(Begin) in the name of God (who is) the beneficent (and) the merciful.
Peace be upon Muhammad and his descendants.
Answering Christianity is a well-going Website that refutes the false claims made on Islam by its enemies. But time has now come for Answering Christianity to be refuted for the false claims it has made on Shia Islam. It's improper for such a Website to spread lies and hatred against a group of Muslims. I praise it for its struggle against enemies of Islam but I condemn it for its ignorance about Shia Islam. These are the articles they wrote and I'll refute:
Some Shiite mosques are blasphemous
None of the four Caliphs were infallible
Some Muslims (like Shiites) are polytheists
Shiite books forbid temporary marriage
Say no to temporary marriage
Temporary marriage discussed
Temporary marriage is banned
Some links about temporary marriage
Temporary marriage
Refuting Shiite arguments on Q. 33:33
Let's begin refuting the claims on Shia Islam by Answering Christianity. But it should be remembered that my intention is not of an enemy, but of a friend. From the depths of my heart, I pray for prosperity of Answering Christianity because I myself am a big fan of it.
'While I don't like to generalize against all Shiites because some of them might be innocent and are sincere believers but, definitely, in many ways, some of them do fall under the category of disbelievers (intentionally or unintentionally) because they strive on adding so much innovations to Islam to purposely enable them to look different from everyone else that ultimately led them to stray away from the mainstream Islam.'
That's a very absurd statement. How are Shiites innovators? Just because they're not Sunni Muslims, they're disbelievers? There are four major sects in Sunni Islam. They differ with each other on different issues. If that doesn't make any of them fall into the category of disbelief then why Shia Muslims? What the author calls innovations are Islamic teachings for Shia Muslims. And this is also an idiotic accusation that Shia Muslims deliberately try 'to look different from everyone else'. It's the belief of the one who knows nothing about Shia Islam and Shia Muslims. We believe that what we follow, is the real Islam. It's not like we want to differentiate from Sunni Muslims. It were Sunni Muslims who abandoned many teachings of Islam just to look different from Shia Muslims.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
First, is it obligatory for Shia Muslims to follow Sunni Muslims? On what basis Sunni Muslims have been labelled as mainstream Muslims? Just because they're in majority, they're mainstream? Then Jews and Christians of today are surely following the true religions of Moses and Jesus respectively then? What kind of standard is this that we're in majority so all minorities must follow us? Shia Muslims claim that they are the orthodox and they are the mainstream. This topic is still under discussion. Thus, to create a friendly and harmonic environment among the Muslims, this topic is not discussed. Second, I haven't heard of Shia Muslims of starting observing fasts one day before the Sunni Muslims or after them. Well, Shia Muslims can also complain that the Sunni Muslims start observing fasts after or before them. Being in majority doesn't make one mainstream. I have seen in Pakistan that the extremists from Sunni Islam (who live in the northwest) start observing fasts with Saudi Arabia instead of Pakistan. Moreover, not all Sunni Muslims start observing fasts together. Those in Canada, those in Saudi Arabia and those in Japan will have their own respective time.
It's improper for a Muslim who is unaware of truth of a certain Muslim sect, to attribute such a verse to it, trying to make it look like a bunch of hypocrites. This verse was revealed about those who built a mosque to serve as a headquarter so that they could convene gatherings there and make plots against Islam and Muslims. Does this happen in all of our mosques? I can remember the case of Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) of Islamabad (Pakistan) where the terrorists who belonged to Salafi/Deobandi Islam had gathered and were causing tension in the neighborhood. The mosque was attacked and after rescuing all women and children, the commandos led a successful military operation in it against the soldiers. Isn't this a good example of the mosques which God has spoken of in Q. 9:107.
Then he gave some pictures of Al Aqsa Mosque, Muscat Mosque and Shah Jahan Mosque labelled as 'normal-looking' mosques. After this, showing how ignorant he is, he pasted the pictures of Imam Rida Shrine, Imam Husain Shrine and Imam Ali Mosque. Notice how unaware he is of truth. He lack observation. He probably searched for some Shia mosques on Google and found these things which he posted. If we look carefully, we can tell that the first mosque in this paragraph has no minaret but a single large dome that covers most of the top of the mosque. The second one has a small dome and three long minarets (as I can only see three). The third one has a dome as well and we can observe four minarets; all are in balance according to size and shape. The first shrine is a shrine more than a mosque. It's used as a mosque too but it's more famous as a shrine. It has a vast yard for offering prayers. The second shrine looks similar to the second mosque because of its single small dome and two long minarets. The fourth mosque looks similar to the second mosque and the last shrine.
The reason these three Shia mosques look different from the Sunni ones is because the author, deliberately, has made them look different. He has chosen the famous shrines and mosques of Shia Muslims, the places where 3 out of 12 Imams are buried. Every person who studies Shia-Sunni relations, know about those three places. Well, the author has accused Shia mosques of being blasphemous just because they look different from the Sunni ones. We can pay him back his own accusation. Can't Sunni mosques be blasphemous because they look different from the Shia ones? Being the majority doesn't mean that all Muslims have to live according to Sunni Islamic teachings.
The author has forgotten that even Sunni mosques are different from each other. Every sect has its own way of constructing a mosque. This is Rashidiyyah Mosque of the Deobandi Muslims. This is King Saud Mosque of the Salafi Muslims. This is Ibrahim Mosque. These are Qiblatain Mosque and the famous Mosque of the Prophet (the one founded by the Prophet). Mosque of the Prophet looks similar to the shrine of Imam Rida. This is a Hanafi mosque in Eritrea. We can also see a school with a mosque in Egypt (about which I'm uncertain which creed it follows but Shafi'i Islam is dominant in Egypt) along with a mosque in Italy that belongs to Maliki Islam as well. Who can dare ignore the famous Al Husain Mosque of Egypt where the head of Imam Husain is said to have been buried! Suleymaniye Mosque attracts tourists from all over the world to Turkey. Ubudiah Mosque and Crystal Mosque increase the beauty of Malaysia. Now please tell me whether Medan Mosque and Istiqlal Mosque look different from other mosques or not. Barelwi Muslims have a mosque to worship in United Kingdom. This African mosque is a symbol of Islam mixed with African cultural heritage. It'll be unjust not to include Timbuktu Mosque is the list. Wazir Khan Mosque and Royal Mosque are famous in Pakistan. We'll end this long list with Star Mosque of Bangladesh. Let's see how these mosques differ with each other. The first mosque reminds us of Indian culture. It has one small dome and two big minarets, along with mini-domes and mini-minarets. The second mosque looks kinda modern. We can see some domes and one minaret. The third one is simple with a mini-dome and a huge minaret. The fourth one has one dome and two minarets. The fifth one has some domes and many minarets, not to mention its vast yard. The sixth one has only one minaret. The seventh one has a completely different structure. The eighth one has no dome but one single minaret. The ninth one can be described similarly because it only has one more minaret to add to its structural description. The tenth one looks like a mountain. It has many domes piled over each other. The eleventh one has a different style of dome. Same is with the twelfth one. Minarets are not easily distinguishable from three huge domes in the thirteenth mosque. The fourteenth one makes us forget all previous mosques. It has no minaret but two domes and a vast yard. The fifteenth one has no proper dome or minaret but a strange wall, covered with nails. The same is with the sixteenth mosque. The seventeenth mosque is like the first one; a beautiful example of Indian culture. The eighteenth one has many domes, many minarets and a vast yard. The nineteenth mosque is one in millions. Thus, we can see that even Sunni Muslims have mosques different from each other. There can be two reasons: first, Sunni Muslims have sects within and they build mosques according to their own jurisprudence; second, Muslims live all over the world and their mosques depict the culture and civilization of their respective areas.
Not all Shia Muslims have the same kind of mosques. Blue Mosque of Armenia can't be recognized as a Shia mosque so easily. Islamic Center of America and Ahlul Bayt Islamic Center are as simple and modest as expected from Muslims of those area.
First, what proof does the author have that it were the Shia Muslims who invented ways to distinguish themselves from all other Muslims? Isn't it possible that the Sunni Muslims invented ways to do so? Why Shia Muslims? Being the majority doesn't make you worthy to rule over the minorities? Second, as we have read in the beginning, Sunni Muslim scholars have admitted that they left the sunnah just to look different different and invent other ways for the same purpose. Author should have a look at his own torn garment instead of accusing others for just having a stain.
A victorious comment made by the one who is still in the battlefield (and even close to death). Doesn't the fact that a knowledgeable person can easily tell which sect of Sunni Islam this mosque belongs to, show that the Sunni Muslims strive on disuniting the Muslims? Doesn't the fact that not all Sunni Muslims are the same but all of them follow their own religious and geographical styles, show that the Sunni Muslims strive on disuniting the Muslims?
The author tries to prove that offering prayers in Shia mosques is not valid. This is because he misinterpreted this verse to cover up his illogical arguments against Shia Muslims. We've seen that even Sunni mosques differ from each other. We've also seen that not all Shia mosques are the same. Even is a certain sect builds mosques different from others, it doesn't prove that he's a hypocrite who wants to disunite Muslims. Build the mosque according to your religious and geographical needs but neither accuse a Muslim of infidelity or spread hatred against your fellows. There are only slight differences in the mosques. These slight differences are found in Muslim sects as well.
The author hates Shia Muslims so much because his mental approach is below average in this matter. He's ignorant of Shia Islam and Shia-Sunni relations. We've seen that Sunni Muslim scholars have boasted of how they left sunnah and adopted innovative ideas just to look different from Shia Muslims. If the author thinks that Shia Muslims are strangers, that's because he has enmity in his heart against us, based on his lesser knowledge. I bet he'll hate Barelwi Muslims as well because he hates whoever disagrees with his doctrine. Shia and Barelwi Muslims share many such doctrines and practices. Dear author, you're our Muslim brother and you have hatred in your hearts against us. That's what we're willing to remove by showing you the truth. Your moaning that we don't give you a feeling of meeting a Muslim when you meet us, is just like that of the enemies of Islam that they hate Islam and want to boycott Muslims. We have no corrupt beliefs or religious rituals. If believing in Ali to be the best of all Companions is disbelief then many Companions believed in that. If believing in legitimacy of temporary marriage is corrupt then many Companions believed in its legitimacy. There's nothing in them like corruption. Shia Muslims have this same problem with Sunni Muslims and they think that the Sunni Muslims are innovators who follow a distorted Islam. We should resolve these problems in a loving and peaceful environment, not like what you did, dear author. Nobody among us is an innovator. We all are Muslims and we should live in peace and harmony.
Ali Ahmad wrote a reply to the same article of Answering Christianity which I'm refuting. The author posted that article on his Website and refuted it. I'll answer his arguments as well.
This statement of his sums up the whole of his first response:
'Fasting the month of Ramadan is all done in accordance to the appearance of the crescent and don't forget that different countries fast in different times e.g. last year, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both had different days of fasting.'
Some Shiite mosques are blasphemous
None of the four Caliphs were infallible
Some Muslims (like Shiites) are polytheists
Shiite books forbid temporary marriage
Say no to temporary marriage
Temporary marriage discussed
Temporary marriage is banned
Some links about temporary marriage
Temporary marriage
Refuting Shiite arguments on Q. 33:33
Some Shiite mosques are blasphemous
Let's begin refuting the claims on Shia Islam by Answering Christianity. But it should be remembered that my intention is not of an enemy, but of a friend. From the depths of my heart, I pray for prosperity of Answering Christianity because I myself am a big fan of it.
'While I don't like to generalize against all Shiites because some of them might be innocent and are sincere believers but, definitely, in many ways, some of them do fall under the category of disbelievers (intentionally or unintentionally) because they strive on adding so much innovations to Islam to purposely enable them to look different from everyone else that ultimately led them to stray away from the mainstream Islam.'
That's a very absurd statement. How are Shiites innovators? Just because they're not Sunni Muslims, they're disbelievers? There are four major sects in Sunni Islam. They differ with each other on different issues. If that doesn't make any of them fall into the category of disbelief then why Shia Muslims? What the author calls innovations are Islamic teachings for Shia Muslims. And this is also an idiotic accusation that Shia Muslims deliberately try 'to look different from everyone else'. It's the belief of the one who knows nothing about Shia Islam and Shia Muslims. We believe that what we follow, is the real Islam. It's not like we want to differentiate from Sunni Muslims. It were Sunni Muslims who abandoned many teachings of Islam just to look different from Shia Muslims.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
ومن هنا ذهب من ذهب من الفقهاء إلى ترك بعض المستحبات إذا صارت شعارا لهم فلا يتميز السنى من الرافضي
And therefore some scholars abandoned the recommended if it becomes a mark for them, to differentiate between Sunni and Shiite.
(Minhaj al Sunnah, volume #4, page #154)
وقال مصنف " الهداية " من الحنفية : إن المشروع التختم في اليمين ك : باليمين . ، ولكن لما اتخذته الرافضة جعلنا التختم في أ ، ب : جعلناه في . . في اليسار ، وأمثال ذلك كثير
The Hanafi scholar - the author of Al Hidayah states that the wearing ring in the right hand is the legal action but since the Shiites do so therefore we changed to wear ring in the left hand and many other things like this.
(Minhaj al Sunnah, volume #4, page #137)
وكانا . إمامان للشافعية ، أن تسطيح القبور هو المشروع ، لكن لما جعلتهالرافضة شعارا لهم ص : ذلك شعارا في . . . عدلنا عنه إلى التسنيم ، وذكر الزمخشري ، [ ص: 137 ] وكان من أئمة الحنفية ، في تفسير قوله تعالى : ( هو الذي يصلي عليكم وملائكته ) [ سورة الأحزاب : 42 ] أنه يجوز بمقتضى هذه الآية أن يصلى على آحاد المسلمين ، لكن لما اتخذتالرافضة ذلك في ص : ذلك شعارا في . . . أئمتهم منعناه
The Shafi'i scholars said, 'Flatting the graves is legal but as long it becomes a mark of the Shiites therefore we switched to hunching.' Al Zamakhshari who was a Hanafi scholar, said interpreting this verse of God: 'He is the who bless you' (Q. 33:42) that it makes it permissible to send blessings on common Muslims but when the Shiites made it their mark, our Imams prevented us from doing so.
(Minhaj al Sunnah, volume #4, page #137)
'Ironically, even for the yearly timings of the start and finish of Ramadan and Pilgrimage to Mecca, they have their own ones. They are always either one day before or after the start day that the mainstream Muslims follow.'
First, is it obligatory for Shia Muslims to follow Sunni Muslims? On what basis Sunni Muslims have been labelled as mainstream Muslims? Just because they're in majority, they're mainstream? Then Jews and Christians of today are surely following the true religions of Moses and Jesus respectively then? What kind of standard is this that we're in majority so all minorities must follow us? Shia Muslims claim that they are the orthodox and they are the mainstream. This topic is still under discussion. Thus, to create a friendly and harmonic environment among the Muslims, this topic is not discussed. Second, I haven't heard of Shia Muslims of starting observing fasts one day before the Sunni Muslims or after them. Well, Shia Muslims can also complain that the Sunni Muslims start observing fasts after or before them. Being in majority doesn't make one mainstream. I have seen in Pakistan that the extremists from Sunni Islam (who live in the northwest) start observing fasts with Saudi Arabia instead of Pakistan. Moreover, not all Sunni Muslims start observing fasts together. Those in Canada, those in Saudi Arabia and those in Japan will have their own respective time.
'And (there are) those (hypocrites) who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against God and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, 'We intended only the best.' And God testifies that indeed they are liars. (Q. 9:107)'
It's improper for a Muslim who is unaware of truth of a certain Muslim sect, to attribute such a verse to it, trying to make it look like a bunch of hypocrites. This verse was revealed about those who built a mosque to serve as a headquarter so that they could convene gatherings there and make plots against Islam and Muslims. Does this happen in all of our mosques? I can remember the case of Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) of Islamabad (Pakistan) where the terrorists who belonged to Salafi/Deobandi Islam had gathered and were causing tension in the neighborhood. The mosque was attacked and after rescuing all women and children, the commandos led a successful military operation in it against the soldiers. Isn't this a good example of the mosques which God has spoken of in Q. 9:107.
'Even their mosques look different from the mainstream Muslim ones! The domes that are on top of their mosques are always stretched out more on the top. Here are some comparison pictures. Normal-looking mosques of 95% of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslim population worldwide.'
Then he gave some pictures of Al Aqsa Mosque, Muscat Mosque and Shah Jahan Mosque labelled as 'normal-looking' mosques. After this, showing how ignorant he is, he pasted the pictures of Imam Rida Shrine, Imam Husain Shrine and Imam Ali Mosque. Notice how unaware he is of truth. He lack observation. He probably searched for some Shia mosques on Google and found these things which he posted. If we look carefully, we can tell that the first mosque in this paragraph has no minaret but a single large dome that covers most of the top of the mosque. The second one has a small dome and three long minarets (as I can only see three). The third one has a dome as well and we can observe four minarets; all are in balance according to size and shape. The first shrine is a shrine more than a mosque. It's used as a mosque too but it's more famous as a shrine. It has a vast yard for offering prayers. The second shrine looks similar to the second mosque because of its single small dome and two long minarets. The fourth mosque looks similar to the second mosque and the last shrine.
