Answers to Questions 41-60

The answers to the Questions 1-20 could be found HERE.
The answers to the Questions 21-40 could be found HERE.

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem…

Question 41: If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61

1. Because she was a part of him

2. she gets angry when people formed an entirely new religion based on the elevation of her status in contrast to what she believed of those greater than her, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Therefore, you Shi’as are her greatest oppressors

4. This hadeeth is similar to the hadeeth

“Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book 9, Number 251)

But, if you are referring back to the issue of Fadak, then we have already answered that. And this was actually related even by the Shia hadeeth. Please refer back to the article of FATIMA’S ANGER (CLICK HERE).

Question 42: If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession.

Please see our article “Burning the house of Fatima [as]”

The narration of the event is the following:

During her last days, when Abu Bakr and Umar sought the mediation of Imam Ali (AS) to visit the ailing Hadhrat Fatimah (AS), as quoted by Ibn Qutaybah, she turned her face to the wall when they greeted her and in response to their plea for appeasement reminded them of the prophetic declaration that one who displeases Fatimah (AS) has displeased the Prophet and finally said: “I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (PBUH&HF) I will complain about you two.” (al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p14).

Needless to say, the book of siyaasa is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutayba.

The narration of al-Bukharee is; al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that:

… Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.

Sunni references:

– Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English V.5, tradition #546, pp. 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325

We got these from your Shi’ite websites. However, due to my hunch that you were deceiving the people with these quotes, I actually found the full version of the hadeeth in al-Bukharee that gives us the underlying reason as to the theme of her anger.

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect ‘Ali much, but after her death, ‘Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. ‘Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). ‘Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that ‘Umar should come, ‘Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone ” Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then ‘Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Apostle.” Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.” On that ‘Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of ‘Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then ‘Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. ‘Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.” On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with ‘Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr). (Book #59, Hadith #546)

So there is no mention of burning her house down and sending Umar and then punching her stomach causing her to have lost her unborn baby. These are mere delusions of your own making.

And if you are still in rage and believe that Abu Bakr should have conceded to her, then might I remind thee, oh shi’i, that it is the prophet alaihi salatu-salaam who made it firm and clear that had his own daughter made zina, he would have enforced the shariah of Allah. The point is, there is no bending of the shariah, no matter who you are. The messenger of Allah said: “There is no obedience to the creation to the disobedience to the Creator”. Fatimah’s request was at the disobedience of the Creator, and Abu Bakr, being the most pious of all, choose the right decision.

Question 43: If Hadhrath Fatima’s displeasure towards the two shaykhs was not against Islam then why is it important upon the general mass to love them? Allah [swt] deemed His anger and Fatima’s to be the same, and Syeda Fatima left the earth angry with the 2 Shaykhs.

Yes it was, because her displeasure at Abu Bakr (not Umar) was due to her either not knowing, or giving in to herself the notion of the ahlul-bayt “inheriting” which is against the shariah of Allah.

Anger is only in congruity to Allah’s anger if the engine of anger is based on that which is legalized in the shariah. as the hadeeth that you quoted to try to deceive us has blasted your theory to the ground and put everything in context, it is beyond clear that in this case, her anger is unshared by any other because Allah does not become angry at the fulfilment of His shariah, which in this case Abu Bakr upheld.

But here’s the thing, I found this articles to be quite astonishing, in your Shia Books, there are instances where the Prophet himself was angry with Fatima. How do you reconcile that with your question?


And how about when Fatima was also angry with Ali, one of your infallible imams?


And more….


If you are blind in blaming Abu Bakar , than open your eyes today. You have to look whether her claim was correct or not. If her claim was not correct, than on what basis can you blame Abu Bakr?

Question 44: You are of the opinion that there had been no opposition between Hadhrath Ali (as) and the three companions. Suppose I accept that, but let me tell you, I have a very deep respect and honour for the pure lady Fatima (as) who was part of the flesh of the holy prophet (saw) and she has this esteem to her credit that whenever she appeared in the presence of the holy prophet (saw) he used to stand up as a welcoming gesture of honour to her. Therefore, will following such a respectful personality be a cause of salvation or not? Decide by keeping Bukhari and Muslim before your sight.

