The answers to the first 20 questions could be found HERE.
Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem…
Question 21: Do you believe in the ‘Tawheed’ of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations
Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existence), maybe He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.
We believe in that the existence of Allaah Most High is independent, complete, eternal and beginningless, whatever name you give it.
Question 22: If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:
Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,
Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam
Give us a detailed account of it.
Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being’s body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.
Our belief, as previously addressed on question number 21, has nothing to do with the invalid concept of hulool mainly because the first is necessitated as a divine attribute, that of absolute existence, whereas the second i.e. hulool, defies divinity. Such belief is to be rejected.
Question 23: Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur’an, “Sahih al Bukhari” Volume 6 hadith number 371:
“The Prophet (saws) said, “The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: ‘Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say ‘Qat! Qat!” (Enough! Enough!)”
Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, and Hadeeth 371
I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?
Question 24: Is Allah not the possessor of the power of ‘Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can’t he just limit hell with a simple command?
These questions, numbers 23 and 24 are linked to one another. For such reason, we will try to address it together.
In Question Number 23, it is obvious that the intention of this is to mock the narration found in Sahih Bukhari implying that al-Bukhari is insulting Allaah to the extent that He was unable to estimate that the Hellfire was too huge for its inhabitants and for such reason it (hellfire) would ask Allaah for more (because of the huge space).
First and foremost, we would explain the narration to the best of our capability. The main point of the Hadeeth is that, the Prophet (the one who said this) described how huge the hell is that there would be more than enough space for the predestined inhabitants of it. That those who would read this narration would feel khushu (fear) and increase their taqwa (peity) towards Allaah’s immense punishment for those who would disbelieve. Therefore, this narration should add more Eeman (faith) for the Muslims to establish more acts of worship and adhere to the Prophetic Methodology in following Islam, as well as how his companions lived an Islamic way of life.
Secondly, regarding the mockery towards the Narration (as implicitly implied) by Questions 23 & 24 on Allaah, then we say, this is a very farfetched reasoning. If such logic (as how the Shias are trying to use it) is acceptable in questioning this narration. They should start looking into the Quranic texts first! As we read in the Qur’aan:
“He (Allaah) said: O Iblis! What hindereth thee from falling prostrate before that which I have created both My hands? Art thou too proud or art thou of the high exalted” (Quran 38:75)
Here, Allaah is asking Iblis why he did not prostrate to Adaam (alayhis salaam). So we present the shias the following questions as well:
- Are the Shias saying that Allaah did not know why Iblis did not prostrate?
- Are the Shias claiming that Allaah will not know that Iblis will disbelieve his command?
- Did Allaah had a hard time creating Adam that he used both of His hands?
- Is the creation of Adam exempted from ‘Kun Fayakun’ that Allaah needed to use His hands?
This type of reasoning is only fault-finding. If the Shias have a problem with such narration found in Sahih Bukhari, then it wouldn’t be surprising if they have a problem with the completeness or their belief towards the Qur’an.
Question 25: Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah [swt], mean that Allah [swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.
It’s amazing that this question came after we have answered the previous two (2) questions noting that what is in the Quran is in fact not worthy of argumentation. We accept is as it is, as to how Allaah have declared it to the Prophet of Islam. So let us address this question with this two verses, the first one:
“Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!” If some good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allaah”; but if evil, they say, “This is from thee” (O Prophet). Say:“All things are from Allaah.” But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact? (Quran 4:78)
Upon reading this verse, and reflecting on their question, would the Shias say that the Qur’an is corrupt?!
And how about this verse:
“Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from God; but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. And We have sent thee as an apostle to (instruct) mankind. And enough is God for a witness”. (Quran 4:79)
Having a good look at these verse, we would not be surprised if the Shias would declare the Qur’an to be corrupt!
