Category Archives: Shia/Raafidhi


There has not been a holy revolution which was distorted as much as the Shi’ites distorted the revolution of Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiyallahu Anhu) in the pretext of loving him, Furthermore these ceremonies are the cause of bloody conflicts between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis of Pakistan, where hundreds of innocent people from both sides have been killed. I feel it is very important that people should know what is the reality of MATAM.

The Tradition is still common in the gathering held for Hadhrat Hussain in the Shi’ites world, It is imperative to end these gatherings by weeping for Hadhrat Hussain because “He who cries or tries to cry for Al-Hussain, Heaven becomes obligatory for him” This is a statement which is found in the books of narrations and is attributed to the Imaams. But God forbid that such a statement should have come from an Imaam. The Boyheys, who ruled Iran and Iraq in the name of protecting the khilafah of Banu-Al-Abbas, played a vital role in strengthening the tradition of celebrating the day of ‘Ashura’.

However, celebrating the day of ‘Ashura’ became a general tradition and a part of the Shi’ites existence during the time of Shah Ismail Al-Safawi. He forced Iran in to Shi’aism and created in it a denominational unity to squench the desires of the neighboring Ottoman Khilafah. In the Safawi palace, every year the first ten days of Muharram used to be declared as days of mourning and the Shah used to receive the mourners on the day of ‘Ashura’.

On that day a special celebration used to be held in the royal palace. Many people used to gather for those celebrations, and the Shah himself use to attend them also, Shah Abbas Al-Safawi, whose rule lasted for fifty years and who was the shrewdest most powerful and most cruel of the Safawi Shahs, used to wear black on the day of ‘Ashura’ and put mud on his face as a sign of mourning for Al-Hussain. He used to lead the marchers in the streets, But We do not know for sure when the tradition of striking the shoulders with chains on the day of Ashura came into existence

This tradition spread into Shi’ites areas such as Iran and Iraq, and other region as well. However, there is no doubt that striking the heads with swords and causing blood to gush out as an act of mourning for Hadhrat Hussain on the day of ‘Ashura’ came to Iran and Iraq from India during the British occupation of those countries. The British exploited the ignorance, simplicity and the great love the Shi’ites had for Al-Hussain. They even taught them to hit their heads with sharp objects. 

Until very recently, the British embassies in both Tehran and Baghdad used to finance the demonstrations for Ashura. This demonstration portrayed an ugly image in the streets and neighborhoods. The purpose behind the British colonial policies in their support for this ugly tradition, which has been grossly exploited by them, was to provide an acceptable justification to the British people to counteract the opposition by some independent newspapers and by some countries against the British occupation of India. The people of these countries were made to appear as savages who needed a civilizing force like the British to teach them human values and liberate them from ignorance and savagery. British and European newspapers used to publish pictures of the demonstrators marching in the streets on the day of ‘Ashura’ with thousands of people hitting their shoulders with chains until they bled, and striking their heads with swords and other sharp objects until blood gushed out. The policy makers of the colonial powers used to use these pictures to justify the colonization of these countries under the  pretext of wanting to educate the people of these countries and bring them toward civilization and progress, as dictated by their feelings of moral obligation towards their fellow human beings. It is said that once Yasin Al-Hashmi, the Prime Minister of Iraq during the British occupation of that country, visited London to negotiate with the British to end their occupation of his country.

The British said to him :“We are in Iraq to help the Iraqi people achieve happiness and give up savagery.” This statement caused the Prime Minister to become angry and he left the room where they were holding the negotiations. The British politely apologized to him and respectfully asked  him to see a documentary film about Iraq. When he watched the film, it turned out to be a film of the demonstration held on the day of ‘Ashura’ in the streets of Al-Najaf, Karbala and Al-Kazimiyah. The film was full of horrible and sickening scenes which included striking the bodies with chains. The British, by showing that film to the Prime Minister were asking him whether a 
cultured nation even with degree of civilization would do this to itself. 

This article is taken from a scholar of Iran Imam Dr. Musa Musawi. Here I want to mention something amusing, yet full of wisdom and bright ideas. I heard it from one of the Shi’ite scholars and religious leader about thirty years ago, This elderly and respected man was standing beside me, The day was the tenth of Muharram and the time was noon and the place was the Rawdah of Imam Al-Hussain in Karbala. Then a demonstration of those who strike their heads with Swords and Causes blood to gush out of their heads as a sign of grief and mourning for the death of Al-Hussain entered in great numbers to the grave site of Al- Hussain. Their blood flowing down their foreheads and the sides of their bodies in a sickening way caused one’s body to shiver. Then another large group of people who were hitting their backs with chains until they bled, That is when the old man, an independent scholar asked me “what is the matter with these people who have inflicted this disaster and pain on themselves?” I said : “you have asked this question as if you are not listening to what they are saying, which is, ‘O Hussain,’ expressing their grief for him. Then he asked again: Isn’t Al-Hussain now ‘firmly established in the favor of a Mighty King.’ I said yes. Then he asked me again: Is not Al-Hussain now at this moment in a ‘garden whereof the breadth is as the breadth of the heavens and the earth, which is the  reward for those who ward off evil’? I said yes. Then he asked: Aren’t there in paradise ‘fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, like unto hidden pearls’? I said yes. Then he took a deep breath and said in a forceful way with pain and sadness: Woe to them, stupid, ignorant, for what they do to themselves, for an imam who is now in the ‘gardens of delights, there wait on them immortal youths with bowls and a cup from a pure spring.’

In the year 1352 A.H., when the leading scholar of the Shi’ites of Syria, Hassan Al-Amin Al-Ameli, declared such acts to be forbidden, which was an unmatched demonstration of courage on his part in stating his opinion and by asking the Shiites to stop these practices, he was faced with strong opposition from within the ranks of the Shi’ia scholars, religious leaders and those who followed them, the kind of people described by Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallah anhu) as “rag-tag and bobtailed.”  This step of the reform almost failed had it not been adopted by our grandfather Abu-Al-Hassan, who was the supreme leader of the Shi’ite denomination. Abu-Al-Hassan had the same view as Al-Amin, and he declared his full support for him and his ruling concerning that issue. The  stand taken by our grandfather gave great strength to the reform movement of Al-Amin. Even though many of the Fuqaha and Mujtahedeen opposed Abu-Al-Hassan was able to defeat all who opposed him due to his great status and perseverance. The public started to listen to the ruling of the great leader concerning religious matters, and their accustomed practice during the day of ‘Ashura’ started to diminish little by little and began to disappear from the Shi’ites’ lives. However, these practices did not completely vanish and weak traces of them remained until the death of our grandfather in the year 1365 A.H. (may Allah’s Mercy be upon him). After his death, the new Shi’ia authorities started to urge people to practice these traditions  again. These traditions made a comeback in the Shi’ite world; however, they did not reappear to the same level as in the era prior to 1352 A.H. After the Islamic republic was declared in Iran and the concept of Walaayet Al-Faqeeh became the basic of power, orders were given to revive those traditions as part of the policies of the Shi’ite denomination.

Furthermore, the young Islamic republic began helping the Shi’ite groups in all parts of earth, both financially and spiritually.  It urged them to revive this bid’ah which was brought into the Shi’ite  world about 200 years  ago by the policies of the colonizing British, in order to give Islam and Muslims the worst image and to justify their occupation of the Muslim countries, as we mentioned earlier. As I am writing these lines, the cities of Iran, Pakistan, India and Lebanon unfortunately witness on the tenth of  Muharram every year a processing of people marching in their streets in the image we drew. Before the end of that day, many picture of that human savagery and terrifying foolishness are shown on the T.V. screens in both the east and the west to give strength to the enemies of Islam and to those who wish ill towards Islam and Muslims. Therefore, We must enrich ourselves in memory of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) rather than destroying ourselves. we must give to Hadhrar Hussain his respected place in the arena of struggle instead of tarnishing and defaming status. We must do this if we truly among the supporters of Hadhrat Hussain and those who Love him.

Further Reading:

1. Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and The Secrets Behind it

2. Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and the Secrets Behind it [Part 2]

Black Clothes and the Shia’

Traditionally, the Shia wear black clothes in the month of Muharram. In fact, during this month, it is considered  Mustahab (highly recommended) to do so. We find most Shia do wear black in certain parts of the year, including the Shia priests (scholarship) and Maraje’ (high scholars). In fact, the Shia Ayatollahs tend to wear black year-round, and very rarely do we see them not wearing black cloaks.

Herein we find a contradiction in the Shia faith. According to the authentic Shia Hadith, wearing black clothes is actually Haraam (forbidden)! We see the following Hadith referenced on the reliable Shia website,

Amir-ul-mu’minin said:

وقال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فيما علم أصحابه: ” لا تلبسوا السواد فإنه لباس فرعون “.

“Do not wear black clothes, that is the dress of Pharaoh” 

Imam As Sadiq was asked about pray in the black clothes, he said:

وسئل الصادق عليه السلام ” عن الصلاة في القلنسوة السوداء؟ فقال: لا تصل فيها فإنها لباس أهل النار 

“Don’t pray in it, that is dress of people of fire” 

There is obviously nothing wrong with wearing black clothes, and the Ahlus Sunnah has nothing in their books which forbids it. However, the Shia Hadith declare that Amir Al-Mumineen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Imam As-Sadiq  (رحىمالله) declared it Haraam. And yet, we find the Shia scholars wearing black, as well as the Shia masses who do so out of a sense of religious obligation.

In fact, the Shia Maraje’ have declared that wearing black is Mustahab. On his official website, Grand Ayatollah Lankarani was asked if wearing black was Mustahabb, to which he replied: “Since it [wearing black] is considered respecting the signs (of Allah), it has legal preference. Moreover, prominent scholars such as late Ayatollah al-Uzma Broujardi used to wear black…” (Source: Ayatollah Lankarani’s official website,

This is truly an inconsistency in religion. The Faith of Allah should not have inconsistencies in it, and yet we find that Shi’ism is full of such discrepencies. Hence, we can only conclude that Shi’ism is not true Islam.

محرم کی بدعات اور رسوم

من جانب: محمد راشد حنفی

محرم کوفضلیت کس لئے حاصل ہوئی؟

کسی وقت، کسی دن یا مہینہ کو عظمت وفضلیت حاصل ہونے کی اصل وجہ اﷲ تعالی کی خاص تجلیات، انوار و برکات اور رحمتوں میں متوجہ اورظاہر ہوناہے، (لیکن بعض اہم واقعات کا اس وقت میں واقع ہوجانا بھی دوسرے درجہ میں فضلیت کا باعث ہو جاتا ہے جیسا کہ رمضان میں قرآن مجید کا نازل ہونا اور شب قدر وغیرہ کا واقع ہونا وغیرہ) اور فضلیت حاصل کرنے کا طریقہ(اصولی یا جزوی طریقہ پر) وحی کے ذریعہ سے ہی معلوم ہوسکتا ہے، اپنی طرف سے کسی دن یا تاریخ میں خاص فضلیت کی بنیاد اپنی طرف سے کسی اور چیز کو قرار دے دینا یا فضلیت حاصل کرنے کاکوئی خاص طریقہ اپنی طرف سے متعین کر لینا يہ تمام چیزیں ناجائز، گناہ اور شریعت پر زیادتی ہیں۔ لہٰذا جو لوگ يہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ محرم کے مہینے یا دس محرم کے دن کی فضلیت حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت کی وجہ سے حاصل ہو ئی وہ لوگ غلطی میں مبتلا ہیں۔ کیونکہ اس مہینہ کی فضلیت تو کربلا کے واقعہ سے بہت پہلے آسمان وزمین کی پیدائش سے ہی چلی آرہی ہیں اور ظاہر ہے کہ اس وقت کربلا کے واقعہ کا نام ونشان بھی نہیں تھا۔ اسی طرح دس محرم کے دن کی فضلیت بھی بہت پہلے سے چلی آرہی ہے۔ يہاں تک کہ يہودونصاریٰ اور قریش مکہ بھی اس دن کی عظمت و فضلیت کے قائل تھے۔ حضور ﷺنے دس محرم کے روزے کے فضائل بیان فرمائے اور ظاہر ہے کہ اسو قت تک کربلا کا واقعہ پیش نہیں آیا تھا،البتہ يہ کہا جائے گا کہ خود حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت اس مہینے اور اس دن میں اسلئے واقع ہوئی کہ يہ مہینہ اور دن فضلیت کا تھا ، اﷲ تعالیٰ نے اس مقدس مہینے کے اس مبارک دن کواپنے مقبول بندے حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت کے واسطے منتخب فرما دیا غرضیکہ اس دن کو حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت کی وجہ سے کوئی فضلیت حاصل نہیں ہوئی بلکہ خود حضرت حسینؓ کو دن شہید ہونے سے فضلیت حاصل ہوئی۔

کیا محرم غم کا مہینہ ہے؟

بعض نا واقف لوگ ایسے بھی ہیں محرم کے مہینے کو رنج وغم کا مہینہ سمجھتے ہیں اور کہتے ہیں کہ اس مہینہ میں کربلا کا سانحہ پیش آیا تھا جس میں حضرت حسین ؓاور دوسری عظیم ہستیوں کو بے دردی کے ساتھ شہید کر دیا گیا تھا لہٰذا يہ مہینہ غم کا ہے اور اسی وجہ سے يہ لوگ اس مہینے میں خوشی کے کام (شادی بیاہ وغیرہ) انجام دينے سے پرہیز کرتے ہیں اور بعض لوگ خوشی کے کاموں سے پرہیز کرتے ہوئے مختلف قسم کے سوگ کرتے ہیں (مثلاً کالا لباس پہننا، عورتوں کا زیب وزینت اور بناﺅ سنگھار چھوڑ دینا، میاں بیوی کے خصوصی تعلقات سے رکے رہنا، مرثيے پڑھنا، نوحہ ، ماتم کرنا وغیرہ وغیرہ) اس سلسلہ میں سب سے پہلے تو يہ سمجھ لینا چاہیے کہ يہ خیال بالکل غلط ہے کہ يہ مہینہ غمی کا ہے کیونکہ يہ مہینہ تو بہت محترم اور فضلیت بلکہ عبادت والا مہینہ ہے اور دس محرم کے دن، تاریخ اسلام کے بہت بڑے عظیم اور خوشگوار واقعات رونما ہوئے ہیں اور دوسری بات يہ ہے کہ غمی کا واقعہ پیش آنے سے وہ مہینہ یا دن غم کےلئے مخصوص نہیں ہو جاتا کہ اس میں ہمیشہ غم کیاجاتا رہے اور صدییاں گزرنے کے باوجود اس کو غم کا مہینہ بنائے رکھنا تو بہت بڑی حماقت ہے ۔۔