Yes, I will keep Bukharee and Muslim in my sight as I see the intuitiveness of your sensational interpretative acrobats.

If you have this feeling about Fatimah, then what about the more honorable feeling that whenever the Prophet (‘alayhis salaatu was salaam) was brought in the presence of Uthman ibn Affan, he would cover (if he was covered) because he was shy of him (due to his extraordinary humility).

Or how about when the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe said that when he dreams, he envisions Abu Bakr passing him only for him to regain ascendency over him. This is the level of Khalil-ness” to Allah Abu Bakr had. Or how about the t’adeel of the Messenger of Allah that had there been another prophet after him, it would have been Abu Bakr.

Moreover, Shia records confirm that Fatima became pleased with Abu Bakr. The Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said: ‘Do with it as my father, Rasool-Allah had done.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them (Fatima and others of the Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

In the very reliable narration of Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, we read:

“When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)

This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (volume 2, page 517-518),  who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.” Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.

Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) said :

Instruct your folks to speak only good wording near the corpse. As the harem of Bani Hashim asked her to poetize near her father’s corpse, Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), said, “Leave mourning and supplicate to God.”

Tuhaf ul Aqool (تحف العقول عن آل الرسول) : You can download from

Question 45: While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saw) leave the Qur’an with the ummah or not?

Yes, he left it in their hearts, and arranged its contents.
However, if you are referring to the Mushaf itself, contained in one book format, then it was never done by the Prophet.

Question 46: If he did then why did the need for the collection of the Qur’an arise? And why were the Ummah kept without the Qur’an till the period of Uthman?

1. Because the hufaadh of the quraan were dying in jihaad fisabilillah

2. The second question is a lie. The ummah was not kept from a Qur’an because it was during Abu Bakr’s caliphate that the collection of the Quran came into a mushaf, not Uthman.

Question 47: If the holy prophet (saw) did not leave the Qur’an with the Ummah prior to his departure then the task of Risallah was not accomplished because the purpose of his arrival was to convey the message of Allah to the ummah. How then is the religion complete?

Firstly, because Allah said it was complete:

“This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #3)

Secondly, he did leave the Quran prior to his departure. So the question is based on a lie. The Qur’an was already present on the minds and hearts of the companions of the Prophet.

Thridly, the religion is complete, otherwise you are saying Allah lied when He said “I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you”

There is only our opinion, which is equal to making complete affirmation of this ayaah, and hence “believing” in what their Lord had revealed, or

There is the Shia opinion, which is equal to making Allah into a liar. And if your mode of argument will be “Well Allah did not say that” then you’re still making Allah a big fat liar because Allah said Verily We: It is we who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, we will guard it (from corruption). (سورة الحجر , Al-Hijr, Chapter #15, Verse #9)

And that “No falsehood shall enter it”, either way your heretic madhaab looks at it, you are surrounded by kufr from every avenue.

Question 48: You make a long list of Muslims who compiled the revelations which proves the fact that the holy prophet (saw) had himself been causing the Qur’an being written and preserved it. But to our surprise, after the holy prophet (saw) up until the period of Uthman, people could not get the Qur’an. Could you explain why this gap occurred?

1. There was already a mushaf before Uthman, so there is no need to continue with lying and saying there wasn’t a Quran until Uthman

2. Unlike your modern lifestyle, in the early says of Islam, books were just printed with a printing press as you are up to. People had to write it down i.e. a copyist. Hence the level or quality of books was not up to the modern era. Therefore since that is the case, it was the usual custom that books were preserved in libraries, as not everybody had the luxury of a book.

3. Even with this reality, you only demonstrated your utter ignorance of history. There were copies of the Quran being circulated. In fact, this is the reason that lead to the Uthmaanic script and the demolition of other scripts because the reason why the senior Sahaba gathered together to make one script is because the different reciters in various regions who were reading their own copies were messing up the tajweed and the language of the Quran which therefore changed the meanings of ayaah. In order to prevent that, Uthmaan ordered that all of the other copies that had been circulated to be destroyed. That is why in Yemen and in other places, those who received the orders buried their mushafs.

