India: Muslims vandalise newspaper offices over publication of Prophet Mohammed’s images

[Niti Central] Odisha: Violence marked the Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi celebrations in Odisha with Muslims taking exception to a purported picture of Prophet Mohammed published in a major Odia daily on his birth anniversary on Tuesday.

Odia Daily Newspaper Office

Odia Daily Newspaper Office

Angry protesters shouting slogans against Odia daily Samaja — which carried the controversial image, resorted to violence and damaged property estimated to be around Rs 3 crore targetting the newspaper’s offices located in Cuttack, Balasore and Rourkela.

Cuttack city, home to Samaja headquarters, witnessed violent protests with the agitators demanding unconditional apology from the said publication. As the police intervened trying to work out peace between the parties, the newspaper issued an unconditional apology signed by its executive editor Satya Ray. But that failed to calm down the agitators who subsequently demanded the arrest of those responsible for the publication of that controversial picture.

Oddly enough, despite the unconditional public apology, the Samaj management have had no qualms in giving out the name of the sub-editor who supposedly handled the story with the controversial picture.

The sub-editor, Jitendra Prasad Das has been arrested by the police. The police action against Jitendra Prasad Das drew widespread condemnation from the journalistic fraternity across Odisha.

Working journalists on Wednesday demonstrated in the State’s capital Bhubaneswar and demanded the immediate release of the sub-editor.

“The editor is responsible for the content of a newspaper. But unfortunately the Samaj management gave out the name of the young sub-editor by entirely passing the buck of responsibility on him. This is unethical. We demand the immediate release of the sub-editor. The editor and Samaj management shouldn’t escape the overall responsibility,” said Prasanna Mohanty, secretary general of National Union of Journalist (I).

Founded by Utkalmani Pandit Gopabandhu Das, the Samaja is owned and managed by ‘Servants of the People Society’ (Lok Sevak Mandal), New Delhi, a trust founded by all-time legend Punjab Keshri Lala Lajpat Rai.

Police said there has not been any untoward incident reported anywhere apart from protests against the publication and the situation remains peaceful.

8 thoughts on “India: Muslims vandalise newspaper offices over publication of Prophet Mohammed’s images


    from Their Own Sources
    by Allamah Khalid Mahmood

    Shiite Beliefs about the Present Qur’an

    Shiite Beliefs regarding Prophethood

    Shiite Beliefs with regards to Hadhrat Aaisha, the wife of Rasulullah (SAW)

    Shiite Beliefs about the companions of the Prophet (SAW)

    Shiite Beliefs with regards to the family of Rasulullah (SAW)

    Shiite beliefs about the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah

    The beliefs of Allamah Khomeini, the Leader of the Iranian revolution.

    1. The Beliefs of the Shi’ites about the Present Quran

    Jabir reported that he heard Imam Baqir saying: ‘No one can claim that he has compiled the Quran as Allah revealed except a liar. The only person to compile it and memorise it according to its revelation was Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Imams who succeeded him. (Usul Kafi: 1:228)

    A man said that someone was reciting the Quran in the company of Imam Ja’far. The narrator said that he heard certain verses in the recitation which were not according to the recitation of the people. Imam Ja’far told the person reciting: ‘Do not recite like this. Recite as the people recite until the (promised) Mahdi arrives. When the Mahdi arrives, he will recite the Quran according to its original revelation and the Qu,ran compiled by Ali will be brought forward. (Ibid: 2.622)
    Allah says in Surah Ale Imraan (32):

    “Certainly Allah has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of Imraan above the (families of the) worlds.”

    Allamah Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi – one of the early Shi’ite commentators of the Quran said concerning this verse:

    ‘The Imam said: ‘The words: “The family of Muhammed” were also revealed along with “the family of Ale Imraan.” They (referring to the Companions of the Prophet S.A.W.) removed the words “The family of Muhammad” from the original text (Al-Qummi’s commentary:308). The allegation of removing the words preempts any possibility of abrogation. It is clear that the commentary is accusing the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) of distorting the Quran.

    Allah says in Surah Taha (115):

    “And We had given Adam an order before, but he forgot and We did not find any resolve in him (to disobey the order).”

    Imam Ja’far is reported to have said that Allah had revealed this verse with the following words:

    “We had ordered Adam before with some words about Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain and the Imams from their offspring but he (Adam) forgot.” Ja’far said: ‘By Allah, these were the words which were revealed to Muhammad.’ (Usul Kafi: 1:416 and the footnotes of Maqbool’s translation: 637)

    Allah says in Surah Yusuf (49):

    “Then a year will come in which people will be given abundant help and they will press grapes.” In AI-Qummi’s commentary it is reported from Imam Ja’far that someone recited this verse in the presence of Ali. Ali said: ‘What will they press’? Wine?’ The person asked how he should read the verse. Ali replied that the verse was revealed thus: “Then a year will come in which people will he given abundant help and in which they will be given abundant rain. (Al-Qummi’s commentary: 192)

    The word Ya’siroon in the present Quran is in the active voice. According to this commentary it should have been read in the passive voice as Yu’saroon to alter the meaning. In the footnotes to the translation of Maqbool, it is written that this word (Ya’siroon) was changed from the passive voice to the active to suit the fancies of wine-loving khulafa (rulers). (Maqbool’s translation: 479)

    Allah says in Surah Muhammad (9):

    “That is because they resented what Allah revealed, so Allah in turn cancelled their deeds.” AI-Qummi has stated that Imam Muhammad Baqir said that Jibreel had transmitted this verse as: ‘That is because they resented what Allah revealed about Ali.’ But then the apostates removed Ali’s name (from the Quran). (Ibid: 1011)

    Allah says in Surah Waqi’ah (29):

    “And the Companions of the Right Hand. What about the Companions of the Right Hand. They shall be among thornless lote-trees and under clusters of bananas.”

    One person recited this verse in the presence of Ali. Ali said that the word Talh is not.appropriate and should read Tal’a as in Surah Shu’araa (………). Some enquired as why the word should not be changed. Ali replied that it was not the right time to do so because correcting the Quran would only confuse common people. He went on to say that among the Imams, only Imam Mahdi will have the right to reintroduce the Quran as it was during the time of the prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). (Ibid: 1067)

    Abu Mansur Ahmed Tibrisi, a prominent Shi’ite scholar of the 8th century (H), has written:

    ‘Enumerating the distortions and omissions of this sort (from the present Quran) would become laborious and it will disclose what Taqiyyah (Shi’ite practice to conceal the ‘truth’ for religious purposes) requires me not to disclose: the good qualities of Allah’s friends and the vices of His enemies. (AI-Ihtijaj by Tibrisi: 1:254)

    Mullah Muhsin Kashani, an 11th century Shi’ite scholar comments on the above quoted statement:

    ‘It is clear from all of these traditions and quotations from the Family of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) that the present Quran is not the complete Quran which was revealed to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). In fact, there are verses that contradict that which was revealed; verses that have been distorted and places where omissions have been made such as the names of Ali, the Family of Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and, on several occasions, there were the names of the hypocrites. Moreover, the present order of the Quran is not according to the preferred order of Allah and His Messenger. Ali ibn Ibrahim (a renowned commentator) also holds this opinion.’ (Tafseer of Saafi: l:32)

    2. The Beliefs of the Shi’ites Regarding Prophethood

    Allah says in Surah Baqarah (26):

    “Certainly Allah does not disdain from giving a parable of a gnat or something larger.”

    Allamah Ali ibn Ibrahim explains that by the word “gnat” Allah refers to Ameerul Mumineen (Ali) and by the words “or something larger” He means the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). (AI-Qummi: 19)

    Sheikh Tusi and Nu’mani both narrate from the 8th Imam, Rida, that the sign of Imam Mahdi’s appearance will be that he will appear naked in daylight. An announcer will announce that here is the Ameerul Mumineen himself who has reappeared. Mullah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi says that the first disciple to take pledge at the hands of the nude Mahdi will be Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) himself. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 2:337)

    The leader of the Iranian revolution, Imam Khomeini writes:

    ‘Every prophet came to establish justice on Earth. His aim was also to establish justice but he was not successful. The same is the position of the Seal of the Prophets who came to reform human society and establish justice but failed during his lifetime.’ (Ittihad wa-yak-jihati:15)

    Mullah Fathullah Kashani, a reliable Shi’ite scholar writes about Mut’ah:

    The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: ‘Whoever performs mut’ah once will receive the status of Hussain. Who ever performs mut’ah twice will receive the status of Hasan. Whoever performs mut’ah thrice will receive the status of Ali and who ever performs mut’ah four times will receive my status. (Tafseer Manhajul Sadiqeen: 1:356)

    [Mu’tah is to marry someone for a short period of time (temporary marriage). In this marriage, the woman does not hold the status of a wife. Mut’ah is permissible and virtuous in Shi’ite law but forbidden and sinful in Sunni law.]

    Imam Khomeini writes in his book ‘A1Hukumatul Islamiyah’ (52):

    ‘It is a necessary principle of our faith that our Imams have ranks that exceed those of close angels and the appointed messengers.’

    3. Shi’ite Beliefs with Regards to Ayesha – the Wife of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)

    Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes:

    ‘When Imam Mahdi arrives, Ayesha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.’ (Haqqul Yaqeen: 347)

    The same author writes about Ayesha that “She was a traitor.” (Tadhkiratul Aimmah: 66)

    Again, Mullah Baqir Majilisi comments about Ayesha (R.A.) and Hafsa (R.A.) that: “They were both hypocrites.” (Hayatul Quloob: 2:745)

    Imam Khomeini writes about the prestige and worth of the oft-quoted Mullah Baqir:

    ‘Keep on reading the Persian books written by Majlisi so that you do not fall into any other such stupidity.’ (Kashful Asrar: 121)

    Maqbool Dehlavi, a Shi’ite translator of the Quran, quotes Imam Baqir as saying:

    ‘Two women poisoned the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) before his death. These are the same two women (Ayesha and Hafsa). May Allah curse them and their fathers (Abu Bakr and Omar respectively). (His translation of Surah Ale Imraan: 134)

    4. What the Shi’ites believe about the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)

    Mullah Muhammed bin Yaqoob Kulaini, the most prominent Shi’ite scholar of Hadith, quotes Imam Baqir as saying:

    ‘People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.’