کیا محرم نحوست کا مہینہ ہے ؟؟؟

بعض لوگ اس مہینہ کو نحوست کا مہینہ سمجھتے ہیں۔زمانہ جاہلیت میں لوگ بعض دنوں بعض تاریخوں اوربعض جانوروں یا انسانوں میں نحوست سمجھتے تھے خاص کر عورت، گھوڑے اور مکان میں نحوست کا زیادہ اعتقاد رکھتے تھے اور آج کل بعض مہینوں (مثلاً محرم ،صفر وغیرہ) اور بعض دنوں، تاریخوں اور جگہوں میں نحوست سمجھی جاتی ہے خاص طور پر جس تاریخ یا جس جگہ میں کوئی حادثہ ، ہلاکت یا کوئی نقصان اورغمی کا واقعہ پیش آجائے اس کو منحوس سمجھاجاتا ہے ،اور واقعہ کربلا کے محرم کے مہینہ میں پیش آجانے کی وجہ سے اسی بنیاد پر محرم کے مہینہ کو بہت سے لوگ منحوس خیال کرتے ہیں يہاں تک کہ جو بچہ محرم کے مہینہ میں پیدا ہوجائے اس کو بھی منحوس خیال کیا جاتا ہے ۔ جبکہ اسلام کے اصولوں اور رسول اﷲ ﷺ کی احادیث سے ثابت ہے کہ کوئی زمانہ یا دن تاریخ اپنی ذات میں منحوس نہیں ہے،غمی کا واقعہ پیش آنے سے زمانہ منحوس نہیں بن جاتا ، اور زمانہ تو اﷲ تعالیٰ کی مخلوق ہے اس کی طرف نحوست یا برائی منسوب کرنا گناہ ہے احادیث میں اس کی ممانعت آئی ہے۔ ايک حدیث قدسی میں ہے :۔

نبی کریم ﷺ سے مروی ہے کہ اﷲ تعالی فرماتے ہیں کہ بنی آدم مجھے ایذاء دیتا ہے  (یعنی میری شان کے خلاف بات کہتا ہے اور وہ اس طرح) کہ وہ زمانہ و برا بھلا کہتا ہے حالانکہ زمانہ میں ہوں (یعنی زمانہ ميرے تابع اور ماتحت ہے) میرے قبضہ قدرت میں تمام حالات اور زمانے ہیں میں ہی رات ودن کو پلٹتا(کم زیادہ کرتا) ہوں ۔

(بخاری، مسلم، ابو داود، موطا امام مالک، مشکوة ص13)


زمانہ بذات خودکوئی چیز نہیں وہ تو اﷲ تعالیٰ کے حکم سے وجود میں آیا ہے اوراسی کے حکم سے چلتا ہے، نحوست اگر ہے تو انسان کی بد اعمالیوں یا اپنے خیالات کی بنیاد پر ہے ۔ اول محرم کا مہینہ خود فضلیت والا مہینہ ہےاوراس میں کوئی نحوست نہیں ہے دوسرے حضر حسین ؓ کی شہادت کی وجہ سے اس مہینہ کو غمی یا نحوست کا مہینہ سمجھنے سے يہ لازم آتا ہے کہ نعوذ باﷲ شہادت کوئی بری یا منحوس چیز ہے جبکہ شرعی اعتبار سے شہادت ايک عظیم سعادت والا عمل ہے جو ہرکس وناکس کو بآسانی میسر نہیں آتا، اور شہادت ایسی عظیم سعادت اور دولت ہے جس کی تمنا خود اپنے لئے محمد مصطفےٰﷺ نے بھی کی ہے اور امت کو بھی اس کی ترغیب دی ہے اور شہید کے لئے بڑے اجروانعام ، اعزاز و اکرام اور بےشمار نعمتوں کی خوشخبری سنائی ہے ۔

شہادت کے فضائل

آیت: ولا تقولوا لمن یقتل فی سبیل اﷲ اموات، بل احیاءولکن لا تشعرون (البقرہ)

ترجمہ: اور جو لوگ اس کی راہ میں قتل کئے جاتے ہیں ان کی نسبت یوں بھی مت کہو کہ وہ (معمولی مردوں کی طرح) مردے ہیں بلکہ وہ تو (ايک ممتار حیات کے ساتھ) زندہ ہے لیکن تم (ان) حواس سے (اس حیات کا) ادارک نہیں کر سکتے۔

آیت: ولا تحسبن الذین قتلوا فی سبیل اﷲ امواتا، بل احیاءعند ربھم یرزقون۔ فرحین بما اتا ہم اﷲ من فضلہ۔(آل عمران)

ترجمہ: اور جو اﷲ کے راستے میں شہید ہو جائیں ان کو مردے مت خیال کرو بلکہ وہ زندہ ہیں اپنے رب کے مقرب ہیں ان کو رزق ملتا ہے وہ اﷲ کے فضل میں سے دئيے ہوئے پر خوش ہوتے ہیں۔

ان آیات میں اﷲ تعالی نے شہیدوں کی کئی فضلتیں ذکر فرمائی ہيں۔ ايک يہ کہ شہیدوں کو شہادت کے بعد برزخ میں ہمیشہ کی امتیازی زندگی عطا ہوتی ہے تم ان کو عام مردوں کی طرح مردہ نہ خیا ل کرو دوسری فضلیت يہ ذکر ہوئی کہ شہید اپنے رب کے مقرب ہیں ان کو خصوصی قرب حاصل ہوتا ہے۔تیسری فضلیت يہ ذکر ہوئی کہ شہیدوں کو رزق عطا ہوتا ہے اس پر خوش ہوتے ہیں يہ روحانی رزق يہ یعنی جسمانی و روحانی دونوں قسم کا رزق ملتے ہیں۔ یاد رہے شہید کو شہادت کے بعد جو زندگی عطا ہوتی ہے يہ صرف روح کی زندگی نہیں ہے بلکہ روح کا تعلق جسم کے ساتھ بھی خاص درجہ کا دوسروں سے امتیازی ہوتا ہے ورنہ تو ان کو مردہ کہنے کی ممانعت کو کائی مطلب نہیں کیونکہ روح تو تمام مردوں ہی کی زندہ ہے۔

آیت: ولئن قتلتم فی سبیل اﷲ اومتم لمغفرة من اﷲ ورحمة خیر مما یجمعون (آلعمران)

ترجمہ: اور اگر تم اﷲ کے رساتے میں شہید ہو گئے یا طبعی موت کا شکار ہوئے بہر صورت اﷲ تعالی کی طرف سے حاصل ہونے والی مغفرت اور رحمت (جو اﷲ کے راستے میں حاصل ہوتی ہے) وہ ان چیزوں سے بہتر ہے جو لوگ جمع کرتے ہیں۔

اس آیت میں شہیدوں کو مغفرت اور رحمت حاصل ہونے کی خوشخبری ہے اور اس کا ثبوت ہے کہ دنیا کی مال ودولت اور دوسری چیزوں سے بہتر نعمتیں ان کو حاصل ہوتی ہیں۔

آیت: والذین ھاجروا سبیل اﷲ ثم قتلوا اوماتو الیرزقنہم اﷲ رزقا حسنا، وان اﷲ لھو خیر الرازقین۔ لیدخلنھم مدخلا یرضونہ (الحج)

ترجمہ: اور جنہوں نے اﷲ کے راستے میں ہجرت کی پھر شہید ہوگئے یا طبعی موت کا شکار ہوئے اﷲ تعالیٰ نے ان کو بہترین رزق عطا فرمائے گا اور بیشک اﷲ بہترین رزق دينے والے ہیں۔ اور ان کو ایسی جگہ داخل کرےگا جس کو وہ خود پسند کریں گے۔

اس آیت میں شہید سے دو چیزوں کا وعدہ ہوا ہے ايک بہترین رزق کا دوسرا اپنی پسند کی جگہ یعنی جنت میں داخلہ کا يہ دونوں بہت بڑے اعزاز ہیں۔

آیت: ومن یطع اﷲ والرسول فاولئک مع الذین انعم اﷲ علیھم من النبین والصدیقین والشھداءوالصالحین(نسائ)

ترجمہ: اور جو اﷲاور رسول کی اطاعت کرے گا تو ایسے آدمی ان لوگوں کے ساتھ ہوں کے جن پر اﷲ نے انعام فرمایا یعنی انبیاء، صدیقین، شہدااور صالحین۔

اس آیت میں اﷲ تعالی نے شہيدوں کی يہ فضلیت بیان فرمائی ہے کہ وہ اﷲ تعالی کے انعام یافتہ لوگوں میں سے ہیں، اور يہ کہ انبیا ءصدیقین کے بعد سب سے بڑھ کر شہیدوں کا مقام و مرتبہ ہے۔

حدیث: لوددت انی اعزوفی سبیل اﷲ فاقتل ثم اغزو فاقتل ثم اغرو فاقتل (بخاری فی الجہاد، مسلم فی الا مارة، نسائی فی الجھاد، ابن ماجہ فی الجہاد، مسند احمد ، دارمی فی الجہادو موطا امام مالک فی الجہاد)

ترجمہ: حضور ﷺ نے فرمایامیںپسند کرتا ہوں کہ میں اﷲ کے راستے میں جہاد کروں اور شہید کیا جاؤں پھر زندہ کیا جاؤں پھر شہید کیا جاؤں، پھر زندہ کی جاؤں پھر شہید کیا جاؤں۔

حدیث: ما احد یدخل یحب ان یرجع الی الدنیا، ولہ ما علی الارض من شیئی الا الشہیدیتمنی ان یرجع الی الدنیا فیقتل عشر مرات لما یری من الکرامة (البخاری فی الجہاد، مسلم فی الامارة، ترمذی فی الجہاد، نسائی فی الجہاد ومسند احمد)

ترجمہ: کوئی شخص جنت میں داخل ہونے کے بعد يہ تمنا نہیں کرے گا کہ اس دنیا میں لوٹایا جائے یا دنیا کی کوئی چیز دی جائے سوائے شہید کے کہ وہ تمنا کرےگا کہ وہ دنیا میں لوٹایا جائے اور دس مرتبہ شہید کیا جائے، يہ تمنا وہ (شہید) اپنی تعظیم(اور مقام) ديکھنے کی وجہ سے کرے گا۔

حدیث: من سال اﷲ الشہادة بصدق بلغہ اﷲ منازل الشہدآ ءو ان ما ت علی فراشہ۔(مسلم فی الا مارة ترمذی فی الجہاد، نسائی فی الجہاد، ابو ادؤد فی الصلوة، ابن ماجہ فی الجہاد، دارمی فی الجہاد)

ترجمہ: جس نے سچے دل کے ساتھ اﷲتعالی سے شہادة مانگی اﷲ تعالی اسے شہیدوں کے مقام تک پہنچا دے گا اگرچہ وہ بستر پر مرے ۔

اس کے علاوہ شہید کے بارے میں فضائل بھی احادیث میں آئے ہیں مثلاً:

(1) شہید کے قرض کے علاوہ تمام گناہ بخشش ديئے جاتے ہیں (مسلم)

(2) شہید پر فرشتوں کے پروں کے سايہ ہوتا ہے (بخاری ومسلم)

(3) شہادت پر جنت میں داخلہ کی ضمانت (ایضاً)

(4) شہید سب سے پہلے جنت میں داخل ہونے والوں میں سے ہے (ترمذی)

(5)شہیدوں کی روحیں سبز پرندوں میں داخل کر دی جاتی ہیں وہ جنت کی نہروں پر اترتے ہیں جنت کے میوے کھات ہیں، عرش کے سائے کے نيچے سونے کی قندیلوں پر بيٹھتے ہیں(صحیح مسلم، ابوداؤد و مستدرک)

(6)قبر کے فتنے اور قیامت کے دن کی بے ہوشی سے نجات دی جاتی ہے(نسائی )

(7)اپنے گھر والوں میں سے ستر(70) کی شفاعت کا حق عطا کیا جاتا ہے (ابو داود، بیہقی)

(8) شہید کے پہلے قطرے کے ساتھ بخشش کر دی جاتی ہے ،جنت میں اس کا مقام دکھا دیا جاتا ہے قیامت کے دن کی گھبراہٹ سے امن ديدے جاتا ہے، اس کے سر پروقار کا تاج رکھا جاتا ہے جس کا ايک یاقوت دنیا اور اس کی تمام چیزوں سے بہتر ہے،72حورعین سے اس کی شادی کر دی جاتی ہیں (مسند احمد، ترمذی، مصنف عبدالرزاق، ابن ماجہ)

(9) خون خشک ہونے سے پہلے حور عین کی زیارت کرادی جاتی ہے (ابن ماجہ، ابن ابی شبیہ، مصنف عبدالرزاق)

يہاں شہادت کے چند فضائل ذکر کيے گئے ہیں ورنہ شہید کہ بارے میں بے شمار فضائل آئے ہیں اور جب محرم الحرام عبادت اور عظمت والا مہینہ ہے تو اس مہینہ میں شہادت کی عظمت اس مہینے کی وجہ سےاور بھی زیادہ ہوجاتی ہے، لہٰذا حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت کی وجہ سے اس مہینہ کو نحوست یا غم کا مہینہ سمجھنا سراسر غلط ہے۔ اگر کوئی شبہ کرے کہ يہ فضائل تو شہید کے لئے ہیں لیکن ہمارے اعتبار سے اس طرح کی شہادت رنج وغم کا باعث ہے لہٰذا ہمیں اس پر سوگ اور ماتم کرنا چاہيے اس کا جواب آگے آرہا ہے۔