Unfortunately, this question is based on deception and ignorance of history.

Question 49: You are proud of the memorizers of the Qur’an and even claim the fact that there had been many such people among the companions of the holy prophet. Then, tell us, from among Ali (as), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman who knew the Qur’an by heart? Give your answers with complete sources and refer to your books.

Indeed, they know the Qur’an by heart, Uthmaan would recite the entire Quran in one single rakah, something that all of the Shia imaams can’t do if they helped each other.


Al bidaya wan nihaya , volume 7, page 214
Tabaqat ibn saad , volume 3, page 75
Tarikhul Khulufa, Imam Suyuti
Al Farooq, Shibli Numani
Tehzeeb Nowi
Hulyatul Awliya

Question 50: If none of the three companions had been Haafidh of the Qur’an then why scoff the Shias despite the presence of many Haafidh among them?

This is an irrelevant question as your previous question was already answered. Moreover, all these questions are all misleading, though we try to respond to them, you should have also prepared that your question might not lead you to the answers you were expecting, thus the proceeding question falls irrelevant. The author of these questions should have not been a fortune teller, guessing how we would respond to it. Needless to say, this question is such an embarrassment to the ignorance of the author.

Question 51: In a reliable book of your sect, ‘Itteqaan’ by Suyuti, vol. 1 page 59, it is narrated that Ali (as) had once told Abu Bakr that an addition was being made to the Qur’an and that my heart tells me that apart from the salaam, I am not going to wear my robe up until I have collected the Qur’an, to which Abu Bakr said, you saw the right thing. This report has been received from Akramah who is a reliable leader of the Sunnis and every Sunni accepts this report as correct. Is this not a sufficient proof that after the departure of the holy prophet (saw), according to your sect efforts were made to interpolate the word of Allah (swt) and obviously the doers of that were Muslims themselves? What evidence can you then produce in support of the Qur’an being free from Tahreef (addition)?

Consequently, I couldn’t find this riwaya in the Itqaan of as-Suyootee in all of the relevant places, including using search terms. This is what I have of page 59 volume one:

كَانَ عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِ} {وَأَقِمِ الصَّلاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ} .

قلت: دليل الثالثة ما صح من عدة طرق أنها نزلت بالمدينة في حق أبي اليسر.

يوسف: استثني منها ثلاث آيات من أولها حكاه أبو حيان وهو واه جدا لا يلتفت إليه.

الرعد: أخرج أبو الشيخ عن قتادة قال: سورة الرعد مدنية إلا آية قوله: {وَلا يَزَالُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا تُصِيبُهُمْ بِمَا صَنَعُوا قَارِعَةٌ} وعلى القول بأنها مكية يستثنى قوله: {اللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ} إلى قوله: {شَدِيدُ الْمِحَالِ} كما تقدم والآية آخرها فقد أخرج ابن مردويه عن جندب قال: جاء عبد الله بن سلام حتى أخذ بعضادتي باب المسجد قال: أنشدكم بالله أي قوم أتعلمون أني الذي أنزلت فيه: {وَمَنْ عِنْدَهُ عِلْمُ الْكِتَابِ} ؟ قالوا: اللهم نعم.

.إبراهيم: أخرج أبو الشيخ عن قتادة قال سورة إبراهيم مكية غير آيتين مدنيتين: {أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ بَدَّلُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ كُفْراً} إلى: {وَبِئْسَ الْقَرَارُ} .

الحجر: استثنى بعضهم منها: {وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعاً} الآية.

But even so, the narration you are asking of in unauthentic. Ibn Hajr said:

“This narration is daeef “unauthentic as its sanad doesn’t reach Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)”

Read the authentic narrations in “Itteqaan”

قال علي – رضي الله عنه – “لا تقولوا في عثمان إلا خيرًا ، فوالله ما فعل الذي فعل في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منا

Ali said – may Allah be pleased with him – “Do not say anything but good about Osman, by God what he did in the matter of Quran, he did with our consultation.

قال علی – رضي الله عنه – : “لو وليّت لعملت بالمصاحف التي عمل بها عثمان”

Ali said – may Allah be pleased with him – If it was my Rule , I would have done the same regarding Quran, what Uthman did.