    He continues:

    ‘Abu Bakr and Omar did not repent before they parted the world. In fact, they did not even mention what they had done to Ali. So may Allah, His angels and all of mankind curse them. (Furu’ul Kafi: Kitabul Rauda: 115)

    Mullah Baqir writes:

    ‘Regarding the doctrine of’ ‘Tabarri’ we believe that we should seek disassociation from four idols namely, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Mu’awiyah; from four women namely, Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and Ummul Hakam, along with all their associates and followers. ‘These are the worst creation of Allah. It is not possible to believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Imams without disassociating oneself from their enemies. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 2:519)

    [The doctrine of ‘Tabarri’ means to have no association with the enemies of Allah.]

    Mullah Baqir writes:

    ‘One should say after each prayer: O Allah! Curse Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Mu’awiyah, Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and Ummul Hakam. (Aynul Hayat: 599)

    The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), came to a person from the Ansaar and asked him if he had any food. The Ansaari said he had and slaughtered a goat. The man then grilled some meat and presented it to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) who wished that Ali, Fathima, Hasan and Hussain were present with him. Then Abu Bakr and Omar arrived. Ali also arrived shortly after. Allah then revealed the verse:

    ‘We have never sent any messenger prophet or Muhaddath before except that when ever they desired something, the devil interfered in their desire.’ (The Prophet then said) This is just as the devil has sent his two agents here right now (Abu Bakr and Omar). (The footnotes of Maqbool’s translation: Surah Hajj: 674)

    [Muhaddath is a non-prophet but he is inspired by Allah]

    Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes:

    ‘Pharaoh and Hamaan refer here to Abu Bakr and Omar. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 342)

    The same author also says:

    ‘The references in big books about the illegitimate birth of Omar cannot be discussed in this book. (Ibid: 259)

    Allah says in Surah Nahl (90):

    “And He prevents you from immorality, unlawfulness and rebellion.’

    Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi comments on this verse:

    ‘These three vices refer to so and so, so and so and so and so.’ (Al Qummi’s commentary: 218)

    Any ambiguity is cleared by the following comment: ‘Immorality refers to the first person (Abu Bakr); unlawfulness refers to the second (Omar) and rebellion refers to the third (Uthman). (Footnotes to Maqbool’s translation: 522)

    Mullah Baqir narrates a story from Imam Zainul Abideen that a man came to the Imam and asked him to inform him about Abu Bakr and Omar. The Imam informed him that they were both non-believers. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 551)

    5. The Shi’ites Belief Regarding the family of The Prophet

    (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)

    Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes: ‘Fatima (R.A.) described Ali (R.A.) thus:

    “You are hiding like a malformed foetus in a womb; you have ran home like those who are guilty of being untrustworthy and after having destroyed the strongest men on earth you have been overcome by these wimps.” (Ibid: 203)

    Mullah Baqir also writes:

    After hearing some women talking about Ali (R.A.) Fatima (R.A.) complained about her husband’s features:

    “He is a man with a big stomach. His hands are high and his bones look suppressed. He has a receding hair line, big eyes and shows his teeth all the time. He has no wealth either. (Jilalul Uyoon: 58, in the chapter on Fatima)

    The very same Mullah Baqir comments about a dream that Fatima had and establishes that the devil came to her:

    ‘The dream Fatima had was from a devil whose name is Uhaad. (Ibid: 52)

    The renowned Shi’ite scholar Abu Mansur Ahmed Tibrisi writes:

    ‘Abu Bakr sent Qunfudh to Ali with a delegation who entered Ali’s house without his permission. Ali went for his sword but the group had already taken it away. They captured Ali and tied a rope round his neck. When Fatima tried to intervene, Qunfudh hit her. The delegation dragged Ali to Abu Bakr where Omar, Khalid bin Walid and Abu Ubaidah ibn Jarrah (R.A.) were also present with many other people. Omar severely reprimanded Ali and told him to swear allegiance with Abu Bakr. Ali then took Abu Bakr’s hand and took an oath of allegiance. (Al-Ihtijaj, by Tibrisi: 83, 84)

    Mullah Baqir narrates Fatima’s displeasure with regards to Ali’s attitude about her in the words of Ali:

    “Jibreel came to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and said “Allah sends His Salaam upon you and says that Fatima is about to come and complain about Ali. Do not listen to anything about Ali from Fatima.”

    When Fatima came, the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) asked her if she came to complain about Ali. She replied that she had. The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “By the Lord of the Ka’bah! Go back to Ali and tell him that you are prepared to rub your nose in dust in order to keep him happy. You may do as you please.” (Jailul ‘Uyoon: 61)

    6. What is the Shi’ites belief about the Ahlus Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah

    Muhammad ibn Yacoob Kulaini, the most prominent of all Shi’ite scholars of Hadith quotes Imam Baqir as saying:

    “Everybody, except us Shi’ites, are illegitimate.” (Furoo’u Kafi in Kitabul Raudah: 135)

    Mullah Baqir writes:

    “When Imam Mahdi appears, he will start to execute the Sunni scholars before turning to the non-believers.” Similar words of this hadith has also been quoted in the tafseer Majma’ul Bayan with reference to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). (Haqqul Yaqeen: 2:527)

    Mullah Baqir quotes Imam Zainul Abideen:

    A person asked the Imam about Abu Bakr and Omar.

    The Imam replied: “I have been informed that they were both non-believers and any one who befriends them (by thinking they are good) are also non-believers.” (Ibid: 2:522)

    The same author quotes Imam Ali-ul-Naqi:

    Imam Ali-ul-Naqi was asked about identifying the Nasibi group (those who prefer Abu Bakr and Omar over Ali): whether it was sufficient to know that they (the Nasibis) preferred Abu Bakr and Omar over Ali and that they held the Imamate of Abu Bakr and Omar in good standing. T’he Imam replied that whoever believed this was a Nasibi. (Ibid: 521)

    Again, Mullah Baqir writes about these Nasibis:

    The Nasibi (one who prefers Abu Bakr and Omar over Ali) is worse than an illegitimate person. It is true that Allah has not created anything more despicable than dogs. But the Nasibi is even more degenerate in the Eyes of Allah than a dog. (Ibid: 2:516)

    7. The Beliefs of Allamah Khomeni

    (the Leader of the Iranian Revolution)

    Nuri Tibiris, one of the most renowned Shi’ite scholars and mujtahids, wrote a book against the present Quran. The book is entitled: ‘Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab’ (The Final Verdict on the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords).

    Allamah Khomeini mentions this scholar with great respect in his own book ‘A1Hukumatul Islamiyah” (The Islamic State). In fact, Khomeini has actually used Nuri Tibiris’s work entitled “Mustadrakul Wasail” to complete his theory of Wilayatul Faqih.

    [Wilayatul Faqih is the Islamic jurist’s right to overrule a ruling that contradicts Islamic law.]

    Khomeini writes about Abu Bakr and Omar (R.A.):

    “Those people who, in their envy to rule, attached themselves to the Deen of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and formed their own cliques could not possibly refrain from their actions on the bases of Quranic advice. They had to materialise their aims at any cost.” (Kashful Asraar: 114)

    He also writes:

    ‘Those who had no affiliation with the Quran and Islam except through their desire for the world and power. They had made the Qurun a vehicle to promote their agenda. (Ibid)

    In his book Kashful Asraar, Allamah Khomeni has dedicated a whole chapter to Abu Bakr’s opposition to the Quran and another chapter to the Omar’s opposition. (Ibid: 114 & 117)

    He has then continued to write a chapter on how to answer the critiques of the Ahlus Sunnah W’al Jama’ah with the heading: “An eye on the answers of the foolish.” (Ibid: 120)

    Khomeni writes about Uthman (R.A.):

    “We worship and recognise only that God Whose actions are based on concrete rationalism and Who does not rule against that rationalism. We do not worship a god who creates a building for Divine worship and justice and then strives to destroy that very building himself by giving authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu’awiyah and Uthman. (Ibid: 107)

    These are but a few selected views of Majlisi, Maqbool Dehlavi, Noori and Allamah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution. These have been presented to you without any critique or commentary. The reader should judge for himself how much he can accept these beliefs. The reader should also ask himself if the rise of Khomeini in Iran was a political revolution or whether he had an agenda to propagate the Shi’ite beliefs. Or whether it was a challenge to all of the Muslim world, or a threat to the bonafides of the beliefs of Sunnis.


    Jamiatul Ulama (KZN)

    • Shia Muslims believe that the Qur’an we have is perfect and complete.

      Shia Muslims believe that the previous prophets and messengers were perfect. We also believe that Muhammad was the last prophet.

      Shia Muslims believe that Aisha was not a firm believer but she never committed fornication.

      Shia Muslims believe that not all the Companions were perfect. Only some were firm believers.

      Shia Muslims believe that Ahlul Bayt means Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

      Shia Muslims believe that Sunni Muslims are our brothers in faith.

      Imam Khomeini was a great person. May his soul rest in peace!

      • YO HO HO MO,


        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.).


        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.


    According to a Shia doctrine, the vast majority of the Sahaba (Prophet Mohammad’s Companions) were liars and apostates. One of the leading scholars of the Shia, Al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: “All people (including the Sahaba) became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, “Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr (Zarr), and Salman (Al-Farsi) as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.'” (Rijal Al-Kashshi p.12-13) .