محرم میں سوگ اور ماتم

شرعی اعتبار سے سو گ کرنا صرف چند صورتوں میں عورتوں کے حق میں ثابت ہے اور وہ يہ ہیں:

(1) جس عورت کو اس کے شوہر نے طلاق بائن (ایسی طلاق جس میں نکاح ختم ہوجاتا ہے) دیدی ہو اس پرعدت کے زمانہ میں سوگ کرنا واجب ہے ۔عدت ختم ہونے کے بعد واجب نہیں بلکہ جائز بھی نہیں۔

(2) جس عورت کا خاوند فوت ہوگیا ہو اس پر عدت کے زمانہ میں سوگ کرنا واجب ہے عدت کے بعد واجب نہیں بلکہ جائز بھی ۔

(3) شوہر کے علاوہ کسی قریبی رشتہ دار (باپ بيٹے وغیرہ) کے فوت ہونے پر صرف تین دن تک عورت کو سوگ کرنے کی اجازت ہے واجب اور ضروری نہیں تین دن کے بعد يہ اجازت بھی نہیں۔

اس کے علاوہ اورکسی موقعہ پر عورت کو سوگ کرنے کی اجازت نہیں اورمرد کو تو سوگ کرنا کسی حال میں بھی جائز نہیں اور شرعی سوگ کاطریقہ يہ ہے کہ عورت اتنے عرصہ میں ایسے کپڑے نہ پہننے اور ایسا رنگ ڈھنگ اختیار نہ کرے جس سے مردوں کو کشش اور میلان ہوتا ہو۔ خوشبو ، سرمہ، مہندی اور دوسری زیب و زینت اور بناؤ سنگھار کی چیزیں چھوڑدے۔ اس کے علاوہ اپنی طرف سے سوگ کے طریقے اختیار کرنا جائز نہیں مثلاً غم کے اظہار کےلئے مخصوص رنگوں کے (مثلا کالے) کپڑے پہننا وغیرہ۔

حدیث: حضرت ام سلمہؓ حضور اکرم ﷺ نے نقل کرتی ہے کہ آپ نے فرمایا کہ جس عورت کا شوہر وفات پاگیا وہ عدت گزرنے تک عصفر سے رنگا ہوا اور خوشبو والی مٹی سے رنگا ہوا کپڑا اور خضاب بھی نہ لگائے اور سرمہ نہ لگائے۔ (مشکوة ص289بحوالہ ابوداود، نسائی )

حدیث: حضرت ابو سلمہؓ کی صاحبزادی حضرت زینت ؓ نے بیان فرمایا کہ جب ام المومنین حضرت ام حبیبہؓ کو (ان کے والد) حضرت ابو سفیانؓ کی موت کی خبر پہنچی تو انہوں نے تیسرے دن خوشبو منگائی جو زردرنگ کی تھی اور اپنے بازروں اور رخساروں پر ملی اور فرمایاکہ مجھے اس کی ضرورت نہ تھی (لیکن اس ڈر سے کہ کہیں میں تین دن سے زیادہ سوگ کرنے والی عورتوں میں شمار نہ ہو جاﺅ میں خوشبو لگائی) میں نبی کریمﷺ کو فرماتے ہو ئے سنا ہے کہ ” ایسی عورت کے لئے جو اﷲ تعالیٰ پر اور آخرت کے دن پر ایمان رکھتی ہو يہ حلال نہیں ہے (کسی کے فوت ہونے پر) تین دن رات سے زیادہ سوگ کرے سوائے شوہر کے کہ اس (کی موت ہو جانے) پر چار مہینہ دس دن سوگ کرے  (صحيح مسلم)


حضر ت حسن وحسینؓ کے نانا جان اور حضرت فاطمہؓ کے والد ماجد حضورﷺ نے تو فرمایا کہ جو عورت اﷲ اور آخرت پر ایمان رکھتی ہو اس کےلئے حلال نہیں کہ شوہر کے علاوہ کسی بھی شخص کی وفات پر (خواہ کتنا بڑا بزرگ ہی کیوں نہ ہو) تین دن سے زیادہ سوگ کرے، پھر تعجب کی بات ہے کہ حضرت فاطمہؓ اور حضرت حسن و حسینؓ سے محبت کے دعوی ہوتے ہوئے 1400 سال سے زیادہ عرصہ گزرنے کے بعد بھی سوگ ہو رہا ہے کہ حضرت حسن و حسین اپنے نانا جان ﷺ کے ارشادات اور احکام کے خلا ف چلنے والوں سے کيسے خوش ہوں گے؟

ذرا سوچئے اور غور کیجئے یہ کیسا سوگ ہے

کہ جس میں اﷲ اور اس کے رسول ﷺ کی مخالفت ہو اور اس میں اتنی وعید ہو کہ اﷲ اور آخرت پر ایمان رکھنے کے عقیدہ کو (جو کہ ایمان کی بنیاد ہے) اس کے ساتھ وابستہ کر دیا گیا ہو؟

اس تفصیل کی روسنی میں وہ حضرات اپنا جائزہ لیں جو محرم میں حضرت حسین ؓ کی شہادت کے غم میں مختلف من گھڑت رسمیں اور سوگ کرتے ہیں اور يہ سمجھتے اور کہتے ہیں کہ ہم تو حضرت حسینؓ کی یاد میں يہ سوگ کرتے ہیں جبکہ شریعت مطہرہ نےکسی ايسے دن یا مہینہ کے منانے کے اجازت نہیں دی جو اس طرح کے رنج وغم کے اظہار یا رونے دھونے کے مظاہرہ کے لئے مخصوص ہو، بلکہ اسلام میں کسی بڑے سے بڑے آدمی کی موت و حیات یا شخص حالات کو مقصود و بنیاد بنا کر غمی وخوشی کو کوئی دن منانے کا تصور نہیں ہے۔ حضرت حسینؓ کی شہادت کا واقعہ اگرچہ انتہائی المناک ہے مگر لوگوں کے ذہنوں میں يہ غلط بات بیٹھی ہوئی ہے کہ دنیا میں حضرت حسین ؓ کی شہادت اور کوئی سانحہ پیش نہیں آیا حالانکہ دنیا میں اس سے بدرجہا زیادہ مظلومیت کے بے شمار انوہناک واقعات ہیں۔ اور اسلام میں اگر يہ غم کے دن منانے کی رسم چلے تو ايک لاکھ بیس ہزار سے زیادہ انبیاءکرام ؑ ہیں جن کی پیدائش سے لیکر شہادت اور وفات تک دنیا میں پیش آنے والے مصائب وتکالیف کی ايک لمبی فہرست ہے، قرآن مجید اور احادیث مبارکہ میں سینکڑوں واقعات انبیا ؑ کے مصايب و تکالیف سے متعلق موجود ہیں۔

نوحؑ کا قصہ ہو یا ابراہیم ؑ کا،یعقوبؑ کا ہو یا موسیؑ کا ، یونس ؑ کا ہو یا لوط ؑ کا، ہر ايک واقعہ تکلیفوں کے بے شمار انبار نظر آئیں گے۔انبیاء کے بعد خاتم الانبیائﷺ کی حیا ت طیبہ کو ديکھا جائے تو آپ کی زندگی کاکوئی دن نہیں ہر گھنٹہ اور ہر ساعت ولمحہ دنیا کی خاطر تکلیفوں، امت کے دوروغم اور آخرت کی فکر میں مصروف نظر آئے گا۔ آنحضرت ﷺ کے بعد تقریباً ڈیڑھ لاکھ صحابہ کرام ؓ وہ ہیں جن میں سے ہر ايک در حقیقت رسول اﷲ ﷺ کا زندہ معجزہ ہے ۔ اور يہ سلسلہ چل پڑے تو پھر صحابہ کرام ؓ کے بعد امت کے اکابر ،اولیاءاﷲ، علما و مشائخؒ پر نظر ڈالی جائے جو کروڑوں کی تعداد سے بھی زیادہ ہےں۔ ان حضرات کو دین کی خاطر پیش آنے والے مصائب ، تکالیف اور مشقتوں کا ايک طویل باب ہے جن کو سن کر کلیجہ منہ کو آتا ہے۔اوراگر يہ طے کر لیا جائے کہ سبھی کے یاد گاری دن منائے جائیں تو سال بھر میں ايک دن بھی یاد گار منانے سے خالی نہیں رہے گا بلکہ ہر دن کے ہر گھنٹہ میں کئی کئی یادگاریں منانی پڑیں گی ؟ ان کی یا دگار اصل يہی ہے کہ ان سے عبرت اور سبق حاصل کرکے اپنی آخرت کی تیاری کی جائے ۔

Refutation of a Raafidhi’s Defense of Abu Lulu’ah – The Killer of Hadhrat ‘Umar Ibn Khattab (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

The following is a response to the article by a Shi’i: Was Aboo Lu’lu’ah A Zoroastrian?, which was published on the 10th of December, 2012.

Firstly the Shi’i alleges that Abu Luluah killed `Umar bin al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) justly, he writes:

Whilst serving for ‘Mughirah,’ Aboo Lu’lu’ah complained to Umar that he had become physically shattered through his labour and was hopeful that the matter may be resolved by either an increase in salary, or a reduction in his work hours. Thus, the case was not resolved which attracted the ire of Aboo-Lu’lu’ah who then decided to kill Umar Ibn Al-Khattab.

We all know that this excuse is not valid to kill any Muslim. Secondly, Abu Luluah was a slave, and he was not an employee of Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu). If he indeed had grievances, it should have been against Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu) and not `Umar. Why did he kill `Umar instead of Mughira (radhiyallahu anhu)? The reason is obvious. He wanted to destroy Islam and the Muslims. He had no respect of the mosque in which he carried out this heinous act of killing the rightful caliph of the Muslims, along with killing and injuring other Muslims in the mosque while they were praying. How can there be any sympathy for such a person!? Only the Raafidha have the guts to show love and affection to this person.

What the readers must know, is that the hatred of the Shia towards `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) always leads them to be blinded, and to go out of their way to accuse him of anything.

The Raafidhi then goes on to defend the Safavid rule with the following lame words:

As Aboo Lu’lu’ah was Persian, Nawasib propagandists have argued that the Shi’ee are the descendants of Aboo Lu’lu’ah as this was the faith ascribed to be the Safavids that propagated Shi’ism through their dominion. Their success in spreading the teachings of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) resulted in many Zoroastrians reverting to the path of the Ahlulbayt (a.s).

This is one of the most ridiculous defences of the Safavids by any of their lovers. The historical fact is that the Safavids massacred the ahlus sunnah and tortured them and exiled them to spread Shi’ism in Iran, not as the Raafidhi blogs would have its readers believe. The Safavid era is filled with the brutal use of force against the Ahlus Sunnah and the state sponsorship of the Shia religion in order to separate Iran from the Muslim world. The Safavid era was the kind of government you would expect if an extremist Shia scholar like Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi becomes the ruler. Hamid Algar, Ph.D. (University of Cambridge, 1965), Professor of Persian and Islamic Studies. Near Eastern Studies and Persian Literature. He says in ‘Encyclopedia Iranica’:

“It was, however, nothing less than a reign of terror that inaugurated the new dispensation. On capturing Tabriz in 907/1501, a city two-thirds Sunnite in population, Shah Esmā’il threatened with death all who might resist the adoption of Shi’ite prayer ritual in the main congregational mosque, and he had Qezelbāš soldiers patrol the congregation to ensure that none raise his voice against the cursing of the first three caliphs, viewed as enemies of the Prophet’s family. In Tabriz and elsewhere, gangs of professional execrators known as the tabarrā’iān would accost the townsfolk at random, forcing them to curse the objectionable personages on pain of death. Selective killings of prominent Sunnites occurred in a large number of places, notably Qazvin and Isfahan, and in Shiraz and Yazd, outright massacres took place. Sunnite mosques were desecrated, and the tombs of eminent Sunnite scholars destroyed (Aubin, 1970, pp. 237-38; idem, 1988, pp. 94-101).”

So we can easily conclude that the Safavid didn’t succeed in spreading the real teachings of Ahlul-Bayt as found in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah. Instead, they spread the fake teachings of Ahlul-Bayt from the books of the Shia, teachings such as: All non-Shia are sons of adultery, the non-Shia are as filthy as Jews and Christians, and teachings that talk about the desecration of the graves of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives after the appearance of their 12th Imam who shall revive them and torture them.

We seek refuge in Allah from these teachings!

The Raafidhi’s next goal is to prove that Abu Luluah is a Muslim, he quotes the following narrations:

Aboo Abid Qatn Ibn Nasir Al-Ghabry narrated from Jaffar Ibn Suleiman narrated from Thabit Al-Benanai narrating Abi Rafi’ who said, “Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave for Mughira ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones and Mughira used to exploit him [his working power] everyday for four dirhams. Then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar ibn Al-Khattab and addressed him; ‘O commander of the faithful, Mughira made heavier the burden of my livelihood so ask him to ease me.’ Therefore Umar told him; ‘Fear God and do good to your master,’ with Umar having in his will to meet Mughira and talk to him so that he eases (Aboo Lu’lu’ah case). The slave therefore got angry and said, ‘Your righteousness contained all other people [but not me]!’ Therefore he made up his mind to kill him and he made a dagger with two heads and poisoned it and came to Al-Hormuzan (Persian King) and said, ‘How do you see this?’ Then he said, ‘You do not hit anyone by it but you kill him.’ Aboo Lu’lu’ah awaited for Umar and he came at the fajr prayer (morning prayers) until he stood behind Umar. And whenever the prayer was established, Umar used to speak and say; ‘Establish your rows’ and he said what he used [always] to say and when he said takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit him in his shoulder and hit him in his side, then Umar fell down and he hit by his dagger thirteen men. Among them seven died and six survived and Umar was carried and taken to his house and people shouted until the sun was about to rise. Then Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf said, ‘O people! The prayer! The prayer!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; And they [people] rushed to the prayer, then Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed, leading them, with the shortest two Surahs of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer they headed to Umar, and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound, so wine was brought, and he drank it and it came out of his wound and he did not know whether it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it and it came out of his wound, then they said; ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said; ‘If being killed had a harm aspect, then I am killed.” Then people started to say compliments for him. They said; ‘O commander of the faithful, may Allah reward you. The good, you were…’ [many things]. Then they left, and other people came in and said compliments for him, then Umar said; ‘I swear to God, instead of what you are saying, I would have preferred that I departed this world as a poor man, with nothing on my burden and nothing for my [property] and the companionship of the Messenger of Allah (saw) has been saved for me.’