The reason these three Shia mosques look different from the Sunni ones is because the author, deliberately, has made them look different. He has chosen the famous shrines and mosques of Shia Muslims, the places where 3 out of 12 Imams are buried. Every person who studies Shia-Sunni relations, know about those three places. Well, the author has accused Shia mosques of being blasphemous just because they look different from the Sunni ones. We can pay him back his own accusation. Can't Sunni mosques be blasphemous because they look different from the Shia ones? Being the majority doesn't mean that all Muslims have to live according to Sunni Islamic teachings.
The author has forgotten that even Sunni mosques are different from each other. Every sect has its own way of constructing a mosque. This is Rashidiyyah Mosque of the Deobandi Muslims. This is King Saud Mosque of the Salafi Muslims. This is Ibrahim Mosque. These are Qiblatain Mosque and the famous Mosque of the Prophet (the one founded by the Prophet). Mosque of the Prophet looks similar to the shrine of Imam Rida. This is a Hanafi mosque in Eritrea. We can also see a school with a mosque in Egypt (about which I'm uncertain which creed it follows but Shafi'i Islam is dominant in Egypt) along with a mosque in Italy that belongs to Maliki Islam as well. Who can dare ignore the famous Al Husain Mosque of Egypt where the head of Imam Husain is said to have been buried! Suleymaniye Mosque attracts tourists from all over the world to Turkey. Ubudiah Mosque and Crystal Mosque increase the beauty of Malaysia. Now please tell me whether Medan Mosque and Istiqlal Mosque look different from other mosques or not. Barelwi Muslims have a mosque to worship in United Kingdom. This African mosque is a symbol of Islam mixed with African cultural heritage. It'll be unjust not to include Timbuktu Mosque is the list. Wazir Khan Mosque and Royal Mosque are famous in Pakistan. We'll end this long list with Star Mosque of Bangladesh. Let's see how these mosques differ with each other. The first mosque reminds us of Indian culture. It has one small dome and two big minarets, along with mini-domes and mini-minarets. The second mosque looks kinda modern. We can see some domes and one minaret. The third one is simple with a mini-dome and a huge minaret. The fourth one has one dome and two minarets. The fifth one has some domes and many minarets, not to mention its vast yard. The sixth one has only one minaret. The seventh one has a completely different structure. The eighth one has no dome but one single minaret. The ninth one can be described similarly because it only has one more minaret to add to its structural description. The tenth one looks like a mountain. It has many domes piled over each other. The eleventh one has a different style of dome. Same is with the twelfth one. Minarets are not easily distinguishable from three huge domes in the thirteenth mosque. The fourteenth one makes us forget all previous mosques. It has no minaret but two domes and a vast yard. The fifteenth one has no proper dome or minaret but a strange wall, covered with nails. The same is with the sixteenth mosque. The seventeenth mosque is like the first one; a beautiful example of Indian culture. The eighteenth one has many domes, many minarets and a vast yard. The nineteenth mosque is one in millions. Thus, we can see that even Sunni Muslims have mosques different from each other. There can be two reasons: first, Sunni Muslims have sects within and they build mosques according to their own jurisprudence; second, Muslims live all over the world and their mosques depict the culture and civilization of their respective areas.
Not all Shia Muslims have the same kind of mosques. Blue Mosque of Armenia can't be recognized as a Shia mosque so easily. Islamic Center of America and Ahlul Bayt Islamic Center are as simple and modest as expected from Muslims of those area.
'...when a group of people intentionally invent other ways to distinguish themselves from all other Muslims then this by itself becomes blasphemy...'
First, what proof does the author have that it were the Shia Muslims who invented ways to distinguish themselves from all other Muslims? Isn't it possible that the Sunni Muslims invented ways to do so? Why Shia Muslims? Being the majority doesn't make you worthy to rule over the minorities? Second, as we have read in the beginning, Sunni Muslim scholars have admitted that they left the sunnah just to look different different and invent other ways for the same purpose. Author should have a look at his own torn garment instead of accusing others for just having a stain.
'The fact that one can easily tell if a mosque is a Shia one or not proves that Shiites strive on disuniting the Muslims!'
A victorious comment made by the one who is still in the battlefield (and even close to death). Doesn't the fact that a knowledgeable person can easily tell which sect of Sunni Islam this mosque belongs to, show that the Sunni Muslims strive on disuniting the Muslims? Doesn't the fact that not all Sunni Muslims are the same but all of them follow their own religious and geographical styles, show that the Sunni Muslims strive on disuniting the Muslims?
'Do not stand (for prayer) within it ever. A mosque founded on righteousness from the first day is more worthy for you to stand in. Within it are men who love to purify themselves and God loves those who purify themselves. Then is one who laid the foundation of his building on righteousness (with fear) from God and (seeking) His approval better or one who laid the foundation of his building on the edge of a bank about to collapse so it collapsed with him into the fire of hell? And God does not guide the wrongdoing people. Their building which they built will not cease to be a (cause of) skepticism in their hearts until their hearts are stopped. And God is knowing and wise. (Q. 9:108-110)'
The author tries to prove that offering prayers in Shia mosques is not valid. This is because he misinterpreted this verse to cover up his illogical arguments against Shia Muslims. We've seen that even Sunni mosques differ from each other. We've also seen that not all Shia mosques are the same. Even is a certain sect builds mosques different from others, it doesn't prove that he's a hypocrite who wants to disunite Muslims. Build the mosque according to your religious and geographical needs but neither accuse a Muslim of infidelity or spread hatred against your fellows. There are only slight differences in the mosques. These slight differences are found in Muslim sects as well.
'And because the mainstream Shiites always strive hard on being different from everyone else in everything, this caused them to be 'never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts' and it is true! I personally feel that Shiites are strangers. I always feel it when I speak with them. I never feel that they are my real Muslim brethren. It's not because of them personally but rather it is because of the corrupt beliefs and religious rituals that they follow that had ultimately put them in isolation from the 95% of all Muslims out there.'
The author hates Shia Muslims so much because his mental approach is below average in this matter. He's ignorant of Shia Islam and Shia-Sunni relations. We've seen that Sunni Muslim scholars have boasted of how they left sunnah and adopted innovative ideas just to look different from Shia Muslims. If the author thinks that Shia Muslims are strangers, that's because he has enmity in his heart against us, based on his lesser knowledge. I bet he'll hate Barelwi Muslims as well because he hates whoever disagrees with his doctrine. Shia and Barelwi Muslims share many such doctrines and practices. Dear author, you're our Muslim brother and you have hatred in your hearts against us. That's what we're willing to remove by showing you the truth. Your moaning that we don't give you a feeling of meeting a Muslim when you meet us, is just like that of the enemies of Islam that they hate Islam and want to boycott Muslims. We have no corrupt beliefs or religious rituals. If believing in Ali to be the best of all Companions is disbelief then many Companions believed in that. If believing in legitimacy of temporary marriage is corrupt then many Companions believed in its legitimacy. There's nothing in them like corruption. Shia Muslims have this same problem with Sunni Muslims and they think that the Sunni Muslims are innovators who follow a distorted Islam. We should resolve these problems in a loving and peaceful environment, not like what you did, dear author. Nobody among us is an innovator. We all are Muslims and we should live in peace and harmony.
'I'd like to present few pictures here regarding the Shiites yearly celebration of the unjust killing of few pious Muslims that took place 1500 years ago and how they whip themselves and even their own children almost to death for it as if those people that they're trying to feel the pain of are Allah Almighty Himself. And even to Allah Almighty, there is still nothing in Islam that tells us that we must beat ourselves even lightly for Him; all glory and praise be to Him.'
Yes, Shia Muslims do so and they shouldn't do so. That's what they do on their own. Just like the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, this kind of self-flagellation has nothing to do with Islam. Self-flagellation with hands is the only self-flagellation allowed in Islam. Using weapons or spilling (say wasting) blood like water is not a part of any jurisprudence. I believe in this kind of self-flagellation. This kind of self-flagellation is not prohibited in Islam. I have dedicated a whole article to this topic which you can read here. As for that kind of self-flagellation the author has criticized, I share his tension and agree with him. Such brutal activities are enough to bring disgrace to Islam, specially Shia Islam. Our great scholars have prevented us from doing such savage deeds. Imam Khomeini said:
'In the current situation, they are to refrain from blade-beating. Passion plays are permitted as long as they do not include the forbidden practices and do not bring disrepute to religion. Reciting of the tragedies of the Imam Husain is the noblest and most recommended (of actions) on this occasion.'
'Mourning and chest beating for the 'unjustly treated' (the victims of the tragedy of Karbala) is among the best of religious practices but the participants must exert due diligence to avoid wounds and the flowing of blood. If such actions bring about disrepute to the religion then they are forbidden. It is recommended at any rate that the participants refrain from such actions.'
'Do not perform blood-matam or the likes in the present state. If it does not include forbidden actions or defamation of the religion then there is no problem. Although, reciting poetry is better and mourning the Master of the Oppressed (Imam Husain) is of the best forms of worship.'
Ali Ahmad wrote a reply to the same article of Answering Christianity which I'm refuting. The author posted that article on his Website and refuted it. I'll answer his arguments as well.
This statement of his sums up the whole of his first response:
'Fasting the month of Ramadan is all done in accordance to the appearance of the crescent and don't forget that different countries fast in different times e.g. last year, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both had different days of fasting.'
But when one looks at the Shiites, even inside the Sunni countries, they don't start fasting until their head scholars in Iran, which happens to be the Shiite verdict-giving state, announce the fasting. And these scholars always make sure that they don't declare the beginning of Ramadan on the same day of any Sunni country. I remember several years ago when Iran began Ramadan 3 days after everyone!
(Don't forget that I write the author's lines in bold letters) I don't remember any Shia Muslim doing so. I don't think I've ever seen or heard any such thing in my life. I am a Shia Muslim and I, along with my friends and relatives (I mean the Shia ones), observe the fasts of Ramadan the same day Sunni Muslims start observing them. In Pakistan, there's a committee that's composed of Sunni Muslims (in majority). They decide when to start observing the fasts of Ramadan and all Muslims, regardless of their creed, follow their observations and decisions. I think the author's Iranian and he saw that in Iran. In other countries, no such thing happens. Iran is the verdict-giving state. Moon-sighting is the job of our respective governments. If moon's sighted in Iran and not in Canada but a Shia Muslim observes fast, he's surely not only a misled person but also an idiot. Well, that's just a baseless accusation of the author on our respected scholars that they make sure they start Ramadan neither after nor before others. And yes, that's not a special case with Shia Muslims. I heard that some Sunni Muslims in Pakistan (who are actually Afghans) begin Ramadan with Saudi Arabia and celebrate Eid with it as well. The story of 2010 goes as, 'Once again there will be two Eids in Pakistan.' Nation says in an article that the Afghan scholars (who follow Sunni Islam) in Pakistan have declared that they would celebrate Eid with Saudi Arabia. Author is accusing us of what his creed has done actually.
'So the actions of the Shiites are not something to be taken lightly. It is beyond doubt that your people strive on disunity. They strive on being different and separate from all Muslims. You sarcastically said, 'you concluded that since they don't follow the mainstream Sunni view, without defining to me what that mainstream is and who leads it.' If the 95% of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslims out there are not considered mainstream Muslims to you then I don't know what else I should tell you. Your question/comment is as silly as it gets.'
We've seen that the Sunni Muslim scholars have admitted that they deliberately left sunnah and chose path of other than God just to look different from Shia Muslims. It's a blatant lie and a shameful accusation that Shia Muslims 'deliberately' strive on disunity. It's us who are declared as infidels. It's us who are murdered in the name of jihad. It's us who are discriminated in Saudi Arabia. But again it's us who are accused of striving on disunity. Shia Muslims make 10% of total Muslim population in the world. Sunni Muslims made 85% of it. Others are small sects. 45% of Muslims follow the Hanafi Islam. Being in majority doesn't mean you're worthy to rule over others.
The second argument of Ali Ahmad is not even noteworthy.
Read this statement and then read the moaning of our dear author about Shia Muslims. The author has decided himself not to like/befriend any Shia Muslim. It's he who has sealed his heart for truth. Then he moans about us. He used hateful words for us and then says he has no personal grudge against us. Unbelievable.
The author is making me laugh at him. That's impossible. A Muslim living in United States can never celebrate Eid the same day a Muslim living in China celebrated. How can the author make such 'incredible' a statement again what all Muslims know? How can all Muslims all through the world celebrate Eid on one day? As I've shown with authentic news reports, Sunni Afghans celebrate Eid with Saudi Arabia, not with Pakistan. Aren't they striving on disunity?
Author said that when, protesting on the interpretation of Q. 9:107, Ali Ahmad stated that the difference in building mosques, 'is a matter of geographical observance regarding various locations around the world.' His argument is valid and we've seen that even Sunni Muslims build mosques different from each other. The debate is being more interesting. I thank the author to bring up this point as well. He said that our prayers are different from theirs. That's what we, Shia Muslims, say that the Sunni Muslims offer prayers differently from us. Well, he criticized our stone that we use to prostrate. First of all, we didn't invent this. It's related to the sunnah and our Imams taught it to us. This stone is known as turbah. It's not obligatory to prostrate on it but it's recommended. Prostrating on earth causes pleasure of God. That stone is used as an alternative to the soil. Moreover, the land of Karbala and specially its soil is important to Shia Muslims. So they take some of its soil and prostrate on it. It's just like we'll feel dignified offering prayers on a mat that had previously been used in Kaaba. That stone is also known as khumrah. The Prophet used to prostrate on a stone.
قال الشوكاني في النيل : قد ذهب إلى أنه لا بأس بالصلاة على الخمرة الجمهور
Shawkani said in his book, 'majority believes that there's nothing wrong in offering prayers on a khumrah.' (Exegesis of Tirmidhi)
Prostrating on a stone is the sunnah of the Companions too.
كَانَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ لا يَسْجُدُ ، أَوْ قَالَ : لا يُصَلِّي إِلا عَلَى الأَرْضِ
Then Ali Ahmad said that the Chinese build mosques differently from others. He further insisted that architectural differences shouldn't be brought up as religious ones.
The author gave me a thrill when he acted like he was going to show that the Chinese Muslims do build domes. I thought I would show him that not all Sunni mosques have domes. But then my thrill evaporated when the author broke his basic principle and shamefully admitted that the Chinese Muslims don't build mosques with domes (rather build mosques different ally from the mainstream Muslims). First, how did the author decide that Shia Muslims have different mosques because of evil purposes and Chinese Muslims have them because of good purposes? The dream-castle made by our dear author has been bulldozed over by his own confession that some Sunni Muslims build different mosques as well. He gave a lame reason that they try to win the hearts of disbelievers. They want to look similar to Chinese culture but don't want to look similar to their fellow Muslims? They want to build mosques different from 'mainstream' Muslims and strive on disunity just to win the hearts of some non-Muslims? They want to construct mosques that look like temples where idols are worshiped? Come on! Well, there's a philosophy behind debates. There's a shared base between the two opponents that they use to bring their proofs forward e.g. when a Muslim and a Christian debate, they share their faith in God. Similarly, the author has provided us with a base that constructing mosques different from 'normal-looking' mosques is a sign of hypocrisy. He was of this basic opinion that Shia Muslims shouldn't build mosques that look different from Sunni mosques. But now he's retreated from his base. He has confessed that some Sunni Muslims erect up mosques that remind us of temples. He has admitted that some Sunni Muslims build mosques that look different from other mosques. Way to go, Ali Ahmad!
Then Ali Ahmad said that we couldn't decide which way to building mosques is the mainstream way. He also said that even Sunni mosques look different from each other. It's very interesting. Let's see how the author replies to these arguments.
Sigh! May God guide you, author. May God protect you, Ali Ahmad. Author, dude, you didn't even bother to dedicate a line to the best part of the whole debate. Even Sunni Muslims build mosques that look different from each other.
Then Ali Ahmad criticized the author for stating that Shiites are different. He also criticized author's personal feelings towards Shia Muslims. No matter many knowledgeable people possess such disgusting feelings towards us. When Zakir Naik can pray for Yazid, everything can happen. Ali Ahmad further said that Shiites believe in five pillars of Islam. He also accused the author of possessing Salafi doctrines.
Now what kind of proof is this? God says in Q. 2:177 and we read in the celebrated Hadith of Gabriel that the one who believes in God, Day of Resurrection, prophets, books and angels, is a Muslim. Then how can Shiites be non-Muslims? No doubt God seizes common sense from the one who practices insincerity and prejudice.
The second argument of Ali Ahmad is not even noteworthy.
'The answer to your twisted, corrupt and blasphemous Shia logic is very simple.'
Read this statement and then read the moaning of our dear author about Shia Muslims. The author has decided himself not to like/befriend any Shia Muslim. It's he who has sealed his heart for truth. Then he moans about us. He used hateful words for us and then says he has no personal grudge against us. Unbelievable.
