A Shia’s claim that Imamat is mentioned in the 12th verse of Surah Mai’dah

http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/46328

A Shia says imamat is mentioned in the Quran in surah maidah ayat 12, where Allah mentions how he appointed twelve imams from bani Israeel. And he says after every prophet 12 imams were appointed by Allah.
He Also says the reason why this reference number from Quran made by Allah , to indicate “5 panjatan” from surah 5 and “12 imams” from ayah 12.
Sir, I want you to give me some references from Quran so I can dismantle his claim, Jazak Allah

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.Surah Maa’idah has no relevance to Panjatan (5 members of the Ahlul Bayt) just because it is the 5th Surah of the Quran.The term Ahlul Bayt is clearly mentioned in the Quran in Surah Ahzaab Verse 33. Allah refers to the blessed wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) as Ahlul Bayt.It is incorrect to infer to Surah Maa’idah as Panjatan simbly because it is the 5th Surah of the Quran when the term, Ahlul Bayt is expressly mentioned by Allah in the Quran.In the 12th verse of Surah Maa’idah, Allah refers to the 12 leaders of the Bani Israeel. Shias believe that this verse refers to the 12 Imams in Shiasm.[1]According to the Shias, every Imam is infallible and superior to the prophets.Mullah Baqir Majlisi, the chief scholar of Safawid Iran, states in his book, “Hayatul Qulub – Vol 3 Pg 10”:رتبہ امامت برتر از نبوت است “The position of Imamat is greater than that of Nubuwah/Prophethood.” Ten of the twelve leaders of Bani Israeel were disloyal to Moosa (Alaihis Salaam). There were only 2 loyal leaders i.e. Yusha (Alaihis Salaam) and Kaalib (May Allah be pleased with him).[2] If the Shias use this verse of the 12 leaders of Bani Isra’eel to prove the 12 Imams, then this goes against their concept of the purity of the Imams, as 10 out of the 12 leaders were disloyal. The similarity leads to the 12 Imams of the Shias being disloyal. In the verse, Allah mentions that He chose 12 Naqeebs for the Bani Israeel. The work of a Naqeeb is to oversee a tribe. A Naqeeb is under the order and instruction of a prophet. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) appointed Sahabah as Naqeebs. According to the belief of the Shias the Imams are superior to prophets. A Naqeeb is lower than a prophet. A Naqeeb therefore cannot refer to an Imam of the Shias as according to them an Imam is even greater than a prophet. It is not possible to interpret the 12th verse of Surah Maa’idah as referring to the Imams of the Shias.
You may refer to the book on the belief of Shias “Ikhtilaafe Ummah Aur Siraate Mustaqeem” written by Hadhrat Moulana Yousuf Ludhyaanwi Rahimahullāh.
The English translation of the book is: “Differences of the Ummah”. And Allah Ta’āla Knows BestMohamed Ebrahim bin Ismail AbdullahStudent – Darul IftaaPietermaritzburg, KZN, South Africa Checked and Approved by,Mufti Ebrahim Desai. 24-02-1442|12-10-2020
[1]Hereunder are the names of the 12 Imams according to the Shia sect:1) Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Taalib (Radhiyallahu Anhu)2) Sayyidina Hasan (Radhiyallahu Anhu)3) Sayyidina Husain (Radhiyallahu Anhu)4) Ali “Zain al-Abideen” bin Husain (Radhiyallahu Anhu)5) Muhammad bin Ali al-Baaqir6) Ja’far bin Muhammad as-Saadiq7) Musa bin Ja’far al-Kaazhim8) Ali bin Musa al-Ridha9) Muhammad bin Ali al-Taqi al-Jawaad10) Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Taqi al-Haadi11) Abu-Muhammad Hasan bin Ali al-Askari al-Alawi12) Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askari al-Qaaim “al-Muntazhar” al-Mahdi: This person is known as the “Muntazhar” or “The Awaited” by the Shia. They tend to believe he will be the Imam Mahdi discussed in the Ahadith. They also believe he is well and alive but went into hiding to protect himself from harm and also possesses the rest of the Qur’an (may Allah protect us all from saying such statements). After entering the basement of his father’s house at a young age, he never came out and he will emerge once again before qiyaamah and fill the world with justice. Some also believe that his father, Hasan al-Askari never had any children. The Shias response to this is the father was hiding the child and was born after the father’s death.We believe and bring Iman upon the Imam Mahdi mentioned in the Ahadith. However, the Imam Mahdi mentioned in the Ahadith is much different in comparison to the Imam Mahdi “al-Muntzhar” the Shias believe in. The twelfth Imam the Shias believe in is the only person we consider unreliable as he is unknown. He is also not the actual Imam Mahdi because it contradicts the statement of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam that Imam Mahdi will share the same name Muhammad and his father will also possess the same name as Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s father Abdullah. Hence, his name will be Muhammad bin Abdullah and not Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askari. Imam Mahdi is also known to be born prior to the day of qiyamah and not known to be immortal/alive for a very long time. سورة المائدة- اية 12ولَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَبَعَثْنَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا وَقَالَ اللَّهُ إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ لَئِنْ أَقَمْتُمُ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَيْتُمُ الزَّكَاةَ وَآمَنْتُمْ بِرُسُلِي وَعَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَقْرَضْتُمُ اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا لَأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ وَلَأُدْخِلَنَّكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ فَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ مِنْكُمْ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاءَ السَّبِيلَِ (12) أيسر التفاسير للجزائري (1/ 605)شرح الكلمات:الميثاق: العهد المؤكد بالإيمان{بَنِي إِسْرائيلَ} : اليهود{نَقِيباً} : نقيب القوم: من ينقب عنهم ويبحث عن شؤونهم ويتولى أمورهم{وَعَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ2} : أي: نصرتموهم ودافعتم عنهم معظمين لهم{وَأَقْرَضْتُمُ اللهَ} : أي: أنفقتم في سبيله ترجون الجزاء منه تعالى على نفقاتكم في