoners in the West have no idea at all about this belief. Many of them are even shocked if someone were to claim that the Imams are superior to Prophets. It has happened on numerous occassions that a Shia lay-person would accuse a Sunni of lying if the latter were to state that the Shia believe that Imamah is superior to Prophethood. Indeed, I have no doubt that most Shia lay-persons who read this article will themselves deny this fact, and therefore I strongly urge them to read the link above so that they can have the definitive proof of the beliefs of the Shia scholarship.

        In conclusion, the Shia scholars are Kufaar because they believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets. This includes their Ayatollahs, such as Khomeini, Khameini, Sistani, etc. It should be noted that these Shia scholars base this position on the Shia religious texts, which are very clear on this matter. The Shia Hadith literature and classical books state–in no uncertain terms–that their twelve Imams are superior to the Prophets (aside from Prophet Muhammad).

        However, the lay-persons, commoners, and masses of Shia–especially in the West–may not be aware of these religious texts, nor are they aware of the position of the scholars whom they supposedly do Taqleed upon. In a way, this ignorance is understandable. The masses of any faith are oftentimes not in tune with the actual beliefs written in the religious texts and held by the classical scholars. This holds true for Sunnis as well. For example, most Sunni lay-persons are completely unaware of the fact that music is Haram. However, the Sunni texts are clear on this matter and clearly state that music is Haram, and this is the view held by the Sunni scholars.

        In other words, just because the Sunni masses believe one thing, this does not mean that this conforms to what the Sunni religious texts say or what the Sunni scholars believe. Likewise, just because the Shia masses in the West may not believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets does not mean that this is what Shi’ism itself says. Most Muslim lay-persons may say one thing, but Islam can say another thing. Like I mentioned earlier, most Muslim lay-persons would say that music is Halal, but Islam actually says that music is Haram. Similarly, most Shia lay-persons would say that their Imams are not superior to Prophets, but Shi’ism actually says otherwise.

        Any Shia person who understands this belief and adheres to it (i.e. the superiority of Imams over Prophets) is a Kaafir. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say that a Shia lay-person could become a Kaafir simply by reading this article and the one I gave the link to. The reason I make such a bold claim is that prior to reading these two articles, a Shia person may not have been aware of the fact that Shi’ism holds that Imams are superior to Prophets. But now I have shown him that indeed this is what Shi’ism says about this matter. If such a Shia reader were to now adopt this viewpoint, then indeed he would become a Kaafir.

        In other words, a Shia person’s ignorance of his own faith could serve as a protection in the sense that such a person is not a Kaafir because he does not believe in those parts of his religion which constitute Kufr. I would say that the masses of Shia in the West are unaware of this belief of theirs, and are therefore considered to be Muslims. It is only those who are aware of such a belief and adhere to it that would be outside the folds of Islam. The Shia scholarship are Kufaar but we do not say that the Shia masses are.

        (2) Claiming that a person after Prophet Muhammad received revelation from Allah like a Prophet.
        This is another belief which constitutes Kufr. Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi was asked what were the agreed upon acts which would constitute exiting the faith. To this, he stated:

        “Claiming that a person after the time of Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a real Prophet from Allah…Included in this is claiming that one has received revelation from Allah like a Prophet.”
        source: Guiding Helper,

        The reality is that the Shia believe that their Imams received revelation from Allah like Prophets. However, they will not readily admit this fact and will in fact seek out loopholes to defend their beliefs, playing word games, and such stuff. Hence, I do not find any need to dwell on this matter, since it is much easier to prove the first belief above. The only reason I am mentioning this here is that it should be established firmly that it is a belief of the Muslims that no divinely appointed figure exists after Prophet Muhammad, and the belief in Imams is in contradiction to this.

        (3) The Quran is incomplete.
        Publically, the Shia will vehemently deny that they believe that the Quran is incomplete. The truth of the matter is that many of the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) do believe in Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran, but they hide this fact due to Taqiyyah and Kitman. And there may be many Shia people who do indeed hold such a belief but they hide this fact. If this is the case, then we cannot declare them to be Kufaar, as we were not sent to judge what is in the hearts and only Allah knows what are the true intentions of people. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

        It should be remarked here that some members of the Shi’a community display outwardly not to have believes that constitute Kufr, but keep these beliefs in their heart, which they call Taqiyya.
        The case with such people is that if they did have such beliefs that constitute Kufr in their heart but outwardly denied them, then even though according to Allah and in hereafter they will be regarded as non-Muslims, but we will judge them according to their outward statements and actions.
        The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is reported to have said:

        “I have been ordered to judge people according to their outward condition”
        source: Sunni Path,

        In common discourse, the Shia polemicists will vehemently deny such a belief, and it is only through a very tiresome process that we prove to them that Tahreef is a part of their faith. Therefore, once again, I would not advise bringing up this topic when discussing whether or not Shia are Muslim or not. Since the vast majority of Shia do not adhere to this belief, discussing this issue will only cause digression and tangential argumentation.

        (4) Cursing the Sahabah.
        Many hold the belief that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. However, this is an oversimplification of the issue, one which in fact weakens the position of the Ahlus Sunnah. A Shia propagandist would be very quick to show that in fact the Sahabah did fight amongst each other and one Sahabah would sometimes call another by a name, or the Prophet’s wives might do such a thing, etc. Therefore, we should be clearer and more specific instead of simply saying that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr.
        Mufti Ebrahim Desai’s student says the following:

        The issue of abusing the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) takes on various forms. Hereunder follows some related points.
        1. It is Haraam to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum)
        2. Normally, a person who does so is sinning, but would not be a Kaafir.
        3. If, Allah forbid, a person falsely accuses Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiyallahu anha) or any of the other Ummahaatul Mu’mineen of Zinaa, he is a Kaafir.
        4. If, Allah forbid, a person says that most or all of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) became murtad (renegade) after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), or become sinners after him, such a person is a Kaafir.
        5. If one considers it permissible to abuse the Sahabah(Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is Kaafir.
        6. If one regards it as a light matter to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is a kaafir.
        We trust this answers your question.
        And Allah Ta’ala knows best
        Was Salaam
        E. Vawda
        for Daarul Iftaa
        CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
        source: Ask-Imam,

        Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of says:

        Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.

        Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
        If a person slanders them [i.e. the Sahaabah] in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.

        If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.

        Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.

        In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.

        source: Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591.

        Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:

        … This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason…

        The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr.
        source: Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575.

        In fact, this has always been the position of the Ahlus Sunnah on the matter. Therefore, we should not misrepresent ourselves when we state that cursing the Sahabah is Kufr, but rather we should clarify this position and make it clear.

        Based on the above, we see that it is Kufr to hate the Sahabah if any of the following conditions are met:
        (a) One hates all of the Sahabah or at least the vast majority of them. (This could apply to the Shia, many of whom claim that the vast majority of the Sahabah apostatized.)

        (b) One hates a Sahabi for the fact that he is a Companion of the Prophet. (This could apply to Non-Muslims, such as Abu Jahl, who would hate anyone who became one of the Prophet’s friends.)
        (c) One hates a Sahabi for some religious reason such as believing that he usurped the divinely appointed role of Imamah. (This no doubt applies to the Ithna Ashari Shia. Notice how the Zaidis believe that Ali was better suited to be the Caliph than Abu Bakr, but they do not believe that this is a religious difference but rather a political one. Therefore, we do not pass a verdict of Kufr on them for this. The Ithna Ashari, on the other hand, claims that this is a religious issue, one decided upon by Allah Himself.)
        (d) One who curses a Sahabi is sinning, but the one who thinks that it is permissible to curse Sahabah is Kaafir irrespective of if he himself does that or not. (This most definitely applies to the Shia, who believe that it is permissible to curse the Sahabah.)

        The reason that these things constitute Kufr is because they are disbelieving in the verse in the Quran in which Allah says “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” (Quran, 3:110) and “And the first to embrace Islam, of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever.” (Quran, 9:100) And many other such verses. Because these verses are stated in the general sense, we only say that it is Kufr to make general condemnations of the Sahabah. However, Abu Bakr and Aisha were mentioned in the Quran specifically, in verse 9:40 and verses 24:11-26 respectively. Abu Bakr was declared the companion of the Prophet, and Aisha was declared innocent of adultery.

        Imam Ibn Abidin states:
        “There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him)…”
        And some scholars extend these verses to encompass other beliefs, such as negating those who say that Abu Bakr was evil or sinful (as the Prophet says in that verse that “Allah is with us”) or accusing Aisha of other things (because Allah says “Allah warns you not to repeat the like of it again”).

        This debate is beyond the scope of this article and the abilities of this humble author. Indeed, I am simply trying to prove the point that it is a much more involved topic than simply saying “whoever curses the Sahabah is Kaafir.” Having said that, realistically the Shia scholars would be Kufaar based on their slander of the Prophet’s wives and Sahabah based on the above conditions. However, it is unclear as to what the average Shia lay-person believes on such a matter and whether or not he understands the gravity of his belief. It is likely that the average Shia lay-person will deny having hatred for the Sahabah in general, and therefore, this is a dead-end issue to debate.

        (5) Other strange beliefs.
        Historically, various Shia sects have held many strange beliefs, such as that Ali is God, or that Angel Jibraeel made a mistake, or that Allah lies, etc. However, because the mainstream Shia do not believe in these things any more, it serves no point to dwell on these matters. And there are many other beliefs which the Shia do believe in which commonly come up in this debate. However, I strongly believe that none of them are important to discuss except the first issue which I stated, namely the superiority of Imams over Prophets.

        The Ruling
        The question about Shia and their position as Muslims (or not) is a multi-factorial issue. The crux of the issue, however, is the matter of Imamah and its superiority over Risalah (Prophethood). This is the one issue that the Shia scholars do not shy away from. They will do Taqiyyah when it comes to Tahreef of the Quran, they will obfuscate when it comes to Imams receiving revelation, they will become catty when it comes to hating the Sahabah, play word games on other issues, etc. But the issue about Imamah is one that the Shia scholarship has clearly stated, and it is this issue which casts out the Shia scholars into the realm of Kufr. Having said that, the bulk of the Shia lay-persons (at least in the West) are unaware of this belief and therefore do not believe in it. As such, they are not disbelievers and we should regard them as Muslims.

        Fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot
        There is one fatwa that has become notorious in the Sunni-Shia dialogue, namely the religious edict passed by Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot of Al-Azhar who claimed that the Jaffari Madhab was an acceptable “fifth Madhab.” Invariably, this fatwa will be recycled in the Sunni-Shia debates. However, this fatwa has absolutely no value because it was categorically denounced by the Sunni scholarship en masse. One scholar’s errant opinion cannot refute the Ijma (consensus) of the scholars, but rather it is disregarded as baseless. Shaikh Faraz Rabbani responded to this claim of a “fifth Madhab” by saying:
        “Jafari fiqh is not accepted as a sound school of law by Sunni scholarship.”
        souce: Sunni Path,

        Sidi Musa wrote a refutation of this bogus fatwa entitled “Myth of the Fifth Madhab”, saying:
        “There is no fifth madhhab in addition to the four madhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah…there is no madhhab in addition to the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah that is permissible for Muslims to follow…Can one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a? …The answer is, quite clearly, no.”

        In the second introduction to “The Reliance Of The Traveler” it is stated in regards to any so-called “fifth Madhab”:

        “Ibn Salah reports that there is scholarly consensus on its [sic] being unlawful to follow”
        The Shia propagandists will chime in that the fatwa advocating the “fifth Madhab” was passed by the prestigious Al-Azhar University. What they fail to mention is that after that errant fatwa passed by that one Shaikh, Al-Azhar University passed another fatwa many years later rebuffing the earlier fatwa. In fact, it is well-known that Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot was influenced by a Shia lobbyist of Dar al-Taqrib named Muhammad Taqi al-Qummi; although we respect the scholars, everyone makes mistakes and it is not acceptable to follow a scholar who has an errant opinion on a matter. Shaikh Nuh Keller called it “madness” to follow such a fatwa advocating a “fifth Madhab”.

