Questions per Authors

 72 Questions
 20 Questions

Questions per Subjects

All Questions




Meaning of Shia and Sunni



It is an established fact that all things are recognised by their name, even Allah (swt) first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl' ul Sunnah or Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur'an wherein any of these names have been indicated.



If these titles cannot be located in the Qur'an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such 'mutawatir' 'marfuu' or 'saheeh' narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl'ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.



If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.



What were you famously known as before adopting these names?



Why have you forsaken your previous title?



According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid'a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid'a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid'a?



Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl'ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?



Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?



Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?



Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?



The title 'Shia' is present in the Qur'an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?



If you do accept this, then what you do mean by 'Millat e Ibraheem' in your sect? And if you don't accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi'a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?



Does opposition to the title 'Shia' not constitute opposition to the Qur'an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)? Please see our article "To know the Shia'a"



If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?



The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe'een what titles were used?



Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.



If it is Shi'a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe'een and Taba Tabe'een were Shia'a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?



With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi's martyred Imam Husayn (as)?



What is the definition of Shi'a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.



Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.










After the death of the Prophet (saw) a prominent Sahabi Malik Numera was killed for not paying Zakat. Is there any law in Islam condemn a Muslim to be killed if refuse to pay Zakat?



In addition after Malik was killed, immediately his wife was raped. To cover up, the word used instead of rape was that the she was married to the person who raped her. Under which Islamic law allow a Muslim to kill a Muslim and at the same day married his wife without edah (days require to remain unmarried after the death of a husband) and without her approval?



Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur’an “And of the people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them”. (The Qur’an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After the Prophet (saaws)’s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws)’s demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join?



Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?



Imam Ghazzali in sirrul Aalameen, Maqaalidul Ba'aa page 9, writes the desire for power had prevailed among the Sahaba and they first turned into opposition. They threw the holy Prophet[saww]'s message onto their backs, they demanded some payment in return for the foundation and they did a very bad trade. Could you please elaborate on this?



Can your prayers be complete without darood? If yes then come up with full evidence and if not then how come the blessings are just sent upon Muhammad[saww] and his progeny and not upon his companions and wives? When the prayers can be complete without sending blessings to the wives and the companions, why does Ahl'ul Sunnah add the names of these groups to Darood in their religious gatherings?



Cite a saheeh and authoritative text hadeeth of the apostle with a complete source wherein it is reported that it is obligatory to send darood upon all the companions and wives of the holy prophet (saww). And also tell us if it is obligatory then how can the prayers be in order without them?





Abu baker, Umar and Uthman



We have the right to ask “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” this question. Rather, we challenge them to bring about one Qur’anic verse, or one hadith, making it compulsory on the Muslims to love Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman or any other sahabi!



The soldiers that the holy prophet (saww) had prepared against Musailimah ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]'s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?
See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18



By calling Marwan back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it? Please see our article "Who really killed 'Uthman"



It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.



History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?
1. “the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka’bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with ‘Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but ‘Abu Lahab ‘Abd al Uzza b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went with the Quraysh supporting them against ‘Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was sent secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them”. (Taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 page 81 – Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W.Montgommery & M.V. MacDonald).
2. “These days were very hard with them and very often they had to feed on the leaves TALH or plantain” (taken from Siratun Nabi by Shibli Numani Vol 1 p 218, English translation by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni.


Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet’s his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s companions follow this approach?
“the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral” - taken from Sharra Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi).



Did the two shaykhs of Ahl'ul Sunnah participate in the burial rituals of the holy Prophet[saww], if you claim they did, then why do we read that both Sharh mawaqif and Al Farooq Shibli Nu'mani confirm their absence? If they did not participate then what type of friends are these? Al-Farooq, by Shibli Naumani, Page 40



 Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying “You are my brother in this world and the next”, so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?
See The History of the Khailfahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers)



In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr 'The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant'. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].



In the Bai'at of Ridhwan, the Muslims took a covenant of not fleeing from the battle field. But the battle of Hunayn took place after the "bay'at of under the tree". Of those people who went against their covenants, what is your verdict with regards to them?



The historian, Habib as Sayr writes regarding the battle of Hunayn that:

Purseed Abu Bakr wa Umar kujaa Budand? Guft aan neez dar goshe rafte budand.