سبيله{لأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ} : أسترها ولم أوآخذكم بها{فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاءَ السَّبِيلِ} : أخطأ طريق الهدى الذي يفلح سالكه بالفوز بالمحبوب والنجاة من المرهوبمعنى الآية الكريمة:لما طالب تعالى المؤمنين بالوفاء بعهودهم والالتزام بمواثيقهم ذكرهم في هذه الآية بما أخذ على بني إسرائيل من ميثاق فنقضوه فاستوجبوا خزي الدنيا وعذاب الآخرة ليكون هذا عبرة للمؤمنين حتى لا ينكثوا عهدهم ولا ينقضوا ميثاقهم كما هو إبطال لاستعظام من استعظم غدر اليهود وهمهم بقتل النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فقال تعالى: {وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللهُ مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرائيلَ} وهو قوله إني معكم الآتي، {وَبَعَثْنَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً3} أي: من كل قبيلة من قبائلهم الاثنى عشرة قبيلة نقيباً يرعاهم ويفتش على أحوالهم كرئيس فيهم، وهم الذين بعثهم موسى عليه السلامتفسير المنار (6/ 232)(وَبَعَثْنَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا) النَّقِيبُ فِي الْقَوْمِ: مَنْ يُنَقِّبُ عَنْ أَحْوَالِهِمْ وَيَبْحَثُ عَنْ شُئُونِهِمْ، مِنْ نَقَبَ عَنِ الشَّيْءِ: إِذَا بَحَثَ أَوْ فَحَصَ فَحْصًا بَلِيغًا، وَأَصْلُهُ الْخَرْقُ فِي الْجِدَارِ وَنَحْوِهِ ; كَالنَّقْبِ فِي الْخَشَبِ وَمَا شَابَهَهُ، وَيُقَالُ نَقَبَ عَلَيْهِمْ (مِنْ بَابِ ضَرَبَ وَعَلِمَ) نِقَابَةً ; أَيْ صَارَ نَقِيبًا عَلَيْهِمْ، عُدِّيَ بِاللَّامِ لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ مَعْنَى التَّوْلِيَةِ وَالرِّيَاسَةِ، وَنُقَبَاءُ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ هُمْ زُعَمَاءُ أَسْبَاطِهِمُ الِاثْنَيْ عَشَرَ. وَالْمُرَادُ بِبَعْثِهِمْ: إِرْسَالُهُمْ لِمُقَاتَلَةِ الْجَبَّارِينَ الَّذِينَ يَجِيءُ خَبَرُهُمْ فِي هَذِهِ السُّورَةِ، قَالَهُ مُجَاهِدٌ وَالْكَلْبِيُّ وَالسُّدِّيُّ، فَإِنْ صَحَّ هَذَا أُخِذَ بِهِ، وَإِلَّا فَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ بَعْثَهُمْ مِنْهُمْ هُوَ جَعْلُهُمْ رُؤَسَاءَ فِيهِمْ تفسير الجلالين (ص: 138){وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّه مِيثَاق بَنِي إسْرَائِيل} بِمَا يُذْكَر بَعْد {وَبَعَثْنَا} فِيهِ الْتِفَات عَنْ الْغَيْبَة أَقَمْنَا {مِنْهُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا} مِنْ كُلّ سَبْط نَقِيب يَكُون كَفِيلًا عَلَى قَوْمه بِالْوَفَاءِ بِالْعَهْدِ تَوْثِقَةً عَلَيْهِمْ {وَقَالَ} لَهُمْ {اللَّه إنِّي مَعَكُمْ} بِالْعَوْنِ وَالنُّصْرَة {لَئِنْ} لَام قَسَم {أَقَمْتُمْ الصَّلَاة وَآتَيْتُمْ الزَّكَاة وَآمَنْتُمْ بِرُسُلِي وَعَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ} نَصَرْتُمُوهُمْ {وَأَقْرَضْتُمْ اللَّه قَرْضًا حَسَنًا} بِالْإِنْفَاقِ فِي سَبِيله {لَأُكَفِّرَن عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتكُمْ وَلَأُدْخِلَنكُمْ جَنَّات تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتهَا الْأَنْهَار فَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْد ذَلِكَ} الْمِيثَاق {مِنْكُمْ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ سَوَاء السَّبِيل} أَخْطَأَ طَرِيق الْحَقّ وَالسَّوَاء فِي الْأَصْل الْوَسَط فَنَقَضُوا الْمِيثَاقتفسير النسفي ­- مدارك التنزيل وحقائق التأويل (1/ 433){ولقد أخذ الله ميثاق بني إسرائيل وَبَعَثْنَا مِنهُمُ اثني عَشَرَ نَقِيباً} هو الذي ينقب عن أحوال القوم ويفتش عنها ولما استقر بنوا إسرائيل بمصر بعد هلاك فرعون أمرهم الله بالمسير إلى اريحاء أرض الشام وكان يسكنها الكنعانيون الجبابرة وقال لهم إني كتبتها لكم داراً وقراراً فاخرجوا إليها وجاهدوا من فيها وإني ناصركم وأمر الله موسى عليه السلام أن يأخذ من كل سبط نقيباً يكون كفيلاً على قومه بالوفاء بما أمروا به توثقة عليهم فاختار النقباء وأخذ الميثاق على بني إسرائيل وتكفل لهم النقباء وسار بهم فلما دنا من أرض كنعان بعث النقباء يتجسسوا فرأو أجراماً عظيمة وقوة وشوكة فهابوا ورجعوا فحدثوا قومهم وقد نهاهم أن يحدثوهم فنكثوا الميثاق إلا كالب بن يوقنا ويوشع بن نون وكانا من النقباءمختصر تفسير ابن كثير (1/ 57){وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرَآئِيلَ وَبَعَثْنَا مِنهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً. وَقَالَ اللَّهُ إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ لَئِنْ أَقَمْتُمُ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَيْتُمُ الزَّكَاةَ، وَآمَنتُمْ بِرُسُلِي وَعَزَّرْتُمُوهُمْ، وَأَقْرَضْتُمُ اللَّهَ قَرْضاً حَسَناً، لأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ وَلأُدْخِلَنَّكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأنهار} الآية. وقال آخرون: هو الذي أخذ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ أَنَّهُ سَيَبْعَثُ مِنْ بَنِي إِسْمَاعِيلَ نَبِيًّا عَظِيمًا يُطِيعُهُ جَمِيعُ الشُّعُوبِ وَالْمُرَادُ بِهِ مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّى اللَه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فمن اتبعه غفر الله له ذنبه وأدخله الجنة وجعل له أجرين. وقد أورد الرازي بشارات كثيرة عن الأنبياء عليهم الصلاة والسلام بِمُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ. التفسير المظهري (3/ 65)وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثاقَ بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ حين انزل عليهم التورية بعد الفراغ من امر فرعون وقد مرّ قصة أخذ الميثاق فى سورة البقرة حيث قال وإذ أخذنا ميثاقكم ورفعنا فوقكم الطور وَبَعَثْنا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً والمراد به رئيس كل سبط يكون شاهدا ينقب عن احوال قومه ويفتش عنها ويكفل عنهم بالوفاء بما أمروا به ويأمرهم بالمعروف وينهاهم عن المنكر على حسب امر نبيهم ونهيه روح البيان (2/ 361)وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثاقَ بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ اى بالله قد أخذ الله عهد طائفة اليهود والالتفات فى قوله تعالى وَبَعَثْنا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً للجرى على سنن الكبرياء او لان البعث كان بواسطة موسى عليه السلام كما سيأتى اى شاهدا من كل سبط ينقب عن احوال قومه ويفتش عنها او كفيلا يكفل عليهم بالوفاء بما أمروا به. وقد روى ان النبي عليه السلام جعل للانصار ليلة العقبة اثنى عشر نقيبا وفائدة النقيب ان القوم إذا علموا ان عليهم نقيبا كانوا اقرب الى الاستقامة. والنقيب والعريف نظيران وقيل النقيب فوق العريف. تفسير ابن كثير ط العلمية (3/ 58)لما أمر تَعَالَى عِبَادَهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ بِالْوَفَاءِ بِعَهْدِهِ وَمِيثَاقِهِ الَّذِي أَخَذَهُ عَلَيْهِمْ عَلَى لِسَانِ عَبْدِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَمَرَهُمْ بِالْقِيَامِ بِالْحَقِّ، وَالشَّهَادَةِ بِالْعَدْلِ، وَذَكَّرَهُمْ نِعَمَهُ عَلَيْهِمُ الظَّاهِرَةَ وَالْبَاطِنَةَ فِيمَا هَدَاهُمْ لَهُ مِنَ الْحَقِّ وَالْهُدَى، شَرْعٌ يُبَيِّنُ لَهُمْ كَيْفَ أَخَذَ الْعُهُودَ وَالْمَوَاثِيقَ عَلَى مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَهُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابَيْنِ: الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى، فَلَمَّا نَقَضُوا عُهُودَهُ وَمَوَاثِيقَهُ أَعْقَبَهُمْ ذَلِكَ لَعْنًا مِنْهُ لَهُمْ، وَطَرْدًا عَنْ بَابِهِ وَجَنَابِهِ، وَحِجَابًا لِقُلُوبِهِمْ عَنِ الْوُصُولِ إِلَى الْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ، وَهُوَ الْعِلْمُ النَّافِعُ، وَالْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ، فَقَالَ تَعَالَى: وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثاقَ بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ وَبَعَثْنا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً يَعْنِي عُرَفَاءَ عَلَى قَبَائِلِهِمْ بِالْمُبَايَعَةِ وَالسَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ لِلَّهِ وَلِرَسُولِهِ وَلِكِتَابِهِ، وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ وَغَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ أَنَّ هَذَا كَانَ لَمَّا تَوَجَّهَ مُوسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ لِقِتَالِ الْجَبَابِرَةِ، فَأُمِرَ بأن يقيم نقباء مِنْ كُلِّ سِبْطٍ نَقِيبٌ، قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ: فَكَانَ مِنْ سِبْطِ رُوبَيْلَ شَامُونُ بْنُ زَكَورَ، وَمِنْ سِبْطِ شَمْعُونَ شَافَاطُ بْنُ حُرِّي، وَمِنْ سِبْطِ يَهُوذَا كَالِبُ بْنُ يُوفِنَا، وَمِنْ سبط أبين ميخائيل بْنُ يُوسُفَ، وَمِنْ سِبْطِ يُوسُفَ وَهُوَ سَبْطُ أَفْرَايْمَ يُوشَعُ بْنُ نُونٍ، وَمِنْ سِبْطِ بِنْيَامِينَ فلطمى بن رفون ومن سبط زبولون جدي بن سودى ومن سبط منشا بن يوسف جدي بن موسى ومن سبط دان حملائيل بن حمل وَمِنْ سِبْطِ أَسِيرٍ سَاطُورُ بْنُ مُلْكِيلَ، وَمِنْ سبط نفثالي نحر بْنُ وَفْسَى، وَمِنْ سِبْطِ جَادٍ جَوْلَايِلُ بْنُ مَيْكِي.وَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ فِي السِّفْرِ الرَّابِعِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ تَعْدَادَ النُّقَبَاءِ عَلَى أَسْبَاطِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وأسماء مخالفة لم ذَكَرَهُ ابْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، قَالَ فِيهَا: فعلى بني روبيل اليصور بْنُ سَادُونَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي شَمْعُونَ شَمْوَالُ بْنُ صورشكي، وعلى بني يهوذا يحشون بن عمياذاب، وَعَلَى بَنِي يسَاخرَ شَالُ بْنُ صَاعُونَ، وَعَلَى بني زبولون الياب بن حالوب، وعلى بني إِفْرَايِمُ منشا بْنُ عمنهودَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي مَنَشا حمليائيلُ بْنُ يرصونَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي بِنْيَامِينَ أبيدنُ بْنُ جَدْعُونَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي دَانٍ جَعَيْذَرُ بْنُ عميشذي، وَعَلَى بَنِي أَسِيرٍ نَحَايِلُ بْنُ عَجْرَانَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي حَازَ السَّيْفُ بْنُ دَعْوَايِيلَ، وَعَلَى بَنِي نَفْتَالِي أَجْزَعُ بْنُ عَمْينَانَ.وَهَكَذَا لَمَّا بَايَعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْأَنْصَارُ لَيْلَةَ الْعَقَبَةِ، كَانَ فِيهِمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا: ثَلَاثَةٌ مِنَ الْأَوْسِ: وَهُمْ أُسَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُضَيْرِ، وَسَعْدُ بْنُ خَيْثَمَةَ، وَرِفَاعَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُنْذِرِ، وَيُقَالُ بَدَلُهُ أَبُو الْهَيْثَمِ بْنُ التَّيِّهَانِ رضي الله عنه، وَتِسْعَةٌ مِنَ الْخَزْرَجِ وَهُمْ: أَبُو أُمَامَةَ أَسْعَدُ بْنُ زُرَارَةَ، وَسَعْدُ بْنُ الرَّبِيعِ، وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَوَاحَةَ، وَرَافِعُ بْنُ مَالِكِ بْنِ الْعَجْلَانِ، وَالْبَرَاءُ بْنُ مَعْرُورٍ، وَعُبَادَةُ بْنُ الصَّامِتِ، وَسَعْدُ بْنُ عُبَادَةَ، وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ حرام، والمنذر بن عمر بن حنيش رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ، وَقَدْ ذَكَرَهُمْ كَعْبُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ فِي شِعْرٍ لَهُ، كَمَا أَوْرَدَهُ ابْنُ إِسْحَاقَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ، وَالْمَقْصُودُ أَنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ كَانُوا عَرْفَاءَ عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ لَيْلَتَئِذٍ عَنْ أَمْرِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَهُمْ بِذَلِكَ، وَهُمُ الذين ولوا المعاقدة والمبايعة عَنْ قَوْمِهِمْ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ على السمع والطاعة «1» .قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ «2» : حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ مُجَالِدٍ عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ مَسْرُوقٍ قَالَ: كُنَّا جُلُوسًا عِنْدَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ وَهُوَ يُقْرِئُنَا الْقُرْآنَ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، هَلْ سَأَلْتُمْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَمْ يَمْلِكُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ مِنْ خَلِيفَةٍ؟ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ:مَا سَأَلَنِي عَنْهَا أَحَدٌ مُنْذُ قَدِمْتُ الْعِرَاقَ قَبْلَكَ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: نَعَمْ، وَلَقَدْ سَأَلْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ «اثْنَا عَشَرَ كَعِدَّةِ نُقَبَاءَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَأَصْلُ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ ثَابِتٌ فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ مِنْ حَدِيثِ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ «لَا يَزَالُ أَمْرُ النَّاسِ مَاضِيًا مَا وَلِيَهُمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ رَجُلًا» ثُمَّ تَكَلَّمَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وسلّم بكلمة خفيت علي، فسألت أي مَاذَا قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ؟