        Disbelievers or People of Deviation

        There is no valid opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah that would place the Shia in any fifth Madhab, but rather there are only two opinions on the matter. Each and every Shia person is either part of the :
        1) Kufaar (disbelievers)
        2) Ahlul Bidah (People of Innovation or Deviation)

        There is no other option. It should be noted that Ahlul Bidah can be broken down further into two arbitrary groups, namely:
        1) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are simply ignorant.
        2) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are obstinate in their deviation.
        The second group should be shunned. As for the first group, however, we should seek to soften their hearts so that they educate themselves about the Straight Path and they abandon the Deviated Path. Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of says:

        Softening the hearts of some people is more effective than shunning… shunning may make a person more rebellious and stubborn, and prevent further opportunities to advise and call him; in that case it should not be done…Do not forget to advise him (the sinner or innovator)…Seeking to soften his heart with gifts, smiling at him and speaking kindly to him may be more effective than shunning him, so do that. If he refuses that from you, and does not respond to you, then there is no sin on you and you are not to blame for that…The believer looks at what is in the best interests (of Islam). This does not contradict the idea of hating the kaafirs, innovators and sinners for the sake of Allaah and loving the Muslims for the sake of Allaah. Attention must be paid to what is in the general interest; if shunning is better then they should be shunned, but if the objectives of Islam dictate that ongoing da’wah efforts should be made rather than shunning, then that is what should be done, following the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And Allaah is the Source of strength.

        Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said:
        Softening people’s hearts may be more beneficial in some cases than shunning. And shunning is more beneficial in some cases then softening hearts. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) softened the hearts of some people and shunned others.
        source: Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/206

        Therefore, the former group (the ignorant) should be softened and the second group (the obstinate) shunned.
        Amongst the Ahlus Sunnah, three opinions exist amongst the scholarship:

        1) Those who say: “The Shia are Kufaar.”
        2) Those who say: “The Shia are Muslim.”
        3) Those who say: “Some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar.”
        However, the reality is that all three opinions are basically saying the same thing, and the difference in opinion is only lexical. It depends on how one defines the word “Shia.”

        For example, Opinion 1 is held by Mufti Ebrahim Desai of Darul Iftaa who says:
        “Shi’as are not Muslims.” (

        Mufti Ebrahim Desai defines the word “Shia” as a hypothetical and conceptual entity, as one who follows the beliefs of Shi’ism based upon their texts and the opinions of their classical scholars. In other words, XYZ beliefs are Kufr, and XYZ beliefs are a part of the faith of Shi’ism; therefore, anyone who does not accept the XYZ beliefs is not a real Shia.

        Opinion 2 is held by Shaikh Faraz Rabbani:
        “Notwithstanding the known disagreements between Sunnis and Shia, traditional Sunni scholarship has considered the Shia to be Muslim” (

        Shaikh Faraz Rabbani is defining the “Shia” in a practical and worldly sense, referring to anyone who calls himself a Shia. This particular fatwa was “politically correct” and in fact Shaikh Faraz Rabani’s disciple, Sidi Salman Younas, clarified:

        “Shaykh Faraz’s position is that a Shi`a is a disbeliever if he denies any of the necessary aspects of the religion, without sufficient shubha. Otherwise, he will not be considered as such.” (Sidi Salman Younas)
        In fact, the Sunni Path website clarifies elsewhere:

        According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shi’as:

        a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam.
        b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq).
        source: Sunni Path,
        In other words, the difference of opinion is simply lexical, revolving around how the term Shia is used.

        Even those who declare that “Shia are Kufaar” are simply using a different definition of the word “Shia.” For example, above we have seen how the Ask Imam site says that “Shia are Kufaar” in one fatwa, but we find in another fatwa on the same site that the clarification is given:

        “All the Shiites are not regarded as Kaafir…If a Shiite does not believe in the above (beliefs) and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a Kaafir.
        source: Ask Imam,

        And this is also the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who–like Mufti Ebrahim Desai–is Deobandi. Mufti Taqi Usmani is quite explicit in his fatawa Uthmani that the way of the scholars of Dar ul Uloom is to consider a Shia to be Muslim unless he holds certain beliefs which constitute Kufr.

        Therefore, the most appropriate way to phrase the position of the Shia is the third way, which is to refrain from blanket statements and to say that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar. This removes ambiguity and is most precise. Blanket statements such as “the Shia are Kaafir” or “the Shia are Muslim” cause confusion; even though the person who says such statements might know what he is really saying, the reader will be confused into thinking something else. Furthermore, such a person risks the chances of being misquoted.

        Some people mistakenly bring up quotes from past scholars and take them out of context in order to somehow prove that certain classical scholars passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Indeed, these quotes are using the word “Shia” in the same way as Mufti Ebrahim Desai used it, namely as one who adheres to the tenets of Shi’ism which includes XYZ beliefs. Oftentimes, when the context of the quote is shown, then this will clear up the matter. Many people have falsely claimed that all four Imams have passed Takfeer on the Shia, but this is not a blanket Takfeer and is only in regards to those who hold XYZ beliefs. Indeed, Ibn Abidin stated in his Radd Al Muhtar, which is the central reference for fatwas in the Hanafi Madhab, that none of the four Imams passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia.

        Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is known as being one of the harshest against the Shia, and indeed he did justifiably criticize those Shia who have beliefs which constitute Kufr. And yet, Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah refrained from doing blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Unknowingly, many persons pass around the following quote:

        Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Raafidah, “They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawaarij.” [Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (28/482) of Ibn Taymiyyah]

        And yet, this is taking the quote out of context, because what Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said is not in regards to all Shia or even all Rafidhis, but only those who have specific beliefs which he mentions:
        “Whosoever claims that the Sahabah became apostates after the Messenger of Allah (except for a small group that did not reach ten odd people in number) or that they majority of them were disobedient sinners, then there is also no doubt about the Kufr of this one.”

        It is not a blanket Takfeer of all Shia but rather of “this one” with those beliefs. Indeed, in no uncertain terms, Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah says:

        “And regarding the Salaf and Imams, they did not sway from their rejection of Takfeer upon the Murjiah and Shia and others like them. Nor do the texts of (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) differ in that he did not make Takfeer upon them…and regarding the Khawarij and the (Shia) Rawafid, there is dispute and hesitation regarding Takfeer upon them from (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and others besides him.”
        source: Majmoo` Fatawa

        Sidi Salman Younas, a disciple of Shaikh Faraz Rabbani, says the following when someone asked if Shia are Muslim or Kaafir:

        “We asked Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf about this question and he pointed out the things Shias do that make them Kaffir, and he followed up with how we have Shias here in the U.S who are utterly unaware of major Shia beliefs (such as cursing the Khulafa); thus this fatwa (of Kufr) will not apply to them. Whether you label this Taqiyya or not, the point still remains that we do not judge their inner (selves).”

        The Dangers of the First Way
        The First Way, which is to make general statements like “the Shia are Kufaar”, is dangerous because it hardens the hearts of the Shia lay-persons, many of whom are genuinely good people and may just be ignorant. They need Dawah and Naseeha, which require softness. Condeming them as Kufaar will only make their hearts turn harder and they will turn away from us. The truth is that they are not Kufaar, but rather only misguided by their Kaafir scholars. We should differentiate between the ignorant masses and the evil Shia leaders.

        By distinguishing the masses from their Ayatollahs, we are driving a wedge between the two groups. And this is what we want to do: our Shia bretheren have been under the brain-washing and programming of their Ayatollahs, and we have to save them from that. If we group them both together as Kufaar, then we are increasing the love between the two and increasing the power and status of the Ayatollahs. In reality, we should create disunity and disharmony in their ranks, driving the people away from the Shia leaders. It is the Shia leaders, not the masses, who propagate such deviant beliefs, who hate the Sahabah, who organize Shia death squads in Iraq, etc.

        Many people have criticized the Ahlel Bayt website for the fact that we refer to the Shia as “brothers” but there is nothing wrong in this, because we are addressing the lay-persons and the commoners from amongst them, not their leaders. We seek to soften their hearts so they harken to the truth and reject their blasphemous leaders.

        The Dangers of the Second Way

        The Second Way, of making general statements like “the Shia are Muslim”, is obfuscation of the truth. It denies the reality that in fact we believe that Shi’ism is Kufr, all of the scholars of Shi’ism are Kufaar,and that even the remaining group are Ahlul Bidah. This confusion will cause problems, such as Sunnis marrying Shia, or Sunnis thinking that they can adopt Shi’ism as a possible “Fifth Madhab”, or the Shia feeling that their way is approved by the Muslims. On the Day of Judgement, these same Shia will point fingers at us and ask us why we did not warn them of the Kufr of their beliefs.

        Furthermore, it is very necessary to expose the Kufr of the leaders of Shi’ism. They have declared war on the true Islam, both by pen and by sword. Unity with them is not possible, and it is a part of their creed to accept the Ahlus Sunnah externally but to oppose us internally. If we allow ourselves to be fooled by false slogans of “Muslim unity”, we will only be left to one day deal with the Shia leaders stabbing us in the back, as has been the case historically and even today in Iraq.

        The Third Way

        There is much confusion as to the correct position of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah with regards to the Shia, and a lot of this has to do with the lexical distinctions made by various scholars. However, despite the seemingly contradictory statements, almost everyone (apart from some exceptions) is saying the same thing. I believe that the third way is the best way, and that the first two ways cause confusion. The third way, of saying that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kaafir, is the best methodology. One should be clear that Shi’ism is Kufr, and that some Shia are not Kufaar simply because they are ignorant of the beliefs of Shi’ism which constitute Kufr. In “Hayate Shaikh” by Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanfuri, we read:

        “Hazrat Gangohi used to say that because of the ignorance of the masses, they are (only) faasiq (sinful), (even though) their Ulama are kaafir.”

        Yet, despite our lenience towards the masses, we should be very clear in saying that Shi’ism is Kufr and call the people away from it and those who propagate such Kufr.

        The principle of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is to pass condemnation in general terms, refraining from passing condemnation on people in specific. Therefore, we should make the general statement that “Shi’ism is Kufr”, but we should refrain from saying “that Shia person is Kaafir.” This is stated by Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah:

        “With regard to a specific evildoer, we should not curse him, because the Prophet forbade cursing ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Himaar who used to drink wine, even though he had cursed the wine-drinkers in general; however cursing a specific person if he is an evildoer or promoter of bid’ah is a point of dispute among the scholars.”

        Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said:

        The difference between cursing a specific person and cursing those who commit sin in general is that the former (cursing a specific person) is not allowed, and the latter (cursing the people who commit sin in general) is allowed. So if you see an innovator, you do not say, ‘May Allaah curse you,’ rather say, ‘May the curse of Allaah be upon those who introduce innovations,’ in general terms. The evidence for that is the fact that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed some people among the mushrikeen and followers of jaahiliyyah and said: “O Allaah, curse So and so, and So and so, and So and so,” he was told not to do that when Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):
        “Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allaah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zaalimoon (polytheists, disobedients and wrongdoers)”
        [Quran, 3:128]
        source: al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/226.

        Therefore, we should say that “Shi’ism is Kufr” (general statement) instead of pointing to individual Shia lay-persons and saying “you are Kaafir” (specific statement). The exception to this, of course, are those Shia leaders who propagate their views; it becomes necessary to condemn them publically so that people are warned to stay away from them. This condemnation would also apply to those non-scholars who become their foremost propagandists and who debate with us in an obstinate way, exceeding the limits. Mufti Mohammad Sajjad stated:

        Q. Is there any difference between scholars of Imami Shias and their laymen, as Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhanvi (rahimuhullah) didn’t distinguish between them?

        A. If they, the laymen, hold the same beliefs as their scholars then there is no difference between them and their ruling is the same [i.e. they are disbelievers].
        Therefore, it is important to notify the people of the Kufr of these Shia scholars, leaders, and self-appointed propagandists. We read:

        Question: Is it permissible to mention peoples’ names and characters when one wants to criticise them and their thinking?

