Search for Truth: Debate

In the Quran, Surah An Nahl (16:125), Allah ta ‘Ala exhorts us to:

ادْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ ۖ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ ۖ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

Which translates to:

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

Allah ta ‘Ala also states in Surah An’am (6:159)

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ ۚ إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ

Which translates to:

Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.

It is these two verses which I will base my thesis upon.

I’m almost certain that many, if not most of us who are passionate about our beliefs have, at times, resorted to yelling, shouting, speaking over the other person, cutting people off, deflecting, straw-manning, and a host of other unsavory practices when debating or arguing with our opponents.

In this article, I hope to present a method of debating or argumentation which might be closer to the spirit of the Quran than what most of us are accustomed to. If you want to go directly to the point, please scroll down to the bulleted points below.

Let’s take, for example, two scenarios. One, we need an answer to a complicated math problem and another where we are debating our views. In the first scenario, we have certain known variables and methodologies to solve the particular equation. When we discuss this problem with someone, our intent is crystal clear. We want to get to the truth. Anyone asking for clarification or challenging our construct is doing it to HELP us get to a better understanding for ourselves and potentially for them as well. We have no need to get defensive and no need to raise our voices even if there are disagreements. Each of us can present our idea and not be afraid to get knocked down or be “shown up”. Why is that? Because we are searching for the truth.

Now how does that contrast with a discussion, let’s say, on religion, politics or even the toppings on a shared pizza? In this latter scenario, the result affects us in a personal way. There is also less fact and more opinion. Our opinion, which is at stake. At times there are even grey areas between fact and fiction which we believe or have been conditioned to believe. It is far too easy to dismiss the other party’s point of view as invalid or substitute that word with ad hominem attacks. Makes us feel safer, perhaps, but neither is that in the spirit of the Quran nor the ways exemplified by the prophet of Allah ( ﷺ‎ ).

All other “nations” or people may have an excuse to yell, shout and/or misbehave but there are two very important reasons why Muslims can not go down to that level. One, because Allah exhorts us not to and that should really be enough. However, for those who need “practical” reasons, that is an arena where ignorance wins and truth loses. Everyone is probably familiar with Imam Ali’s quote that when he debated those with knowledge, he won and when he debated the ignorant, he lost.

So now, how do we engage with them as Allah has stated, wa jadilhum (debate/argue/discuss) with them in the best of ways when THEY don’t do it? I think the answer is very simple. WE do it. If we can demonstrate a better way, they will follow, In Sha Allah. When WE Muslims don’t conduct ourselves in the best of ways when debating those who say “la ilaha il Allah”, how can we expect non-Muslims to, when according to us, we’re guided and they’re not? In fact, in most cases, we are able to engage with the non-Muslims but completely unable to engage with other sects in Islam.

This brings me to my second point. Sectarianism. Again, there are two reasons I propose, why this topic is of the utmost importance. One, because unity in the Quran is emphasized and division is clearly forbidden in whichever shade you wish to accept the verses. Second is the undeniable benefit to us in being united. How are we to take this verse? Did Allah mean by this verse that the sect we adhere to is the “right” sect and the “others” are the ones who are not uniting with us? It doesn’t take a genius to recognize how flawed that fallacious proposition might be. Therefore, those who simply attack another sect as a response to a question or point of debate, have no ground at all to stand on. Without going too deeply into the very many ways this fruit can be sliced, let’s just that we can all agree that we are interested in searching for the truth.

Too often Muslims find themselves blindly advocating one sect even though the point of contention is clearly against them. This, my dear brothers and sisters, is the very essence of sectarianism which Allah ta ‘Ala forbids us from. Until or unless you are able to articulate your points of weakness, you don’t have the entire picture and when someone else articulates it for you, you will feel that pain or jarring from your world view being shaken.

Here are some protocols we must set up in order to be true to the Quran and true to Our Creator. We must be fair, and not start with the premise that we are right.

  1. Our intention should be to please Allah alone
  2. We can enter into one of three modes.
    • Teaching
    • Learning
    • Arbitration
  3. One topic must be defined or a question must be stated clearly
  4. Exactly two sides of the stated proposition must be taken by the “student” and “teacher” role
  5. If a “teacher” makes a statement, he/she must defend it. There is no need to ask why the questioner is asking, what is the questioner’s belief, how others are wrong or any off-topic replies. These violations must be called by the arbitrator and explicitly cited.
  6. If a student asks a question, he/she must allow the teacher to articulate their point. They may defer to the arbitrator to rule on whether or not the question has been address appropriately.
  7. The answer to the question the student has asked must directly relate to the question, not go into preaching mode or spout unrelated statements.
  8. An arbitrator must adhere to the protocols of debate. That is their primary function and not to take sides or give their own opinion on matters. They can clarify questions and set the expectations for the debate. The arbitrator is also the consistency checker.
  9. Each person must stay within the topic until it is answered or agreed to be deferred.
  10. If the teacher contradicts or changes an earlier statement even with a clarification, the student reserves the right to iterate through the points previously discussed. If not, the same point must not be beleaguered.

These protocols are the most basic requirements for an honest debate to take place, following the spirit of the Quran, which should then be understood as the spirit of Islam. In this construct, since you don’t have to commit to or declare your OWN beliefs, firstly, you can speak from positions you don’t even hold and secondly, no one can attack you personally because it is a point you’re debating, not your personal belief.

For example, I am a Muslim, but I can roleplay a Christian, a Hindu or any religion using this model. What I personally believe has nothing to do with the point being discussed.

Once we start practicing this method, we won’t need to raise our voices nor argue with ignorant people at their level. Instead we can raise them to a higher level, bi ithnillah (by the permission of Allah).


The Problem With “Islam”

