Featured Post

Ghadir Khumm- Myth & Reality

The Shia claim that the Prophet (pbuh) divinely appointed Ali (R.A) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss...

Thursday, January 20, 2011


Ali [R.A] said;

"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely;
  • he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness and 

  • he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. 
  • The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. 
  • You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. 
  • Beware; whoever calls to this course, kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.

This section is also lovingly referred to as “Answering Answering-Ansar”. Here, we refute specific articles written by the various Shia propaganda sites, including Answering-Ansar, Al-Islam.org, and others.
  • Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]

    The event of Ghadir Khumm is taken grossly out of context by our Shia brothers who use it as proof that Ali ibn Abi Talib was nominated by the Prophet to be the next Caliph. This article includes rebuttals of common Shia arguments. The truth is that the Prophet never appointed Ali to be the next Caliph, and this is a distortion of the facts.

  • A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah

    The Ansar website wrote an article proving that Ali ibn Abi Talib married his daughter off to Umar ibn al-Khattab. In response to this article, the Answering Ansar website wrote an article denying this marriage. Unfortunately, that article by Answering Ansar was very weak; this is our rebuttal to that article by Answering Ansar. This is a comprehensive rebuttal which refutes Answering Ansar’s article point by point.

  • Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s Article “Who Killed Imam Hussain? (AS)”

    This is a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s article entitled “Who Killed Imam Hussain? (AS)”. Answering-Ansar attempted to shift the blame away from the Shia, but this rebuttal clearly shows that there is no possible way that the Shia of Kufa can be exonerated. The Shia must acknowledge their illustrious history which involves betraying the Ahlel Bayt and leading their own Imam to his imminent death.

  • Ali ibn Abi Talib Named His Sons after the Three Caliphs [includes a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar]

    Ali named three of his Sons after the Three Caliphs. This fact is recorded by al-Shaykh al-Mufid in “Kitab al-Irshad”, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively. Al-Shia.com itself documents how three of Ali’s sons were named Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. This fact categorically rejects the Shia paradigm which is based upon the false idea that Ali disapproved of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. This article also contains a refutation of Answering-Ansar’s article on the issue of Ali’s sons.

  • Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), the Second of the Two

    Allah honors Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) by mentioning him in the Quran in verse 9:40, documenting how it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was present with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) on the most historic day of Islam, in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) made the Hijra that would be so important that it marks the start of the Islamic calender. We examine this honor given to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), and then respond to the feeble Shia justifications.

  • Hadith About Drinking Urine in Sahih Al-Bukhari

    This is a response to a certain Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari which is misrepresented by the Shia propagandists. It should be noted that the Shia use the same tactics as the evangelists and the “Answering-Islam” team which has dedicated itself to destroying the honor of Islam. I have seen this similar accusation on the nefarious Answering-Islam website which also twists this Hadith to “disprove” Islam. In the end, they disprove nobody save themselves and the joke is on them. As for the Shia, they should be ashamed of the company they are in, using the same old arguments as the very enemies of Islam. They will therefore be treated accordingly.

  • Hadith About the Quran and Sunnah

    The Shia propagandists often claim that the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. “I am leaving you with the Book of Allah and my Sunnah…”) is weak or even forged. This is a blatant lie; according to the standards of the Hadith scholars, the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah is Sahih. The following is a dialogue between a Shia propagandist and Shaikh Gibril Haddad.

  • Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things [A Sunni Perspective]

    The Shia understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is nothing short of deviancy and error; and inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty objects, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the Thaqalayn. This article will help the reader to understand the true meaning behind the Hadith al-Thaqalayn as understood by the great majority of the Muslims.

  • A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s Article Entitled “Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government”

    This is a comprehensive rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s article entitled “Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government”. May Allah guide us to all that what is right!

  • Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs [A Sunni Perspective]

    The Shia propagandists have used and abused the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and therefore we felt that a response was necessary. We hope that this response will adequately silence the Shia propagandists and will end the confusion on the Sunni side as to what the appropriate response should be. Insha-Allah from now on forwards, Sunnis can simply refer the Shia to this article when the question of the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs comes up.

  • Reply to Email: Were Ali, Hasan, and Hussain Lying?

    This was in response to an email query sent to us by a brother named John. We decided to make our reply public in case it should help any others as well. May Allah guide Brother John and us to Truth!

  • Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Love for Ahlel Bayt

    One of the harshest opponents of the Shia was Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and because of this, some of the Shia have slandered him by claiming that he was a Nasibi (i.e. hater of Ahlel Bayt). And yet, Ibn Taymiyyah was a lover of Ahlel Bayt; not only did he love the Ahlel Bayt, but he publically declared the necessity of loving the Ahlel Bayt as a part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Let us narrate what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his most famous book, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah.

  • Response to Shia Accusation that Our Website Lied; Women Do NOT Inherit Land in Shia Hadith

    We have received a few emails on this matter, and therefore we thought it appropriate to clear up the matter and refute the Shia accusations made against our website. The irony is that even when the Shia propagandists try to expose others by calling them liars, the only way they can do this is by themselves lying!

  • Hadith About the (Non)Incident of the Pen and Paper [A Sunni Perspective]

    The Shia propagandists make a big fuss over the so-called “incident of the pen and paper” or what they ominously refer to as “Black Thursday”. The Shia exaggerate about the Hadiths on this topic, and use them as some sort of proof against Umar ibn al-Khattab. However, the truth of the matter is that these claims are nothing but the melodramatic antics of the Ghullat gossipers who seek to make a mountain out of an anthill. In this article, we shall examine said event in an objective and reasonable manner, after which we will respond to the Shia accusations.

  • Accusing the Prophet’s Wife of Murder: “Kill this old fool (Na’thal)”

    The Shia propaganda rampant on the internet accuses the Prophet’s own wife of being a murderer. These Shia claim that Aisha orchestrated the murder of Uthman bin Affan, alleging that she said the words “Kill this old fool (Na’thal)”. In this article, we refute this allegation and vindicate the Prophet’s wife.

  • Response to Rayat’s Article Entitled “Imam Ali’s Sons”

    In this article, we refute the arguments raised by “Rayat”. Even those who have not read his article will benefit from this article, because we raise a lot of new points that were not mentioned in our previous article about how Ali ibn Abi Talib named his sons after the first Three Caliphs. Not only this, but we see how it was the Sunnah of the Imams of Ahlel Bayt (not just Ali) to name their children after the first Three Caliphs.

  • Hadith About the Prophet Contemplating Suicide

    The Shia bring up this particular Hadith in Sunni books in order to attack the Ahlus Sunnah. In this article, we understand the Sunni perspective and refute the allegations levied by the Shia. This article may also be beneficial to those Muslims who wish to refute the non-Muslim polemicists who use similar arguments as the Shia.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Myths Legends

Myths and Legends 
  • The similarity between Shia rituals and Christian rituals  
  • Who are Ahl-Albait ( The household of the prophet )?
  • The Qur’an and Imamah
  • Ya Allah or Ya Ali , Ya Hussain?!
  • The Myth of the Shi‘i Mahdi
  • Abdullah Ibn Sabaa & Shism
  • Khomeini under the Microscope
  • Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah) 
  • Issues in the Islamic History
  • The event of Ghadeer Khum in the Quran, Sunnah, History
  • Who killed Imam Al-Hussain bin Ali ? Ask the History  
  • Fadak Area between Abu-Baker & Fatima  A Scientific Dialogue 
  • The Marriage of umm kulthum daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to ‘Umar ibn Alkhatab 
  • Was Mu'awiyah ibn Ibi Sufyan involved in the poisoning of Imam Al-Hasan?
  • Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, the Slandered Sword of Allah  
  • Are there Hypocrites among the Prophet's Companions?
  • Integrity of the Prophet's Companions between Sunni & Shia
  • Polemics against Ahl Al-Sunnah
  • A response to ( Peshawar Nights )    
  • Introduction, The first session
  • The Verse of Wilayah
  • The Verse of  Tabligh
  • The purification verse & Hadeeth Al-kisa'a A Scientific Dialogue
  • The roots of Sunni-Shia differences in Fiqh
  • The Dismal Reality of Ahl-Sunnah in Iran
  • Unique Birth of Ali [r.a]: 
  • Shia's beliefs