Meaning when it was enquired where Abu Bakr and Umar were?, the narrator replied they had also fled to some corner. Contemplate over this narration, let it be very clear that in your Tafseer Qaweri, Tafseer Hussayni, Rawdhatus Safaa, Taareekhul Khamseen, Rawdhatul Ahbab, Ma'aarijun Nubuwwah, etc it is mentioned that the three gentlemen had fled from the battle of Hunayn. Why did they break the covenant of the Bay'at of Ridhwan? Reply after reading all these books.



If these three men had been brave then show us from your book Tafseer Qaweri the names of these three men from among those who did not flee in the battle of Hunayn. And prove it to us from all of your books, how many non-believers had been killed by these three men in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn. How many non-believers did they inflict with harm? And how much harm did themselves sustain in their bodies? And just mention five names with complete sources from among those whom these people killed.



If Umar has been brave then write the names of people who got killed at his hands in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn from historical sources compare Ali[sa] and Umar so that their doings in those two battles become known.



It is commonly conveyed that the companions were brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir’s did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (saaws)’s order refused to go the Kaffir’s prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummaya clan.
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)



Conspiracy at Saqifa


We do not agree and reject THE SECRET MEETING OF SAQIFA which happened without the awareness and knowledge of the Muslim Ummah. Only few people met there, made their own decisions and selected their own man among themselves. Worst in this meeting the discussion was about the tribalism NOT ISLAM. There are several questions have risen in this meeting which require A TRUE MUSLIM TO ANSWER THEM.



When the second caliph came to be informed about the meeting in Saqifa, why he came in secret in the mosque and informed only two people Abu Baker and Abu Ubaida?



Among all the Muslims in the mosque he only selected Abu Baker and Abu Ubaida. Other important Companions of the Holy Prophets (s.a.w) did not have the right to attend that meeting?



How can he left out Ali at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said "Ali mal Haq wal Haq ma Ali?"



How can he left out Salman at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said "Salman minal Ahle Bait?"



How can he left out Khuzaima Ibne Thabit (Dhush-Shahadatain) at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said that his witness is equal to two people? Was he not important and necessary at the serious moment?



How can he left out Ammar Yasir at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said that he would be killed by rebellious, meaning Firqa Baghiya?



How can he left out Abu Dhar at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said “Heaven has not shaded, nor has the earth carried a person more straight forward than Abu Dhar. He walks on earth with the immaterialistic attitude of Jesus, the son of Mary?"



How soon Omar and his friends forgot the saying of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) "Paradise longs for three men, Ali, Ammar and Salman?"



Other Muslims particular those who were at the Mosque, did not have the Feeling of Safety and Love for Islam, only those few people felt the danger?



The event of Ghadir Khum just passed only few days before Saqifa took place which they Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaida were present and heard what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said. They not only heard what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said, but they were the first people to congratulate Ali (a.s). Was it possible that they quickly forgot this Important event and Hadith of Holy Prophet (s.a.w) of Ghadir Khum and rushed to Saqifa?



If Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaida did not have ANY DESIRE for Caliphate, what made them to leave the Dead Body of the Last Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and Beloved of Allah aside without attending his Funeral?



We know that after the death of Omar, there was three days gaps and then a Caliph was selected. Why could they not delay the selection of Caliphate to take place after the burial of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)?



The same Abu Ubaida bin Jarrah was a grave digger for the Muslim of Makkah. How he managed to leave such a golden opportunity to dig the grave of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and ran for the selection of Caliphate?



Which one was it important for Abu Ubaida the golden opportunity to dig the grave of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) or the worldly power of Caliphate?



Since when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) in his life ever attended Saqifa and sent any delegation there?



Were not the same Saqifa which was infamous and the secret meeting place of the criminals to discuss their bad movement?



Was the Mosque not preferable and the right place for the selection of the Khilafa than Saqifa?



The Mosque did not have enough space for the Muslim gathering so they should go to Saqifa?



The decision of war, peace, people coming to the Holy Prophet (saw), lecture and the solving of Muslim problems during the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) was taking place in Saqifa or in the Mosque?