Understanding this aayah is easy for the one whom Allaah enables to understand it. It is one of the unambiguous aayahs in the clear Book of Allaah, and there is no contradiction in it, except in the minds of some of the haters, who are aided by their ignorance of Arabic and of the meanings of the Holy Qur’aan, so they think that the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself” [al-Nisa’ 4:79] mean that calamities, which are referred to here as “evil”, are created by man himself. This is obvious ignorance which no one falls into but someone who has no knowledge of the Arabic language, or an Arabic-speaker who is misled and overwhelmed by his whims and desires. That is because the preposition min (from) here, in the phrase min nafsika (“from yourself”), refers to the cause, i.e., it is because of you yourself, O man, because of your disobedience and your going against the command of Allaah, that calamities befall you, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much” [al-Shoora 42:30].
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And if some good reaches them, they say, ‘This is from Allaah,’ but if some evil befalls them, they say, ‘This is from you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم).’ Say: ‘All things are from Allaah’” [al-Nisa’ 4:78], then in the next verse He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allaah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself”. How can we reconcile between them?
They may be reconciled by noting that the first verse refers to the decree of Allaah, i.e., it is from Allah; He is the one who decrees it. The second verse refers to the cause i.e., whatever of evil befalls you, you are the cause, and the One Who decrees evil and decrees the punishment for it is Allaah.
Question 26: You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called ‘Radde Kufr’ wherein you do tabarra. Like in:
Fatabarra’tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.
I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.
Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?
These are called kalimas but they are not kalima of shuhood. This is not what enters a person into Islam. We say what the prophet says that the statement (kalima) that enters one into Islam is “la ilaha ilallah Muhammad rasulullah”. Since this is the case then this question.
Question 27: If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi’a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?
Is obsolete to us. Tabarra is permissible when it is against kufr. But the shia gatherings just to curse the wives and the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet, and not a single gathering for dissociation from kufar, not a single gathering for dissociation from Abu Lahab, Firoun etc? This is the point where Shias should start using their logic.
Question 28: ‘Laa tudrukuhul absaar’ are Qur’anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of ‘Lan Taraani’.
لاتدركه الابصار وهو يدرك الابصار وهو اللطيف الخبير
No visions can encompass Him, but He encompasses all visions. He is the Compassionate, the Cognizant. (Quran 6:103)
ولما جاء موسى لميقاتنا وكلمه ربه قال رب ارني انظر اليك قال لن تراني ولكن انظر الى الجبل فان استقر مكانه فسوف تراني فلما تجلى ربه للجبل جعله دكا وخر موسى صعقا فلما افاق قال سبحانك تبت اليك وانا اول المؤمنين
And when Moses came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me.” So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Moosa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” (Quran 7:143)
Now the explanation. Indeed no vision can see God in this world, but if God wills, than we can see Him. And if that is not the case, than what the believers are looking at in this verse?
Question 29: When the holy prophet went on Mi’raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).
Question 30: If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?
Question 31: What is the basis of your doctrine of God’s visibility, the Qur’an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur’an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God’s words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur’an.
We would like to address this three questions in one concrete response. And we will also cite evidences as the Shias have requested.
Two questions need to be answered: Can Allah be Seen and Did Muhammad see his lord.
Lets answer the first question.
Can Allah be seen? Is it possible for him to be seen? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, is it possible to see him in this life with our very eyes? The answer is no.
The commentary of the verse that states that no vision can grasp God (6:103) says this….
Ibn A’lba said regarding this verse, it is in this life, narrated by Abi Hatim
This shows that it is not possible for vision (from our eyes) to grasp God in this life.
And Ibn Abbas said: “No vision can grasp him” in this life, and that the believers will see Him in the next life because Allah said so “That day will faces be resplendent, Looking toward their Lord”
وجوه يومئذ ناضرة الى ربها ناظرة (Surah 75:22-23)
Reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas as well and he said: The meaning that the vision of the hearts cannot grasp Him, is that a person’s mind cannot grasp Him in order to comprehend Him. “There is none like unto him” (Surah 42:11) and he said: The meaning is that the visions created here on earth, however he can create for those who want his generosity a vision and comprehension in order to see Him just like he did for Muhammad peace be upon him.
