11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an “And of the people of Medina are
those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them”. (The
Qur’an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the
lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After his (saaws)’s death where did they
go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the
Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their
supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version
is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom
they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe
the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.
Answer: The truth is that there were no hypocrites in Makkah, because the Muslims were in minority , and there were huge oppressions on the Muslims, we hope you know very well. So no one was stupid enough to join the Muslims because every one who claimed to be a Muslim was oppressed. The hypocrites joined the Muslims in Madinah, because in Madinah, Muslims were in large number, and there were no oppressions on them, so to gain favour from them, and to destroy them from inside, the hypocrites joined the Muslims. And this verse is testifying, remember that there were no hypocrites amongst the people of Makkah who embraced Islam and migrated with the Prophet (peace be upon him) , it should be very clear. They were the people who embraced Islam when there were huge oppressions on Muslims, every Muslim was oppressed by the Pagans. I hope the shias know the history of oppressions on Muslims in Makkah very well which forced them to migrate.
The official sunni version is that there were no shias at that time, it doesn't include and ifs and buts. It is to be very clear. It is your version that only 3 people were shias and all others apostated after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
12. Ahl’ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijtihad
and Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these
Answer: Actually the four principles of Ahlus Sunnah are Quran, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. This is mentioned by the Shiapen.com website itself.
In the eyes of the Wahabies “The sources for the creed (‘aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of his Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors” 1. In addition to this, the four Ahl’ul Sunna Imams have added the principle of Qiyas (analogical reasoning).
It seems that the person who wrote these twenty questions, and who was ex-Sunni according to Shiapen.com was unaware of the four principles, and his ignorance is evident.
The Shia website has itself quoated from the book of Ibn Hajjar in which he stated,
"Similarly, we read in Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, page 25:
اعْلَمأَيْضا أَن الصَّحَابَة رضوَان الله تَعَالَى عَلَيْهِم أَجْمَعِينَ أَجمعُوا على أَن نصب الإِمَام بعد انْقِرَاض زمن النُّبُوَّة وَاجِب بل جَعَلُوهُ أهم الْوَاجِبَات حَيْثُ اشتغلوا بِهِ عَن دفن رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم
It should be known that Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) did an Ijma that after completion of Nabuwah, it was Wajib to appoint an Imam in fact they considered it important and Wajib amongst all other acts to the extent that they were so much busy in the act that they had even abandoned the burial of Prophet."
From this, we come to know that the so called ex-Sunni was also unaware that Ijma took place at Saqifa. Or perhaps, he was aware, but intentionally excluded Ijma from the four principles of the Ahlus Sunnah to misguide the people. Wallahu A'lam.
13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what
of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided
Answer: They were not against his khilafat , but they wanted that the khalifa should punish the murderers of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). They were not against Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) being a khalifa.
14. It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a
dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the
battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in
heaven, because both were right?
Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portion of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah’s army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali’s army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah’s act of fighting Ali.
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Our martyrs and the martyrs of Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) will be in heaven" [Tabrani , Majmua Zawaid]
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was very sad at the martyrdom of Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) and he would tell his son , Muhammad , that I and your father will be in heaven.
It doesn't mean that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had the knowledge of the unseen, rather he said this on the basis of the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال وقد نسب قوله الى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم
"أبو بكر في الجنة وعمر في الجنة وعثمان في الجنة وعلي في الجنة وطلحة في الجنة والزبير في الجنة وعبد الرحمن بن عوف في الجنة وسعد بن أبي وقاص في الجنة وسعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل في الجنة وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح في الجنة" أخرجه أحمد والترمذي والبغوي في المصابيح في الحسان وأخرجه أبو حاتم وفيه تقديم وتأخير
[al-Tirmithi, Hadith 3747 & Volume 5, Page 605, Hadith 3748]
And we know that Shimr Zil Joshan was in the army of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in these battles, but does that mean he will be in heaven? No, as on the day of 10th Muharram, he was the one who killed Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him)
Similarly, when Umru bin Jarmuz killed Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) , Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him
"O the killer of the son of Safiyah, you will be in hell" Umru said "We kill your enemies and you tell us that we will go to hell?" [Akhbar-ut-tawal, page 149] Than he committed suicide.