        Response: If someone writes something that contradicts the pure Sharee’ah, and distributes that material, or if he propagates that view in the media, it becomes compulsory to refute him and expose the falsehood of what he says. There is nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobedience. Until this day, there are knowledgeable and believing people from the callers to the truth and bearers of the Sharee’ah fulfilling this obligation, sincerely for Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala) and for the benefit of His servants, rebuking the wrong, inviting to the truth, warning others against those who propagate falsehood and destructive rhetoric.
        And Allaah is the Expounder of (all) success.
        Shaykh Ibn Baaz
        Fataawa Islaamiyyah – Volume 4, Page 279


        A very clear explanation of the status of the Imami Shia has been given by a student of Mufti Ebrahim Desai, who said:


        Are all shia Kafir? If not what makes them kafir or how can i identify if he is kafir?


        Firstly, hereunder are the criteria for declaring someone a non-Muslim:

        –When a person openly calls himself a non-Muslim, i.e. he accepts that he is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc.

        –When a person negates, through his words or actions, something unanimously proven through Quran and Hadith. He will not be regarded a Muslim even though he claims to be one.
        Jawahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:23 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi)

        Secondly, although the Shias claim that they are Muslims, most of them have beliefs that negate the clear cut principles of Islam…[such as] they regard the status of their twelve Imams to be higher than the status of the Ambiya (Alaihim Assalaatu Wassalaam).
        Aaapke Masaail aur Unka Hal Vol:1 Pg:188 (Maktabah Bayyinat)

        Thereafter, Shias are categorised into three groups in regards to the ruling they fall under:

        (1) Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam. Such Shias will be regarded as non-Muslims even if they do claim otherwise…

        (2) Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion with the Muslims on saying that Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) was the most superior amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum). Such Shias will not be regarded as non-Muslims, but they will still be regarded as fasiqs (those who transgress the laws of Islam openly)…

        (3) Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed. They will not be regarded as Muslims nor will they be regarded as non-Muslims. As a matter of precaution, inter-marriages with them will not be permissible and the meat from the animals slaughtered by them will not be Halal.
        Jawaahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:59-63 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi)

        As far as ties with Shias are concerned, it is not permissible to have close friendship with them. However, Islam encourages Muslims to have good conduct with them, and show good character.
        And Allah knows best
        Ml. M. Jawed Iqbal,
        Student Darul Iftaa
        Checked and Approved by:
        Mufti Ebrahim Desai
        Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah
        source: Ask-Imam,

        In conclusion, we say that Shi’ism is Kufr, and there is no doubt about this; if one properly follows Shia doctrine, then such a person is a Kaafir. Based on this, we say that the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones–including their propagandists–are Kufaar. As for the Shia lay-persons, then we generally refrain from passing Takfeer on them as a matter of precaution due to their ignorance which oftentimes saves them from Kufr. Therefore, we should make general statements such as “Shi’ism is Kufr” and “the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones (including their propagandists) are Kufaar” but refrain from specifically condemning individual lay-persons who are ignorant of certain Shia doctrines. We should shun the former (i.e. the learned ones) but we should soften the latter (i.e. the ignorant ones).

        Article Written By: Ibn Al-Hashimi,


        SHI’ISM & HATRED


        Shi’isms fundamental basis–the cornerstone of its religion–is its principle of reviling, abusing and rejecting the Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). The murderers of Uthman (r.a.) realized that their politically inspired movement can never be successful as long as the authority of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) Companions is retained. They had, therefore, no alternative other than formulating Shi’ism on the basis of opinions which necessitated the denial of the authority of the Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). They thus propagated the doctrine of the rejection of the Companions with brutal blasphemy, conspiracy, murder, fraud and fabrication of statements which they shamelessly attributed to Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). Their religion is based on the vilification of those whom Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) loved so dearly and whose authority is established, not on the basis of opinion and love, but on the basis of Divine Directive. Without the Companions there can be no Islam, no Quran, no Sunnah, no Shariah, no Iman (faith).

        The religion of Allah (Ta’ala) came to us and to all and will continue to travel to the end of time by means of Naql (authoritative and authentic narration), the first link in the chain of narration and transmission joining us with Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) being the noble Companions of Prophet Mohammad. Their hatred to most of the Companions necessitated for them to bypass the Companions. So, Shi’ism has broken that very first and vital link with Prophet Mohammad. The way they have sought to overcome this hurdle is by their doctrine of fabricating Hadith (narrations about the prophet) to substantiate their claims.


        They technically call such hypocrisy as taqiyah which means the permissibility to conceal one’s true beliefs for the sake of any expediency. Thus they attribute even such hypocrisy to Ali (r.a.). It is the Shia belief that although Ali (r.a.) believed that Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) usurped the Khilafat and deliberately betrayed Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), he nevertheless pledged loyalty to these senior Companions on account of some political expediency. This blatant falsehood and blasphemy attributed to Ali (r.a.) exhibits the crookedness of Shia mentality.

        The Shia who have gone out of their way to belittle the Companions and to drop them from the pedestal of authority which the Shariah assigns to them can never be the lovers of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) nor can Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) have love for them. About such hatred for his Companions, Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said: “Those who hate the Companions, hate them because (in reality) they hate me.”

        Muhammad Baqir Sadr, a leading Shia theologian states:

        “The Shia believed that Ali should have ruled instead of these three Caliphs, and should have assumed the Caliphate immediately after the Prophet (s. a. w.).”

        “According to Shia belief, the Companions in general and Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) in particular, defied Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.)- rejected his appointment of Ali (r.a.) as the Caliph after him.

        Hence, the Shia revile, abuse and slander these great Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) on the basis of the fallacy concocted by the murderers of Caliph Sayyidina Uthman (r.a.). The actual founders of the Shia sect were the murderers of Uthman (r.a.).

        It is a Shia contention that the great Companions, especially Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, etc. (r.a.m) did not understand the teachings of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). They further shamelessly and blasphemously assert that these illustrious Khulafa Raashideen are usurpers, frauds, fabricators of ahadith and wholly incompetent in religious matters. In spite of their slander being shocking and despicable in the extreme, it is not surprising, since they are the worst fabricators and frauds peddling their nafsaani opinions in the name of Islam and attributing it to Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). They have accused the Companions of being involved in conspiracies to eliminate Islam and supplant it with the Arab tribal systems of the time of jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance). The blasphemous drivel which clutters their books and preaching exhibits their wickedness and detestation for the Islam of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).

        In another crude aspersion cast against the mission of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), the Shia scholar, Baqir Sadr states:

        “Everything that has gone before Proves that the instruction given by the Prophet (s. a. w.) to the Muhajirun and the Ansar did not reach a level which would have been necessitated by the conscious, intellectual and political preparation required to guide the future path of the Da’wa and the process of change which had been instigated by the Prophet (s. a. w.).”

        Muslims should now realize that it is haram to support in any way the Shia. Shiism falls within the purview of the following statements of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.): “My Ummah will be split into 73 sects. Of these, all but one, will be in the Fire.” (Tirmizi)

        Will the Companions be in the one sect which will go to paradise or in the 72 sects condemned to hell?


        Ayatullah Khomeini of Iran, while delivering a message for a youth rally, said: “The Islamic and non-Islamic powers of the world will not admit our power till such time that we establish our hold over Makkah and Madinah because these are the centers and citadels of Islam. Hence our domination over these places Is an essential requirement … when as a conqueror I will enter Makkah and Madinah, the first thing to be done at that time by me would be to dig out two idols (Abu Bakr and Umar) lying by the side of the Prophet’s grave.” (Khomeinism and Islam, by Abu Rehan Farooqi, p. 8)

        “A certain person asked the Caliph (Abu Bakr) a point of law and he was unable to answer; he was therefore unfit for the position of a leader and successor to the Prophet. Or again, a certain act he perform was contrary to the laws of Islam, hence he was unworthy of his high past. ” (Writing and Declarations of Khomeini)

        In an annotation on this statement, Hamid Algar, the compiler of Khomeini’s writings and speeches, says: “The reference here is to certain shortcomings Shias have traditionally perceived in the exercise of rule by Abu Bakr.”

        In his book, Kashful Asrar, on page 115, Khomeini accuses Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) of having opposed the clear texts of the Qur’an. Thus he says:

        “We shall present a few examples of Abu Bakr and Umar having opposed the explicit laws of the Quran and deciding against it. The general body of the Muslims accept their decisions (which were in conflict with the Quran). ”

        On page 119 of his book, Khomeini openly brands Umar (r.a.) as a kafir (disbeliever) and zindeeq (infidel). Khomeini states: “From the examples of Abu Bakr’s and Umar’s opposition to the Qur’an, cited by us, it is clear that contradicting the Quran publicly and adopting actions in violation of the Quran were not regarded as a serious matter by these two. The Muslims of that time (viz. the Companions) either joined their (Abu Bakr’s and Umar’s) party in the quest for Political leadership which was their goal, or if they did not join their Party because of not fully supporting them, they never said a word in opposition to those unjust oppressors and powerful hypocrites (referring to ‘s Abu Bakr and Umar). They lacked the courage for this…”

        Abu Bakr who had plotted the whole conspiracy would have fabricated a hadith in contradiction to the Quran just as he had done for depriving Fatimah of her share of inheritance in the estate of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). And Umar – it is entirely to be expected that he would have said that either Allah Himself erred in revealing this ayat or Jibraeel or Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) erred in its delivery. At that time Sunnis would also have supported him and would have aided him in opposition to the command of Allah … just as is their attitude in all these alterations which Umar effected in the religion of Islam and its teachings. In all these (alterations of Umar) the Sunnis accorded priority to the statements of Umar in opposition to Qur’anic ayat and statements of the Rasool of Allah (Prophet Mohammad) and that is exactly what they (Sunnis) are following. ”

        These are the claims and allegations of Khomeini who vociferously and deceitfully, raises the slogan: “There is no Sunni’sm and no Shi’ism.” In the above “tract from his book, Kashful Asrar, it is abundantly clear that Khomeini is echoing the following Shia beliefs:

        *That Abu Bakr, Umar and the entire body of the Companions were apostates and hypocrites.

        * That Abu Bakr and Umar interpolated in the Qur’an, changing and deleting to suit their whims and desires. They fabricated and forged ahadith in conflict with the Qur’an.

        The logical conclusion emanating from these Shia beliefs is that the Qur’an which we have with us today is not authentic since it was the compilation of these very Companions who are regarded as munafiqs (hypocrites) by Shi’ism. Besides this fact stemming as the logical conclusion from Shia beliefs, the highest books of the Shia religion categorically assert the falsity of the present Qur’an.

        This attitude of Khomeini is not only his personal belief and personal hatred for the greatest ‘Companions, but it mirrors the attitude of hatred and contempt which Khomeini and his Shia cherish in particular for caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar (R. A.), and about all the Companions (R. A.) in general.
        While this is the vile and abominable attitude of Khomeini towards the illustrious Companions (R. A.) of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), the Qur’an states the following word about the Prophet Mohammad’s Companions:

        “Muhammad is the Rasool of Allah, and those who are with him (i. e. the Companions) are stern against the kuffar and tender among themselves. You will see them (the Companions) in Ruku’ and Sajdah searching for the grace of Allah and (His) Pleasure. Their sign is on their faces because of the impression of (abundance of) Sajdah… ” (Quran: Surah Fath).

        “Most certainly, Allah was well pleased with the Mu’mineen (i.e. the Companions) when they took the oath of allegiance to you (0 Muhammad!) under the tree…” (Quran: Surah Fath)

        “And the early ones, the first one among the Muhajireen and Ansar and those who follow them (the Muhajireen and Ansar) in virtue, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him. Allah has prepared for them gardens beneath which flow rivers; therein will they dwell forever. Indeed, that is the great victory. ” (Quran: Surah Taubah)

        And, Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said about the Companions: “Fear Allah! Fear Allah regarding my Companions. Thus, whoever loves them, does so because of my love; whoever hates them, does so because of my hatred.”