Why during debate in Saqifa, there were not mentioned any Quranic verses or the Holy Prophet (saw) traditions?



The Holy Prophet (saw) tried his best to remove the problem of tribe and treated all Muslims equal, if this was the selection of the Muslim Khalifa why the subject of tribelism was brought forward in this meeting?



Was it not conspiracy that Omar prepared a speech instead Abu Baker read exactly what Omar wanted?


Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

     Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:


     When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. BY ALLAH, HE NEVER MISSED A SENTENCE THAT I LIKED IN MY OWN PREPARED SPEECH, BUT HE SAID THE LIKE OF IT OR BETTER THAN IT SPONTANEOUSLY.




Ahl’ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles adopted by the parties during their discussions about the Prophet’s successor at the Saqifa?




Traditions in praise of Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman



There are several traditions in praise of Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman. If truly those traditions were genuine, then in Saqifa was the right place and right time to bring forward those traditions in their favour against those who opposed Abu Baker and Umar and to give strength for their selection of a Khalifa. Why Abu Baker or Umar never brought forward any traditions regarding them if they were truly existed in their favour and Prophet (saw) said regarding them?



Similar, if truly those traditions in praise of Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman, were genuine, then in Mubahila those type  of people who were very closed to Allah where Allah could quickly and easily accept their Duas were required, where were they during Mubahila against Christians where by their Dua can wipe out Christianity?



Collection and transmission of Prophet's traditions (Sunnah)



The three Caliphs, Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman, prohibited the writing and even the discussion of the traditions of the Prophet (saw).


Abu Bakr gathered the people during his Caliphate and said to them: "You relate traditions from the Prophet of God and differ about it. The people after you will differ even more, [therefore] do not relate anything from the Prophet. If anyone asks you, say: 'Between us there is the book, so consider as lawful what is lawful in it, and prohibit what is forbidden in it'".


Similarly, 'Umar was another one who forbade the people from narrating traditions from the Prophet. Qarza b. K'ab said: "When 'Umar b. al-Khattab sent us to Iraq, he walked with us and said: 'Do you know why I followed you?' They said: 'To honour us'. He said: 'Besides that, you are going to the villagers. The Qur'an reverberates in them like the reverberation of a bee. Do not occupy them with traditions. So make them busy and recite the Qur'an, and reduce the narrations from the Prophet and I am an associate to you [in this]'".


Then 'Uthman came after him. He continued the trend and notified all the people that: "It is not permitted for anyone to narrate a tradition which was not heard during the times of Abu Bakr and 'Umar".


Since the interests of the ruling authority and the dominant political line dictated the obliteration and the burning of the Sunnah and the prohibition of quoting hadith, the sahaba who supported such caliphate obeyed those orders and burnt such Sunnah and ceased quoting hadith. Thus, they left themselves and their followers no option except resorting to personal views expressed as ijtihad, or following the "sunnah" of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu`awiyah, Yazid, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, al-Waleed ibn Abd al-Malik, Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik....  This continued till [Umayyad caliph] Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz came to power and asked Abu Bakr al-Hazmi to write down what he remembered of the ahadith and Sunnah of the  Messenger of Allah or the "sunnah" of Umar ibn al-Khattab.[49]


How come they started transmitting and collecting the traditions (Sunnah) of the Prophet (saw) after they were forbidden and prevented by Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman not to do so?



Why they follow their Sirahs and all their sayings with the exception of this prohibition of traditions collections and started collecting and transmitting Prophet (saw)'s traditions against the wishes of their leaders Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman?



Can those traditions which were compiled by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" be taken for granted especially since those who  compiled them belonged to Banu Umayyah and their supporters who represent Quraysh's caliphate? Can we rely on them after having already come to know the truth about Quraysh and its attitude towards the Messenger of Allah and his purified Sunnah?



Let us take example of Imam Ali (a.s) and Abu Huraira in Bukhari and see who provide more hadith of Holy Prophet (s.a.w)


Total number of traditions in 9 volumns of Bukhari:       7068

Ali-Ibn-Abitaleeb:   79 (1.11%)

Abu Hurairah:            1100  (15.56%)


I do not think it require any comment, just question, do you follow Ali (a.s) who is part of Ahlel Bait and whom you are told to follow him in Hadith Thaqalain or Abu Huraira?