This is an excellent Web site with complete details about Shias, but the website is down due to unknown reasons, you can down load the offline version of this complete website, save in your computer and read the articles in your own time. Please follow these steps:
1- Click here go to : http://www.box.net/shared/r0dmyfa0jy
2- Download the off line,  Ahlel Bayt website.rar  and save in hard drive of your computer.
3- This is .RAR file which is compressed to uncompress / open this file go to this link: http://download.cnet.com/Free-RAR-Extract-Frog/3000-2250_4-10804840.html
4. From here Download software 3.2 mb:  Free RAR Extract Frog 2.50
5- Install this Free RAR Extract Frog 2.50 
6- Open the ahlelbayt.com Offline Version  which you downloaded and saved in computer HD with Frog2.5.
7- The extracted file will be saved in the same folder, open the file and work off line. [Size of open site is 29 mb]
8- Its easy and simple

Shia Sect-Videos

Unique Birth of Ali [r.a]

Unique Birth of Ali [r.a]: 
It is narrated with a lot of enthrallment that Ali [r.a] was the only person ever born in Kaba. This event is not found in authentic historic resources. The Shia narrate that how the wall of Kaba cracked, opening the way for his mother to enter and give birth to Ali [r.a]. The try to present as a miraculous sign to show the superiority of Ali [r.a], but the questions is superiority of Ali [r.a] over whom? 

Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was not born at Kaba. 

Some historians mentions that Hakim ibn Hazm, the nephew of Khadija [r.a] being the only person born at Kaba, he later became Muslim. This even does not accord him superiority over others, especially over Prophet Muhammad [pbuh]. 
Remember when Abrahim, the son of Prophet [pbuh] died at Madina, there was an eclipse, people said that even the heavens are sad, but Prophet [pbuh] rebuffed them that it is the will and God and His signs. Islam is not the religion based upon superstitions, myths and time bound miracles. Though Prophet [pbuh] performed many miracles but they were not emphasized, rather the message was delivered with reason and logic. The ever living miracle of Qur’an is with us till eternity. We don’t need to convince some one on the basis of narrating the miracles, which a non believer will reject as myth.

(7:203) [O Prophet!] When you do not produce before them any miracle, they say: 'Why do you not choose for yourself a miracle?' Say to them: 'I follow only what is revealed to me by my Lord. This [Qur’an] is nothing but a means of insight into the truth, and guidance and mercy from your Lord to the people who believe. 

Allah granted miracles to Prophets as signs, proof or as final justification for their destruction. Remember the story of floods and ark of Noah, Moses and Pharaoh, Jesus Christ and so on. But God, according to His plan and wisdom says:

We refrain from sending signs (miracles) only because the men of former generations treated them as false. For example, We sent the she-camel to the people of Thamud – a manifest sign – but they laid violent hands on her. We send the signs only by way of warning, and if people reject the sign after receiving it, they are doomed.”(Qur’an;17:59).

The miracles therefore are not the answer for people’s rejection of the faith.

In this situation Ali [r.a] was just an innocent child [not a prophet], who was the first child to accept Islam. No Muslim has doubt about the sincerity of Ali and his devotion for the cause of Islam, his closeness to Prophet Muhammad [pbuh], as cousin and son in law whom he declared to be part of his family (ahlul bait) [though traditionally only the wives and children are called  Ahlul Bait among Arabs and elsewhere]. It should be known that the Arabs and Qurush of Makkah before the advent of Islam were polytheists, Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was among few who did not worship idols, but One God, these few people were known as Hanifah.
According to Islam every child is born in Islam, the true nature provided by God, but later the parents make him polytheist or unbeliever etc. So even if Ali was born there, his mother while circumambulating the Kaba felt labor pains and delivered the child [opening of wall is a myth could have been added for more flavor]. Kaba was not as it is now, it was full of idols, used as a temple by polytheist Arabs, yet retaining some rituals of from Abraham and Ishmael. They even kept the pictures of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Ishmael, some even mention that the horns of ram were kept as a sacred relic.
While Ali [r.a] accepted Islam as young boy, his father Abu Talib, very dear uncle and guardian of Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] did not embrace Islam and died as polytheist, this was a source of grief to the Prophet [pbuh].