'Today, all of the 95% of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslim population worldwide celebrate this day exactly on the same day! All of them! The only ones who don't join in the celebration are the Shiites. And I am surprised that your scholars use this silly and blasphemous logic to come up with something to prove their absurdity.'
The author is making me laugh at him. That's impossible. A Muslim living in United States can never celebrate Eid the same day a Muslim living in China celebrated. How can the author make such 'incredible' a statement again what all Muslims know? How can all Muslims all through the world celebrate Eid on one day? As I've shown with authentic news reports, Sunni Afghans celebrate Eid with Saudi Arabia, not with Pakistan. Aren't they striving on disunity?
'This noble verse is actually a prophecy regarding the Shiites today! Your mosques are different and the are designed to purposely look different and unique. Not only that but your prayers are all different! You put a stone right in front of you and when you prostrate your face down to the ground, you bring your forehead right on top of it. Why did you first of all invent this? And who really gave you that authority?'
Author said that when, protesting on the interpretation of Q. 9:107, Ali Ahmad stated that the difference in building mosques, 'is a matter of geographical observance regarding various locations around the world.' His argument is valid and we've seen that even Sunni Muslims build mosques different from each other. The debate is being more interesting. I thank the author to bring up this point as well. He said that our prayers are different from theirs. That's what we, Shia Muslims, say that the Sunni Muslims offer prayers differently from us. Well, he criticized our stone that we use to prostrate. First of all, we didn't invent this. It's related to the sunnah and our Imams taught it to us. This stone is known as turbah. It's not obligatory to prostrate on it but it's recommended. Prostrating on earth causes pleasure of God. That stone is used as an alternative to the soil. Moreover, the land of Karbala and specially its soil is important to Shia Muslims. So they take some of its soil and prostrate on it. It's just like we'll feel dignified offering prayers on a mat that had previously been used in Kaaba. That stone is also known as khumrah. The Prophet used to prostrate on a stone.
'God's Messenger used to pray on khumrah. (Bukhari)
قال أبو عيسى حديث ابن عباس حديث حسن صحيح وبه يقول بعض أهل العلم وقال أحمد وإسحق قد ثبت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الصلاة على الخمرة قال أبو عيسى والخمرة هو حصير قصير
Abu Isa (Tirmidhi) said that this hadith of Ibn Abbas is hasan sahih and some scholars have repeated it and Ahmad and Is'haq say, 'it's evident that the Prophet used to offer prayers on a khumrah.' Abu Isa says that a khumrah is a short mat.قال الشوكاني في النيل : قد ذهب إلى أنه لا بأس بالصلاة على الخمرة الجمهور
Shawkani said in his book, 'majority believes that there's nothing wrong in offering prayers on a khumrah.' (Exegesis of Tirmidhi)
Prostrating on a stone is the sunnah of the Companions too.
كَانَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ لا يَسْجُدُ ، أَوْ قَالَ : لا يُصَلِّي إِلا عَلَى الأَرْضِ
Ibn Mas’ud never prayed or prostrated except on the soil. (Ibn Munzar)
Then Ali Ahmad said that the Chinese build mosques differently from others. He further insisted that architectural differences shouldn't be brought up as religious ones.
'So, unlike your Shia cult, those brothers and sisters in China are not trying to be different but rather they are trying to win the hearts of their disbelieving Chinese brethren but giving them temples that they can relate to without including the idol worship in them of course.'
The author gave me a thrill when he acted like he was going to show that the Chinese Muslims do build domes. I thought I would show him that not all Sunni mosques have domes. But then my thrill evaporated when the author broke his basic principle and shamefully admitted that the Chinese Muslims don't build mosques with domes (rather build mosques different ally from the mainstream Muslims). First, how did the author decide that Shia Muslims have different mosques because of evil purposes and Chinese Muslims have them because of good purposes? The dream-castle made by our dear author has been bulldozed over by his own confession that some Sunni Muslims build different mosques as well. He gave a lame reason that they try to win the hearts of disbelievers. They want to look similar to Chinese culture but don't want to look similar to their fellow Muslims? They want to build mosques different from 'mainstream' Muslims and strive on disunity just to win the hearts of some non-Muslims? They want to construct mosques that look like temples where idols are worshiped? Come on! Well, there's a philosophy behind debates. There's a shared base between the two opponents that they use to bring their proofs forward e.g. when a Muslim and a Christian debate, they share their faith in God. Similarly, the author has provided us with a base that constructing mosques different from 'normal-looking' mosques is a sign of hypocrisy. He was of this basic opinion that Shia Muslims shouldn't build mosques that look different from Sunni mosques. But now he's retreated from his base. He has confessed that some Sunni Muslims erect up mosques that remind us of temples. He has admitted that some Sunni Muslims build mosques that look different from other mosques. Way to go, Ali Ahmad!
Then Ali Ahmad said that we couldn't decide which way to building mosques is the mainstream way. He also said that even Sunni mosques look different from each other. It's very interesting. Let's see how the author replies to these arguments.
'It is more than enough proof that when a non-Muslim (someone who is neutral) sees any of your mosques, he/she can easily tell that they are Shia mosques.'
Sigh! May God guide you, author. May God protect you, Ali Ahmad. Author, dude, you didn't even bother to dedicate a line to the best part of the whole debate. Even Sunni Muslims build mosques that look different from each other.
Then Ali Ahmad criticized the author for stating that Shiites are different. He also criticized author's personal feelings towards Shia Muslims. No matter many knowledgeable people possess such disgusting feelings towards us. When Zakir Naik can pray for Yazid, everything can happen. Ali Ahmad further said that Shiites believe in five pillars of Islam. He also accused the author of possessing Salafi doctrines.
'Aside from all of the facts above about how different you are from the 95% of all Muslims out there but even in your personal prayers to God Almighty, you are still different from the 95% of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslims out there.'
Now what kind of proof is this? God says in Q. 2:177 and we read in the celebrated Hadith of Gabriel that the one who believes in God, Day of Resurrection, prophets, books and angels, is a Muslim. Then how can Shiites be non-Muslims? No doubt God seizes common sense from the one who practices insincerity and prejudice.
'But when you pray, you ask Ali instead of Allah Almighty! Your 'O Ali help' prayer is on your tongues almost 24 hours a day! You believe that by asking the spirit of Ali to help you that he can intercede to God Almighty and have God Almighty help you. The problem with your satanic way is that:
1) It is totally against the way the Prophet, peace be upon him, used to pray which we are supposed to imitate.
2) It totally and clearly nullifies and contradicts noble verse Q. 2:186 above, 'When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them). I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calls on Me' is completely nullified and contradicted when one prays to Ali instead of Allah Almighty.
'...When he calls on Me...' is actually a direct command by Allah Almighty that we must call only unto Him!'
Now that's what I call idiocy. The author lives in Middle Ages. He doesn't even know that we say 'O Ali help' not instead of offering prayers to God. We offer five prayers as well. We ask God for help as well. It's just like what every single human being alive does in his daily life. A man fell in the middle of the road and cried, 'help me.' A kid failed to solve a mathematical problem and asked his genius friend to help him. I forgot my pen in my home and asked a office companion to lend me his extra pen. Seeking help from others than God is not polytheism because even the Prophet did that. God says, 'But if they intend to deceive you then sufficient for you is God. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers' in Q. 8:62. And God asks us, Muslims, to help others when He says, 'And if they seek help of you for the religion then you must help' Q. 8:72. This shows that seeking help other than God is not prohibited in Islam. Shia Muslims don't replace Ali for God. By God, it's polytheism. Ali was a graceful servant of God and no matter how great he us, it's God's blessings upon him that he needs. God blessed him and granted His Apostle, Ali and other Imams, special powers to assist mankind. This is our doctrine. By God, we don't degrade God. The Prophet used to offer prayers the same way all Muslims do (regardless of petty differences). Shia Muslims also offer prayers. And Q. 2:186 doesn't say that we should seek help 'only' from God. It says that when you call God, He listens to you. The author has distorted the simple verse just in his hatred and prejudice.
'The intercession that your twisted scholars taught you to justify their idol worship of Ali is not done in this life time. It is done in the Day of Judgement when Allah Almighty will bring the prophets before their people to testify for them and against them. It is then Allah Almighty will allow some intercession to be done only for the believers by their prophets so that some of their sins might be forgiven.'
Intercession can be done in this world as well. We all believe that martyrs are alive. We also believe that the believers spend what they have in the way of the Lord (Q. 2:3). Martyrs are obviously believers. Doesn't this prove that martyrs can help us because they're alive and spend out of what God has provided for them? Umar sought the wasi'lah of Abbas for rain. (Bukhari) Invoking others than God is not polytheism because it's God who wants us to invoke them. For further proofs, refer to a good Website.
Imam Khomeini and Musa al Sadr deemed Alawites to be Muslims. As for believing that Ali is God so that's what they believe, not all Shia Muslims. Mainstream Shia Muslims who derive their religion from their 12 Imams, believe that Ali was a humble servant of God. Moreover, not all Alawites ascribe divinity to Ali.
'So, to the ordinary Muslims, it is beyond obvious that the Shia cult is actually a blasphemous cult! They are no less than the African-American 'Nation of Islam' who have their own false prophet; Baha'i, Ahmadiyyah, Ismailiyyah who also have their own false prophets and other false sects that emerged and might exist out there.'
The author should be ashamed of what he just said but we all know how shameless he is when he accused Shia Muslims of striving on disunity by constructing mosques differently but when he was shown that even Sunni Muslims construct mosques differently, retreated from his principle. Shia Islam is a respectable creed and we need nobody's approval to be known as Muslims. We believe in all it's needed to be known as a Muslim and that's enough. There are many terrorists like the author who hate Shia Muslims but we let them die burning in the fire of their hatred and jealousy. Nation of Islam believes that God met their prophet, Muhammad Elijah, in the form of a mortal. These two doctrines make them our of the fold of Islam. One sect of the Ahmadiyyah belongs to Islam because they don't deem Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet. They only see in him a messiah. The Ismailiyyah are proper Muslims. They have no false prophets as our devil-stricken author thinks. Their current leader is their Imam.
Yes, Shia Muslims believe in the spiritual inspirations of the Ahlul Bayt. What the author then wants to say, that's beyond my understanding. Well, his second line is based upon stupid prejudice. Our scholars don't base their decisions on some supernatural basis like this spiritual contact with the Ahlul Bayt. Our scholars are highly-educated people. To be an Ayatollah, you need to spend many years in the schools where the teachers teach you to be a good human and an educated Muslim. You study both religion and science along with many other subjects e.g. philosophy. Then you become an Ayatollah. An Ayatollah bases his verdicts and religious rulings on Qur'an, sunnah and the sayings of the Ahlul Bayt. Thus, there's no such difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
As we are concerned with Ali only, we'll answer only what he has written about him. Thus, we'll first start with his introductory lines.
'We must first of all know that in Islam, no human being is perfect.'
How can this person defend Islam when he doesn't even know that the first human being who is perfect in Islam was Adam? I'm not talking about infallibility. The one who makes no sin is called an infallble. Adam was infallible as well but not like the Ahlul Bayt. Adam was not 100% infallible. As for being perfect so Adam was perfect. Every prophet and every messenger is perfect. God sends them as models and teachers for us. How can God send imperfect samples or faulty teachers? My dear author, how can you claim to answer the objections made by the enemies of Islam when your basic principles are enough to weaken the power of Islamic truth?
There's no doubt that the Prophet was infallible. He made not a single mistake in his life. 'And indeed you're of a great moral character', says God in Q. 68:4. He also wants us to follow the excellent example of the Prophet (Q. 33:21). Then these verses take the honor of silencing all contenders: 'By the star when it descends. Your companion (Muhammad) has not strayed nor has he erred. Nor does he speak from (his own) inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.' (Q. 53:1-4)
'To the Shiites's credit, the Alawites were completely denounced by them. But nonetheless, they were a section of people from the Shiites that emerged for some period of time and declared that Ali is the creator of the universe who came down to earth in a human flesh form, exactly as the polytheist trinitarian pagans believe regarding Jesus!'
Imam Khomeini and Musa al Sadr deemed Alawites to be Muslims. As for believing that Ali is God so that's what they believe, not all Shia Muslims. Mainstream Shia Muslims who derive their religion from their 12 Imams, believe that Ali was a humble servant of God. Moreover, not all Alawites ascribe divinity to Ali.
'So, to the ordinary Muslims, it is beyond obvious that the Shia cult is actually a blasphemous cult! They are no less than the African-American 'Nation of Islam' who have their own false prophet; Baha'i, Ahmadiyyah, Ismailiyyah who also have their own false prophets and other false sects that emerged and might exist out there.'
The author should be ashamed of what he just said but we all know how shameless he is when he accused Shia Muslims of striving on disunity by constructing mosques differently but when he was shown that even Sunni Muslims construct mosques differently, retreated from his principle. Shia Islam is a respectable creed and we need nobody's approval to be known as Muslims. We believe in all it's needed to be known as a Muslim and that's enough. There are many terrorists like the author who hate Shia Muslims but we let them die burning in the fire of their hatred and jealousy. Nation of Islam believes that God met their prophet, Muhammad Elijah, in the form of a mortal. These two doctrines make them our of the fold of Islam. One sect of the Ahmadiyyah belongs to Islam because they don't deem Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet. They only see in him a messiah. The Ismailiyyah are proper Muslims. They have no false prophets as our devil-stricken author thinks. Their current leader is their Imam.
'The Shiites also believe in the spiritual inspirations of the 'Ahlul Bayt' or 'The People of the House of the Prophet'. Their scholars actually believe that they can get inspirations from those people's spirits through prayer. That is why they call their decisions as 'The decisions of Ahlul Bayt' because they strongly believe that their scholars's decisions are inspired by the spirits of Ahlul Bayt. So as the reader clearly sees, the Shiites are different in many things from the mainstream Muslims; the 95% of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide.'
Yes, Shia Muslims believe in the spiritual inspirations of the Ahlul Bayt. What the author then wants to say, that's beyond my understanding. Well, his second line is based upon stupid prejudice. Our scholars don't base their decisions on some supernatural basis like this spiritual contact with the Ahlul Bayt. Our scholars are highly-educated people. To be an Ayatollah, you need to spend many years in the schools where the teachers teach you to be a good human and an educated Muslim. You study both religion and science along with many other subjects e.g. philosophy. Then you become an Ayatollah. An Ayatollah bases his verdicts and religious rulings on Qur'an, sunnah and the sayings of the Ahlul Bayt. Thus, there's no such difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
None of the four Caliphs were infallible
'We must first of all know that in Islam, no human being is perfect.'
How can this person defend Islam when he doesn't even know that the first human being who is perfect in Islam was Adam? I'm not talking about infallibility. The one who makes no sin is called an infallble. Adam was infallible as well but not like the Ahlul Bayt. Adam was not 100% infallible. As for being perfect so Adam was perfect. Every prophet and every messenger is perfect. God sends them as models and teachers for us. How can God send imperfect samples or faulty teachers? My dear author, how can you claim to answer the objections made by the enemies of Islam when your basic principles are enough to weaken the power of Islamic truth?
There's no doubt that the Prophet was infallible. He made not a single mistake in his life. 'And indeed you're of a great moral character', says God in Q. 68:4. He also wants us to follow the excellent example of the Prophet (Q. 33:21). Then these verses take the honor of silencing all contenders: 'By the star when it descends. Your companion (Muhammad) has not strayed nor has he erred. Nor does he speak from (his own) inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.' (Q. 53:1-4)
The author, willing to prove that no human being is perfect, quoted Q. 35:45. This verse doesn't mean that all the people in the world are sinners. If God had dealt with all the sinners on earth with strict justice, everyone would have long since perished. The fact is that these two verses neither speak of this worldly punishment nor that of the next world. They speak of the natural consequence of the unjust deeds of a nation. The natural consequences of its deeds do not remain confined to the wicked of society but encompasses all its members irrespective of their personalities and conduct. This is what God says in Q. 8:25, 'And fear a trial which will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively and know that God is severe in penalty.' It's our observation that many believers spend their lives in poverty and persecution and then die. Why? It can't be because of wrath of God because they're believers. The answer is simple that the natural consequences of the evil deeds of a society encompasses all its members, both bad and good. When as a result of their misconduct, Israelis were doomed to roaming about in the desert, this punishment did not remain confined to the wicked. It equally affected Moses who was the most pure and active person of his time and who most courageously had faced the tyrant and his tyranny.
'So for those Muslims who believe in killing other Muslims and calling them 'infidels' for the sake of any Caliph or person such as Aisha (she was our Prophet's wife. Some Muslim Shiites call her a 'whore'. May Allah Almighty punish them severely for this) may Allah Almighty be pleased with her, will only lead you to the ultimate destruction and to the great torture of hell because none of the people whom you would kill other Muslims for, was sinless!'