        It is thus abundantly clear that Khomeini cherishes a dislike, an aversion, a hatred for the Companions because of his hatred for Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). The closer a Companion was to Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), the viler the abuse and the greater the enmity the Shia demonstrate for him.
        The noble Companions (r.a.m) are the foundation and the pivots of Islam. The entire basis and superstructure of Islam have been magnificently raised on the teachings, explanations and expositions of the Companions (r.a.m). The Qur’an itself has been authentically and authoritatively transmitted to the Ummah down the centuries in the form presented by the illustrious Companions – by Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (r.a.m), the prime targets of Shia and Khomeini vituperation.

        The Shia religion is based on hatred for the Companions (r. a.). Without such hatred, there is no Shi’ism. Hatred for the Companions, which is an overt and conspicuous facet of Shi’ism, is a doctrine of fundamental importance in the Shia religion. It is inconceivable to be a Shia without subscribing to the doctrine of aversion for and vituperation of the noble Companions (r.a.m) of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).

        Shiism & Prophet Mohammad’s Caliphs (Successors)

        In the Shia book, Rijal Kashi, Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) are denigrated in the following narration attributed to Imam Baqir: “Whatever murder is committed in Islam, whatever unlawful wealth is earned and whatever adultery is committed until the appearance of our Imam Mahdi – the sin of all this is “on the necks of” (to be borne by) the two (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar).” (Rijal Kashi, p. 135)

        In the books of Shia theology, the following noxious beliefs are propagated:

        * When Imam Mahdi appears, he will order the exhumation of the bodies of Abu Bakr and Umar. Their bodies will be hung on a tree for public show. Their bodies which even according to Shi’ism have not decomposed, will be stripped of their kafan. Thus, the nude bodies of these noble Companions will be put up for a disgraceful show.

        * The sins of entire mankind, right from the inception of the world until the time of Imam Mahdi’s appearance, collectively are borne by these two noble Companions. Imam Mahdi will bring Abu Bakr and Umar back to life and then will put them to death. They will then be resurrected and put to death again and again in a continuous cycle a thousand times daily, forever and ever. These vile allegations are stated in the Shia book, Haqqul Yaqeen, the author of which is among the highest Shia theologians, Mullah Baqir who is also the author of another book Zaadul Ma’aad which likewise contains many vile fabrications about the Companions.

        The most authentic book of theology of Shi’ism is Al-Jamiul Kafi. In this book in the section, Kitab Rawdha’, the following narration is attributed to the fifth Shia Imam: “After Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) all people became murtads (apostates) except three persons – Miqdad Bin Aswad, Abu Zarr Ghifari and Salman Farsi (r.a.). ”

        In the same book the following narration is attributed to Imam Baqir who allegedly made the statement in reply to his disciple who had sought the Imam’s opinion regarding Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.):
        “What are you asking me about them (Abu Bakr and Umar)? Whoever among us (i.e. the Ahl Bait or the progeny of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) departed from this world, departed in a state of extreme displeasure with them. The elders among us admonished the younger ones to perpetuate it (i.e. this displeasure with Abu Bakr and Umar), Verily, the two of them have unjustly usurped our right. By Allah! These two were the first to settle on our necks (i.e. the necks of the Ahl Bait). Therefore, may the la’nat (curse) of Allah, the Angels and of mankind be on the two of them.

        In the same book, on the same page appears the following: “Verily. these two elders (Abu Bakr and Umar) departed from this world without having made tawbah for what they had perpetrated against Ameer Mumineen (Ali). In fact, they did not even think of us (of their wrongs against Ali). Therefore, may curses of Allah, the Angels and of mankind be on them.” (Kitabur Rawdha, p. 115)

        In Kitabur Rawdha on pages 159-160, the Shia attribute a narration to Salman Farsi (r.a.) in which it is claimed that on the occasion when the oath of allegiance was given to Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first person to swear allegiance to him was an old man who stepped forward crying:

        “All praise to Allah who has not caused me to die yet, enabling me to see you on this pedestal. Stretch your hand. ” Thus he (Abu Bakr) stretched his hand and the old man took the oath of allegiance (at his hand).”

        According to the narration, when Ali (r.a.) heard this from Salman (r.a.), he asked: “Do you know who he (the old man who took the oath of allegiance) is?”

        When Salman (r.a.) replied in the negative, Ali (r.a.) allegedly said: “That was Iblees (the Devil), Allah has cursed him.”

        Thus, according to Shi’ism, the first being who accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr (r.a.) was Iblees (the Devil) who placed his hand in the hand of Abu Bakr (r.a.).

        At the end of this narration in Kitabur Raudhah, the following words are falsely attributed by the Shia scholars to Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.): “Then, they (a group of the Saqeefah Bani Saidah) will come to the Musjid (i.e. Musjid-e-Nabawi) and the first to swear allegiance to him (i.e. Abu Bakr) on my Mimbar will be Iblees, the La’nat of Allah on him. Iblees will appear (on that occasion) in the form of an old man and say so (i.e. what Salman Faarsi has allegedly said).”

        The Shia theologian, Tabatabai, accusing Abu Bakr (r.a.) of having greater concern for Zakaat than the institution of Caliphate says:

        “Surely the problem of the legitimate caliphate was more important and significant than tithes (Zakaat), and Shi’ism believes that the same principle applied by the first caliph to this matter should have been applied by the whole early community to the problem of succession to the Holy Prophet. ”

        This reflects the Shia belief that Abu Bakr and Umar along with the general body of Companions (r.a.m) usurped the Khilaafat which according to the religion of the Shias was the inherent and divine right of Ali (r.a.). Here the Shia scholar, Tabatabai accuses Abu Bakr of having denied Ali his legitimate rights. He further alleges that Abu Bakr and the Companions (r.a.m) accorded no concern to the question of the appointment of the Khalifah and that they violated the Shariah in installing Abu Bakr (r.a.). The Shia belief in regard to the Khilaafat after Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) is that the Companions failed in applying the principle of ‘truth and justice’ because they accepted Abu Bakr (r.a.) as the Khalifah of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).

        Mullah Baqir Majlisi is a renowned cleric in Shia circles. He is regarded as a top-ranking Muhaddith. He flourished in the 10th century of the Hijri era. The Shia clergy has accorded him the title, Khatamul Muhadditheen (the seal of the Muhadditheen). His works are regarded as highly authoritative by the Shia scholars. Khomeini has praised and recommended his writings. This Shia scholar, in his books, writes the following statements whenever he mentions the name of Umar (r.a.)

        “Umar Bin Khattab – May on him be the curse and punishment (of Allah).”

        This is the Shia attitude towards the beloved Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).

        This Mullah Baqir Majlisi has mentioned in his book, Zadul Ma’ad, numerous virtues and excellencies of the 9th of Rabiul Awwal. According to Baqir Majlisi, the significance and excellence of 9th Rabiul Awwal are because “Umar, the enemy of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) and the enemy of the Ahl Bait” was killed on the 9th Rabiul Awwal. It is for this reason that the 9th of Rabiul Awwal should be celebrated as a great occasion of happiness and festivity according to Shi’ism.

        The relevant part of this fabricated narration attributed by the Shia to the famous Companion, Huzaifah (r.a.) is as follows:

        “Huziifah Bin Yaman narrates: Once on the 9th of Rabiul Awwal I went to Prophet Mohammad. I saw Caliph Ali Murtaza, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain also there. All were busy eating. Prophet Mohammad smiling in great happiness said to Hasan and Husain: ‘Sons, today is the day on which Allah will destroy your enemy and the enemy of your grandfather, and Allah will accept the curse of your mother (Fatimah). Eat sons, eat I Today is the day that Allah accepts the deeds of your Shia (partisans), and beloved. Eat sons, eat! Today is the day when the power of your enemy and the enemy of your grandfather will be broken and annihilated in the dust. Eat sons, eat! Today is the day when Fir’on to my Ahl Bait, the one who will oppress and persecute them and who will usurp their rights, will be destroyed.”
        Huzaifah said: I exclaimed: ‘O Prophet Mohammad! Will there be such an evil person in your Ummah, who will perpetrate such villainy?’

        Prophet Mohammad replied: ‘O Huzaifah!

        Among the munafiqs (hypocrites) there will be one idol who will be the leader of the group of the hypocrites . He will carry in his hand the whip of cruelty and injustice; he will prevent people from the Path of truth; he will alter the Qur’an; he will change my Sunnah and my ways; he will oppress my Wasi (Appointee), Ali Bin Abi Talib and he will deprive my daughter, Fatimah of her rights. My daughter will then curse him. Allah Ta’ala will accept her la’nat (curse) and prayers.’ Huzaifah then said: ‘O Prophet Mohammad! Why do you not supplicate to Allah to destroy this Fir’on and oppressor in your very lifetime?’

        Prophet Mohammad replied: ‘O Huzaifah! I do not regard it proper to interfere in the decisions of Allah Ta’ala… But, I have requested Allah Ta’ala to grant excellence and superiority to that day when that oppressor and Fir’on is dispatched to Hell (e.i. when he is destroyed). That day should be decreed superior to all other days so that honoring of that day becomes a Sunnah for my Shiane Ahl Bait (i.e. partisans of my family). Allah (Ta’ala) then sent this Wahi (revelation):

        ‘It has already been decreed in My Eternal Knowledge that the usurping munafiqs (hypocrites) will persecute you and your family. They will inflict many hardships on you and your family. O Muhammad! Ali has been awarded your rank because of these (impending) hardships which will be perpetrated on him by the usurper of his rights and the Fir’on of this Ummah. I have commanded the angels of the seven heavens to rejoice and celebrate Eid on the day he (i.e. Umar) is killed – this is for the sake of the partisans and lovers of the Ahl Bait. I have commanded the recording Angels to cease recording the sins of My servants for three days from that day. This is in honor of that day (on which Umar will be murdered). O Muhammad! Three days grace and permission in general to commit sins have been given in your honor and in honor of your appointee (Ali) … Every year on this day, will I free from Hell thousands of your Shia.’ Huzaifah says: ‘After Prophet Mohammad said this, he arose and left the room and went to the house of Umme Salmah. After having heard this talk of Prophet Mohammad I was convinced of Umar’s Kufr (disbelief). There remained no doubt in this. Finally, after the demise of Prophet Mohammad, I witnessed the fitnah which he (Umar) created. He exhibited the Kufr (disbelief) which was concealed in him. He reneged from Islam and usurped the Imamate and Caliphate. To achieve this end he adopted the most shameless methods. He altered the Qur’an and burnt the holy house of Prophet Mohammad. He pleased the Jews, Christians and the Magians and displeased Fatimah and the entire Ahl Bait, and he conspired to have Ameerul Mu’meen ( Ali) murdered. He made haram what Allah had made halal and legalized what Allah had made unlawful. He slammed the door against the face and stomach of Fatimah(r. a.).

        Huzaifah then said:

        ‘Finally Allah Ta’ala accepted the curses of His Holy Nabi and his daughter in regard to this Munafiq (i.e. Umar) and had him killed at the hands, of his killer (Abu Lu’lu’ Irani). May there be the Rahmat (Mercy) of Allah on his (Umar’s) killer.”

        (Source: Zadul Ma’ad – Pages 433-436)

        Needless to say, this whole narration, from beginning to end, is a colossal fabrication of the Shia enemies of the Companions in general, and of the first three Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) in particular. Shia scholars are notorious for the fabrication of narration’s which they falsely attribute to their Imams.

        Shia’s fabrications state that:

        1. Umar (r.a.), the second Caliph of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) was a kafir (apostate).
        2. Not only was Umar (r.a.) a kafir, but a munafiq (hypocrite).
        3. Umar (r.a.) was the leader of the Munafiqeen (hypocrites).
        4. Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) and the Ahl Bait had cursed Umar (r.a.).
        5. Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) had prayed for the murder of Umar (r.a.).
        6. Umar (r.a.) had altered and interpolated the Qur’an..
        7. Umar (r.a.) was a cruel oppressor, unjust and a usurper.
        8. Umar (r.a.) prevented others from Iman (faith) and Islam.
        9. Umar (r.a.) conspired to murder Ali (r.a.).

