The FAQs are mostly related with the slanders by Rejectionists:

Slander is the expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone : libel, aspersion, calumny, character assassination, defamation, denigration, detraction, disparagement, mudslinging, scandal, vilification or abuse. Since Shias do not have solid evidence & proofs to justify their heretical doctrines, they resort to slander and abuse. This further exposes their fallacies. They target the common Muslims, who are ignorant of history and use fabricated Hadiths to malign the pious companions of the Prophet [pbuh] in disrespect to the Ahl-ul-Bait [House hold of the Prophet]. They also narrate fascinating tales to impress upon the superiority of Hazrat Ali [r.a]. Some common themes are:

1. Abu Bakar [r.a] refused to give gardens Fidak from inheritance of Prophet[pbuh] to Fatima[r.a], she remained annoyed with him.

2. Umar [r.a] maltreated Fatimah [r.a], in presence of Ali [r.a], she was injured and died of injuries. He tried to burn her house.

4. Umar [r.a] and Abu Bakar[r.a] conspired to appoint Abu Bakar [r.a] as Caliph.

5. Prophet wanted to record his will for Ali [r.a] but Umer [r.a] did not let it happen.

6. Ali [r.a] was nominated as successor to Prophet [pbuh] at Ghadir Khum.

7. Prophet [pbuh] declared Ali [r.a] to be the door of knowledge, while Prophet [pbuh] was city of knowledge, thus he was his successor.

8. Prophet [pbuh] taught the real meanings of Qur’an to Ali [r.a] only.

9. Ali [r.a] did not give his allegiance to Abu Bakar [r.a], Umar[r.a] and Usman [r.a] but as a trick, deception [taqyah] for sake of unity.

*********************

********************************
Rebuttals

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.

* 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.

* 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.

....................................

Here, we examine historical events that are important to understand in regards to the Sunni-Shia debate. We clarify certain historical events that are purposefully misconstrued by the Shia propagandists. We also delve into the origins of the Shia movement, as well as its impact on history.

Saqifah: A Sunni View

The Shia oftentimes portray the incident of Saqifah as a sordid affair in which Abu Bakr supposedly skipped out on the Prophet’s funeral in order to greedily crown himself the Caliph of the Ummah. This couldn’t be further from the truth. This article accurately portrays the events of Saqifah in order to exonerate Abu Bakr of the Shia allegations. ....[....]

Battle of the Camel

One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is that she left her house to fight Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of the Camel. The truth is that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is innocent of this slander, and the reality is that it was the Shia [i.e. Uthman’s killers] who should be blamed for the Battle of the Camel. It was they who plotted the murder of the Prophet’s own wife and thereby declared war on Allah’s Messenger. ...[.....]

Origins of the Shia Sect

This article has traced the origins of the Shia, which date back to the assassination conspiracy of Umar by the Persian Harmuzan, the Christian Jafeena, and the Jew Saba. The latter’s son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, would carry on his father’s work by adopting the subterfuge tactics of the Jews of Yathrib. Ibn Saba was successful in weakening the Muslims from the inside by creating the Shia sect. Throughout its turbulent history, the Saba’ites, ancestors of the Shia today, have spread Fitnah to every corner of the Muslim world. .... [.....]

Battle of Siffin

Both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) were adherents of the same faith, of the mainstream Islam. There was, however, a third group which would form in the Battle of Siffin–the Khawaarij–who, via their relationship with the Saba’ites, were the ancestors of the modern day Shia movement. In fact, the Battle of Siffin was an important event in Islamic history to understand for this very reason as it raises many questions that the Shia cannot explain.... [.....]

The Shia Killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Hussain (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain’s Grandson (رضّى الله عنه)

The Shia spend so much energy beating themselves on the Day of Ashura, lamenting about how Yezid and the Sunnis killed Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). However, these Shia fail to mention who the real culprits are behind the massacre of Karbala. Indeed, it was the Shia of Kufa who can be held accountable for the death of the Prophet’s grandson (رضّى الله عنه). It was their betrayal and treachoury that led Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) to his imminent death.... [......]

* Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Hasan (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) Hated the Shia

In this article, we quote many narrations from Nahjul Balagha, in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) professes his hatred for the Shia. We see that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) will disassociate himself from the people who profess to be his Shia. And it should be remembered that this collection of Ali’s sayings (رضّى الله عنه) are considered sacred by the Shia, from the most authentic source of Nahjul Balagha. And yet, they are a testament to the impending doom of the Shia and the disgust Ali (رضّى الله عنه) felt of the Shia... [.....]

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.... [......]

Fatwa on Hussain’s Fighting Against Yazid

The first part of this article/fatwa deals with rebelling against a Caliph in general, the second part deals with Sayyiduna Hussain’s rising up against Yazid, and the third part deals with the opinion of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah regarding Yazid.... [.......]

A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain

The man who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (i.e. gave the death-blow) was a man by the name of Shimr bin Thil-Jawshan and he was a Shia, as recorded in both Sunni and Shia books. Shimr was part of the Shia, and then he betrayed Sayyiduna Hussain and joined Yazid’s men, giving Sayyiduna Hussain the death-blow..... [......]

Why Sunnis Do Not Commemorate Ashura

The Shia sometimes ask why the Ahlus Sunnah does not participate in the Ashura comemmorations. This response by the Ahlel Bayt Admin should clarify the position of the Ahlus Sunnah, and it will expose the hidden agenda of the Shia who celebrate Ashura only as a means of spiting the Ahlus Sunnah.... [.......]

Jewish Encyclopedia: Abdullah ibn Saba, Founder of Shi’ism

Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish Rabbi who “converted” to Islam in order to found the Shia sect. The modern day Shia propagandists will often deny the existence of Abdullah ibn Saba out of embarassment that this is their originator. And yet, Abdullah ibn Saba’s existence is well-known and has been accepted by the classical Shia scholarship, the Sunni scholarship, and even the Non-Muslim historians. Here, we see that the Jewish Encyclopedia has included an entry on the founder of Shi’ism..... [.....]

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!

Introduction: A Sunni View of Saqifah

Response to Chapter 1 Entitled “Introduction”

Response to Chapter 2 Entitled “The Historical Facts”

Response to Chapter 3 Entitled “Analysis of the Events”

Response to Chapter 4 Entitled “The Issues Raised at the Saqifa”

Response to Chapter 5 Entitled “Assessing Sunni Justifications of Saqifa”

[includes a description of the nomination process of the first three of the Rightly Guided Caliphs]

Response to Chapter 6 Entitled “Some Crucial Observations”

Response to Chapter 7 Entitled “Burial of the Prophet”

The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says:

ABDALLAH IBN SABA

By : Hartwig Hirschfeld

A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).

Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in HaarbrÃ¼cken’s translation, i. 200-201);

Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.

Source: JewishEncyclopedia,

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=189&letter=A

....................................

Answering Shi'ism

Shi'ite see that Jews are better than Muslims:

This Ummah (nation) is the best among all nations. The best of this nation is the first generation (people at the time of the prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him)). Although those people are the most perfect people by their righteous follow to the Sunnah of the prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him), Shia claimed that those people are kâfirs (disbelieves in Islam) and were not following the truth even though they knew it! Whereas since Allah said about Jews (after all the corruption that they did):

"Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth." (Qur'an 7:159)

And whereas none of this Ummah—as the Shia claim follow the truth—do justice in the light of truth, then Jews are better than Muslims! Clearly Jews and Christians respect their prophets more than the Râfida:

Imam Sha3bi asked the Jews: "who is the best among your nation?" They said: "the companions of Moses." Then he asked the Christians so they replied: "the apostles of Jesus." Then he asked the Râfida "who is the worst among your nation?" They said: "the Companions of Muhammad"

Obviously those Râfida are included in the meaning of this Ayah:

Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Book? They believe in Sorcery and Evil and say to the unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way than the Believers!

They are those whom Allah has cursed, and he whom Allah curses, you will not find for him (any) helper (Qur'an 4:51)

Shia champion and assist Kafirs against Muslims:

When the Mongols invaded the Islamic world, Shia provided a strong support to them against Muslims. Shia helped the Christian crusaders against Muslims. When Jews established a state in north of Iraq, Shia were the greater supporters to them. Iran today supports al-Gaddafi (president of Libya) who is very anti-Islamic.