I thank the author for calling us Muslims and condemning our killings by the terrorists. Then I'd like to cause an advantageous increase in the knowledge of the author that Shia Muslims don't call Aisha a whore. If some Shia Muslims believe that she was a whore then they should be punished for accusing Mother of Believers of such a heinous crime. I'm a Shia Muslim and I testify that Aisha wasn't a whore. We, Shia Muslims, have a lot of reservations with her but she wasn't such a lady who could commit adultery.
'The Muslim Shiites also make a big mistake when they claim that their so called '12 Imams' or 12 Ministers are all perfect, sinless and infallible because according to noble verses 35:45 and 16:61 above, no human being that ever existed or will exist is!'
First, I want to make it clear that the author's calling us 'Muslim Shiites' doesn't mean that he considers all of us to be Muslims. That's his ignorance because who is not a Muslim, can't be a Shia. It's just like no Sunni can be a non-Muslim. Shia Islam is a honorable creed in Islam and shouldn't be treated like a cult. Then, I'd daresay that as we, Shia Muslims, disagree with his misinterpretation of those two noble verse; we aren't satisfied yet. The author should bring strong proofs that no human being's infallible. Q. 4:59 wants us to obey God, the Prophet and those in authority over us. This verse proves that the Prophet and those in authority over us (Imams) are infallible. God, in this verse, wants unconditional obedience. It doesn't go like, 'obey them if they go right'. This verse wants us to obey them just like God. Just like we obey God, we have to obey the Prophet and the Imams otherwise there'll be an error in this verse. Even Al Razi, in his commentary of this verse, has admitted that it's necessary for those in authority over us to be infallible. Shah Isma'il of Delhi whom Indian Sunni Muslims revere as a martyr and a great scholar, writes in his famous book Mansab e Imamat that one superior rank in sainthood is infallibility. There are many proofs for infallibility of the Imams which you can read in this article of Shia Pen. I'll deal with one hadith and commentary on it only.
'God never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisers: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisers) is the one protected by God. (Bukhari)
والمراد به إثبات الأمور كلها لله تعالى : فهو الذي يعصم من شاء منهم " فالمعصوم من عصمه الله لا من عصمته نفسه " إذ لا يوجد من تعصمه نفسه حقيقة إلا إن كان الله عصمه
Then the author quotes the famous hadith in which the Prophet equalizes Ali with Aaron. But the comment made by the author is based upon sheer ignorant attitude towards the truth.
'In fact, Aaron never ruled the People of Israel! Joshua took the leadership after Moses, peace be upon him, died. So Ali being like Aaron does not automatically qualify him to be the leader after Prophet Muhammad.'
Let's analyze the meanings of this hadith in the light of Qur'an only. Moses and Aaron were brothers (Q. 19:53) so the Prophet and Ali automatically become brothers. Aaron was Moses's vizier, assistant and second-in-command (Q. 20:29-36) so Ali automatically becomes the Prophet's minister, assistant and second-in-command. Aaron replaced Moses as the leader of the Jews when Moses went to get Torah (Q. 7:142). This means that if the Prophet disappears from our sight, it'll be Ali to who will be in charge of us. Aaron actually died before Moses. That's why Joshua succeeded Moses after his death. But that wasn't the same in the case of the Prophet and Ali. It was the Prophet who passed away before Ali so Ali automatically became his successor.
Then there's another article written by a person whom I'll not name because he uses foul language. He answered the above article and his article is refuted by the author of this article. The refuter begins with accusing an author of apostasy. I would like to condemn the refuter; he can refute whomever he wants but he can't declare anyone as an apostate. That's insulting as well as highly dangerous. Then the author refutes him by quoting a hadith that accusing a Muslim of disbelief in disbelief itself. I would like to remind this the author that Shiites have been accused on the same thing on your Website. Wouldn't you like to condemn it? Then the refuter stated that all Companions are in paradise. That's foolishness because a Companion who fought in the company of the Prophet against the Jews became a dweller of hell. (Bukhari) And quoting Q. 9:100 is useless as well because it refers to those who believed, not those who were hypocrites. Q. 57:10 refers to the same people as well. The author, responding to the refuter's claim about the Companions, didn't make any comment about whether all of them will be in paradise or not. Then the refuter begins to praise the four Caliphs. He's forgetting that our real objective is to prove whether they were perfect/infallible or not. The refuter also stated that love for the Companions is an important constituent of faith. I'll disagree with him. Q. 2:177 and the famous Hadith of Gabriel have stated the actual five pillars of Islam. Adding something else makes the faith of the refuter doubtful. Q. 48:29, according to Shia Muslims, refer wholly to Ali. Q. 48:18 refers to believers specifically and it's a covenant. Those Companions who run away in Battle of Hunain, broke the covenant mentioned in Q. 48:18. So how can they deserve the reward? The issue with Q. 9:117 isn't different. Q. 9:20 begins with the word 'believers'. The same is with Q. 8:74, 9:88, 24:55 and 48:26. Then the refuter shows a hadith which forbids abusing/slandering the Companions. The author gave a great answer that abusing the Companions doesn't make someone an infidel. Then the refuter fired many hadiths in praise of the Companions and stated that ten Companions were given the glad tidings of paradise in their lifetime? Oh, is that so? Then why do you say that all Companions are in paradise because such glad tidings are proper for those ten only as you're just saying? If all Companions are in paradise then there's nothing excellent about glad tiding for those ten. Then he said that many verses were revealed when Umar suggested them? It's another lie. Those hadiths tell us that Umar said something but the Prophet said something else; God agreed with Umar and revealed a verse. What the hell is this? Did Umar know to much that his knowledge exceeded even that of the Prophet?
The first picture in this article (that begins the article) is of a Shia Muslim who almost cut his back open. I've said that such acts are not permissible in Shia Islam. Imam Ayatollah Khomeini banned bloody self-flagellation. I personally have never used any weapon while flagellating myself. I always do that with my hands only.
Then he posted a link of his debate with a Shia Muslim which he boasts of. He has shown again that same picture of a man who cuts his back open. Then he criticizes infallibility of Imams and repeats those two verses which he has misinterpreted. I think it's time now for further proofs of infallibility of Imams. Q. 33:33 refers to the Ahlul Bayt and proves that they were infallible. (I'll deal with another article by the same Website where the author has tried to prove that Q. 33:33 was revealed about the Wives of the Prophet) The Prophet equalizes Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt saying, 'I'm leaving behind you two things i.e. Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt.' It's out of question that Qur'an is infallible. But equalizing the Ahlul Bayt with the infallible Qur'an is a great proof that the Ahlul Bayt are free from sins and mistakes as well. What's else is that Mary and Jesus were infallible as well.
If a scholar thinks that God will not hear our supplications then he should be boycotted. This is a blasphemous view of God. God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He is the greatest and He is the mightiest. It's improper to accuse Him of faults. Muhammad Shirazi, explaining Shia beliefs, says about God, 'The Shia Muslims believes that Allah is the lord and maintainer and that He is the creator of this wide existence which contains millions of galaxies in which are stars larger than our sun by sixty million times, the sun being larger than the earth by thousands of times. This is Allah who has no partner or associate and He is just in his acts and commands, everlasting and subsisting, eternally living, all knowing and all powerful, giving of life and death. In His hands is all good and He has power over all things.' A Shia Imam said about God, 'The exalted, the glorious, Allah, our lord, is eternal. Knowledge is His self even if there is nothing to be known. Hearing is His self even if there is nothing to be heard. Seeing is His self even when there is nothing to be seen. Power is His self even if there is nothing to feel the power. When He brought things into existence, the
perceptible objects became the objects of His knowledge. His hearing applied to audible objects. His seeing to visible objects and His power to the objects that feel power.' You can read it in Al Kafi. Also read the very first sermon of Ali in Peak of Eloquence.
Then he gave some inaccessible links of some videos I think where he claimed to prove that Shia scholars have blasphemous views about God and Qur'an. I'm waiting for him to write them down and then I'll show that even his books and his scholars have mega-blasphemous views about the entire Islam. That's why I feel safe in behind the impermeable ironic shield of Shia Islam.
Then he compares Shia Muslims with the Devil who didn't directly disrespect God but his saying that God is wrong in commanding him to bow down before Adam, is an open blasphemy. I'm refraining from quoting the author because I have lack of space. This's my Blog, not a proper Website. But this comment: I want my readers to have a look at it.
'I personally don't think that Shiites really and truly appreciate the wisdom behind believing in the one true living God Almighty and associating no partners with Him.'
That's what he thinks because he's unaware of the truth. Shia Muslims are the real monotheists and accusing an ardent follower of monotheism is not proper for a man like our author who has dedicated his life to fight against the enemies of Islam. May God bless him and make the truth of his Shia brethren revealed unto him. We really want him to see our real face which will impress him and he'll be convinced that Shia and Sunni Muslims have no basic difference.
Then he asks us three questions.
'1) Are the following pictures, pictures of sane people or deceived fools?
2) Do you honestly believe that God Almighty really wants you to beat yourself like that or beat yourself at all?
3) If you don't then fear His warning in noble verses 18:104, 6:21-26 and all of the other ones above!'
The answers are as below:
1) The following pictures are of deceived fools who don't know that these kinds of self-flagellation are not allowed in Islam.
2) No, God doesn't want us to beat ourselves like that. He just wants us to beat ourselves, mourning for the martyrs of Battle of Karbala.
3) Q. 18:104 refers to the author because he's wasting his time accusing his fellow Muslims of disbelief. As for the second set of verses, we don't invent lies rather this's all what is written in Sunni books. They should study their own faith to know the truth of our faith because we're all Muslims, interconnected at different levels.
Then he posted many pictures of Shia Muslims bleeding them to death. Some even harm their children, Such savage practices; I disown them. Shia Islam discourages them. Our scholars prohibit them. What else? But even after so many prohibitions, a Shia Muslim doesn't retreat, it's his fault, not of his creed's.
The reason why they beat themselves is because they believe that this beating is a physical punishment and purification to them for not defending Husain when he set out from Medina to Iraq to re-establish the true Islamic Caliphate that his father and his older brother, Ali and Hasan, tried but failed to establish...Hasan who was Husain's older brother, made peace and ended all bloodshed when he became the Caliph. This is also why some Shiites don't like Hasan. Husain was fooled by the ones who called him from Iraq and who promised him to stand with him to the end this time and to not desert him like they did with his father. Husain set out from Medina (in Saudi Arabia) to Iraq to restart all bloodshed again but he was cut off by the opposing side's troops and was killed in what Shiites believe in the town of Karbala, in Iraq. The Shiites beat themselves and their children today almost to death (1500 years later) for this reason that they were cowards who deserted Ali, Hasan and Husain.'
'God never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisers: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisers) is the one protected by God. (Bukhari)
والمراد به إثبات الأمور كلها لله تعالى : فهو الذي يعصم من شاء منهم " فالمعصوم من عصمه الله لا من عصمته نفسه " إذ لا يوجد من تعصمه نفسه حقيقة إلا إن كان الله عصمه
And what is meant by it, is to prove that God is the controller over all things so He makes infallible whom He wants from them. So the Infallible is the one who is made infallible by God and not by himself because there isn't anyone whose self makes him infallible except if God has made him infallible.
(Interpretation of Bukhari)Then the author quotes the famous hadith in which the Prophet equalizes Ali with Aaron. But the comment made by the author is based upon sheer ignorant attitude towards the truth.
'In fact, Aaron never ruled the People of Israel! Joshua took the leadership after Moses, peace be upon him, died. So Ali being like Aaron does not automatically qualify him to be the leader after Prophet Muhammad.'
Let's analyze the meanings of this hadith in the light of Qur'an only. Moses and Aaron were brothers (Q. 19:53) so the Prophet and Ali automatically become brothers. Aaron was Moses's vizier, assistant and second-in-command (Q. 20:29-36) so Ali automatically becomes the Prophet's minister, assistant and second-in-command. Aaron replaced Moses as the leader of the Jews when Moses went to get Torah (Q. 7:142). This means that if the Prophet disappears from our sight, it'll be Ali to who will be in charge of us. Aaron actually died before Moses. That's why Joshua succeeded Moses after his death. But that wasn't the same in the case of the Prophet and Ali. It was the Prophet who passed away before Ali so Ali automatically became his successor.
Then there's another article written by a person whom I'll not name because he uses foul language. He answered the above article and his article is refuted by the author of this article. The refuter begins with accusing an author of apostasy. I would like to condemn the refuter; he can refute whomever he wants but he can't declare anyone as an apostate. That's insulting as well as highly dangerous. Then the author refutes him by quoting a hadith that accusing a Muslim of disbelief in disbelief itself. I would like to remind this the author that Shiites have been accused on the same thing on your Website. Wouldn't you like to condemn it? Then the refuter stated that all Companions are in paradise. That's foolishness because a Companion who fought in the company of the Prophet against the Jews became a dweller of hell. (Bukhari) And quoting Q. 9:100 is useless as well because it refers to those who believed, not those who were hypocrites. Q. 57:10 refers to the same people as well. The author, responding to the refuter's claim about the Companions, didn't make any comment about whether all of them will be in paradise or not. Then the refuter begins to praise the four Caliphs. He's forgetting that our real objective is to prove whether they were perfect/infallible or not. The refuter also stated that love for the Companions is an important constituent of faith. I'll disagree with him. Q. 2:177 and the famous Hadith of Gabriel have stated the actual five pillars of Islam. Adding something else makes the faith of the refuter doubtful. Q. 48:29, according to Shia Muslims, refer wholly to Ali. Q. 48:18 refers to believers specifically and it's a covenant. Those Companions who run away in Battle of Hunain, broke the covenant mentioned in Q. 48:18. So how can they deserve the reward? The issue with Q. 9:117 isn't different. Q. 9:20 begins with the word 'believers'. The same is with Q. 8:74, 9:88, 24:55 and 48:26. Then the refuter shows a hadith which forbids abusing/slandering the Companions. The author gave a great answer that abusing the Companions doesn't make someone an infidel. Then the refuter fired many hadiths in praise of the Companions and stated that ten Companions were given the glad tidings of paradise in their lifetime? Oh, is that so? Then why do you say that all Companions are in paradise because such glad tidings are proper for those ten only as you're just saying? If all Companions are in paradise then there's nothing excellent about glad tiding for those ten. Then he said that many verses were revealed when Umar suggested them? It's another lie. Those hadiths tell us that Umar said something but the Prophet said something else; God agreed with Umar and revealed a verse. What the hell is this? Did Umar know to much that his knowledge exceeded even that of the Prophet?
Some Muslims (like Shiites) are polytheists
The first picture in this article (that begins the article) is of a Shia Muslim who almost cut his back open. I've said that such acts are not permissible in Shia Islam. Imam Ayatollah Khomeini banned bloody self-flagellation. I personally have never used any weapon while flagellating myself. I always do that with my hands only.
Then he posted a link of his debate with a Shia Muslim which he boasts of. He has shown again that same picture of a man who cuts his back open. Then he criticizes infallibility of Imams and repeats those two verses which he has misinterpreted. I think it's time now for further proofs of infallibility of Imams. Q. 33:33 refers to the Ahlul Bayt and proves that they were infallible. (I'll deal with another article by the same Website where the author has tried to prove that Q. 33:33 was revealed about the Wives of the Prophet) The Prophet equalizes Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt saying, 'I'm leaving behind you two things i.e. Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt.' It's out of question that Qur'an is infallible. But equalizing the Ahlul Bayt with the infallible Qur'an is a great proof that the Ahlul Bayt are free from sins and mistakes as well. What's else is that Mary and Jesus were infallible as well.
'Shiites are commonly known to call unto members from Ahlul Bayt for:
1. Help.
2. Guidance.3. Mercy.4. Forgiveness.
This is very common among Shiites. Their top scholars were recorded on many times on TV saying that praying to Allah Almighty will not be heard because Allah Almighty is:
1. Too far
2. Too busy
3. Will not take notice of the Prayer or Supplication.
4. The Prayer or Supplication will not reach Him.'
3. Will not take notice of the Prayer or Supplication.
4. The Prayer or Supplication will not reach Him.'
If a scholar thinks that God will not hear our supplications then he should be boycotted. This is a blasphemous view of God. God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He is the greatest and He is the mightiest. It's improper to accuse Him of faults. Muhammad Shirazi, explaining Shia beliefs, says about God, 'The Shia Muslims believes that Allah is the lord and maintainer and that He is the creator of this wide existence which contains millions of galaxies in which are stars larger than our sun by sixty million times, the sun being larger than the earth by thousands of times. This is Allah who has no partner or associate and He is just in his acts and commands, everlasting and subsisting, eternally living, all knowing and all powerful, giving of life and death. In His hands is all good and He has power over all things.' A Shia Imam said about God, 'The exalted, the glorious, Allah, our lord, is eternal. Knowledge is His self even if there is nothing to be known. Hearing is His self even if there is nothing to be heard. Seeing is His self even when there is nothing to be seen. Power is His self even if there is nothing to feel the power. When He brought things into existence, the
perceptible objects became the objects of His knowledge. His hearing applied to audible objects. His seeing to visible objects and His power to the objects that feel power.' You can read it in Al Kafi. Also read the very first sermon of Ali in Peak of Eloquence.