Question 52: It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur’an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word’s correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur’an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur’an and Rasul’Allah? If Rasul’Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur’an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one?

See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350

Wrong. The understanding that comes with this narration from al-Bukharee is that Allah caused him to forget at that particular time, but that on a later occasion, his memory was restored as Allah said in His Book

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?” (سورة البقرة , Al-Baqarah, Chapter #2, Verse #106)

The additional clause “cause to be forgotten” only to be initiated by the word “aow” i.e. “or” signifies within the sciences of the Quran that this signifies a different reality (state, condition) than “naskh”. Part of the meaning of cause to be forgotten is how Allah is the one who may strip the hifdh of an ayaah or some, and will either replace it with something equal, or better than it.

Secondly, your argument’s weakness is the roadway to kufr.

Allah says about the forgetfulness of other prophets:

And when you (Muhammad SAW) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Quran) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaitan (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.).”(سورة الأنعام , Al-Anaam, Chapter #6, Verse #68)

Here Allah affirms that shaytan has the ability to cause the greatest messenger to forget.


“And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: “Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king, so as to get me out of the prison).” But Shaitan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his Lord (or Satan made ((Yoosuf (Joseph)) to forget the remembrance of his Lord (Allah) as to ask for His Help, instead of others). So (Yoosuf (Joseph)) stayed in prison a few (more) years.” (سورة يوسف , Yusuf, Chapter #12, Verse #42)

Again, Allah affirmed that Prophet Yusuf (alayhi salaam) has forgotten.

Their forgetfulness has no bearing on the actual revelation they receive from Allah.

Furthermore, bringing the narration from al-Bukharee into context is the following ayah:

We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) shall not forget (it),” (سورة الأعلى , Al-Ala, Chapter #87, Verse #6)

Clearly the narration from al-Bukharee was purely incidental, and not a general condition and the same is the case with any other haafidh who may forget a series of ayaah or an ayaah, and then later on he remembers.

But then again, didn’t the Prophet Muhammad (alayhis salaatu was salaam) also forgot something? If the Shias are going to criticize Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam) because he forgets, then maybe they should also look in their book where it says:

الكليني عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن عثمان بن عيسى عن سماعة بن مهران قال : قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام : من حفظ سهوه فأتمه فليس عليه سجدتا السهو ، فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم صلى بالناس والظهر ركعتين ثم سها فسلم ، فقال له ذو الشمالين : يا رسول الله أنزل في الصلاة شيء ؟

فقال وما ذلك ؟

فقال : إنما صليت ركعتين ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم : أتقولون مثل قوله ؟ قالوا : نعم فقام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فأتم بها الصلاة وسجد بهم سجدتي السهو قال : قلت : أرأيت من صلى ركعتين وظن أنهما أربعاً فسلم وانصرف ثم ذكر بعدما ذهب أنه صلى ركعتين ، قال : يستقبل الصلاة من أولها ، فقال : قلت : فما بال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لم يستقبل الصلاة وإنما أتم بهم ما بقي من صلاته ؟ فقال : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لم يبرح من مجلسه ، فإن كان لم يبرح من مجلسه فليتم ما نقص من صلاته إذا كان قد حفظ الركعتين الأوليتين

This hadith is extremely sahih see: al-kafi volume 3 page 355

The Messenger of Allah prayed “dhuhr prayer” two rakat only and did tasleem. A person named Dhu al shamalain said “O Messenger of Allah , has something happened to the Prayer? The Messenger of Allah said “What is that?” He answered : ” You prayed only two rakat”. Than the Messenger of Allah prayed two rakat of sahu “meaning forgetfulness”.

Question 53: In your innumerable books of hadeeth, there are various reports that the Qur’an has Tahreef in it. For instance it’s mentioned in al Itteqaan that Surah Ahzaab had two hundred verses before and now it has 73 verses. What happened to the rest? If they were abrogated then refer us to those verses that came down to abrogate them? Similarly in Itteqaan, vol. 2, page 25 Abdullah Ibn Umar states that none of you should ever claim to have received the whole Qur’an, rather what remains. The presence of such reports shows that according to your sect the Qur’an has been changed. Can you elaborate?