As the reader can see, Abu Luluah is a really evil man, he got about 12$ daily and didn’t like his working hours, so he went and plotted with his companion, the Persian king al-Hormuzan, and he assassinated the leader of the Muslims during prayer with a poisoned two headed dagger, then he stabbed random Muslims in the mosque with the dagger killing seven of them. Even though the calamity was great, yet the Muslims continued their prayer quickly so as to not miss the obligatory duty.

Then Raafidhi quotes another similar narration:

Ahmad Ibn Alee b. Al-Muthanna narrated, Qutun Ibn Nasir Al-Ghabry narrated from Jaffar son of Suleiman Al-Deb’y narrated to us Thabit Al-Nanany narrating from Abi Rafi’ who said; Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave for Mughira ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones and Al-Mughira used to manipulate his labour by giving him four dirhams every day. Then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar ibn Al-Khattab (to complain about his exhaustion) and addressed him; ‘O commander of the faithful, Al-Mughira made heavier the burden of my livelihood so ask him to ease me.” Therefore Umar told him; ‘Fear God and do good to your master.’ Therefore the slave got angry and said; ‘Your righteousness contained all other people [but not me!]’ Therefore he made up his mind to kill him. He made a dagger with two heads and poisoned it and came to Al-Hormuzan (Persian King) and said; ‘How do you see this?’ Then he said; ‘You do not hit anyone by it but you kill him!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; and Aboo Lu’lu’ah awaited for Umar, therefore he came to him at the fajr (morning prayers) until he stood behind him. And Umar, whenever the prayers commended, used to say; ‘Establish your rows’ and he said what he used to always say and when he said takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit him in his shoulder and hit him in his side, then Umar fell down and he hit by his dagger thirteen men. Among them seven were killed and Umar was carried and took to his house and people shouted until the sun was about to rise, then Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf said, ‘O people! The prayer! The prayer!’ He said [Abi Rafi’]; Then they [people] rushed to the prayer, then Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed leading them with the shortest two Surah’s of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer, they headed to Umar and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound. So wine was brought and he drank it, and it came out of his wound, and he did not know if it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it and it came out of his wound then they said; ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said; ‘If being killed is a harm then I am killed.”

And another similar one:

From Aboo Rafi, who said; Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a slave of Mughira ibn Shu’ba. He used to manipulate his labour by giving him four dirhams every day. One day Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar and he said to him, “O commander of the faithful! Surely, Mughira has made me tired of his cheating labour on me. Kindly speak to him so that he might make it easy for me.’ Umar said to him, “Fear Allah and continue to do good to your master (Al-Mughira’).” Umar had an intention of speaking to Mughira on this matter so that he might ease some labour to his slave (Aboo Lu’lu’ah). But the slave became angry and said, ‘All people are benefited from his justice except me!’ And then he intended to kill him, and so he made a knife which had two splitting ends and sharpened it and poisoned it. And he (Aboo Lu’lu’ah) went to Hormuzan (king of Persia) saying, ‘How did you see this knife?’ He said, ‘I see that you will never stab with it any one except you will kill him!’ He then said, Aboo Lu’lu’ah  prepared for his action and he came at the Fajr (morning prayer) until he stood behind Umar. When prayer commended, Umar used to say, ‘Establish your lines,’ and when he did his takbeer, Aboo Lu’lu’ah stabbed him on his chest and hit his side. Umar fell down. Aboo Lu’lu’ah hit his Dagger thirteen times. In the process seven men died and six got injured. Then he ran to his house, and people stayed till the sun had almost risen. Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf took the lead and prayed leading them with the shortest two Surahs of the Qur’aan. And when he accomplished his prayer, they headed to Umar and he called for a drink to know the intensity of his wound, so wine was brought and he drank it and it came out of his wound and he did not know if it was wine or blood. Then he called for yoghurt, and he drank it, and it came out of his wound. Then they said, ‘O commander of the faithful, there is no harm [to you]!’ He said, ‘If being killed is a harm then I am killed.”

And another:

Aboo Rafi’ said that Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a servant of Mughira Ibn Shu’ba and he used to make millstones. He said (narrator), Mughira used to exploit him every day for four dirhams. He said then Aboo Lu’lu’ah met Umar, so he said, ‘O commander of the faithful, Mughira has burdened me, so speak to him so that he can ease me!’ Umar said: ‘Fear Allah and enjoin goodness to your Master.’ He said: From the intention of Umar is to meet Mughira and speak to him about taking it easy [about Aboo Lu’lu’ah]. So he said: Aboo Lu’lu’ah became angry and said: ‘His justice is vast enough to fill in everyone except me!’ So he became angry and pre-planned to murder him [Umar]. He [narrator] said: So he constructed a dagger with two heads. He said: He unsheathed it and Umar prepared himself and Umar used to not make Takbeer if the prayers were established until he says, “establish your rows.” He said: So he [Aboo Lu’lu’ah] stood on the first row with his shoes while Umar was in front of him.

And another:

Narrated Amr bin Maimun: I saw Umar bin Al-Khattab a few days before he was stabbed in Madinah. He was standing with Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman and Uthman bin Hunaif to whom he said, “What have you done? Do you think that you have imposed more taxation on the land (of As-Swad i.e. Iraq) than it can bear?” They replied, “We have imposed on it what it can bear because of its great yield.” Umar again said, “Check whether you have imposed on the land what it can not bear.” They said, “No, (we haven’t).” Umar added, “If Allah should keep me alive I will let the widows of Iraq need no men to support them after me.” But only four days had elapsed when he was stabbed (to death ). The day he was stabbed, I was standing and there was nobody between me and him (i.e. Umar) except Abdullah bin Abbas. Whenever Umar passed between the two rows, he would say, “Stand in straight lines.” When he saw no defect (in the rows), he would go forward and start the prayer with Takbir. He would recite Surat Yusuf or An-Nahl or the like in the first rak`a so that the people may have the time to join the prayer. As soon as he said Takbir, I heard him saying, “The dog has killed or eaten me,” at the time he (i.e. the murderer) stabbed him. A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died. When one of the Muslims saw that, he threw a cloak on him. Realizing that he had been captured, the non-Arab infidel killed himself. Umar held the hand of Abdur-Rahman bin Auf and let him lead the prayer. Those who were standing by the side of Umar saw what I saw, but the people who were in the other parts of the Mosque did not see anything, but they lost the voice of Umar and they were saying, “Subhan Allah! Subhan Allah! (i.e. Glorified be Allah).” Abdur-Rahman bin Auf led the people a short prayer. When they finished the prayer, Umar said, “O Ibn Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn Abbas kept on looking here and there for a short time and came to say. “The slave of Al-Mughira.” On that Umar said, “The craftsman?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.” Umar said, “May Allah curse him. I did not treat him unjustly. All the Praises are for Allah Who has not caused me to die at the hand of a man who claims himself to be a Muslim. No doubt, you and your father (Abbas) used to love to have more non-Arab infidels in Madinah.” Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves. Ibn Abbas said to `Umar. “If you wish, we will do.” He meant, “If you wish we will kill them.” Umar said, “You are mistaken (for you can’t kill them) after they have spoken your language, prayed towards your Qibla, and performed Hajj like yours.” Then Umar was carried to his house, and we went along with him, and the people were as if they had never suffered a calamity before. Some said, “Do not worry (he will be alright soon).” Some said, “We are afraid (that he will die).” Then an infusion of dates was brought to him and he drank it but it came out (of the wound) of his belly. Then milk was brought to him and he drank it, and it also came out of his belly. The people realized that he would die. We went to him, and the people came, praising him. A young man came saying, “O chief of the believers! Receive the glad tidings from Allah to you due to your company with Allah’s Messenger (saw) and your superiority in Islam which you know. Then you became the ruler (i.e. Caliph) and you ruled with justice and finally you have been martyred.” Umar said, “I wish that all these privileges will counterbalance (my shortcomings) so that I will neither lose nor gain anything.” When the young man turned back to leave, his clothes seemed to be touching the ground. Umar said, “Call the young man back to me.” (When he came back) Umar said, “O son of my brother! Lift your clothes, for this will keep your clothes clean and save you from the Punishment of your Lord.” Umar further said, “O Abdullah bin Umar! See how much I am in debt to others.” When the debt was checked, it amounted to approximately eighty-six thousand. Umar said, “If the property of Umar’s family covers the debt, then pay the debt thereof; otherwise request it from Bani Adi bin Ka`b, and if that too is not sufficient, ask for it from Quraish tribe, and do not ask for it from any one else, and pay this debt on my behalf.” Umar then said (to Abdullah), “Go to A’isha (the mother of the believers) and say: “Umar is paying his salutation to you. But don’t say: ‘The chief of the believers,’ because today I am not the chief of the believers. And say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission to be buried with his two companions (i.e. the Prophet (saw) and Aboo Bakr).” Abdullah greeted A’isha and asked for the permission for entering, and then entered to her and found her sitting and weeping. He said to her, “Umar bin Al-Khattab is paying his salutations to you, and asks the permission to be buried with his two companions.” She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself, but today I prefer Umar to myself.” When he returned it was said (to `Umar), “Abdullah bin Umar has come.” Umar said, “Make me sit up.” Somebody supported him against his body and Umar asked (Abdullah), “What news do you have?” He said, “O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission.” Umar said, “Praise be to Allah, there was nothing more important to me than this. So when I die, take me, and greet A’isha and say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission (to be buried with the Prophet (saw), and if she gives the permission, bury me there, and if she refuses, then take me to the graveyard of the Muslims.” Then Hafsa came with many other women walking with her. When we saw her, we went away. She went in (to Umar) and wept there for sometime. When the men asked for permission to enter, she went into another place, and we heard her weeping inside. The people said (to Umar), “O chief of the believers! Appoint a successor.” Umar said, “I do not find anyone more suitable for the job than the following persons or group whom Allah’s Messenger (saw) had been pleased with before he died.” Then Umar mentioned Alee, Uthman, Az-Zubair, Talha, Sa`d and Abdur-Rahman (bin Auf) and said, “Abdullah bin Umar will be a witness to you, but he will have no share in the rule. His being a witness will compensate him for not sharing the right of ruling. If Sa`d becomes the ruler, it will be alright: Otherwise, whoever becomes the ruler should seek his help, as I have not dismissed him because of disability or dishonesty.” Umar added, “I recommend that my successor takes care of the early emigrants; to know their rights and protect their honor and sacred things. I also recommend that he be kind to the Ansar who had lived in Madinah before the emigrants and belief had entered their hearts before them. I recommend that the (ruler) should accept the good of the righteous among them and excuse their wrong-doers, and I recommend that he should do good to all the people of the towns (Al-Ansar), as they are the protectors of Islam and the source of wealth and the source of annoyance to the enemy. I also recommend that nothing be taken from them except from their surplus with their consent. I also recommend that he do good to the Arab bedouin, as they are the origin of the Arabs and the material of Islam. He should take from what is inferior, amongst their properties and distribute that to the poor amongst them. I also recommend him concerning Allah’s and His Apostle’s protectees (i.e. Dhimmis) to fulfill their contracts and to fight for them and not to overburden them with what is beyond their ability.” So when Umar expired, we carried him out and set out walking. Abdullah bin Umar greeted (A’isha) and said, “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission.” A’isha said, “Bring him in.” He was brought in and buried beside his two companions. When he was buried, the group (recommended by Umar) held a meeting. Then Abdur-Rahman said, “Reduce the candidates for rulership to three of you.” Az-Zubair said, “I give up my right to Alee.” Talha said, “I give up my right to Uthman.” Sa`d said, ‘I give up my right to Abdur-Rahman bin Auf.” Abdur-Rahman then said (to Uthman and Ali), “Now which of you is willing to give up his right of candidacy to that he may choose the better of the (remaining) two, bearing in mind that Allah and Islam will be his witnesses.” So both the sheiks (i.e. Uthman and Alee) kept silent. Abdur-Rahman said, “Will you both leave this matter to me, and I take Allah as my Witness that I will not choose but the better of you?” They said, “Yes.” So Abdur-Rahman took the hand of one of them (i.e. Alee) and said, “You are related to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and one of the earliest Muslims as you know well. So I ask you by Allah to promise that if I select you as a ruler you will do justice, and if I select Uthman as a ruler you will listen to him and obey him.” Then he took the other (i.e. Uthman) aside and said the same to him. When `Abdur-Rahman secured (their agreement to) this covenant, he said, “O Uthman! Raise your hand.” So he (i.e. Abdur-Rahman) gave him (i.e. Uthman) the solemn pledge, and then Alee gave him the pledge of allegiance and then all the (Madinah) people gave him the pledge of allegiance.

The reply to the above narrations is as follows..

If you have time, you can spend it on reading these narrations. But if you ask us, these are not “unambiguous reports”, according to Raafidhi itself.

Raafidhi says in his article:

“There is no ambiguous evidence to establish whether or not he was a Muslim, Christian or even a Zoroastrian.”

Perhaps raafidhi wanted to say unambiguous, and erred, because ambiguous evidence doesn’t establish anything.

The main point which raafidhi highlighted in these narrations were only those lines which mentioned that Abu Luluah was present in the mosque, but it doesn’t prove anything. Just because a person claims to be a Muslim, doesn’t mean that he becomes a Muslim, and we know very well that a Muslim never attacks 30 Muslims in a mosque, and if he is still a Muslim, than the people attacking the mosques nowadays must be considered Muslims by the Shia.