Then he gave some inaccessible links of some videos I think where he claimed to prove that Shia scholars have blasphemous views about God and Qur'an. I'm waiting for him to write them down and then I'll show that even his books and his scholars have mega-blasphemous views about the entire Islam. That's why I feel safe in behind the impermeable ironic shield of Shia Islam.
Then he compares Shia Muslims with the Devil who didn't directly disrespect God but his saying that God is wrong in commanding him to bow down before Adam, is an open blasphemy. I'm refraining from quoting the author because I have lack of space. This's my Blog, not a proper Website. But this comment: I want my readers to have a look at it.
'I personally don't think that Shiites really and truly appreciate the wisdom behind believing in the one true living God Almighty and associating no partners with Him.'
That's what he thinks because he's unaware of the truth. Shia Muslims are the real monotheists and accusing an ardent follower of monotheism is not proper for a man like our author who has dedicated his life to fight against the enemies of Islam. May God bless him and make the truth of his Shia brethren revealed unto him. We really want him to see our real face which will impress him and he'll be convinced that Shia and Sunni Muslims have no basic difference.
Then he asks us three questions.
'1) Are the following pictures, pictures of sane people or deceived fools?
2) Do you honestly believe that God Almighty really wants you to beat yourself like that or beat yourself at all?
3) If you don't then fear His warning in noble verses 18:104, 6:21-26 and all of the other ones above!'
The answers are as below:
1) The following pictures are of deceived fools who don't know that these kinds of self-flagellation are not allowed in Islam.
2) No, God doesn't want us to beat ourselves like that. He just wants us to beat ourselves, mourning for the martyrs of Battle of Karbala.
3) Q. 18:104 refers to the author because he's wasting his time accusing his fellow Muslims of disbelief. As for the second set of verses, we don't invent lies rather this's all what is written in Sunni books. They should study their own faith to know the truth of our faith because we're all Muslims, interconnected at different levels.
Then he posted many pictures of Shia Muslims bleeding them to death. Some even harm their children, Such savage practices; I disown them. Shia Islam discourages them. Our scholars prohibit them. What else? But even after so many prohibitions, a Shia Muslim doesn't retreat, it's his fault, not of his creed's.
The reason why they beat themselves is because they believe that this beating is a physical punishment and purification to them for not defending Husain when he set out from Medina to Iraq to re-establish the true Islamic Caliphate that his father and his older brother, Ali and Hasan, tried but failed to establish...Hasan who was Husain's older brother, made peace and ended all bloodshed when he became the Caliph. This is also why some Shiites don't like Hasan. Husain was fooled by the ones who called him from Iraq and who promised him to stand with him to the end this time and to not desert him like they did with his father. Husain set out from Medina (in Saudi Arabia) to Iraq to restart all bloodshed again but he was cut off by the opposing side's troops and was killed in what Shiites believe in the town of Karbala, in Iraq. The Shiites beat themselves and their children today almost to death (1500 years later) for this reason that they were cowards who deserted Ali, Hasan and Husain.'
The author is a fool. May God curse him and punish him severely. He has insulted Imams Hasan and Husain, the two grandsons of the Prophet. Now my readers can see his real ugly face. We prayed for him because we thought he's just unaware of the truth but now we know that he's one of the followers of Yazid. Did you read what he said? He said that Shia Muslims beat themselves to punish themselves for not helping Husain. He said that Imam Husain set out for Caliphate. He said that Hasan is hated by some Shia Muslims. He used he word 'fool' for Husain that he was fooled. He said that Husain set out to restart bloodshed. Again, may God's curse be upon this hypocrite who fooled us by defending Islam but actually was an enemy of Islam himself. I'm a Shia Muslim and I'm saying that those who left Husain helpless were not Shia Muslims. Shia Muslims beat themselves in grief and sorrow only. We mourn for him because he was our loved one, not our victim. Husain didn't set out for throne. Does someone set out for that purpose with his women and children accompanying him? His purpose was not to owe fealty of Yazid, the author's predecessor. No Shia Muslim can hate Hasan because who hates him, is not a Shia Muslim. Husain didn't want to start any bloodshed. He left Medina and later Mecca to prevent bloodshed.
Then he asks us some questions. I'll answer them only. You can read them on his article.
1) No.
2) We were never guilty of murder of any of our Imams. We beat ourselves because when a man loses his loved ones, he mourns for him and beats himself. This is mentioned in Qur'an. Even the Prophet and the Companions practiced self-flagellation. We don't punish ourselves for not helping or murdering them.
3) Using weapons in self-flagellation and harming children like this is not allowed in Shia Islam.
4) Those who harm their children are savages and Shia Islam disowns their such acts.
5) No, you're not guilty but you are guilty of disrespecting them and I demand your public apology for what you said about Husain and us.
6) No, you didn't.
7) No, you didn't.
Then the author criticizes people like me who disown bloody self-flagellation.
'And who told you that the unjustified murder of Caliph Ali and his son Husain should be taken to this extreme that you should punish yourself and your innocent children for it? Millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of innocent humans died and will die throughout history and even prophets were slain by evil doers.'
First of all, you can't beat your children in the name of self-flagellation. Second, we don't punish ourselves. Third, the death of Husain isn't equal to the death of common people. He died for Islam. He died to save the religion of his grandfather. If he had owed fealty to Yazid, Islam would be doomed. You should thank him for saving your souls, author. Self-flagellation is allowed in Islam. Jacob wept so much that he lost his sight (Q. 12:84). Sarah, the wife of Abraham, hit her head in grief (Q. 51:29). According to a fake hadith, the Prophet hit his thighs in grief and sorrow. (Bukhari) Aisha hit herself when the Prophet died and this report has been transmitted with a good chain. Zainab, the daughter of Husain, practiced self-flagellation and that's what Ibn Kathir tells us.
Then the author said that the word 'Shia' has been used in Qur'an in negative. Well, Shah Abd al Aziz who was a great Indian Sunni scholar, writes in his famous anti-Shia book that 'Shia' was the title that was first given to the ancestors of Sunni Muslims, the Companions of Ali. 'Abraham was among the Shiites of Noah', says God in Q. 37:83. The people of Moses were Shiites as we read in Q. 28:15.
هذا من شيعته . وهذا من عدوه " أي : هذا مؤمن وهذا كافر
This is among his Shiites and that is among his enemies; this is a believer and that is a disbeliever.
هو أنت وشيعتك يوم القيامة راضين مرضيين
(The best of creation) are you (O Ali) and your Shiites. You all will be, on the doomsday, pleased.
The author has displayed only the negative side i.e. the places where 'Shia' has been used negatively. 'Hadith' has also been used negatively for misleading speech (Q. 31:6). 'Imam' has also been used in Qur'an for those who invite others to hell (Q. 28:41).
'The Shia cult is not Islam. It is a pagan and polytheistic religion. This doesn't mean that all Shiites are disbelievers. Like in every religion, many of the average people are ignorant about the details of their religions. Such Shiites are still Muslims. But quite honestly, I believe there are only a few of them who are like that. The Shiites that I've spoken with seemed to all have full knowledge of what they do and what they say. Those people are definitely polytheists and disbelievers.'
So this is how the author, full of hatred and ignorance, finished his article. We've proven that Shia Islam is a sect in Islam. Like the extremists say, Shia Islam is not a cult. The fools have accused even Islam to be the world's largest cult. We can't put a zip on someone's mouth. Well, I don't want to say more except for this: Author, no one needs your approval to be known as a Muslim. Even if a Shia Muslim beats himself up to death, he's a Muslim.
First of all, alcohol was never allowed in Islam for the first place. Alcohol wasn't simply banned. Then God gradually prohibited alcohol altogether. The same is not with temporary marriage. It was never forbidden in Islam. All hadiths regarding its prohibition are fake and were produced to cover up Umar's ban on it. We'll see it later when the author will come with his old proofs.
Then the author said that God didn't even like divorce so why would he allow temporary marriage? I also have a question. If this was so then why temporary marriage was allowed by the Prophet? Moreover, divorce is not forbidden in Islam. Keeping the marriage is preferred over it. Similarly, normal marriage is preferred over temporary marriage. But that doesn't prohibit temporary marriage.
Then the author said that as temporary marriage requires no witnesses, it's not allowed. I want to ask him something. Does concubinage requires witnesses? Of course, not. Their are two kinds of marriage i.e. permanent and temporary. It's the permanent marriage that requires witnesses. In temporary marriage.
Then the author showed Q. 2:241 which says that the divorced women has a right to a reasonable livelihood. He's imposing his interpretation on us. Shia Muslims believe it's not a compulsion rather a recommendation because God, instead of the word 'believers', had used the word 'the pious'.
'The command is in respect of all the divorces. The proviso of piety: 'those who guard against evil' implies that it is a recommendation, not a compulsion.'
(Al Mizan)
Then the author gave the verses obligating iddah on the divorced women. The author is forgetting the there's iddah in temporary marriage. A period of 45 days is the minimum iddah for a woman engaged in temporary marriage.
Then the author stated that, according to Q. 4:21, marriage is a solemn covenant. He argued that how temporary marriage be solemn when it's destined for divorce. The answer is again simple. Marriage is a solemn covenant but when a couple decides to separate, this covenant breaks as well and its strength fades away with its tightness. But divorce is not prohibited in Islam. Similarly, permanent marriage is preferred over temporary marriage. Temporary marriage is a mercy of God upon those who're sexually obsessed.
Then the author shed some light on importance of marrying only one woman. Indeed, it's better to keep only one woman in you harem if you can't support others but marrying four women is not prohibited. Similarly, temporary marriage is not better than permanent marriage. If I can marry a woman and spend my entire life with her, why would I spend some nights with a woman temporarily? When I can travel in airplane, why would I choose buses?
The author is so idiot that he doesn't even know there's no divorce in temporary marriage. When a man and woman agrees to marry temporarily, they live together until the specified time and the get themselves separated from each other. The author quoted hadiths from Shia sources discouraging divorce only. Indeed, divorce is the most detestable permissible things before God. But this has nothing to do with temporary marriage. Laws of permanent and temporary marriage aren't 100% similar; they are different at some stages.
Then the author quoted a fake hadith attributed to Imam Jafar that temporary marriage is equal to adultery. He only named the book and neither mentioned the proper link nor refer us to the original book. None of the books of Shia Muslims are purely authentic except for Peak of Eloquence. And the book he named as 'Bidayat al Mujtahid' is a Sunni (Maliki) work by Averroes.
Then the author quoted another author who claimed that the Prophet prohibited temporary marriage twice in his lifetime. Now the time has come to show these freaks that temporary marriage was allows and prohibited many times (according to Sunni Islam) and the Prophet, after prohibiting it forever, took an improper u-turn and re-allowed it (according to Sunni books). Before quoting those gibberish hadiths, I'll answer this claim of the second author that hadiths about prohibition of temporary marriage can be found in Shia books as well. Let's have a look at the chain of narrators of that hadith.
(Tahdhib al Ahkam, volume #7, page #251)
Ibn Hibban says that the hadiths of Husain ibn Alwan are all fabricated except for one. Al Khoei says about him that he was an Aammi and that's what Shia Muslims call a Sunni narrator. Hasan, Husain's brother, was more reliable than him. Thus, Husain fabricated that hadith to support Umar's prohibition on temporary marriage. As for the author of Tahdhib al Ahkam saying that Ali said that hadith under taqiyyah so Ali could not change his viewpoint under taqiyyah as he was the Imam of his time.
أقول : حمله الشيخ وغيره (2) على التقية ـ يعني في الرواية ـ
It's said that the author (of Tahdhib al Ahkam) talked about taqiyyah so it means that there's taqiyyah in the narration (not in the part of Ali).
(Wasa'il al Shia, volume #21, hadith #26387)
The second author also stated that 99% percent of the Companions believed in illegitimacy of temporary marriage. That's a blatant lie. How did he conclude that? We don't even know about 99% of the Companions. There are only a few about whom we know. How can a person make such a stupid claim? I can name some of those Companions and the Companions of the Companions (Taba'in) who believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. The second author, showing how backwards he is, quoted the same fake or misunderstood hadiths the enemies of Shia Islam bring up against legitimacy of temporary marriage.
He ignorantly states that Al Kafi and Bihar al Anwar are highly authentic Shia books however that's a lie that idiot has made. A man who doesn't even know that these books are valuable, not highly authentic, thinks that he'll easily defeat Shia Muslims in debate. The first hadith: The author said that the first hadiths recommended us not to let virgins engage in temporary marriage. But the truth is:
The author misquoted the first hadith. As for the second hadith which says that we mustn't insult a female believer by marrying her temporarily so the chain is faulty; it's not complete.
Then the author asks some questions. He asks whether temporary marriage is moral. I will answer is yes. Then he asks whether Qur'an believed that temporary marriage is immoral or not. I will answer in no; it was Qur'an that allowed temporary marriage. Then he asks the same question about Shia and Sunni hadiths. I will answer the third question in a no again. Shia hadiths (authentic ones) tell us that temporary marriage is allowed. The fourth question is whether divorce is detestable or not. I will agree with the questioner. It is detestable but nor prohibited; it's not haram but makruh. Divorce solves many social problems but it's not preferred. Similarly, temporary marriage solved social problems as well but is not prohibited. Then he asks whether an irresponsible marriage a sin or not? I'll ask the questioner to prove that temporary marriage is irresponsible. Then he asks a stupid question; whether Shiites are just like Pharisees. There's no need to answer this question.
Author, fear God and don't use such language. Why have you confined yourself up to so and so looking college girl with a nice body? A man is sexually obsessed and wants to commit a sin. Temporary marriage is a better option for him. If he gets a girl who is ready for temporary marriage, they can live together and extinguish the fire of sex burning in them. Today, Europeans are running away from marriage to pre-marital sex. Temporary marriage is a nice option for them. In European universities, many students live together like a couple without marriage. Temporary marriage is good for their chastity and thirst for sex. Moreover, where is this divorce thing in temporary marriage? Temporary marriage is practiced for a fixed time. When that time comes, man separates himself from his temporal wife.
The author of this article begins with his claim that Qur'an doesn't not allow temporary marriage. Then he claims that the hadiths claiming that it was Umar who first forbade temporary marriage; there's no general consensus among scholars that Umar was the first to ban temporary marriage. I want to tell him that this argument's useless for us because we, Shia Muslims, prefer sayings of Imams over general consensus. Then the author stated that temporary marriage isn't any kind of legalized prostitution. That's good. Now I'll answer his three claims like this: Qur'an allows temporary marriage, the hadiths which say that the Prophet forbade temporary marriage, are all fake, many Companions and Companions of the Companions believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage and Umar himself stated that he's banning temporary marriage.
Ibn Kathir says that Ubay, Abbas and Ibn Jubair recited Q. 4:24 by adding a phrase 'until a specified time' in it. The Prophet's advice is recorded in books that he asked us to take Qur'an from certain people two of which were Ubay and Ibn Mas'ud. (Bukhari) Al Tabari records Mujahid and Ibn Abbas testifying that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage. Al Qurtabi testifies that the majority believes that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage and was later forbidden. Al Baghawi believes that the general scholars believe in abrogation of Q. 4:24 because it allows temporary marriage. Al Shawkani testifies that the majority takes Q. 4:24 in the case of temporary marriage. Al Razi makes this opinion takes place that Q. 4:24 allows temporary marriage. Al Suyuti speaks of those Companions who believed that the Prophet never banned temporary marriage and those who believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about it but was abrogated. Al Tha'labi says that some Companions and Companions of the Companions believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage but it was later abrogated. Al Baghdadi believes that the majority has deemed Q. 4:24 abrogated due to its allowance of temporary marriage.
There's a difference of opinion regarding when temporary marriage was forbidden. Sunni hadiths tell us that temporary marriage was banned eight times. It also tell the that the Prophet prohibited it six times, not two as the author claims. But even if we go with author's hypothesis, all these fake look fabricated to us because they tell us that the Prophet had banned temporary marriage in Battle of Khaibar forever but then he took a u-turn and allowed it. What kind of prophet allows what he's already forbidden forever? What kind of messenger puts a ban off that was put to last until the Day of Judgement?
Aisha says that temporary marriage was banned when Q. 23:5 was revealed. Such a fake hadith has been attributed to Ibn Abbas as well. Sa'id ibn al Musayyab has been used to utter that the Verse of Inheritance abrogates the allowance of temporary marriage. Abu Huraira has narrated the same hadith as well. A fake hadith has been attributed to Ali that the Prophet made temporary marriage prohibited until the Day of Resurrection. There's another fake hadith that temporary marriage was banned in Umratul Qadha and it was neither allowed before it nor after it. This hadith has been recorded by Ibn Hibban as well. Even then we read that temporary marriage was allowed in the year of Victory. (Muslim) Then again a fake hadith says that the Prophet allowed temporary marriage in Battle of Autas and prohibited it. (Muslim) Finally, the Prophet re-allowed temporary marriage in Farewell Pilgrimage and prohibited it. (Ibn Majah) Temporary marriage was, according to Sunni hadiths, banned in Battle of Khaibar and the ban was to last forever but what the Prophet allowed forever, according to these fake hadiths, he allowed the same thing again and again. Ibn Kathir says that temporary marriage was allowed in the year of Victory and then it was prohibited until the Day of Resurrection. Then again it was allowed and prohibited in Autas. How can the Prophet allow and prohibit something so many times? If he had banned in once and for all and put a ban that was to last forever, how could he change his viewpoint, take a u-turn and allow it again? Then he again forbade it and then allowed it again? What kind of religion is this? I'm sorry to say but such a man can't be a prophet who changes his viewpoint and contradicts himself so many times. The prophet I follow is not such a man.
