Category Archives: Shia/Raafidhi


By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

We would like to address the issue of unity with the Shi’ah, as epitomised by Khomeini as “No Sunni, No Shi’a, only Islam fighting against the Westand “Love for some of the Ahlul Bait.” These slogans are just as misleading as the Kharijite’s “La Hukma illa Lillah (there is no sovereignty, but for Allah)” to Sayyidina ‘Ali Radiallahu Anhu.

This misleading slogan, which is normally only used in places where Shi’ahs are in the minority, is the biggest farce in history which has corrupted many sincere people wanting to find the path of truth. Muslims can never unite with the Shi’ah, except in some limited economic, political or social issues, for the following reasons:

1. The structure and nature of Shi’ism is such that it’s anti-Islam. History testifies that Shi’ahs or Shi’ah governments never raised their sword against enemies, or conquered their lands through Battles. All their efforts have been to divide and weaken Islam. Even today as Palestine and the Sunni world is under attack and experiencing severe internal chaos, Iran is aiding Shi’ah governments in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq to butcher Sunnis.

2. The Shi’ahs have historically discredited themselves on a number of occasions in this regard, for which they have never apologized for, but are till today proud of:

➡ Their assassination of Caliph  ‘Umar Radiallahu Anhu, organizing a revolt against Sayyidina ‘Uthman Radiallahu Anhu which led to his murder, their preventing of peace between Sayyidina ‘Ali Radiallahu Anhu and Sayyidah ‘Aisha in the Battle of Jamal, the poisoning of Sayyadinna Hassan Radiallahu Anhu and the betrayal of Sayyidina Hussein Radiallahu Anhu at Karbala. The mausoleum of Sayyidina ‘Umar Radiallahu Anhu’s killer is present today in Iran, called “Baba Shuja’uddin;”

➡ Instigating the revolt of the Zanj (Black Slaves) against the ‘Abbasid Caliphate between 255 AH-270 AH in which one and a half million Muslims were slain, and many Masjids destroyed. (Tarikhul Khulafa of At-Tabari, vol.   3, page 224);

➡ The Qaramita, a branch of the Batinite Shi’ahs, who believed that liquor was allowed and it was not necessary to obtain purity from defilement, also attacked the Abbasid Caliphate and killed many Sunnnis. During the Hajj of 930, it’s leader Abū-Tāhir Al-Jannābī, laid siege to Makkah and for six days, killed many people in front of the Ka’bah, dumping their bodies in the Zam Zam well. He then removed the Hajr-e-Aswad to Bahrain, where he kept it for seventeen years, regularly urinating on it, before breaking it into pieces and returning it to the ‘Abbasids for a hefty ransom;

➡ In 618 AH ibn al-‘Alqami – a trusted Shi’ah minister of the last ‘Abasid Caliph, invited the Tartars to raid Baghdad and bring an end to this glorious dynasty. He reduced the army from 100 000 to a mere 10 000, whom he assigned menial jobs such as guarding Masjids and bazaars. In their 40-day stay in Baghdad, 1.8 million Muslims were slaughtered, except for those who took refuge in ibn al-‘Alqami’s home;

➡ The Ismaili Shi’ahs wrested power from the ‘Abbasids and established the Fatimid Dynasty in 909 AH, making a huge part of North Africa, including Egypt, Shi’ah. Thus began a long, but unsuccessful period of Sunni persecution and conversion which only came to an end in 1171 AH when it was reconquered by Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn . During this time, the Fatimids enlisted the  help  of  the  Crusaders  on  numerous  occasions  in  order  to weaken the Sunni Seljuk state. Jerusalem was also stormed and many were slaughtered;

➡ In 905, Ismail founded the Safavid Empire in Iran and made Shi’ism the official state religion. He mercilessly slaughtered all the Sunni scholars, and brought their legacy to   an end. In 1590, Shah Abbas, with the help of English, fought against the Ottomans in Austria and diverted all pilgrims from Makkkah to Mashad in Iran;

➡ In 1971, Iran refused to return the Arab Islands (Al-Kubra, Abu Musa, Tunub al-Tunub, Surra and Al-Sughra) after the British withdrew to the Arabs. Shah Ridha Pahlavi recognized Israel in 1948, and even annexed Bahrain as it’s 14th province in 1957. Bahrain only gained independence from the Shi’ahs in 1971. The Shi’ahs also showed the Zionists the way into the Sabra and Shatillaa refugee camps in 1984, which led to the merciless slaughter of 1000s of helpless refugees. After the 1979 Revolution by Khomeini, Shi’ism is being viciously propagated worldwide.

Enumerated below are a few more reasons why complete unity with the Shia will never be possible:

3. The Quran Shareef and Ahadeeth categorically state that from all different sects only one will be on the Haqq. The existence of numerous sects, the majority of which are deviant, is a predetermined fact: “And if your Lord [Allah] had so willed, He could have made mankind a single unified community, but they will not cease to dispute and differ; except those upon whom your Lord has bestowed His mercy. And for this did He create them, and the word of your Lord will be fulfilled: l will fill Hell with jinns and men altogether.” (Qur’an 11-118-119)

How then can the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah jeopardise their most precious commodity which is Imaan by uniting with such a deviant group.

4. It is not the system of Allah to unite the whole of humanity, Allah mentions in the Holy Quran: “If Allah had so wished, he would made you one nation, but He misguides whomsoever He wants and guides whosoever He wants. And you will be surely about your actions.” (Qur’an 16:93) Our salvation lies in purifying Islam by challenging and opposing these sects to try and correct incorrect and deviant beliefs.

5. The Shi’ah only call for unity in places where they are in the minority. They cleverly do this to gain credibility and acceptance of their kufr in the name of unity. In places where they are in the majority or have political clout, they slaughter the Muslims like in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.

6. Sects will never vanish: Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Verily this nation [of Muslims] will divide into seventy-three sects”, and in another narration: “All of them [these sects] will be in the Fire except one.’ When asked which it was, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam replied: “The one which adheres to my Sunnah (way of life) and the Sunnah of my Companions.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

7. It has been the established practice of this ummat to respect the acceptable schools (Madhahib) within it, and not to unite all of them. If this is the case with the Haqq, why should we unite with an open deviation (Shi’ism and its Fiqh Ja’fari) which is not even regarded as Truth, and nor is its Madhab based on the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Ijma of the Sahabah?

8. If Shi’ahs want unity, why don’t they clean up their corrupt beliefs regarding the imperfect nature of Allah, the Messengers, the divinity of their Imams, the Sahabah, the incomplete nature of the Qur’an, taqiyyah (holy hypocrisy) and other such beliefs. Why should Muslims unite with the Shi’ah and give up their salvation for them?

For the above reasons and many more, Sunnis can never unite with Shi’ahs. Curse be upon such unity which criminalizes the Sahabah, legalizes prostitution and declares the Qur’an as fabricated. Even if unity is forged, there will always be fear that it’s based on taqiyyah (holy hypocrisy). For such efforts, we offer Surah 109: “Say, “O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”


WHY I LEFT THE SHIAH RELIGION – A Former Shi’i Priests’ Testimony



Sayyid Husain Al-Musawi is not an unfamiliar name among the Shi’ahs. He was a great scholar of the Shi’ahs who was born in Karbala and studied in Hauzah until he got the title “mujtahid”. He also had a special position in the sight of Imam Ayatullah Khomeini.

After going through a long spiritual journey, he finally left Shi’ah, because he found so many deviations and errors in it. This article was excerpted from his book, ‘Why I Left Shi’ah (transl.)’, his responsibility for Allah and history before he was eventually murdered: The following is his testimony before he was killed by the Shiah priest:


“I was born in Karbala, growing up in an environment of Shi’ah people and was cared for by my father, who was a religious person. I studied in a number of schools in the city up until I reached early adolescence. And then my father sent me to Hauzah, sort of like an Islamic boarding school, in the city of Najaf. It was the main city of knowledge, the place of the famous scholars to study religious knowledge, such as Imam Sayyid Muhammad Ali Husain Kasyif Al-Ghita. He was a notable figure in the ‘City of Knowledge’. Since then, I started thinking seriously about the issue of knowledge. I studied the madzhab of Ahlul-Bait, but on the other hand I have found reproach and attacks against the Ahlul-Bait.

I learned about the issues of Shari’ah to worship Allah, but in it were nas (texts) which show kufr against Allah SWT. “O Allah, what am I studying? Is it possible that all this is the true madzhab of Ahlul-Bait?”

Indeed, this led to the splitting of a person’s personality. Because, how does he worship Allah while on the other hand he is kufr against Allah? How does he follow the sunnah of Rasulullah while on the other hand he attacks him? How can he be said following the Ahlul Bait, loving and studying their madzhab, while he insults and mocks him?

“Send down your mercy and love O Allah. If not because of Your mercy, I will surely be among those who go astray, in fact among those who lose.”

I again asked myself, “What is the attitude of the notable figures, the imams and those who are considered as ulama’s? What is their stance on this matter? Do they see what I see? Do they learn what I learn?”

I need someone to complain about all my confusion and pour out all my sadness to. I finally got the guidance and a good idea, i.e. to do a comprehensive study and re-assess all the subject materials that I had received. I read everything I got from the references, be it the mu’tabar or otherwise.

I read every book that got into my hands. I pondered to review some of the paragraphs and those nas and I commented based on the ideas that were in my brain.

When I finished reading the references that are mu’tabar, I got some paper, and then kept them, hopefully one day Allah will determine a decision for me.