Abu Luluah didn’t just attack `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who had done no harm to the Majoosi, he attacked 30 other Muslims, and seven of whom died, and that too in the Mosque of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Even the accursed one, Ibn Muljim didn’t attack `Ali in prayers, nor killed other Muslims randomly after attacking him. When a Khaariji doesn’t attack the Caliph in the masjid, how come a Muslim attack the Caliph in the masjid? Ibn Muljim didn’t commit suicide but Abu Luluah committed suicide, for he didn’t care a bit about what Islam says regarding suicide. If the Shia want to conjecture from one ‘ambiguous’ evidence, which is just ridiculous, the Sunnis have many valid reasons to believe that he was not a Muslim, and the words of `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) when he became happy after coming to know about his killer that the one who killed him was not a Muslim is more than enough that even he didn’t consider Abu Luluah to be a Muslim.

I add that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t even allow people to cut the trees of Madinah, let alone kill another Muslim, in his own mosque!

The Prophet (peace be upon him) described it as a “Sacred Precinct” in many of the Prophetical Hadith. One of them was narrated by Imam Muslim that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Abraham sanctified Mecca and made it a sacred precinct, and I have sanctified Al Madinah as a sacred precinct between its two mountains, and that no blood may be shed therein and no weapon to be carried therein for combating, and no trees but to be cut but for feeding.”

Even `Amr bin Maymun who narrated that last big narration said that he’s an infidel:

“A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died.”

Twelver Shia versus Hadhrat `Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu):

Raafidhi says:

The literal meaning of ‘Ijtihad’ is to strive with one’s total ability and efforts to reach a goal in order to deduce certain rulings from Qur’aan and Hadeeth. One of the conditions of Ijtihad is to refer to these two primary sources in order to determine if the act is deemed lawful or not. One can’t simply conjure a ruling from thin air or they would be opposing the very foundations of it. Despite these very principals the so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’ believe all those who cursed, fought and even murdered Imam Alee (a.s) had been practicing Tawil and Ijithad and thus will receive a reward from Allah (swt) for their efforts.

Killer of `Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) versus killer of `Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu), and the facts: 

Raafidhi then says:

Al Haythami gives a different rule for the companions as he does with the Khawarijes even though he admits they are enemies of Imam Alee (a.s).  In reality the actions of the Kharjies and the Sahahbah are of one and the same. Both parties fought the rightly guided Khalifah of the time and committed numerous atrocities. Ibn Hazim implies the companions intentions were sincere, and they only wished to uphold the laws of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). Ibn Taymiyyah offers the same excuse for the murderer of Imam Alee (a.s) when comparing him to the killer of Umar.

Ibn Taymiyyah:

And therefore the person who killed Umar was an unbeliever, hating the religion of Islam. And he hated the Prophet (saw) and his nation and his religion. So he killed him (Umar) out of hate of the Prophet (saw) and his religion. And the one who killed Alee, used to pray, fast and recite the Qur’aan. And he killed him believing that Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw) would love him to kill Alee. He did this, out of love for Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw) according to him. Even though he was misguided (in this act) and a deviant.

And Raafidhi again quotes ibn Taymiyyah:

Ibn Taymiyyah:

His (i.e. ‘Alee’s) murderer is one of them (i.e. the Khawarij), and he was ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Muljam al-Muradi’, despite that he was one of the best of mankind in worship, and one of the people of knowledge.

What form of Ijtihad was Ibn Muljam trying to implement by killing Imam Alee (a.s)?. According to Sheikh al Shatain Ibn Muljam was misguided in his actions though it would receive him good reward. The option of Tawil and Ijtihad are available to those who killed Imam ‘Alee (a.s) and fought against him. Yet Qu’raan and Hadeeth has declared such people in violation of Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah declared the murderer of Imam Alee (a.s) as “One of the best of mankind in worship, and one of the people of knowledge” based on what exactly?. How would any knowledgeable person not know Imam Alee (a.s) relationship to the Prophet Muhammad (saw)?. Is there anyone that can say the person who killed Umar Ibn Khataab was a disbelieving hypocrite, but the killer of Imam Alee was one of the most upright person in worship and knowledge?. Even the Kharjites never made such a bold claim.

First of all, ibn Muljam was a Khaariji, and the Khawarij in general were known as being very religious and they would recite the Qur’an day and night, they were called “al-Qurra’” meaning “The reciters” because they would recite the Qur’an.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself described the Khawarij as being extreme worshipers, he said to his companion in Sahih al-Bukhari:

“If you compare their prayers and fasting to that of yours, you yourself will feel ashamed. These are the people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats.”

Abu Sa`eed al-Khudari (radhiyallahu anhu) said about them:

“I testify to the fact that I heard it from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and I testify to the fact that Ali bin Abi Talib fought against them and I was with him.”

So it’s not Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, it is the Prophet (peace be upon him) that described them as such.

As for `Ali bin abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu), he was asked about the Khawarij:

`Alqamah b. `Amir asked `Ali: “Where the people of Nahrawan Mushrikun (polytheists)?” He replied, “They escaped from Shirk (polytheism).”

He asked: “Where they Munafiqun (hypocrites)?” He (`Ali) said, “Indeed, the Munafiqin (hypocrites) do not remember Allah, except little.”

He asked, “So what are they O Amir al-Mu’minin (Leader of the Believers)?” He said, “They’re our brothers who transgressed against us, so we fought them for transgressing us.”

Source: al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah (Vol. 7, Pg. 321)

Even `Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) himself considered the Khawarij to be the seekers of truth, but to have gone astray. If this is something objectionable, then the Shia should first object at their first Imam when he said in Nahjul-Balagha pg.96:

لا تقتلوا الخوارج بعدي فليس من طلب الحق فاخطاه كمن طلب الباطل فادركه

“Don’t kill Khawarij after me, for those who seek truth but go astray are not like those who seek falsehood and then find it.”

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussain al-Shirazi says regarding these words of Caliph Ali

فان الخوارج كانوا قد طلبوا الحق لكنهم اخطأوه بخلاف معاوية وأصحابه الذين أرادوا الباطل فأصابوه

“The Khawarij intended to reach the truth but they erred, in contrast to Mu`awiyah and his companions who intended the falsehood and found it.”

Ubaidullah ibn Umar versus the Killers of Uthman:

Raafidhi says:

Ubaidullah Ibn Umar had been advised by Abdur Rahman ibn Awf and Hafsah bint Umar to seek justice for His father’s murder. Ubaidullah took his sword, and rushed out of his house to take revenge. He first went to the house of Aboo Lu’lu’ah, and killed his daughter. Later He sought to murder of Jafina (a Christian who had been brought to Madina after the conquest of Iraq), and last but not least Hurmuzan ( a Persian General who had been captured during the Persian conquest). When the Muslims came to know about what had happened, Ubaidullah ibn Umar was apprehended. With the acceptation of Abdur Rahman ibn Aboo Bakr no other person supported the theory of any conspiracy. Adequate evidence was thus not forthcoming to support the theory of the involvement of Jafina, Hurmuzan and the daughter of Aboo Lu’lu’ah in any alleged conspiracy. Even if it was established that these persons had entered into a conspiracy, there was no grounds for justification for the killing of these personalities. Ubaidullah ibn Umar had no right or justification to take the law in his own hand and murder four persons without affording them an opportunity for defense. That was the Arab practice of the days of ignorance which was in violation of the injunctions of Islam. The case was tried by Uthman with the help of a jury which included Imam Alee (a.s), Amr b Al A’as (a staunch opponent of Imam Alee during the tribulation of Muawiyah) and some other prominent companions. Imam Alee (a.s) and other notable companions were of the opinion that the dictates of justice demanded that Ubaidullah ibn Umar should be executed for taking the law in his hand, and murdering the citizens without cause. Imam Alee (a.s) was emphatically of the view that in Islam, law was no respecter of persons, and Ubaidullah Ibn Umar could not be saved from the penalty of law merely on the ground that he was the son of the late tyrant. While other companions were of the view that they lost Umar ibn Khataab only recently, and it could not be that today his son should be killed. Instead Amr ibn al-As advised Uthman not to have him killed.  Thus the decision had been made to spare his life and instead Uthman decided to give blood money.

Firstly, I’m very happy that RTS admits that `Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) used to consult `Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and other companions in how he rules. This shows that `Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) opinions were heard and taken into consideration, he wasn’t oppressed and isolated as the Shia would usually claim.

Then Raafidhi says that the son of `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) committed a sin by killing the man, and he described him as “Son of the late tyrant.”

Although when `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) learned what his son did, he ordered that Ubaidullah should be imprisoned and the next Caliph should decide his fate.

In al-Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi 8/61, we read:

أخبرنا أبو الحسين بن بشران أنبأ أبو الحسن على بن محمد المصرى ثنا مالك بن يحيى أبو غسان ثنا على بن عاصم عن حميد عن عبد الله بن عبيد بن عمير قال لما طعن عمر رضى الله عنه وثب عبيد الله بن عمر على الهرمزان فقتله فقيل لعمر إن عبيد الله بن عمر قتل الهرمزان قال ولم قتله قال انه قتل أبى قيل وكيف ذاك قال رأيته قبل ذلك مستخليا بأبى لؤلؤة وهو امره بقتل أبى قال عمر ما ادرى ما هذا انظروا إذا انا مت فاسألوا عبيد الله البينة على الهرمزان هو قتلني فان اقام البينة فدمه بدمى وان لم يقم البينة فأقيدوا عبيد الله من الهرمزان فلما ولى عثمان رضى الله عنه قيل له ألا تمضى وصية عمر رضى الله عنه في عبيد الله قال ومن ولى الهرمزان قالوا انت يا أمير المؤمنين فقال فقد عفوت عن عبيد الله بن عمر

[(…) It was said to `Umar that `Ubaidullah killed al-Hormuzan, `Umar asked: “Why did he kill him?” They replied: “He said: He killed my father.” We asked him “How?” he said: “I saw him before it happened, he was alone with abu Lu’lu’ah, he ordered him to kill my father.” `Umar then said: “I don’t know what to make of this.. If I die, ask `Ubaidullah to present what proof he has for what he did, if he provides sufficient proof then his blood was for mine.. but if he doesn’t, then punish `Ubaidullah for al-Hormuzan.” When `Uthman may Allah be pleased with him later became the Caliph, they asked him: “Will you not fulfill the wish of `Umar may Allah be pleased with him in regards to `Ubaidullah?” He replied: “Who is the Wali of al-Hormuzan?” they replied: “You O Ameer al-Mu’mineen.” `Uthman said: “Then I have forgiven `Ubaidullah ibn `Umar.”]

Then Raafidhi quotes two weak narrations by al-Waqidi:

Narrating al-muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab he said; Alee told Ubaydullah bin Umar; ‘What was the crime of the daughter of Aboo Lu’lu’ah when you killed her ?’ He said; ‘And the opinion of Alee, when Uthman consulted Him, and the opinion of the seniors among the companions of the messenger of Allah (saw) was to kill him!’ But Amr ibn Al-‘As spoke to Uthman so he left him [without killing him] and Alee used to say; ‘If I could reach Ubaydullah bin Umar and I had authority, I would have reprimanded him [punish him]’….


Narrating Muhammed ibn Umar, narrated from Ibn Jurey told me that Uthman ibn Affan consulted muslims and they agreed about [paying] their blood money, and Ubaydullah bin Umar would not be killed for killing them, and they had converted to Islam, and Umar had imposed for them, and Alee ibn Aboo Talib ,when he was given allegiance, wanted to kill Ubaydullah bin Umar so he ran away from Him to Muawiyah ibn Aboo Sufyan and he remained with him until he was killed in Sifeen [the battle].

Instead, what is funny is that why didn’t Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) kill the killers of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu), when he could reach them, the excuse he gives regarding them as is mentioned in the books of Shias is that he has no authority over them.

We read in Nahjul Balagha vol.2 pg.80:

وقد قال له قوم من الصحابة لو عاقبت قوما ممن أجلب على عثمان؟ فقال عليه السلام: يا إخوتاه إني لست أجهل ما تعلمون، ولكن كيف لي بقوة والقوم المجلبون على حد شوكتهم، يملكوننا ولا نملكهم

“When a group of Sahaba said to him that he should punish the killers of Uthman. He said : O brothers, I am not ignorant of what you know. But where is power with me when the people (who killed Uthman) are at their prime. They rule over us and we don’t rule over them.”

So after `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) died, `Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) did not wish that his son would die the next day, it would be too much for their family to bear. He said that since the three who were killed had no Awliya, he would be their Wali and he decided as their Wali that `Ubaidullah only needs to pay blood-money.

Why Ubaidullah ibn Umar killed them?

Raafidhi himself posts why:

He said, Yaqoob bin Ibraheem bin Saad bin Zuhri informed us from his father from Swaleh bin Kisan from Ibnu Shihaab who said, Saeed Ibnu Al-Musayyib told me that Abdul Rahman bin Aboo bakar as-Sidiq he said ‘When Umar was killed, I had passed by Aboo-Lu’lu’ah while he was with Hormuzan and Jafina, they were whispering; when I approached them, they got up quickly and the knife with two heads dropped down between them, therefore, see for which type of knife was Umar killed? And they found that Umar was stabbed by the same knife which Abdul Rahman had described it, then Ubaydullah ibn Umar when he heard that he got up with sword until he reached towards Hormozan, and he called upon him, when he came out, he said to him, ‘Let us go and see my horse over there’; thus, Ubaydullah stayed behind him and chopped his head, Ubaydullah bin Umar said, when he felt the heat of the sword he uttered “La ilaha illa llah” and then Ubaydullah said, I afterwards called upon Jafina….”Source: Tabqat Ibn Sa’ad, Vol. 3. Pg. # 329 – 330.

This narration very clearly shows that there was a plot to kill Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and Hurmuzan, Jafina and Abu Luluah were involved in this plot.