        The day when Umar (r.a.) was killed is such an occasion of rejoicing that Shia’s falsely claim that Allah declared the permissibility of sinning for three consecutive days. That is, each year for three days from the date of Umar’s murder, Shia are permitted to fornicate, consume alcohol, steal and commit all sins and crimes with complete equanimity since sins are not recorded in these three days. The Shia consider the murderer of Umar (r.a.) to be a great hero for killing Umar.

        These are the abominable teachings of Shi’ism regarding the illustrious Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab (r.a.) about whom Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said: “If there had to be a Nabi after me, it would have been Umar.

        Also Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said: “The sternest in the Law of Allah is Umar. ”
        Nahjul Balaaghah, the highest theological book of the Shia, have this to say about Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.):

        “Boldly and unscrupulously he (i.e. Abu Bakr) and his successor (i.e. Umar), each in turn, pillaged and plundered the wealth of the community leaving the state in such sadly injured condition that the passage of time was increasing the intensity of the injury,.. But, it was carried on under the guise of law and order and many unacceptable excuses were offered to justify these irreligious and ungodly arrogation’s and many more will be repeated in the future.”

        The Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir Sadr writes about Prophet Mohammad Companions in general and Umar (r.a.) in particular:
        “… we find that it is necessary to accept the existence of a large trend, from the very lifetime of the Prophet, who inclined towards proposing the use of Ijtihad and circumstantial considerations in determining their interests, above strict adherence to the religious texts……..This trend was represented by a daring group of important Companions like, Umar bin-al-Khattab, who disputed with the Messenger and made judgements contradicting the text in many subjects, believing that he had the right to do so.”
        The type of ‘Ijtihad’ which the Shia attribute to Umar (r.a.), in particular, and to other Companions, in general, is described in the following statement of Shia scholar, Baqir Sadr: “…we mean by ‘ijtihad’ the making of judgements in contradiction to the text or acceptance of such a judgement.”
        A king who pillages and plunders the wealth of a nation is supposed to lead a life of luxury-living in palatial mansions and palaces; relaxing in gardens and orchards; adorning himself in garments of silk, velvet and brocade; indulging in sumptuous feasts and extravagance. But history bears loud testimony to the austere, simple, in fact, life of extreme poverty led by Caliph Umar (r.a.). A dozen patches adorned his kurtah of coarse cloth. The frugality and austerity of Umar (r.a.) have already attained proverbial significance. The most ardent Sunni sympathizer of Khomeini will not fail in acknowledging this glaring historical fact. Yet the Shia scholars dare to accuse a great man such as Umar of having pillaged and plundered the wealth of the Ummah!
        HaqquI Yaqeen is another very highly placed book of Shia theology. The author of Haqqul Yaqeen is the same Shia Mullah Baqir Majlisi, author of Zadul Ma’ad from which the lengthy fabricated narration (mentioned earlier) has been cited. In his book HaqquI Yaqeen, Baqi Majlisi cites a very lengthy narration in which Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) are subjected to extreme vilification. Some excerpts from this fabricated narration of vilification are reproduced here:
        “After Makkah Muazzamah, Imam Mehdi will proceed to Madinah, the city of our grandfather, Prophet Mohammad. At Madinah, he (Imam Mehdi) will demonstrate an astonishing act which will be a cause of great happiness for the Believers and a cause of disgrace for the kuffar (disbelievers) and hypocrites … When Imam Mehdi will reach the grave of Prophet Mohammad, he will ask the people: “0 people! Is this the grave of our grandfather, Prophet Mohammad?”
        The people will say – “Yes, this is his grave.” Imam Mehdi will then ask:”
        “Who are these persons who have been buried alongside our grandfather!”
        The people will say: “They are Abu Bakr and Umar, the closest companions of Prophet Mohammad I” Imam Mehdi (in spite of knowing everything) will say:
        “Who was Abu Bakr? And, who was Umar? What was their excellence which necessitated their burial alongside our grandfather?”…
        “After three days, Sahibul Amr (the Shia title for Imam Mehdi) will order the walls to be broken and their bodies exhumed .. After the exhumation of their bodies, he will order their kafan to be removed and their bodies will be hung up on a dried out tree… ”
        Imam Mehdi will command a dark storm to destroy those who loved them (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar). Imam Mehdi will then order that the bodies be taken down from the tree. With the power of Allah, Imam Mehdi will restore them to life. He will order all mankind to gather. Then these two will be held liable for the sin of all oppression and Kufr (disbelief) which occurred from the beginning of the world. They will be held responsible for all such sin …..
        The sin of every murder committed, of every act of adultery committed, of every act of riba, of every act of haram wealth and injustice perpetrated until the advent of Imam Mehdi’s appearance, will be charged against them (Abu Bakr and, Umar). Both of them will plead guilty to all these crimes … Sahibul Amr will then command that they be hanged on a tree. He will command a fire to rise from the earth and devour them. A fire will (miraculously) rise and reduce them (Abu Bakr and Umar) and the tree to ashes.. ”
        “Muhammad Prophet Mohammad, Ameerul Mumineen (i.e. Ali), Fatimah Zahra, Hasan Mujtaba, Husain Shaheed, and all the sinless Imams will come to life. All Mumins (believers) and all kafirs (disbelievers or apostates) will also come to life. ”
        “… The two (Abu Bakr and Umar) will then be punished so much, that daily, in one day and one night, they will be killed and restored to life a thousand times. After this, Allah will take them away to wherever He desires and continue punishing them as long as He desires. ”
        (source: HaqquI Yaqeen)

        This is the official teaching of Shia’s religion regarding the two highest & closest Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).
        In his book Kashful Asrar on page 121, Khomeini advises his Shia brethren to study the books of Mullah Baqir Majlisi who has presented these repugnant fabrications regarding the Companions (r.a.).
        Nahjul Balaaghah, one of the highest books of Shia theology has the following abuse and vituperation for the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and the illustrious Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.); this scurrilous attack and abuse is ascribed by the Shia to Ali (r.a.).:
        “At last the first Caliph died, but while going, he appointed another to fill his vacancy. It is not astonishing that during his lifetime he was always badly in need of the help Of Others to compensate for his imperfections and defects and to cover his faults and failures, but at the time of his death he thought himself to be wise and learned enough to fix and appoint somebody to carry on the duties at which he was a complete failure himself.”
        “Boldly and unscrupulously he and his successor (a reference to Umar), each in turn, pillaged and plundered the wealth of the community leaving the state in such sadly injured condition that the passage of time was increasing the intensity of the injury … But it was carried on under the guise of law and order and many unacceptable excuses were offered to justify these irreligious and ungodly arrogation’s and many more will be repeated in the future.”
        “Consequently the third (i.e. Uthman) proudly took charge of the caliphate, as if it was a private grazing ground, and with bloated stomachs he and members of his clan (Bani Umayya) started plundering the wealth of the Muslim world in the same reckless gluttonous manner which characterizes a camel when it devours harvest grass. However, this man met an untimely death. The greed of his clan was the cause of his undoing. ”
        (Nahjul Balaaghah)
        The Shia scholar Ghulam Husain Najfi wrote in his book, Fi Jawab: Nikah Umme Kulthoom: “Umar did not believe in the Quran.” (Page 429) “Umar continued to consume liquor even after it was declared unlawful. The last thing which he consumed before his death was liquor.” (Page430) “Umar is the lock of Hell.” (Page 430)
        There are many other statements of extreme filth which these Shia hoodlum scholars gorge out against Umar and Uthman (r.a.). But we feel too ashamed to record and too difficult to write the filthy words of vulgarity and immorality which the scholars of Shi’ism so shamelessly and mercilessly direct against the most illustrious Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.).
        The filthiest charges of moral debasement are hurled at Caliph Uthman about whom Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) spoke so glowingly. His modesty and shame were of such a lofty degree that, according to Prophet Mohammad ( s. a. w.), even the Angels felt shy for him. It is only Shia renegades and unbelievers who possess sufficient audacity and shamelessness to besmirch such a paragon of virtue and modesty with the vilest charges of immorality and moral debasement.
        The Shia scholar, Muhammad Hussain Dakkoo, states in his book, Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat:
        “While the Sunnis consider them Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) to be the noblest after Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) we (Shia) firmly believe that they were bereft of the wealth of Iman (faith) and Ikhlas (sincerity).” (Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat, p. 201)

        “….. the three Khalifs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) in his (Ali’s) estimation were sinners, liars, treacherous, cheats, oppressors and usurpers… ” (Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat, p. 206)

        “The conquests during the reign of the first three Khalifs sullied the name of Islam.” (Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat, p. 95)

        Marriage of Ali’s Daughter to Umar
        Shia, unanimously regard Ali as the first and highest of their Imams. Some regard him even as God. The main sect of Shi’ism, the Twelvers, to which Khomeini belongs, claims that Ali (r.a.) to be on the same rank as Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) as well as being higher than even other prophets.
        Khomeini states: “It is one of the essential beliefs of our Shia school that no one can attain the spiritual status of the lmaam, not even the cherubim or the prophets. ” (Writings and Declarations of Khomeini)
        The Shia book, Usool-e-Kafi states: “The laws brought by Ali … His rank is like the rank of Muhammad.”
        Ali (r.a.) approved the marriage of his eldest daughter, Umme Kulthoom (r. a.) to Umar (r.a.). Umme Kulthum (r. a.) was the eldest daughter of Fatimah (r. a.). This act of Ali (r.a.) completely confuses the Shia and entirely repudiates the Shia doctrine of hatred for the Companions in general and for Umar (r.a.) in particular. Shia scholars are at pains and to this day remain in the grip of mental labor pains attempting to explain away and misinterpret this act of Ali (r.a.).
        In struggling to explain away this indictment against Shi’ism, the Shia scholars resort to a variety of Taqiyah Tricks. But, far from satisfactorily explaining this truth, they only succeed in compounding their confusion and exhibiting their mental absurdity.
        How was it possible for Ali (r.a.) to have consented to his daughter marrying Umar (r.a.) whom Shi’ism unanimously brands as a munafiq, kafir, murtad, murderer, oppressor and a multitude of other vile epithets? Indeed, this holy marriage is perpetually dangling on the necks of the Shia scholars like a dead albatross which they are unable to shed off – with which they have to live and be haunted.
        Among the most ludicrous explanations fabricated by the Shia to argue away this historical fact, Rawindi the ‘ Qutubul Aqtab’ of the Shia claims that when Umar (r.a.) pressurized and threatened Ali (r.a.) to consent to this marriage with Umme Kulthum, he (Ali) miraculously transformed a female Jinn into the form, and appearance of Kulthum. Thus, Umar (r.a.) married this female Jinn while the real Umme Kulthum remained in concealment. Only plunderers of Iman (faith) could fabricate such nonsensical absurdity. This alleged miraculous transformation of the female Jinn is described in detail in the Shia book, Mawaiz-e-Husainiyah.
        Regarding this marriage, Abu Ja’far Yaqub Kaleeni, claims in his book Furoo’Kafi (an authoritative book of the Shia) that Umar (r.a.) did not marry Umme Kulthum, but abducted her by force. According to these miserable Shia slanderers, Umar captured her by force, had intercourse with her and kept her in captivity against her wishes and without marrying her.

        Contempt for the Other Companions
        The Qur’an speaks glowingly regarding the Companions. In one place, the Qur’an praises the Companions in the following terms:

        But, Shi’ism preaches that all these Muhajireen and Ansar among the Companions, in fact all the Companions with the exception of three, reneged from Islam, i.e. they became murtads (apostate) and kafirs (disbeliever) after the demise of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). Thus, the “Asah-hul Kutub” The Most Authentic “of Books” of the Shia religion, Al-Jamiul Kafi, states in its chapter, Kitabur Raudhah on page 115: “After (the demise of) Nabi-(s. a. w.) – all the people (i.e. the Companions) became murtads (apostates), excepting three. – Miqdad Bin Aswad, Abu Zar Ghifari and Salman Farsi”

        The Shia in the introduction of Nahjul Balaaghah revile the eminent Companion of Prophet Mohammad, Abu Musaa Ash’ari (r.a.) by saying:
        “A weak and old man, named Abu Moosa Ashari, who was also secretly hostile to Ali be nominated as the arbitrator from this side (i.e. the side of Ali).”
        “…these arbitrators (i.e. Abu Musaa Ashari and Amr Ibn Aas) sold the cause of Islam along with their souls to the Devil.
        “Abu Moosa-e-Ashari, was a man with weak faith more inclined to look after his worldly interest than the cause Of religion.”