First and foremost, speaking of “abrogated”, aren’t there really verses in the Qur’an where there was an abrogation? You should be familiar with Surah al-Baqarah and the abrogation of fasting from ba’dal isha to gurubus shams into fajr to gurubus shams.

Secondly, not everything that was a verse needs a narration to show it was abrogated. That is the words of Allah is also applicable in this case, that being “or cause to be forgotten” meaning erased from memories or from anyone after them. There is nothing required in the deen that we must have a narration for all and each abrogated verse.

And lastly, again, much to my dismay, I haven’t found this narration in al-Itqaan by as-Suyootee.

Now, we put back this question on the table, Shias take ahadith from the chapter of Nasikh wa mansookh (the abrogating and the abrogated verses) and than tell us that the they mean the Quran has been tampered? Sorry on the people who take Answering-Ansar as their guide.

Why don’t the Shias include the text before the narration of 200 hundred verses too…

قال ابوالحسن المنادی فی کتابہ الناسخ والمنسوخ

So it is talking about the abrogated verses. Don’t take things out of the context.

As far as the second narration is concerned

حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم، عن أيوب، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر، قال: لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله، وما يدريه ما كله؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير، ولكن ليقل: قد أخذت منه ما ظهر

Again this narration has been taken from the chapter of Nasikh wa mansookh,

Read the sentence before it too.

… And this type of abrogation has many examples. Abu Ubaid said, Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayoob from Nafi from Ibn Umar who said “you should not say that you have gathered all [whatever has been revealed as] Quran, since much of it has gone [by the way of abrogation] (the translation of ذهب is not lost, but gone, leave etc), rather he should say I took from it what appeared to me… ”

Second thing is that this hadith has been translated poorly by the rafidhis.

Ibn Umar [May Allah be pleased with him] said: you should not say that you have gathered all [whatever has been revealed as] Quran, since much of it has gone [by the way of abrogation] (the translation of ذهب is not lost, but gone, leave etc), rather he should say I took from it what appeared to me.

An important point to note here is that it was the way of speech of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)

e.g. he also said:

“No one should say that he keeps fast during the entire Ramadhan, as night is also included in Ramadhan, and no one keeps fast during night.”

[Ibn Abi Sheba]

Question 54: Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur’anic verse?

The apostle forbidding something that the Quran allowed is not called “forbidding what the Qur’an allowed, rather it is Allah’s allowance of His apostle to abrogate it by route of revelation.

The example of this is the ayaah:

“It is prescribed for you, when any of you approaches death and he has wealth, that he make a bequest to his parents and next of kin…[2:180]

This was abrogated by the hadeeth of the messenger of Allah, “there is no bequest to an heir” reported by Abu Dawud.

Question 55: Is anyone from among the ummah authorized to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?


Question 56: Allamah Shibli Nu’mani in al Farooq page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim that Umar had said that two Mut’a were allowed during the time of the holy prophet but I disallow them from now and these are the Mut’a of Hajj and the Mut’a of Nisaa. On what religious authority did Umar forbid what the apostle and Allah (swt) allowed? Clarify this point.

The prophet himself during his last Hajj.

It is misleading to blame Caliph Hazrat Umar for repealing or changing a law of Shariah on his own. He only announced the strict implementation of the prohibition declared by the Prophet (alayhis salaatu was salaam) after Hajj-atul-wida’ (the last Hajj in his lifetime). The charge of Shias on Hazrat Umar stands annulled on two counts.

1. If Muta’ was permitted in Shariah and the second Caliph repealed it at his whim, the fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali whose actions are binding on Shias could again have announced its permission. The prohibition of Muta’ remained enforced during the reign of Hazrat Ali.

2. No Shia would ever permit his daughter to enter into Muta’ contract with any one. The permanent marriages are announced with pride and the world knows of it but we have never come across even a small list of clerics’ daughters who were given into Muta’ proudly. It shows that the practice is practically disgraceful in their own eyes.