Aside from this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) also didn’t kill Usama ibn Zayd when he killed a Jew who uttered shahadah in the heat of the sword. We read in the Shia book ‘Bihar ul Anwar’ vol.65 pg.235:

وقال علي بن إبراهيم  وغيره: إنها نزلت لما رجع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من غزوة خيبر، وبعث أسامة بن زيد في خيل إلى بعض اليهود في ناحية فدك ليدعوهم إلى الاسلام وكان رجل من اليهود يقال له: مرداس بن نهيك الفدكي في بعض القرى، فلما أحس بخيل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله جمع أهله وماله وصار في ناحية الجبل فأقبل يقول أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، فمر به أسامة بن زيد فطعنه فقتله فلما رجع إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أخبره بذلك، فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: أفلا شققت الغطاء عن قلبه، لاما قال بلسانه قبلت، ولا ما كان في نفسه علمت، فحلف أسامة بعد ذلك أن لا يقاتل أحدا شهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله، فتخلف عن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام في حروبه وأنزل الله في ذلك ” ولا تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السلام ” الآية “

Tafsir Ali ibn Ibrahim and others said : O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: “Thou art not a believer,” seeking the chance profits of this life (4:94) It was revealed when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was returning from the battle of Khayber, and sent Usama ibn Zayd to few villages of the Jews near Fadak, to invite them to Islam. A man from the Jews, whose name was Mirdas ibn Naheek al fadaki gathered his family menmbers and his belongings and went to a hill, and said : I testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Usamah ibn Zayd killed him while passing by him. When he returned to the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him : You killed  a man who testified that there is no god but Allah, and that I am the Messenger of Allah? He replied : O Messenger of Allah, he said this to protect himself from being killed. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said : You didn’t remove the covering from his heart, and you didn’t accept what he said with his tongue, and you don’t know what is in his heart. Usama ibn Zayd announced that he will not thereafter kill anyone who says “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And that is why he stayed away from the battles of Ali, and Allah revealed regarding this:  and say not to anyone who greets you  …  (4:94)

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t take Qisas from Usamah ibn Zayd, how can the Raafidhi say that Qisas must have been taken from Ubaidullah ibn Umar?

Ali was disobeyed by his own sons according to Shia books:

It is mentioned in Nahjul balagha that Ali said :

انظروا إذا أنا متّ من ضربته هذه فاضربوه ضربة بضربة ، و لا يمثّل بالرّجل ، فإنّى سمعت رسول اللّه ، صلّى اللّه عليه و آله و سلّم ، يقول :  إيّاكم و المثلة ، و لو بالكلب العقور

Look, when I die, only my killer should be killed and when I kill because of his striking, than he should be killed with one strike only. And don’t cut his hands and feet, because I have heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) that beware, don’t cut hands and feet even if it is a biting dog.
Nahjul Balagha, letter # 47

It is mentioned in the Shia famous book ‘Jila ul Uyun’ that Ali said to his son:
Give him food and don’t chain him, rather be kind to him, when I die, kill him with one hit, and don’t cut him into pieces i.e don’t cut his hands, feet, nose, ear and the body parts. I have heard the Prophet that never cut anyone into pieces, even if it is a dog. And if I recovered, I have the choice to forgive him, because we ahlelbayt are forgiving (but we can curse people to hell for snatching our land e.g Fadak etc .. ahem)
Jila ul Uyun, Vol. 1, p. 307

The Shia scholar, Ibrahim al-thaqafi writes

  ولما أحضر ليقتل قال عبد الله بن جعفر الطيار ،: دعوني أشفي بعض ما في نفسي عليه، فدفع إليه فأمر بمسمار فأحمي بالنار ثم كحله به فجعل ابن ملجم – لعنه الله – يقول: تبارك الخالق الإنسان من علق، يا ابن أخي إنك لتكحل بمرود مض (1) ثم أمر بقطع يديه ورجليه فقطعتا، ولم يتكلم، ثم أمر بقطع لسانه فجزع فقال له بعض الناس: يا عدو الله كحلت عيناك بالنار وقطعت يداك ورجلاك فلم تجزع وجزعت من قطع لسانك؟! فقال له: يا جاهل أما والله ما جزعت لقطع لساني ولكني أكره أن أعيش في الدنيا فواقا لا أذكر الله فيه فلما قطع لسانه أحرق بالنار،

When he was presented for being killed, Abdullah ibn Jafar said: Let me relieve regarding some of what I have regarding him. So he asked for needles, which he made hot with fire, then he put them into his eys, Ibn Muljim, the accursed one said, Mighty is the Lord who created the human from alaq, o son of brother, you are putting hot needles into my eyes. Then he ordered to cut his hands and legs, which were cut, but Ibn Muljim didn’t complain. Then he ordered to cut his tongue, upon which he (i.e Ibn Muljim) started wailing. Some of the people said : O enemy of Allah, hot needles were put into your eyes, and your hands were cut, as well as your legs, but you didn’t wail, but now you wail when your tongue is cut. He said : O ignorant, by God, I don’t wail due to the cutting of my tongue, but I dislike that I live in this world, and I don’t remember Allah, so when his tongue was cut, he was burnt with fire.
al-Gharat, Vol. 2, p. 839

Is it a must to kill a Muslim if he kills a Dhimmi, according to Shia fiqh.

Remember that Ubaidullah can’t be killed according to Shia fiqh. We read in ‘Man la yahdaruhul faqih’

روى الحسن بن محبوب، عن علي بن رئاب، عن محمد بن قيس عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: ” لا يقاد مسلم بذمي في القتل ولا في الجراحات، ولكن يؤخذ من المسلم في جنايته للذمي بقدر جنايته على الذمي على قدر دية الذمي ثمانمائة درهم

Imam Baqir said: A Muslim is not killed if he kills a Dhimmi, or injures him, but the compensation will be taken from the Muslim in return for the injustice with the Dhimmi, according to the Diyyah of the Dhimmi, which is 800 Dirhams.
Man la yahdaruhul faqih, Narration # 5248

Secondly, Ubaidullah was a free person, and the daughter of Abu Luluah was a slave, and in Shia fiqh, a Free Muslim can’t be killed for killing a slave.

We read in Man la yahdaruhul faqih:

وروى عثمان بن عيسى، عن سماعة عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: ” يقتل العبد بالحر، ولا يقتل الحر، بالعبد، ولكن يغرم قيمته ويضرب ضربا شديدا حتى لا يعود

Imam Jafar said : A slave will be killed for killing a free person, but a free person will not be killed for killing a slave, he will pay the compensation, and he will be hit hard so that he doesn’t repeat it.
Man la yahdaruhul faqih, Narration # 5260

Trying to prove the faith of Abu Lulu by his presence in the Mosque:

Raafidhi says :

In summary we have evidenced that when the companions would stand in congregational prayer they would do so in an upright standing position. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab would inspect the rows so as to ensure that no gaps existed between worshippers, and would only then lead the congregation in prayer. With this in mind, was the presence of a Zoroastrian not a gap for Umar and the Companions? Wouldn’t anyone consider the presence of a Zoroastrian man in the ranks of worshippers as a defect in the congregational prayer? What is yet more perplexing is that Aboo Lu’lu’ah, a Zoroastrian came and stood within the ranks of the worshippers wearing his shoes whilst praying the dawn prayer. Would this not have attracted the ire of anyone? Or was it Sunnah for non Muslims to come inside the mosque wearing shoes? How was Aboo Lu’lu’ah able to place himself in the first line of prayers and read directly behind Umar without being challenged for it? Some may say that Aboo Lu’lu’ah entered the masjid in a clandestine manner, however, this would only be achieved had he entered with his face covered thus ensuring he was not recognisable. This however is completely implausible, any individual covering his face making his way towards the head of state would most likely arouse suspicion. Such a person would be challenged, searched or even arrested for the possibility of having been in possession of an offensive weapon. As a minimum, he would have been taken away from the scene.

Aboo Dawood: Narrated Aboo Hurayrah: The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade trailing garments during prayer and that a man should cover his mouth. Aboo Dawood said: This tradition has also been narrated by ‘Isi on the authority of ‘Ata’ from Abu Hurayra: The Prophet (saws) forbade trailing garments during prayer.
Footnote: Narration Hasan (Reliable).
Source: Saheeh Sunan Aboo Dawood. Vol. 1, Pg. # 2, H. 643

Raafidhi must have a hard time believing all the complexities involved in the secret missions carried out by the spies around the world. Abu Luluah’s case is much simpler, he didn’t need an elaborate disguise nor did he require fake passports and a secret identity… all he needed was the Arabic head wear called “Taylasaan”, in which one can easily hide his face without covering it.

The hadith that Raafidhi has presented only talks about covering the face, which is a different thing.

Abu Luluah performed this heinous act in the Fajar (Dawn) prayer, and we know that it is difficult to recognize the faces at this time. Look at the following tradition from Sahih Bukhari

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، حَدَّثَنَا فُلَيْحٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رضى الله عنها أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يُصَلِّي الصُّبْحَ بِغَلَسٍ فَيَنْصَرِفْنَ نِسَاءُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، لاَ يُعْرَفْنَ مِنَ الْغَلَسِ، أَوْ لاَ يَعْرِفُ بَعْضُهُنَّ بَعْضًا‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha: Allah’s Apostle (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to offer the Fajr prayer when it was still dark and the believing women used to return (after finishing their prayer) and nobody could recognize them owing to darkness, or they could not recognize one another.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 872; Sahih Bukhari English translation: Vol. 1, Book 12, Hadith 831

This narration proves that the Muslims would pray when it was still dark, and the people couldn’t be recognized.

Was Abu Luluah a Christian or a Zaroastrian?

There are two narrations which Raafidhi has posted on its website regarding whether Abu Luluah was a Christian or Zaroastrian.

Abd al-Barr: narrated from Khalf Bin Qasim told us Hassan bin Rasheeq told Dolaabi told Muhammad ibn Hameed told us Alee bin Mujahid who said, “We had difference in regards to the personality of Aboo Lu’lu’ah, some claimed: He was a Majoosi (Zoroastrian). Others said: He was a Christian, so Aboo Sanan reported us on the authority of Saeeb Ibn Sinan on the authority of Aboo Ishaq Al-Hamdani on the authority of Amr Ibn Maymun Al-Awdi, who said: “Aboo Lu’lu’ah was a Christian who stabbed Umar with a dagger with two heads (to the blade), once he injured ‘Umar he stabbed another thirteen men (companions) in the Masjid until he was captured, once he was capture he committed suicide.
Source: Al-Istiab. Vol. 3, Pg. # 1155

The other narration is from Mujam al Awsat

حدثنا أحمد قال حدثنا سعيد بن سليمان الواسطي قال حدثنا مبارك بن فضالة قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر عن نافع عن بن عمر قال : لما طعن أبو لؤلؤة عمر طعنه طعنتين فظن عمر أن له ذنبا في الناس لا يعلمه فدعا بن عباس وكان يحبه ويدنيه ويستمع منه فقال له أحب أن نعلم عن ملأ من الناس كان هذا فخرج بن عباس فجعل لا يمر بملأ من الناس إلا وهم يبكون فرجع إليه فقال يا أمير المؤمنين ما أتيت على ملأ من المسلمين إلا وهم يبكون كأنما فقدوا اليوم أبكار أولادهم فقال من قتلني قال أبو لؤلؤة المجوسي عبد المغيرة بن شعبة قال بن عباس فرأيت البشر في وجهه فقال الحمد لله الذي لم يبتلني بقول أحد يحاجني بقول لا إله إلا الله

Abdullah Ibn Umar said: “When Aboo Lu’lu’ah stabbed Umar he stabbed him twice. Umar was thinking that maybe he done injustice to someone amongst the people – so he (Umar) called Ibn Abbas who loved, adored and listened to him, then he (Umar) said: “O Ibn ‘Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn Abbas kept on looking here and there and found no one but people crying, he then said to Umar, “O Amir Al-Mu’minin (commander of the faithful) I’ve seen no one except people crying as if they have lost their first born children today.” Umar asked: “Who killed me?” Ibn Abbas said: Aboo Lu’lu’ah the Majoosi (Zoroastrian), the slave of Al-Mughira.” Ibn Abbas said: “I saw happiness in the face of Umar.” On that Umar said: “‘Praise be to Allah Who did not make my decree of death to be at the hands of a man who claimed Islam.
Source: Mu’jam al-Awsat, Vol. 1, p. 151, Tradition # 579

This narration is hasan, Ahmad ibn Qasim is thiqah, Saeed ibn Sulayman is thiqah, Mubarak ibn Fudhala is Hasan ul hadith , Ubaidullah ibn Umar is thiqah, and Nafi is thiqah who narrates from Abdullah ibn Umar. al-Haythami has also declared this narration as Hasan in Majma ul Zawaid, Vol. 9, p. 51

According to the authentic hadith as is present in Mujam al Awsat, Abu Luluah was a Zaroastrian. The other hadith which ibn Abdul Barr has mentioned in his book ‘al-Istiab’ is weak because it contains a Liar, i.e Ali ibn Mujahid.

wal-Salamu `Alaykum,

Unity with the Shias – Is it Possible??


By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

The following Malfooz (saying/words of advice) of Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi Rahimahullah is undoubtedly some good food for thought, especially these days when some people are trying to force down our throats the issue of being united with Shias!


“When organizations unite on error or sin, opposition to them and dissociation from them become the demands of the Shariah. It is essential for Deeni conscious people, who have joined such organizations for the enactment of the transgression, to dissociate themselves.(The issue of Shiism is much worse. It is uniting on Kufr –JamiatNC)

Nowadays the condition of the people of the Deen is lamentable. While the irreligious people are firm on an issue (of error) on which they have taken a stand, the people of the Deen (the Ulama) are lax. What has happened to them? The irreligious people do what their desire commands them to do and whatever appeals to their opinion. (The Kufr of Shiism is clearer than daylight. Yet, some people are not interested in the truth – JamiatNC)

On the other hand the people of the Deen in spite of being aware that this particular activity is in conflict with their Math-hab or it is unlawful or the method is harmful or this activity is in conflict with the outlook and disposition of our Jamaat, then too they submit to the irreligious people for the sake of sustaining the unity. (How can we unite with the Shias who have several vile beliefs? Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhiyanwi – who was a very pious senior Mufti of Pakistan and who is acknowledged for issuing excellent Fataawa, has mentioned nineteen solid reasons why Shias could be declared as Kaafir. Thousands of Ulama have declared the Shias as Kuffaar, i.e. A shia is a ‘Kaafir’. Insha Allah articles on this will also be published – JamiatNC)

Subhaanallaah, The attainment of unity is from both sides.  (Attainment of unity with the Shias is almost impossible. Our pamphlet on Shiism which discusses Allah’s praise for Hazrat Ibraheem Alayhis Salaam’s disunity with the Kuffaar will shed more light on this issue Insha Allah – JamiatNC)

How do we unite with people who accuse our mother of Zina when Allah revealed Aayats proving the purity and chastity of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha. This alone is enough to show the Shias rejection of the Qur’aan. By declaring Shias as Muslims, we are rejecting the Qur’aan and this will make us Kaafir.