How in short time, around two years Abu Huraira could have such hadith and supersede Imam Ali who since childhood live his life with the Prophet (saw)?



The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration’s; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it’s Gate”, did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?




Examples of Traditions devalued the Prophet (saw)




Can learn Sunni scholars carry their wives in their shoulders in public and dancing with them as they accept the tradition which claimed that the Holy Prophet (saw) did that, can they do this?



Can learn Sunni scholars urinate in public while standing as they accept the tradition which claimed that the Holy Prophet (saw) did that, can they do this?




Jabr and Qadr



How can you then accept traditions, reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, that Allah has preordained the actions of His slaves before He [even] created them? Al-Bukhari has reported in his Sahih: "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam: 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of paradise'. Then Adam said to him: 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote [the Torah] for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for an act which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses, the Prophet added, repeating the statement three times".


How can we believe in this religion which petrifies human reasoning, [teaching] the human being is a puppet which the hand of fate moves according to its wishes, only to put it into an oven later on? This belief which prevents the human mind from creation, discovery, invention, progress and competition which have brought about such wonderful things; and leaves a person stagnant and contented with the state he is in and with what he has, claiming that he is proceeding towards what has been decreed for him?



How can we accept these traditions which conflict with sound reason and portray a picture that Allah, Glory be to Him, is the Creator, Almighty, Strong and Overpowering and it is up to Him to create weak slaves so as to put them into the hell fire simply because He does what He wills?


Do the intelligent beings call this Lord a wise, merciful or just God?



What would happen if we discuss this with non-Muslim erudite scholars and they know that our Lord has these attributes and that our religion has decreed misery upon the people before they were born, will they then accept Islam and enter into the religion in great numbers?




If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the ‘Qur’an is sufficient for us’ (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Holy Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense?
(See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)







Fatima with 2 caliphs



What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (sa)?



If she was a Mu'menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil ( Just ), is following one of them a way of salvation?



If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry." Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61



If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession. Please see our article "Burning the house of Fatima[sa]"



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



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


86. Of the 124,000 Prophets’ that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul’bayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?



If the tradition which Abu Bakar claimed to hear that the Prophet (saw) said "We prophets do not leave behind any legacy; whatever we leave as inheritance is charity" (i.e., the property of umma).  Then how possible Aisha could inherit the house and allow Abu Baker and Umar to buried there and Fatimah (as) has no right to inherit?



Which right or under which law could Aisha allow Abu Baker  and Umar to be buried there while Fatimah (as) or Imam Hassan could not be buried there?



Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).




Ali with 3 Caliphs



In Sawaiq Al-Muhriqah of Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki writes that there are three siddeeq ( truthful ), Habib an Najaar, Hazqeel and Ali (as), and that Ali (as) was better than the two. Why has Abu Bakr not been mentioned here?
See also: Tafseer e Kabir, Vol. 7, Page 317



Was Umar the heir of the holy Prophet[saww]'s knowledge? If yes then why as is stipulated by Jalaludeen Suyuti 'Umar used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case when there is no Abul Hassan (History of the Khalifahs who took the right way (English translation by Abdassamad Clarke page 178)? And why did he confess that 'lau la Aliyyan lahalakal Umar'? If Ali (as) wasn't there, Umar would have perished (Tadkhiratul Khawwas, by Sibt Ibne Jauzi, page 127). Note: The comments in Dhikr-e-Hussain by Maulana Kauthar Niyazi are also worthy of note.



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



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



Why Ali (a.s) was not given any authority in the government of the first three Caliph?



If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first three Khalifa’s why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?



 Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” call Uthman "Dhul-Noorayn,” justifying it by saying that he had married Ruqayya and Ummu Kulthoom who, according to them, were the Prophet’s daughters. This is not true.  The truth is that they were his step-daughters. Even if you suppose [erroneously] that they were his daughters, how can they be described as “noorayn,” two lights, since the Prophet never narrated any of their merits?  Why not attach this title to Fatima whom he described as the Leader and the light of all the women of the world? Why did they not call Ali “Dhul-Noor” based on such a premise? 




Rebellion against Imam Ali



It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right?