Sahih Al Bukhari Hadith #5:223
Narrated Al Musaiyab:When Abu Talib was in his death bed, the Prophet went to him while Abu Jahl was sitting beside him. The Prophet said, "O my uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, an expression I will defend your case with, before Allah." Abu Jahl and 'Abdullah bin Umaya said, "O Abu Talib! Will you leave the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib?" So they kept on saying this to him so that the last Statement he said to them (before he died) was: "am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib.Then the Prophet said, "I will keep on asking for Allah's forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so." Then the following Verse was revealed: 

"It is not fitting for the Prophet and the believers to ask Allah's Forgiveness for the pagans, even if they were their near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire." (9.113) 

The other Verse was also revealed: "(O Prophet!) Verily, you guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He will..." (28.56) 

It is not aimed to undermine the respect, honor and high status of Ali [r.a], which he earned with the blessing of Allah and love of Prophet [pbuh] through his faith and sincerity for the cause of Islam. It is to unfair with him, if some one try to raise his stature on some disputable ambiguous narrations and myths. He does not need support of such things.  

It is commanded in unambiguous words:

"Say (O Muhammad): "I am no more than a human being like you; one to whom revelation is made: 'Your Lord is the One and Only God.' Hence, whoever looks forward to meet his Lord, let him do righteous works, and let him associate none with the worship of his Lord."(Qur'an;18:110)

While revering a personality it is appropriate to maintain the balance, not to exaggerate to convert a human being, slave and servant of Allah to the level of a demigod.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011


Fadak Area Between Abu Baker And Fatimah[r.a]

By Muhammad Al-Khider

FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews.They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him)in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him).
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.
To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute—Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah—with two Shi‘i jurisprudents, or two of the Maraji‘ of the Shi‘ah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no vehement criticism would be directed at either side. The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi‘ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged. Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. What remains then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the formulation of religious precepts from it?
To the unbiased observer—who does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the Truth, wherever it is might be—this is an issue that must be approached tentatively.
The status of Fadak
The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:
  • It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him),
  • or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wasallam on the day of Khaybar.

Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, wherein it is stated that

after the demise of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wasallam, from Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: “I heard Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) saying, ‘We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.’ ” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:
We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue in the general scope of the verse, “Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of) your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female.” (Surah an-Nisa:11)
At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The words of Muhammad (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for applying it in practice?
The fact of the matter is that the hadith “We, the Prophets do not leave heirs” is authentic by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him)‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the sources of the Shi‘ah and by their standards.
Authenticity of the hadith

Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) said: “... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mir’at al-‘Uqul:
[This] hadith has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and the second is hasan ormuwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being sahih. (Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks?
The strange thing here is that the hadith is authentic enough for Khomeini to utilise it as evidence of the validity of his monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). He writes under the heading “Sahihat al-Qaddah” (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn ‘Isa, on the authority of [‘Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-‘Ilm, Bab Sifat al-‘Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:
The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A‘zam, Beirut)

Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-Kafi with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows:
[It is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: “Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words.” . (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” is authentic in one of its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?

The prayer of Zakariyya

The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritancthat appropriates as proof the words of Zakariyya ‘alayhis salamin Surah Maryam “Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Ya‘qub” is a pathetic argument that lacks logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:
  • It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya‘qub would continue.
  • It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
  • The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
  • The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.

Sulayman as the heir of Dawud

The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud” (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge. This is proven by the following two facts:
  • It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir?
  • If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or ‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)

A Woman’s Inheritance

A more astounding revelation—of which many people happen to be uninformed—is the fact that in the Fiqh of the Imami Shi‘ah a woman does noty inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shi‘ah accept it for Sayyidah Fatimahradiyallahu ‘anha to inherit Fadak, when their own jurisprudence does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?
  • In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)
  • Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
  • Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)
  • He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the wives of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) like ‘A’ishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the hadith, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him), not even to his own daughter ‘A’ishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him). On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him)—as claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)—the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha requested Fadak as her inheritance from Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. However, even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic, we still cannot accept it. We cannot accept it since it is diametrically opposed to the precept of parental fairness to children espoused by Islam.
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sa‘d came to Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) to be witness thereto. Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, “Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak as a gift to Fatimah alone amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can it then be thought that Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) would give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters?
In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was given to her by Rasulullah (may Peace Be Upon Him) ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khalifah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule “to the male twice the share of the female”. This is an established fact of history. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by ‘Ali? In fact, Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration which throws light upon the condition of those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by whichsoever means they can, legitimate or illegitimate.
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida] came to [the ‘Abbasid khalifah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated. He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak...” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-‘Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)

How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?