On the contrary, it is Fardh for us to declare Shias as Kaafir. Insha Allah this will be explained in detail in another pamphlet – JamiatNC)

When the other side is not prepared to honour your stand (of Haqq), what type of unity is this? Rather say that you are being subservient to them. Nowadays mutual flattery is described as unity. They therefore fear to dissociate themselves (from baatil). They fear the criticism of the people. They fear being accused of disrupting the unity. (If Shias want unity and they want to be part of Islam, they must firstly declare as Kaafir all those Shia Scholars who wrote against the Sahaabah and also burn all their books – JamiatNC)

Why are you (O Ulama!) scared of such criticism? Proclaim boldly: “Yes, we have ruined the unity.” (We must say: ‘With Allah’s Fadhl, we will Insha Allah never unite with the Sahaabah-haters’. Those who hate the Sahaabah, hate Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. And obviously, we do not call for violence, despite us having no ‘unity’ with the Shayaateen. We are living in harmony, but Kufr being presented as Islam is totally unacceptable!

Furthermore, it is silly and ludicrous to expect the Ulama-e-Haqq (the real Ulama) to tolerate lies and hatred against the Sahaabah and to tolerate filth in the name of Islam – JamiatNC)

Unity in every circumstance is not desirable nor praiseworthy. In fact, sometimes disunity is desirable. When the Deen suffers by a unity, then disunity is the best course.” (End of Malfooz of Hakeemul Ummat)

The aforementioned Naseehat of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (Rahmatullah Alayh) should serve as sufficient advice and direction for those of our Ulama who have embraced the Ahl-e-Baatil (the modernists), the Ahl-e-Bid’ah (the Grave Worshippers) and the Shias on the Cape Accord issue.

All the arguments tendered by the Ulama for going to Shia temples, bringing Zindeeqs and Mulhideen from foreign countries to lecture the jaahil masses in South Africa to accept Sahaabah-haters as our brothers, participation in Al-Quds Day which originated from the Kaafir Khomeini, etc. are figments of their Shia-influenced imagination. When Shar’i principles are being violated, there is absolutely no good in the benefits which are being imagined. It is the duty of the Ulama to maintain a strong stand on the Haqq and Sunnah.

The doubtful benefits at the expense of sacrificing Islamic and Sunnah principles and practices and even Aqeedah, are to be confounded and rejected. It is our duty to guard the Shariah, not to woo people of deviation and Kufr.

It is our incumbent duty to proclaim the Haqq. By us remaining silent, Muslims are becoming Kaafir by embracing the Kufr of Shiism. How then can it ever be possible for us to remain silent??? The baseless arguments of sectarianism, unity, violence and terrorism by Pro-Shia supporters and symphatisers are all rejected with contempt. We never ever called for violence!!!

May Allah save us from the Kufr of Shiism. Aameen


By Mujlisul Ulama

There exists a huge misunderstanding among Muslims, even among the Ulama, regarding the predication of the Ahlus Sunnah designation. Due to this misunderstanding, it is generally said that the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah constitutes mainstream Islam.

In terms of this conception, Shi’ism is surreptitiously promoted onto the pedestal of Islam when in reality Shi’ism has no room in Islam. Shi’ism is alien to Islam just as Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism are alien.The designation, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is mentioned with reference to some deviant sects whom the Fuqaha have not excommunicated (made takfeer). In our current age, we have the deviant sects of the Salafis, the Barelwi Qabar Pujaari (Grave worshippers), Jamat-e-Islami, etc. Whilst these sects remain within the fold of Islam, they are beyond the confines of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.

Although during the Khairul Quroon era of the Salafus Saaliheen, there existed many authentic Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah, in our time the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is confined to the followers of the Four Math–habs (Hanafi, Shaafi, Maaliki and Hambali). Salafis,etc are not of the Ahlus Sunnah. Therefore, the term Ahlus Sunnah should not be juxtaposed with Shi’ism/Shiahs. In reference to Shiahs it should be said MUSLIMS and SHIAHS, NOT Ahlus Sunnah or Sunnis and Shiahs. This phraseology implies that Shiahs are Muslims. Just as Qadianism, Bahaiism, Bilalians etc. are not of Islam, so too, are Shiahs not of Islam.

The profession of Islam’s Kalimah by some Kuffaar religionists is satanically deceptive. A glaring example is the belief of the Bilalians (the followers of Elijah Muhammad of the U.S.A) that Allah Ta’ala appeared on earth in the form and body of Elijah Muhammad – Nauthubillah!  Recitation of the Kalimah does not in any way whatsoever bestow Imaan to such mushrikeen. Similar is the status of the Shiahs.

Piecemeal acceptance of Islamic doctrines does not confer the title of Muslim to the partial accepter. He remains a Kaafir. About partial acceptance, the Qur’aan Majeed States: “What! Do you believe in part of the Kitaab and commit Kufr with part? What then is the punishment for the one who commits so (commits Kufr), except disgrace in this world. And, on the Day of Qiyaamah he will be assigned to severest punishment”.  [Al-Baqarah, Aayat 85]

Washing or Wiping the Feet during Wudu?? – An Analysis

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem

All praises due to Allah.

May His mercy and blessings be upon Muhammad, his  family  and  companions.

This is a refutation of Shi’i contentions with regards to the act of washing the feet in Wudu. Shia say this is an innovation and against the command of Allah in Quran which is to wipe the feet.

This writing will be a refutation of all the arguments provided by Shi’ites including that by Shia scholar Abdul Husain Sharafuddin al-Musawi, the author of famous forged conversation “al-Muraja’at”, who has written against Sunni the viewpoint in his book “al-Masaail al-Fiqhiyyah” which is translated in English as “Juristic Questions”. This book can be accessed at Shia website

This refutation is broadly divided into two  sections:

1. Regarding the interpretation of the verse of Wudu

2. Regarding narrations related to washing and wiping of feet.


Here our discussion is particularly on the portion of the verse which speaks of wiping or washing of feet.

Abdul Husain said:

The evidence of the Shia for this matter was the Quranic verse (O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles. 5:6).  

Imam ar-Razi sufficed us in showing the point of the argument in this verse when he declared: “The evidence of those, who thought that wiping the feet was obligatory, was based upon the two kinds of reciting the phrase (and your feet) mentioned in the verse of wudu’. Ibn Katheer, Hamza, Abu Amr an Aasim recited the phrase in genitive and Nafi’, ibn Aamir and Aasim recited it in accusative. Reciting it in genitive determined that (your feet) was coupled to (your heads) and then as it was obligatory to wipe the head it would be obligatory to wipe the feet. As for reciting it in accusative, it also determined that it was obligatory to wipe the feet because the saying (and wipe your heads) made (your heads) as object and (your feet) was coupled to (your heads) so both of them were objects of the verb (wipe)”

I say: Even though Fakhruddin Ar-Razi said it but he is not the only person to be looked at in matters of Qur’anic interpretations. In fact, wiping is not necessitated in case of any of the two recitations; with Jarr or with Nasb.

Basically there are three types of recitation of the phrase “wa arjulakum” two of which are Mutawatir and the third one is shaadh (unreliable):

1. With Nasb i.e. Wa arjulakum. This is the recitation of Nafi’, Ibn Amir, Hafs, Kisai and Yaqoob among the famous reciters of Qur’an.  

2. With Jarr i.e. Wa arjulikum. This is the recitation of Ibn Katheer, Abu Amr, Hamza and Abu Bakr from Aasim.

3. With Damma i.e. Wa arjulukum. This is attributed to Hasan. This is unreliable.


This is the most prevalent recitation as it is the recitation of Hafs who has narrated it from Aasim. The implication derived from this recitation is that the object ((your feet)) is linked with the command of washing as the I’arab it has is the I’irab of the body parts which are to be washed mentioned in the verse. This differs with the I’irab of portion asked to be wiped.

Hence, apparently this is a command for washing the feet. This is how early exegetes have interpreted it. However, some of the scholars, excluding Shia scholars, have claimed that even this recitation supports wiping because there cannot occur a third phrase between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih. This was the opinion of Ar-Razi and Ibn Hazm. However, this is not supported by facts as we shall see. Some examples of occurrence of a phrase between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih:

(1) Allah the Exalted says:


“but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram” [2:217]

Here “al-Masjid al-Haram” is ma’toof and “averting from the way of Allah” is ma’toof ‘alaihi and between them is the phrase “and disbelief in him”.

(2) Allah says:


“So exalted is Allah when you reach the evening and when you reach the morning. And to Him is [due all]  praise throughout the heavens  and the earth. And [exalted is He] at night and when you are at noon.” [Surat Ar-Room 17-18]

Here the portion “And to him due all praise throughout the heavens and the earth” occurs between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih and this is acknowledged in the Tafsir Kabeer (25/88).

There are many other examples mentioned by scholars like Mahmud al-Aalusi. It is also illogical to raise objection on this interpretation as early companions and Tab’een have interpreted it as such and they were the people of this language.

Here is the list of those scholars from Sahaba and Taba’een who have interpreted it as such, as opposed to the unreliable claims of Ibn Hazm and Ar-Razi:  

1. Abdullah bin Mas’ud

2. Ibn ‘Abbas, but there are also narrations stating otherwise

3. Urwah bin Zubair, one of the great seven Fuqaha among Taba’een

4. Mujahid, the great mufassir of Qur’an

5. As-Suddi

6. Ibrahim An-Nakha’i, the jurist of Kufa

7. Dahhak etc.

These scholars were masters of Arabic and Qur’an but they did not see any problem when a phrase exists between ma’toof and ma’toof ‘alaih. Besides them a huge number of early commentators of Qur’an also did not see it problematic. In conclusion, the objection raised on this interpretation is unreliable and that is why most of the scholars did not pay any attention towards it.


The second mutawatir way of reciting it is with the Kasra on Laam i.e. Wa arjulikum. Based on this recitation many scholars have interpreted it to mean wiping of the feet. The most apparent conclusion drawn from this recitation is that the feet should be wiped because the Arabic for feet takes the I’arab of the head and also coming in succession to it which is commanded to be wiped. Even though it is the first possibility with this recitation but it is not the only possibility with this recitation. We have to interpret a verse by looking at the practice and command of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam).

Reason for interpreting the particular reading against the most apparent meaning:

Both the recitations are Mutawatir and hence they can only interpret and cannot overrule each other, therefore interpreting one with washing and another with wiping in the same condition is not possible. Hence what we have to do is to look into traditions and which of the two interpretations are correct in light of the actions and sayings of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). As Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in Qur’an:


“And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” [Surat An-Nahl 44]

Hence it was the duty of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) to interpret the Qur’an for us. So when we look at his actions and sayings we see that he always washed his feet and commanded to do so. Narrations of washing are so many that Tawatur can easily be claimed regarding it. On the other hand there is not a single authentic narration which shows wiping of the feet by Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). [Authenticity of different narrations will be discussed in the next section]

Since we are now sure about the interpretation given by the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), hence we need to interpret the verse in light of it. We see that the recitation with Nasb and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) both clearly supports washing, so the problem remains with the other recitation which is with Kasra. We now look at the possibility of interpreting it in light of other clear evidence. We find the following answers to the problem which are in line with language, logic and textual evidence:

1. The Kasra is due to its proximity with the nearby word. Or,

2. The “MasH” mentioned with regards to feet is light washing of them.

3. The wudu method, in this particular recitation, is regarding travellers and therefore wiping is prescribed over socks in this verse.

We will expand these answers one by one, Insha Allah.

Jarr ‘ala al-Jiwar

This means a word accepts Kasra or Jarr of the nearby word even if technically it should not have been Majroor (affected by Jarr). Many of the scholars have admitted its possibility in Arabic language while some have objected to it. Those who pointed out its possibility include the grammarian al-Akhfash and Abu Ubaidah. Besides them other scholars who have pointed out its possibility include  As-Samarqandi, Al-Baghwi, al-Bayhaqi, An-Nasafi, Ath-Tha’albi, Jalal al-Muhalli, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Katheer, Al-Aalusi, Ash-Shinqiti etc. [Refer to their Tafaseer under the commentary of the verse of wudu]

Ar-Razi was one of those who totally denied any existence of it in Qur’an and so he was quoted by the Shi’as like Abdul Husain. Following are the objections of Ar-Razi:

1. Such usage in Arabic is considered Lahn (weakness in speech).

2. It is done only when there is  no possibility of confusion for readers.

3. It occurs without ‘Atf. (i.e. waw)
4. Interruption between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih by a non-relevant phrase or sentence is disliked even in common speech.

Scholars like Mahmud al-Aalusi and Muhammad Amin Ash-Shinqiti have answered these claims in detail. I’ll be presenting the summary of their response here point by point, Insha Allah.

1. The great grammarians like Al-Akhfash, Abul Baqa and all the specialists of Arabic language have approved of the existence of it and no one denied it except Az-Zajjaj. His denial after his affirmation of the existence of Jarr ala al-Jiwar in their speeches indicates the lack of research from his side.

2. To claim that it is from the condition of Jarr ’ala al-Jiwar that the matter is not confused, is not accepted as the grammarians have not mentioned any such rule. Yes, some of them have mentioned it as a condition for the beauty in Kalam (speech) with the condition which is fulfilled here, and that is this portion which is asked to be wiped is limited with the ankles and wiping do not occur with limit in Arabic speech.