The late Wahabie scholar Sayyid Abul A’la Maudoodi , in his book “Murtad ki Saza” (Punishment of the apostate) states that those who did not pay Zakat became apostates because they rebelled against the Khalifa of the time. Murtad ki Saza, page 24 – 25 Karachi edition 1954 Curiously when the companions rebel against Ali (as) and wage war against him the same thinking is not applied.



If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn Mu’awiya will lead to such persons being raised as betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?
This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127)



We read in the Holy Qur’an “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God’s wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment” (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?


During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman “Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever”, see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223


In Musnad Ahmed Hanbal and so on, it is mentioned that Ayesha had named Uthman as Nathal, who should be killed and Murtakib Kufr. If you regard Ayesha as the truthful then you will have to accept what she called Uthman. And if she did not tell the truth then why do you call her the truthful? Please see our article "Ayesha"







How can we comprehend [the fact that] Mu'awiya, the freed man, son of a freed man and accursed son of the accursed one, ascending the Caliphate, [a position] which represented the status and the Caliphate of the Prophet of Allah, (S.A.W.)?



Why sunnis try to damage the character of Abu Talib, this great man while they are happy to accept that people like Abu Sufyan and Moaviya were UNQUESTIONABLY(!!!!!) pious muslims.



It is an established fact in the books of Sunnis that Muawiyah had disputed with the Khalifah Rashid (the rightly guided caliph) and ordered the poisoning of Imam Hassan[sa] (check Mahram Naama, khwaja Hassan Nidhami) and why are the companions who made Ali[as] be abused on the pulpits considered as fair players? Give us intellectual and textual reasoning. Please see our article "Mu'awiya"



If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?
Hadhrath Aysha was killed by Mu’awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)




Real Prophet (saw) Successors (Imams)



There are two type of the hadith of Thaqalain, one says “Kitab and Sunnah” and other “Kitab and Itrat Ahlel Bait.” If you try all your best to search all Sahih books, you will not find hadith of “Kitab and Sunnah” anywhere except in Muwatta of Imam Malik which is without any ASNAD (Chains). It is only one person saying. While if you try to find “Kitab and Itrat Ahlel Bait” you find that it has been told by more than 20 Sahabas. Hadith which has come from more than 6 Sahaba this one becomes as “Hadith Mutawatir.”


Why “hadith Mutawatir” which is like verse of Holy Quran has been ignored and other one without Asnad (Chains) has been embraced and treated as first class?




If we accept the hadith of “Kitab and Itrat Ahlel Bait”, why we do not treat Ahlel Bait the way we treat Quran? Meaning why we do not take their guidance and their sayings rather than going through other channels to get Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) which resulted many contradicting sayings and in turn it splintered into different schools, groups, offshoots?




None of the Prophet’s (saw) wives or Banu Hashim ever claimed this verse 33 of chapter Al-Ahzab was revealed for them. But Ayesha and Umme Salma themselves have admitted and agreed to say that the Prophet (saw) has taken Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain wrapped them under the cloak and then call 'These are MY AHLEL BAIT’. How could then other claim that this verse was revealed for the wives of the Prophet (saw) or others?



 During Mubahila against Christians, why did Prophet (s.a.w) not select even one of Sahabis (companions) or one of his wives? Where were those great Sahabis (companions) or wives of the Prophet (saw) who by their Dua could wipe out Christianity?




The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said: "Man mata walam yaarifu Imamul Zaman mata mita Jahilia."

“Whosoever dies without recognizing the Imam of his time dies the death of the jahiliyyah.”   

- Ahmad b. Hanbal, al Musnad, p. 96, Kanzul Ummal, Sharah-e- Aqaid


Who is Imam of Our Age?




We know that Christians has number 666, if you able to know this number you will know who is this BEAST meaning DAJJAL. This Dajjal was never mentioned by name only by number. In this way the Christians try their best to suit anyone to this number, even our Holy Prophet (s.a.w) was not spared. You will see that Pope was called as Beast by Protestant, Henry Kissinger and now even the government of American included to be Beast of number 666.