قَالَ «كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ» وَهَذَا لَفْظُ مُسْلِمٍ «3» . وَمَعْنَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ الْبِشَارَةُ بِوُجُودِ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً صَالِحًا يُقِيمُ الْحَقَّ وَيَعْدِلُ فِيهِمْ، وَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ هَذَا تَوَالِيهِمْ وَتَتَابُعُ أَيَّامِهِمْ، بَلْ وقد وُجِدَ مِنْهُمْ أَرْبَعَةٌ عَلَى نَسَقٍ وَهُمُ الْخُلَفَاءُ الْأَرْبَعَةُ: أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، وَعُثْمَانُ، وَعَلِيٌّ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ، وَمِنْهُمْ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بِلَا شَكٍّ عِنْدَ الْأَئِمَّةِ وَبَعْضُ بَنِي الْعَبَّاسِ، وَلَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَكُونَ وِلَايَتُهُمْ لَا مَحَالَةَ، وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ مِنْهُمُ الْمَهْدِيُّ الْمُبَشَّرُ بِهِ في الأحاديث الواردة بذكره، فذكر أَنَّهُ يُوَاطِئُ اسْمُهُ اسْمَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِيهِ، فَيَمْلَأُ الْأَرْضَ عَدْلًا وَقِسْطًا كَمَا مُلِئَتْ جَوْرًا وَظُلْمًا، وليس هذا بالمنتظر الذي تتوهم الرافضة وجوده ثم ظهوره من سرداب سامرا، فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ حَقِيقَةٌ وَلَا وُجُودٌ بِالْكُلِّيَّةِ، بَلْ هُوَ مِنْ هَوَسِ الْعُقُولِ السَّخِيفَةِ، وَتَوَهُّمِ الْخَيَالَاتِ الضَّعِيفَةِ، وَلَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ بِهَؤُلَاءِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الِاثْنَيْ عَشَرَ الْأَئِمَّةَ الِاثْنَيْ عَشَرَ الَّذِينَ يَعْتَقِدُ فيهم الاثنا عشر مِنَ الرَّوَافِضِ لِجَهْلِهِمْ وَقِلَّةِ عَقْلِهِمْ.وَفِي التَّوْرَاةِ الْبِشَارَةُ بِإِسْمَاعِيلَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يُقِيمُ مِنْ صُلْبِهِ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ عَظِيمًا، وَهُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ الْخُلَفَاءُ الِاثْنَا عَشَرَ الْمَذْكُورُونَ فِي حَدِيثِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ وَجَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، وَبَعْضِ الْجَهَلَةِ مِمَّنْ أَسْلَمَ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ إِذَا اقْتَرَنَ بِهِمْ بَعْضُ الشِّيعَةِ يُوهِمُونَهُمْ أَنَّهُمُ الْأَئِمَّةُ الِاثْنَا عَشَرَ، فَيَتَشَيَّعُ كَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ جَهْلًا وَسَفَهًا لِقِلَّةِ عِلْمِهِمْ وَعِلْمِ مَنْ لَقَّنَهُمْ ذَلِكَ بِالسُّنَنِ الثَّابِتَةِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.عقيدة أهل السنة في الصحابة لناصر بن علي (3/ 949)فقد قال الإمام الذهبي رحمه الله تعالى مبيناً عقيدة أهل الحق فيهم: “فمولانا الإمام علي: من الخلفاء الراشدين المشهود لهم بالجنة رضي الله عنه، نحبه أشد الحب ولا ندعي عصمته ولا عصمة أبي بكر الصديق، وابناه الحسن والحسين: فسبطا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسيدا شباب أهل الجنة، لو استخلفا لكانا أهلاً لذلك.وزين العابدين كبير القدر من سادة العلماء العاملين يصلح للإمامة.وكذلك ابنه أبو جعفر الباقر سيد إمام فقيه يصلح للخلافة.وكذلك ولده جعفر الصادق: كبير الشأن من أئمة العلم، كان أولى بالأمر من أبي جعفر.وكان ولده موسى: كبير القدر، جيد العلم، أولى بالخلافة من هارون وله نظراء في الشرف والفضل.وابنه علي بن موسى الرضا: كبير الشأن له علم وبيان ووقع في النفوس صيره المأمون ولي عهده لجلالته، فتوفي سنة ثلاث ومائتين.وابنه محمد الجواد: من سادة قومه، لم يبلغ رتبة آبائه في العلم والفقه.وكذلك ولده الملقب بالهادي: شريف جليل.وكذلك ابنه الحسن بن علي العسكري رحمهم الله تعالى 1.وأما عن الإمام الثاني عشر، فقال فيه: “ومحمد هذا هو الذي يزعمون أنه الخلف الحجة وأنه صاحب الزمان، وأنه صاحب الزمان، وأنه صاحب السرداب بسامراء وأنه حي لا يموت حتى يخرج فيملأ الأرض عدلاً وقسطاً، كما ملئت ظلماً وجوراًعقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة في الصحابة الكرام (4/ 87)فقد قال الإمام الذهبي رحمه الله تعالى مبيناً عقيدة أهل الحق فيهم: فمولانا الإمام علي: من الخلفاء الراشدين المشهود لهم بالجنة رضي الله عنه، نحبه أشد الحب ولا ندعي عصمته ولا عصمة أبي بكر الصديق، وابناه الحسن والحسين: فسبطا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسيدا شباب أهل الجنة، لو استخلفا لكانا أهلاً لذلك.و زين العابدين كبير القدر من سادة العلماء العاملين يصلح للإمامة.وكذلك ابنه أبو جعفر الباقر سيد إمام فقيه يصلح للخلافة.وكذلك ولده جعفر الصادق: كبير الشأن من أئمة العلم، كان أولى بالأمر من أبي جعفر.وكان ولده موسى: كبير القدر، جيد العلم، أولى بالخلافة من هارون، وله نظراء في الشرف والفضل.وابنه علي بن موسى الرضا: كبير الشأن له علم وبيان ووقع في النفوس صيره المأمون ولي عهده لجلالته، فتوفي سنة ثلاث ومائتين.وابنه محمد الجواد: من سادة قومه، لم يبلغ رتبة آبائه في العلم والفقه.وكذلك ولده الملقب بـ الهادي: شريف جليل.وكذلك ابنه الحسن بن علي العسكري رحمهم الله تعالىوأما عن الإمام الثاني عشر، فقال فيه: ومحمد هذا هو الذي يزعمون أنه الخلف الحجة وأنه صاحب الزمان، وأنه صاحب السرداب بـ سامراء، وأنه حي لا يموت حتى يخرج فيملأ الأرض عدلاً وقسطاً، كما ملئت ظلماً وجوراً(صحيح البخاري، ج9ص81، دار طوق النجاة)حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ المُثَنَّى، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ المَلِكِ، سَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ: «يَكُونُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ أَمِيرًا» ، فَقَالَ كَلِمَةً لَمْ أَسْمَعْهَا، فَقَالَ أَبِي: إِنَّهُ قَالَ: «كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ» [2]أيسر التفاسير للجزائري (1/ 605)1 النقب، والنقب بفتح القاف وضمها: الطريق في الجبل. والنقيب: الأمين على القوم، وجمعه نقباء، وهو من ينقب عن أمور القوم ومصالحهم ليرعاها لهم. وقالوا النقيب أكبر من العريف، وفي البخاري: “ارجعوا حتى يرفع إلينا عرفائكم أمركم”.2 التعزير: التعظيم. والتوقير والنصرة والدفاع عن المعزر. والتعزير في الشرع: الضرب دون الحد لرد المخالف إلى الحق وسبيل الرشاد.3 من بين النقباء الاثنى عشر: يوشع، وكالب، وهما رجلان صالحان، والباقون هلكوا فلا خير فيهم. البحر المديد في تفسير القرآن المجيد (2/ 17)يقول الحق جلّ جلاله: وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثاقَ بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ على أن يجاهدوا مع موسى- عليه السلام- وينصروه، ويلتزموا أحكام التوراة، وَبَعَثْنا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيباً اخترناهم وقدمناهم، على كل سبط نقيبًا ينقب عن أحوال قومه، ويقوم بأمرهم، ويتكفل بهم فيما أمروا بهرُوِي أن بني إسرائيل لمَّا خرجوا عن فرعون، واستقروا بأوائل الشام، أمرهم الله تعالى بالمسير إلى بيت المقدس، وهي في الأرض المقدسة، وكان يسكنها الجبابرة الكنعانيون، وقال: إني كتبتها لكم دارًا وقرارًا، فأخرجوا إليها، وجاهدوا مَن فيها من العدو، فإني ناصركم. وقال لموسى عليه السلام: خذ من قومك اثني عشر نقيبًا، من كل البحر المديد في تفسير القرآن المجيد (2/ 18)سبط نقيبًا، يكون أمينًا وكفيلاً على قومه بالوفاء على ما أمروا به. فاختار موسى النقباء، فسار بهم حتى إذا دنوا من أرض كنعان، وهي أريحا، بعث هؤلاء النقباء يتجسسون الأخبار، ونهاهم أن يحدثوا قومهم بما يرون، فلما قربوا من الأرض المقدسة رأوا أجرامًا عظامًا وبأسًا شديدًا، فهابوا ورجعوا وحدثوا قومهم، إلا كالب بن يوقنا- من سبط يهوذا- ويوشع بن نون- من سبط إفرائيم بن يوسف- ثم قالُوا يا مُوسى إِنَّ فِيها قَوْماً جَبَّارِينَ إلى آخر ما يأتي من قصتهم. وأما ما ذكره الثعلبي هنا، وغيره، من قصة عوج بن عناق، فقال القسطلاني: هي باطلة من وضع الزنادقة، فلا يجوز ذكرها في تفسير كتاب الله الصادق المصدوق