Some of them said: The heart (of the Prophet) has seen the Lord of The Worlds and they said that He (God) made his vision in his heart so he saw him with his heart and he did not see him with his eyes.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0347:
Suhaib reported the Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: When those deserving of Paradise would enter Paradise, the Blessed and the Exalted would ask: Do you wish Me to give you anything more? They would say: Hast Thou not brightened our faces? Hast Thou not made us enter Paradise and saved us from Fire? He (the narrator) said: He (God) would lift the veil, and of things given to them nothing would he dearer to them than the sight of their Lord, the Mighty and the Glorious.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0349:
Abu Haraira reported: The people said to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Messenger of Allah, shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the moon on the night when it is full? They said: Messenger of Allah, no. He (the Messenger) further said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the sun, when there is no cloud over it? They said: Messenger of Allah. no. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily you would see Him like this (as you see the sun and the moon)…
So basically as we can see, it is possible to see God but it is impossible that our vision could encompass him.
Book 001, Number 0337:
It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting at (the house of) ‘A’isha that she said: O Abu ‘A’isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in a haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:” And truly he saw him on the clear horizon” (al-Qur’an, lxxxi. 23) and” he saw Him in another descent” (al-Qur’an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily he is Gabriel. I have never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying.” Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and All-Aware” (al-Qur’an, v. 104)? (She, i. e. ‘A’isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:” And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise” (al. Qur’an, xii. 51) She said: He who presumes that the Messengerof Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:” O Messenger! deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message” (al-Qur’an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says” Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah” (al-Qur’an, xxvii 65).
Ibn Hajr answers the claim that ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about the meaning of the verse, upon which he asserted that he saw Jibrael. He writes that ‘Aisha asked about the verse ‘And surely he saw him on the bright horizon’. This verse is undoubtedly referring to the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) vision of Jibrael. This is because this actual verse is from Surah Takvir , verse 19-23, which does refer to Jibrael. Allah says in the Qur’an,
This [Qur’an] is the word (brought) by an honoured Messenger- who is powerful and dignified with the Lord of the Mighty Throne- There he is the obeyed one (of the angels) and trustworthy. And this companion of yours is not mad. And surely he saw the messenger on the bright horizon.’ (Takvir 19-23)
So Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) thought, due to this, that it was Gabriel whom the Prophet saw during the night of miraj. She didn’t got the knowledge that the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw Allah Almighty also.
Book 001, Number 0341:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: He is a Light;. how could I see Him?
Book 001, Number 0342:
Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light
The thing is, our vision can indeed not encompass God, but it doesn’t mean that we will not be able to even see God at all. The whole story lies in the word, encompass. Everyone agrees that eyes can’t encompass Him, i.e Allah Almighty. If someone understands it, than he will understand that there is no difference between Quran and hadith.
Question 32: Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticize them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?
1. They are not infallible
2. We consider it wrong to criticize them because Allah Himself made obsolete any criticism of them when He said “radhiyallahu anhum wa radhu’an”. By default of human logic and reasoning, and taking into consideration the majestic and supreme decision of Allah, if Allah is pleased of anyone or group, then who has the audacity to make a remark that is in the spirit of other than Allah being pleased with them.
3. It is also a command from the prophet alaihi salatu salaam himself that when the companions are mentioned (their actions) then our creed and attitude is one of silence, for anyone that is not of the companions, if they came with a mount the size of Uhud in gold in the aid of Islam, it will not compare to a single handful of what they have done in the service of Islam
Our creed concerning the companions is manifestly in congruency with the command of Allah as He says:
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful. (سورة الحشر , Al-Hashr, Chapter #59, Verse #10)
As the messenger of Allah says in the hadeeth collected by at-Tabaraanee and authenticated by al-Albaanee: “when my companions are mentioned, then withhold”
Meaning do not allow the tongues to reign loose as they do with others who are not the companions.
It is the ijm’aa of the Muslims that it is from the perfection of faith to withhold from speaking ill of them and from the requisites of faith of having good thought of them. The ijmaa of the Muslims also considers as heretics a view that is opposite of this opinion and a destruction of the religion itself, and those who destroy the religion, are none other than munafiqeen.