“La ilaha il Allah, Muhammadur Rasul Allah” is the clarion call for Muslims around the world. Indeed it is the first attestation in order to accept Islam as your faith. Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet, owed, perhaps to the simplicity of this one statement. There is nothing worthy of being worshiped except God Almighty. Monotheism in its purest form. If you are one among millions, like me, who chose to accept the faith of Islam, you might come across a plethora of questions and propositions from various groups, each claiming to be on the “true path”. What? I thought Islam WAS the true path. What’s a wahabi? What’s a Sufi? What is a Shia or Sunni? Qadiyani, Deobandi, Hanafi, Ismaili…and the list goes on. It’s enough to make your head spin. In this article, I begin with certain assumptions. Firstly, that God exists. Secondly we are discussing a monotheistic God; at this point it is appropriate to use the word “Allah” as Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs do. The topic of discussion, after all, is Islam. Third, that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is the last and final messenger of Allah. Finally, the Quran is the last and final unchanged revelation of Allah and is well preserved. I expect even the staunchest atheist to have the intellectual capacity to follow a hypothetical. We are discussing a topic framed within a context so there is no point refuting the given points. I will be using the pronoun “He” but that does not denote male or female as in this assumption, I am not necessarily assigning a corporeal existence to God nor any anthropomorphic attributes. Having granted all these assumptions, we begin with the question “What is Islam?”  Now, before we even go into the definition, it is important to note that God, Allah, would obviously have the fundamentally correct understanding of Islam and He, in His infinite wisdom, sent messengers inspired through angels with the correct message; the last of which is called Islam or “Peace”. Ok, now the question arises, since there are so many versions of Islam as stated in the beginning of this discussion, obviously they can’t all be the same Islam which Allah The Almighty intended for us. The Shia and the Sunni sects encompass and represent at least 90% of the Muslims of the world. Even secular and non-practicing Muslims largely associate themselves with one or the other. I personally associated myself with Sunni Islam for 8 years while I roamed clueless with these sectarian questions in my mind. Then I studied under a scholar from Syria who was of the Sunni-Sufi persuasion, for 3 years and got authorized in text of Aqeedah (doctrine) according to Imam Tahawi and the Fiqh (Jurisprudence) of Imam Abu Hanifa. I was also encouraged by my teacher to teach and so I did for 8 years more. In my teaching, I came across a plethora of questions from students which I then followed up with scholars and research. Finally, I started to study the Shia doctrines and found legitimate concerns against the Sunni positions. When I approached the Sunni scholars with these concerns, the reactions were of three types. One, direct attacks on the Shia, as if that refutes the questions. Two, make the honest declaration “I just don’t know the answer”. And three, pretend like the problems don’t exist. My immediate reaction was to say “Obviously if Sunnis are THIS wrong then the Shia sect must be the correct one”. But my every attempt at looking into the Shia sect revealed something else. Having been bitten twice already, I didn’t want to be suckered again. As a Sunni scholar once noted, “The Shia are experts with dissecting and dismantling Sunni arguments”. That one point was confirmed time and time again with my interactions with the Shia scholarship. They refute the Sunni positions expertly but fail to mention how their systems have implemented fail-safe mechanisms to protect from corruption. Indeed even among the Shia community, the Ithan Ashari (Twelver) disagree with the Zaidis and don’t consider Aga Khanis even Shia. There is sufficient tumult without having to go into the topic deeper. So now, who’s Islam is The Islam? The search for the path which is “true” should be made with an objective collection of facts, not arguments like “Because they are stupid”, “Because THEY lie!”, “Everyone knows we are on the right path”, and so on. It is vital that we separate fact from opinion. It is, after all, eternity we’re talking about; more than life and death. What are these concerns? I was kept completely unaware for nearly 20 years in Islam even while I was engaged in the study of the doctrines! That is some heavy Orwellian suppression. If I find problems only with one or two of the sects and their sub-sects, I’d title the article only on those sects. As these two sects represent such an overwhelming majority of Muslims I’ve titled it as such and put the word “Islam” in quotes to denote the subjectivity. There are many who hold the view “What’s the point in discussing this? Just do your prayers and look for commonalities, not differences”. They often quote the passage of the Quran “Hold on tightly to the rope of Allah and be not divided” but fail to traverse through the logic laid out in this article to establish which Islam that “rope” really is. Clearly this article does not subscribe to the conflict avoidance or “head in the sand” genre so it might not be palatable to everyone. Finally, there are those who like to attribute the differences to just “extremists” as a way of passing the buck and not having to delve into the topic. To those people I say, you’re sorely mistaken. These conflicts are not only between the fringes. To give you an example, let’s say two people grew up together, had the same background, spoke the same language, shared the same religion; indeed they agreed on 99.9999% of everything. The only problem is that the first one says to the second “Your mother is a prostitute”. Will you then say “Focus on the commonalities?” Some of us would ask at this point, is she or isn’t she? If she really was then the only thing the second person is guilty of is perhaps a lack in tact, but it is absurd to say “Let’s not quibble over differences”. I’ve beat around the bush long enough. Let’s get into the topic. I will be filling out these blanks over time but in the meantime this will be a work in progress. I’m starting with the trouble with Sunni Islam.

  1. Objections to Sunni Islam

There seems to be a structure set up by the “official” Sunni scholars which has an underlying agenda. If anything challenges this agenda, be it common sense, opinions of other scholars, hadith or even verses of the Quran itself, the Sunnis will fight it tooth and nail. They will concoct their own interpretations, forge hadith and go on an attack, resorting to cheap and low brow tactics. We begin this topic with a key question. “If Allah has stated something in the Quran, can it be nullified, abrogated, refuted, challenged or changed by ANY number of hadith?” Yes or no? If you are saying “yes” then that means that with sufficient texts of hadith, virtually every verse of the Quran can be nullified or abrogated. If you’re saying “no” then the onus is upon you to produce the refutation for the following points from the Quran itself. Note: Not one single reference I’ve cited are from Shia books or sources. Every single citation is from 100% Sunni sources.

  1. Sunni contradictions against the Quran

  2. Muta (Temporary Marriage) – Quran 4:24

Every Muslim, regardless of the sect, agrees that Muta (temporary marriage) was not only permitted by Allah in the Quran but also praised as something good by the prophet Muhammad (SAW). Verse 4:24 of the Quran clearly uses the word “istamtatu” (root word muta) as the word for marriage. Once it is established that a verse in the Quran has permitted something, the only way it can be changed or abrogated is by another verse of the Quran. If we allow our framework to say that a verse of the Quran can be changed by hadith, then just about every verse of the Quran is subject to such changes. An unprotected, unguaranteed compendium of text can invalidate verses from the protected Quran. This makes your understanding of Islam highly suspect. Virtually every Sunni worth his salt with defend this to the hilt. It is almost comical the extent to which they will go, violating just about every rule and convention they themselves have defined. There is a very specific reason for this. The person who is most vehemently opposed to muta is Umar ibn Al Khattab. So if the Sunnis admit that Allah has permitted something in the Quran and absolutely NO other text can invalidate it, then they will have to concede that Umar made a grave mistake. Hence they HAVE to stick to their guns on this or they will lose ground. This is covered in greater depth in section 3.2.3. Defending Umar ibn Al Khattab has caused the Sunni framework so much grief that they pre-empt any challenge by over emphasizing the importance of Umar, along with Abu Bakr, Aisha et al. In fact it was Umar who appointed Muawiya ibn Abi Sufiyan as governor of Syria, whose mother Hind ate the liver of Hamza ibn Abd Al Muttalib, the uncle of the Prophet (SAW). Not to mention, as we come to know later, this man Muawiyah institutes wide spread corruption and cursing of Ali (AS) whom even the Sunnis accept was the rightly guided Khalifa of his time. It is small wonder why the Shia hate Umar with such a passion as he seems to be in the center of the entire mess which we shall discuss in a later chapter. So we have the verse of the Quran mentioned earlier where Allah ta ‘Ala allows something and the Sunnis claim it is no longer allowed through references of hadith. The staggering number of contradictions in these hadith makes it very difficult to take seriously. It clearly looks like the books were cooked in favor of the Sunni agenda of painting Umar in a positive light. At the same time, every hadith which disfavors their position is attacked as “weak” or “unreliable”. To that I respond, the Quran is neither weak nor unreliable.