Fatwa issued by Mufti A. K. Hoosen

  1. On 12 Rabiul Awwal last year the shias in different parts of the world held programs Aisha fin naar (Allah forbid) meaning Hazrat Aisha RA is in hell-fire as she poisoned Nabi Sallallahu alayhi wasallam (Allah Forbid).
  2. To become a shia – the person has to bear testimony that Abu Bakr RA, Umar RA, Uthman RA, Aisha RA, Hafsa RA are in hell-fire (Allah forbid). This was broadcasted on Fadak TV which belongs to the shias.
  3. During my visit to Iran – I personally saw the shrine for the murderer of Sayyidina Umar RA in Kashan built by the kaafir shia regime. Iran only became a shia state in 1500 – from 640-1500 it belonged to the Ahlus Sunnah.
  4. This is my fatwa – any person who makes the above comments (no. 1 & no. 2) is a kaafir and out of the fold of Islam for rejecting surah 24 verses 11-26 and surah 9 verse 40 etc.
  5. Majority of the shias in the world are kaafir and out of the fold of Islam. This is jihad of the time to expose the real enemies of Islam whether they are Jews, Shias, Christians, Qadianis etc. We do not have to curry favour with any person, orgs or government etc. Our aim must be to speak the truth even though it is bitter.

The true Face of the Shia

THE TRUTH SEEKER

m posting this so that you know how dangerous the Shia are especially to associate with them or befriend them. They stab at Islam and hate Sunni Muslims with a passion. Allah 1.) He has the Quality of ‘Badaa’. 2.) This means he forgets. 3.) He makes mistakes. 4.) He plans but this does not take effect. 5.) He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam. 6.) “We (shias) do not worship such a god who gives authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu’awiyyah and Uthmaan.” 7.) They say “Ali says…..I am the first and I am the last. I am the manifest and I am the hidden and I am the heir of earth.” 8.) Shias say that the Imaams are the face of Allaah, 9.) The eyes of Allaah among his creation. 10.) The tongue of Allaah among his creation. References :…

View original post 2,244 more words

The Event of Ghadir Khum

Question:

Dear scholar, is the event of Ghadir Khum true or it’s a false tradition made the by Shi’as? And if it is true, what’s the Sunni interpretation of this event?

Answer:

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

One of the fundamental differences between the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and Shi’a is the Khilafah of Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him). The Shi’as believe that he was directly rightful to be the successor of the blessed Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace), whereas the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, having full love and respect for Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) are of the view that the first rightful Caliph after the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace) was Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, then Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab, then Sayyiduna Uthman ibn Affan and then Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with them all).

This is one of the many major differences between the rightful Ahl al-Sunnah Wa al-Jama’ah and the deviated Shi’as. This also leads to other differences such as the Shi’a’s belief regarding the twelve Imams and having enmity for the great Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).

The evidences usually presented by the Shi’as are of three types. They present certain verses of the Qur’an in order to support their view that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was actually the rightful direct Caliph. These Qur’anic verses do not even have a slight hint of the issue of Khilafah, but Shi’a writers normally present, in order to explain these verses, their own fabricated narrations that are nowhere to be found in the authentic compilations of Hadith.

The second type of evidences presented by Shi’a authors are narrations that are not in the authentic books of Hadith, rather they are found to be in the books of Shi’as. Thirdly, the evidences used by Shi’as in order to support their view are those authentic narrations that mention the virtues and qualities (manaqib) of Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) and they are found in the authentic books of Hadith compilations.