If we come to the Muslims we will see this type of game is also there. The Muslims has number 12 and this is according the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) saying when he said :-


Sahih Muslim Book 19, Number 4483:

     Narrated Jabir ibn Samurah:


     It has been narrated on the authority of Amir ibn Sa'd ibn AbuWaqqas who said: I wrote (a letter) to Jabir ibn Samurah and sent it to him through my servant, Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on Friday, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraysh. I also heard him say: A small force of the Muslims will capture the white palace, the palace of the Persian Emperor or his descendants. I also heard him say: Before the Day of Judgment there will appear (a number of) imposters. You are to guard against them. I also heard him say: When God grants wealth to any one of you, he should first spend it on himself and his family (and then give it in charity to the poor). I heard     him (also) say: I shall be your forerunner at the Cistern (expecting your arrival).


Sunan Abu Dawud Book 36, Number 4266:

     Narrated Jabir ibn Samurah:


     The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The religion will continue to be established till there are twelve caliphs over you, and the whole community will agree on each of them. I then heard from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) some remarks which I could not understand. I asked my father: What is he saying: He said: all of them will belong to Quraysh.


You can also find in Sahih Tirmizi and Yanabee ul-Mawadata vol 3 page 105.


Who are these twelve Khalifa, did our Holy Prophet (s.a.w) left us to guess their names without informing us? According to this hadith the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) did not mention who are these 12 Khalifa. Therefore the Muslims started to guess and name anyone who can fit and suit them, even the murder of the Sayyid Shababe Ahle Jana – the master of the youth of Paradise (Imam Hussain a.s) is included in the list. 




We know that our Prophet (s.a.w) is the last of the prophets and who brought COMPLETE MESSAGE from God, would it be difficult for him to mention those twelve Khalifa by name and leave in the hands of Muslim to guess just like Christians?




The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa’s after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul’bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu’awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states ‘He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa’s are.
1. “The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish” (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui).
2. Sharra Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi).
3. ibid, page 175






To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi'a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?



If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur'an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet's household of the same right.



If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn't from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.



You believe that the Khilafat can either be established by public votes or the way of ijma (consensus). Could you verify this with evidence from the sayings of the apostle himself?



Did the holy prophet (saww) depart from this world without giving guidance on Khilafat? If yes, why then did the two shaykhs say 'ilaaimatu minal quraysh' (The Imams are from Quraysh) in saqeefa bani sa'da? Did they specifically lie for leadership? Also why oppose the holy prophet's Sunnah, why did Abu Bakr candidate Umar?



In majmaul Bihar, Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes that Abu Bakr confessed that 'I am not a Khalifah but a Khalifah' if you regard him truthful then why do you not deny his caliphate?






Ahle Sunnah Sects and Imams



Before the appearance of those schools and groups, such as Al-Ash’ari, Mutazalite, Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Jaafari, Zaydi, Ibadhi and other, what would be the status of those Muslims who did not get chance to follow them, in which sects would they be?



If only one group out of 73 will go to paradise, then surely only one group of Ahlel Sunnah out of four  (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali ) should be the success one as far as the Law concern because all of them have different interpretation of Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)? The question is which one out of these four groups are the success one?



If only one sect out of  4 of Sunni sects would be a success one, where the other 3 groups of Ahle Sunna will be?



If one group out of 73 will go to paradise, then surely one group of Ahlel Sunna out of two (Ashaari and Hanbali) as far as the Doctrine concern because all of them have different interpretation of Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)? The question is which one out of these two groups are the success one?



Where another group out of these two groups of Ahle Sunna will be?



Where can we find that any of these Imams ever said that ‘I am the most learned man of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) Ummat and Muslims have to follow me!’


128) On whose authority should we follow them, the authority of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) or God, and where can we find their names if their names ever mentioned by them?



If they were selected by men, how can we trust those men who selected them?



Why should we only chose those four selected Imams and reject other great Imams who came during their time and after them such as Imam Sufyan Sauri, Imam Sufyan ibne Ainiya, Ibne Jareeh, Imam Ghazali,  and others?




 Also do you mean to say that those Imams like as Imam Sufyan Sauri, Imam Sufyan ibne Ainiya, Ibne Jareeh, Imam Ghazali, Imam Jaafar Sadiq (who taught Abu Hanifa and Malik) and others WERE NOT GREAT? What is your proof that ONLY THESE FOUR IMAMS WERE GREAT?