  1. Obligation for every believer to write a will – Quran 2:180

Next, the issue of appointing a successor. Here the Sunnis claim that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who left us every detail of every minute part of our lives, never left us ANY guidance as to how to select a leader or who he (SAW) chose as the next successor. However, they claim, that Abu Bakr, Umar and Othman all were clever enough to do so. Already this story is sounding fishy enough. I know how to settle this. It’s so easy. How about we just look at the will the Prophet (SAW) had written as Allah ta ‘Ala commands in the Quran? That should clear up all the confusion right? Guess what? The will is missing. According to the Sunnis, it doesn’t exist. So now we have a 2nd iteration of the Quran being claimed by Sunnis as invalid, namely, Chapter 2:180 where it says it is incumbent upon every believer to leave a will. The Sunnis claim that this chapter is talking about a condition where the believer has any property or belongings. In the Sunni hadith of Imam Muslim, it states that the prophet Muhammad (SAW) had a horse and some arms. So in the LEAST there should exist a will which properly allocates where that must go. But the Sunni claim is “There is no will”. Now if the Quran has said that this is an obligation and Sunnis claim that the will doesn’t exist, who is lying and why? In fact Sunnis can NEVER admit that there is a will because that would compromise the first of their leaders, Abu Bakr who makes an even more absurd assertion on my next point. It’s like in a classroom full of kids, one pipes up and says “The teacher left me in charge! I’m the boss now!” There are numerous other examples of the Prophet of Allah (SAW) assigning leaders in virtually every aspect of life! What was the material benefit of this claim? Why Abu Bakr gets to be the leader of course. Then as the “official” custodian of the Muslim ummah (nation) he tells Fatima (SA) that the gift her father gave her was indeed an inheritance and he adds that he heard the prophet (SAW) say that prophets don’t leave any inheritance so ipso facto, that property now comes to Abu Bakr. Again, the Quran states that it is obligatory for us to leave a will and the Sunnis MUST claim that the man sent to teach us every detail of religion somehow neglected this one point (among others). Other than the obvious setup, the Quran itself states that the prophets DO in fact leave inheritance, as explained in the next point.

  1. Prophets leave inheritance – Quran 27:16 and 19:4-6

Abu Bakr claims that he heard the prophet Muhammad (SAW) say that prophets don’t leave inheritance! Again, the Quran states in 27:16 that the prophet Suleman (AS) inherited from prophet Dawud (AS). That Zakariyah (AS) asked God for a son so he can INHERIT from him and be his successor (19:4-6). This is a virtual check mate for the Sunni argument but if the conversation got this far, you are sure to receive a barrage of ad hominem attacks. It is of the utmost importance here to note one more thing. Fatima (SA) is referred to by the prophet Muhammad (SAW) not only as a person granted paradise but also the LEADER of all women in paradise; a distinction she shares with Mary the mother of Jesus, Asiya the wife of the Pharaoh and Khadija the wife of the prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Fatima’s mother. Furthermore, Fatima is explicitly cited as one of the 5 members (including himself) in the most authentic of Sunni literature, whom Allah ta ‘Ala has purified of ALL impurities (33:33). Indeed to doubt such a personality is to doubt the Quran itself. For the observer of this incident, there should be no doubt who is wrong and who is right here. Abu Bakr had no right to challenge her inheritance, especially when we see clearly that the reason for his challenge flies in the face of the verses of the Quran already cited above. In argument after argument and all the sub-strands of the excuses the Sunnis produce to defend their position, the Quran, the Book of Allah is against them. You’d think that should perturb the staunchest of believers but not the Sunni mindset. Blind adherence to what they’ve been taught is the mainstay of Sunni Islam. That and a framework with rules, exceptions and complexities rivaled only by the tax codes. And that should give a person familiar with the world of finance a hint. The material benefit of this lie? The huge bounties of Fidak and Khaybar, whose single handed victory is attributed to her husband Ali (AS), not to mention any other wealth or property which Rasulullah (SAW) left for his family. Like a loose strand of a sweater, the material motivation behind this lie comes exposed as the favorable attributes of such a personality become unraveled as fabrications. It is upon the Sunni to produce proof that the prophets do NOT leave inheritance in opposition to the Quran. How do you suppose the Sunnis respond to this challenge? “How DARE they say something bad against Abu Bakr, our first rightly guided khalifa?!” Ask yourself this, “How dare” is the depth of your response?

  1. Quran protected by Allah ta ‘Ala! – Quran 15:9

Umar claims in Bukhari that verses of stoning an adulterer to death was in the Quran and they used to recite it but now it is no longer there. Allah says in the Quran that He protects it (15:9) and Umar claims it has a verse missing.

إِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا ٱلذِّكۡرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ ۥ لَحَـٰفِظُونَ

We, Ourselves, have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an), and We assuredly protect it.

Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

Aisha bint Abu Bakr concurs and further claims there were verses in the Quran about a woman making a non-mahram (non-family member) into a person who is permissible to comingle with her by allowing the non-mahram adult man to suckle from her breast 10 times. She further states that this verse not only existed but was written down and it was under her pillow and while they were making arrangements to bury the prophet Muhammad (SAW), a goat came in and ate these verses.

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626;  As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13

[Narrated ‘Aisha] “The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.”

 Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1944

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

  1. Exploits of Abu Bakr

  1. Usurping the leadership

When it suits the Sunnis, “the prophet (SAW) didn’t leave any guidance” and when they want to promote Abu Bakr to leadership, they’ll claim that the prophet (SAW) asked Abu Bakr to lead the last prayer (Salah) so thereby he implicitly appointed him. So which is it? Did the prophet (SAW) appoint or not? If he did then firstly, shouldn’t that be in his will? Secondly, if he appointed, what’s the point of the meeting at Saqeefah? Why didn’t Umar recant in his explanation that “The prophet (SAW) appointed Abu Bakr by asking him to lead the last prayer?” Umar recants no such thing in Bukhari where he’s explaining how they chose Abu Bakr.