In summary, there are three types of evidences they generally use:

1) Qur’anic verses explained with their own fabricated narrations;

2) Fabricated narrations found in their own books;

3) Authentic Ahadith that mention only the virtues of Sayyiduna Ali;

Now, if one was to look at the above three types of evidences with a open mind, it would become crystal clear that none of these can be used in order to prove that Sayyiduna Ali (Radhi Allah Anh) was the direct Caliph after the Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace). The Qur’anic verses, because they don’t even hint to the issue of Khilafah, rather if one was to look into the reliable Tafsir compilations, it would become clear that the verses have nothing whatsoever to do with that which the Shi’as claim. Also, fabricated narrations mentioned in their books are no source of evidence, and the narrations recorded in the reliable books of Hadith merely mention the virtues of Sayyiduna Ali, of which even the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah are in agreement. Thus, none of the evidences support the claim of the Shi’as.

The aim in this brief answer is of course not to analyze all these evidences, but to only concentrate on one, which has been asked in the question and is also the main evidence used by the Shi’as in order to substantiate their view.

The Hadith used by the Shi’as is known as the incident of Ghadir. Ghadir is an Arabic word which means a ‘pool’. This pool was situated in a place between Makkah al-Mukarramah and Madina al-Munawwarah in a place known as Juhfa.

In the last year of the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) life he performed a Hajj known as Hajj al-Wada’. It is narrated from authentic sources such as Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasa’i, Musnad Ahmad and others that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) on his return from this auspicious journey of Hajj camped at Ghadir Khum.

Some of the Companions had complained to the Messenger of Allah regarding Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) that they disliked certain things of his that he practised whilst they were sent to Yemen. Due to this, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) on his return from Madina, gave a sermon at this place of Gadir Khum and mentioned the qualities and virtues of Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him). He said the following:

“Verily Ali is from me and I am from him. He is the beloved (wali) of every believer.” (Sunan Tirmidhi)

“To whoever I am beloved (mawla), Ali is also beloved to him.” (Tirmidhi).

“O Allah! Love the one who loves Ali and dislike the one who dislikes Ali.” (Sunan ibn Majah).

“Verily Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is the beloved of every believer after me” (Sunan al-Kubra of Nasa’i).

If one was to look in these narrations, the predominant words used in all these narrations are derived from the root word ‘Muwalat’. The Shi’as claim that it refers to the Khilafah of Sayyiduna Ali (Karram Allah Wajhah) and that it proves he was the rightful Caliph after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), the position which was wrongfully not given to him.

However, by looking at the word ‘Muwalat’ from a linguistic point of view, it becomes crystal clear that this has nothing to do with Khilafah. The word is repeatedly used in various verses of the Qur’an and Hadith and has never been used for Khilafah. Rather, it has always been used for love and nearness.

This is the reason why none of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) including Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) regarded these statements of the Messenger of Allah to be in relation to the Khilafah.

After the demise of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and when the Companions gathered in the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah, not one Companion even mentioned these statements of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). It is reported from Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) that he was reluctant to ask the Messenger of Allah regarding the issue of Khilafah, as he feared of it not being given to him (Sahih al-Bukhari). If the statements of the Messenger of Allah at Ghadir Khum were sufficient for him to be the rightful Khalifah, he would never have been reluctant.

This is the reason why all the Companions (including Sayyiduna Ali) rightfully handed the Khilafah over to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and then Sayyiduna Umar and then Sayyiduna Uthman (Allah be pleased with them all).

In conclusion, the incident of Ghadir Khum merely mentions the virtues of Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him), and as mentioned previously, the Shi’as normally in order to support their claims use those narrations that mention merely the Virtues of Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him).

This is just a brief mention of the issue. For more details, one may refer to the Arabic works such as al-Awasim min al-Qawasim of Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Minhaj al-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyya, al-Sawaiq al-Muhraqa by Ibn Hajr al-Haytami and others.

And Allah Knows Best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

THE USOOL OF SHI’ISM

The religion of Shiism is based on five fundamental principles (Usool) while Islam is based on three Usool. Usool (the Roots) refer to those fundamental doctrines which constitute the foundations of Deen. In the unanimous opinion of all – both Shiahs and Sunnis — rejection of anyone of the Usool constitutes kufr. Any person who denies any one of the Usool is termed a Kaafir (unbeliever) according to both the Shiahs and Sunnis. The five Usools according to Shiism are: Tauheed, (belief in the Unity of
Allah Taala), Risaalat or Nubuwwat (Belief in the Ambiyaa), Imaamat (Belief in the Imaams), Adal (Belief in the doctrine of compulsory justice – that Allah Taala is compelled to act in accordance with justice as understood by the Shiah religion), and Aakhirah. According to Islam, the three Usool of Deen are Tauheed, Risaalat and Aakhirah.
The widely divergent paths and attitudes between the Shiahs and the Sunnis can be well understood when this great disparity in the fundamental basis in their respective religions is studied. Since the Sunnis reject two of the Shiah roots as being utterly baseless and concoctions, it is clear that all Sunnis in terms of the Shiah religion are Kaafir.
This fact is explicitly proclaimed by Shiah authorities. Of the five fundamental principles of the Shiah religion, the doctrine of Imaamat is considered of greater importance than Rislaalat. Thus the Shiah religion accords greater importance and greater rank to those whom it regards as its Imaams. Some Shii references will be cited here to indicate the high rank and vital importance which Shiahs bestow to their Imaams. In fact, the importance Shiahs accord to their Imaams eclipses the ranks of the Ambiyaa. In the Shii book of theology, Usoolul Kaafi of Kulaini, the following teachings of Shiism are recorded regarding the doctrine of Imaamat: « The Hujjat (Proof) of Allah is not established over His creation without the medium of an Imaam from whom the inner knowledge of Allah is acquired. « If the earth remains without an Imaam it will be annihilated. « If the Imaam is removed from earth for even a moment, it (the earth) will churn with its inhabitants like the ocean churns with its waves. « A man cannot be a believer unless he recognises Allah, His Rasool, all the Imaams and the Imaam of his age. « Whoever denies the Imaam is like a person who denies the recognition of Allah and His Rasool. « Whoever recognises (accepts and acknowledges) us (the Imaams) is a Mummin and whoever denies us is a Kaafir.
« Obedience to the Imaams is Fardh (compulsory) like the obedience to the Rasools.
« The Imaams possess all the knowledge which was bestowed to the Malaaikah, the Ambiyaa and the Rusul.
« Allah Taala has a special kind of knowledge from which He bestows to the Imaams exclusively. « When Allah Taala commences with anything of His special type of knowledge, He presents it to the Imaams.
« The entire earth belongs to the Imaam.
« The entire earth and the Hereafter belong to the Imaam. He places it as he pleases and gives it to whomever he pleases.
The differences between Islam and Shiism are numerous and wide. A study of Shiism will conclusively establish that the type of reconciliation between Islam and Shi`ism called for by those who are not versed in the Shariah, is quite impossible. The difference on just this one issue of Imaamat is so vast and extreme that the gap between the two groups – Shiahs and Sunnis – can never be bridged. The Sunnis follow the Path of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, while the Shiahs are astray plodding the path of baatil and kufr. The only way in which Islam can reconcile with those who have gone astray is by their renunciation of dhalaal (error and deviation) and kufr. There is no other way.