[EXPLANATORY NOTE: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madinah. This is given as the south-eastern point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian border. Al-‘Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point. The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.]


Rebuttle from Nahjul Balagha

Replying Against Shia From Their Most Authentic Book, Nahjul Balagha

The Nahj al-Balagha (Arabicنهج البلاغةTransliterationNahj ul-BalāġaArabic pronunciation: [nahdʒ ul bælɑːɣa]; "Peak of Eloquence") is the most famous collection of sermons, letters, tafsirs and narrations attributed to Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad. It was collected by Sharif Razi, a Shia scholar in the tenth century. Known for its eloquent content, it is considered a masterpiece of literature in Shi'a Islam, second only to the Qur'an and Prophetic narrations. Nahj means open way, road, course, method or manner. Balaghah means eloquence, art of good style and communication, rhetoric etc. The collection is regarded by the Shi‘ah as authentic, although it is not included in theirHadith books. Ibn Abi al-Hadid's (d. 656/1258) commentary and collection, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, is widely disseminated. Although some Sunni scholars do not regard the book as an authentic work, many scholars and jurists of repute do attest to the authenticity of some sermons included in the book. According to one Shi‘i source, the first person to raise doubts about its attribution to Ali was Ibn Khallikan - A Sunni scholar (d. 1211/1282).