  1. Stealing Fatima (SA)’s haqq (rights)

Abu Bakr claimed firstly, that this land was NOT given to Fatima and asked her to provide witnesses who can testify that she was gifted Fidak in the lifetime of Rasulullah (SAW). Just a background on this piece of land; after 4 weeks of the utter inability of the ENTIRE Muslim Army against the people of Khaybar, Ali (AS) was chosen to SINGLE HANDEDLY defeat them and win a victory for Islam. The people of Fidak heard of his bravery and exploits and voluntarily surrendered this land to the prophet (SAW). Such land falls under “fei” (land obtained without fighting) and is under the sole discretion of the prophet (SAW) himself. The prophet (SAW) then gifted this land to Fatima (SA), the daughter of Khadijah (SA), his (SAW) first wife, in memory of what she had done for Islam.

Comes Abu Bakr to the illegitimate leadership to begin with, grabs the land of Fidak from Fatima and says it’s not a gift. When she mentions Ali (AS) as a witness, Abu Bakr says “That’s your husband, he can’t be a witness for you”. Hassan and Hussein are too young. A maid servant is brought and he says she’s only half a testimony.

Fatima then says “Fine, you won’t accept our testimony that it was a gift, I am his daughter. I have rights of inheritance”, to which Abu Bakr responds “No no, I heard the prophet (SAW) say that prophets don’t leave inheritance”.

The first point to consider, is that Abu Bakr needs to provide the witnesses for HIS account. The land was ALREADY in Fatima’s keep. It is an axiomatic truth that “possession is 9/10th of the law”. Secondly, the QURAN says that prophets inherit and are inherited FROM as well in Surah Naml where He, ta ‘Ala says that Suleman (AS) was the heir of Dawud (AS) and Surah Maryam where Zakariyah (AS) is asking Allah for an heir for himself and is granted Yahya (AS). Third, where are Abu Bakr’s witnesses?? He’s quick to ask for her witnesses but where were his witnesses? Won’t you need them especially if you’re going to contradict the Quran?? Fourth, how come he didn’t tell his OWN daughter Aisha “Prophets don’t leave inheritance, get out of that house, it’s not yours?” When it came to HIS daughter, she could inherit from the prophet (SAW) but when it came to the daughter of the prophet (SAW) HIMSELF, she can’t inherit? Why didn’t he ask every wife of the prophet (SAW) “Where are your witnesses that this was a left for you??” It is the most absurd assertion. Furthermore, Abu Bakr is buried in that same house along with Umar! That house which couldn’t have been inherited in the first place!

Any sane Muslim should think for a minute; what in God’s green earth does Abu Bakr mean by asking for “witnesses” here? Fatima (SA) is going to LIE to get a piece of land?? Ali (AS) is going to LIE?? Leave that aside; if a FATHER is going to pass away and intends to leave nothing for his daughter, don’t you think in the least he’d call her up and tell her “Sorry my daughter, you know I’m a prophet and prophets don’t leave inheritance”? Dad won’t tell his OWN daughter? For that matter, wouldn’t he tell all his wives the same thing, thereby creating tons of witnesses to this statement? Wouldn’t he tell Ali (AS) who stood by him his entire life?? No, ALL the people who were in line for an inheritance, he doesn’t say a single word to; he (SAW) doesn’t tell ANYONE else but secretly tells Abu Bakr?? Really? What kind of a brainwashed person would believe something like that??

  1. Waging a (Ridda) wars against those who didn’t accept his leadership

  2. Claims of fighting against false prophets

  3. Labeling the cold blooded murder of Malik ibn Nuwairah and raping of his wife as “just a mistake” and letting the murdered get away with it

  4. Burning Hadith

    1. Exploits of Umar Ibn Al Khattab

Where shall we start with Umar?

  1. Disrespect towards the Prophet of Allah (SAW)

  2. Hudaybiyah

  3. Calamity of Thursday Night

  4. Threatening Fatima (SA) the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)!

Sunnis love to deny this event and most claim complete ignorance of the event. Further, the Sunni imams make doubly sure this is NEVER discussed anywhere and often pre-empt it by saying “The Shias claim that Umar killed Fatima”. It is a global cover-up.

  1. Ibn Abed RabbohAl-Iqd al-Farīd (in Arabic). Retrieved 4 March 2012. As for Ali, Abbas and Zubair, they stayed in the house of Fatima until Abu Bakr sent Umar to get them out of Fatima’s house and told him: if they refuse, fight them. He took a torch to burn the house and Fatima met him and told him: are you here to burn our house? He said: yes, or you enter what the Ummah has entered (i.e swear allegiance).
  2. al-Baladhuri(297 AH / 892 CE) (1959). Ansab al-Ashraf 1. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif. p. 586.Abu Bakr sent for Ali so that he can give alligance but he didn’t. So Umar came [to the house] and Fatima met him at the door. She said: ‘ibn Khatab you want to burn my door down?’ Umar replied: ‘Yes, in order to strengthen the religion your father brought.’
  3. Ibn Qutaybah(276 AH / 889 CE). al-Imama wa al-Siyasa. Egypt: Maktabt al-Tijaria al-Kubra. p. 13. Umar said: ‘I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, either you come out or I will burn this house down!’ The people said: ‘Abu’l Hafs, Fatima is also in this house’. Umar replied: ‘Even if she is…
  4. Ibn Abi Shayba(235 AH / 849 CE) (1989). al-Musanaf 7. Beirut: Dar al-Taj. p. 432.Umar came to the house of Fatima and said: “O’ Daughter of the Prophet of God! I swear by God that we love no one more than your father, and after him we love no one more than you. Yet I swear by God that that won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn this house down!
  5. Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. History of the Prophets and Kings. Retrieved 4 March 2012. Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali.Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: “By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire.” al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him.
    1. Bid’ah (Innovations)

    2. Starting what the prophet of Allah (SAW) stopped – Tarawih

    3. Removing what the prophet (SAW) approved and adding what Umar wanted to the Athan

Ali Ibn Abdul Malik al-Hindi, popularly known as Muttaqi al-Hindi, in his book, Kanz al-Ummal vol. 8, p. 342, tradition number 23,174 records:

“Bilal used to recite in the morning Azaan – Hayya alaa Khair al-Amal (Hasten to the best of actions)”.

Muhammad Ibn Jurair al-Tabari documents in his book ‘Al-Mustarshid fi Imamat-e-Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.)’ on page 516:

Once Umar ascended the pulpit and announced- O people! Three things were prevalent during the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) but I am forbidding them and will punish those who perform them. From them are: the two Mutaa’, i) Mutaa’ with women and ii) Mutaa’ of Hajj…and the third is the statement – Hasten towards the best of actions (in Azaan) because when people listen to this in the Azaan they rely upon it and forego Hajj and all other actions!