Abu Salama asked Ali that tommorrow when we meet eachother in battle (of Jamal), what will be our end? Ali said "Whoever fought with pure intention, he will go to heaven"
[Tarikh Islam by Shah Muinuddin Nadwi , page 285]
[Tarikh Tabri, Page 3127]
And we know that on the day of Uhud, when Khalid Bin Waleed attacked Muslims from behind, this resulted in a great disorder in the Muslim army, and it was difficult to distinguish between friends and foes, many Muslims were killed by Muslims by mistake, but we know that this doesn't mean that only one of the two will go to heaven. Rather both of them will go to heaven, because their intentions were pure.
Again we know that when the battles ended, Ali reconciled with them both times, and it was this reconciliation of Ali with them , which made many of his partisons, Kharijites. And they objected on Ali that why he didn't enslave them (in the battle of Jamal) and why he reconciled with Muawiya.
So when Abdullah ibn Abbas went to them to debate with them, just before the battle between Ali and Kharijites began, he asked Kharijites to tell their objections on Ali.
So they said "There are three things, first of all, he made people arbitrators while Allah says "innal hukmu illallah" second thing is , he fought with people but neither enslaved them nor took their wealth as war booty. The third is that he removed his title "Amir ul Momineen" in arbitration."
Abdullah ibn Abbas said "If I disprove you through the book of Allah, will you repent?" They said "Yes"
Than he presented the following verses of Quran in favour of arbitration , and proved to them, that arbitration is allowed by Allah.
[005:095] O you who believe! do not kill game while you are on pilgrimage, and whoever among you shall kill it intentionally, the compensation (of it) is the like of what he killed, from the cattle, as two just persons among you shall judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba or the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent of it in fasting, that he may taste the unwholesome result of his deed; Allah has pardoned what is gone by; and whoever returns (to it), Allah will inflict retribution on him; and Allah is Mighty, Lord of Retribution.
[004:035] And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.
Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said "Isn't it better to appoint men as judges so as bloodshed can be avoided , when this is allowed in the matters of women and game (which are much smaller issues than bloodshed)?" They said "Indeed , its good to appoint men so as bloodshed can be avoided (and they accepted arbitration)"
Than Abdullah Ibn Abbas said "The second thing you say is that Ali fought with people but didn't enslave them or take their wealth as war booty. I ask you, will you take the mother of believers [033:006] , Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) as your slave? By God, if you say that you can enslave her, you will get out of Islam. You are trapped between two ignorances , Allah says
[033:006] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers...
Now if you say that she is not your mother, than you are out of Islam (and the respect of mother is well defined in Quran)
They accepted their ignorance.
Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said "Your third objection is that Ali removed the title "Amir ul Momineen" from his name (during arbitration) than I will bring to you witnesses who will testify that while in the negotiations at Hudaibiya , when the peace treaty was being written with the leaders of the Mushrikeen i.e Abu Sufyan , Suhail bin Umru etc, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to write
ھذا ما صالح علیہ محمد رسول اللہ
and the Mushrikeen said "By God, we don't know that you are the Messenger of God, and if you were the Messenger of God, we would have never fought with you"
Than Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to remove the title "Messenger of God" from his name. Now look , by God, Messenger of Allah (i.e Muhammad) is better than Ali, and he removed the title "Messenger of God" from his name", and this didn't affected his being messenger of God (so if Ali removed the title Amir ul Momineen from his name during arbitration, this didn't affect on his being Amir ul Momineen (leader of the believers)"
Two thousand Kharijites repented , and the rest remained on their ignorance.