If you are true in your words and say that we should not reject Imam Sufyan Sauri, Imam Sufyan ibne Ainiya, Ibne Jareeh, Imam Ghazali and others then why are you STICKING WITH THESE FOUR IMAMS ONLY?



Tell me if the early Muslims did survive without these four Imams then what was necessary for these Imams:



Wahabi who came from the offshot of Hanbal are another new sect, where would they stand? There are several books written by scholars of Ahlel Sunna against them.



The Holy Prophet (saaws) had said “I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of ressurection” . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?
Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7


If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi’as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time?






Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur’an states quite categorically that no one has that right “And it is not for a believing man or woman that they should have any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying”. With this verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one sitting and the formula ‘Prayer is better than Sleep’ in the Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)’s orders in favour of his own?
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)



Who allowed the door of Ijtehad to be closed, Holy Prophet (s.w.a), God or man, if man on whose authority?



In case of the advance technology, how can we cope with new regulations if the door of Ijtehad is closed when we are only suppose to follow those four Imams? 



Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur'anic verse?



Is anyone from among the ummah authorised to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?



In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abu Bakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]'s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?



If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.



If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense? Please see our article "Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[sa]"




Prophet and Quran collection



While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saww) leave the Qur'an with the ummah or not?



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



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



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



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



It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur'an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word's correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur'an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur'an and Rasul'Allah? If Rasul'Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur'an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur'an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one? See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350



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



You claim that the Shia'a Qur'an contains forty parts, prove its source from the four Shia key books (Kutub Al-'Arba'a).









Do you believe in the 'Tawheed' of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?

Wajibul Wujood:
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations

Mumkinul Wujood:
Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existance), may be He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.




If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:

Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,
Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam

Give us a detailed account of it.

Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being's body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.



Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur'an, "Sahih al Bukhari" Volume 6 hadith number 371:

"The Prophet (saws) said, "The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: 'Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say 'Qat! Qat!" (Enough! Enough!)" Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, Hadeeth 371

I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?



Is Allah not the possessor of the power of 'Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can't he just limit hell with a simple command?



Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah[swt], mean that Allah[swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.


You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called 'Radde Kufr' wherein you do tabarra. Like in:

Fatabarra'tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.
I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.

Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?



If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi'a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?



'Laa tudrukuhul absaar' are Qur'anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of 'Lan Taraani'.



When the holy prophet went on Mi'raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).



If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?



What is the basis of your doctrine of God's visibility, the Qur'an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur'an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God's words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur'an.



Tell me were all early Muslims believed that God can be seen like Hanbal or not believed like rest of three schools?







Tell me were all early Muslims doing Qunut at the morning like Shafi and Malik or they were not doing like Hanafi and Hanbali?



 Tell me were all early Muslims folding their hands like three schools or not folding like Malik?



You only have nine reports at your disposal as far as praying the salaat by folding your arms is concerned. On the principles of the transmitters of hadeeth, prove their chains as 'Saheeh' correct. And prove all the transmitters as reliable.



From the period of Abu Bakr, present any example or a report to prove that Abu Bakr said his prayers by folding his arms. If you can, why do the Malikis keep their arms straight while saying their prayers?



Every chapter of the Qur'an begins with Bismillah but Surah tawbah doesn't begin with it, why?



When the start of every Surah of the Qur'an has been made with Bismillah, why then do you not start the Surahs in your salaat with Bismillah?



Prove 'Thanaa' Eulogy from the Qur'an.



Point out Assalaatu minan nawm to us from the Qur'an if not then at least from an authentic hadeeth.



Prove that these words had been used as part of the Adhan during Abu Bakr's period.



Prove to us that the prayers of taraweeh had been said in congregation during the time of the holy Prophet[saww] and during the period of Abu Bakr.



Kanzul A'mal, Hayder Aabad edition, vol. 5, in the Musnad of Ali karramallahu wajhu, page 147, hadeeth 2403 it is written that, the holy Prophet[saww] used to wipe his feet during wudhoo, why do you not regard wiping as permissible? If the feet will go to hell by being kept dry during wudhoo then how is the wiping over the socks correct?