  1. Prohibition of Muta

Please keep two points in the forefront of your mind. Permissibility, suggestion, order or prohibition, in the QURAN is not the same ANY other source. In other words, 1 verse of the Quran can not be invalidated by even a million hadith. Allah ta ‘Ala revealed in Surah An Nisa, verse 24:

وَٱلۡمُحۡصَنَـٰتُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُڪُمۡ‌ۖ كِتَـٰبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡكُمۡ‌ۚ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم مَّا وَرَآءَ ذَٲلِڪُمۡ أَن تَبۡتَغُواْ بِأَمۡوَٲلِكُم مُّحۡصِنِينَ غَيۡرَ مُسَـٰفِحِينَ‌ۚ فَمَا ٱسۡتَمۡتَعۡتُم بِهِۦ مِنۡہُنَّ فَـَٔاتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً۬‌ۚ

“Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in license. So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed dues; it is no fault in you in agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise” (4:24).

The word highlighted in red is “Istemtatum”, the root word of which is muta. Virtually every tafsir of the Quran states that this verse is regarding muta. Bukhari records a sahaba also stating that Muta was permitted by Allah IN THE QURAN!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43: Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta was revealed in Allah‘s Book, so we performed it with Allah‘s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested

Sahih Al Muslim, Book 008, Number 3243:

Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and ‘Abdullah then recited this verse: ‘Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like trangressers” (al-Qur’an, 5:87).

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تُحَرِّمُواْ طَيِّبَـٰتِ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ وَلَا تَعۡتَدُوٓاْ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ

Please reflect on what Rasulullah (SAW) is quoting here “Oh you who believe, DO NOT make unlawful the GOOD things which Allah has made LAWFUL for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like the transgressors”. Rasulullah (SAW) is quoting the Quran saying that not only is muta LAWFUL but also GOOD. So let’s get our minds clear here. At this point in time, when Rasulullah (SAW) clearly said that Allah ta ‘Ala has allowed muta, would any Muslim alive say “That is prostitution?” Will you dare stand in front of Muhammad (SAW) and say “That is prostitution??” The unanimous answer is “Absolutely NOT!”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139: Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.

Now, the Sunnis have to show where did this suddenly become not lawful, not good and naudubillah “prostitution!” For that they rely on what? Hadith. Quran is flawless and they will produce HADITH which can be flawed to counter it. Again, please keep in mind the difference between REVELATION and hand-written hadith. “Woe it is to those who write with their own hands and say it is from Allah!” So all of these hadith can not ever invalidate the Quran. Ask yourself what is the status of a person who says that hadith can in fact override the Quran?

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250: Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut’as (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah‘s Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248: Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and ‘Umar Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3249: Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah‘s Messenger pbuh and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Huraith. Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3261: ‘Urwa b. Zabair reported that ‘Abdullah b. Zubair stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn ‘Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut’a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah‘s Messenger, pbuh), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut’a and he permitted him to do it.

Ibn Abbas continued to PERMIT it even after Umar forbade it: Sahih Al Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261:

‘Urwa b. Zabair reported that ‘Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn ‘Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut’a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah’s Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut’a and he permitted him to do it.

The theme seems to repeat here that on every issue, the Quran says one thing and the Sunni ruling is something contrary and coincidentally supporting hadith which can not possibly be true just crops up from somewhere.

  1. Ignorance of the Quran

  2. Breaking into a woman’s house, seeing her naked and accusing her of zina without 4 witnesses

  3. Attempted limiting of Mehr

References: 1. Jalalu’d-din Suyuti in his Tafsir-e-Durru’l-Mansur, vol. II, p.133; 2. Ibn Kathir in his Commentary, vol.I, p.468; 3. Jarullah Zamakhshari in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf, vol.I, p.357; 4. Fazil Nishapuri in his Tafsir-Gharibu’l Qur’an, vol.I, in connection with the sura Nisa (The Women) of the Holy Qur’an; 5. Qartabi in his Tafsir, vol.V, p.99; 6. Ibn Maja’ Qazwini in his Sunan, vol.I; Asadi in Hashiyya-e-Sunan, vol.I, p.583; 7. Baihaqi in his Sunan, vol.VII, p.233; 8. Qastalani in his Irshadu’s-Sari-Sharh-e-Sahih Bukhari, vol.VIII, p.57; 9. Muttaqi Hindi in his Kanzu’l-‘Ummal, vol.VIII, p. 298; 10. Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, vol.II, p.177;

One day Caliph Umar during the course of his sermon to the people, said: “If any one marries and fixes a mehr (dowry) for more than 400 dirhams for his wife, I will inflict the prescribed punishment on him and will deposit the excess amount in the Baitu’l-Mal (Public Treasury).” A woman from the audience called out: “Umar! Is what you say more acceptable or Allah’s ordinance? Does not Allah Almighty say: ‘And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything.'” (4:20) Having heard this verse and the retort of the woman, Umar said: “You have better knowledge of fiqh and problems than Umar, all of you, including even the women observing hijab sitting in their homes.” Then Umar again mounted the pulpit and said: “Although I have forbidden you to give more than 400 dirhams as dowry to your wives, I now permit you to give as much as you like beyond the appointed limit. There is no harm in it.” This hadith shows that Caliph Umar was not well versed in the Qur’an and jurisprudence. Otherwise, he would not have said something so obviously incorrect that he could be silenced by an informed woman

  1. Burning of the Hadith

  2. Great dad telling his own daughter that her husband, the prophet Muhammad (SAW) didn’t love her

  3. Beating slave women for wearing hijab

  4. Appointing a tulaqa, Muawiya as leader of land with covers 4 countries today!

While Abu Bakr bickered about Fidak from Fatima, Umar hands over the land covering Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria to Muawiya.

  1. Background

  2. Female infanticide

  3. Loving alcohol

  4. Worshiping idols

  5. Violence against the weak

    1. Beating his sister

    2. Beating slave girls, forcing them to remove their hair covering

  6. Insanity in setting rules for next Khalifa

  7. Appointing his son Abdullah as the overseer

With the benefit of history, we see that Abdullah ibn Umar never accepted the legitimacy of Ali (AS)’s leadership. However, when Yazeed ibn Muawiya was appointed by his dad, Abdullah ibn Umar traveled from Medina to meet and pledge his allegiance to him. We all know how that leader turned out and the caliber of Ali (AS). Ok, so he messed up on two counts. No, he didn’t stop there. He pledged his allegiance to all the tyrants after Yazeed as well. And this is the Sunnis have the MOST number of hadith from. Did Abdullah ibn Umar suddenly develop disdain for the Ahl Al Bayt and love for the degenerates who were their enemies or did Umar ibn Al Khattab already know that this was his own son’s character? Already there is foul play afoot.