On the other hand, the Sunni Muslims (Ahl-us-Sunnah) are those who uphold the Qur'aan and the Hadeeth (Sunnah). It is through them that Allah has protected Islam. They are those who engaged in Jihad for the glory and dignity of Islam and established the glorious history of Islam.

Why Shia curse the wives of the prophet and his companions?

The one who curses the wives of the prophet and his companions is:

Either a irreligious anti-Islamic hypocrite who make a defamation against them as a way of slandering the prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) and as a scheme to attack Islam. All the founders of the Shia's movements belong to this group. Note that not any one of Ahlul-Bayt belong to those Shia.

Or an inattentive who follows his act according to one's own wishes and ignorant. Almost all the Shia today belong to this group.

Remember that Abu-Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) were the closest companions to Muhammad (may Peace Be Upon Him) as all references indicates and Allah confirmed in the Qur'an. His good treat to them is very well known to Shia. They were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet and his right hand. So, if the Shia claim were correct then we have three possible situations:

Either they were hypocrites and the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) did not know that. This is a great insult to Allah since he did not warn his Messenger from his closest companions.

Or they were hypocrites and the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) knew that. This is even worst since they are insulting the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) by claiming that he did not warn his nation from those hypocrites and he made them his relatives.

Or they were good Muslims and they went astray after his death. This is abandonment from Allah to his messenger since He did not tell him what would happen in the future to warn the Muslim Ummah. How come Allah who promised to support his religion and his messenger, make to closest companions to his prophet renegades and hypocrites?!

By insulting the wives and the companions of the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him), clearly the Shia want people to say: "Muhammad was a wanton man among wanton companions. If he were a virtuous man then his companions will be virtuous people too." The Shia curse the Companions who are the righteous pattern to this Ummah and Allah bear witness for that:

(Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs (the Companions who emigrated from Mecca), those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones;

But those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls; they are the ones that achieve prosperity.

And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Qur'an Hashr: 8-10)

Contradiction in Shi'ism

Shia cusses Abu-Bakr and his daughter Aisha, the wife of the prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him), but they regard his son since he fought with Ali. So, they hate the best one in this Ummah after The Prophet and they regard his son who does not have any contribution in raising Islam.

Shia also claim that they love the family of the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him), but they curse his wives who are the most important part of his family!

Why cussing the Companions (Sahâbah) of The Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) is very dangerous?

Because the Companions of The Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) are those who are denigrating and demolishing Islam. For, indeed, it is the Sahâbah (my Allah be pleased with them) who are the ones through whom Islam has been passed down to us. So those people who curse and insult them, in reality, are destroying Islam.

During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." So, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a dsibeliever, because the verse says, "…the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)."

Shia curses the Rightly Guided Khalifas (May Allah be pleased with them)

If they had any sense, they would know and appreciate that they are in reality cursing the Holy Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) himself. Abu Bakr and Umar were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet. Also, during the lifetime of the Prophet both were his right hand men; and after his demise, it is they who had great worry feeling for the welfare of Islam. Who else has ever been honored with such a position and honor as was granted to these two? Again, it is these two who had always participated and had been with the Prophet during all the battles. These facts are enough to refute the Shia beliefs.

As for Uthmaan, he was the husband to two daughters of the Prophet. It is clear that Allah does not choose for His Messenger a son-in-law and companions except those who are the best.

If the Rafida (Shia) are true to their claims, then could they explain why The Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) did not forewarn the Ummah and clarify the alleged enmity of the Rightly Guided Khalifas (i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan) towards Islam?