        But, Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) spoke in glowing terms of even the members of Abu Musaa Asha’ari’s tribe, leave alone the great Companion known as Abu Musaa Ash’ari. Said Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.): “They (i.e. the tribe members of Abu Musaa Asha’ari) are of me and I am of them.” (Bukhari)

        Abu Hurairah (r.a.) is a famous name. This illustrious Companion of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) is well-known for his copious narration of ahadith. Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) made special dua for Abu Hurairah (r.a.), but Khomeini has the following to say about this eminent Companion and Muhaddith:
        “God knows what Misfortunes Islam has Suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil ‘ulama’. Abu Hurairah was one of the fuqaha, but Allah knows what judgments he falsified for Muaawiya and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam – But when a faqih like Abu Hurairah or a judge like Shurayh joins such a government, he improves its standing while besmirching the reputation of Islam.”
        Commenting on this statement of Khomeini, Hamid Algar the compiler of Khomeini’s writings and declarations, states: “Shia scholars have regarded him (Abu Hurairah) as unreliable and even dishonest.”

        But, Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) made special dua for Abu Hurairah in respect of narration of ahadith, hence we observe the ahadith in abundance narrated by him. The following statement bears out the love which Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) had for Abu Hurairah (r.a.).
        “O Allah! Endear this, your servant (Abu Hurairah) and his mother to your believing servants and endear the believers to them.” (Sahih Muslim)
        Thus those who are Believers love Abu Hurairah (r.a.). Those who are unbelievers detest Abu Hurairah (r.a.).
        Khomeini, slandering the eminent Companion, Samura Bin Jundub (r.a.) says: “Dissemination of the ordinances of Islam, as well as the teaching and instruction of the people, is the duty of the fuqaha who are just. For if they are not just, they will be like those who forged traditions harmful to Islam, like Samura ibn Jandab, who forged traditions hostile to the Commander of the Faithful.”
        Every Muslim knows that Khalid Bin Walid (r.a.) has been given the title, Saifullah (the Sword of Allah) by Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). But, the Shia scholar, Hussain Buksh Jara, offers the following vituperation:
        “Tyrant Khalid beheaded Malik and two leaders of his tribe. Their heads were put in the oven in which food was cooked for the feast of Walimah. In this way, the Walimah of zina (adultery) was prepared and Khalid himself ate therefrom and served it to his soldiers as well. ” (Munazarah Baghdad, p. 100)
        In the Shia religion, Zubair (r.a.) is described as a criminal, evil, treacherous and among the people of Hell ! But, Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said about Zubair, according to Tirmizi :
        “Every Nabi had a hawaari (helper) and my hawaari is Zubair.”
        “Zubair will be in Jannat (Paradise).”

        Zubair and Talhah whom the Shia claim are among the “people destined to Hell”, are in fact members of the ten Companions to whom Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) delivered the glad tidings that they will go straight to Paradise. However, Khomeini and his Shia believe that these noble men are among the people of Hell.
        The Shia believe that Prophet Mohammad’s Companion Talhah (r.a.) is evil, treacherous, a criminal and among the people of the Fire, but Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) said according to Tirmizi: “Talhah and Zubair will be my two neighbors in Jannat.”
        Another lie which the Shia attribute to Ali (r.a.) is the following statement: “You know very well that Amr-ibn-Aas himself is an inveterate liar, he usually lies, he makes promises without intention of fulfilling them … He habitually breaks his pledges, never keeps a promise and is unkind and unmerciful In the battlefield before the swords are drawn and fight begins, he is usually very bold in giving orders and very conspicuous in pretension of leading the army; but when the fight actually begins, his greatest tactic is to show his opponents his naked buttocks. ” (Source: Nahjul Balaaghah)
        Caliph Ali (r.a.) never uttered such falsehood, slander, abuse, insult and vulgarity. Such abuse and vituperation are the stock weapons of Shi’ism. Ali (r.a.) had the utmost respect and honor for Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (r.a.). In fact, Ali (r.a.) took the oath of allegiance (ba’yt) on the hands of the first three Khulafa Raashideen. Furthermore, Ali (r.a.) could never have spoken so disparagingly of the great Conqueror of Islam, viz., Amr Ibn Aas (r.a.) who was among the top-ranking Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). No believer and no person of any Iman (faith) can ever accept that Ali (r.a.) was capable of uttering such profanity as the Shia ascribe to him.


        Allah (Ta’ala) says in the Qur’an:

        “The Prophet has a greater claim on the Believers than their own selves. And, his wives are their mothers.”
        Thus, an article of our faith is honor, respect and love for Umaahatul Mu’mineen, the holy Mothers of the Believers, Viz., the honorable wives of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). Whoever denigrates them and brands them as unbelievers, is himself/herself a kafir.
        Among the honorable wives of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), Aisha (Radiallahu Anha) and Hafsa (Radiallahu Anha) are special targets for Shia abuse, slander and vilification. This is because they are the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.) respectively. The same degree of hatred cherished by Shia for Shaikhain (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar (r.a.)) is gorged out against Aishah and Hafsah (r.a.). Shia narration’s shamelessly describe these illustrious and noble wives of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) as disbelievers and hypocrites, etc. The worst of slanders and calumnies are leveled against them.
        Mullah Baqir Majlisi, in his book, Hayatul Quloob – one of the most authoritative books of the Shia religion – repeatedly described Aisha and Hafsa (r.a.) as munafiqs (hypocrites). In this book, Baqir also alleges: “Aisha and Hafsa mudered Prophet Mohammad by giving him poison.” (Vol. 2, p. 870)
        Accusing Shaikhain and their daughters of conspiracy to murder Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), the Shia, 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 Aisha and Hafsa) agreed to martyr Prophet Mohammad by administering poison to him.”

        Mutahhiri, a leading cleric of the Shia religion, says:
        “Now that we see Ali, and Ammaar, Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with Aisha 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 Shia theologians, it will be evident that the Shia religion describes Aisha Siddiqah (Radiallahu Anha) the beloved wife of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) as a criminal, evil, treacherous and among the people of Hell.
        Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) warned:
        “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha.” (Bukhari-Muslim)
        “The superiority of Aishah over women is like the superiority of thareed (a kind of food) over all food.” (Muslim)
        “O’ Aisha! Jibraeel recites Salaam upon you.” (Muslim)
        The Shia scholar, Muhammad Hussain Dakkoo, states in his book, Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat:
        “We do not deny the first part of the Sunni claim that Aisha (r. a.) being the wife of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.) is the mother of the Muslims. But we do not hold the view that she was a believer. To be a mother is one thing and to be a Mu’minah (Believer) is another thing. ” (Tajalliat- e-Sadaqat, p. 478)


        In the a foregoing pages, it has been abundantly clarified that Shi’ism stand on the basis of hatred for the Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). Thus, a perpetual tirade of venom, insult, abuse and vilification permeate the books of the Shia religion. This mass of vituperation is directed against the first three Khulafa-e-Raashideen, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (r.a.m) in particular and against all Companions in general. As mentioned earlier, the Shia religion propagates that all the Companions of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.), excepting three, became apostate after the demise of Prophet Mohammad (s. a. w.). Hence, vilification of the Companions is regarded as an honorable and meritorious act in Shi’ism.
        But, according to Islam, love for the Companions is a fundamental requirement of Iman (faith). Vilification of the Companions is Kufr (disbelief). Those who deny the Iman (faith) of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and accuse them of Kufr (disbelief), irtidaad and Nifaaq, are themselves kuffar of the worst order.

          • YO HO HO MO,




            Sheikh al-Habib’s speech on 17th Ramadan 1432

            Section : Articles || Date : 2011 / 08 / 24 || Reading : 5212

            In celebration of the delightful occasion of the death anniversary of the enemy of God Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr (May the wrath of God be upon them both) falling on the 17th of the holy month of Ramadan 1432, Khoddam al-Mehdi (peace be upon him) Organisation held a special ceremony in which Sheikh Yasser al-Habib (May God prolong his life) delivered a highly informative speech.

            Sheikh al-Habib began his speech by praising God the Most Exalted and sending his sincere congratulations to the holy Prophet and his pure Household (peace be upon them) as well as all believing men and women.

            His eminence then went on to say; we get asked, “Why and for what reason would we celebrate [the death anniversaries of the enemies of the pure Household of the Prophet peace be upon them]? Although no one is supposed to question or argue the importance of holding such ceremonies in which we declare our complete disassociation from such individuals.”

            “Just as we should celebrate the birth anniversaries of our pure infallibles (peace be upon them), we also should celebrate the death anniversaries of their enemies. By celebrating the occasion of their birth anniversaries we renew and demonstrate through our behaviour our complete Muwalaat [1] for our pure infallibles whom God has commanded us to love, follow and associate with. Whereas by celebrating the death anniversaries of their enemies we renew and demonstrate our complete Bara’a [2] from their enemies.”

            This is certainly a confirmation of the following hadith, the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) said:

            “If you find people of innovation and suspicion after me, then demonstrate disassociation from them and address them with much words of condemnation”

            hence we celebrate such occasions as there is no more effective means of demonstrating disassociation from the enemies of the pure Household of the prophet (peace be upon them) than through such ceremonies.

            In regard to the reason why we lay emphasis on celebrating the death anniversary of Aisha in particular, Sheikh al-Habib said:

            “We have declared war on Aisha because there are traditions of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) reported by both Shia and non-Shia that command us to declare war on the enemies of the pure Household of the Prophet (peace be upon them).”

            “For instance, it has been reported in the Bakri books of Hadith including Musnad Ahmed, Musnad Ibn abi Shayba, Mu’jam At-Tabarani as well as Sahih Ibn Hibban with good chain of narrators (i.e. Sanad Hasan) on the authority of Zaid ibn al-Arqam and Abu Huraira, ‘the messenger of God looked towards Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain (peace be upon them, this was also mentioned in the Hadith) and said, I am in war with those who wage war on you and in peace with those who are peaceful to you.’

            “Did Aisha wage war on the pure Household of the Prophet, certainly she did. She rode her accursed camel, rebelled and waged war against Imam Ali (peace be upon him). Since the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) has declared war against those who declare war on his pure Household, and since God the Most Exalted stated in the holy Quran in Chapter 33 verse 21 ‘Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example’, today we have declared war on Aisha”.

            Needless to say, our pure Imams (peace be upon them) have already taught us to say the preceding phrase [3] when sending salutations to them such as in Ziarat Ashura and al-Ziarah al-Jami’a. Accordingly, one should act upon it by confronting and making war on all those who have waged war on the pure Household of the Prophet (peace be upon them) with no exception.

            In other words, one should not become satisfied with simply making war on some of the enemies of the pure Household such as Mu’awiya and Yazid during the first ten days of the month of Muharram, but rather, one should also confront and make war on such a “warlike, criminal and hostile individual as Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr” who assassinated the holy Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his pure family); the greatest and most precious individual to all Muslims.

            In addition, if Bakris choose to turn a blind eye to the countless crimes committed by Aisha that include, “assassinating the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family), inciting and rebelling against the Imam of her time (i.e. Imam Ali peace be upon him), shedding the blood of 3000 innocent Muslim, shooting arrows at the corpse of Imam al-Hassan (peace be upon him) to prevent his burial beside his grandfather, abusing Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her) and expressing happiness on the day she was martyred”, there is no way they can deny the fact that she has introduced the innovation of adult-breastfeeding in the religion of Islam.

            According to the following Hadith narrated by Anas:

            “The messenger of Allah peace be upon him [and his pure family] said, when an innovator dies, Islam has triumphed” [4].

            Regardless of the fact that the day on which Aisha died is already a day of victory as it marks the first major victory of Islam at Badr, it is also a day of victory and jubilation for all Muslims because Aisha, as an innovator, herself admitted that she had done wrong as Ibn Qutayba reported:

            “…When she (i.e. Aisha) was nearly seventy. She was asked, “Shall we bury you next to the Messenger of Allah?” She replied, “But I did wrong. Bury me with my sisters.” So she was buried in the Baqi’ cemetery [5].