Even some Companions, Companions of the Companions and scholars were of this opinion that temporary marriage is allowed in Islam.
Ibn Abbas is the most famous for his opposition to Umar's ban on temporary marriage. It's a lie that he only allowed temporary marriage in the time of need. The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas allowance of temporary marriage. (Ibn Battal) He regarded it as a blessing of God upon His people. It's a lie as well that Ibn Abbas later changed his viewpoint. There's no logic in this opinion. What did make him retreat? It's evident that Ibn Abbas never retreated from his viewpoint on temporary marriage. Even Al Albani confirmed that the hadiths making Ibn Abbas retreat from his allowance of temporary marriage, aren't proven to be correct yet. So how is it possible that Ibn Abbas allowed what the Prophet prohibited? There can be only two reasons i.e. he was a hypocrite or he sincerely believed that he was right. Even the Companions of Ibn Abbas believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. Ibn Hajar has named those people who believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage and one of them if Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Jabir ibn Abdullah agreed with Ibn Abbas in the matter of legitimacy of temporary marriage. (Musnad Ahmad, hadith #369) Abu Sa'id al Khudri was also of the same opinion. (Al Mughni) Once Umar had a debate with a person who practiced temporary marriage and begin to contend when Umar prevented him. He claimed that neither God nor His Apostle prohibit temporary marriage. In response, as usual, Umar got angry and said he would stone him if he hadn't known of his (Umar's) opposition to temporary marriage. Notice that Umar didn't even show the man a single proof of prohibition. (Kanz al Ummal, 45726) Mua'wiyah also practiced temporary marriage and that's a, as Ibn Hajar thinks, an authentic report. (Interpretation of Bukhari) There are many more examples. Ibn Juraij was a great scholar of Sunni Islam who practiced temporary marriage with 60 or 90 women. (Al Dhahabi) Even Ali allowed it. (Ibn Ashur) Al Tabari mentions Ali saying, 'if it were not for Umar banning temporary marriage, no one would've committed adultery except for a wretched person.' (Al Tabari, 7302) Ahmad ibn Hanbal believed that it is allowed in the time of need. (Ibn Kathir) How is it possible that so many Companions were unaware of the Prophet's ban on temporary marriage? Even if they were, why didn't they believe in Umar when he told them about its prohibition? Doesn't this prove that temporary marriage was allowed?
Umar himself confessed that temporary marriage was practiced in the lifetime of the Prophet. He prohibited it but didn't even quote one word from Qur'an or hadiths to prove his stance. This narration is recorded in many books. The chains are, according to Sunni Islam, authentic. Even Al Raghib believed that it was Umar to ban temporary marriage for the first time.
So, with the help of all these arguments which I've summed up to make them look brief but comprehensive, we're safe to say that God revealed a verse in Qur'an to sanction temporary marriage and then revealed no verse to abrogate the first order. The Prophet also never prohibited it and all hadiths about him prohibiting it are fake because they're self-contradictory. Many Companions and future scholars of Sunni Muslims believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. Moreover, Umar said himself that he was the one to ban it. So we're safe to say that temporary marriage's not banned in Islam.
This article begins with hadiths regarding legitimacy of temporary marriage. Then the joint authors who wrote this article in each other's company, stated that these hadiths on temporary marriage don't contradict. I just want to ask these two a simple question, 'How can the Prophet allow what he's already banned forever?' It's evident that the Prophet, as we can see in Sunni hadiths, banned temporary marriage forever and then, as we again see in Sunni hadiths, allowed it multiple times. How is this possible?
Then the author repeated the same accusation that Imam Jafar deemed temporary marriage to be adultery however that book belongs to their own school of thought. He also quoted those scholars of his creed who believed in prohibition of temporary marriage. Obviously, Sunni Muslims adhere to the ijtihad done by Umar when he banned what the Prophet allowed. There's no use quoting their own scholars when that article is intended to shut the mouths of Shia Muslims up; how can you refute them by using what they disbelieve in? Then the authors underlined this sentence in bold letters that temporary marriage was banned twice. We've just seen that it was banned at six different occasions according to Sunni hadiths.
'Mujahid deemed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage', copied the authors and refuted this argument by saying that it was his personal opinion that can't weaken the stance of the majority. It's idiocy as we know that many Companions believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage e.e. Ibn Abbas. What else; the authors are a couple of liars because we've just seen above that even Sunni scholars of Qur'an testified that the majority believes that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage. If Ibn Kathir is here to say majority didn't possess such a belief, Al Qurtabi is here as well to support our view.
The authors also used this tactic that Q. 4:24 is thought to had been abrogated as Al Qurtabi thinks. I want to ask the authors to show a proof. There are many theories e.g. Verse of Inheritance abrogated command of temporary marriage but that's an illogical argument. Sunni Muslims love the Companions so much. How'll they justify that their beloved ancestors were so hypocrite that even seeing a verse in Qur'an prohibiting temporary marriage, they kept with their view on its legitimacy?
Then the authors say that the saying of Ali Al Tabari quoted, insisting that temporary marriage is allowed in the eyes of Ali, is weak. They stated that the chain is broken. Indeed, that can be said. The man who narrated from Ali is doubtful to have a connection to him. He's included among the Companions of Imam Ali ibn Husain, the fourth Shia Islam, who was born two years before the death of his grandfather.
Then the authors stated those hadiths which are falsely attributed to Ali regarding illegitimacy of temporary marriage. These are all fabricated. Ibn Abbas was Ali's pupil. How is it possible that Ibn Abbas disbelieved in what Ali was saying? Moreover, all those hadiths are from Sunni sources.
Then the authors claimed that the Shia Muslims believe that all hadiths regarding Ali's opposition to temporary marriage are narrated by a unreliable person i.e. Al Zuhri. Al Zuhri can be unreliable for Shia Muslims because we doubt his religious honesty for his suspicious attachment with the emperors of that time.
Then he quotes a scholar who answers Shia arguments on temporary marriage. That scholar and our two authors have done nothing but miserably repeated the same arguments except for one particular i.e. they have made be think again of Ali's view on temporary marriage with evidences from Sunni books.
The author in this article has just repeated the same fake hadiths about prohibition of temporary marriage with a reputation that these hadiths aren't self-contradictory. We've seen that the Prophet can't allow something which he's already banned forever.
This is just a set of links to Answering Christianity team's articles on temporary marriage.
In this brief article of his, the author has just repeated that temporary marriage was first allowed but then it was prohibited. It's not acceptable; no filth can never be allowed in Islam. If temporary marriage was so evil, why was it allowed in the first place? Exemplifying wine and gambling is improper. Wine was not prohibited in the beginning of Islam; that's all. It was not allowed as some Muslims, unaware of the philosophy of Islam, claim. Gambling was also never allowed in Islam. Abu Bakr once gambled in front of the Prophet when the Muslims and the heathens of Mecca bet on Romans and Persians. Muslims bet on Romans while the latter bet on Persians. Abu Bakr gambled because gambling was neither allowed nor prohibited at that time; Islam was silent in this issue.
This article is the product of an ignorant mind who is unaware of truth of Shia Islam and reality of Shia Muslims. The author begins this article with a heading in red bold letters that we, Shia Muslims, worship Ahlul Bayt. His claim is just like Ali Sina's false allegation that Muslims 'literally' worship Muhammad. What the author calls worship, we call it reverence deserved by Ahlul Bayt. The author spent a lot of time refuting the arguments made upon Islam. We respect him for his struggle and we also want to benefit him with a little friendly advice that it's better not to underestimate other sects of Islam, thinking that you'll take them easily; they're Muslims, not enemies of Islam. Contending non-Muslims is totally different from contending Shia Muslims; this I want the author to keep in mind.
Shiite books forbid temporary marriage
'Temporary marriage is similar to why alcohol was also allowed temporarily in Islam. It was a gradual process to free that certain society from certain addictions and traditions. It was also to prevent rape, fornication and adultery among Muslim men when they traveled for hundreds of miles on foot for sometimes years away from their wives. Temporary marriage was allowed for them and then was forbidden for good altogether.'
First of all, alcohol was never allowed in Islam for the first place. Alcohol wasn't simply banned. Then God gradually prohibited alcohol altogether. The same is not with temporary marriage. It was never forbidden in Islam. All hadiths regarding its prohibition are fake and were produced to cover up Umar's ban on it. We'll see it later when the author will come with his old proofs.
Then the author said that God didn't even like divorce so why would he allow temporary marriage? I also have a question. If this was so then why temporary marriage was allowed by the Prophet? Moreover, divorce is not forbidden in Islam. Keeping the marriage is preferred over it. Similarly, normal marriage is preferred over temporary marriage. But that doesn't prohibit temporary marriage.
Then the author said that as temporary marriage requires no witnesses, it's not allowed. I want to ask him something. Does concubinage requires witnesses? Of course, not. Their are two kinds of marriage i.e. permanent and temporary. It's the permanent marriage that requires witnesses. In temporary marriage.
أما حقيقة نكاح المتعة فهو أن يقيد عقد الزواج بوقت معين كأن يقول لها : زوجيني نفسك شهرا . أو تزوجتك مدة سنة . أو نحو ذلك سواء كان صادرا أمام شهود وبمباشرة ولي أولا
The reality of temporary marriage is that, in the marriage recital performed with a woman, words are added which stipulate that the marriage is for a fixed time e.g. a man shall say, 'she shall remain as my wife for a month or I shall have temporary marriage with you for a year.' The parties themselves act as witnesses. It can occur in the presence of a witnesses or without them.
(Al Jaziri)Then the author showed Q. 2:241 which says that the divorced women has a right to a reasonable livelihood. He's imposing his interpretation on us. Shia Muslims believe it's not a compulsion rather a recommendation because God, instead of the word 'believers', had used the word 'the pious'.
'The command is in respect of all the divorces. The proviso of piety: 'those who guard against evil' implies that it is a recommendation, not a compulsion.'
(Al Mizan)
Then the author gave the verses obligating iddah on the divorced women. The author is forgetting the there's iddah in temporary marriage. A period of 45 days is the minimum iddah for a woman engaged in temporary marriage.
وعنه، عن محمد بن الحسين، وعن عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن عثمان بن عيسى، عن سماعة، عن أبي بصير قال: لا بد من أن يقول فيه هذه الشروط: أتزوجك متعة كذا وكذا يوما، بكذا وكذا درهما، نكاحا غير سفاح على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه وعلى أن لا ترثيني ولا أرثك، وعلي أن تعتدي خمسة وأربعين يوما. وقال بعضهم: حيضة.
Abu Basir (one of the companions of Imam Sadiq) said, 'It is necessary that one says the following conditions: I marry you temporarily for such and such number of days and for such and such number of dirhams, seeking marriage and not fornication, based on the book of God and the sunnah of his Prophet and that I will not inherit from her nor will she inherit for me and that she observes an iddah of 45 days'; and some say, 'One menstrual cycle.'
(Wasa'il al Shia, volume #21, hadith #26489)Then the author stated that, according to Q. 4:21, marriage is a solemn covenant. He argued that how temporary marriage be solemn when it's destined for divorce. The answer is again simple. Marriage is a solemn covenant but when a couple decides to separate, this covenant breaks as well and its strength fades away with its tightness. But divorce is not prohibited in Islam. Similarly, permanent marriage is preferred over temporary marriage. Temporary marriage is a mercy of God upon those who're sexually obsessed.
Then the author shed some light on importance of marrying only one woman. Indeed, it's better to keep only one woman in you harem if you can't support others but marrying four women is not prohibited. Similarly, temporary marriage is not better than permanent marriage. If I can marry a woman and spend my entire life with her, why would I spend some nights with a woman temporarily? When I can travel in airplane, why would I choose buses?
'These are quotes coming from the Scriptures of the same people who allow for a man to marry a young college girl for an hour and then divorce her. Clearly, these corrupt heathens are the modern-day Islamic Pharisees!'
The author is so idiot that he doesn't even know there's no divorce in temporary marriage. When a man and woman agrees to marry temporarily, they live together until the specified time and the get themselves separated from each other. The author quoted hadiths from Shia sources discouraging divorce only. Indeed, divorce is the most detestable permissible things before God. But this has nothing to do with temporary marriage. Laws of permanent and temporary marriage aren't 100% similar; they are different at some stages.
Then the author quoted a fake hadith attributed to Imam Jafar that temporary marriage is equal to adultery. He only named the book and neither mentioned the proper link nor refer us to the original book. None of the books of Shia Muslims are purely authentic except for Peak of Eloquence. And the book he named as 'Bidayat al Mujtahid' is a Sunni (Maliki) work by Averroes.
Then the author quoted another author who claimed that the Prophet prohibited temporary marriage twice in his lifetime. Now the time has come to show these freaks that temporary marriage was allows and prohibited many times (according to Sunni Islam) and the Prophet, after prohibiting it forever, took an improper u-turn and re-allowed it (according to Sunni books). Before quoting those gibberish hadiths, I'll answer this claim of the second author that hadiths about prohibition of temporary marriage can be found in Shia books as well. Let's have a look at the chain of narrators of that hadith.
واما ما رواه محمد بن يحيى عن ابى جعفر عن ابى الجوزا عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن خالد عن زيد بن علي عن آبائه عن علي عليهم السلام
Muhammad ibn Yahya, Abu Jafar, Abu Jauza, Husain ibn Alwan, Amr ibn Khalid, Zain ibn Ali and his ancestors narrated from Ali.(Tahdhib al Ahkam, volume #7, page #251)
Ibn Hibban says that the hadiths of Husain ibn Alwan are all fabricated except for one. Al Khoei says about him that he was an Aammi and that's what Shia Muslims call a Sunni narrator. Hasan, Husain's brother, was more reliable than him. Thus, Husain fabricated that hadith to support Umar's prohibition on temporary marriage. As for the author of Tahdhib al Ahkam saying that Ali said that hadith under taqiyyah so Ali could not change his viewpoint under taqiyyah as he was the Imam of his time.
أقول : حمله الشيخ وغيره (2) على التقية ـ يعني في الرواية ـ(Wasa'il al Shia, volume #21, hadith #26387)
The second author also stated that 99% percent of the Companions believed in illegitimacy of temporary marriage. That's a blatant lie. How did he conclude that? We don't even know about 99% of the Companions. There are only a few about whom we know. How can a person make such a stupid claim? I can name some of those Companions and the Companions of the Companions (Taba'in) who believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. The second author, showing how backwards he is, quoted the same fake or misunderstood hadiths the enemies of Shia Islam bring up against legitimacy of temporary marriage.
He ignorantly states that Al Kafi and Bihar al Anwar are highly authentic Shia books however that's a lie that idiot has made. A man who doesn't even know that these books are valuable, not highly authentic, thinks that he'll easily defeat Shia Muslims in debate. The first hadith: The author said that the first hadiths recommended us not to let virgins engage in temporary marriage. But the truth is:
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد وعبد الله ابني محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن زياد بن أبي الحلال قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله (ع) يقول: لا بأس بأن يتمتع بالبكر ما لم يفض إليها مخافة كراهية العيب على أهلها.
There's no harm in practicing temporary marriage with a virgin but that virginity is not spoiled for the fear that it is defect for the family.
(Al Kafi, volume #5, page #462)The author misquoted the first hadith. As for the second hadith which says that we mustn't insult a female believer by marrying her temporarily so the chain is faulty; it's not complete.
Then the author asks some questions. He asks whether temporary marriage is moral. I will answer is yes. Then he asks whether Qur'an believed that temporary marriage is immoral or not. I will answer in no; it was Qur'an that allowed temporary marriage. Then he asks the same question about Shia and Sunni hadiths. I will answer the third question in a no again. Shia hadiths (authentic ones) tell us that temporary marriage is allowed. The fourth question is whether divorce is detestable or not. I will agree with the questioner. It is detestable but nor prohibited; it's not haram but makruh. Divorce solves many social problems but it's not preferred. Similarly, temporary marriage solved social problems as well but is not prohibited. Then he asks whether an irresponsible marriage a sin or not? I'll ask the questioner to prove that temporary marriage is irresponsible. Then he asks a stupid question; whether Shiites are just like Pharisees. There's no need to answer this question.
'Do you honestly believe that God Almighty really allows you to marry and divorce irresponsibly (e.g. marry a hot-looking college girl with hot curves for few hours and then divorce her)?'