I beg Allah for help in explaining this truth. There would be a lot of accusation, fitnah and murder attempts that would be met if one exposes the deviations of Shi’ah, but I had already considered all those, and they did not prevent me from doing it.

The people of Shi’ah have killed the father of our leaders, namely Ayatullah Uzhma Imam Sayyid Abul Hasan Al-Ashfani, the greatest imam of the Shi’ah after the disappearance of the imams until today. There is no doubt that he was a great figure of Shi’ah, however, when he was about to straighten out the manhaj of Shi’ah and cleanse the superstitions that are present in it, they slaughtered him like how they slaughter a goat. Just as they also have assassinated Sayyid Ahmad Al-Kasrawi when he declared himself free of the deviations of Shi’ah and wanted to straighten out the manhaj of Shi’ah, they chopped off the body of Sayyid Ahmad into several parts.

There are still many people who suffered the same fate due to their courage in opposing the baatil aqeedah incuded into the madzhab of Shi’ah. And they also want me to suffer the same fate. But it does not frighten me. Suffice it for me to deliver the truth, advise my brothers, give warnings to them and turn away from misguidance.

If I want the pleasure of the world, the mut’ah (contract marriage) and khumus (a fifth of the property given by the followers of Shi’ah) have been enough to achieve all those, as done by others other than my-self who have become rich in each of their area. Some of them ride the most expensive cars of the latest model. But alhamdulillah, I turned away from those since I recognize the truth.

Seeing The Ahlus-sunnah As Najis (Unclean)

The most widespread belief among us, the followers of Shi’ah is the prioritization on the Ahlul Bait. In the madzhab of Shi’ah, everything is based on the love for the Ahlul Bait. To disown themselves from the laymen, namely the Ahlus-Sunnah, to disown themselves from the three khalifahs and Aishah binti Abu Bakar for their attitude against the Ahlul Bait.

What’s rooted in the mind of every Shi’ah, be it the young or the old, the clever or the ignorant, the male or the female, is that the Sahabahs had done injustices against the Ahlul Bait, shed their blood and made halal their honor. The belief instilled by the ulama’s and mujtahid of Shi’ah is that their biggest enemy is the Ahlus Sunnah. This is because the Sunni people are considered najis in the sight of the Shi’ahs, to the extent that even if they cleanse themselves a thousand times, the najis will not vanish.

Almost all the books of Shi’ahs that I studied are full of rough language and are beyond common sense. Various insults, aspersion and dirty words are scattered in every book. In fact, often times, what’s expressed do not have sound logic. Please read Al-Kafi, Nahjul Balaghah, Al-Ihtijaj and Rijal Kishi.

If we want to explore every-thing that is said about Ahlul Bait, the discussion will be extended, because no one among them is free from the dirty words, foul sentences or contemptible accusations. Many despicable deeds have been attributed to them.

Read this riwaayah, “Rasulullah did not sleep until he kissed the front part of Fatimah’s face,” [Bihar Al-Anwar, 43/44].

“Rasulullah kept his face on both breasts of Fatimah,”  [Bihar Al-Anwar 43/78].

A very heinous blasphemy, how could Rasulullah, the noble, do all those illogical things.


Nikah Mut’ah 

Nikah mut’ah has been practiced in the ugliest forms. The women have been humiliated in the worst forms of humiliation. Most of them (Shi’ahs) fulfill their lusts in the name of religion behind the curtain that is called mut’ah.

They have brought riwaayahs (narratons) that give motivations to practise mut’ah, setting and detailing its rewards, as well as punishments on those who do not do it. In fact those who do not practice mut’ah are considered kaafir. As-Saduq narrated from As-Sadiq that he said, “Indeed, mut’ah is my religion and the religion of my father. Whoever denies it, it means he is denying our religion and having the aqeedah of a religion other than our religion,” [Man La Yahdhuruhu Al-Faqih, 3/366]. This is the declaration of kufr on those who reject mut’ah.

To strengthen further this mut’ah, the name of Rasulullah was even fabricated, such as written in “Man La Yahdhuruhu Al Faqih”, 3/366, “Whoever does mut’ah with a woman, he will be safe from the wrath of Allah, the Compeller. Whoever does mut’ah two times, he shall be gathered together with the people of goodness. Whoever does mut’ah three times, he will be side by side with me in paradise.”

It is the spirit of these words that drives the ulama of the city of knowledge, Najaf, the dominion of the imams, to do mut’ah with many women. Such as the ulama’ Sayyid Shadr, Barwajardi, Syairazi, Qazwani, Sayyid Madani and many others.

Check out this riwaayah. From Sayyid Fathullah Al Kashani, he narrated in Tafsir Manhaj As-Sadiqin, (fabricating) the Prophet, verily he said, “Whoever does mut’ah once, his status is like Husain AS; one who does it two times, his status is like Hasan AS; the one who does it three times, his status is the same as Ali Bin Abu Talib; and whoever does mut’ah four times, his status is the same as my status.” 

Indeed, it does not make sense. Say there was an evil man doing mut’ah once, his status is the same as Husain AS; and then mut’ah twice, his status goes up again. That easy?? Are the status of Rasulullah SAW and the imams that low?? Even if the person doing mut’ah has attained a high status of imaan, is his status the same as the status of Husain, his brother, his father and his grandfather?

(Mut’ah in practice is sanctified fornication/adultery. It is to hire a woman for sexual gratification in lieu of the payment of a sum of money. In other words, it is holy prostitution – The Majlis)

Khomeini Has Mut’ah With A Small Child  

When Imam Khomeini stayed in Iraq, I went back and forth to visit him. I studied under him, thus the  relationship between myself and him became very close. At one time, he agreed to go to a city in the framework of fulfilling an invitation, namely the city that is located on the western part of Mosul, that could be reached in about half an hour by car.

Imam Khomeini asked me to go along with him. We were received and honoured with an extraordinary honour during our stay with one of the Shi’ah families who lived there. He had pledged allegiance to propagate the creed of Shi’ah in that region.

When the visit ended and on our way home, on the road, on our return, we passed through Baghdad and Imam Khomeini wished to rest from the tiring journey. Then he instructed that we head to a resort area where there lived a man from Iran named Sayyid Sahib. There was a pretty strong friendship between him and Imam. Sayyid Sahib asked us to stay overnight at his place that night and Imam Khomeini agreed.

When the time of Isha’ came, dinner for us was served. The people who attended kissed Imam’s hand and asked him questions regarding a number of issues and Imam answered them.

When it was time to sleep and the people had already gone home, Imam Khomeini saw a little girl, her age was around 5 years old but she was very beautiful. Imam requested from her father, i.e. Sayyid Sahib, to present the girl to him so that he could do mut’ah with her. So the father agreed to it, feeling very pleased. So Imam Khomeini slept and the girl was in his embrace, while we heard the cries and screams of the child.

The night passed by. When the morning came, we sat down and had breakfast. The Imam looked at me and noticed very obvious signs of unpleasantness and disagreement in my face, because how could he do mut’ah with a little girl, whereas in the house there were girls who are already baligh (adolescent)?

Imam Khomaini asked me, “Sayyid Husain, what is your opinion about doing mut’ah with a small child?” I said to him, “The most supreme words are your words, what’s true is your acts, and you are a mujtahid imam. It is not possible for me to opine or say unless it is in accordance with your opinion and words. It needs to be understood that it is not possible for me to oppose your fatwa.”

Then he said, “Sayyid Husain, indeed the ruling of having mut’ah with a small child is permissible but only with fondling, kisses and squeezing with the thighs. As for the sexual intercourse, indeed she is not strong enough to do it.” See also the book of Imam Khomeini titled “Tahrir Al Wasilah”, 2/241, number 12, which allows mut’ah with babies that are still suckling.

Mut’ah with Married Women

So obvious, the damages caused by mut’ah are very huge and complex such as:

First, it’s violating against the nass of the Shari’ah, for making halaal what is made haraam by Allah.

Second, the fake riwaayahs that are diverse and their attribution to the imams, whereas therein contains vituperations which would revulse a person who has even an atom of imaan in his heart.

Third, the damage inflicted by allowing mut’ah with a woman who already has a husband. In these circumstances a husband will not feel safe with his wife because of the possibility that later his wife will have nikah mut’ah with another man. This is damage upon damage! Nobody can imagine how the feelings of a husband who finds out that the wife who is under his care has mut’ah with another man.

Fourth, the fathers also feel insecure  about their daughters, because it is possible that their daughters would do mut’ah without his permission, and then suddenly get pregnant with God knows who.

Fifth, most people who do mut’ah allow themselves to do nikah mut’ah but will object if their daughters are wedded by means of mut’ah. They are aware that this mut’ah is similar to zina (fornication) and is an aib (shame) for them, but they themselves are doing it with other people’s daughters. Supposing nikah mut’ah is something that is allowed by Shari’ah, why do most fathers feel disinclined to allow their daughters or relatives to have nikah mut’ah?

Sixth, in the mut’ah marriage, there is no witness, announcement, and consent of the female’s guardian, and the spousal inheritance law does not apply, but she is just a contracted ‘wife’. The permissibility of mut’ah opens opportunities for young adults to drown in a puddle of sin that corrupts the image of religion.

So the danger of mut’ah is very clear from the standpoint of religious, moral and social life. Thus mut’ah is haraam as it is a conglomeration of moral, spiritual and physical dangers.

The claim (i.e the claim of the Shiahs) that the prohibition of mut’ah only applied specifically on the day of Khaibar, is a claim that is not based on daleel (proof of the Shariah). Besides that, if the prohibition only applied on the day of Khaibar, there must have been an affirmation from Rasulullah. The meaning of the words that mut’ah marriage was forbidden on the day of Khaibar is that, its prohibition commenced on the day of Khaibar and will be in force until the Judgment Day. As for the words of our ulama (ulama of Shi’ah), they are a ridicule of the nass of the Shari’ah.

Numerous people who indulge in mut’ah mix up the children and mothers, the women and their brothers, fathers…. and other chaos.

A woman came to me asking about the incident that befell her. She  said that she had indulged in nikah mut’ah with an influential personality of the ulama fraternity, Sayyid Husain Sadr, twenty years ago, and she got pregnant. After having enough, he divorced her. She swore that she was pregnant from the relationship with Sayyid Sadr, because no one else did mut’ah with her except Sayyid Sadr. After her beautiful daughter became an adult, and was ready for marriage, her mother discovered that the daughter was pregnant. When enquired about it, she said that she had had nikah mut’ah with Sayyid Sadr and her pregnancy was because of that nikah mut’ah. The mother was shocked and lost control and said that Sayyid Sadr is her father. And then the mother told the story to her daughter, his flesh and blood! In Iran, such incidents are innumerable and perennially happening countless times!

Let us refer to the words of Allah  Ta’ala, “But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty….” [Surah An-Noor:33].

Whoever is not able to marry in a shar’i way because of the lack of provision, let him guard his chastity until Allah gives rizq (sustenance) to him so that he is able to marry. Supposing mut’ah is made halaal, surely Allah would not have commanded to guard the chastity and wait until the time comes that the affairs of marriage are eased for him.

It has been equally known that Islam came to command virtuous deeds and forbid immoral deeds. Islam came to actualize the welfare of the Allah’s slaves so that their way of life is well-regulated. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted anymore  that mut’ah will disturb life. Mut’ah entails incalculable damages.

Indeed, the outbreak of the practices of mut’ah will plunge the ummah into the lending of the private parts. The lending of the private parts means a man will give his wife or mother to other men. (In fact, this is precisely what is happening in Shiah society – The Majlis)

It is very unfortunate, the fatwas about the lending of the private parts are promoted a lot by the ulama of the Shi’ah, such as As-Sistani, Sayyid Sadr, Ash-Shairazi, Ath-Thabathabai and Al-Barwajardi. Most of them allow their guests to borrow their wives if the guests are interested and will be lent during the guests’ stay.

It is our duty to warn the general public about this indecent practice, so that they will not accept the fatwas of the personages which allow this immoral and indecent practice.

The matter does not just stop here. It even allows sodomy with the women. They narrated a few riwaayahs and ascribe them to the imams.

Concerning Khumus

Indeed khumus, one-fifth of the property that comes from their livelihood which must be paid by the Shi’ahs, is something that is being exploited in a manner that is very ugly by the fiqh experts and mujtahids. It becomes the main livelihood and revenues of the personages and mujtahids in a very large amount, whereas the nass of the Shari’ah shows that the general public of the Shi’ahs is exempted from the obligation of paying one-fifth of the property.

The ruling on paying khumus is just mubah (permissible). It is not obligatory upon everyone to pay it. They are allowed to use this wealth just as they are allowed to use their own wealth or incomes.

There has been a competition among the Sayyids and the mujtahids in obtaining khumus. Therefore, they try to lower the percentage of the khumus taken from the possessions of the people with the objective that the people would come in droves to deposit their khumus by them. So among them, there are those who are practising Satan’s ways.

Imam Khomeini has amassed enormous wealth from this khumus. While in Iraq, he had amassed such a huge fortune of wealth that enabled him to live in France. His wealth was in the form of Iraqi Dinars, and American Dollars which were deposited in the banks in Paris accruing very high interests.

On top of that, lineage is something that can be sold and bought. Whoever wants an honorable lineage that is associated to the Ahlul Bait, there is no other way but to approach his sister or wife to come to the Sayyids for nikah mut’ah with them or he pays a sum of money for the acquisition of an honorable lineage. This practice   is not unfamiliar in the city of knowledge.

I remember my honourable friend, Ahmad As-Safi An-Najafi. I knew him after I had obtained the title of mujtahid and we became very good friends despite the big difference in age. He said to me, “My son, Hussain, you shall not dirty yourself with khumus, because it is a haraam possession.” We engaged in an intensive discussion until I was   convinced that khumus is   haraam.

Other Holy Scriptures

But the gravest of all in the deviations of the Shi’ahs is the presence of other holy scriptures besides Al-Qur’an and that they say that the Qur’an is fake. When reading and examining our references that are mu’tabar (reliable), I found the names of other books claimed by our ulama as being revealed to Rasulullah  (S.A.W) and that those books were specially dedicated to Ali R.A. Those books are Al-Jami’ah, Sahifah An-Namus, Sahifah Al-Abithah, Sahifah Dzuabah As-Saif, Sahifah Ali, Al-Jufr, Mushaf Fatimah.

Regarding the Mushaf Fatimah, from Ali bin Said and Abu Abdullah A.S (Ja’afar As- Sadiq), he said, “We possess the mushaf Fatimah. It contains the verses of the Kitabullah. It was revealed to Rasulullah and his family and was written personally by Ali with his hand.” [Bihar Al Anwar, 26/48].

If the book was dictated by Rasulullah and written by Ali, why did he hide it from his ummah? Allah SWT says, “O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord., and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message….”   [Surah Al-Maidah: 67].

Regarding the Qur’an, our ulama and mujtahids agreed that the Qur’an is the only book that has changed among the books that are recognized by the Shi’ahs. Al-Muhaddith An-Nuri Ath-Thibrisi has compiled all the evidences and proofs of the occurrence of wide-scale alterations in the Qur’an in his book which he named “The Determiner In Establishing The Occurrence Of Alterations In The Book Of God of All Gods” (Faslu al-khithab fi Ittisbati Tahrif Kitabi Rabbi Al-Arbab).

In his book, he has compiled a thousand riwaayahs which stated that there has occurred alterations. He compiled the words of the fiqh experts and the ulama of the Shi’ah who openly stated that the Qur’an that is in the hands of mankind today has been changed from the original. The true Qur’an is the Qur’an that was with Ali and the imams. After them, it will be with Al-Qaim (Imaam Mahdi).

Due to that, at the time of death, Imam Al-Khaui in his testament to us, his students and cadres in Hauzah said, “Hold tight to this Al-Qur’an until the appearance of the Qur’an Fatimah.”

Indeed, the most bizarre and surprising thing is that, all of these supposed books had been revealed from Allah to Imam Ali and the imams after him but they are all hidden from the ummah. If Imam Ali really had those books, what is he hiding them for?

After wandering in bewilderment in a very tedious and painful journey, what should I do? Do I have to remain in the position and office the way it is today, and dredge away the abundant treasures from the simple-minded people who do not know anything in the name of khumus and contributions in the festivals and then ride in a luxury car and practice nikah mut’ah with beautiful women? Or do I have to leave this pleasure, abstain from the haraam deeds and blast out the truth because one who is silent from the truth is a mute Satan (according to Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

I know that Abdullah bin Saba’ is a Jew who founded the Shi’ah Madzhab and the sects in Islam. He instilled enmity and hatred amongst them after they were earlier bound by love and Imaan which united their hearts.

“They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.” [Surah Al-Baqarah:9]

The Testimony Of The Author Before He Was Killed

After I published my book, Why I left the Shiah, for the Pleasure of Allah and for posterity, a fatwa was issued from the city of knowledge declaring me a kaafir, and the retraction of all my academic titles. All the punishments of the murtad people are imposed on me, and it is forbidden for the Shi’ahs to read my book.

12 Reasons to Leave Shi’ism

By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

The dangers of Shiasm are innumerable because of the problems in the foundations of it. It boils down to the simple fact that Shiasm is not from Allāh Ta’ala. Hereunder is a list of some of the most significant problems with Shiasm. We hope that every sincere Muslim and Shia will ponder deeply over these reasons. May Allāh guide all those that read it to the truth of Islām. Amīn

1. A pure focus on Allāh Ta’ala

2. Access to the Hadīth of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam

3. Acceptance of the Sahābah Radiallahu Anhum

4. Access to the real teachings of Ahl ul Bayt

5. Uniformity in the teachings of Ahl ul Bayt

6. A taqiyyah-free Ahl ul Bayt

7. Access to the context of Qur’ānic verses

8. Reliable books of Tafsīr

9. Access to the Sīrah

10. Trust in the Hadīth compilers

11. A Karbala narrative that makes sense

12. Disbelief in a twelfth Imām that has been hidden for over a thousand years

1- A Pure Focus on Allāh Ta’ala

One of the main reasons for the conversion of ex-Shias to Sunnism is the focus on Allāh Ta’ala. As many are aware, the main focus in Shiasm is not the Creator, but rather, the creation. Even though Sunnīs venerate Ahl ul Bayt deeply, they do not make them the focus of their religion. This can be observed in their practices, lectures, and in their daily spoken language.

Shias, sadly, do not enjoy the same focus on Allah Ta’ala. This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahl ul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allāh Ta’ala. This is not encouraged in the Qur’ān, for we know that Allāh Ta’ala said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

2- Access to the Hadīth of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam  

Most people are aware that Sunnīs build their faith on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. However, what most Shias are not aware of is the fact that there are not enough prophetic narrations in the Shia Hadīth corpus for them to build their sect upon, so the same cannot be said for them.