The Shia turned Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) down and did not support him in many battles even after they gave him their pledge and took an oath to obey him. Whenever he asked them for help, they opposed his commandments till he said to them:
"Now then, surely jihad is one of the doors of Paradise, which Allah has opened for His chief friends. It is the dress of piety and the protective armour of Allah and His trustworthy shield. Whoever abandons it Allah covers him with the dress of disgrace and the clothes of distress. He is kicked with contempt and scorn, and his heart is veiled with screens (of neglect). Truth is taken away from him because of missing jihad. He has to suffer ignominy and justice is denied to him."
"Beware! I called you (insistently) to fight these people night and day, secretly and openly and exhorted you to attack them before they attacked you, because by Allah, no people have been attacked in the hearts of their houses but they suffered disgrace; but you put it off to others and forsook it till destruction befell you and your cities were occupied."
"How strange! How strange! By Allah my heart sinks to see the unity of these people on their wrong and your dispersion from your right. Woe and grief befall you. You have become the target at which arrows are shot. You are being killed and you do not kill. You are being attacked but you do not attack. Allah is being disobeyed and you remain agreeable to it. When I ask you to move against them in summer you say it is hot weather. Spare us till heat subsides from us. When I order you to march in winter you say it is severely cold; give us time till cold clears from us. These are just excuses for evading heat and cold because if you run away from heat and cold, you would be, by Allah, running away (in a greater degree) from sword (war)."
"O' you semblance of men, not men (!!!), your intelligence is that of children and your wit is that of the occupants of the curtained canopies (women kept in seclusion from the outside world). I wish I had not seen you nor known you. By Allah, this acquaintance has brought about shame and resulted in repentance. May Allah fight you! You have filled my heart with pus and loaded my bosom with rage. You made me drink mouthful of grief one after the other. You shattered my counsel by disobeying and leaving me so much so that Quraysh started saying that the son of Abi Talib is brave but does not know (tactics of) war. Allah bless them ! Is any one of them more fierce in war and more older in it than I am? I rose for it although yet within twenties, and here I am, have crossed over sixty, but one who is not obeyed can have no opinion."
Then he described their jihad by saying:
"O' people, your bodies are together but your desires are divergent. Your talk softens the hard stones and your action attracts your enemy towards you. You claim in your sittings that you would do this and that, but when fighting approaches, you say (to war), "turn thou away" (i.e. flee away). If one calls you (for help) the call receives no heed. And he who deals hardly with you his heart has no solace. The excuses are amiss like that of a debtor unwilling to pay. The ignoble can not ward off oppression. Right cannot be achieved without effort. Which is the house besides this one to protect? And with which leader (Imam) would you go for fighting after me?"
"By Allah! deceived is one whom you have deceived while, by Allah! he who is successful with you receives only useless arrows. You are like broken arrows thrown over the enemy. By Allah! I am now in the position that I neither confirm your views nor hope for your support, nor challenge the enemy through you. What is the matter with you? What is your ailment? What is your cure? The other party is also men of your shape (but they are so different in character). Will there be talk without action, carelessness without piety and greed in things not right?!"
Then he said to them:
"Woe to you. I am tired of rebuking you. Do you accept this worldly life in place of the next life? Or disgrace in place of dignity? When I invite you to fight your enemy your eyes revolve as though you are in the clutches of death, and in the senselessness of last moments. My pleadings are not understood by you and you remain stunned. It is as though your hearts are affected with madness so that you do not understand. You have lost my confidence for good. Neither are you a support for me to lean upon, nor a means to honour and victory. Your example is that of the camels whose protector has disappeared, so that if they are collected from one side they disperse away from the other side."
And after Ali scolds his Shia, he brings up an example so they use it as a role model. He did not find any examples but those of the Sahaba (who are apostates in the opinion of Shia)
"I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them (!!!). They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind." (Those are the one's whom Kalini claims are Kuffar in Al-Kafi, the most authentic Shia books!)
Then he describes his fighting with the Sahaba by saying:
"In the company of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) we used to fight our parents, sons, brothers and uncles, and this continued us in our faith, in submission, in our following the right path, in endurance over the pangs of pain and in our fight against the enemy. A man from our side and one from the enemy would pounce upon each other like energetic men contesting as to who would kill the other; sometime our man got over his adversary and some-time the enemy's man got over ours."
"When Allah had observed our truth He sent ignominy to our foe and sent His succour to us till Islam got established (like the camel) with neck on the ground and resting in its place. By my life, if we had also behaved like you (he is talking to his Shi'a), no pillar of (our) religion could have been raised, nor the tree of faith could have borne leaves (!!!!). By Allah, certainly you will now milk our blood (instead of milk) and eventually you will face shame."
"By Allah, he whom people like you support must suffer disgrace and he who throws arrows with your support is as if he throws arrows that are broken both at head and tail. By Allah, within the courtyard you are quite numerous but under the banner you are only a few... Allah may disgrace your faces and destroy you. You do not understand the right as you understand the wrong and do not crush the wrong as you crush the right."
And he said, exposing their hypocrisy:
"By Allah, I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances (!!!). I have come to know that you say `Ali speaks lie!!! May Allah fight you! Against whom do I speak lie? Whether against Allah? But I am the first to have believed in him. Whether against His Prophet? But I am the first who testified to him. Certainly not. By Allah it was a way of expression which you failed to appreciate, and you were not capable of it."
When people decided to Swear allegiance at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said:
"Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief."
Ali (RA) said to the Kharijites:
"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf."
And we all know that people at that time were divided into three groups:
1. Ahlu-Sunnah wal Jama'a (Sunnis): Those were the majority who loved Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) on the middle course.
2. The Shia: The ones who loved him too much till they were deviated from the Straight Path.
3. The Khawarij: Those who hated him till they were deviated from the Straight Path.
So Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) proved the perishability of the Shia and Kharijites and called for joining Ahlul-Sunnah. What other speech will they ever believe???!!!
"I praise Allah for whatever matter He ordained and whatever action He destines and for my trial with you, O' group of people who do not obey when I order and do not respond when I call you. If you are at ease you engage in (conceited) conversation, but if you are faced with battle you show weakness. If people agree on one Imam you taunt each other. If you are faced with an arduous matter you turn away from it. May others have no father (woe to your enemy!) what are you waiting for in the matter of your assistance and for fighting for your rights? For you there is either death or disgrace. By Allah, if my day (of death) comes. and it is sure to come, it will cause separation between me and you although I am sick of your company and feel lonely with you. May Allah deal with you! Is there no religion which may unite you nor sense of shamefulness that may sharpen you?"
"By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it."
"May Allah reward such and such man (*) who straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief and established the sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah's obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty."
(*) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written (in Sharh Nahj al-balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 3-4) that the reference here is to the second Caliph `Umar, and that these sentences have been uttered in his praise as indicated by the word '`Umar' written under the word 'such and such' in as-Sayyid ar-Radi's own hand in the manuscript of Nahj al-balaghah written by him.
"Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism."
"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."
Those are the Shia of Ali and his children and those are the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the opinion of Ali and from their most authentic books. But Shia refuse to admit the truth though it's apparent to all. So I can't describe them with anything other than what Ali (RA) did when he said: You do not understand the right as you understand the wrong and do not crush the wrong as you crush the right.