  1. The call to behead the participants

  2. The rules set for the “Shura of 6”

  3. Myths about Umar

  4. Bravery

  5. Justice

  6. Compassion

  7. Knowledge

    1. Exploits of Aisha

  8. Disrespecting the prophet of Allah (SAW)

  9. Raising her voice in front of the prophet (SAW)

  10. Accusing him of wanting to marry more women

  11. Insinuating that Allah ta ‘Ala reveals verses to satisfy the Prophet (SAW)’s lust

  12. Claims that the verse in the Quran about the Ifk (slander) was against her

  13. Claiming that the Quran used to have verses which are now missing

  14. Claims that the Prophet (SAW) hit her and hurt her

  15. Spying on the Prophet (SAW)

  16. Jealousy and insults and conspiracies of Aisha against noble and honorable people

  17. An entire chapter of the Quran against Aisha

  18. Passing away of Rasulullah (SAW)

  19. Force feeding Rasulullah (SAW)

  20. Claiming that Rasulullah (SAW) said that he feels his aorta is being cut

  21. Claiming that Rasulullah (SAW) wanted to KILL himself MANY MANY times

  22. Fights the rightly guided Khalifa of her time, Ali (AS)

    1. Exploits of Othman

  23. Nepotism

  24. Corruption

Claims that the companions of the prophet were all good and no one should say anything about them. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.578 Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount.” ‘Abdullah added: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You do not know what they did after you had left.’ Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.584 Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.” Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.586 Narrated Ibn al-Musaiyab: “Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).” Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 8.587 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘what is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.’ I asked, “Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd.” Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.434 Narrated ‘Uqba bin ‘Amir: The Prophet went out and offered the funeral prayer for the martyrs of the (battle of) Uhud and then ascended the pulpit and said, “I am your predecessor and I am a witness against you. By Allah, I am now looking at my Tank-lake (Al-Kauthar) and I have been given the keys of the treasures of the earth (or the keys of the earth). By Allah! I am not afraid that you become polytheist after me, but I am afraid that you will start competing for it (i.e., the pleasures and treasures of this world). Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.488 Narrated al-Musaiyab: I met al-Bara bin ‘Azib and said (to him). “May you live prosperously! You enjoyed the company of the Prophet and gave him the Pledge of allegiance (of al-Hudaibiya) under the Tree (of al-Hudaybiyah).” On that, al-Bara’ said, “O my nephew! You do not know what we have done after him (i.e. his death).” Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.174 Narrated Sahl bin Sa’d: I heard the Prophet saying, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar), and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from it, will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them.” Abu Sa’id al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: “I will say those people are from me. It will be said, ‘You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.’ Then I will say, ‘Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed after me!’ ”

  1. Objections to Shia Islam

There are a lot fewer objections I have of the Shia, perhaps owed to the fact that firstly, they have been the group who have been persecuted for the entirety of Islamic history. It is perhaps this reason that the Shia have generally built up a much stronger defense. Much like how Muslims tend to know a lot more about the Christian faith than Christians tend to know about Islam, the Shia generally know a lot more about the Sunni sect than the Sunnis generally know about the Shia. Several of the objections against the Shia are also cultural and non-doctrinal, such as self flagellation, painting a horse in Muharram and some of their more elaborate displays of grief or excitement. In this article, however, I will try to stay with doctrinal issues since that is the route I’ve covered with the Sunnis. I can go into all kinds of behavioral or cultural issues with the Sunni side as well but that would require quite a few books to cover. I am also going to be focused particularly with the Ithna Ashari (12ers) or Imami sect of the Shia and not the Zaidi, Ismaili, Bohri or any of the other variants, because the 12ers are the overwhelming majority. A common theme you will note often with Shia apologetics is “It is EVEN in Sunni books!” As if that is conclusive proof because their books also say the same thing. However, when the Sunnis use the very same logical construct, that “It is even in Shia books”, the go-to rebuttal for that is “Well, the writers of those Shia books were either misguided, bribed or threatened, which led them to do taqiyya (lie under duress). The Shia also pride themselves in saying “We don’t have any SAHIH (authentic) books”. As in they don’t consider the entirety of any book other than the Quran to be purely authentic as Sunnis have canonized 6 books as “sahih” or “kutub sitta” (six authentic books). Generally, the Sunnis will accept what is in these books though when they contradict their point, they will necessarily have to gravitate toward one position or the other. Yet they will maintain both that the contradiction exists and that the books are still authentic. The textbook definition of cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, the Shia saying “We don’t have sahih (authentic) books”, then gives the Shia the ability to discard ANYTHING they don’t feel supports their point and is rebutted by the Sunnis as “The Shia don’t have anything authentic”. Yes, of course it is a mess.

  1. 12th Imam

One of the core beliefs of the Ithna Ashari creed is the belief in the 12th imam. It doesn’t stop there. The 12th imam is also alive for over 1,000 years and is in hiding, much like Jesus is apparently in hiding. When you ask for proof, they refer to a combination of 2 hadith which, as mentioned above “…is EVEN found in Sunni books!”

  1. Hadith which states that the one who dies without recognizing the Imam (leader) of his time (while the person is alive) then he will be raised as a person of jahiliyah (pre-Islamic post-Jesus, times of ignorance).
  2. The day of judgment won’t arrive until there are 12 imams

There are several variants of these two hadith but what’s mentioned above is the crux. A third point is derived that Allah (God) will never leave this ummah (nation) without a guide. This point is vital in order to establish the importance and role of the Ahl Al Bayt (the household or family of Muhammad (PBUH)). Who are the family? The prophet Muhammad himself, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussein (may peace and blessings of God be upon them all). I’ve never thought to ask why Fatima (daughter of prophet Muhammad (SAW)) was included but not Zaynab or Umm Kulthum (the daughters of Ali and Fatima (AS)). Now, the combination argument is constructed to mean that since 1, you have to accept an imam of your time and 2, there will be 12, and (kind of 3) there can’t be a gap (remember, Allah doesn’t leave the ummah without a guide), it becomes necessary to believe that after the 11 successive imams the 12th one was hidden by Allah and is alive until this day. While he is in hiding, he is still the guide for us all, even though we can’t see him. When questioned about what is the sense in a guide we can’t see, they will say “Well, in fact you CAN see him if you really believe and pray real hard”. Is this what Islam has come to? Believing that the emperor is wearing new clothes? “Interacting” with a hidden guide like kids interact with Santa Claus? The Aga Khanis and Ismailis believe that the 12th imam is yet to be born and each generation has a living, breathing, interactive imam walking the earth and guiding them and uniting them. The issue many pose to that is that the Aga Khan is a white guy who lives mostly in western countries, is clean shaven and hardly delivers guidance for everyone to follow. You never hear him speaking in Arabic or quoting from scripture or be challenged by anyone. Hardly what you’d expect from the leader of all the Muslims of the world. Still, one must admit that the narrative is a lot easier to buy into than a “hidden guide”.

  1. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were misguided hypocrites

  2. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar Accept Islam When Rasulullah (SAW) Had Very Few Supporters?