For Ahādīth, the Sunnīs have a variety of sources that they can refer to. Off the top of my head, Sunnīs can easily find prophetic narrations in the Sahīhayn, the four Sunan, Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mālik, Al-Tabarani’s three Ma’ajim, Sunan Al-Daraqutnī, Sunan Al-Dārimī, Sahīh Ibn Hibbān, Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah, Musnad Al-Bazzār, Musnad Abū Ya’la, as well as the Masaneed that have been preserved through Ibn Hajar’s Al-Matalib Al-Aliya.

Shias, on the other hand, do not have a book that collects Ahādīth. When the odd narration from Rasūlullāh  himself is found in a book like Al-Kāfī, or another one of the four books, it is weak or fabricated due to the anonymity of a narrator most of the time.

It should not be a surprise that the Shias do not have a large number of reliable Ahaadith from Rasūlullāh Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, since they reject the majority of the companions of Rasūlullāh Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam as reliable narrators. This leads us to our next point.

3- Acceptance of the Sahābah Radiallahu Anhum

Even though this may seem trivial to average Shias, it is clearly a matter of great significance as we can see from the previous point. The rejecting of the Sahābah Radiallahu Anhum ultimately leads to rejecting the vast majority of the Ahādīth.

Shias may attempt to cling at straws by suggesting that the Sunnī prophetic tradition is actually the result of Umayyad Hadīth factories. This theory is based upon a lack of an objective reading of the Sunnī texts, since the majority of the Sunnī Hadīth collections do not contain anything pro-Umayyad. On the other hand, the narrations about the merits of Sayyidunā ‘Alī Radiallahu Anhu and the rest of Ahl ul Bayt are plenty in number in the Sunnī books. More importantly, the vast majority of the Sunnī traditions revolve around neutral practices and wisdoms from Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. By neutral, we mean non-controversial.

Acceptance of the Sahābah Radiallahu Anhum also leads to access to a plethora of their personal opinions in rulings and practices, as well as Qur’ānic interpretation. Access to the opinions of first generation of Muslims provides Sunnīs with a better understanding of religious matters that have some vagueness due to language and historical context.

4- Access to the Real Teachings of Ahl ul Bayt

The very suggestion may come as a shocker to most Shias. However, Sunnīs do claim that they are the preservers of the teachings of Ahl ul Bayt as well. In brief, there is no doubt that both Sunnī and Shias are selective with what they narrate. The most obvious example of this is that Ahl ul Bayt are on good terms with the companions in Sunnī narrations. In Shia narrations, we find that they are foes. At times, the Shia Imāms are found cursing the three Khulafā’ and other companions as bitter enemies.

One may ask: How do you know that it was the Sunnīs that were successful in recording the teachings of Ahl ul Bayt?

First of all, we would like to make Shias aware that matters are not as simple as a Sunnī and Shia version of Ahl ul Bayt. Rather, we are dealing with the narrators that represent each sect. The Shia narrators from Ahl ul Bayt are from the city of Kufa like Zurarah, Abū Al-Basīr, and Muhammad Ibn Muslim. These are three of the top narrators who have attributed thousands of narrations to the Ahl ul Bayt. Sunnīs do not consider them to be reliable. Ironically, by looking into the earliest book of biographies (both Sunnī and Shia), one can find some of the Imāms cursing some of these men.

Another critical issue with the Shia version of Ahl ul Bayt is the sheer number of contradictions that have been attributed to the Imāms, which leads us to our next point.

5- Uniformity in the Teachings of Ahl ul Bayt

It will come as no surprise to Shias that are well-read that the early Shia books of Hadīth are riddled with contradictions. Not only do the Twelve Imāms contradict each other in almost every chapter of fiqh, but these contradictions can be found attributed to the Imām himself. Al-Tūsī alone has collected four volumes of contradictions in his book Al-Istibsār. Sunnis, on the other hand, have uniformity in their narrations from Ahl ul Bayt.

The main reason that Shias give for the massive amount of contradictions that can be found in their works is due to the taqiyyah of the Imams, which leads us to our next point.

6- A Taqiyyah-free Ahl ul Bayt

Not only is the true version of Ahl ul Bayt taqiyyah-free in Sunnī books when it comes to their political actions and motives, but they are taqiyyah-free in their religious rulings as well.

Due to this, you will not find them providing false religious rulings in order to preserve their own lives or well-being. No, the Sunnī Ahl ul Bayt do not compromise, nor do they let politics get in their way of teaching the religion.

7- Access to the Context of Qur’ānic Verses

Shias are mostly unaware that specific issues in Qur’ānic sciences (i.e. Chapters being Makkī/Madanī, abrogate in rulings, recitations, etc) are unique to the Sunnīs. These opinions can mostly be traced to the first century of Sunnī scholarship. Ibn Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu) and his students played a major role in providing us with this wealth of information regarding context.

If Shias have any doubts in regards to this, then we suggest picking up a copy of Al-Tūsī or Al-Tabrasī’s exegesis of the Qur’ān in order for them to see the reliance of these top Shia scholars on early Sunnī works. The same is applied to Ibn Mutawwaj’s Al-Nāsikh wal Mansūkh.

The same can be said about the actual reasons for revelation (Asbāb Al-Nuzūl) since no Shia classical works on the topic exist today.

8- Reliable Books of Tafsīr

Tafsīr Al-Ayyāshī and Tafsīr Al-Qummī are two books of tafsīr that moderate Shias are not proud of. This is because these books are filled with opinions from the authors, supported by narrations from the Imāms, that the Qur’ān has been tampered with. We are very aware that moderate Shias do not accept such beliefs, which explains why they are not fond of these works in the first place.

Sunnīs, on the other hand, are proud of their early books of tafsīr. Tafsīr Abdur Razzāq and Tafsīr Ibn Abī Hātim are works in which the authors’ primary focus was to provide readers with the earliest explanations given by Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and the early generations.

9- Access to the Sīrah

The average Shia is not aware that Shias do not have classical sīrah books. Modern Shia sīrah books are based upon the works of classical Sunnī sīrah works. This should not come as a surprise since specialization in sīrah came from the middle of the second century. Examples include the works of Ibn Ishāq, which has been preserved through Ibn Hishām, and Musa bin Uqbah, which has been preserved by Al-Bayhaqī and others.

It is due to the lack of content about Rasūlullāh (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that contemporary Shia scholars don’t attempt to piece together a complete sīrah from Shia sources.

To summarize this point, by becoming a Sunni, you can actually have a complete idea of the life of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam for it definitely included more than events like Al-Ghadīr, Al-Mubahala, and other events that revolved around Ahl ul Bayt.

10- Trust in the Hadīth Compilers

Perhaps one of the most overlooked differences between the sects is that Sunnīs have the luxury of having complete trust in their own Hadīth compilers. It is important to be aware the trust is not blind. Rather, the trust exists for two reasons: 1) The abundance of sources and the 2) sufficient amount of biographical data about compilers.

The abundance of sources ensures the reliability of the compilers. For example, there is not a single narration that can be found in Sahīh Al-Bukhārī or Sahīh Muslim that cannot be found in another book of Hadīth. This is thanks to the abundance of the sources.

The same cannot be said about Shia books, for Al-Kulaynī and Al-Sadūq, for instance, are the sole narrators of hundreds, if not thousands of narrations.

The amount of biographical data is self-explanatory. One does not need to look far in order to find a wealth of information about the lives of Al-Bukhārī and Muslim, while one would struggle to find more than a paragraph about the lives of the top Shia Hadīth scholars like Al-Kulaynī and Al-Sadūq.

11- A Karbala Narrative that Makes Sense

An ex-Shia brother said to me after reading some of our articles on Karbala that the exaggerated fabrications about the events of Karbala were the first things that gave him doubts about Shiasm.

If you never quite bought the idea that Abū Al-Fadl Al-Abbās defeated over a hundred men after losing an arm in battle, then the Sunnī narrative is for you. If you simply cannot accept that Muslim Ibn Aqīl defeated 1,500 men single-handedly, then the Sunnī narrative is for you. If you cannot stomach the idea that Al-Husayn Radiallahu Anhu willingly took his relatives, his infant son, and the children of ‘Abdullāh bin Ja’far, to be knowingly slaughtered, then the Sunnī version is for you.

12- Disbelief in a Twelfth Imām that has been hidden for over a Thousand Years

If most Shias in the fourth century, according to Al-Sadūq in the introduction of his Ikmāl Al-Dīn, were having doubts about the Twelfth Hidden Imām, due to his ‘lengthy’ absence, then how is it possible that this is not an issue today after over a thousand years without this alleged hidden Imām?

It is suggested by Shias that Allāh Ta’ala would never leave the world without a hujjah. However, this hujjah has been out of action for so long that his existence in occultation simply does not have an effect on the world.

Deep down, all religious Shias have these doubts and this is their chance to accept what they have always felt.

Our final request to you, our friends, is to refer to the top of the article.

Look at this list closely.

Can you really say that you are truly content knowing that you are missing out on all of this? Are you really satisfied being upon something that is not the Islm that was revealed by Allāh Ta’ala upon His final Messenger?

If you are, then we sincerely wish you guidance.

If not, then we extend our hand to you.



By Mujlisul Ulama



In the Shiah religion there is a belief of extreme repugnance, the kufr of which is worse than the combined kufr doctrines and kufr practices of the Shiahs. That doctrine of scandalous kufr is termed by Shiahs as BADA. This means the commission of error by Allah Azza Wa Jal – Nauthibillaah!