The Shia Betrayed Imam Hussain – A Treacherous Murder Turned Into a Romanticized Sacrifice

Islam Reigns

The Rafida usually blame Sunnis for the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but their lies are exposed from testimonies of the Ahlul Bayt and Imam Hussain himself, that the Shia’s were the ones who betrayed them, following are just two testimonies from their own books which completely exposes the lie of the Rafida:

Undoubtedly, Yazid and his cursed army led by Ibn Ziyad are not innocent of the blood of al-Husayn (alayhisalam), however, what is interesting to note is that the Ahlul-Bayt  place the responsibility of the murder of al-Husayn (alayhisalam) and whoever was with him upon the Shia.

The Ahlul-Bayt (alayhisalam) invoked Allah against the Shia and described them as “Taghuts of this Ummah, the remnants of the factions and the throwers of the Book (behind their backs)” and they added to this with their saying, “May the curse of Allah be upon the wrongdoers.” For this reason…

View original post 256 more words

THE TRAGIC EVENT OF SYRIA – DESECRATION OF THE GRAVE OF HADHRAT ‘UMAR BIN ‘ABD AL-AZIZ (RAHMATULLAHI ALAYH)

By Dr. Atif Sohail Siddiqui

The most heart-breaking and painful news is coming from Syria that the worst enemies of Islam, the Shiites, desecrated the holy shrines of the fifth caliph, Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-Aziz (Rahmatullahi Alayh) and his wife, Fatima (Rahmatullahi Alayha). By removing their blessed bodies or remains from their graves and desecrating them. There are also unconfirmed reports that their remains have been burnt. (To Allah we belong and to Him is our return).

This sad news is very painful for the Muslims who see the reflection of the great caliph, Sayyidina ‘Umar bin Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) in the just government of the Rightly Guided Caliph ‘Umar bin Abd al-Aziz. On the contrary, due to his rule of growth and guidance, he is remembered with great titles like ‘Umar the second.

The Shiites, who are the product of Abdullah bin Saba the Jew, have been carrying out anti-Islamic acts since the first day of their existence. Therefore, this heinous act is a reflection of their enmity towards Islam.

Those sections of ‘Muslims’ who talk of ‘religious unity’ between Muslims and Shiites are wasting both their time and energy promoting this kufr agenda. If the Muslims had already recognized the Shia as a separate religion from Islam like the Qadianis, they might have avoided such a loss at the hands of the Shiites.

THE KUFR OF SYMPATHIZING WITH SHIAHS

SYMPATHIZING WITH SHIAHS

Taking up cudgels with Mufti A. K. Hoosen, a Molvi Ismail Desai, says in an article:

“The issue of Takfir is a very severe and serious matter and should only be considered based on sound academic proof and fact.”

By this averment, the Molvi implies that the takfir of Shiahs is unwarranted, not based on fact and academic proof. This indicates that the Molvi is grossly ignorant of the beliefs of Shiahs. Therefore, it is necessary for him to make a study of the beliefs of the Shiahs before disgorging stupid statements devoid of reality and substance.

Everyone is aware of the severity of takfir and the severity of labelling Muslims kufaar without ‘academic’ proof. From the statement of this molvi it is palpably clear that he is ignorant of the Shar’i concept of ‘academic proof’. If he had possessed sound Knowledge of the Deen then he would not have uttered drivel. His averment is in the context of the Shiah issue. It is mind boggling for a Muslim who claims to be a Mufti to believe that the fatwa of takfir applicable to Shiahs is without academic proof and fact.

The kufr of the Shiahs is not hidden nor is it an acquisition arrived at by way of interpretation of some dubious beliefs of the Shiahs. The abominable beliefs and disgusting utterances of the Shiah are beyond the scope of interpretation. The glaring kufr of Shiahs precludes the slightest possibility of doubt on the basis of which they could be exonerated from the charge and fatwa of kufr which excommunicates them from the fold of Islam.

Among the most repugnant doctrines of Shiah kufr is the belief of Tahreef-e-Qur’aan. They deny the authenticity of the Qur’aan Majeed. It is their belief that the Qur’aan or a very substantial portion of it is the fabrication of the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhum). It is simple common sense and just logical in terms of Shiah belief to refute the claim of the authenticity of the Qur’aan in view of the fact that the undeniable reality is that the Sahaabah had compiled the Qur’aan Majeed into the present form which is with the Ummah since the very era of the Sahaabah.

All the Sahaabah with the exception of a handful, perhaps less than half a dozen, had, according to the Shiah religion reneged from Islam, became murtaddeen after the demise of Rasulullah (Sallllahu alayhi wasallam). Besides the explicit Shiah claim of the falsity of the Qur’aan, it is a logical conclusion that they do believe in the Qur’aan being a fabrication since the Men who had compiled and secured it were all ‘murtads’ according to the Shiah religion.

While there are many other beliefs of explicit kufr of the Shiah, and since this article is a brief response to the grossly erroneous view and claims of Molvi Ismail Desai, we shall suffice here with this one brazen and blatant belief of Kufr to highlight to Muslims that Shiahs are not Muslims. The pivot on which Islam hinges is the Qur’aan Majeed. Only a thoroughbred kaafir will entertain any doubt regarding anyone, Shiah or otherwise, who finds the slightest fault in the Qur’aan Majeed.

There are two fundamentals of Islam on which the entire Grandiose Structure of Islam rests – The Sahaabah and the Qur’aan. We mention first the Sahaabah because without the Sahaabah there is no Qur’aan. The authenticity of the Qur’aan is 100% reliant on the Sahaabah. But all of these Sahaabah are branded kuffaar and murtaddeen by the Shiahs. Thus, there is no doubt in the validity of the verdict of Takfir against the Shiah.

The gross misunderstanding in general among ignoramuses is that Takfir is a repugnant swear word. The pseudo-‘Muslims’ in whose hearts lurks kufr have created revulsion in the minds of ignoramuses for the injunction of Takfir. It should be well understood that just as abominable and haraam it is to excommunicate a Muslim – to baselessly declare him a kaafir – so too is it abominable and haraam to enter into the fold of Islam a professed kaafir. Takfir is a Shar’i injunction which has to be necessarily applied when there is the need.

The Molvi has acquitted himself with jahaalat by finding fault with the mas’alah of Takfir. His vindication of the Shiahs is deplorable, to say the least. How is it ever possible for a Mu’min – one whose Imaan is sound – to express sympathy whether overtly or covertly, for people who claim with extreme vehemence and hatred that Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) had committed adultery; the Sahaabah, including Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhum) are kuffaar and inmates of Hell-Fire, etc. etc. in the same vein? What type of Imaan evokes sympathy for such scoundrels who set up a veiled defence for these Shiah enemies of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah?

Illustrating his lack of understanding of the principle of Fiqh and of the Shariah, Molvi Ismail Desai makes reference to Imaam Abu Hanifah’s maxim of 99 aspects of kufr and one aspect of Imaan. Without understanding the meaning of this statement, he disgorged pure bunkum. We advise this Molvi to make a study of Allaamah Kashmiri’s Ikfaarul Mulhideen to edify himself and to equip himself with a better understanding of the maxim which he has grievously misunderstood.