Author, fear God and don't use such language. Why have you confined yourself up to so and so looking college girl with a nice body? A man is sexually obsessed and wants to commit a sin. Temporary marriage is a better option for him. If he gets a girl who is ready for temporary marriage, they can live together and extinguish the fire of sex burning in them. Today, Europeans are running away from marriage to pre-marital sex. Temporary marriage is a nice option for them. In European universities, many students live together like a couple without marriage. Temporary marriage is good for their chastity and thirst for sex. Moreover, where is this divorce thing in temporary marriage? Temporary marriage is practiced for a fixed time. When that time comes, man separates himself from his temporal wife.
Say no to temporary marriage
Ibn Kathir says that Ubay, Abbas and Ibn Jubair recited Q. 4:24 by adding a phrase 'until a specified time' in it. The Prophet's advice is recorded in books that he asked us to take Qur'an from certain people two of which were Ubay and Ibn Mas'ud. (Bukhari) Al Tabari records Mujahid and Ibn Abbas testifying that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage. Al Qurtabi testifies that the majority believes that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage and was later forbidden. Al Baghawi believes that the general scholars believe in abrogation of Q. 4:24 because it allows temporary marriage. Al Shawkani testifies that the majority takes Q. 4:24 in the case of temporary marriage. Al Razi makes this opinion takes place that Q. 4:24 allows temporary marriage. Al Suyuti speaks of those Companions who believed that the Prophet never banned temporary marriage and those who believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about it but was abrogated. Al Tha'labi says that some Companions and Companions of the Companions believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage but it was later abrogated. Al Baghdadi believes that the majority has deemed Q. 4:24 abrogated due to its allowance of temporary marriage.
There's a difference of opinion regarding when temporary marriage was forbidden. Sunni hadiths tell us that temporary marriage was banned eight times. It also tell the that the Prophet prohibited it six times, not two as the author claims. But even if we go with author's hypothesis, all these fake look fabricated to us because they tell us that the Prophet had banned temporary marriage in Battle of Khaibar forever but then he took a u-turn and allowed it. What kind of prophet allows what he's already forbidden forever? What kind of messenger puts a ban off that was put to last until the Day of Judgement?
Aisha says that temporary marriage was banned when Q. 23:5 was revealed. Such a fake hadith has been attributed to Ibn Abbas as well. Sa'id ibn al Musayyab has been used to utter that the Verse of Inheritance abrogates the allowance of temporary marriage. Abu Huraira has narrated the same hadith as well. A fake hadith has been attributed to Ali that the Prophet made temporary marriage prohibited until the Day of Resurrection. There's another fake hadith that temporary marriage was banned in Umratul Qadha and it was neither allowed before it nor after it. This hadith has been recorded by Ibn Hibban as well. Even then we read that temporary marriage was allowed in the year of Victory. (Muslim) Then again a fake hadith says that the Prophet allowed temporary marriage in Battle of Autas and prohibited it. (Muslim) Finally, the Prophet re-allowed temporary marriage in Farewell Pilgrimage and prohibited it. (Ibn Majah) Temporary marriage was, according to Sunni hadiths, banned in Battle of Khaibar and the ban was to last forever but what the Prophet allowed forever, according to these fake hadiths, he allowed the same thing again and again. Ibn Kathir says that temporary marriage was allowed in the year of Victory and then it was prohibited until the Day of Resurrection. Then again it was allowed and prohibited in Autas. How can the Prophet allow and prohibit something so many times? If he had banned in once and for all and put a ban that was to last forever, how could he change his viewpoint, take a u-turn and allow it again? Then he again forbade it and then allowed it again? What kind of religion is this? I'm sorry to say but such a man can't be a prophet who changes his viewpoint and contradicts himself so many times. The prophet I follow is not such a man.
Even some Companions, Companions of the Companions and scholars were of this opinion that temporary marriage is allowed in Islam.
Ibn Abbas is the most famous for his opposition to Umar's ban on temporary marriage. It's a lie that he only allowed temporary marriage in the time of need. The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas allowance of temporary marriage. (Ibn Battal) He regarded it as a blessing of God upon His people. It's a lie as well that Ibn Abbas later changed his viewpoint. There's no logic in this opinion. What did make him retreat? It's evident that Ibn Abbas never retreated from his viewpoint on temporary marriage. Even Al Albani confirmed that the hadiths making Ibn Abbas retreat from his allowance of temporary marriage, aren't proven to be correct yet. So how is it possible that Ibn Abbas allowed what the Prophet prohibited? There can be only two reasons i.e. he was a hypocrite or he sincerely believed that he was right. Even the Companions of Ibn Abbas believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. Ibn Hajar has named those people who believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage and one of them if Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Jabir ibn Abdullah agreed with Ibn Abbas in the matter of legitimacy of temporary marriage. (Musnad Ahmad, hadith #369) Abu Sa'id al Khudri was also of the same opinion. (Al Mughni) Once Umar had a debate with a person who practiced temporary marriage and begin to contend when Umar prevented him. He claimed that neither God nor His Apostle prohibit temporary marriage. In response, as usual, Umar got angry and said he would stone him if he hadn't known of his (Umar's) opposition to temporary marriage. Notice that Umar didn't even show the man a single proof of prohibition. (Kanz al Ummal, 45726) Mua'wiyah also practiced temporary marriage and that's a, as Ibn Hajar thinks, an authentic report. (Interpretation of Bukhari) There are many more examples. Ibn Juraij was a great scholar of Sunni Islam who practiced temporary marriage with 60 or 90 women. (Al Dhahabi) Even Ali allowed it. (Ibn Ashur) Al Tabari mentions Ali saying, 'if it were not for Umar banning temporary marriage, no one would've committed adultery except for a wretched person.' (Al Tabari, 7302) Ahmad ibn Hanbal believed that it is allowed in the time of need. (Ibn Kathir) How is it possible that so many Companions were unaware of the Prophet's ban on temporary marriage? Even if they were, why didn't they believe in Umar when he told them about its prohibition? Doesn't this prove that temporary marriage was allowed?
Umar himself confessed that temporary marriage was practiced in the lifetime of the Prophet. He prohibited it but didn't even quote one word from Qur'an or hadiths to prove his stance. This narration is recorded in many books. The chains are, according to Sunni Islam, authentic. Even Al Raghib believed that it was Umar to ban temporary marriage for the first time.
So, with the help of all these arguments which I've summed up to make them look brief but comprehensive, we're safe to say that God revealed a verse in Qur'an to sanction temporary marriage and then revealed no verse to abrogate the first order. The Prophet also never prohibited it and all hadiths about him prohibiting it are fake because they're self-contradictory. Many Companions and future scholars of Sunni Muslims believed in legitimacy of temporary marriage. Moreover, Umar said himself that he was the one to ban it. So we're safe to say that temporary marriage's not banned in Islam.
Temporary marriage discussed
Then the author repeated the same accusation that Imam Jafar deemed temporary marriage to be adultery however that book belongs to their own school of thought. He also quoted those scholars of his creed who believed in prohibition of temporary marriage. Obviously, Sunni Muslims adhere to the ijtihad done by Umar when he banned what the Prophet allowed. There's no use quoting their own scholars when that article is intended to shut the mouths of Shia Muslims up; how can you refute them by using what they disbelieve in? Then the authors underlined this sentence in bold letters that temporary marriage was banned twice. We've just seen that it was banned at six different occasions according to Sunni hadiths.
'Mujahid deemed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage', copied the authors and refuted this argument by saying that it was his personal opinion that can't weaken the stance of the majority. It's idiocy as we know that many Companions believed that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage e.e. Ibn Abbas. What else; the authors are a couple of liars because we've just seen above that even Sunni scholars of Qur'an testified that the majority believes that Q. 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage. If Ibn Kathir is here to say majority didn't possess such a belief, Al Qurtabi is here as well to support our view.
The authors also used this tactic that Q. 4:24 is thought to had been abrogated as Al Qurtabi thinks. I want to ask the authors to show a proof. There are many theories e.g. Verse of Inheritance abrogated command of temporary marriage but that's an illogical argument. Sunni Muslims love the Companions so much. How'll they justify that their beloved ancestors were so hypocrite that even seeing a verse in Qur'an prohibiting temporary marriage, they kept with their view on its legitimacy?
Then the authors say that the saying of Ali Al Tabari quoted, insisting that temporary marriage is allowed in the eyes of Ali, is weak. They stated that the chain is broken. Indeed, that can be said. The man who narrated from Ali is doubtful to have a connection to him. He's included among the Companions of Imam Ali ibn Husain, the fourth Shia Islam, who was born two years before the death of his grandfather.
Then the authors stated those hadiths which are falsely attributed to Ali regarding illegitimacy of temporary marriage. These are all fabricated. Ibn Abbas was Ali's pupil. How is it possible that Ibn Abbas disbelieved in what Ali was saying? Moreover, all those hadiths are from Sunni sources.
Then the authors claimed that the Shia Muslims believe that all hadiths regarding Ali's opposition to temporary marriage are narrated by a unreliable person i.e. Al Zuhri. Al Zuhri can be unreliable for Shia Muslims because we doubt his religious honesty for his suspicious attachment with the emperors of that time.
Then he quotes a scholar who answers Shia arguments on temporary marriage. That scholar and our two authors have done nothing but miserably repeated the same arguments except for one particular i.e. they have made be think again of Ali's view on temporary marriage with evidences from Sunni books.
Temporary marriage is banned
Some links about temporary marriage
Temporary marriage
Refuting Shiite arguments on Q. 33:33
The author accused Shia Muslims of misusing and misinterpreting Q. 33:33 'to justify their glorification and praising to the point of worship to Ali, Fatima and Husain'. However, this accusation is not even made correctly. As we all know, the name of the Prophet and that of Hasan have been omitted. Shia Muslims believe that these five are referred to in Q. 33:33.
The author also accused Shia Muslims of violation of Qur'an by asking Ali to help. That's a stupid accusation as we've just seen that asking others for help isn't any form of polytheism.
Then the author said that a Shia scholar said to him on Pal Talk that Ali was God's mercy. Indeed, who'd dare disbelieve in it? Just like the Prophet, Ali was also a mercy. All prophets, messengers, Imams and sages are God's mercy upon us.
Then the author quoted Q. 30-34 completely and stated that all these verses were revealed about the Wives of the Prophet. He said that Shia Muslims exclude all Wives of the Prophet from Ahlul Bayt. That's funny; we all know that it was Prophet who did so. He excluded his wives from Ahlul Bayt and if the author has some problem with that, he should criticize the Prophet, not us. We only follow his sunnah.
The author also said that using feminine plurals doesn't mean that the verse is not referring to women. He also quoted some verses to prove that all believers are purified as well as Ahlul Bayt. He also said that some Shia Muslims accuse Hasan of cowardice. Hasan wasn't a coward but it's the author who is unaware of truth. How can he call someone a Shia Muslim when he accuses Hasan of cowardice. Hasan signed a treaty and Husain fought back; both did what God commanded them to do. He made some accusations on Shia Muslims number-wise. I'll reply them number-wise as well.
1) In what ridiculous do we, Shia Muslims, believe in? What we say is written in books but it's the author who learnt letter A and thought he knows all English alphabets. We revere Ahlul Bayt just the way God wants us to revere them.
'Have they not held on to their blasphemous beliefs, almost 100% of the Muslims today would be all under one school of thought.'
2) That's also a baseless argument. It was not us who left the base; it were Sunni Muslims who left Ali and founded their own school of thought. It were Abu Bakr and Umar who disobeyed the Prophet's command that Ali would be the ruler. It was Uthman who imposed his tribesmen on Muslims and let them corrupt the earth. When he was asked to leave Muslims alone, he insisted that he wouldn't let Caliphate go out of his hands. It were Aisha and Mua'wiyah who fought against the rightly-guided Caliphs. It were Mua'wiyah and Yazid who murdered innocents and caused separatism in Islam. It were Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal who introduced their own creeds and didn't adhere to that of Jafar al Sadiq. As we see, it were Sunni Muslims who left the sunnah of the Prophet in enmity of Shia Muslims.
Then the author said that Ali and Hasan failed to protect their own selves against death when 'they didn't want to die.' Who said that? Ali and Hasan could do anything they wanted but they were under the rule of God. When God wanted them to fight, they fought; when wanted them to stand back; they stood back. Thus, when God asked Imam Husain to sheathe his sword, he did so. Then the author blackened his face by calling Hasan controversial. But I agree with the author when he says that we should ignore what we did in past history because it's irrelevant to us. Then he said that polytheism can't be tolerated. I want to ask him to prove how Shia Muslims are polytheists. Polytheism is not what the author says; nobody's imposed to keep with his definitions.
Now it's time to prove that what Shia Muslims believe in about Ahlul Bayt, that's what Qur'an and the Prophet teaches us.
I would also like to quote those verses here again in both Arabic and English and the words I would highlight will be transliterated as well.
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ إِن كُنتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتَهَا فَتَعَالَيْنَ أُمَتِّعْكُنَّ وَأُسَرِّحْكُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا وَإِن كُنتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ أَعَدَّ لِلْمُحْسِنَاتِ مِنكُنَّ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ مَن يَأْتِ مِنكُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ يُضَاعَفْ لَهَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَيْنِ ۚ وَكَانَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ يَسِيرًا وَمَن يَقْنُتْ مِنكُنَّ لِلَّـهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَتَعْمَلْ صَالِحًا نُّؤْتِهَا أَجْرَهَا مَرَّتَيْنِ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهَا رِزْقًا كَرِيمًا يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ لَسْتُنَّ كَأَحَدٍ مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ ۚ إِنِ اتَّقَيْتُنَّ فَلَا تَخْضَعْنَ بِالْقَوْلِ فَيَطْمَعَ الَّذِي فِي قَلْبِهِ مَرَضٌ وَقُلْنَ قَوْلًا مَّعْرُوفًا وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ ۖ وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۚ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّـهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا وَاذْكُرْنَ مَا يُتْلَىٰ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّـهِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ لَطِيفًا خَبِيرًا
'O Prophet, say to your wives, 'If you should desire the worldly life and its adornment then come; I will provide for you and give you a gracious release. But if you should desire God and His Messenger and the home of the hereafter then indeed, God has prepared for the doers of good among you a great reward.' O Wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality for her the punishment would be doubled two fold and ever is that, for God, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys God and His Messenger and does righteousness - We will give her, her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. O Wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear God then do not be soft in speech (to men) lest he in whose heart is disease should covet but speak with appropriate speech. And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as (was) the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayers and give alms and obey God and His Messenger. God intends only to remove from you the impurity (of sin), O People of the (Prophet's) Household, and to purify you with (extensive) purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of God and wisdom. Indeed, God is ever subtle and acquainted (with all things).' (Q. 33:28-34)
See how God's grammar changes suddenly in these verses. First, He seems to be talking to some women. The words I highlighted prove this: Kuntunna Turidna, Umatti'kunna wa Asrah'kunna, Kuntunna Turidna, Minkunna, Taqai'tunna fala Takhda'na, Qarna fi Buyutikunna, Wa Aqimnas Sa'la'ta wa Atai'naz Za'ka'ta wa Atin'allaha wa Rasulahu. Then God changes his grammar and begins to talk to a group dominated by males: Ankum, Yutah'hirukum (instead of Ankunna, Yutah'hirukunna). After this, God returns to his speech with the females: Azkurunna, Buyutikunna. Doesn't these sudden changes in grammar prove that the ending part of Q. 33:33 was deliberately put in this group of verse and it seems unfit here because of the grammatical errors? Therefore, the lack of use of the suffix here in the verse as opposed to the verses before and after it, proves without any doubt that this verse does not address the wives at all as was the case before and after it.
There are many hadiths approving of Shia point of view regarding Ahlul Bayt. Aisha was one of the Wives of the Prophet. She testifies that God revealed that verse when the Prophet took his daughter, her husband and her two sons under a cloak with him and uttered these words, 'God only desires to take away uncleanliness from you, O People of the Household, and purify you (thorough purifying).' Then there's another hadith in which Umm Salamah, a Wife of the Prophet who lasted long after the Prophet, even after the murder of Imam Husain, repeated the same incident that the Prophet took those four under a cloak with him and asked God to purify them. She added that when she asked whether she was with them, the Prophet told her that she was on good. Notice that the Prophet neither responded in affirmative nor let his wife be with him under the cloak. The story doesn't end here. Another hadith passes from our observation where it's the mentioning of Q. 33:33 and the prophet's response to his wife, 'you're in your place and you're virtuous to me.' Notice that here again the Prophet didn't allow his wife to get along with him. The translation of this beautiful hadith has been distorted by adding this phrase, 'you're more virtuous to me.' Al Wahidi has also reported this hadith in his book. Al Baghawi says that some of the Companions believed that it were those five who were addressed in that part of Q. 33:33. Who knows religion more that the true believers; the true companions of the Prophet? Zaid ibn Arqam was asked whether Wives of the Prophet are included in Ahlul Bayt so he replied in negative saying that Ahlul Bayt are those to whom acceptance of alms is forbidden. This hadith has been transmitted from many sources. Al Tabari has also mentioned in from many sources (Al Tabari, 21723). Let's check the chain of narrators, shall we?