Understand well that the belief of Bada is unlike the concept of Naskh (Abrogation). When Allah Ta’ala cancels a command or substitutes it with another order, this is called Naskh which is perfectly valid. A law may be applicable for a certain time due to certain circumstances. When the situation has changed, Allah Ta’ala amends the law or abrogates it or substitutes it with another order. This is called Naskh. Read: Elaboration of Naskh (Abrogation) – Its Terms & Conditions

We mention this fact here because Shiahs compare their satanic Bada belief with Islam’s concept of Naskh. The attempt to justify their kufr filth with this analogy is to hoodwink and mislead the ignoramuses in our community. There is absolutely no resemblance between Naskh and Shiah Bada Kufr.

Bada is the attribution of a real error / mistake which the Shiah kuffaar predicate with Allah Azza Wa Jal. They believe that Allah Ta’ala has erred (Nauthubillaah!) in a certain issue.

The Shiahs saw the need to  fabricate this rotten, stinking belief to sustain their doctrine of the infallibility of their imaams whom they believe to be sinless and infallible. In other words, whilst they divest Allah Azza Wa Jal of the attribute of Infallibility, they bestow this attribute to their imaams. The satanism of this corrupt doctrine is glaringly conspicuous.

Another factor which constrained the Shiahs to disgorge the rotten Bada belief, was Allah’s praises and expression of pleasure for the Sahaabah mentioned in the Qur’aan Shareef. This declaration of Allah Ta’ala is in diametric conflict with the Shiah belief of the irtidaad of the Sahaabah. According to Shiah kufr mythology almost all the Sahaabah reneged from Islam thereby becoming murtaddeen  after the demise of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Explaining the praise and pleasure for the Sahaabah mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed, the Shiahs say that Allah Ta’ala had committed Bada (error) – Nauthibillah! 

Allah Ta’ala according to the Shiah shayaateen was not aware that the Sahaabah would become murtad, hence He praised them and promised them Jannat.

According to Shiah belief, every imaam of Shi’ism is directly appointed by Allah Ta’ala in the same way as He appointed the Ambiyaa (Alayhimus salaam). On the basis of this corrupt fabrication, the Shiahs narrated that their Imaam Ja’far Saadiq had informed that after his death, his son, Ismaaeel would be the Imaam. However, during the lifetime of Imaam Ja’far, his son Ismaaeel died. This was an impossible conundrum for the Shiahs. For providing some ludicrously ‘plausible’ explanation for this development, the Shiahs said that Allah Ta’ala had committed Bada, i.e., He was not aware that Ismaaeel would predecease his father Imaam Ja’far. He had therefore erroneously revealed to Imaam Ja’far that he would be succeeded by his son Ismaaeel as the next Imaam. Since this did not happen, Shiahs aver that Allah Ta’ala had erred by having informed Imaam Ja’far that his son would be the next Imaam. Nauthibillaah! This satanic episode of Bada is explicitly stated in the Shiah book of theology,Firqush Shiah.

In the Shiah book, Usool-e-Kaafi, it is recorded:

“It is narrated from Ar-Rayyan Bin ???? that he heard Ar-Ridha – alayhis salaam (the eighth Shiah Imaam, Ali Bin Musa Ridha) saying‘Allah had never  sent a Nabi but to  prohibit liquor and to acknowledge bada for Allah.”

In all Shiah books of mythology of the highest status, the belief of Bada is recorded. They are unable to conceal and deny it even by employment of their satanic belief of Taqiyah (Holy Hypocrisy). A more repugnant belief than this doctrine saturated with satanism cannot be imagined. Only brains utterly convoluted and satanized by divinely cast Rijs (Filth) are capable of fabricating such satanism as the Shiah belief of Bada. Regarding brains which hallucinate such vile and ludicrous beliefs which demote Allah Ta’ala to the level of created beings, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“And He (Allah) casts Rijs (Filth) on those who lack aql (intelligence).”

It is this divinely cast Rijs which has vermiculated and deranged the brains of Shiahs. They can therefore not realize the notoriety of their utterance and belief of Bada for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

One of the greatest and worse curses which has befallen the Muslim community of South Africa is the shaitaani trap in the form of the Shiah Temple in Cape Town. This Temple of Iblees is being presented as a musjid to deceive the ignorant masses. The objective of the Temple of Iblees is to promote the Shiah religion which pivots on HATRED FOR THE SAHAABAH.


Answering Al-Tijani’s Allegations against Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

It is taken for granted that Mu’awiyah bin Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu), was among the most prominent who fought Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu), about the murder of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu). Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) represented the leadership of the opposing party against Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) at the battle of Siffeen. Therefore, Al-Tijani had nothing more than pouring his anger on Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and accusing him of oppression and aberration. I will represent Al-Tijani’s libels against this companion and I will refute these allegations against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) to defend the writer of the revelation whom the Prophet ﷺ: “O’ Allah, make him guided, a guider, and guide people through him.” [Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Book of “Virtues,” Chapter of “Virtues of Mu’awiyah,” #3842, see also Saheeh Al-Tirmidhi #3018]

Al-Tijani says: “Umar bin al-Khattab, who was well known for his strictness towards his governors whom used to dismiss them on mere suspicions, was quite gentle towards Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan and never disciplined him. Mu’awiyah was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed by Umar throughout his life, who never even rebuked him or blamed him, despite the fact that many people complained about Mu’awiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these complaints by saying, “Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the Arabs.” Mu’awiyah continued in the governship for more than twenty years without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which enabled him to amass great wealth from the Islamic nation and to raise armies to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently take the full power by force and intimidation. Thus he became the sole ruler of all Muslims, and later forced them to vote for his corrupt and alcohol drinking son Yazeed, as his heir and successor. This is a long story so I will not go into its details in this book.” [“Then I was Guided” p.93-94]


1. It seems that Al-Tijani, in his representations, cannot forsake some of his prominent characteristics that he enjoys; ignorance is one of these characteristics! Al-Tijani claims that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) gave the governship of Al-Sham to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) confirmed it all of his life! It is widely known for anyone who read the biography of the four caliphs that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) gave the governship of Al-Sham to Yazeed bin Abi Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu), and at the caliphate of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazeed (radhiyallahu anhu, not to be confused with Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah) was still the governor of Al-Sham and Umar confirmed him. When Yazeed (radhiyallahu anhu) died, Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gave Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazeed’s brother, the governship of Al-Sham.

2) What does prove that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was lenient with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and never put Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) accountable for anything? And from where does Al-Tijani get his allegations? Are not there any references he can guide us to? Otherwise, I would tell him as the poet said: If you did not prove your claims, then the owner of these claims is a claimant! But the fact is contrary to that. Ibn Al-Katheer says in Al-Bidayah: (Once, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) entered upon Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was wearing a green garment. The Companions looked at this garment. When Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw that, he jumped to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) with a stick beating him. It made Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) saying: “O’ Commander of the faithful! Fear Allah for my sake!” Then Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) returned to his sitting. The people asked Umar (radhiyallahu anhu): “Why did you beat him O’ Commander of the Faithful? And there is no one like him among your people?” He answered: “By Allah, I saw nothing but goodness from him, and I was told nothing about him but goodness. If I was told something other than that, then you would see something different to you (Mu’awiyah), but I saw him – he pointed by his hand – and wanted to put down what has gone up in himself.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8 p.128]

Al-Tijani says: Despite the fact that many people complained about Mu’awiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these complaints by saying, “Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the Arabs.”


a. Reality and history belie Tijani’s saying that many people complained about Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ruled Al-Sham for forty years, and his relationship with Al-Sham’s people was a relationship of love and loyalty to a degree that the people of Al-Sham agreed strongly with him when Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted to avenge Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s murder.

b. I please the author to direct us to the reference he got the lie that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was the Kisra of the Arabs when Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) knew that Mu’awiyah wore gold and silk! It is so strange that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) beats Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) just because he wore a lawful green garment, but says nothing when Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wears the forbidden gold and silk?

c. The story about Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is the one that is narrated by Ibn Abi al-Dunya from Abi Abdulrahman Al-Madani who says: (If Umar bin Al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) sees Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) he used to say: “This is the Kisra of the Arabs.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah vol.8 p.128]

Then Al-Tijani says: “Mu’awiyah continued in the governship for more than twenty years without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which enabled him to amass great wealth from the Islamic nation,”


a. Giving the governship of Al-Sham to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is not considered a slander against Umar or Uthman (radhiyallahu anhum). It is proven that the Prophet ﷺ gave the governship of Najran to his father, Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu) until the Prophet ﷺ left this world. Even more, a lot of the Prophet’s ﷺ governors were from the Ummayads:

“The Prophet ﷺ gave the governship of Makkah to Attab bin Asyad bin Abi Al-A’as bin Ummayyah (radhiyallahu anhu), gave the governship of San’a’a of Yemen to Khalid bin Sa’eed bin Al-A’as (radhiyallahu anhu) in addition to take care of Mudh’haj charities, and Khalid was the governor until the Prophet ﷺ  passed away. The Prophet ﷺ gave the governship of Tayma’a, Khaybar, and Qura Areenah to Amr bin Al-A’as (radhiyallahu anhu), and gave the governship of Al-Bahrain, land and sea, to Aban bin Sa’eed bin Al-A’as (radhiyallahu anhu) when the Prophet ﷺ dismissed Al-Ala’a bin al-Hadrami. Aban (radhiyallahu anhu) ruled Al-Bahrain until the Prophet ﷺ passed away, and before that the Prophet ﷺ sent him as a commander on some detachments, including a detachment to Najd” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4 p.460]

b. When Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) took the governship of Al-Sham, his policy with his people was one of the best policies. His people loved him, and he loved them too: (Qubaysah bin Jabber said: “I never saw a person greater in clemency, more intelligent, far in patience, good in easy sayings, more known to do good deeds than Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Some said: “A man said to Mu’awiyah very bad words, then it was said to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) to punish him. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) answered: “I am ashamed from Allah that my patience would not include the bad deeds of my people.” In another version, a man said to him: “O’ Commander of the faithful! What a patience you have!” Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) answered: “I am ashamed to see the crime of any one of you greater than my patience.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8 p.138]