    In the book “Al-Kafi fil-Usool, a Shia collection of ahadith attributed to the Prophet SAWS and some of the Imams of the Shia, and held in the same esteem amongst Shia as Sahih Bukhari is amongst the Ahl us-Sunnah (Sunnis), we find the following:

    “Obedience to ‘Ali is true humility and disobedience to him is disbelief in Allah.” (vol.10 p.54)

    “Whoever sets up another Imam besides ‘Ali and delays ‘Ali’s caliphate is a polytheist.” (vol.10 p.55) (this “hadith” refers to everyone who accepts the validity of the caliphates of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Uthman. The Shia claim that the caliphate was stolen from ‘Ali, and only he and his descendants have the right to rule the Muslims)

    “Syrians are worse than the Romans, Madinites worse than Meccans, and Meccans openly disbelieve in Allah.” (vol.10 p.107)

    In explaining the verse: “On the day when the wrong-doer bites his hands saying, ‘O if only I had taken the right path with the Prophet! O woe is me, if only I had not taken so-and-so as a friend!” (25:27-28), one of the most highly respected scholars of Tafseer amongst the Shia, Al-Qummi, states that “so-and-so” is ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA). (astagfiruallah)

    In reference to Talhah (RA) and az-Zubayr (RA), Al-Qummi claims that Abu Ja’far said that the following verse was revealed about them; “Verily the doors of Heaven will not open for those who deny Our signs and are arrogant towards them, nor will they enter paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle.”(7:40) He also adds that the camel in the verse refers to their camel. Thus, according to Al-Qummi, Talhah(RA) and az-Zubayr(RA), who were both amongst the ten who received glad tidings of paradise from the ProphetSAWS himself, will never enter paradise!

    A Shia doctrine holds that most of the Sahaba were the worst sort, liars and apostates all. There is even a special dua, called “Dua Sanamay Quraysh” (The two Idols of the Quraysh). In this prayer (falsely attributed to Abdullah ibn Abbas) Both Abu Bakr(RA) and ‘Umar(RA) are cursed, and called “the two idols of the Quraysh”. Shirk (disbelief) is attributed to the two caliphs, and their daughters, Ayesha and Hafsah, both wives of the Prophet SAWS, are vilified. The prayer is published with the endorsement of the following major Shia scholars: (a) Ayatallah al-Udhma Muhsin al-Hakeem, (b) Ayatallah al-Udhma Abul-Qasim al-Khoi, (c) Ayatallah al-Udhma Roohullah al-Khomeini, (d) Ayatallah al-Udhma Mahmood al-Husaini, (e) Ayatallah al-Udhma Muhammad Kadhim Shri’atmadari, (f) The chief scholar ‘Ali Taqi at-Taqwa.

    Another Shia doctrine in fact holds that all who do not follow their doctrine are disbelievers and apostate from Islam, with the following hadith from Al-Kafi cited in support:

    “Doubt about the Imamate of ‘Ali is like doubt about the mission of Muhammad SAWS and one who doubts both should be killed if possible, if he claims to be a Muslim. On the other hand, disbelievers are like the Jews and Christians and should not be killed for these reasons.” (Al-Kafi vol.6 p.393)

    ————————————- ——————————————–

    What is the Shi’ites belief regarding the Companions of the Messenger of Allah [saw]?

    Shi’ites hold that after the demise of the Prophet [saw], the entire population of the honorable companions became apostates (kafirs), save three, mainly for pledging Bay’ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr [ra]. This is mainly why they reject the Prophetic Traditions (Ahadith), as in the collections of AhluSunnah wal Jamaa’ah, and replaced them with the traditions of their Imams. Following are some examples:

    1.01 (Imam) Abu Ja’far [as]said: The people were people of apostacy after the Prophet save three. I said (the narrator): Who are these three? He said: al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad, Abu Tharr al-Ghafari and Salmaan the Persian….and that is the meaning of His saying: 3:144. Muhammad is no more than a Messenger: many were the Messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels?

    Rijaal al-Kash-shi: pp. 12-13. From:Ash-Shi’a WasSunnah, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.49

    1.02 Narrated several of our friends, from Himran bin A’yun: I said to Abu Ja’far [as]: May I be your ransome, indeed we are very few (to the point) if we gathered on a sheep (to eat it), do you think we will finish it? He said: Would you like for me to tell you something more amazing? al-Muhajiroon and al-Ansaar were all gone save, and he pointed with his hand, three. Himran said: May I be your ransome, what about Ammar? He said: May Allah cover Ammar with His mercy, he pledged allegiance and fell a martyr. I said to myself: There is nothing better than falling a martyr, upon which he looked at me and said: Is it possible that you think he’s like the three? Your thought is far from truth.

    Al-Kafi fil-Usool: al-Kulayni,Kitab al-Iman wal-Kufr, chapter:The Few Number of Believers, Narration No.6, vol.2, p.244

    ————————————————- —————————————————

    The Companions (r.a)

    Belief of a Shia for Companions (r.a) of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w) is:

    Shia claim that all companions except three (or four) of them had turned apostate after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w). On the other hand, they grant the Companion “Ali bin Abi Talib” a very special status; some of them consider him vicegerent, and some view him as a Prophet, while others take him for a God!

    Shia’s pass judgment on Muslims in accordance with the position of such Muslims regarding “Ali”. Whoever was elected caliph before “Ali” is held by them to be a tyrant, an apostate or a sinner. The same judgment is passed on every Muslim ruler who did not step down for any of the descendants of “Ali” and his wife “Fatima” (r.a). The Shia’s have thus created an atmosphere of animosity throughout the history of Islam, and the question of partisanship of Ahl-e-Bayt developed into a school of thought which preached and perpetuated such detrimental teachings down through the generations.

    1. An insulting remarks against two of Prophet Mohammad’s Companions: Talha and Zubair (r.a). (Usool Kaafi, Page No. 345)

    2. First three caliph and other Companions became infidel by denying the divine right of (Wilayat) of Hazrat Ali. (Usool Kaafi, Page No. 420)

    3. After the death of Prophet Mohammad, all of his Companions turned apostate except four. (Israr-e-Muhammad, Page No. 43)

    4. All of the Companions became infidel except three. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 923)

    5. Prophet Mohammad’s Companions turned apostates, except Miqdad, Salman Farsi and Abu Zar. (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, Page No. 134)

    6. Abu Bakr (r.a) could not recite the Shahada (testimony of faith: “There is no god but Allah & Mohammad is Messenger of Allah”) at the time of his death. (Israr-e-Muhammad, Page No. 211)

    7. Satan was the first to swear the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr in the mosque. (Israr-e-Muhammad, Page No. 30)

    8. It is infidelity (Kufr) to doubt the infidelity (Kufr) of Omar. (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Page No. 63)

    9. “Verdict of infidelity on first three caliphs”. (Anwaar-e-Naumania, Page No. 81)

    10. Those who deny that Ali should have been the first Caliph are infidels. (Anwaar-e-Naumania, Vol. No. 3, Page No. 264)

    11. “An insulting remarks against Omar”. (Anwaar-e-Naumania, Vol. No 1, Page No. 82)

    12. Abu Bakr and Omar were more tyrant than Satan. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 509)

    13. The first three Caliphs were tyrant. (Tehqeeq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 468)

    14. Abu Bakr and Omar are among the seven gates of Hell. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 500)

    15. Abu Bakr and Omar are the pharaohs of this Ummah (Muslim Nation). (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 374)

    16. When Shia’s Imam Mahdi appears, he will order the digging out from grave of the dead bodies of Shaikheen (Abu Bakr & Omar), resurrect and punish them. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 371) & (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 475)

    17. Shia Imam Mahdi will order the hanging of Abu Bakr and Omar. (Basair-ud-Darajat, Page No. 81)

    18. Shia Imam Mahdi will exhume the bodies of Abu Bakr & Omar. (Basair-ud-Darajat, Page No. 80)

    19. Shia Imam Mahdi will order the whipping (lashing) of Abu Bakr and Omar. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 464)

    20. Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Muawiyah are like idols; they are worst of God’s creatures. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 519)

    21. An allegation of hypocrisy on the Caliphs. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 528)

    22. A curse on the Shaikheen (Abu Bakr and Omar) and their companions till Day of Judgment. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 159)

    23. Shaikheen (Abu Bakr and Omar) will be companions of Namrood, Pharoah, and Haman in Hell. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 522)

    24. He who prefers Abu Bakr and Omar over Ali is Naasbi. (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 521)

    25. Accusation of adultery on the third caliph, Osman (r.a). (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 723)

    26. He who make doubt in the infidelity of Omar is an infidel. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 842)

    27. Those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr were hypocrites. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 1027)

    28. It is an obligation upon every Shia to curse, during prayer, the Shaikheen (Abu Bakr and Omar), Prophet Mohammad’s wives Aisha, Hafsa, Hind and Umm-ul-Hakm. (Aain-ul-Hayat, Page No. 599)

    29. Abu Bakr is similar to the calf of the Children of Israel (the Jews) and Omar is similar to Saamry. (Behar-ul-Anwaar, Page No. 629)

    30. Abu Bakr and Omar are followers of Satan. (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, Page No. 674)

    31. Abu Bakr was the first person to embrace Satan’s religion. (Charagh-e-Mustafvi, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 18)

    32. According to this Shia translation of the Quran, in the Quran, the word “Fahsha” (means Major Sin) refers to Abu Bakr, the word “Munkar” (means What God Has Forbidden) refers to Umar, and the word “Baghi” (Opression) refers to Usman. (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, Page No. 551)

    33. Abu Bakr used abusive language. (Sheikh-e-Saqifa, Page No. 148)

    34. Shia must fast every year on the day of Omar’s death on 9th Rabi-ul-Awwal to celebrate it. (Zaad-ul-Meyad, Page No. 404)

    35. Aisha died on 22nd Rajab, so all Shia must celebrate that day by fasting annually during that day. (Zaad-ul-Meyad, Page No. 34)

    36. Omar committed incest with his own daughter. (Tanzia-ul-Insaab Fee Sheikh-ul-Ashaab, Page No. 23)

    37. The father of the third caliph, Usman, was impotent and his mother was a whore. (Tanzia-ul-Insaab Fee Sheikh-ul-Ashaab, Page No. 66)

    38. According to different Shia Books, Omar practiced sodomy. (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, Page No. 434)