A good Muslim will respect his father and mother, knowing fully well that they are not infallibles, and knowing fully well that they do commit mistake every day. If someone tells him that his mother is fat, he will dislike such person even though what he said was a matter of fact. The reason is that guy does’t know how much the mother has sacrificed for that person. He will not tolerate such guys. Does that mean the person is considering her mother infallible? Know that it is not necessary to give respect to a person that he should be infallible.
Shias doesn’t know anything about the sacrifices of the companions of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam). Shias think that it was only Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Ali (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) who defeated an army of 1000 kuffar in Badar, 3000 in Uhud, 10000 in Khandaq, and more 100000 in the latter fights. Shias think that the person who had to keep hungry for many days because of being Muslims were hypocrites, Shias think that the people who were tortured and humiliated in the streets of Mecca everyday were hypocrites, Shias think that the people who were stoned and whipped and laid on burning sand in the deserts of Arabia in summer at full noon and huge stones were placed on them so that they leave Islam were a bunch of hypocrites who later apostated, and only three of all those people remained Muslims after the death of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam), i.e Miqdad ,Salman and Abu Dhar (radiyallaahu ‘anhum) , amongst whom Salman (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) hadn’t even face these torchers at the hands of the people of Mecca because he embraced Islam later. Don’t the Shias know that the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam) didn’t leave these companions till his death and even he died in the residence of Aisha and the companions didn’t leave him even after his death and now they are buried near each other?
Their sacrifices for Islam, Shias could never imagine, because their heart is filled with their hatred, and they have been blinded by this hatred. Which of the sacrifices of the companions will one could ignore? Know that two persons alone can’t fight an army of 1000, 3000 or 10000 or 100000, if the Shias mind is working, they will realize that the other companions who were with the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam) at this harsh times had faith thousands of times more than them (Shias) and their forefathers, the shias of Kufa, Iraq, who ran away, leaving ahlelbayt at the mercy of the 4000 soldiers of Ibn Ziyad, even though they were four times more than them.
Question 33: To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi’a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?
1. To us, it is God who nominates who will fulfill the post of khalifa and tajdid. It is just that we have no share or say in that nomination. We are a people who do not know the unseen and anyone who believes they have the foresight and knowledge about who Allah appointed as a khalifa is a kaafir and a mushrik.
However it is us who Allah has given the right to appoint who befits the post. Due to the saying of Allah
“Verily! Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the teaching which He (Allah) gives you! Truly, Allah is Ever All Hearer, All Seer.” (سورة النساء, An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #58)
Also to correlate that ayaah with another:
“If you fear a breach between them twain (the man and his wife), appoint (two) arbitrators, one from his family and the other from hers; if they both wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation. Indeed Allah is Ever AllKnower, WellAcquainted with all things. “ (سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #35)
Appointment of khilafa s based on the agreement of the people of adh-Dhikr and their appointment is guided by Allah.
2. The khilafa is an important issue for us and is related to our deen.
3. We debate the Shia in the modality in the way you go about the issue of khilaafa.
Question 34: If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur’an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet’s household of the same right.
1. With that same logic, provide with us any shred of evidence where rightful vicegerency was confined to the family of that prophet
2. The Sunnah of Allah does not change. The ahkaam and the implementation of Allah does change.
3. This knowledge is unknown to us and was not revealed and since the principle with us is that Allah has only revealed the knowledge which concerns his slaves, then the knowledge of how the vicegerency after the prophets was conducted is of no use to our benefit and in our worship.
4. Fourthly, khilafa, Imaamah is based on two modes or prerequisites.
a. dedication to the Sunnah of each messenger and his compliance with that Sunnah to the utmost degree
b. qualification to fulfill the role
Imaamah and khilafa is not based on tribal affiliation, which is why the ulema of Islam understand that when the prophet has narrated that “this affair (meaning the khilafa) should remain with the Quraish, it was understood that this is so based on these two conditions above, and not one of mere tribal affiliation or familial ties. I’m not qualified to run Microsoft because my father just so happens to be so, rather I must be trained and dedicated to the cause of Microsoft, just like any other cause.