Does he believe that Qadiyanis are Muslims? If not, then he falls as a criminal on the basis of his understanding of the 99 – 1 maxim. Qadiyanis proclaim the Kalimah in exactly the same way we do. Thus, this errant Molvi should explain why Qadiyanis are not Muslims. Obviously, this argument will fall away of he does accept Qadiyanis to be Muslims. But our understanding is that he does believe that they are kuffaar.

If a man believes in the teachings of Islam, performs the five Salaat, pays Zakaat, Fasts in Ramadhaan, performs Hajj and practices 99 tenets of Islam, but along with this he proclaims one statement of explicit kufr, that is, Nubuwwat has not ended, will he remain a Muslim? Can any Mufti, provided he is not of the Reverend Bhum and Jaahil Taha Karaan kind of vermin, say that such a person is a Muslim on the basis of him accepting and practicing 99 tenets of Imaan, but rejecting only one?

The meaning of the maxim which has been beyond the purview of the Molvi’s brains, is that if a statement there are 99 probabilities of kufr but by way of interpretation if one probability could be of Imaan, then this latter one will save the skin of the criminal from Takfir. This maxim NEVER means that if a man professes one explicit statement / belief of Sareeh kufr, he will still remain a Muslim.

Thus, if a man practices all the tenets and injunctions of Islam but worships a cross, or he walks around a Hindu fire in a wedding ceremony uttering incantations of shirk in the name of a Hindu god, or he claims that the Qur’aan is man-made hence prone to error, then NEVER will such a person be a Muslim. His adherence to 99 tenets of Islam or to all tenets of Islam, besides the one explicit kufr, will not save him from Takfir.
On what basis does this molvi claim that the fatwa of takfir against the Shiahs is “without any proof”? He is guilty of a deliberate lie spawned by his gross ignorance of the books of theology of the Shiah clergy.

According to this deviated molvi, declaring the Shiah kuffaar on the basis of their rejection of the Qur’aan is a “nonsensical declaration of Takfeer”. His brains have become nonsensical as a result of intellectual necrosis spawned by the ‘touch of shaitaan.’ This ‘touch of shaitaan’ is mentioned by Allah Ta’ala in the Qur’aan Majeed. About the people of riba, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“Those who devour riba do not stand except as stands one who has been driven to insanity by the touch of shaitaan.”

Molvi Ismail Desai is heavily involved with the riba gang – the capitalist bankers and financial institutions for which ‘fatwas of jawaaz’ have to be fabricated. When a molvi becomes involved with kuffaar financial institutions he incrementally sinks deeper and deeper into the cesspool of shaitaani inequity which he has created for himself. It is like quicksand from which extrication is almost impossible. The disease of the desensitization of Imaan gnaws into the brains and heart by degrees until shaitaan swallows the molvi in entirety. This is the same fate which has destroyed Mufti Taqi Usmani of Pakistan. All of these bank-molvis and muftis are destroying their Imaan in the cauldron of riba, hence liberalism has become integral to their fatwas.

With extreme stupidity, the Molvi belching drivel, says:

“…..there are different sects and categories of Shiah. Zaydi, Nusayri, Ibadhi, Ithna Ashari, Ismaili, etc. Not all Shiah are Kafir.”
Making one self-incriminating concession, this molvi concedes that some Shiah sects are kaafir. Which sects according to him are kaafir, and which are not? It devolves upon him to elaborate on the beliefs of the various sects of Shi’ism. But he is too stupid. He only has seen these names somewhere, hence rattled them off without understanding or being aware of their doctrines, beliefs and practices.

Here the molvi has mentioned five Shiah sects. If he had valid knowledge of the doctrines of these sects, he would not have acquitted himself with the glaring stupidity of mentioning the Nusayri, Ithna Ashari and Islamili sects. Bashar Asad of Syria is a Nusayri Shiah. Besides the brutality of the Nusayris against Muslims, their beliefs are absolutely repugnant to Islam.

The Ismailis believe that their Agha Khan is god incarnate. Even his urine and excrement are Tabarruk. He is the ma’bood of the Ismailis. As for the Ithna Ash’aris, they are our primary target. Why does Molvi Ismail Desai feign ignorance regarding the Sareeh beliefs of kufr of this mainstream sect of Shi’ism? Is there a monetary agenda underlying his veiled defence for these Shiahs of explicit kufr? The monetary dimension has validity in view of this molvi’s entanglement with the capitalist riba financial institutions.

Does he believe that Agha Khan is a god or that his followers are entitled to believe in his godhood like the Christians believe in the godhood of Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam)? The fact that he has included in his meagre list of Shiah sects three such sects who adhere to Sareeh Kufr, speaks volumes for his jahaalat.

At least to bolster his indefensible claims, he should have mentioned such Shiah sects whose corrupt beliefs he could stupidly vindicate by remote ta’weel. But he mentions three such sects whose beliefs are Sareeh Kufr! He does not know whether he is moving forward or reversing into the najaasat of Shiah kufr.

We have published copious booklets and articles in condemnation of Shiahs. In every article, the dalaa-il for the kufr of Shiahs are stated. This molvi should undertake the task of refuting our dalaa-il, and not seek to detract from the academic arguments with stupid statements devoid of Shar’i substance. One such stupid copro-statement of this molvi is:

“I am appalled at this baseless and rudderless academic disposition.”

Such stupid rhetoric is not sufficient to dislodge dalaa-il. Cite the charge, its proofs provided, then embark on an academic refutation. Nothing in what this miscreant molvi says in his stupid article has any academic worth.

It devolves on this Shiah sympathizer to academically prove that Nusayris, Ithna Asha’ris, Ismailis and the whole gamut of Shiah sects are NOT kuffaar. Make an -in depth study, apply your brains, fear Allah Ta’ala and endeavour to understand the kufr of these sects of deviation.

In the current context, when we speak of Shiahs, their remote, extinct, little known and unknown sects are not at this stage being targeted. Everyone understands that the target is the Shiah regime and the vast bulk of the Iranian population who are all Ithna Ash’aris – the believers in twelve prophets whom they deceptively dub ‘Imaams’.

Therefore, when its is said that Shiahs are kuffaar, then it is pure deception and an attempt to vindicate Shiah kufr, to cite some little known or extinct Shiah sect/s who may, despite their haraam deviation, initially not have subscribed to Sareeh Kufr. The discussion should be contextualized to the current scenario pertaining to the Ithna Ash’ari kuffaar Shiahs.

And, at a minimum, understand that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had said that ALL sects besides the Ahlus Sunnah are Naari – destined for Jahannam. So do not associate nor sympathize with the Naaris because there is the grave danger of being resurrected in the assembly of the Naaris on the Day of Qiyaamah.

Salaam on those who follow the Huda of Allah

8 Ramadhaan 1441 – 2 May 2020