    39. Sunnis practiced sodomy like Omar. (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, Page No. 122)

    40. Omar exhibited disrespect and contempt to Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w). (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, Page No. 435)

    41. Prophet Mohammad’s Companions are described as criminals and hypocrites. (Fasal-ul-Khitab, Page No. 21)

    42. The Caliphate of Abu Bakr & Omar is like the penis of a donkey (or ass). (Haqeeqat-e-Fiqah Hanfia Dar Jawab Haqeeqat-e-Fiqah Jaffria, Page No. 72)

    43. Writing the names of Abu Bakr & Omar on a man’s testicles prevents ejaculation. (Haqeeqat-e-Fiqh Hanfia Dar Jawab Haqeeqat-e-Fiqh Jaffria, Page No. 250)

    44. Prophet Mohammad’s Companions are perpetual inhabitants of Hell. (Ahsan-ul-Fawaid Fee Sharah-ul-Aqaid, Page No. 356)

    45. The first three Caliphs were liars and deniers of doomsday. (Ahsan-ul-Fawaid Fee Sharah-ul-Aqaid, Page No. 599)

    46. An allegation that Prophet’s Companion Muawiyah committed incest with his sister. (Yazeediat Bokhla Utthe, Page No. 126)

    47. Prophet Mohammad’s Companions are referred to as dogs of Hell. (Manazara-e-Hussainia, Page No. 76)

    48. He who hate the first three Caliphs will be destined to paradise. (Noor-e-Iman, Page No. 321)

    Shia’s view of Prophet Mohammad’s Wives

    The Shia insult the wives of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), even though the Quran refers to Prophet Muhammad’s wives as Mothers of the Believers.

    Let’s examine what the Shia’s books say:

    1. When Shia’s Imam Mahdi (the 12th Shia Imam) comes, he will bring Prophet Mohammad’s wife, Aisha, back to life, whip her as a punishment to avenge Prophet Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima. (Al-Shafi, Vol. 2, p. 108), (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, p. 139 & 347) & (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. 2, p. 901)

    2. Prophet Mohammad’s wives, Aisha and Hafsa, are accused of poisoning Prophet Mohammad. (Jila-ul-Ayoun, p. 118)

    3. Abu Bakr, Omar, Aisha & Hafsa poisoned Mohammad. (Quran Translation by Shia Scholar, Maqbool H. Dehlevi, Chap. 28, p. 894)

    4. Aisha is insulted and described negatively. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 879) & (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, p. 271 & p. 334)

    5. Aisha and Hafsa were hypocrite and infidel women. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, p. 900)

    6. Aisha was a hypocrite. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, p. 867)

    7. Aisha was an infidel woman. (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, p. 726)

    8. Aisha is accused of committing adultery. (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, p. 840)

    9. An insult to Aisha and prophet Mohammad’s companion, Muawiyah. (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, p. 65)

    10. Prophet Mohammad’s wife, Hafsa, was an indecent woman. (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, p. 123)

    • Shia view of the Companions.

      Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:

      “According to Imami Shi’a doctrine, the vast majority of the Sahaba were liars and apostates” One of the leading scholars of the Shi’a, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: “The people (including the Sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, “Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.

      The actual Shi’a position
      This is not a topic that should cause discord and hatred between Muslims. Whilst we acknowledge there is a difference between the way Sunni and Shi’a approach the issue of the Sahaba – it is incorrect to conclude that the Shi’a reject the Sahaba. We should point out that our books are replete with chapters praising the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). We however do not ascribe to the belief that one should blindly follow and respect an individual because he benefited from Rasulullah’s blessed company, we deem adherence and respect to be based on what we learn about them from the Qur’an, Sunnah and history. We acknowledge the sacrifices that the Sahaba had made, BUT our yardstick for determining the truth is the Qur’an and Sunnah. Hence both schools believe in the Sahaba the only difference being one school examines each individual in relation to their manners / attitude, whilst the other does not deem this to be a necessary component. As Shi’a we look at the character of a companion against the Qur’an, Sunnah and history and then decide on his reliability. The (14th) century, the well known Sunni scholar, Maulana Wahidu ‘z Zaman of Hyderabad Deccan explains the point:

      “Those that sat in the company of Rasulullah (s) are true Sahaba. Those deserving of the title ‘Sahaba’ are those that bore love and respect of Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl’ul bayt (as). The title ‘Sahaba’ does not suffice, we shall cite an example:

      ‘A King has some servants, on account of their love for their king they also love one another. Then one of the servants rebels against the King, he kills the Kings family, relations and friends, and becomes their enemy. In light of such facts should we STILL love the servant, on the sole basis that he was the kings servant?”
      Anwaru ‘l-lughah Volume 14 page 20

      Earlier on in the same book Zaman states:

      “The verses and hadith praising the Sahaba refers to those that sat in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and showed love and respect towards his Ahl’ul bayt and supported them”.
      Anwaru ‘l-lughah Volume 14 page 10

      Shia scholar Allamah Sayyid Asad Haider writing on the Shi’a aqeedah on the Sahaba states:

      “The Shi’a of the Ahl’ul bayt respect Rasulullah’s Sahaba, they do not play down respect for them, but when following the life of Rasulullah (s) they stress that the Shari’a applies equally to Sahaba and non Sahaba – the Sahaba’s position and status is in accordance with their deeds and actions”.
      Taken from al Sahabeeyat fi Nazhar Shi’a page 32, printed in Egypt

      Let us now present a detailed Shia concept of Sahaba advanced by Shia scholar Sharfuddin al-Mousawi in his famed work Ajwebat Masail Jarallah, pages 14-16:

      Whoever researches our view with regard to the sahaba will find it the most moderate of views. We neither go to extremes in this regard as the ghulat have done, labelling them all as apostates, nor do we go to extremes in accepting them as trusted authorities as most [Sunni] Muslims have done. Those who attribute their perfection, as well as those who go to the opposite extreme and label them as apostates, are all in the same box. Sunnis are of the view that anyone who heard or saw the Prophet is absolutely equitable. They support their view from the tradition saying, `… whoever traversed or walked on the earth from them without any exception.’ But as far as we are concerned, although we regard keeping company with the Prophet as a great honor, it, as is, does not render one infallible. Like all other men, the sahaba included equitable persons who are their scholars and greatest men, whereas some of them are hypocrites who committed crimes. The condition of some of them is unknown; so, we rely on the equitable ones among them and accept them as our masters in the life of this world as well as in the life to come. As for those who oppressed the wasi and the Prophet’s brother, as well as all those who committed crimes such as Hind’s son [Abu Sufyan], the son of the genius, the son of “the blue woman,” the son of Uqbah, the son of Arta’a, etc., and their likes, these have nothing to be honored for, nor does their hadith hold water. It is of an undecided nature, and we have to carefully scrutinize it.

      Such is our view with regard to the sahaba who narrate hadith. The Qur’an and the Sunnah are our argument to pack this view as explained wherever appropriate in our books that deal with the basics of jurisprudence. But the majority of Muslims have gone too far in sanctifying the hadith they hear from any sahabi, so much so that they swayed from moderation and sought their arguments from those who are good as well as from those who are bad, blindly emulating every Muslim individual who had heard or seen the Prophet. They resented others who differed from them in going to such extremes and went beyond all limits in denouncing them.

      “How intense their denunciation of us when they find us rejecting the hadith of many sahaba whose integrity we publicly challenge or whose condition is not fully ascertained! While doing so, we simply follow the binding legislative obligation in verifying religious facts and looking for authentic Prophetic legacy.

      “It is for this reason that they cast doubt about us, piling their accusations on us, charging us with unfounded charges, vying with one another to remain in ignorance about us. Had they recalled their wisdom and consulted the bases of knowledge and scholarship, they would have come to know that equity as a basic ingredient in all the sahaba cannot be proven. Had they delved in depth into the meanings of the Qur’an, they would have found it full of references to a number of sahabi hypocrites. Suffices you, for example, Surat al-Tawbah and Surat al-Ahzab.”

      Appraisal of the Sahaba by the Imams of Ahl’ul bayt (as)
      To counter the lies of the Nasibi we present the comments of two of our Imams (peace be upon them) that sets out their views on the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s):

      Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) our fourth Imam is known in Muslim and non-Muslim circles for his beautiful supplications, some of which have been complied into book format in Sahifa al-Kamilah. One of his (as) specific du’as was for the pious Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) may Allah be well pleased with them:

      “O God, and as for the Companions of Muhammad specifically, those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him when he made them hear his messages’ argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship; forget not, O God, what they abandoned for Thee and in Thee, and make them pleased with Thy good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee”.
      Imam Zayn al-’Abidin, Sahifa al-Kamilah, (English translation, London, 1988), p. 27

      Imam Jafer Sadiq (as) had praised the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) as follows:

      “Allah (swt) from amongst the Sahaba had selected a group, and showered them with respect, they were successful and the blessed lips of Rasulullah (s) praised them for virtues. You should [likewise] love them, extol their virtues and separate from the people of Bidah as sitting with them leads to one’s heart being filled with kufr and hatred”.
      Misbah al Shariah page 67

      Did the vast bulk of the Sahaba apostatize after the death of Rasulullah (s)?
      Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:

      “One of the leading scholars of the Shi’a, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: “The people (including the Sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, “Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.

      This is one of the favourite traditions that are cited by the Nasibi against the followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as). We had already cited the comments of Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) and Imam Sadiq (as) where they had set out their admiration and love for the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). Is it believable that these two Imams were praising just three individuals? Not only do these traditions go against those explicit traditions that we have cited, we should also point out that one of the narrators of this tradition is Muhammad bin Uthman who has not been authenticated by the scholars (see Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 17 page 294) while another narrator namely Hanaan bin Sudair was a follower of Waqifi sect (see Rijal al-Tusi, page 334).