Therefore, his people supported him when Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted to take Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s revenge. They gave him allegiance on that and promised him that they will spend their lives and money for the cause of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu), take Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s revenge, or Allah take their souls before that. [Ibid. p.131]

c. It is one of the biggest lies Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) stole the Islamic nation, raised armies to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently took the full power by force and intimidation. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not want to rule, nor refused the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu), but Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) requested from Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was to give in Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s murderers, and only after that he would obey him Ali. Al-Thahabi narrated in “Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala’a” from Ya’ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: (Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and asked him: “Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu’awiyah answered: “By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman’s murderers then I will obey him.” They went to Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and talked to him, but Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) refused to hand in Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s murderers to Mu’awiyah.) [Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala’a, vol.3, p.140, the examiner of the book said that its narrators are trustworthy]

Many times Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) emphasized that by saying: “I did not fight Ali but in the matter of Uthman.” Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) also confirms this even from the Shia sources. Al-Shareef Al-Ridi narrated in Nahjul Balagha a speech delivered by Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) where Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) says:

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

Hence, Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is confirming that the conflict between him and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is about the murder of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu), not for the sake of leadership or to take control of the Muslims as Al-Tijani claims.

It is a plain lie when Al-Tijani says that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) forced the Muslims to vote for his impious and alcohol drinking son Yazeed. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not force people to give allegiance to his son Yazeed, but he intended to make Yazeed as a crown prince, and he succeeded. People gave allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince, and only Al-Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Al-Zubair (radhiyallahu anhuma) refused. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away and he did not force the last two to give the allegiance to Yazeed. It is also a lie that Yazeed was an alcohol drinking person. We will let Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib (rahimahullah) to answer this claim because Muhammad (rahimahullah) knew Yazeed the best because he lived with him for a while. Ibn Katheer says in Al-Bidayah:

When the people of Al-Madinah returned from Yazeed, Abdullah bin Mutee’a and his companions walked to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyah (rahimahullah). They wanted Muhammad to agree to dismiss Yazeed, but Muhammad refused. Ibn Mutee’a said: “Yazeed drinks alcohol, does not pray, and ignores the rule of the Book.” Muhammad answered them: “I never saw what you are saying about him. I came to him, and stayed with him for a while and I saw him taking care of his prayers, looking for goodness, asking about jurisprudence, and clinging to the Sunnah.” They said: “He was acting like that!” Muhammad answered: “And what did he scare from me or please so that he shows piety to me? Did he show you what you saying about drinking alcohol? If he did, then you are his partners, but if he did not, then it is not lawful for you to testify what you do not know.” They said: “It is the truth for us even if we did not see it.” Muhammad said: “Allah refused that on the people of witness, Allah says: “Except for those who testified with truth and they know,” and I have nothing to do with you anymore.” They said: “Perhaps you did not like someone to take control rather than yourself, therefore, we give you our leadership.” He said: “I do not make this fight lawful for me, either as a leader or as a follower.” They said: “But you fought with your father!” He answered: “Give me someone like my father to fight the like of what my father fought.” They asked: “Then, order your sons Abu Al-Qassim and Al-Qassim to fight with us.” He answered: “I would have fight if I ordered them.” They said: “Atleast join us to urge people to fight.” He said: “Praise be the Lord! Do you want me to order the people to do what I do not do and do not accept? I would not then advised Allah’s slaves for the sake of Allah.” They replied: “Hence, we will force you.” He said: “Then I will order the people to fear Allah and do not make a creature happy at the expense of the Creator’s anger.” Then Muhammad left to Makkah.” [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah for Ibn Katheer, vol.8, p.236]

Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered to insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is not a writer of the revelation and the answer to these claims:

Al-Tijani says: “I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change the Sunnah [the tradition] of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to force people to swear at Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books. Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, “The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib”, the following: Mu’awiyah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches.” [Then I was Guided, p106-107] 

He also says: “How could they judge him as a man who had worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to curse Ali and Ahl  al-Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet.” [Then I was Guided, p.121] 

And: “He was the one who forced people to curse Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, the offspring of the Prophet, in every mosque, so that it became a followed tradition for sixty years.” [Then I was Guided,  p.169] 

And: “And how could they call him “The writer of the Revelations” since the revelation came upon the Messenger of Allah (saw) for twenty-three years, and Mu’awiyah was a polytheist for the first eleven years of them, and later, when he was converted to Islam, did not live in Madinah (for we could not find any historical reference to support that), whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in Mecca after al-Fath [the conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]? So how could Mu’awiyah manage to write the Revelation?” [Then I was Guided,  p.170]

I say:

1) It is a lie that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered to insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya (radhiyallahu anhu)’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), they do not differentiate between true or false stories. In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been  told.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13] Then, it is a must on Al-Tijani, when he takes the historians as an argument, to mention the story that shows that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. Then let him cry and shout as he wishes.

1. It is a lie also what al-Tijani says that Muslim narrated in his Saheeh a similar incident in “Ali’s Virtues” Chapter. The story that Al-Tijani is meaning is the story which is narrated by A’amir bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas who narrated from his father who says: (Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’ad and asked him: “What prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (Ali bin Abi Talib)?” Sa’ad answered: “The prophet peace be upon him said three things to him (Ali bin Abi Talib), so I would not insult him because to have one of these three things is more beloved to me than Humr Al-Ni’am (a kind of best camels). I heard the prophet peace be upon him saying to appoint Ali as a leader when the prophet used to go to Battles. Ali then would say to him: “O’ Messenger of Allah, you left me with the women and children?” The Prophet ﷺ answered him:  “Would not you be pleased if you were for me as Haroon was for Musa? Except there is no prophet after me.” And I heard the Prophet ﷺ saying at the day of Khaybar: “I would give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who Allah and His Messenger love him too.” He said: “Then we were looking for this honor.” Then the Prophet ﷺ said: “Call Ali.” Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought and he had sore eyes. So the Prophet ﷺ spitted in his eyes and gave him the banner. Then Allah granted victory to the Muslims by the hands of Ali. And when this verse revealed: “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons,” the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain and said: “O’ Allah, they are my family.” [Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of “The Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Ali,” #2404]

This hadith does not mean that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu) to insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). But, as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu) from insulting Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Therefore, Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu) gave him the reason, and we do not know that when Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) heard Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu)’s answer got angry with him or punished him. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s silence is a correction for Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu)’s opinion. If Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was despotic; forcing people to insult Ali as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would not be quiet and would force Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu) to insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), but nothing of that happened. Hence, it is known that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not order to insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) nor was pleased by that.

Al-Nawawi (rahimahullah) says: “Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad (radhiyallahu anhu) was in a group of people who insults Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and he did not insult Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) asked him this  question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p. 250-252]


3) It is so strange that this Tijani objects on insulting Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) but he does not abstain from insulting the best of the Companions i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (radhiyallahu anhum)! Their (the Shias) books are full of that and among them is Al-Tijani’s book itself. Therefore, I have to say: “These Rafidites, who claim to be believers, have ignominy and lowness. Ignominy is fixed on them wherever they go except with a rope from Allah and a rope from the people.” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.498]

4. It is a firm thing that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was among the writers of the revelation. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) that Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu) asked the Prophet ﷺ for three things: He (Abu Sufyan) said to the prophet: “O’ Prophet of Allah, give me three things.” The prophet said: “yes.” … Abu Sufyan said: “Mu’awiyah, make him a writer (of the revelation) under your hands.” The prophet answered: “Alright.” [Muslim with explanation. Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Abu Sufyan,” vol.17, p.2501]

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) narrated in his Musnad, and Muslim from Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) who says: Once I was a kid playing with other boys when I looked behind and I saw the Prophet ﷺ coming towards us. So I said: “The Prophet ﷺ did not come to anyone but to me.” So I went behind the door to hide. I did not feel until the Prophet ﷺ found me, grasped my neck, and pressed my shoulders gently. The Prophet said: “Go and call Mu’awiyah for me.” And Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was his writer (of the revelation). So I went looking for Mu’awiyah and told him: “Go an  answer the Prophet of Allah ﷺ because he needs you.” [Musnad  Ahmed, vol.1, Musnad Ibn Abbas #2651, and Muslim with explanation, Book of “Al-Birr wa  Al-Silah,” #2604]

These two hadiths prove that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)was one of the writers of the revelation.

5) Al-Tijani says that revelation came down on the Prophet ﷺ for twenty-three years during which Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was a mushrik (disbeliever) for eleven years! I already said that Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu) asked the Prophet ﷺ him to make Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as a writer of the revelation and the Prophet  accepted that and Mu’awiyah ﷺ went on writing the revelation for the Prophet ﷺ for complete four years, is this something hard to believe?

Then in delirium, Al-Tijani says: “When he (Mu’awiyah) was converted to Islam, did not live in Medina (for we could not find any historical reference to support that), whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in Mecca after al-Fath [the conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]?.”