Abd al A'la ibn Wasil: Thiqah (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 3739) Abu Na'im Fadl ibn Dukain: Ibn Hanbal said that he was thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) Abd al Salam ibn Harb: Thiqah Hafiz (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 4067) Kulthum ibn Ziyad: Author of a book Abu Ammar: Thiqah (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 2756) Wathila ibn Asqa: A Companion of the Prophet (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 7379)
Al Suyuti records a narration of Umm Salamah that when he tried to enter the cloak, the Prophet pulled the cloak from her hands and said, 'you're virtuous to me.'
وأخرج الطبراني عن أم سلمة رضي الله عنها أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لفاطمة رضي الله عنها «ائتني بزوجك وابنيه، فجاءت بهم، فألقى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عليهم كساء فدكيا، ثم وضع يده عليهم، ثم قال: اللهم إن هؤلاء أهل محمد- وفي لفظ آل محمد- فاجعل صلواتك وبركاتك على آل محمد كما جعلتها على آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد. قالت أم سلمة رضي الله عنها: فرفعت الكساء لأدخل معهم، فجذبه من يدي وقال إنك على خير».
Al Tabarani recorded from Umm Salamah that the Prophet asked Fatima to bring her husband and sons. When she brought them all, the Prophet covered them under a cloak and raised his hands to say, 'God, these are the People of Muhammad. So bless them just like you blessed the People of Abraham.' Umm Salamah tried to enter but the Prophet pulled the cloak from her hands and said, 'you're virtuous to me.'
The narration below it makes the Prophet speak to Umm Salamah, 'you're virtuous to me and you're one of the Wives of the Prophet.' Notice how carefully the Prophet differed between his wives and his Ahlul Bayt just to show us, Muslims, that these four are those who've been purified by God thoroughly. There's another hadith which says that the Prophet called Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain, his people. All the narrators of this hadith are reliable. Ibn Abu Shaibah also narrates such hadiths in his book.
اللهم هؤلاء آلي فصل على محمد وعلى آل محمد وأنزل الله عز وجل
(The Prophet's prayer,) 'God, these are my descendants so peace be upon Muhammad and his descendants' and then God revealed (Q. 33:33)
(Al Hakim, 4709)
(Musnad Ahmad, volume #1, page #331, tradition #3062)
(Talkhis Mustadrak al Hakim by Al Dhahabi, volume #2, pages #228 and 229, tradition #4652)
(Ibn Abu Asim, volume #2, tradition #1351)
(Al Tabarani, volume #12, page #97-99, tradition #12593)
(Ibn Asakir, volume #42, pages #97-100, traditions #8439-8450)
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #167, tradition #14696)
The commentator of the first source says that the chain is weak however that's a lame excuse. He thinks so because this hadith contradicts the firm Sunni beliefs. In the second source, Al Dhahabi maintains this stance that the chain is sahih. This is the truth. Ibn Abbas, in this hadith, remembers the excellence of Ali over all other Companions, specially Abu Bakr. This proves that many Companions believed that Ali was the best and the fittest for Caliphate. Sunni Muslims revere even those Companions but hate Shia Muslims for what the Companions did themselves.
(Minhaj al Sunnah, volume #3, page #70)
(Usd al Ghabah)
Muhammad ibn Isa al Tirmidhi: Author Qutaibah ibn Sa'id: Sheikh al Islam, Imam, thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) Hatim ibn Isma'il: Seduq (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 994) thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) Bukair ibn Mismar: Seduq (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 766) thiqah (Dar al Qutni) Amir ibn S'ad: Imam, thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) S'ad ibn Abu Waqas: Companion of the Prophet
The author of Dhakha'ir al Uqba has denoted a whole topic for this purpose that Q. 33:33 was revealed about those five. (Start reading from page #21)
This hadith is present in Tarikh al Baghdad (tradition #4743).
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume 9, page #273, tradition #15010)
Al Tahawi, in his Mushkil al A'thar, records a number of traditions regarding Q. 33:33 that it refers to those five holy beings.
Al Shaibani, in his Taisir al Wusul, records such hadiths to show the grandeur of Ahlul Bayt by using Q. 33:33.
Even Ibn Kathir and Al Shawkani didn't forget to mention those narrations about those five gathering together and God revealing Q. 33:33.
Al Baihaqi, in his famous Sunan al Kubra (traditions #2683 and 2690), record these narrations.
So, in the light of these proofs and evidences, it can be safely said that Q. 33:33 came down for those five i.e. Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. Let me finish this blog of mine by quoting some hadiths to express my love and respect for the four descendants of the Prophet.
Narrated by Zuhri who said, 'we didn't pick any stone the day Husain was killed but there was blood on it.' (This hadith is) mentioned by Al Tabarani and his men are authentic.
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #316, tradition #15160)
Some books on Ilm Rijal al Hadith:
Sunni
Mizan al Itidal by Dhahabi
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=657
http://archive.org/details/Mizan_Al_Itidal_Thahabi
http://islamport.com/w/trj/Web/1240/1.htm
Tarikh al Kabir of Bukhari
http://archive.org/details/Tarikh_Kabir_Bukhari
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3561
Al Istiab by Ibn Abd al Barr
http://archive.org/details/AlIsteeab
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/21/264.html
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A8%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%A8%20**/i42&p1
Tahdhib al Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Tahthib_Ibn_Hajar
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Tahthib_Ibn_Hajar2
http://islamport.com/w/trj/Web/2126/1.htm
Taqrib al Tahdhib, abridgment of Tahdhib al Tahdhib
http://archive.org/details/Taghrib_Tahthib
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8+**/i221&p1
Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajar
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%86%20***/i292&p1
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/985/index.htm
http://lib.eshia.ir/40424/1/2
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1012
http://archive.org/details/Lisan_Mizan_Ibn_Hajar
Siyar Alam al Nubala by Dhahabi
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?ID=1&idfrom=1&idto=6536&bk_no=60
http://archive.org/details/siar_noblaa
Tahdhib al Tahdhib al Kamal by Dhahabi
http://archive.org/details/tadhib_tahdib
Tahdhib al Kamal by Mizzi
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/973/index.htm
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/AlwaraqSrv/bookpage?book=360&session=ABBBVFAGFGFHAAWER&fkey=2&page=1&option=1
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Al_Kamal_Mazi
Usd al Ghaba by Ali ibn Athir
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/9/37.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/UsdulGhabahFiMarifat-us-Sahabahr.aByShaykhIbnAthirUrduTranslation/UsdulGhabahFiMarifat-us-Sahabahr.a-volume1-ByShaykhIbnAthirUrduTranslationByShaykhMuhammadAbdushShakoorFarooqiLakhnavir.a#page/n0/mode/1up
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9%20**/i219&p1
Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'd
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/938/index.htm
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/AlwaraqSrv/bookpage?book=24&page=1
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/61/940.html
http://archive.org/details/TabaqatIbnESaad-urdu
Tarikh Damashq by Ibn Asakir
http://archive.org/details/TarikhDimashq
http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=798
Tarikh Baghdad by Khatib al Baghdadi
http://archive.org/details/Tarikh_Baghdad
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/108/1528.html
Thiqat al Ajli
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/10721/10721_1.htm
Shia
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?topic=20
Tahdhib al Maqal by Muhammad Ali Abtahi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=20&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Rijals of Tusi, Khaqani, Nijashi and Ibn Daud
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=30&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Al Fahrist of Al Tusi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=40&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Muj'am Rijal al Hadith by Ayatollah Khoei
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=50&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Naqad al Rijal by Al Tafrishi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=70&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Risail al Rijalia by Muhammad al Kalbasi
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/2972_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1
Rijal Kashi
https://ia801704.us.archive.org/34/items/234789437833/rjal-akeshi.pdf
Qamus al Rijal by Muhammad Taqi al Tustari
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/3035_%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A9
قال وأخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثوبه فوضعه على علي وفاطمة وحسن وحسين فقال إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا
(Ibn Abbas) said that the Prophet covered Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain under a cloth and said, 'O Ahlul Bayt, God only wants to keep you away from filth and purify you thoroughly.'(Musnad Ahmad, volume #1, page #331, tradition #3062)
(Talkhis Mustadrak al Hakim by Al Dhahabi, volume #2, pages #228 and 229, tradition #4652)
(Ibn Abu Asim, volume #2, tradition #1351)
(Al Tabarani, volume #12, page #97-99, tradition #12593)
(Ibn Asakir, volume #42, pages #97-100, traditions #8439-8450)
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #167, tradition #14696)
The commentator of the first source says that the chain is weak however that's a lame excuse. He thinks so because this hadith contradicts the firm Sunni beliefs. In the second source, Al Dhahabi maintains this stance that the chain is sahih. This is the truth. Ibn Abbas, in this hadith, remembers the excellence of Ali over all other Companions, specially Abu Bakr. This proves that many Companions believed that Ali was the best and the fittest for Caliphate. Sunni Muslims revere even those Companions but hate Shia Muslims for what the Companions did themselves.
فإنه قد ثبت عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أنه قال لعليوفاطمة ن ، س : أو فاطمة . وحسن وحسين س : والحسن والحسين . : اللهم إن هؤلاء أهل بيتي فأذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا "
This is evident from the Prophet that he said to Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain, 'O God, these are my Ahlul Bayt so keep filth away from them and purify them thoroughly.'(Minhaj al Sunnah, volume #3, page #70)
وأنزلت هذه الآية: {فقل تعالوا ندع أبناءنا وأبناءكم ونساءنا ونساءكم وأنفسنا وأنفسكم} . دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم علياً وفاطمة وحسناً وحسيناً، فقال: "اللهم هؤلاء أهلي".
This verse was revealed: 'So say that bring your children, women and selves and we'll bring our children, women and selves.' So the Prophet brought Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said, 'O God, these are my people.'(Usd al Ghabah)
Muhammad ibn Isa al Tirmidhi: Author Qutaibah ibn Sa'id: Sheikh al Islam, Imam, thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) Hatim ibn Isma'il: Seduq (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 994) thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) Bukair ibn Mismar: Seduq (Taqrib al Tahdhib, 766) thiqah (Dar al Qutni) Amir ibn S'ad: Imam, thiqah (Tarajum al A'lam) S'ad ibn Abu Waqas: Companion of the Prophet
The author of Dhakha'ir al Uqba has denoted a whole topic for this purpose that Q. 33:33 was revealed about those five. (Start reading from page #21)
This hadith is present in Tarikh al Baghdad (tradition #4743).
ثم قام فخطب على المنبر فقال : يا أهل العراق اتقوا الله فينا فإنا أمراؤكم وضيفانكم ونحن أهل البيت الذين قال الله عز و جل : { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا }
(Hasan) stood on the pulpit and said, 'O Iraqis, fear God about us (Ahlul Bayt). I am your lord and your guest. We are the Ahlul Bayt about which God revealed Q. 33:33.'
رواه الطبراني ورجاله ثقات
Al Tabarani narrated it and his men are trustworthy.(Majma al Zawa'id, volume 9, page #273, tradition #15010)
Al Tahawi, in his Mushkil al A'thar, records a number of traditions regarding Q. 33:33 that it refers to those five holy beings.
Al Shaibani, in his Taisir al Wusul, records such hadiths to show the grandeur of Ahlul Bayt by using Q. 33:33.
Even Ibn Kathir and Al Shawkani didn't forget to mention those narrations about those five gathering together and God revealing Q. 33:33.
Al Baihaqi, in his famous Sunan al Kubra (traditions #2683 and 2690), record these narrations.
So, in the light of these proofs and evidences, it can be safely said that Q. 33:33 came down for those five i.e. Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. Let me finish this blog of mine by quoting some hadiths to express my love and respect for the four descendants of the Prophet.
أن عليا لما تزوج فاطمة قالت للنبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : زوجتنيه أعيمش عظيم البطن . فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : " لقد زوجتكه وإنه لأول أصحابي سلما وأكثرهم علما وأعظهم حلما "
رواه الطبراني وهو مرسل صحيح الإسناد
When Ali married Fatima...the Prophet said (to her), 'indeed I've let him marry you and he is the first of my Companions to embrace Islam and the most knowledgeable of them all and the greatest of them in tolerance'. (This hadith is) mentioned by Al Tabarani and it is mursil (and) of authentic chain.
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #124, tradition #14596)
وعن البراء - يعني ابن عازب - قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :
الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب أهل الجنة رواه الطبراني وإسناده حسن
Narrated by Bara who said: The Prophet said, 'Hasan and Husain are the chiefs of the youth of paradise.' (This hadith is) mentioned by Al Tabarani and its chain is hasan.
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #294, tradition #15093)
عن الزهري قال : ما رفع بالشام حجر يوم قتل الحسين بن علي إلا عن دم
رواه الطبراني ورجاله رجال الصحيحNarrated by Zuhri who said, 'we didn't pick any stone the day Husain was killed but there was blood on it.' (This hadith is) mentioned by Al Tabarani and his men are authentic.
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #316, tradition #15160)
وعن النعمان بن بشير قال : استأذن أبو بكر على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فسمع صوت عائشة عاليا وهي تقول : والله لقد عرفت أن عليا وفاطمة أحب إليك مني ومن أبي - مرتين أو ثلاثا - . فاستأذن أبو بكر [ فدخل ] فأهوى إليها فقال : يا بنت فلانة لا أسمعك ترفعين صوتك على رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
قلت : رواه أبو داود غير ذكر علي وفاطمة رواه أحمد ورجاله رجال الصحيح
Narrated by Numan ibn Bashir who said: Abu Bakr asked permission to meet the Prophet and he heard the loud voice of Aisha who was saying, 'by God, I know that you love Ali and Fatima more than me and my father'. (This hadith is) mentioned by Ahmad and his men are authentic.
(Majma al Zawa'id, volume #9, page #325, tradition #15194)Some books on Ilm Rijal al Hadith:
Sunni
Mizan al Itidal by Dhahabi
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=657
http://archive.org/details/Mizan_Al_Itidal_Thahabi
http://islamport.com/w/trj/Web/1240/1.htm
Tarikh al Kabir of Bukhari
http://archive.org/details/Tarikh_Kabir_Bukhari
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3561
Al Istiab by Ibn Abd al Barr
http://archive.org/details/AlIsteeab
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/21/264.html
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A8%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%A8%20**/i42&p1
Tahdhib al Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Tahthib_Ibn_Hajar
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Tahthib_Ibn_Hajar2
http://islamport.com/w/trj/Web/2126/1.htm
Taqrib al Tahdhib, abridgment of Tahdhib al Tahdhib
http://archive.org/details/Taghrib_Tahthib
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8+**/i221&p1
Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajar
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%86%20***/i292&p1
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/985/index.htm
http://lib.eshia.ir/40424/1/2
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1012
http://archive.org/details/Lisan_Mizan_Ibn_Hajar
Siyar Alam al Nubala by Dhahabi
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?ID=1&idfrom=1&idto=6536&bk_no=60
http://archive.org/details/siar_noblaa
Tahdhib al Tahdhib al Kamal by Dhahabi
http://archive.org/details/tadhib_tahdib
Tahdhib al Kamal by Mizzi
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/973/index.htm
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/AlwaraqSrv/bookpage?book=360&session=ABBBVFAGFGFHAAWER&fkey=2&page=1&option=1
http://archive.org/details/Tahthib_Al_Kamal_Mazi
Usd al Ghaba by Ali ibn Athir
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/9/37.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/UsdulGhabahFiMarifat-us-Sahabahr.aByShaykhIbnAthirUrduTranslation/UsdulGhabahFiMarifat-us-Sahabahr.a-volume1-ByShaykhIbnAthirUrduTranslationByShaykhMuhammadAbdushShakoorFarooqiLakhnavir.a#page/n0/mode/1up
http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A9%20**/i219&p1
Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'd
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/938/index.htm
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/AlwaraqSrv/bookpage?book=24&page=1
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/61/940.html
http://archive.org/details/TabaqatIbnESaad-urdu
Tarikh Damashq by Ibn Asakir
http://archive.org/details/TarikhDimashq
http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=798
Tarikh Baghdad by Khatib al Baghdadi
http://archive.org/details/Tarikh_Baghdad
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/108/1528.html
Thiqat al Ajli
http://islamicdoc.org/Multimedia/fbook/10721/10721_1.htm
Shia
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?topic=20
Tahdhib al Maqal by Muhammad Ali Abtahi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=20&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Rijals of Tusi, Khaqani, Nijashi and Ibn Daud
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=30&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Al Fahrist of Al Tusi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=40&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Muj'am Rijal al Hadith by Ayatollah Khoei
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=50&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Naqad al Rijal by Al Tafrishi
http://www.yasoob.org/ar/lists/lists.php?start=70&records_per_page=10&topic=20
Risail al Rijalia by Muhammad al Kalbasi
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/2972_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1
Rijal Kashi
https://ia801704.us.archive.org/34/items/234789437833/rjal-akeshi.pdf
Qamus al Rijal by Muhammad Taqi al Tustari
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/3035_%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A9