      If the Minhajj are still going insist that we adhere to this belief then we would suggest that examine the testimony in Sahih Bukhari your most authentic book:

      Narrated ‘Abdullah:

      The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount”. ‘Abdullah added: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘you do not know what they did after you had left.’
      Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 578

      Narrated Anas:

      The Prophet said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”
      1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 584
      2. Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54

      Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa’d:

      The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people whom I will recognise, and they will recognise me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them.” Abu Hazim added: Nu’man bin Abi ‘Aiyash, on hearing me, said. “Did you hear this from Sahl?” I said, “Yes.” He said, ” I bear witness that I heard Abu Said al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: ‘I will say: They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left’. I will say, ‘Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed after me.” Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, “On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, ‘O Lord (those are) my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from the true Islam)”
      Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 585

      Narrated Abu Huraira:

      The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd”.
      Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587

      Faced with such explicit traditions Nasibis try and re-define Sahaba here, namely the words don’t refer to the Sahaba per se but in fact refer to the Ummah i.e. the vast bulk of the Ummah will be in the fire. To counter this we suggest our readers check the Arabic it says the words “Sahaba”. We are yet to find any Arabic dictionary that states Sahaba means Ummah.

      Further proofs come from the wording of the traditions. In addition 8: 587 ‘They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.’ When you LEAVE somebody, you do so having already BEEN WITH THEM, i.e. he had been amongst them. The words “after you left” clearly indicate that the group being referred to are those who survived the Prophet (S) i.e. the Sahaba. This is absolutely logical, when a parent dies, they leave behind them their children – they have survived their parents.

      Moreover in tradition 8: 585 Rasulullah (s) say’s: “There will come to me some people whom I will RECOGNIZE” and in 8: 587 “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I RECOGNIZED them”. Now in both hadith our infallible Prophet (S) refers to a group “whom I will recognise” – I can only recognise someone if I have SEEN that person – common sense. Rasulullah (s)’s surprise is because he is seeing those who he sat with (companions) being lead into the fire.

      These authentic traditions make it clear that the vast bulk of Sahaba

      (1) Innovated
      (2) Became Kaffir
      (3) Only a few will be saved from the fire!

      We read in al Istiab, Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 67 that:

      عن أم سلمة قالت: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” إن من أصحابي من لا أراه ولا يراني بعد أن أموت أبداً “
      Um Salama narrated that the prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Among my companions are some whom I will never see and they will never see me after my death’.

      Commenting on this hadith Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadith Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states;

      “These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the people of Bidah”
      Taken from Izalath al Rahab page 398

      For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129.

      Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:

      Al-Qummi claims that Abu Ja’far said that the following verse was revealed about them; “Verily the doors of Heaven will not open for those who deny Our signs and are arrogant towards them, nor will they enter paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle.”(7:40) He also adds that the camel in the verse refers to their camel. Thus, according to Al-Qummi, Talhah (RA) and az-Zubayr (RA), who were both amongst the ten who received glad tidings of paradise from the Prophet SAWS himself, will never enter paradise! (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.

      Whilst we have not gleamed into the particulars of this narration one should point out to the Minhajj that they have traditions in their beloved Sahih al Bukhari that not only places Talha and Zubayr in the fire, but also the vast bulk of the Sahaba that according their traditions have been guaranteed paradise!

      We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30:

      Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:
      While I was going to help this man (‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I am going to help that person.” He said, “Go back for I have heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, “He surely had the intention to kill his companion.”

      We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 204:

      Narrated Al-Hasan:
      (Al-Ahnaf said:) I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between ‘Ali and ‘Aisha) and Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I intend to help the cousin of Allah’s Apostle (i.e.,’Ali).” Abu Bakra said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘If two Muslims take out their swords to fight each other, then both of them will be from amongst the people of the Hell-Fire.’ It was said to the Prophet, ‘It is alright for the killer but what about the killed one?’ He replied, ‘The killed one had the intention to kill his opponent.’”

      We would urge our readers to examine these two ‘sahih’ hadith from the Sahih Bukhari. These hadith clearly infer that all those involved in the Battles of Jamal, Sifeen and the tragedy of Karbala are destined for Hell. And among them are Ummul-Momineen Hadhrath Ayesha and the eminent personalities of Hadhrath Imam Ali (AS) & Imam Hussain (AS) and all their martyred companions (AS), and of course Talha & Zubair. What is the fatwa of Minhajj al Nasibi here?

      Does cursing the Sahaba make the Shi’a kaffir?
      Whilst we will Inshallah refute the collection of fatwas in the final chapter we felt that it would be appropriate for us to reply to three fatwas that had been cited suggesting that the Shi’a are kaffir due to their position on the Sahaba.

      Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:

      “During one of Imam Malik’s classes, it was mentioned that the Rafidi Shi’a curse the Sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” (48:29) He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks.” (Tafseer al-Qurtubi) 4) Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi: He said of the Rafidi Shi’a doctrine of cursing the Sahaba, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation.” 6) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the Rafidi Shi’a disbelievers because of their defamation of the Sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, “No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them.”(Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.

      It is sad that Nasibi cults such as this group seek to vent maximum emotion amongst actual Sunni’s by highlighting Shi’a criticism of the Sahaba with the sole aim that this will lead to them joining them in the chorus of takfeer against the Shi’a. We will Inshallah address Imam Malik’s Fatwa separately in the final chapter, suffice it to say the Shi’a views on the Sahaba do NOT in any way mean that one can conclude that the Shi’a are kaffir. These Nasibis cannot prove from the Qur’an or hadith that either Allah (SWT) or Rasul (S) ever declared Sahaba who cursed one another to have become Kaffir. This is a fact, they quarreled, fought each other in his blessed presence and he NEVER said that they had become kaffir. In fact Sahaba even criticized him (S) accusing him of being delirious on his deathbed and yet curiously we never hear these Deobandi and Salafi Nasibis ever running to the aid of our Rasul and deeming such individuals as Kaffir.

      When a person enters into the fold of Islam, he is required to recite the Kalima tayyiba and Shahada, upon doing so he comes under the umbrella of Islam. It is following this recital that he can be told about the core components of Iman / beliefs that make up this declaration. From the texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah we learn that the declaration of Iman, is as follows:

      “I believe in Allah, in his Angels, In his Books, in the Day of Judgment, the fact that everything good and bad is from Allah and that Life exists after death”.

      These are the conditions of Iman, there exists no requirement to have faith in the iman of Abu Bakr, Umar or for that matter any other Sahaba. In the absence of this fact, on what basis do these so-called scholars conclude that disrespect of the Sahaba makes you a kaffir?

      If one examines the entire contents of the Holy Qur’an there exists no evidence that entry into the fold of Islam is dependent on testifying to the iman of the Sahaba.

      Some individuals will seek to cite verses and suggest that these pertain to Abu Bakr, Umar etc, thus concluding that to reject these individuals’ means that one is rejecting the Qur’an. From this view point they will argue that believing in the iman of the Sahaba is a necessity since without them, the link to guidance shall be broken – hence to reject them makes one a kaffir. When debating on the issue of takfeer one needs to recognize that this is such a serious matter that a fatwa can only be issued when there is no doubt whatsoever. There is no arguing that general verses came down with regards to specific individuals, but one needs to appreciate that Abu Lahab and Zaid bin Harith are the only individuals that are mentioned by name in the Qur’an. Even if we are to accept the claim that verses descended with regards to Abu Bakr and Umar, this can not in any way be deemed to proof beyond a doubt, since commentators of the Qur’an interpreted these verses according their knowledge, thoughts and personal viewpoints i.e., they interpreted verses according to their own school of thought. Whilst some for example cite the verse that refers to Abu Bakr in the cave, deeming this as a verse of appraisal, others have criticized his Iman on this particular occasion.

      Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:

      4) Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi: He said of the Rafidi Shi’a doctrine of cursing the Sahaba, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation.”

      This is a very common Nasibi argument. Since the Deen (Qur’an / Sunnah) reached us via the Sahaba, loving them is part of the Deen. We would state that this is matter of personal preference, since it is these Ulema and their neo Nasibi followers that have made the mistake of wrongly deeming this to be a part of Iman, they are now seeking to force the Shi’a to embrace this incorrect notion.

      The Ahl’ul Sunnah deem every companion as reliable due to the fact that he professed belief in Rasulullah (s) and had the benefit of seeing him – hence he is a ‘Sahaba’. At the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage there were at least 100,000 Sahaba, is it correct to conclude that every one of these individuals was just? If it is not, then why do the majority school uphold the belief that ALL the Sahaba were just? In addition we are also expected to believe that all the Sahaba are like stars, whoever amongst them you follow will lead you to guidance. We will answer this claim by citing this example:

      “If Rasulullah (s) appeared in this present era, and a Shepherd, bus conductor, street cleaner, barber, butcher, Doctor, engineer, Professor and trader all saw Rasulullah (s) and embraced Islam having met him and hence with that were deemed Sahaba, would it be fair to conclude that they ALL developed the same knowledge, sagacity, piety, mental attitude? Can we deem them ALL to be on an equal level BECAUSE they saw Rasulullah (s) and were hence his Sahaba?

      On the ‘Stars’ principle you will have a choice to follow a street cleaner or professor, can we conclude that both will be equal in knowledge? The majority school deem all those who saw Rasulullah (s) to be his Sahaba no matter how far away they were from him, when in fact the sad fact is even those that sat close to him, behaved inappropriately as can be vouched for in history.

      The books of history testify that on the day of Hudaibiya, one particular Sahaba raised doubts on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s), at Uhud prominent Sahaba fled for the mountains, one fled so far that he returned to Madina after three days. At Khayber the companions led by prominent Sahaba fled in retreat from the enemy. We also know that when Rasulullah (s) asked for writing materials on his deathbed, Sahaba said he was delirious. Rasulullah (s) ordered the army of Usamah to leave Makka, Sahaba refused to go, after the demise of Rasulullah (s) Sahaba were debating over his succession at Saqifa rather than participating in his funeral arrangements. These are clearly historical problems, so whoever’s heart wishes to gleam over these facts then they can choose such personalities as their guides, and whoever accepts these facts is entitled to reject these individuals as guides. If the majority school does indeed want to grasp such individuals would the better approach not be to grasp those individuals with an exemplary character, and declare such persons as the necessary components of the Deen?