[Excerpted from Devil's Deception, by Ibn Jawzi]
15. The Prophet (saaws) had said “I swear by the one who controls my life
that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of
ressurection” . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had
guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their
Answer: This narration is mentioned by Ibn Asakir in his Tarikh.
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ بْنُ السَّمَرْقَنْدِيِّ ، أنا عَاصِمُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ ، أنا أَبُو عُمَرَ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ ، أنا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ بْنُ عُقْدَةَ ، نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ الْقَطَوَانِيُّ ، نا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ الأَنْصَارِيُّ ، نا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي الزُّبَيْرِ ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، قَالَ : كُنَّا عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَأَقْبَلَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " قَدْ أَتَاكُمْ أَخِي " ، ثُمَّ الْتَفَتَ إِلَى الْكَعْبَةِ فَضَرَبَهَا بِيَدِهِ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : " وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ إِنَّ هَذَا وَشِيعَتَهُ لَهُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ
Jabir ibn Abdullah narrates that we were with the Prophet (s) when Ali ibn Talib came, so the Prophet (s) said, "Here comes my brother." Then he turned towards Holy Kaaba and placed his hand on it. Then he said, "By the God Almighty, he and his Shias will be successful on the day of judgement."
There are few narrators in this chain of transmission. Ibrahim ibn Anas is a accused of fabricating narrations. And Abu Zubair is a Mudallis rawi, and he has narrated this narration with an'ana which makes this narration weak.
More importantly, our stance is that the Shias of today are not the Shias of Hadhrat Ali. As we believe that they are not following the teachings of Hadhrat Ali. In addition to this point, we would like to add that the term Shias of Ali was used for many Sunnis who were in the army of Hadhrat Ali.
Shiapen.com itself states in his website
During the Khilafat of Imam Ali (as) the Imami Shias began to settle in Kufa, we therefore had two kinds of Shia groups that lived in Kufa:
The political Shias who deemed the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar to be rightful.
The Imami Shias that considered Ali (as) as their Imam and considered him the rightful Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (s) and rejected the Khilafat of the Shaikhain. These Imami Shias were small in number and were the minority in Kufa.
So just because a narration states that the Shias of Ali will be successful, it doesn't mean that the Imami Shias of Hadhrat Ali will be successful. The political Shias of Hadhrat Ali might be claiming to be the group which is mentioned in this narration. How can the twelvers of today claim that they are being mentioned in this narration?
Nahjul Balagha , Sermon 127
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on al jama'ah ( الجماعة ). You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.
Someone may say why have I replaced the word "keeping unity" with (al-jama'ah), the thing is the actual arabic word here is (al-jama'ah) which has been translated by the shias as "keeping unity".
The actual sentence in Arabic here is
الزموا السواد الأعظم، فإنّ يدالله مع الجماعة
be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on al jama'ah
So we understand from this , that ahle sunnah wal jama'ah are the people who are on the right path.
As far as the word shia is concerned, first of all the hadith is unauthentic, after that, we know that the ahlelbayt hated the shias, e.g
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
“O’ Kufa, if this is your condition that whirlwinds [of deciet] continue blowing through you, then Allah may destroy you…Your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrian’s] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrian’s] fulfilment of the trust in favor of their master [Muawiyyah] and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.”
Ali invokes Allah against his Shia:
“O my Allah, they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones”
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) want to change his shias because of their bad behaviour. So how can you claim that Shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) will be successful, when the ahlelbayt were fed up of them in their own lives?
One group of these many kinds of Shias of Ali later became Khawarij when Hadhrat Ali agreed to arbitration after the battle of Siffin. And both Shias of today and Sunnis know that this group has been condemned. Similarly we claim that a person's claim to be the Shia of Ali is not the guarantee of him being on the rightful path. Afterall, we know that there are plenty of groups claiming to be the Shias of Ali, and twelvers are not the only group claiming to be the Shias of Ali.