One reason could be because Khadija (SA) was very wealthy and by proxy, so was Rasulullah (SAW). This is what made Abu Bakr stay around him (SAW). I still don’t have an answer to why Umar became Muslim and stuck around Nabi (SAW) even though he (SAW) had nothing left. What was Umar’s intention in making hijra?

  1. Ali (AS) Didn’t Take The Leadership Because…

He had many people say “Oh Ali, we will fight for you! Pick up your sword and fight for your right!” Ali (AS) replied “You will all fight for me?” They replied “Yes”. He said “Ok, then all of you come here meet me with your heads shaved. They said “What?” He said “Shave your heads and meet me here tomorrow”. They said “Ok”. Next day only 5 turned up. Miqdad, Abu Dharr, Salman, Zubair and Bilal. Ali (AS) said “If there were 40 I would have fought but since there are only 5, I will bear with patience”.

  1. Did not Rasulullah (SAW) DESTROY the masjid of the munafiqeen in Medina?
  2. Is this the same Ali (AS) who took on Khayber single handedly? A FORTED city with embattlements against which the ENTIRE Muslim army was powerless for almost an entire month?
  3. Is this the same Ali (AS) who faced 4,000 lion wrestlers of the Thaqif and Hawazim at Hunayn with 7 other comrades?
  4. Wasn’t the Shia of Ali (AS), Ussama ibn Zayd right outside Medina with an army of 4,000 soldiers?
  5. How many battles did Ali (AS) face in his life that he’d hold back from fighting for justice and truth against a small band of thugs?

Thugs unjustly usurp the power for the ENTIRE Muslim Ummah and Ali (AS) just lets it slide because not enough people showed up? If Rasulullah (SAW) said “Be patient” to Ali (AS), then why gather up the people next day with shaved heads? Why didn’t he just say at that time “Sorry guys, Nabi (SAW) told me to be patient. No point in you guys showing up shaved or with hair”?

  1. Umar killed Fatima (SA)

This has so many different versions which if you add them all up together, it doesn’t make sense.

  1. Umar Kicked the Door While Fatima was behind it, causing a nail to puncture her pregnant stomach, causing a miscarriage and killing her

The narrative is that Umar sent his slave Kunfuth (according to Syed Ammar Nakshwani) who asked them to come out and give their allegiance to Abu Bakr but they refused. So he want back to Umar and told him. Then Umar brought a gang to the house of Fatima (SA) and said “Get out of that house and give allegiance to Abu Bakr or ELSE I will burn this house down!” Fatima (SA) says “This is the house of the daughter of Rasulullah (SAW)!” Umar said “So what?” and kicked the door. Fatima (SA) was standing behind the door where a long nail punctured her stomach, causing a miscarriage of Mohsin and she fell to the ground. Questions here:

  1. Why is it Fatima’s house when Ali (AS) is alive? Was she working to buy a house of her own? Did Ali (AS) give her the house? Did Rasulullah (SAW) gift it to her?
  2. Why is Fatima (SA) replying to Umar when Ali is in the house? Was he (AS) sleeping while all this is going on?
  3. What about the 5 others who were also there with shaved heads?
  4. Why would two responsible parents let a huge nail protrude from the door inward, where not only are FOUR kids, Hasan, Hussein, Zaynab and baby Umm Kulthum in the house, but also a pregnant lady?! Any parent who has a child or especially expecting a child would surely baby-proof that house? They made swords, shields and spears in those days, couldn’t bend the nail so it doesn’t hurt anyone?
  5. If Umar kicked the door, what did he have x-ray vision to see that Fatima (SA) is standing right behind it with a nail right in front of her belly? How can you accuse Umar of murder when there is no way for him to know about that nail? Whose fault was it leaving such a death hazard in that house with kids??
    1. Umar BEATS Fatima (SA)

Admittedly, this is a tradition which is not widely spread. The narrative here is that Umar got into the house of Fatima and lifted his sword and beat her with the sheath on. She cried out “Ya abata! (Oh my father!)” and he hit her again. Then Ali (AS) jumped up and threw Umar to the ground, grabbed him by the throat and said “I would kill you and all your friends here had I not promised Rasulullah (SAW) that I’d be patient”. Then Ali (AS) said “What do you want? You want me to give my allegiance? Here, take me to Abu Bakr and I will give allegiance”. All this was according to Syed Ammar Nakshwani in his video. Now I’m wondering how many rooms this house has and why Ali (AS) is allowing his beloved wife to stand in the front lines. If such a thing is transpiring, you’d think that as a husband, you’d tell your wife and kids to stay away from the door and windows. Go to the back of the room. Where was Ali (AS) during all of this?? He was obviously in the house because how else would he jump up and throw Umar to the ground? Just not adding up. If Nabi (SAW) told him to be patient, why didn’t he just accept Abu Bakr’s leadership from the beginning? Why wait until they beat his wife or burned his house before saying “I took an oath to be patient so ok, I’ll accept his leadership?”

  1. Umar Burned the House of Fatima (SA)

The narrative is that Umar came to the door of Fatima (SA) and said “Get out of that house and give allegiance to Abu Bakr or ELSE I will burn this house down!” Fatima (SA) says “This is the house of the daughter of Rasulullah (SAW)!” When did he kick the door then? When did he enter the house and beat Fatima (SA)? After or before he burned the house?

  1. Umar and his gang “took” Ali (AS) and Fatima (SA) followed them all the way to masjid An Nabawi

Fatima was just injured so badly a few minutes ago but she was strong enough to walk all the way to the masjid? Ali (AS) allowed himself to be captured while his wife is fatally wounded and his kids are (I would guess) crying? All that because he took an oath to be patient which he could have done from the start? Who is writing all of this?

  1. The Imams Knew The Future And Yet…

  2. Shia texts praising the first three

  3. The Prophet (SAW) Shows a Miracle to Abu Bakr

Tafsir Qumi, 1/289

حدثني أبي عن بعض رجاله رفعه إلى أبي عبد الله قال لما كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في الغار قال لفلان كأني انظر إلى سفينة جعفر في أصحابه يقوم في البحر وانظر إلى الأنصار محتسبين في أفنيتهم فقال فلان وتراهم يا رسول الله قال نعم قال فارنيهم فمسح على عينيه فرآهم فقال في نفسه الآن صدقت انك ساحر فقال له رسول الله أنت الصديق 

When the Prophet (sws) was in the cave, he (sws) said to Abu Bakr , “I see the ship of Jaffar in the sea with his companions. And likewise I see the Ansar waiting in their houses. Abu Bakr said: ‘O Allah’s apostle do you really see them?’ The Prophet (sws) said , “yes”. Abu Bakr asked: ‘Can I also see?’ The Prophet wiped his hands over Abu Bakr’s eyes. Thus, Abu Bakr saw them. Then he said to himself: ‘Now I believe that you are a wizard, the Prophet turned to Abu Bakr and said, “You are truthful (Siddique)”.

