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
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
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)?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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?
by Shibli Naumani, Page 40
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
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
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,
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
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
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
How soon Omar and his friends forgot the saying of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w) "Paradise longs for three men, Ali, Ammar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number
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
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
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?
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” call Uthman
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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
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,
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)
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-
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
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
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
WHERE IN THE HOLY QURAN EVER MENTION THAT THE IMPORTANT
SELECTION OF KHILAFA OR IMAM ARE IN THE HAND OF HUMAN BEING,
PLEASE PROVIDE ONE VERSE FOR ME IT IS ENOUGH.
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
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
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
The question is which one out of these four groups are the
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
Where another group out of these two groups of Ahle Sunna
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!’
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no
boundaries or limitations
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
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!)"
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
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
From the period of Abu Bakr, present any example or a report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
Qadhi Khan, Page 98
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?
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.
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?