Allah bears witness in the Qur'an that Abu Bakr is a close companion to the prophet Muhammad (may Peace Be Upon Him) by his saying:

"If ye help not (Muhammad (may Peace Be Upon Him)), (it is no matter): for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion (Abu Bakr): they two were in the Cave, and he said to his companion, Have no fear for Allah is with us." (9:40)

Shia curses Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)

Their insults and curses are not limited just to the Rightly Guided Khalifas but are also directed towards Ali. Because Ali himself, in Masjid Rabia, gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Abu Bakr and also gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also willingly gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Uthmaan. Not only this, but he was actually the right hand man and a well wisher of the Rightly Guided Khalifas. So could Ali chosen a kafir as a son-in-law for himself? And could Ali have given the oath of allegiance (bai'ah), as he did, to a kafir? Subhân Allah (Glory to God)! This indeed is a great accusation!

Shia curses Hasan son of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them)

Also, by cursing Mu'aawiya (May Allah be pleased with him), these Rafida (Shia) are actually cursing Hasan (May Allah be pleased with him). Because Hasan withdrew from, and gave up the Khilaafah to Mu'aawiya purely for the pleasure of Allah. The Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) foretold of this in the hadith. So can the grandson of The Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) actually have withdrawn from and left the Khilaafah in the hands of a Kafir for him to rule over the people? Subhân Allah! This indeed is a great accusation and insult!

If the Rafida say that Ali and Hasan were forced into doing this, then this is proof enough that these Rafida have no sense whatsoever. The accusations levelled against these two honored companions of the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) are the worst insults ever imaginable and are beyond belief. They should remember that Ali faced the unbelievers in Mecca pace to face although Muslims were less than 40 man. So, why does he hide his Islam when Muslims became the majority and why he does not face the hypocrites?

Shia curses Aisha, the mother of the Believers (May Allah be pleased with her)

Furthermore, how do these Rafida curse and insult Umm ul Mu'mineen (mother of the Believers) A'isha when Allah Himself has mentioned her in the Qur'an as the mother of the believers?

"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their (believers) mothers (as regards respect and marriage)." (Al-Ahzaab, verse 6)

There is no doubt whatsoever that only that person will curse and insult Umm al-Mu'mineen who does not consider her to be a mother. Because for one who does have a mother, does not curse and insult her, but loves her.

Allah promised to give a great punishment to those who slander her:

"When you were propagating it (the slander) with your tongues, and uttering with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you counted it a little thing, while with Allah it was very great." (An-Nur 24:15)

Imam Malik stated that anyone who slanders her should be killed right away because Allah forbids us (in the Qur'an) from it forever and because anyone who curses the Prophet (p) or any member of this family should be killed too. This fatwa was also issued by his teacher Imam Ja'far al-Saadiq. Allah says:

"Allah forbids you from it (slandering 'A'isha) and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers." (An-Nur 24:17)

Ali vs. Jesus

Indeed, Christians and Shia are very similar as a way of thinking. For instance, Christians take their priests as gods other than Allah. Shia also take their Imams as gods other than Allah.

Christians take Jesus as a son of Allah then they describe his death on the cross as he is a week man who can’t do anything to support his faith. They made him a target to every kind of accusations, mocks, and humiliations. Shia on the other side give Ali a higher position than the prophet Muhammad (p) and claim that Islam wouldn’t spread and unbelieving wouldn’t be defeated without Ali. However, the claim that he too weak to defense Islam after the death of the prophet Muhammad (p) and he had to accept all kinds of accusations and humiliations against himself and against Ahlu-Bayt with no attempt to stop that.

Shia vs. Ahlu-Bayt

All members of Ahl-ul-Bayt (the family of the Holy Prophet) belong to Sunni Muslims. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq for instance, is the teacher of Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa. None of Ahlu-Bayt subscribed to the false beliefs of these Rafida (Shia). There are numerous solid arguments based on logic and Shari'ah refuting their religion and false beliefs. These arguments are so many that it would be difficult to recount them all. Therefore they should repent from their false and unfounded beliefs and enter into the fold of Islam.

"They are the enemies, so beware of them. May Allah curse them! How are they denying (or deviating from) the Right Path." (al-Munaafiqoon, verse 4)

These Rafida (Shia) actually descend from Abu Lu'luah Majoosi (a Persian fire worshipper) and Abdullaah ibn Saba' (a Jew). However they are more dangerous from the Christians themselves. Christians fight Islam face to face (if they did) while Rafida stab Islam from its back.

..................................

Read More.... مزید پڑہیں