3. Scholars have pointed out its occurrence even with Atf. See the Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani by the Mufti of Baghdad Allama Mahmud al-Aalusi and Adwa al-Bayan by Allama Shinqiti for examples of such usage in Arabic.

4. It causes effect only when the interpolated portion is totally irrelevant which is not the case here is. Besides, examples have already been given of such usage while discussing the recitation with Nasb.

MasH here means washing

Another answer which many of the commentators of Quran have pointed out that مسح in reference to feet means (a little) washing. This was pointed out by Abu Zaid al-Ansari and Abu Hatim As-Sijistani among the scholars of Arabic language.

If it is said that how could a single word in a sentence have two meanings? How مسح for head is wiping and for feet is washing in the same verse? The answer is, it is possible that real meaning of a word and its metaphorical meaning be combined in a single sentence. Qur’an mentions:


“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer]…”   [Surat An-Nisa 43]

In the above verse, a same word الصلاة (salaah) is used once for prayer and secondly for Masjid.

It is also to be noted that the verse of Wudu was revealed years after the Wudu was prescribed, and hence there was no possibility for confusion. Besides the limit prescribed in the verse for the feet which is till ankles, supports this view as in Arabic limits are not given for wiping. See Tafaseer mentioned earlier.

The Wiping is over Socks

Many scholars have mentioned this. This is very much plausible considering the fact that a verse when comes with different mutawatir readings then both readings, by rule, are separately taken as two different verse while deriving the rulings. Hence, with Nasb it is for person under normal condition while with Kasra it is for those travelling while wearing socks.

If it is said, what is the basis for this, the answer would be: The basis is all those narrations which mention washing for normal condition and wiping over socks, which are explicit and they are not singular reports which could be rejected by calling them mistakes or forgeries.

Also, the basis is the verse itself where if the المسح is taken in general then it will contradict the other proven recitation. And Allah knows best.


Discussion on Narrations

In this section, we shall analyse the narrations regarding washing and wiping the feet. This will be done in following steps:

1. Authenticity and Tawatur of narrations regarding washing.

2. Narrations which indicates wiping of feet.

3. View of Ali bin Abi Talib (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

4. Logical conclusion

Narrations of Washing

Narrations of washing of feet (which is a portion from detailed description of Wudu) are so many that it can easily be termed Mutawatir. Following is the list of companions who have reported this from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). I have avoided severely weak or rejected narrations even though some slightly weak narrations may have been included.

Umar bin Khattab: Muslim

Uthman bin Affan: Agreed upon

Ali bin Abi Talib: Abu Dawud,
Tirmidhi, Nasai

Abu Hurairah: Agreed upon

Aisha Umm al-Mumineen: Muslim

Mustawrid bin Shaddad: Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Tahawi.

Abu Jubair al-Kindi: Ibn Hibban, Tahawi

Abdullah bin Harith bi Jaz’:  Ahmad, Ibn Khuzaima

Jabir bin Abdullah: Ibn Majah, Ahmad

Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Aas: Agreed upon

Ibn Abbas: Bukhari

Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan: Abu Dawud

Abu Rafi’: Tahawi

Rubayyi’ bint Mu’awwidh: Abu Dawud

Abdullah bin Zaid bin Aasim: Agreed upon

Amr bin ‘Absah: Ibn Khuzaima, Hakim, Tahawi.

Abu Malik al-Ash’ari : Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shaibah

Abu Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi: Bazzar

Anas bin Malik: Abu Dawud, Ibn Khuzaimah

Bara bin Azib: Ahmad.

Narrations used in Support of Wiping

(1). Abu Dawud (858), Nasai (1136) and Ibn Majah (460) narrate through Hammam from Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Talha from Ali bin Yahya bin Khallad from his father from Rifa’ah bin Rafi’ that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said to the person who was constantly offering his salaah in wrong manner, “Indeed the prayer of any of you will not be accepted until he completes his Wudu as it is prescribed by Allah; hence he washes his face and hands till elbow, and wipes over his head and his feet till ankles…” And then he mentioned full description.

The narrators of this narration are reliable and hence the isnad of this is apparently authentic. However when we give it a closer look we see that portion describing the method of Wudu has been reported from Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu Talha only by Hammam. 

Let us compare the Asaneed (chains) of this tradition. This narration is narrated through Ali bin Yahya bin Khallad from his father from Rifa’ah bin Rafi’ from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). From Ali bin Yahya this was narrated by the following:

➡ Muhammad bin Ajlaan: Ahmad (18997), Nasai (1313), Ibn Hibban (1787)

➡ Dawud bin Qais: Musannaf Abdur-Razzaq (3739), Nasai (1314), Tabrani (4520).

➡ Muhammad bin Ishaq: Abu Dawud (860)

➡ Muhammad bin Amr bin Alqamah: Ahmad (18995), Abu Dawud (859), Ibn Hibban (1787).

➡ Shareek bin Abi Nimr:

➡ Yahya bin Ali bin Yahya: Musnad Tayalisi (1469), Abu Dawud (861), Tirmidhi (302), Nasai (667).

➡ Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu  Talha

None of the above narrators narrates it with the wording commanding to wipe the feet except for Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu Talha. Even from Ishaq only Hammam mentions it while Hammad bin Salmah do not mention it as it is reported by Abu Dawud (857) and others.

Now if we look at the narration  of Hammam then it appears that some narrator have included the verse of Qur’an after the statement “Do Wudu as commanded by Allah…”. This addition is not part of the hadith but rather someone (either Hammam or Ishaq himself) has included the modified form of the Quranic verse as an interpretation of the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

(2). Tahawi (1/35) through Shareek from As-Suddi from Abd Khair from Ali regarding wiping.

Even though Shareek is weak but still this narration doesn’t support wiping over feet in Wudu. The complete version of this has been narrated by Ahmad in Musnad (943) through the same chain of Shareek but it mentions that “This is the Wudu of the person who is still the state of purity (Wudu)”.

This is how it was also narrated by Sufyan Thawri from As-Suddi with the same meaning. Imam Ahmad narrated it in Musnad (970), Ibn Khuzaimah in his Sahih (200). Tahawi narrated the short  version which caused the  confusion.   

(3) Al-A’mash narrates from Abu Ishaq from Abd Khair from Ali. But Hafs bin Ghiyath narrates it from al-A’mash, and Hafs was one of the most reliable person while narrating from him, with the wording “If the religion was based on analogy then the upper side of the socks were more worthy to be wiped than the bottom of it.” Yazeed bin Abdul Aziz also narrates it in similar fashion.

But Wakee’ narrates it without mentioning “socks” although he did interpret it to mean “over the socks”. See Sunan Abu Dawud (no. 162-164)

What we conclude from above is that there is a huge conflict (Idhtirab or إضطراب) in the apparent wording of this version of hadith. The hadith is normally rejected when there is significant conflict in the wording or Isnad of hadith and if we literally take this narration then this has to be rejected as well. But when the reconciliation is possible between different wordings then the hadith is not classified as weak. Here, in the above version in which wiping over feet is mentioned, reconciliation is possible as scholars, including  Waki’ bin Jarrah, have pointed out. They say it means the feet when it is covered by socks. This is the most plausible explanation in light of the famous opinion of Ali bin Abi’ Talib (which shall be  discussed soon).

The scholar of Hadith, Imam Daarqutni said after discussing  differences in the wording and Isnad of this particular narration:


“The correct version from all these is that which has the wording “I used to consider the bottom of the socks more worthy to be washed than the top of it…” And this is how Hakeem bin Zaid narrate it from Abu Ishaq.”

He further said:


“This view is supported by the narration reported by Khalid b. Alqama, Abdul Malik bin Sala’, Hasan bin Uqbah Abu Kairan and others from Abd Khair that Ali washed his feet thrice and said, “This is how I saw the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) doing”.” See Al-‘Ilal by Ad-Daarqutni (4/45-46)

(3). Tahawi (1/35) reports through Ibn Abi Fudaik from Ibn Abi Dhi’b from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar:


“While performing Wudu, with his shoe covering his feet, he would wipe over the back of his feet with his hands. He used to say, ‘The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) used to do it in this way’.” 

Ibn Khuzaimah (199) narrated it with a different chain.

Apparently this is authentic as all of its narrators are reliable. Scholars have different explanation regarding it. According to Imam At-Tahawi it was abrogated later on. Al-Bazzar said that this is for person renewing his Wudu.

In any case, there is no evidence in it to support wiping over feet as this narration is for wiping over shoe. Scholars such as Ibn Khuzaimah interpret that all of the narration which mentions wiping over feet with shoe are regarding that person who already has his Wudu. This is the most plausible explanation in light of authentic narrations quoted earlier which explicitly mentions that Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) wiped over his shoe when he was in state of purity. Allah knows best.

Besides all these, there is evidence that Ibn Umar himself used to wash his feet during Wudu as it has been reported by Tahawi (1/41-42) through Abu Awana and Shu’bah both of who narrate it from Abu Bishr from Mujahid from Ibn Umar. Similarly, Tahawi narrates it through Ibn Majishoon from Abdullah bin Dinar from Ibn Umar. So it is illogical that Ibn Umar publically attribute something to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and then goes against it.

(4) Tahawi (1/35) narrates through Ibn Lahee’ah from Abul Aswad from Abbad bin Tamim from his uncle regarding wiping. Ibn Khuzaimah (201) has narrated it with another chain.

Here the uncle of Abbad bin Tamim is Abdullah bin Zaid. His description of Wudu is well famous and agreed upon by all scholars and it mentions washing of feet. (See the list of companions who have narrated the washing of feet) 

So this particular and short version, if it is authentic, has to be understood and interpreted in the light of agreed upon and detailed version of Abdullah’s hadith.

Wudu of the person with Wudu:

If a person is in state of Wudu and want to renew it then as per the view of Ali bin Abi Talib he just need to wipe on his parts of wudu instead of washing them. This has been reported by Sufyan Thawri and Shareek al-Qadhi from Ismail As-Sudd  from Abd Khair from Ali as mentioned earlier. It was also narrated by Abdul Malik bin Maisirah from Nazzaal bin Saburah from Ali as in Musnad Ahmad (583, 1005, 1173), Sunan Nasai (130), Sahih Ibn Khuzaima (16, 202), Sahih Ibn Hibban (1057, 1340, 1341, 5326) and others. 

However in Sahih Bukhari this narration is recorded with incomplete wording which caused ignorants like the author of shiapen to claim that this was done for hiding the truth. The complete version does say that the method mentioned in this hadith is for those who are in state of purity (with Wudu). However in their ignorance they have also quoted the Musnad Tayalisi (141) which does mention the portion:


“This is the ablution of those who have their Wudu”

View of Ali bin Abi Talib

There is no doubt that Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) used to wash his feet. Among his companions following people reported to have seen him washing his feet during wudu:

Husain bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

Ibn Abbas

Zirr bin Hubaish

Abd khair

Abu Huyyah al-Kharifi

The narration of Husain (radhiyallahu anhu) Imam Nasai records in Sunan (95):


Ibn Juraij narrates that he heard from Shaiba from Abu Jafar al-Baqir from Ali bin Husain from his father from Husain that his Ali bin Abi Talib called him with the vessel having water for ablution…until the end of hadith which describe the ablution including the washing of feet. Finally he stood and drank the remaining water of the vessel. At the end Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said to Husain, “Do not be astonished, for I have seen your father (the Messenger of Allah) doing just as you have seen me doing…”

This chain is authentic. Here is a brief analysis of its narrators:

Ibn Juraij was Thiqah, Faqih and Virtuous. He would do Tadlees but in the above narration he has clearly pointed out his hearing through the term “Haddathani”.

Shaibah bin Nasaah was the Qadi  of Madinah. Ibn Numair, Ibn Maeen, Ibn Hibban, Nasai, Ibn Saad have declared him Thiqah. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (12/609)]

All other narrators above them were reliable with agreement of scholars and they were from the Imams of Shia Imamis. 

The hadith of Ibn Abbas from Ali is recorded by Abu Dawud (117) which mentions the washing of feet. There is some dispute regarding its isnad. al-Albani considered it Hasan.

The hadith of Zirr bin Hubaish is in Abu Dawud (114) through Rabi’ah al-Kinani from Minhal bin Amr from Zirr bin Hubaish from Ali bin Abi Talib. Its narrators are reliable and the hadith was declared sahih by Al-Albani and Shuaib Arnaut.

The hadith of Abd Khair is reported in Sunan and other books. Abu Dawud (111-113) and Nasai (92-94) report it through Khalid bin Alqamah from Abd Khair from Ali. Tirmidhi narrates it in Sunan (49) through Abu Ishaq from Abd Khair. This narration is authentic without any doubt.

The hadith of Abu Hayya is also narrated in Sunan. Abu Dawud (116), Tirmidhi (49), Nasai (96, 115) and Ibn Majah (456) through Abul Ahwas and others from Abu Ishaq from Abu Hayyah bin Qais from Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

Abu Hayyah is disputed narrator. Al-Dhahabi said he was not known, while Ibn Hajar said he was maqbool which means his narrations are acceptable if backed by other narrators. On the other hand Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat and Ibn Jarud quotes from Ibn Numair that he was Thiqah. Ahmad bin Hanbal called him “shaykh”. See  Tahdheeb.

All these indicates that Abu Huyyah is a considerable narrator in light of other narrations.

After this there remains no doubt that washing the feet was the opinion of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) not wiping. And Allah knows best.

Logical Conclusion

We have proved in the previous section that Qur’anic verse do not necessarily support the practice of wiping over the feet during ablution. One of the two famous recitations clearly supports washing of feet while the other recitation may or may not support washing. But based on other internal and external factors we can be sure that it doesn’t rule out washing. This has been proven in enough details in the first section. 

When we look at the second source of Islamic laws then we see that washing was a prevalent practice during the time of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and after him. There are so many witnesses to it that it cannot be claimed that it was a false attribution on the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Only very selected narrations have been reported about wiping as a Sunnah but they have their defects which doesn’t qualify them to stand against a practice which was reported in Mutawatir form. I have clarified it in the second section.

Also Read: Masah Alal Khuffain – Law regarding making Masah on Leather Socks