I say: Is the preceding story does not prove that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) lived in Madinah? Al-Tirmithi narrated from Abu Majliz who says: When Mu’awiyah was about to leave, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair and Ibn Safwan stood for him when they saw him. Mu’awiyah said to them: “Set down, I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying: “Whoever is pleased that men stand for him in respect, then let him take his seat in hell.” [Al-Tirmithi, Book of “Taking Permission,” #3755, see also Saheeh Al-Tirmithi #2212]

Does not this hadith prove it too? But it seems that the Prophet ﷺ ordered Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) to call Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) from Makkah!! I will not rebuke Al-Tijani for saying, “We could not find any historical reference to support that,” because if he sought it, he would have found it, but we ask Allah for a cure for his fairness complex!

Third: Al-Tijani’s claim that the reason Mu’awiyah killed Hujr bin Adi was because Hujr refused to insult Ali and the answer to this claim:

Al-Tijani says: “When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of them were buried alive. [Then I was Guided, p.107] 

He also says in another place: “How could they judge him as a promoter of Islam when he killed Hujr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj Adhra in the Syrian desert because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib?” [Then I was Guided, p.121]

So I say:

1. People disagreed on the companionship of Hujr bin Adi (the famous!). Al-Bukhari and others counted him as a follower (Tabe’ei), and some others as a companion.

2)  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not kill Hujr (rahimahullah) because he refrained from insulting Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and this is calumniation. What the historians mentioned about the reason behind killing Hujr bin Adi (rahimahullah) was that Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufah appointed by Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), once gave a prolonged speech. So Hujr bin Adi (rahimahullah) called for the prayer, but Ziyad went along with his speech. So, Hujr and his group threw stones at Ziyad. Ziyad wrote Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) telling him what Hujr (rahimahullah) did and Ziyad reckoned that as corruption on earth. Hujr (rahimahullah) used to do this with the governor of Al-Kufah who preceded Ziyad. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered that Hujr (rahimahullah) be sent to him. When Hujr (rahimahullah) reached there, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered to kill Hujr (rahimahullah). Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s severity in killing Hujr (rahimahullah) was because Hujr (rahimahullah) tried to transgress against the Islamic nation and to break the bond of the Muslims and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) considered it as an endeavor to corrupt the earth especially in Kufah where some groups of the affliction first appeared against Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu). If Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) were lenient in this matter, which ultimately lead to his death and lead the Islamic nation to the greatest affliction and caused blood to run like rivers, then Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted to cut this affliction from its roots by punishing Hujr (rahimahullah). Strange is this Al-Tijani when he cries and mourns for the death of Hujr (rahimahullah) and at the same time does not object on Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) when Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) fought the rebels against his caliphate at the battle of The Camel and Siffeen, which caused the death of the best Companions and in addition, the death of thousands of Muslims, although the reason was one i.e. rebelling against the ruling of the caliph!

Read More: Karbala

Fourth: Tijani’s claim that Al-Hasan Al-Basri slandered Mu’awiyah and the answer to this claim:

Al-Tijani says: “Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book “Caliphate and Kingdom”: Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:

1. Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues.

2. Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk.

3. He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, “There is offspring for the honorable woman, but there is nothing for the whore.”

4. His killing of Hujr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hujr and the followers of Hijr.” [Then I was Guided, p.107]


1. Abu Mikhnaf narrates this story. Abu Mikhnaf’s full name is Lut bin Yahya Al-Azdi Al-Kufi [Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.232, and year of 51H]. Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar said about him: “Akhbari Talif” (This is a phrase for the Scholars of hadith. Akhbari is the person who narrates stories, and talif is the one who lies when he narrates stories) [Meezan Al-E’tidal by Al-Thahabi, vol.3, p.419 #6992 and Lisan Al-Meezan by  Ibn Hajar, vol.4, p.492]

Abu Hatim and others did not take him, and Al-Darqutni said: “He is weak,” Ibn Ma’een said: “Not a trustworthy,” Marrah said: “He is nothing,” and Ibn Adi said: “A burned Shia!”)  [Meezan Al-E’tidal, vol.3, p.419-420] and

Al-Aqeeli accounted him as weak [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.18-19  #1572].

Therefore, this story is false and hence is not an argument.

2. Even if we supposed that Al-Hasan Al-Basri (rahimahullah) really said that, then it would have no slander against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). To claim that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) became the leader without consultant (Shoora) is false because Al-Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) abandoned the caliphate for Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and all the people gave the allegiance to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and none of the companions refrained in giving him the allegiance!

Making Yazeed as the successor to him was done by people’s allegiance and among them was Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and only Al-Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Al-Zubair (radhiyallahu anhuma) refrained.

To refuse giving the allegiance does not cancel the allegiance itself and does not represent a slander against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Muhammad Al-Hanafiyah (rahimahullah), the son of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), who adjourned at Yazeed, belied that Yazeed was a drunkard who wears gold and silk. Muhammad Al-Hanafiyah (rahimahullah) found Yazeed as the opposite of what they claim.

Read More: Karbala Part – 2

Fifth: Answering Tijani’s ill understanding of the happenings of the affliction between Mu’awiyah and Ali (radhiyallahu anhum) :

Al-Tijani says: “When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah’s war against Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-Muhajireen and al-Ansar,  a war which led to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very day, they simply answer by saying, “Ali and Muawiah were both good Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, Ali was right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore, he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against them, Allah – the Most High – said: “This is a people that have passed away, they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did” (Holy Qur’an 2:134).

Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil’s touch.

How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, “Allah has soldiers made of honey.”

How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is a well known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its authenticity, “Woe unto Ammar.. he will be killed by the wrong faction.” And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers.

The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which faction was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything. In both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not hold ground and is incompatible with logic.” [Then I was Guided, p.120-121]

I Say:

1)  I said that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not fight Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) except for the matter of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu). Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) saw himself as the guardian of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s blood, and Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) was one of his relatives, and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) relied on some prophetic hadiths that show and clear that Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as hypocrites.

Al-Tirmithi and Ibn Majah narrated from Aa’isha (rashiyallahu anha) who says: The Prophet ﷺ said: “O’ Uthman! If Allah one day gave you the leadership of this nation, and the hypocrites wanted you to remove your clothes which Allah had gave you, then do not do it.” The prophet said that three times. [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of “Virtues of the Companions of the Prophet peace be upon him,” #112. See also Saheeh Ibn Majah #90]

Ka’ab bin Murrah (radhiyallahu anhu) testified for Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s innocence once in front of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s army, and said: If it were not for a hadith that I heard from the Prophet ﷺ, then I would not have taken a stand (did not support Mu’awiyah to punish Uthman’s murderers) and the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the afflictions and acknowledged them. Then a masked man passed by so the Prophet ﷺ: “This man at these (affliction) days is on guidance.” So I went to the masked man and he was Uthman bin Affan. I took Uthman to the Prophet ﷺ and asked him: “This one?” The Prophet ﷺ answered: “Yes.” [Al-Tirmithi, Book of “The Virtues,” #3704. See also Saheeh Al-Tirmithi #2922]

Also, Abdullah bin Shaqeeq bin Murrah says: The Prophet ﷺ said: “Afflictions would agitate on earth as the horns of cows” Then a masked man passed by and the Prophet ﷺ said: “This man and his companions at these (affliction) days would be on the right path.” So I went to this man and unmasked him and took him to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I asked: “O’ Messenger of Allah ﷺ , is he the one?” The Prophet ﷺ said: “He is.” He was Uthman bin Affan. [Musnad Ahmad, Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” vol.1, p.449-450, #720. The Examiner of the book said that this hadith has a true attribution.]

Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions thought they were right according to this and that they were on guidance especially when we know that the hypocrite rebels against Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) were in the army of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Hence, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions thought them on astray and therefore they made it lawful for themselves to fight Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his faction.

1. In addition, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s supporters would say: “We cannot give allegiance to anyone except the one who would act with justice and does not oppress us. If we gave allegiance to Ali, then we would act unjustly with his party as Uthman was oppressed. Besides, Ali is unable to act justly and we do not have to give allegiance to such a person. Uthman’s murders are in the army of Ali, and these murders are unjust. Uthman’s murderers want  to kill us as they killed Uthman, so we will fight them to defend ourselves. Therefore, it is lawful to fight them, and we did not start the fight, they did.”

3) Moreover, authentic traditions from the Prophet ﷺ says that to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory nor preferable. Although Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was more deserving and closer to right than Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was, if Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared.