            Therefore, according to the preceding traditions and the following well-known hadith

            “Every worst deed is an innovation in religion, and every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is doomed to Hell”, the day on which Aisha died should be a day of victory and jubilation for all Muslims.

            His eminence then presented Hadith evidence and rigorously authentic Bakri narrations supporting the fact that Aisha (May the wrath of Allah be upon her) was a hypocrite; simply had no belief in Allah the Most Exalted or His messenger.

            FIRST EVIDENCE

            Narrated Hisham’s father: Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse:

            ‘(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (3 3.51) was revealed, Aisha said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing your own lust and desires!'”

            The major verses of the Quran that Aisha violated by uttering such words of disbelief are the first verses of Chapter 53 “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful, I swear by the star when it goes down, Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray, Nor does he speak out of desire, It is naught but revelation that is revealed, The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him”


            Reported by Abu Ya`la and Abu al-Sheikh al-Asbahani [6] in his book ‘Amthal al-Hadith’ that “Once Aisha said (to the Prophet) while angry, You claim that you are a Messenger? The Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] smiled and forbore what she said.”

            It has also been reported in Al-Sira Al-Halabiya, by Ali ibn Burhan al-Din al-Halabi [7], that the holy Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] once ordered his two wives Aisha and Safiya to swap camels to assure that the passage of the caravan would not be delayed as Aisha’s camel was faster than Safiya’s whose camel was loaded down with much heavier weight. Here Aisha said angrily:

            “You claim that you are a Messenger?” to which the Prophet replied: “Do you doubt that I am?” Aisha said: “Do justice then!” Upon hearing this, Abu Bakr gave Aisha a slap in the face. The Prophet then said: “leave her, a jealous woman cannot tell the bottom of the valley from its top!”

            This narration alleges that the Prophet had excused Aisha’s jealousy and that jealous women are not to be taken to task for what they do! Which would mean that no matter how awful a jealous woman’s actions, they could always be justified!

            THIRD EVIDENCE

            Reported at-Tabarani in al-Awsat and al-Khatib in al-Tarikh, “Once the Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] and Aisha were angry with each other. Meanwhile, Abu Bakr intervened as an arbiter. The Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] said (to Aisha), ‘either you or I speak’.

            She said, ‘You can speak but you should tell the truth’.

            Thereupon, Abu Bakr punched her and said, ‘O the opponent of herself! Does he tell other than the truth!’ Accordingly, she resorted to the Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] shelter and sat down behind him. The Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] said to Abu Bakr, ‘We neither invited you to do that nor did we want you to do such a thing.’”

            This indicates that this woman had no belief in the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family), for a true believing Muslim would know that the Prophet of Allah speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.


            Reported Abd Bin Hamid in his Sahih as well as at-Tabarani with a Sahih sand (i.e. authentic chain of narrators) that “the Prophet peace be upon him [and his pure family] was once accompanied with Abu Bakr when he asked Aisha to provide them with food to which Aisha replied: ‘by Allah, we have no food’ the Prophet then said: ‘feed us’, Aisha said: ‘by Allah, we have no food’, the Prophet repeated his request for the third time, ‘feed us’, to which Aisha replied again, ‘by Allah, we have no food’.

            Upon hearing this, Abu Bakr said: ‘O messenger of Allah, a believing woman would not swear that she did not have something when she did!” to which the prophet replied: ‘How would you know whether she is a believer or not? A believing woman is the same among women as a white-footed raven among the ravens. Fire has been created for the senseless, and verily women are amongst the senseless except those whose hearts are enlightened with Emaan” [8]

            This is just another clear-cut evidence and the straw that breaks Aisha’s back as well as her accursed camel’s for it clearly proves the uncertainty of her belief.

            Sheikh al-Habib further said that if the opponents of the pure household of the Prophet continue to turn a blind eye to these narrations reported in their own books of Hadith then the verses of Chapter 66 of the holy Quran revealed in condemnation of Aisha and Hafsa are enough to prove that Aisha was a sinful wrongdoer whose heart deviated from the true path.

            Allah the Most Exalted warned Aisha and Hafsa that by merely marrying the Prophet, they would not be exempted from going to hell, just how the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut were not exempted from going to hellfire. This was mainly the point Sheikh al-Habib was trying to get across.

            Sheikh al-Habib added, Narrated Ibn Abbas: I had been eager to ask Umar bin Al−Khattab about the two ladies from among the wives of Prophet regarding whom Allah said ‘If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this)’ till Umar performed the Hajj and I too, performed the Hajj along with him.

            (On the way) Umar went aside to excrete waste, and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler full of water, and when Umar had finished, I poured water over his hands and he performed the ablution. Then I said to him, “O chief of the Believers! Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said:

            ‘If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this)?’ (66.4) He said, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa.” [9]

            Needless to say, there is no single verse, which states that Aisha or Hafsa turned in repentance after their hearts had already deviated or that Allah the Most Exalted has accepted their repentance anywhere in the Quran. Whereas, we find in the Quran an example of three of the Prophet’s companions who had stayed behind and had not taken part in the battle of Tabuk but then asked Allah for forgiveness,

            “And to the three who were left behind, until the earth became strait to them notwithstanding its spaciousness and their souls were also straitened to them; and they knew it for certain that there was no refuge from Allah but in Him; then He turned to them (mercifully) that they might turn (to Him); surely Allah is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.” [10]

            Allah the Most Exalted has documented the repentance of those three companions as well as his acceptance of their repentance in the holy Quran, the most truthful book of all books. However, he has not documented any of that for Aisha. Accordingly, we believe that Aisha is a non-believer currently burning in hellfire.
            [1] Loving, befriending and following Muhammad and his pure family (peace be upon them).
            [2] Shunning and completely disassociating oneself from the enemies of the pure household of the Prophet (peace be upon them).
            [3] I am in war with those who wage war on you and in peace with those who are peaceful to you.
            [4] History of Baghdad, by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Number 1831, Vol. 4, PG. 158.
            [5] Al-Ma’arif by Ibn Qutayba, PG. 135.
            [6] Author of Tabaqat al-Muhaditheen fi Asbahan.
            [7] A Bakri historian and scholar.
            [8] Musnad al Shamiyyin by at-Tabarani, vol. 4, PG. 91.
            [9] Sahihul-Bukhar, 7.119
            [10] Holy Quran, 009.118

            Aisha acts contrary to the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family)

            Section : Saturday Lectures || Date : 2010 / 02 / 02 || Reading : 5170

            Lecture Date: 26.09.2009

            Sheikh Yasser al-Habib reminded his audience that God said that whoever does the opposite of what He and His Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had ordered, will be punished in the fires of hell. But despite this, some of those who are called “Companions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family)” and Aisha acted contrary to Islam and the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family)’s ruling.

            One of these rules was when the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) (Peace be upon him and his pure family) said that a child belongs to its house of residence and family, and that the adulterer has no right to or over it, and would be punished. The Sheikh explained that in the early days of Islam, many men would come to the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family), claiming that a child of a certain household was theirs.

            The Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) would refuse their demand, leaving the child with the family, even if there was some resemblance between the child and the adulterer. This was to protect children from being taken away from their homes. We read in Bukhari, part 3, page 4, that Aisha narrated a Hadith about a neighbour to someone demanding the family’s boy, claiming he was the father. The family father had died and a dispute erupted over the boy. The Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) decided in favour of the family, letting the boy stay with the household. Aisha therefore knew this rule, but later on acted against it.

            The events surrounding Ziad Ibn Obaid Allah were the main topic of the evening, especially his renaming and allocating him to the Quraish family to elevate his status. People used to call Ziad without adding the usual complete Arabic term Ibn so and so, as the identity of his father was uncertain. Abi Sufyan claimed that he had a relationship with Ziad’s married mother, and was his father. Steps were taken to include him in the Quraish family to elevate his status and establish his power, and he was thereafter called Ziad Ibn Abi Sufyan. Aisha agreed to the changes, even though the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) ordered that a child can never be given in the care of an adulterer.

            Muawiyyah wanted to damage Imam Ali’s (Peace be upon him) rule, and wrote letters to Ziad, in whom he saw benefits for himself. In these he explained the possibility of becoming a member of the Quraish family. Imam Ali was opposed to this, and described Muawiyyah in Nahj Ul-Balagha as Satan.

            We read in Bukari and other Bakri sources that people rebelled and changed rules after the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family)’s death, so this event should not come as a surprise to us.

            Sheikh Yasser al-Habib looked into history which testifies in works such as “The History of Damascus”, that Muawiyyah was among the first to change the Prophet’s (Peace be upon him and his pure family) rulings. Sometimes reports were incomplete, as these Bakri scholars had to practice Taqqiyyah, the concealment of true faith and opinion due to the danger of being killed because of the persecution at the time.

            It is strange how Shia Muslims get criticized by Bakris for the very same practice. Al Dhahabi, a prominent Bakri scholar, mentioned the conditions of the time with an authoritative ruler persecuting Shia Muslims and killing them. This was the environment they lived in, where the truth was either concealed or changed, with a military rule protecting these changes, regardless of the protests of the people.


            Are these narrations which prove Aisha’s inclination towards obscenity, authentic?

            ( Section : Misdeed )

            May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.
            Are these narrations authentic according to the Sunnis? Did Aisha truly order her sisters to breastfeed foreign men?

            Why do Bakris reject these narrations?

            Ahmad, son of Hanbal, said in his Musnad, volume 6, page 271: «Aisha used to instruct her sisters and the daughters of her sisters to breastfeed whomever she wanted to see her and enter upon her – even if he would be an adult – with five suckles. Then they would enter upon her. Umm Salam and the rest of the Prophet’s wives refused to let any man enter upon them through such suckles. End.»

            Another narration says that Aisha used to instruct the daughters of her brothers and the daughters of her sisters to breastfeed – whomever she wanted to enter upon her and see her – even if he would be an adult – with five suckles. Then he would enter upon her.
            Narrator: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.

            Source: Fath’ul-Bari. Page or number: 53/9.
            Conclusion: Its chain of narrators is Sahih (authentic).
            What is the chain of the two narrations?


            Abo Hassan


            In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon our Master, Mohammad, and his good and pure Family, and may the curse of Allah be upon all their enemies.

            The office’s answer:

            May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.
            The Sheikh said that the narration is authentic according to the Bakris. He also confirmed that it’s well-known among them. This act is regarded as one of the misdeeds of Aisha (may Allah curse her) and as one of the evidences of her deviation and obscene nature.

            The 15th night of Shawwal, year 1430.

            The office of Sheikh al-Habib in London

            Did the Messenger of Allah insult Aisha the same way you do?!

            ( Section : Misconceptions )


            May peace and the mercy of Allah be upon you. O Allah, send Your blessings upon Mohammad and the Family of Mohammad.

            Let’s say that I agree with you on the issue of the Prophet’s wife, Aisha; that she truly is how you describe in your speeches. However, shouldn’t we ask ourselves the following question: How did the Messenger of Allah treat this personality, Aisha?

            Did the Messenger of Allah insult her, swear at her, curse her, and give her the same attributes as you do? Did the Messenger of Allah judge Aisha the same way you do? Did he say that she’s a devil, disbeliever, obscene, and hanging upside-down from her legs in Hellfire and eating corpses etc.?

            Isn’t the Great Messenger our rolemodel on how to treat everyone and everything?

            Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

            The Qur’an says: «Indeed, you have a good example in the Messenger of Allah for he whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day…» [1] «Today I have completed your religion for you, and completed My favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as a religion…» [2] «And whoever chooses a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he shall be one of the losers.» [3]


            In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon our Master, Mohammad, and his good and pure Family, and may the curse of Allah be upon all their enemies.

            The office’s answer:

            May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.

            The Eminent Sheikh commented the following on your letter:

            The word “Humaira” itself which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) used when referring to Aisha, is an offensive word with the purpose of degradation. It carries the meaning that she used to have a lot of menstruation, and that is why he used to say to her: «O you whose legs are red!» The following is among the Arab proverbs: «The worst of women is the Humaira who has a lot of menstruation.»