Also remember, that when a Prophet says that he forbids something, it doesn’t mean that he is doing it on his own, rather it means that he is doing so on the command of God Almighty.

This has been very beautifully explained in the very same book.

Al Farooq , By Shibli Numani, Page 334-335

Similarly it is well known to the Muhadditheen that when a sahabi says something in which he didn’t use his own opinion or ijtihad, than even if he doesn’t take the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) , it will mean that he has listened that from the Prophet (peace be upon him). For example, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to all the states that zakat is fardh on this and this thing, and at this rate” Than it doesn’t mean that Umar said this on his own, and gave verdicts on his own, rather it will mean that Prophet (peace be upon him) had given orders regarding zakat.

And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): “‘I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God’s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (Surah al Imran 3:49)

“‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.” (Surah al Imran 3:50)

Now here it doesn’t mean that Jesus was making lawful something which was forbidden by God , without the commandment of God, similarly when Umar said that I disallow it now, it doesn’t mean that he was doing it on his own, rather it means, in accordance with the command of Allah and his Prophet (peace be upon him).

And the ahadith about the prohibition of mutah has been narrated by so many companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

Here is a very short list of such ahadith on the prohibition of mutah by the Prophet (peace be upon him):

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

“O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.” [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee’ Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

“I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.” [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

“O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger had permitted it after forbidding it.” [Ibn Majah]

Question 57: The Qur’an says that ‘Qaala Mumin min aale firaun yukassim imaanahu’ a believer from the Aal of Firaun had concealed his belief and hence its shown that the concealment of belief out of fear is not disbelief or abhorrent on the part of a believer. Why then is the Taqiyyah of a Shia abhorrent to you?

Because the condition as explained by Imaam Ibn Katheer is that the performance of this must be durooa i.e. necessitated for the safety of one’s own life. It is prohibited outside of this factor. This is world of difference between this, and your shameful deception in which you have no excuse other than to conceal your kufr like the mu’tazilah, who concealed their kufr by calling their creed in Allah “at-tawheed”.

Question 58: Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 4, page 123 Egyptian edition reports from Hassan Basri that ‘Al taqiyyah baaqiyata ila yawmil qiyaamat, (Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgement). When taqiyya is proved to be permissible from both the Qur’an and the Hadeeth, why then your sect attacks the Shi’a practice of taqiyyah?

Why do you worry yourself with this Egyptian edition? Here’s the link:
and tell us if you could actually find such narration there.

Your taqiyyah is the complete opposite of the Quranic Taqiyyah. Why? Here is the verse:

In the Qur’an, we read (16:106): “Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.”

In this case, taqiyya is performed by the believer to outwardly display and concede to the conditions of kufr and its people and to disassociate from Islam. Your taqiyyah is the exact opposite where your munafiqs outwardly and openly display emaan and accord your statements with emaan, but inside you conceal your true beliefs of kufr and shirk and bid’a.

In short, believers made taqiyyah to preserve their life by expressing disbelief in emaan and affirming belief in kufr whereas you practice taqiyyah without having a necessity to do so and adding to that, you express it by leaving kufr and affirming emaan but that your heart does not match this action. That is the world of difference between ours, and yours.

Question 59: Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply?

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821

That is not a decision that is representative of Islam i.e. Sunni based. When expressing your argument against us, please bring something that all Sunnis can relate to, and not a fringe fatwa that even the followers of the Hanafi Madhhab have rejected too.

Question 60: The Qur’an states that ‘Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun’ No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah). Could you justify this claim?

Fatawa Siraajiya, Page 75

Again, please refer to the previous response… But now that you are speaking of fatawa, how about let’s try to weigh which fatawa really is “deviant” between the Shia and Sunni. Here are some (a few) fatawa that you could find in the internet coming from their Shia Clerics:

Name: Ali Akbar Mandni
Subject: Sex with animals


Salam alikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Our master al-Sistani may Allah give you long age and may Allah sanctify your secret and may He make you provision for Islamic Ummah.