  1. The Prophet (SAW) says Abu Bakr and Umar are like his hearing and sight

Alburhan 565, 4/564 حدثنا أبو القاسم علي بن أحمد بن محمد بن عمران الدقاق رضي الله عنه قال: حدثنا محمد بن أبي عبد الله الكوفي قال: حدثنا سهل بن زياد الآدمي عن عبدالعظيم بن عبدالله الحسني قال : حدثني سيدي علي بن محمد بن علي الرضا عن أبيه محمد بن علي عن أبيه الرضا عن آبائه عن الحسين بن علي عليهم قال: قال رسول الله (ص) إن أبابكر مني بمنزلة السمع وإن عمر مني بمنزلة البصر وإن عثمان مني بمنزلة الفؤاد. قال: فلما كان من الغد دخلت إليه وعنده أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وأبوبكر وعمر وعثمان فقلت له : يا أبت سمعتك تقول في أصحابك هؤلاء قولا فما هو؟ فقال: نعم ثم أشار إليهم فقال هم السمع والبصر والفؤاد وسيسألون عن وصيي هذا وأشار إلى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام ثم قال إن الله عز وجل يقول: (إن السمع والبصر والفؤاد كل أولئك كان عنه مسؤلا) ثم قال عليه السلام وعزة ربي أن جميع أمتي لموقوفون يوم القيامة ومسؤلون عن ولايته وذلك قول الله عز وجل (وقفوهم انهم مسؤلون)
Abdul Azeem Hassani narrates from Ali bin Mohammad bin Ali al Raza and he narrates from his father and grandfather and they narrated from Hassan bin Ali that the prophet (sws) said:”Abu Bakr to me is the level of hearing, Umar to me is the level of sight and Uthman to me is the level of heart.In the next day I went to Allah’s apostle and Ali was with him along with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, then I asked him: O father I heard you saying to these ones something what it was? He (the Prophet) replied: yes. Then he pointed to them and said they are the level of hearing, sight, and heart and they will be questioned about my Wasi. And he pointed to Ali. Then he said: Allah almighty said: (surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that) then he said: ‘By Allah my whole nation will be questioned on the Day of Judgment about the Wilayah of (Ali), and that is why Allah Almighty said: (And stop them, for they shall be questioned)’.

  1. Ali (AS) wished to merge his deeds with Umar

“There is no other person on earth with whose deeds I desire to merge with my deeds, except the man in this coffin (referring to Umar, May Allah be pleased with him )” Reference: This has been recorded by many Shia scholars: Sayyid Murtadha in Kitab ush Shaafee, (Page 171) Aboo Jafar at-Toosee in Talkhees ash Shafee (Iran: Volume 2, Page 428) Ibn Babwee, Ibn Abee’l-Hadeed and Sudooq in Ma’ani ul Akhbaar (Iran: Page 117)

  1. Conclusion

This situation is much like a child with divorced parents, each bashing the other parent. The poor little kid who knows no better is left thoroughly confused, split and often times mentally disturbed. I don’t know if one can sufficiently argue that the kid choosing one side and hating the other parent could leave him less damaged than if he was to consider both as good and both as bad. The lay Muslim is the poor kid from a broken home. The solution, obviously, is for both parents to not bash the other but if the kid is old enough, he should demand an arbitrator and a sit down with both parents and hash everything out in open. We Muslims need to demand nothing less from our scholars. If you want to talk trash about the other sect, be willing to debate them in OPEN forum. Don’t be cowards lobbing insults and insinuations at the other sect and then refuse to debate them. That is not Islamic or even basic human decency.

  1. Problems with each narrative

  2. If we were to take the Shia position

Unlike the Sunnis, the Shia attribute a LOT more knowledge and awareness to the prophet (SAW) and the Ahl Al Bayt. The problem now arises over why, with so much knowledge of the future, they couldn’t figure out a more air tight mechanism by which this conspiracy could have been averted. It doesn’t explain the early conversions of Abu Bakr, Umar and most others. The Shia claim that Allah says to prophet Muhammad in the Quran that there are munafiqeen (hypocrites) all around you in Medina; some of them you know and others you DON’T know. Therefore, these wily characters passed under the radar. The problem with that assertion is that these characters were ALREADY displaying their evil ways in the lifetime of the prophet (SAW) itself according to the Shia position. So why then, didn’t Rasulullah (SAW) order them punished? Why leave them to wreak havoc after him (SAW)? Why didn’t Ali (AS) take charge and allow these conspirators the opportunity to usurp the leadership position? Why didn’t Imam Hasan (AS) destroy Muawiya’s armies and kick him out? Why was Imam Hussein so ineffective against Yazid’s evil? If the Muslims were able to outsmart the Jews, the Christians and the Persians, why was Yazid’s moves not anticipated, especially with foreknowledge? If the enemies of Ahl Al Bayt went around persecuting and destroying Shia and their works, then that goes to establish that MOST of the texts were destroyed. How can we reconstruct the narrative from bits and pieces? There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye.

  1. If we were to take the Sunni position

From the usurping of Ali’s right in Saqeefa, Fatima’s rights of Fidak, Umar threatening the daughter of Rasulullah (SAW), appointment of Umar to the leadership, appointment of Muawiya BY Umar, the absurdity of the “Shura of Six”, Umar’s burning of hadith, Uthman’s unbelievable plague like corruption over the Muslim Ummah, Muawiyah’s cursing of Ali (AS), Yazid’s butchering of the family of Rasulullah (SAW)…fast forward hundreds of years to Bukhari, Muslim, etc. which leave out Karbala, Uthman’s fitna, much of Siffeen, extremely rare transmissions from Ali (AS) and his lineage. It is RIFE with a conspiratorial agenda. If you can’t smell that from a mile away, your olfactory nerves are not functioning. To gloss over ALL these problems and make it look like some magical wonderland takes all the creative genius of Walt Disney and Mother Goose combined.

  1. The Reality

I believe that in reality, the personalities in question were not as good as Sunnis make them nor were they as evil as the Shia have made them out to be. I am referring in particular to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Both positions are valid but contradict one another. We need HONEST debate. If you feel what you believe is true, why don’t you accept a debate? I have seen Syed Ammar say “I will debate ANYONE who…” and yet I’ve not seen one single debate from the good Syed. Why is that? RajabAli Hasnain has debated Christians but not Sunnis? I have been told by MANY Sunni scholars “Don’t debate the Shia”. It is up to each of US to say ENOUGH! Hold your scholars to account. Have them debate these issues in PLAIN sight. Let’s come up with protocols which enable for two sides to fairly represent their views in the spirit of finding the truth. May Allah ta ‘Ala bless our efforts and forgive our sins.