            The Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) often used to insult Aisha and give her attributes which cause people to remain cautious from her. Bukhari narrates the following on the authority of Abdullah, son of Omar, son of al-Khattab, who said: «The Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) stood up to speak, and he pointed towards the house of Aisha, and he said: “Here is the trial! Here is the trial! Here is the trial…” – three times – “…from which the horn of Satan emerges!”» [4] In another narration reported by Muslim, he (Abdullah, son of Omar) said: «The Messenger of Allah went out from the house of Aisha, and he said: “The head of disbelief is from here, in which the horn of Satan emerges!”» [5] Ahmad, son of Hanbal, narrates on the authority of the son of Omar, who said: «The Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) went out from the house of Aisha, and he said: “The head of disbelief is from here, in which the horn of Satan emerges!”» [6]

            The Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) used to recite prayers against her – as narrated by Ahmad, son of Hanbal – such as when she was careless of the war captive, after which he said: «What is wrong with you? May Allah cut off your hands!» [7]

            Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) denied that she was a believer, as in the narration reported by Al-Tabarani with a Sahih (authentic) chain of narrators: «The Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) entered upon her along with Abu Bakr, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) said: “O Aisha, feed us.” She said: “By Allah, we have no food.” He said: “Feed us.” She said: “By Allah, we have no food.” He said: “Feed us.” She said: “By Allah, we have no food.” Upon then, Abu Bakr said: “O Messenger of Allah, a believing woman does not swear that she doesn’t have a certain thing whilst the in reality has it.” Then the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) said: “And how would you know if she is a believer or not?! The example of a believing woman among (the other) women is as the example of the raven that is most white among (the other) ravens. Indeed, Hellfire was created for the foolish people. Women are foolish, unless she who is just and as like a lamp.”» [8]

            The Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) once even hit her painfully when she was spying on him at night. Muslim reports that Aisha said the following of that incident: «Then he knocked me on my chest a knock that hurt me!» [9]

            Now it becomes clear to you that in order to follow the example of Allah’s Messenger (may Allah’s blessings be upon him and his family) we are required to deafen and hit Aisha similarly. This is based on legitimate proofs that legalize and justify our acts against her.

            The 29th night of the month of Shawwal, year 1431
            The office of Sheikh al-Habib in London

            [1] The Qur’an 33:22

            The Qur’an 5:4

            [3] The Qur’an 3:86

            [4] Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 4, page 100

            [5] Sahih Muslim, volume 2, page 560

            [6] Musnad Ahmad, volume 2, page 23

            [7] Musnad Ahmad, volume 6, page 54

            [8] Musnad al-Shamiyeen, by Al-Tabarani, volume 4, page 91

            [9] Sahih Muslim, volume 3, page 64

            Reading : 329


            What is the proof that Mu’awiya killed Aisha and her brother Abdul-Rahman as well as Saad bin Abi-Waqqas?

            ( Section : Misdeed )


            May peace and the mercy of Allah be upon you.

            Eminent Sheikh Yasser al-Habib (may Allah protect him).

            We have a couple of questions, most of them are related to issues concerning historical incidents and important historical figures.

            What are the historical evidences we can rely upon to confirm that Mu’awiya killed Aisha, and her brother, and Abu Bakr, and Saad, son of Abi-Waqqas?

            Pray for us. Thank you in advance.


            In His Name, splendid be the praise of Him. May peace and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.

            May Allah increase our rewards and your rewards in the remembrance of the tragedy of the martyr Hussain, his household and companions (may Allah’s blessings be upon them). May Allah make us and you among those who demand their revenge along with our Leader, the Master of the Command (may Allah’s blessings be upon him, and may Allah hasten his noble reappearance).

            In a previous reply we discussed how the relationship between Aisha and Mu’awiya (may the curse of Allah be upon them both) was at unrest during its last days, as well as the relationship between Mu’awiya and Aisha’s brother, Abdul-Rahman. The cause of this unrest was Mu’awiya’s desire to appoint his son, Yazeed (may Allah curse him), as his successor, which was disliked by Aisha and Abdul-Rahman and hence they opposed him. This strengthens the possibility that Mu’awiya ordered the execution of them so that he may pass the leadership to his son.

            Among those who stated that Mu’awiya killed Aisha as well as killed several others; was Al-A’mash (i.e. Sulayman, son of Mahran), a reliable and trustworthy person according to us and to the Bakris alike. Al-Nibati narrates the following of him:

            «When he (Mu’awiya) entered Kufa, he said: “I did not kill you in order to make you perform prayer and fasting, because I know you were performing this! Rather I killed you so that I may rule over you!” Upon then, Al-A’mash said:

            “Have you seen a man with less modesty than him? He has killed seventy thousand people, among them are Ammar, and Khuzayma, and Hijr, and Amr, son of al-Hamaq, and Mohammad, son of Abi-Bakr, and Aws, and the son of Sawhan, and the son of Al-Tayyehan, and Aisha, and the son of Hassan, and then he says this!?”» [1]

            Some might criticize the reliability of this narration for the fact that Al-A’mash wasn’t alive during Mu’awiya’s era, and that he was born the same year in which Abi-Abdillah al-Hussain (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) was martyred. However, this criticism is rejected, because his purpose in this narration wasn’t to testify his witnessing of the incidents, but rather he only meant to mention historical incidents, and hence this narration of his was only to inform others of Mu’awiya’s acts.

            As for the question concerning how Mu’awiya actualled performed the killing; Al-Nibati narrates of the author of Al-Masalit that Mu’awiya: «…He was sitting on the pulpit and commanding people to pay allegiance to Yazeed. Upon then Aisha said: “Did the two Sheikhs (here she meant Abu Bakr and Omar) call for the pledge of allegiance for their sons?” He said: “No.” She said: “Then who do you follow (as your example)?” Then he became embarrased, so he prepared a hole for her in which she fell and died.»

            According to the narration of the son of Abil-‘Aass, he said: «”Which spot do you wish to be buried in?” She said: “I had decided to be buried next to the Messenger of Allah, however I invented new things (to the religion) after him, so bury me in Al-Baqee.” It is also reported that Mu’awiya used to threaten people to make them pay their allegiance to Yazeed. This news reached Aisha, so she entered upon him after her two uncles while riding a donkey, and it urinated and laid it droppings on his carpet. Then he said: “I can not stand the words of this obscene woman!” Then he arranged for her end. Abdullah, son of Zubayr, used to mock him with the following words:

            “The donkey went with the mother of Amr,
            She didn’t return, nor did the donkey return!”» [2]

            It was done in the 58th year of the noble Hijrah. Sheikh al-Nemazi says:

            «In year 58, Mu’awiya toppled Aisha into the well.» [3]

            As for her brother, Abdul-Rahman, his death was due to unknown circumstances in a place called “Al-Habashi”, and it took place after he left Medina for Mecca in response to Marwan, son of Hakam, who called him to pay allegiance to Yazeed. It is probable that Mu’awiya sent someone to kill him and bury him alive. The first one who doubted that he died a natural death; was his sister Aisha. Al-Hakem and Ibn Asakir both narrated that she saw a woman go into prostration and then die. Upon then she said: «”In this woman, I find a lesson for Abdul-Rahman, son of Abi-Bakr; he rested in one of his resting places, and when they went to wake him up, they found him dead.” Then Aisha suspected that this was done to him out of evil, and that it was done quickly (to finish him off), and that he was buried alive. She saw that he was a lesson for her. Then, whatever was in her of these suspections went away.» [4]

            However, even though doubt was removed from Aisha – or at least that’s what the narration says – doubt is not removed from us, because we have already been informed of Mu’awiya’s character; a tyrant specialized in political assassinations!

            As for Saad, son of Abi-Waqqas, the Bakri sources state that Mu’awiya assassinated him with poison just like how Imam Hassan (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) was killed. Among these narrations is the following that is narrated by Al-Maqdasi on the authority of Sha’ba, who said: «Saad and Hassan, son of Ali, died on one (and the same) day. He said: It is reported that Mu’awiya poisoned them.» [5] The following is narrated by Abul-Faraj al-Esfahani: «Mu’awiya poisoned him (i.e. Imam Hassan) when he wanted to make Yazeed the successor after him, and he poisoned Saad, son of Abi-Waqqas, as well. They both died on days close to each other.» [6]

            May Allah grant you and us knowledge and understanding. Peace. The 5th of the month of Muharram al-Haram, year 1429.

            [1] Al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem, by Al-Nibati al-Amili, volume 3, page 48

            [2] Ibid. Volume 3, page 45

            [3] Mustadrak Safinat al-Bihar, volume 5, page 214

            [4] Mustadrak al-Hakem, volume 3, page 476, and Tareekh Dimashq, by Ibn Asakir, volume 35, page 37

            [5] Al-Bid’ wal-Tareekh, by Al-Maqdasi, page 153

            [6] Maqatil-ul-Talibyeen, volume 5, page 31

            Reading : 346


            Which sources mention that Imam Hussain accused Abu Bakr and Omar for being the ones who killed him?

            ( Section : Misdeed )
            Question :

            In which sources can we find that Imam Hussain (may peace be upon him) accused Abu Bakr and Omar for being the ones who killed him?

            Ahmad Naji

            Answer :

            In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon our Master, Mohammad, and his good and pure Family, and may the curse of Allah be upon all their enemies.

            Assalamu Alaikum,

            In the books of Maqatil (the stories of how the Infallibles were martyred), such as Maqtal al-Hussain, by Al-Khawarizmi, he narrates the following of him (may peace be upon him: «He stood up to rest for a while, and his body became too weak to fight. While he was standing, a stone hit him on his forehead, so he took hold of his garment to wipe off the blood from his face. Then an arrow with three heads was shot at him, which hit him on his chest. Thereupon Hussain said: “In the Name of Allah, and by Allah, and on the religion of Allah’s Messenger.” Then he raised his head towards the sky, and he said: “My God, you know that they are killing a man whom there is no son of a Prophet except for him!” Then he took hold of the arrow and dragged it out of his chest, and the blood was flowing out as if it was flowing from a drain. Then he placed his hand on the wound, and when it was filled (with his blood), he threw it above into the sky, and not even one drop of that blood returned (to the ground), and the sky did not become red before Hussain (may peace be upon him) threw his blood into the sky. Then he placed his hand once again, and when it was filled, he stained his head and his beard with it (the blood), and he said: “By Allah, this is how I will remain till I meet my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, while I am dyed with my own blood, and I will say: O Messenger of Allah, I was killed by Abu Bakr and Omar!”» [1]

            The Eminent Sheikh has clarified during his lectures that the exact phrase mentioned in the text is: «O Messenger of Allah, I was killed by ‘someone’ and ‘someone’» which is due to the difficult circumstances of Taqiya whom the Shiite transcribers went through during their eras. The codenames “someone and someone” (or “such-a-person and such-a-person”) refer to Abu Bakr and Omar, which is a well-known fact among all our scholars and researchers.

            Moreover, our Master Hussain (may peace be upon him), was very severe against Abu Bakr and Omar (may the curse of Allah be upon them both), who also said the following after a man asked him about them: «By Allah, they have lost us! And they have sat in a gathering that we had more right to sit it in than them! And they have stepped on our necks! And they have brought the people upon our necks!» [2]

            He (may peace be upon him) also said according to the narration of Mundhir al-Thawri: «Indeed, Abu Bakr and Omar usurped the matter (the caliphate and leadership) on purpose, whereas all of it belongs to us alone, and they gave us a share of it similar to the share consisting of only of a piece of cloth! Indeed, by Allah, their souls shall be thrusted on the Day when people will ask for our salvation!» [3]

            The 14th night of Shawwal, year 1429
            The office of Sheikh al-Habib in London

            [1] Maqtal al-Hussain, by Al-Khawarizmi, volume 2, page 34

            [2] Taqeeb-ul-Ma’arif, by Al-Halabi, page 243

            [3] Ibid.

            Reading : 766

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s