      The reality is that the necessary parts of Deen are the Ahl’ul Bayt (as) and Rasulullah (s) had told the Sahaba at the Farewell Pilgrimage “I am leaving amongst you two weighty things if you follow them you will never go astray, the Qur’an and my Ahl’ul bayt”. Rasulullah (s) also identified Imam Ali (as) to be the Gate of knowledge, if the Ummah had decided to close the door themselves, grasp the Qur’an and turn their backs on the Ahl’ul bayt (as) then that is their loss, why are they demanding that we do likewise?

      If the Minhajj group are seeking to cook up a frenzy citing the fact that the Shi’a are opposed to the Sahaba and certain wives of the Prophet (s), then allow us to cite some traditions and look in to the facts of history. We will cite the treatment of the beloved daughter of Rasulullah (s) Sayyida Fatima (sa). After Rasulullah’s demise she remained alive only for a further six months, during which time her treatment at the hands of Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr became so bad that not only did she stop talking to him, she left an explicit instruction that he not attend her funeral.

      We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 hadith 325 that Ayesha stated:

      “After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle”.

      She died angry with Abu Bakr and Rasulullah (s) warned of the consequences of upsetting Sayyida Fatima, we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61

      “Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”

      In relation to Imam Ali (as), He (as) testified to hearing these words of Rasulullah (s) as recorded in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0141:

      Zirr reported: ‘Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.

      It is little wonder that we have the testimony of Abu Said al Khudri:

      “We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali.”
      1. Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition 1086
      2. al-Isti’ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47 – al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhibb al-Tabari, v3, p242

      From these traditions it is clear that Ali (as) was the subject of hatred, and that those that held enmity towards him were in fact only ‘pretending’ to be Muslims. Upon the death of Rasulullah (s) this hatred became more open. Whilst it is difficult to visualize the events with the passage of some 1400 years, it is clear that the situation deteriorated to such an extent that swords were raised against Imam Ali (as), that being the case how difficult can it be to identify and name the enemies of Imam Ali (as)?

      Rasulullah (s) declared that a momin would never hate Imam Ali, but Ummul Momineen Ayesha and the Sahaba fought the rightly guided khalifa and in the process were responsible for causing the bloodshed of thousands. In light of these facts what fatwa will Minhajj al Nasibi and their Imams invoke on Hadhrath Ayesha based on these facts?

      “Hatred of Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you”.
      al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 67

      Hatred did not just end there Mu’awiya’s hatred of Imam Ali (as) was such that as Khalifa he made the cursing of Imam Ali (as) a compulsory practice.

      Maulana Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his “Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat”. On page 174 he writes:

      “Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu’awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam’s position. This took such an extreme that this practised even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath Ali’s family who would hear this abuse with their own ears.”
      1.Tabari Volume 4 page 188
      2. Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234
      3. al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80

      So, where were the Minhajj and their Deobandi ancestors at this time? Why did they not take a stand and seek to prevent the cursing of Imam Ali (as)? Why did they not expose Mu’awiya and write eloquent articles like the one that we are refuting here? If despite his being an alleged Sahaba and jurist Minhajj can find it in their hearts to forgive Mu’awiya for cursing Imam Ali (as) the Sahaba and cousin of Rasulullah (s), why can they not forgive the Shi’a likewise? If our sin is that we distance ourselves from one group of Sahaba, it is on account of the fact that we love Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl’ul bayt (as). How can we be forced to have a heart that loves the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and at the same time also professes love for their enemies? It is indeed incredible that these Nasibis like Minhajj have a deep affection for the enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as) such as Mu’awiya, Marwan and Yazeed. The Shi’a are kaffir because they curse the Sahaba, whilst those that cursed, oppressed and killed them are radhiallah-ta’ala-anho! Take the example of Marwan, ask any Deobandi or Salafi about him, and they will extol him as a pious Sahaba (ra), but Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah, al Muhaddith Shah ‘Abdul Aziz declares:

      “Love of the Ahl’ul Bayt is a part of religion it is not a Sunnah, love of Ahl’ul Bayt means hating Marwan, and speaking ill of him. He treated Imam Hussain and the other members of Ahl’ul Bayt badly, and was their enemy. We denounce this Shaytaan”.
      Fatwa Azizi, page 225

      What is of interest is this article appears on a Deobandi Website, and yet the Minhajj al Nasibi have failed to cite even a single opinion of ‘Abu Hanifa on those that curse the Sahaba? Why is that? This is because this would go against their beliefs.

      Allamah Tahavi whilst setting out Abu Hanifa aqeedah states:

      We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them.

      So here based on the fatwa of Imam Numan one who curses the Sahaba may not be a likeable person BUT he cannot be deemed a kaffir.

      We should also point out that Imam Abu Hanifa must have stated this (i.e. not a likeable person) in a context since he had disrespect of Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar in his heart, as we learn of…

      Imam Abu Hanifa’s disrespect of the Shaykhayn
      In Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 373 we read that:

      “Imam Abu Hanifa said that Iblis and The Great Truthful one Abu Bakr were equal in Iman”.

      Allamah Shibli Numani in his book “Imam Abu Hanifa” page 76 (English translation) states:

      “There lived in the Imam’s lane a miller who was a fanatical Shi’ah and who had, therefore named his two donkeys Abu Bakr and Umar, respectively. One day one of the donkeys kicked the miller so hard in the head that he died. Hearing of this, the Imam said, ‘It must be the donkey who he had named Umar’. On inquiry the guess was found correct”.

      Please take note of this reference, one that kicks out is Umar. In addition to his claim that Abu Bakr’s Iman was on par with Iblis, what more can we say? Minhajj al Nasibi can collate as may fatwas of takfeer by their Nasibi Imams as they like, but it will be to no avail – since takfeer due to disrespecting of the Sahaba even ‘Abu Bakr and Umar cannot be proven, and if it can then they should issue takfeer against their beloved Imam Abu Hanifa.

      Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah have not deemed cursing the Sahaba to constitute kufr
      To counter these absurd claims we present the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Nasibis, who writes:

      “And merely abusing some one other than the Prophets does not necessarily make the abuser Kaffir; because some of those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e. companions) used to abuse one another and none of them was declared kaffir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is not Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers and the Last day.
      “As Sarimu l masul”, Ibn Taymiyyah, page 579 Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub

      Mulla Ali Qari in his work of Sharh Fiqh al Akbar whilst setting out Hanafi aqaid on the Sahaba states:

      “to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur as Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And it is because the basis of this claim (claim that reviling the Shaykhayn is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is confirmed. It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in this rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the Shaykhayn, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all of them together, even then according to Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al- Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e. will not become kaffir)”
      1. Mulla Ali Qari, Sharah al Fiqh al Akbar Matba Uthmaaniyya, Istanbul, 1303 page 130 Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86 Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86) Since this conflicts with the new Nasibi thinking, namely those who curse the Shaykhayn are Kaffir, they have tampered with their texts. The above quote was taken from three (3) editions, printed in India and Turkey. Now a new edition has been printed by Darul Lutubil Ilmiyah, Beirut in 1404/1984, which claims to be the first edition, and from which four pages (including the above text) have been expunged.

      Famous Hanafi scholar, Allamah Alaudeen Hanafi in Durr al Mukhthar in his chapter on Imamate page 72 states as follows:

      “And whoever turns in the direction of the Kaaba is not a kaffir. Even the Khwaarij are not kaffir, despite the fact that they deem it halaal to take our lives and property. Similarly those that deem it permissible to curse the Sahaba, and deny the concept of seeing Allah (swt), can not be deemed to be kaffir, since their beliefs are based on interpretation and doubt – the fact that they are not held to be kaffirs is proven by the fact that there testimony is accepted whilst those of Non Muslims is not, this proves that they are Muslim”.

      Hanafi scholar Maulana Abdu Hai Lucknawi in response to a question regarding the Shi’a position on cursing the Sahaba:

      “This is bidah (an innovation) not kufr. They believe Ali to be superior to the Shaykhayn some state that it is a duty to curse the opponents of Ali such as Mu’awiya and Ayesha – this is bidah not kufr, it is based on interpretation, in conclusion to deem the Shi’a kaffir on account of their cursing of the Sahaba contradicts the opinions of the Ulema”.
      Mujmoa al Fatawa, Volume 1 pages 3-4

      Deobandi scholar Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi in responded to a question on the following topic in this manner:

      Q. “Can we deem one that commits the great sin of speaking ill of the Sahaba to be outside the folds of Ahl’ul Sunnah?”

      A. Despite this great sin he is not expelled from the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah”.
      al Fatawa Rasheedia, Volume 2 pages 140-141

      If a Sunni that speaks ill the Sahaba is not a kaffir and remains a member of the Sunni Sect, why is it that the Shi’a by perpetrating this same act become kaffir?

      An appeal to the Deobandis
      The Shi’a have distanced themselves from those Sahaba that subjected the Ahl’ul bayt (as) to ill treatment. Our position is clear and not negotiable.

      Maudoodi states in his “Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat” page 233:

      “With regards to those that fought Ali, Ali was more in the right”. At the same time he fails to condemn those that opposed him

      He says later on page 338 of the same book:

      “The majority scholars commenting on Ali’s stance, deem that he was the rightful Imam, no scholar has said anything different. The Hanafi Ulema agree with the majority scholars that Ali was right and his opponents were rebels”.

      Praising the concept of freedom of speech Maudoodi writes in the same book, page 263:

      “Abu Hanifa felt that if anyone speaks ill of the rightful Imam, swears or intends to kill him, no action can be taken against him, no one can be indicted nor imprisoned UNTIL he practically implements rebellion”.

      We would urge the Minhajj and their fellow Deobandis to contemplate this reference. Allow us to benefit from the freedom of speech that your Imam Abu Hanifa had advocated. The Shi’a do not use foul language nor do we intend on spilling blood BUT we will speak out to defend the truth, why should we be prohibited from condemning Imam Ali (as)’s opponents? We refuse to desist from such an approach; we the Shi’a have separated from such individuals. As far as we are concerned the matter is straightforward. If one party is on the path of truth then the other party is on the path of falsehood. If the Sunni Ulema despite this fact have deemed those in the wrong as worthy of praise since they exercised Ijtihad, for which they shall be forgiven and awarded, ignoring the scores that were killed and failing to apportion blame – then that is their problem not ours. It is indeed regrettable that these ‘Ulema’ have issued takfeer against the Shi’a because we refuse to join them in this approach.