Our Master I have a very embarrassing question. Our master I am unmarried and live in desert, I mean I am a shepherd and bachelor. Everything I need is available like mobile, computer.. but I have too much lust. And there is no one available to have muta’h marriage. With regret I have satanic thoughts in my mind. I had sex with two sheeps and a lamb and small calf. And right now I am very afraid because one of the sheep’s stomach became big, and I am afraid it might be pregnant. Is it permissible to have sex with animals our master?? Because I heard from people its halal. Thank you.

In his name

Sex with animals before the mission (Islam) was wide spread and many narrations are narrated that it is halal but makrooh (disliked). And on the compulsory precaution one should abandon this practice that may cause self harm. And you must admit this to the owner of the sheep and pay the owner.

Impregnate animals with rafidi sperms or renting animal wombs to hatch rafidis in them

Source: شبكة السراج في الطريق إلى الله

339 السؤال:

لو امكن التلقيح الصناعي علمياً في رحم صناعي أو رحم حيوان .. هل يجوز التقاء المني الحيمن مع بويضة الاجنبية :

إذا كانا : 1 معلومين 2 مجهولين 3 احدهما مسلما والأخر كافرا ؟


يجوز .


Question 339:

If it was scientifically possible to artificially fertilize inside an artificial womb or womb of an animal… is it permissible to mix warm sperms with a foreign (non-mahram) woman’s egg:

If so happened that: 1. They (sperm owners) are known 2. They are unknown 3. One is muslim and the other is Kafir?


It is permissible.

Wear Bikini Fatwa!

What are the parts of body which a man and a woman have to guard? Penis, Testicles, Anal Ring and Vagina! 


Question 371:

What is the limit of awra for a man infront of his mahrams, like his mother and his maternal aunts and paternal aunts except his wives?

What is the limit of awra for a woman infront of her mahrams, like her father and brother except her husband?

What is the limit of awra for a man in front of another man?

What is the limit of awra for a woman in front of another woman?


Awra of a man is his penis and testicles and anus ring, and awra of a woman is her vagina and anus ring, and there is no difference if he is infront of same sex or opposite sex, stranger or others, yes a woman must cover parts tha arouse sexual desire from other than her husband?

Watching Pornography Fatwa by Ayatullah Khoe

9 السؤال: هل يجوز النظر إلى صور الخلاعة قصدا ، إذا لم يحدث أي شهوة ؟
الفتوى: إذا لم يكن مثيرا للشهوة كما هو المفروض في السؤال جاز، والله العالم.

Question (9): Is it permissible to look at Pornographic images intentionally if it does not arouse Lust?

Answer of Ayatullah al Khoe’i: If it does not as the question states then it’s permissible, Allah knows best.

Mutah or Adultery: Let the adulterers choose!


Name: Hussein .A

Country: Iraqi living in Kuwait

Age: 23

Sex: Male

Subject: Mut’ah marriage…is it allowed to kill.


Master al-Sistani may Allah give you long age, I have little embarrassing question…I wish you reply to me as fast as possible because I am in a very bad mood. A week ago one night I went to my house, where I live along with my sister. And when I entered the house, heard some noise in one of the rooms where no one lives. And when I opened the door I saw my sister with a stranger whom I recognised to be a ‘Sayed’ (black turbaned aka Ayatullah), I shouted upon him and caught him and beat him severely. He told me “I am married to your sister in mut’ah, so what do you want”. I then beat my sister and locked her in room till this day, and as for that Sayed I wanted to slaughter him with knife, so I locked him in room and went to bring knife but when I returned, I found that he escaped from the window. And now I have his address, so can I kill him or what should I do?


In his name the exalted.

You have no authority over your sister even if she comes with haram act (adultery). It is not permissible for you to beat or imprison her except if your Marj’i (religious authority a rafidi does taqleed of) gives you permission. Regarding the sayed as per his saying he did not do any haram, and even if he did haram you have no authority to implement ‘hadd’ upon him.



Please Click HERE for the next 20 Questions and Answers. ( If hyperlink not available, then the article is still not yet posted )

Credits to al-Booriqee and Shia Cult website for the references. 

This entry was posted in Defense Against The Deviants. Bookmark the permalink.

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