These one hundred questions are from the pen of Allamah
Abdul Kareem Mushtaq, a name that needs no introduction for
Urdu readers. A former Sunni scholar that converted to Shi'a
Islam in the late 1960's, he dedicated his entire life to
defending the path of truth. Author of over thirty books,
the vast bulk of his works were rebuttals to Nasibi texts
attacking the Shi'a, and he managed to silence many leading
lights of Mu'awiya's cause, such as Dost Muhammad Qurayshi
and Qadhi Mazhar Husayn. A continual thorn in the flabby
sides of the Nasibi, the inability of the Marwani Mullah's
to refute his books, led to them seeking to ban his books
through Court on the grounds that they constituted
'disrespect of the Sahaba'. Despite such efforts, he
continued his mission undeterred by Nasibi hate mail and
death threats. Some of his most notable books include Furu-e-Deen,
wherein he presented one thousand questions for the Ahl'ul
Sunnah Ulema to refute and Chodha Masalai (replies to 14
questions typically raised against the Shi'a). A great
orator as well as a prolific writer thousands of people in
Pakistan converted to the path of truth, through him.
Unfortunately this fact, coupled with the spectacular
inability of the Nasibi to refute his books, made him a
direct target, and they silenced him in the only way that
followers of Mu'awiya can, by fatally shooting him in Lahore
in the mid nineties. Despite this tragedy his memory lives
on, his writings continue to act as a huge source of
inspiration and guidance for the Shi'a, and the
Answering-Ansar.org team have been heavily influenced by his
These questions form the second portion of Abdul Kareem
Mushtaq's book, Usul-e-Deen. Although we have translated
this book, it was felt that these one hundred questions are
best placed as a separate document under the challenge
section. Whilst the Allamah had cited Urdu editions of
books, we changed the text, referring to English editions,
to ensure that these references can be located more easily.
May Allah (swt) reward Allamah Abdul Kareem Mushtaq for his
efforts and grant him Paradise with the Imams (as). May his
legacy (his books) continue to act as source of guidance for
us all. May Allah (swt) also accept our intention, and bless
Prophet Muhammad and his purified family.
The following one hundred questions are presented so that we
can ascertain the position of the Ahl'ul Sunnah on these
points. It should serve as an opportunity for our Ahl'ul
Sunnah brethren, to assess the weight of his adopted beliefs
in an impartial manner, free from the shackles of blind
prejudice borne out of parental doctrines. Our assertions
are that, the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema are unable to provide
satisfactory responses to any of these questions.
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
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?
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
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
What is the definition of Shi'a in
your sect? Mention it with a lexical
Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail
with lexical reference.
Do you believe in
the 'Tawheed' of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence
of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?
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
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!)"
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work "Yaar",
which can also be used as "very close friends". In India &
Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.
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.
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."
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]"
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
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.
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
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 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?
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
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
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?
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?
Allamah Shibli Nu'mani in al Farooq
page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim
that Umar had said that two Mut'a
were allowed during the time of the
holy prophet but I disallow them
from now and these are the Mut'a of
Hajj and the Mut'a of Nisaa. On what
religious authority did Umar forbid
what the apostle and Allah (swt)
allowed? Clarify this point.
The 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
Nuqaa' Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth
351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi
You claim that the Shia'a Qur'an
contains forty parts, prove its
source from the four Shia key books
2002 - 2009 Answering-Ansar.org
If Mut'a is Haraam,
why did Asma Bin Abu Bakr do it? For evidence, refer to
Tafseer Mazhari Qadhi Thanaa Allah , page 577.
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
If it is wrong
then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and
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?
see our article "Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[sa]"
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?
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?
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.
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
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?
see our article "Ayesha"
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
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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.
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 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
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?
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
By calling Marwan
back from Medinah, Uthman bin Affan opposed the holy
Prophet[saww]. Do you reproach this or support it?
see our article "Who really killed 'Uthman"
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
see our article "Mu'awiya"
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.