The Qur'an instructs us to fast till night "thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail", and night enters when darkness casts in. Why do you open your fasts early? Why were Umar and Uthman opening their fasts after Maghrib prayers?
Nuqaa' Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth 351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi



Marriage Muta



 In Bukhari we learn from Imran that the Aya 4:24 regarding Muta WAS NEVER ABROGATED so Muta should have been forbidden!


Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:


The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested.


See the original Arabic Bukhari is written as : “Anzalta Ayatul MUTA FI KITABILLAH” See book 3 page 105 but in English it has been changed from the word MUTA TO HAJJ-AT- TAMATU, typical Christian style of changing their Bible!


The only person to make MUTA AS UNLAWFUL WAS NOBODY ELSE EXCEPT OMAR WHO SAID, “TWO TYPES OF MUT’A WERE (LEGAL) DURING THE TIME OF THE PROPHET AND I FORBID THEM BOTH, and I punish those who commit it. They are: Mut'a of pilgrimage and Mut'a of women.”  See Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Fakhr al-Razi, volum 3, page 201 under verse 4:24; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, volume 1, page 52 and Al-Mughani by Ibnu Quddama volume 7 page 572. Also Bukahri confirm that it was Omar who MADE UNLAWFUL WHAT WAS MADE LAWFUL BY ALLAH


How can Omar prohibit something which the messenger of Allah did not?




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



If Mut'a is Haraam, why did Asma Bin Abu Bakr do it? For evidence, refer to Tafseer Mazhari Qadhi Thanaa Allah , page 577.



You oppose the halaal Mut'a and do not hesitate terming it as adultery. But in your book Sharh Wiqaaya, page 298, it is mentioned that to your Imam Abu Hanifa, stated the expenditure of an adulteress is halaal and there is not any jurisprudential limit on one who rewards a woman for zinah.  Is Mut'ah worse than this?







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



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






In Muwatta of Imam malik, translated by Allamah Waheed al Zamaan, Page 147, hadeeth 603, Rasulullah (s) narrates that a companion had approached him, beating his chest and ripping his hair. If chest beating in the presence of Rasulullah (s) is allowed then why do you object to it?



Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddath Dehlavi in his book Midaaraj Nabaweeya, vol. 2, page 544 writes that the Mu'adhdhin of the apostle, Hadhrath Bilal Habashi (r.a) came to the Mosque of the Prophet[saww] beating his chest and complaining. What is your verdict regarding chest beating?



In the Musnad of Imam Hanbal, Egyptian edition, Vol. 6, Page 274 it is written that upon the demise of the holy Prophet[saww], Ayesha beat her chest along with the other women, what is your opinion regarding this act of Ummul Mu'mineen?



Hadhrath Ali Hajweeri Al Mash-huur Daata Ganj Bakhsh Lahori in his book Kashful Mahjoob, chapter 2, page 118, section 8 reports it from Umar, that the holy Prophet[saww] played as a camel for the then young Imam Hussain[as], meaning he made himself a replica of a camel. Following the Sunnah of the holy Prophet[saww] is it Sunnah (tradition) to make a replica of Imam Hussain[as]'s horse or is it a bid'at (Innovation)?








Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply? Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98 Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821



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



In your Fataawa Qaadhi Khan, vol. 1, page 64, it is written that if a person who is in a state of prayers kisses a woman without lust then his prayer is valid. Is the time for it too short except in prayers? Where is the need for such a thing in prayers?



How and with whose instructions did the incident of Harra transpire? What happened to Medina and Ahl Medinah during the same? Please give a detailed account of it.



The slogans "Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali" have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one "Naara Khilafat Haq Chaar Yaar" which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prophet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names. Please see our article "Imamate; The perfection of Deen"



Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim 'Our Four Rightful Men' out of modesty considering it as an abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?



 "WHOEVER I AM HIS MASTER, ALI IS HIS MASTER. O God! Love those who love him. Be hostile to those who are hostile to him. Hate those who hate him. Help those who help him. And keep the truth with him wherever he turns." (repeating this paragraph three times). 


Copyright ©2011
All rights reserved

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ     اللهم صلى على محد و ال محد.... و عجل فرجهم