Question 35: If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn’t from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.
There was never a change to begin with. And your supposition to this change is based on a deception that I see with absolute clarity. You are trying to corner us into accepting the premise that with the messenger of Allah, it is his family that was Islamically appointed by Allah to handle the affairs of khilaafa, which is an unfounded delusion that you are trying to trick us into by the modality of this question and how it was asked.
Secondly, this matter is not connected with the Sunnah of Allah but to the ahkaam of Allah. It is not a core principle of the religion to make mention of the modality of khilafa as it was never mentioned on explicit terms of Allah or His messenger. And given that this is a jurisprudential matter, then such matters are and have always been subject to change as other jurisprudential matters related to the rulings of Allah.
Question 36: The slogans “Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali” have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one “Naara Khilafat Haqq Chaar Yaar” which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prphet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names.
Please see our article “Imamate; The perfection of Deen”
1. Yes, as many centuries as the Shia heretic madhaab has been in existence.
2. Who cares about these slogans?! Forget about slogans, there are thousands of slogans and if someone say that “Pakistan Zindabad” it doesn’t mean that he says only Pakistan Zindabad and the rest murdabad. Let us not act like kids, we are adults who should be thinking with a better sense of reason and logic.
3. There is no mentioned of the messenger of Allah about 12 imaams or any other amount of imaams.
Question 37: Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim ‘Our Four Rightful Men’ out of modesty considering it as and abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?
Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work “Yaar”, which can also be used as “very close friends”. In India & Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.
This is irrelevant to anything Islamic. There is nothing mentioned about proclaiming anything beyond the two sources with any form of title whether it be Ali only or the four caliphs and this is the first time a major portion of the Islamic world has even heard of this issue. If an average Muslim were asked this question in the street of Jakarta or Cairo, it is not probable that they would have no idea what is being discussed and hence having no reply.
Moreover, the slogan is “Haq chaar yaar”, that is “the right of the four friends”, it doesn’t mean our friends, but the four people who were friends of one another.
Anyhow, the funny thing is that Shias also think of the hesitation of the women. Can any Pakistani or Indian Shia publish a single mutah card of their daughter or sister like they publish marriage cards? We are asking the Shias to publish only one such mutah card for their sister or daughter and distribute it. Mutah is a fundamental part of their faith and, it has huge reward, but the Pakistani and Indian shias feel so much ashamed of doing it that they can’t publish a single mutah card of their sister or daughter or mother?
Question 38: It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.
Subhanallaah!!! Bring forth this tradition we are very interested on it, for we are unaware of this. Furthermore, even if this report had any merit, a sword being brought to Ali does not constitute “wahi” or anything revealed.
In spite of that, consider something even more worthy than this strange tradition, Allah says in speaking about the prophet and his most confided comrade, Abu Bakr, the following:
If you help him (Muhammad alayhis salaatu wasalaam) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of two, when they (Muhammad SAW and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, and he (SAW) said to his companion (Abu Bakr): “Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His Sakeenah (calmness, tranquility, peace, etc.) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while it was the Word of Allah that became the uppermost, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. (سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #40)
Question 39: What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (as)?
Like the position of every other blessed companion of the messenger of Allah except in a level higher for she is from the noble lineage of the Messenger of Allah.
Question 40: If she was a Mu’menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil (Just), is following one of them a way of salvation?
1. It is permissible and binding to obey any Mu’min, and not just to a handful of Mu’mineen to the exclusion of the rest.
2. Allah also says:
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and Obey the messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.” (سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #59)
3. Indeed, it is permissible to obey her (Fatima – radiyallaahu ‘anha), if her claim was correct. But as far as Fadak is concerned, her claim was not correct and this has been addressed already in a separate article. Click HERE.
Please Click HERE for the next 20 Questions and Answers.
Credits to al-Booriqee and Shia Cult website for the references.