6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi’as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl’ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their postion at that time?
Answer: Briefly stating Hussain (r) first of all he never expected this to happen and he never went to fight a war – as he went with very few men including his family with women and children. No one goes for Jihad with women and children!! He was traveling to Kufa on their invitations of support, not Jihad. So there is no question of other Muslims joining him for jihad as there really was no call for Jihad! and most of all at that time there was no media to inform others about what what happening as sending messages took time as journeys were on foot or camels or horses. Dont forget that the tragedy of kerbala happend in what is not Iraq and the Muslim mainland of Arabia was very very far off.The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.
7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur’an is sufficient for us’
(Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, "What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state )." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for." Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I forgot it.") (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1)
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 717:
Narrated Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
Ibn Abbas said, "When Allah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said, 'Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.' Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, 'Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) Quran. Allah's Book is sufficient for us.' So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said, 'Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.' while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah's Apostle said, "Get up." Ibn Abbas used to say, "No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise."
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114:
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, 'Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' But 'Umar said, 'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, 'Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me." Ibn 'Abbas came out saying, "It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.
As you can see, your claim is totally wrong that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking nonsense. The hadith says "Some of them" and there is no mentioning whether Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was included in them or not, and this you have added yourself, and we know the bigotry of shias very well.
Again, the companions didn't say that he is delirious, rather they questioned if it was so, read the words yourself
"Some said, "What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state )." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again."
Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) doesn't allow a person to talk to the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying he is ill and therefore can not talk to you.
Again, we know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) lived for 3 to 4 days after this incident. He could have written down what he wanted afterwards too. But at that time, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) thought it better not to disturb him.
As far as the statement of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is concerned, that
'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us.'
Shia commentary of Poya Mahdi (for the verse 2:2) says:
It makes no difference whether the termimamum mabin, in verse 12 of Ya Sin, is interpreted either as the Ahl ul Bayt or as the Quran, for these two are neither separate from each other nor will ever be separable, because one reflects the other.
I guess now it would be easier for the shias to understand the sunni point of view. Quran and Sunnah reflect one another, so if Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned only Quran, it is to be understood that he didn't mean them separate but by mentioning only Quran, he meant both. Again, we know that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) never ignored sunnah in his life.
Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
I leave among you the book of God, which, if you properly regard, you will never go astray ; then hold it fast.
Hayat ul Quloob, Translated by James L. Merrick , Page 334
Now here you see the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioning just the book of God , does it mean that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not telling us to follow sunnah? Or in your case , ahlel bayt? Would you dare to say Yes?
Again, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was actually aggrieved at the hue and cry in the room, and that is why he told them to leave. The ahadith show that atlast, Prophet (peace be upon him) did tell them what he wanted, atleast verbally if not in written form.
Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I forgot it.")
Shias also claim that in this event Prophet (s) wanted to give his will and select Ali (r) as the khaleefah, however they also claim that Ali (r) had been selected as the Khalifa at the Ghadir Khumm. – so why is this pen event so important.
So there is great discrepancy amongst the Shia version of facts!
8. Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet’s his companions failed to
attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s
companions follow this approach?
Answer: What the shias claim is false and Abu Bakr and Umar (r) went to saqifa and then returned back to take part in the funeral preparations.It was Abu Bakar who informed the other companions that Prophets are buried where they die and this RasulAllah should be buried in the room of Aisha where he died.
Anyhow, here is the book scan of Jilal ul Ayoon by Mulla Baqir Majlisi, which testifies that all the people of Madinah and the surroundings indeed performed the funeral of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
9. Of the 124,000 Prophets’ that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they
did then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the wives to be
Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?
Answer: Your claim is that Fadak was inherited to Fatima, which is against the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as present in both shia and sunni books
Let us now examine Sunni Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:
“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)
“We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs.” (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)
This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter:
“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia.
The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:
“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”
(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)
Kindly tell us what inheritence the wives of the Prophet (s) got from the Prophet (s)? If you say their houses, than they were already theirs in the life of Prophet (s). We read in the Holy Quran (33:33) that Allah Almighty while addressing the wives of the Prophet (s) says:
وقرن في بيوتكن
And stay quietly in your houses
And why curse Abu Bakar (may Alllah be pleased with him) only when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not restore Fadak during his own rule? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 231) and no nonsense this time that Ibn Abil Hadeed is a sunni. He was a devout shia and Nahjul Balagha is a shia hadith book.
10. We read in the Qur’an “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God’s wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment” (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?
Answer: The fight of Jamal was ignited by those shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who didn't want peace after the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) because if peace had been restored, than they would have been questioned because they were involved in the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and later they joined Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). So they ignited the fight to protect themselves, and we know very well that when the fight ended, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) understood the situation and reconciled and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) led her to her home in respect, not like the present shias who curse her.
Read what Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to them :
You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honour to be adhered to. You are very bad in kindling the fire of fighting. Woe to you! I had to bear a lot of worries from you.
Don't the shias realize that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) would have said this on some basis? Don't the shias even think?
That 's why Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
By Allah, I have begun thinking about these people that they would shortly snatch away the whole country through their unity on their wrong and your disunity (from your own right), and separation, your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their obedience to their leader in matters of wrong, their fulfilment of the trust in favour of their master 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.
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 and change me for them with worse one.
Reasons of battle of Siffain
Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) demanded that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) find and prosecute Uthman’s killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was a blood-relative of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), then the governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death (رضّى الله عنه). In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces (رضّى الله عنه) met Muawiyyah’s (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not what the Battle of Siffin had to do with, but rather it was purely political as opposed to religious. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]
The Battle of Siffin
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.
The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?
A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!
This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?
How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.
This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.
The Shia belief system is diammetrically opposed to the very Ali (رضّى الله عنه) they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), much like the Khawaarij [former Saba’ites] would turn against and face Ali (رضّى الله عنه); Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) denied this to the Saba’ites, the Khawaarij, and he will also deny this to the Shia of today, whose faces will be turned black on the Day of Judgement for their exaggeration and lies, where they will be grouped together with the people who defected against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), namely the Khawaarij. There is no plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar question: why did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to Shurah? It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia faith.
Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Murdered by Saba’ites
In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are the ones who killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allowing Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.