      A matter to ponder over
      Before we conclude this section, allow us to analyse this matter from another angle. There is no doubt that the Shi’a are the sole Sect that have in light of established facts been highly critical of the Sahaba, that includes Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. If we are to accept the argument advanced by these fatwas that the Shi’a are kaffir on account of their views of the Sahaba then it makes logical sense that the Shi’a will enter the Fire on the Day of Judgement for holding such a belief.

      In an authentic tradition found in the texts of Sunni and Shi’a, Rasulullah (s) said that his Ummah would become divided in to 73 Sects, only one would enter paradise all the others would go into the Fire. On the basis of these fatwas let us for arguments sake conclude that the Shi’a due to their condemnation of the Sahaba are one of the 72 Sects that shall enter the Fire. That leaves us with a further 71 Sects that shall also join the Shi’a in Hell. The difficulty for the Nasibi is the fact that of the remaining 71 Sects all revere the Sahaba, and are not critical of any one of them. Despite the fact that they respect all the Sahaba they shall still enter the Fire on the Day of Judgement.

      This proves that respecting or disrespecting the Sahaba is NOT that factor that shall determine whether the adherents of a Sect shall enter Hell on the Day of Judgement! This is clear and logical. We would invite those with open minds to ponder this point carefully and to think twice before being taken in by these three illogical fatwas cited by Minhajj al Nasibi.

  3. Nobody is allowed to insult someone’s faith. If a non-Muslim wants to criticize Islam, he better come and debate. He abuses who fails to bring any proof.

    • YO HO HO MO,




      In everything notable, the representatives of the Islamic Cult accuse outsiders of their lack of morality, skills, or whatever. When it comes to perversions such as thighing, sodomy et al – with toddlers! – their rejection are fierce but all in vain. – We (in the civilized West) know about the Mohammedans vicious tendencies. They don’t have to log in their “taqqiyah” (allowed lies). Muslims always blame non-Muslims for their dirty behavior. And if they cannot blame non-Muslims, Sunni’s blame Shia’s and Shia’s blame Sunni’s. But both savages follow the same fascist ideology and the same warlord. In Saudi Arabia The Permanent Committee For Scientific Research And Religious Sanctions claimed Mufa’ Khathat (thighing/incest) is imported to their countries through “foreign films”. Imported by whom?

      It is a practice dating back over 1,400 years and committed by the very creator of Islam: Mohammed himself and his followers. What films did they import? There is no foreign element responsible for Muslim sodomy of infants at all. Nor is there any foreign influence for Muslim marriage of children. It’s pure Islam.

      Everything immoral can always be turned upside down by the use of their infamous Koran and the unholy “prophet”

      A marriage is engaged in by 2 consenting adults.
      Do you really believe a 6 year old child would desire to marry a 51 year old man?
      Do you think that is what she would choose?
      Do you think a 9 year old girl would desire to have sex with a 54 year old?

      The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

      Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly. Let us investigate how did the prophet live Islam; how did the prophet apply the eternal teachings of God in his daily life? In this search for the historical Muhammad, we will utilize the Islam’s holy books, its own writings.


      And surely thou hast sublime morals
      (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

      Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
      (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

      Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.


      Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father.
      Sahih Bukhari 9.140
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.


      Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
      Sahih Bukhari 7.18
      Narrated ‘Ursa:
      The prophet asked abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”


      Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234
      Narrated Aisha: the prophet engaged (married) me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, um ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some ansari women who said, “best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
      Sahih bukhari volume 8, book 73, number 151
      Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join and play with me. (the playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)
      Muhammad’s father in law, Umar bin Khattab, the second rightly guided khalifa, married even a younger child, Umm Kulthum. Umm Khultum was about 4-5 years old when she was married. Umar was certainly not doing wrong according to Islam, Muhammad once said that even the devil would step aside when he met Umar on an alley. Islam is indeed the true religion for pedophiles, rapists, sadistics etc.
      Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
      ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

      Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

      Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’
      Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
      Narrated ‘Ursa:
      The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
      Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.
      Sahih Bukhari 7.18
      Narrated ‘Ursa:
      The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
      Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.
      Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their customs Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca. Yet that did not stop him asking Abu Bakr for her hand, even when she was only six years old.
      But this moral relativist “Holy Prophet” of Mecca would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.
      Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
      Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
      It was said to the Prophet, “Won’t you marry the daughter of Hamza?” He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter). ”
      Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.
      In the following Hadith he confided to Aisha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.
      Sahih Bukhari 9.140
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.
      Whether Muhammad had actually such a dream or he just said it to please Aisha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that Aisha was a baby being “carried” by an angel when the Prophet dreamed of her.
      There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.
      Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
      Narrated Hisham’s father:
      Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
      Sahih Bukhari 5.234
      Narrated Aisha:
      The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
      And in another Hadith we read.
      Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917
      Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
      The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
      In the above hadith we read that Aisha was swinging, This is a play of little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly interesting because it shows that Aisha was so small that was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet “surprised” her by going to her.
      Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
      Narrated Aisha:
      When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.

      Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)

      Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

      Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
      ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
      The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Aisha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.
      Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

      Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Aisha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she “grew up” he married Umm Salama.
      In another part Aisha claims that as long as she remembers her parents were always Muslims.
      Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      (the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
      If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

      Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes.
      No sane person would be aroused by a 6-year-old child. Decent people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Aisha, which incidentally confirm each other?



      Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

      Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.

      According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

      Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

      Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

      Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.”Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

      The inquirer asked the following: ‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

      After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

      That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers'” (Fatwa No. 31409).

      Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)


      From the Hadith of Bukhari:

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

      Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

      I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

      Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

      I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

      From the Hadith of Bukhari:

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      as above (229).

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

      Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

      I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

      Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

      I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.


      Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 7, book 62, number 17
      Narrated jabir bin ‘abdullah:
      When I got married, Allah’s apostle said to me, “what type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron.” he said, “why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s apostle said, “why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?”
      Hence, Muhammad’s comments indicate that his reason for marrying Aisha while a young virgin is so that he could fondle and sexually play with her!
      In the classic history, Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad) by Ibn Ishaq, there is an account in which Muhammad expressed a marital interest in a crawling baby. This event seems to have occurred around the time of the battle of of Badr, when he was about 55 years old. He had married Aisha two years earlier, when he was 53 years of age.
      (Suhayli, ii. 79: in the Riwaya of Yunus i. I. Recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lfadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said,
      ‘if she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’
      but he died before she grew up and sufyan b. Al-aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him rizq and lubab… [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 311]
      Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, “if she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her.” (Musnad Ahmad, number 25636)


      Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little Aisha and fondle her.
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      The prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).


      Sunaan abu Dawud: book 11, number 2161:
      Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
      I and the apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to lie in one cloth at night while I was menstruating. If anything from me smeared him, he washed the same place (that was smeared), and did not wash beyond it. If anything from him smeared his clothe, he washed the same place and did not wash beyond that, and prayed with it (i.e. The clothe).


      Bukhari (6:300) – Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.
      Bukhari volume 1, book 6, number 299:
      Narrated ‘Abdur-rahman bin al-Aswad:
      …(on the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the prophet could.”


      Allah promoted this abusive sexual behavior:
      “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” [Koran 2:223]
      Koran (2:223) likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills. In this verse, Allah also gives divine sanction for anal sex.

      According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfection of humanity and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct. He had sex with Aisha at the age of nine, which amounts to rape of a minor. He also left behind an enduring legacy for aged Muslim men to fulfill their carnal desires contrary to natural law and to the life-long devastation of young girls.


      Quran 65.4 “and those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘iddah (prescribed divorce period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. They are still immature) their ‘iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens) (give birth) and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to him, he will make his matter easy for him.”
      Sura (65:4) lays down rules for divorce and sets the prescribed period for divorce. It clearly says, Muslim men can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age. This means that Muslim men were allowed to marry baby girls. This is the eternal word of god. This is an eternal law of Allah. All Muslims must believe in this teaching. Otherwise, they are no longer Muslims but apostates of Islam.


      “All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” 4:24
      You can have sex with slaves women captured in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like).
      Muhammad established an appalling precedent for abuse of young girls which is continued to be nurtured by the Muslim faithful. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran gave a fatwa about Quran 65.4:
      “A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man’s four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl’s sister.”



      In the Quran, there is no word for marriage. The only word used is nikah, which means ‘having sex’ or ‘sexual intercourse’ in Arabic.


      According to Quran a wife is some one with whom you have sex with.
      Different types of wives are:
      1. A paid wife with an open ended contract (House wife)
      2. A paid wife with a fixed term contract (Muta wife)
      3. A paid visitation only wife with a visitation contract (Misyar wife)
      4. Slave girl (bought gifted or captured)
      The price paid for vagina is called Mahr. Thus according to Quran a contract wife is like a whore who gets paid for her vagina called Mahr while a slave girl wife is like a whore who does not get paid a Mahr for her vagina.
      Q 4.24: Seek out wives by means of your wealth, and give those with whom ye have cohabited their price.


      A wife has no say in the way the husband approaches her for enjoyment.
      Prophet said (Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81): “you are given the right to enjoy the women’s private parts”.
      Q 2.223: Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations in any manners), when or how you will. (trs. Hilali & Khan)


      Like a client can dump a whore at will and pick up another one, the Quran says a husband can dump his wife and get another one.
      Q 4.20. If you want to exchange one wife for another than don’t take back any part of what you paid her.
      Hadiths say that Hasan Bin Ali, Prophet Mohammad’s beloved grand son, who died young, went through more than 70 wives in his short life.
      The husband is like a client of a whore. Once a wife is paid Mahr she is obliged to submit her private parts 24/7 to him.


      If a whore changes her mind and does not want sex she can. She can return the money and kick him out. However, in Islam a wife does not have that liberty. Once the Mahr is paid her vagina is his to enjoy. She must submit to him any time he gets an urge.
      Ibn Majah 1854: “Prophet said if he asks her to surrender herself to him for sexual intercourse on a camel’s back, she should not refuse him even on a camel’s saddle.”
      However in our prophet’s case, whenever he had a huge urge (erection) and his child-wife got scared and ran away during foreplay, he had to catch her, bribe her with a new doll and drag her back to bed.


      If a wife refuses sex to a husband Allah ordered husbands to give her a good whipping.
      Quran 4.34: Scourge (whip) your wife if she does not obey.
      And ordered angels to curse her all night.
      Bukhari 4.54.460: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed for sex and if she , he angels will curse her till morning”.


      Once a wife is whipped badly, she cannot lie down and have sex without severe pain, seriously limiting the ways a husband can approach her thus violating aya 2.223. Our prophet told the momins to postpone sex with her.
      Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132:
      The Prophet said, “When you flog your wife like you flog your slave then postpone the sexual intercourse.”


      A n open ended contract is signed for a negotiated price for an undetermined period. In addition wife gets boarding lodging and clothing. However if the husband decides to dump her, he can break the contract verbally and kick her out (4.20) any time he wants to but he cannot get any money back he paid for her vagina even if he used it for five minutes.
      Q 4.20: if you replace a wife by another, you cannot get any part of Mahr back even if it was a large sum.
      A broken contract cannot be renewed until the her vagina is used by another momin and is then released (halala).
      Q 2.230: And if he has divorced her, then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has sex with another husband. And if he has divorced her then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite.
      On the other hand a wife has no right to break a contract similarly. She can only break it if she can prove him to be impotent or insane in a court of law.


      A man can sign a contract with a woman to use her vagina for a pre-determined period at negotiated price.
      The contract can be renewed without the requirement of interim use of her vagina by another man.


      In this contract a husband visits a misyar wife for sexual pleasure and pays her for each visit. The husband does not have to provide her boarding and lodging.


      A slave girl doesn’t get paid Mahr for her vagina. She is acquired as a free gift (Maria was a free gift for Prophet from Egyptian king), bought from another owner (sometimes prophet took away pretty girls for free from their owners*) or captured after killing her father or husband (prophet took 20% of the captured women from a raid booty).
      Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4345:
      It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa’) who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. Abu Bakr bestowed a young girl upon me as a prize. She was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her (had not have sex with her) when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me again in the street (Salama was parading the young beauty to make other jihadis jealous). Prophet said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her.


      Quranic ayas 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50 & 70.30 allow a Muslim man to have sex with slave girls. A slave girl can be bought or acquired by killing infidels and capturing their wives and daughters.
      Slave girls are the best bargain Islam has to offer to Muslim men but unfortunately Muslims are denying themselves this great reward from Allah just to appease infidel west. The uses of a slave-girl are:
      1. They provide sex 24/7.
      2. They are used as house maid
      3. Offered as sex partners to overnight house guests.
      4. Offered as gifts to family and friends for a few days or for good*.
      (*The History of Tabari, vol 8, pge 29-30: From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts).
      5. Sold to raise cash, if the need be.


      Islam is the only religion which allows momins to pimp the bodies of their slave girls for side incomes. Thus Quran taught 1400 years back what modern day pimps are learning now, that is to control many prostitutes and get rich on their income.
      However Islam is a very compassionate religion. While many pimps force their prostitutes to sell their bodies, Islam prefers that momins avoid coercion.
      Q 24.33. Do not compel your slave girls to prostitution to drive income from her body if they are not willing.
      But of course Allah is a forgiving God. In case momins do beat them up and force them to prostitute, Allah said he will forgive them.
      Q 24.33. (continued) But if you did force her to prostitute Allah can forgive you because he is forgiving and compassionate.


      Aisha was 9 lunar years old or 8 years 9 months old according to solar years when Muhammad slept with her. This is a fact demonstrated by a great number of hadiths. There is no controversy in that. There has never been until now that some of the Muslims have come in contact with western values and are ashamed to admit that their Prophet could commit such an indecency. They deny the facts and have made it a controversy. The majority of Muslims still have no problem with the young age of the Aisha and they ridicule these Modern day “moral relativists” who are twisting the truth to please the morality of the westerners.
      Only a few years ago Sheikh Baaz in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa that any one who said the Earth is round is Kafir. Obviously this did not go very far but he started a controversy. So what is your opinion about the shape of the Earth? Would you stay out of it because it is a controversial issue? How about the evolution? There are many Muslims as well as Christians who do not agree with evolution. They believe in the Biblical and Quranic fables of Adam and Eve and the creation. This is a big controversy. Are you going to stay away from it? Is it a none-issue for you? Almost everything under the Sun is a controversial issue. From the death penalty to hunting, from spending money for space exploration to aiding the poor countries, everything is a controversy. Even the very subject of religion is a controversial issue. So you cannot walk away from responsibility when you are faced with controversies.
      I agree that morality is relative and we should not judge the ancient people’s morality with our modern morality.
      Obviously we all cringe when we think of pedophilia and acknowledge that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of Muhammad, and even today in some Islamic countries, marrying a 9-year-old child is not immoral. In fact Aisha was given to Muhammad with the consent of her parents and no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if having sexual intercourse with a nine year old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it ok? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is now, as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logics. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not? “
      Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Muhammad and his contemporaries in that uncivilized culture, but it was ethically wrong.
      If Muhammad was a messenger of God or an honorable man, as he made his Allah to proclaim him thus, he should have known that what he was doing was dishonorable and unethical. And that this practice would become SUNNAH.
      Although it is true that in the past people married at very young age. And it is also true that occasionally wealthy old men married very young girls. We have to realize that these people acted on their culture. We do not condemn them for they did not know better. What they did was the norm.
      But we do condemn those cultures.
      However, we cannot forgive with the same amnesty those who claimed to be the standard of rectitude amongst mankind. If average people could not distinguish the right from the wrong, the messengers of God, if they were from God, should have known better. If their claim was true, if their knowledge was divine, if they were inspired, they should not have followed the tradition of their people but should have set the example. Muhammad followed the morality of his people. But that morality was ethically wrong. He claimed to be the best human and the last messenger of God. According to him God has said to people all he wanted to say in the Quran and his religion is complete. There is no more guidance to come and his examples and teachings are all we need to know and follow for eternity. Yet what he did and said, under the light of modern values prove to be very wrong.
      Now we realize that we cannot live by his examples any more, nor can we practice his teachings. Our morality has changed. We would certainly put a man in jail if he wanted to follow the Sunnah of the “Holy Prophet” of Meccap in this day and age and “marry” a 9-year-old child.
      We would not allow someone to take people as slaves or trade in slavery as Muhammad did.
      If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and did do not fit in this modern day, why do we need Muhammad? What part of his teachings should we accept and what part should we discard? Who will determine that? This is an important question. If Muslims give themselves the freedom to pick and choose the teachings that most suit them, they should give the same freedom to others.
      Suppose Muslims believe that marriage to a minor should be outlawed, or you do not feel that polygyny is appropriate any more for this day and age.
      Suppose Muslims disagree with slavery, male or female circumcision, beating of the wives and do not believe in Jihad any more.
      Suppose Muslims prefer to concentrate on other parts of Islam that they like, e.g. Salat, Zikat, Haj, etc. This is their choice.
      But can they deny other Muslims whose choices are distinct from theirs?
      How could these Muslims stop a Muslim who wants to follow those teachings of Islam that they consider outdated? By what authority can they dissuade one who wants to spread Islam by Jihad, like Muhammad did? How can they prohibit themm not to assault sexually a 9-year-old child by marrying her? What would they say to a Muslim who wishes to marry up to four wives and decides to punish them by beating them if they are disobedient, as the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca instructed them to do?
      If they use logic in picking the teachings that are best, they are saying that logic is superior to revelation and therefore they are subscribing to the freethinker’s way of thinking not Muhammad’s.
      Many Islamic countries have realized that true Islam is impractical. Very few of them can practice it faithfully; they all have modified it to certain extent and have incorporated secularism into their laws to make life bearable. Those that do follow Islam are Hell on Earth. Interestingly the civility and the progress of these countries are proportionate to the level of their secularization. In the Middle Ages, when religion had plunged Europe into the Dark Ages, Islamic countries were progressive and prosperous. This was possible because of the tolerance of the rulers of those days, their independence from the Mosque and their disinterest to implement Islam.
      Zakaria Ar-Razi, one of the greatest minds of Islamic world, attacked religion in general and Islam in particular with a force unthinkable in this day. He wrote:
      “The prophets—these Billy goats with long beards, cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These Billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the “words of the master.” The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of “absurd and inconsistent fables,” which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted “eloquence” are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the “writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.”
      Can any intellectual speak so freely against Islam calling the prophets “Billy Goats” as Ar-Razi called them disdainfully in these days and live? Does the fatwa against Salman Rushdie ring a bell? It is clear that in those days of the golden age of Islam, Islamic countries enjoyed a freedom and a level of secularization that has since disappeared. And along with that, the glory of Islamic world also has ebbed. Islam can be used as an index of barbarity and backwardness.
      The more a country applies Islam, the more uncivilized and uncultured it becomes.
      I have no doubt that if Islam was eliminated completely, we’ll regain the past glory of those secular days and even surpass it. There is no reason to believe that the black-eyed race of Middle East is inferior to the blue-eyed Europeans. The number of Middle Eastern scientists, academics and scholars in the West is an indication that given the opportunity they are no less intelligent than any other race. The reason that they are backward, uncivilized and barbaric in their native countries is because Islam has taken away their dignity, humanity and intelligence. Islam has brainwashed them, and like a drug has damaged the minds of their people.


      Bukhari:V5B59N459 “I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.”

      Do you think a female prisoner would desire to have sex with the very people responsible for the murder/beheading of her husband, father brother and/or son?
















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