Hence, Imran bin Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu), banned the selling of weapons at the time of afflictions. He says: “Weapons are not supposed to be sold in the affliction.” The same saying was shared by Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Musaylimah, Abdullah bin Umar, Usamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the Muhajireen and Al-Ansar (radhiyallahu anhuma) who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight. Therefore, many  Scholars from Ahl Al-Sunnah say: “It is not conditioned to start fighting the aggressor party. Allah did not order to start fighting them. Instead, He ordered that if two parties fought, then peace should be done between them. Then if one of the two parties transgresses on the other, then the transgressor should be fought.”  [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.391]

It is plain lie Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered to start the fight against Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

4) Even if we supposed that the people who fought Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) were insurgents and not depending on personal interpretation of texts, then it would not be considered as a slander in their belief and their deservance in entering heaven. Almighty Allah says: “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just), The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.” [Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10]

Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other. Then what about if one of them transgressed on the other thinking he is right? Does it prevent him from being an interpreter, wrong or right? Therefore, Ahl Al-Sunnah ask Allah for mercy for the two parties, as Allah says:

“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” [Surat Al-Hashr, verse 10]

5) Authentic traditions prove that both parties have the same claim and seek the truth they believe. These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) who says: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Judgement Day will not come until two parties fight with similar claims.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Virtues,” Chapter of “Signs of Prophecy in Islam,” #3413]

This hadith, as you see, proves that the two parties have the same demand and the same religion. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhi) who says: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: Renegades will pass through a group of Muslims. They would be killed by the more deserving party of truth.” [Muslim with Explanation, Book of “Zakat,” Chapter of “The Kharijites and their  characteristics,” #150]

This hadith clears that both parties ask for the truth and fight for it. Meaning that the two parties were intending the truth and requesting it. This hadith also shows that the truth lies with Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) because he was the one who fought these renegades i.e. the Kharijites at Al-Nahrawan. Al-Nawawi (rahimahullah) says: “It is a declaration that both parties are believers and fighting each other does not cancel their faith and they should be not called impious.” [Ibid. vol.7, p.235]

3. About Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s transgression, it is either Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) thought that the truth lies with him or that he was deliberate in his transgression. In both cases, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is not infallible from mistakes. Ahl Al-Sunnah do not refrain him from falling in sins, but they say that sins have reasons, and these sins could be removed by asking for forgiveness and repenting, or other than that. Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) mentioned in Al-Bidayah from Al-Musawir bin Makhramah when Musawir entered upon Mu’awiyah: I entered upon him and Mu’awiyah asked me: “Why do you slander against the leaders O’ Musawir?” I answered: “Save us from his leader, and give us a leader that we want.” Mu’awiyah said: “Tell me what is in your heart.” So, I told him every single bad thing about him. Mu’awiyah said: “You are not exempted from guilt either. Did you commit any guilt that you are afraid to be doomed if you were not forgiven?” I answered: “Yes, I did commit guilts that may cause my doom if I am not forgiven.” Then Mu’awiyah said: “Then what makes you more deserving for Allah’s forgiveness than I? By Allah, I have done good deeds for my people, established Islamic Law, went to Battles for the sake of Allah, and a lot of great things I did that only Allah can count, but we do not count them more than our mistakes. And I am a believer in a religion where deeds are accepted, either rewarded by good, or rewarded by a guilt that Allah may forgive us. By Allah, if I were to choose between two matters, between Allah and anything else, I would chose Allah.” I thought of what he said, and I knew he defeated me.” Then Musawir after that, always used to supplicate good things for Mu’awiyah. [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8, p.136-137]

7) About the Hadith: “Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” This hadith is one of the greatest evidences that the truth lies with Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) but Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) interpreted the meaning of the hadith differently when Ammar (radhiyallahu anhu)’s death shocked Amr Bin Al-A’as (radhiyallahu anhu) and his son. Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) and his son got astound.

Ahmad narrated in his Musnad from Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Amro bin Hazm from his father who says: When Ammar bin Yaser was killed, Amr bin Hazm entered upon Amr bin Al-A’as and said: “Ammar was killed and the Prophet ﷺ said that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Amr bin Al-A’as stood fearing and vomiting until he entered upon Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah asked him: “What is the matter?” Amr answered: “Ammar was killed.” Mu’awiyah asked again: “So what if Ammar was killed?” Amr answered: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Mu’awiyah told him: “… were we the ones who killed him? Ali and his comrades killed him. They brought him (to the war) and threw him into our lances (or swords).”) [Musnad the people of Syria from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed, vol.2, Musnad Amr bin Al-A’as, #957, p.163. The Examiner of the book said the narrators of the story are trustworthy].

Then the people used to say: “The one who killed Ammar (radhiyallahu anhu) is the one who brought him.” Therefore, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) returned the confidence to his army. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) said that because he could not imagine that Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)’s murderers were the right people in the light of the hadiths which prove that Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) would be killed as an innocent and that his killers are the oppressors. No doubt then, as Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was thinking, that the transgressor party is the one within the army of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). But the truth that should be said is that these thinkings are definitely false and that the truth is with Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). But Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)’s party are excused in their interpretation because they wanted the truth but did not get it.

This is what pushed Amr bin Al-A’as (radhiyallahu anhu) to suggest to raise the Quran to stop the war because he had some of that hadith in his heart.

Read More: The Martyrdom of Hadhrat ‘Ammar ibn Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) & the role of the Saba’iyyah [the Early Shia’]

8)  If Al-Tijani insisted on making Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) a despotic, then Al-Nasibah [The ones who hate the household of the Prophet peace be upon him] would answer that Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was despotic too because Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) fought the Muslims for nothing but for the sultanate. Al-Nasibah would also say that Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was the one who started fighting and shedding blood without a benefit for the Muslims. Then Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) retreated – as Al-Nasibah would say – and made a peace with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Then Al-Tijani and his Shia would not be able to answer this. If Al-Tijani took the hadith of Ammar (radhiyallahu anhu) as an argument, then he would be answered that Allah did not put it a condition to fight the transgressor party except when the transgressor party starts to fight. But Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was the one who started the fight, so what is the answer of Al-Tijani? Many pages have been written by the Kharijites and Mu’tazilah slandering Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). What important to know is that for every argument Al-Tijani gets against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), there would be a similar argument from other parties. Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious. Ahl Al-Sunnah say that the truth is with Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and answer all the arguments that are presented from different sects which defames Ali or Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) because Ahl Al-Sunnah’s way is straight, not like the Shia, and many thanks to Allah.

9) It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect that they attribute kufr to Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) because he fought Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). However, the fact is that Al-Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) – and he is one of the infallible Imams according to the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth – made peace with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) – as Al-Tijani admits, refer to “Then I was Guided, p.171” and gave him allegiance. So, did the “infallible” Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) made peace with a kafir and gave him the leadership?? Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the Prophet ﷺ: “My son is a master, and Allah may use him to make peace between two parties of Muslims.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6629, vol.6]

I please Al-Tijani to give an answer?!

10) It is of great ignorance and lie Tijani’s allegation that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) committed numberless crimes, and that he was known by historians to kill his opponents by his famous way; giving them poisoned honey and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) saying: “Allah has soldiers made of honey.” I want from Al-Tijani to guide us to these historians so that we could make sure of this obvious allegation, otherwise talk is easy.

11)  The strange is that Al-Tijani dismisses Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu)’s fighting against the people who did not give Zakat even though the war happened by the consensus of the Ummah. And on the other hand, you see Al-Tijani standing with Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) in his fight against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) which the companions disagreed about, did not give the hoped results, and caused the death of thousands of Muslims! Perhaps the reason is his said fairness and his said intelligence!

12) I can give the answer to Al-Tijani’s repeated and insisted question by saying that the party of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was right, and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was not a despotic, nor a caller to falsehood, but he searched for the truth and did not find it. Therefore, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is rewarded for his religious interpretation.

None of the two was an oppressor or impious. To fall in guilt, does not slander the justice of the guilty person. Anyway, the justice of the companions, all of them without exception, is taken for granted through the Quran, Sunnah and consensus, and it goes smoothly with rightful logic but it does not, of course, goes smoothly with the false logic which is found in Al-Tijani!

13) If Al-Tijani haven’t had enough of this, then I would be compelled to give him something from his guides, the Imamiyah, what proves that Ali and Mu’awiyah are both rightful in their interpretation. Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book, Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi – which represents the basis and branches of the Imamiyah sect – from Muhammad Bin Yahya who says: I heard Abu Abdullah peace be upon him saying: “Disagreement of Bani Al-Abbas is unavoidable, the calling is unavoidable, and the coming of the twelfth Imam is unavoidable.” I said: “And how is the calling?” He answered: ‘Someone will call from the heaven in the beginning of the day: “Ali and his party are the winners.”’ He also said: “And someone will call in the end of the day: “Uthman and his party are the winners!”’ [Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi, p.177, vol.8] 

And here is Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) makes a resolution that Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) and his party are people of Islam and faith, but the case is a matter of interpretation, every person seeing himself on the right path in the matter of Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu). Al-Shareef Al-Ridi mentions in your book “Nahjul Balagha” that Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

For More Info: Martyrdom of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (Radhiyallahu Anhu) & the Role Of the Saba’iyyah

Sixth: Al-Tijani’s allegation that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) poisoned Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and the answer to this claim:

Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven’s youth, by poisoning him?” [Then I was Guided, p.121]

And he also says: “How could they judge him like that when he was the one who poisoned al-Hasan ibn Ali, leader of Heaven’s youth? Perhaps they say, “This was an aspect of his ijtihad [interpretation], but he got it wrong!”” [Then I was Guided, p.169]

I say: This claim is false for several reasons:

1. It is not proven, nor there is a clear evidence that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) poisoned Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). If Al-Tijani has an authentic narration narrated by just people, then let him guide us to it, otherwise he should not charge a Companion without giving a proof for his claim.

2. At those days, people were in an affliction, and their desires leading their instincts, each sect attributing bad things to other sects. If a story was told about that, then we ought not to accept it unless just and trustworthy people narrated it.

3. It is said that the person who poisoned Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was not Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) but Al-Hasan’s wife. It is also said her father, Al-Ash’ath bin Qays ordered her to do that. It is also said that it was Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) who ordered her and some say it was Yazeed.

These contradictory stories about who poisoned Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) weaken these stories because they lack the trustworthy narrators. Al-Tijani did not like anyone of them except Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) although he was the furthermost of the rest from this charge!

4. Intellect would accept Al-Tijani’s arguments in a situation where Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) refuses to make peace with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and wanted to fight Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) for the leadership. But the truth is that Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) made peace with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and gave him the leadership and the allegiance. Therefore, for what reason would Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) poison Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)? For these reasons I say that Al-Tijani’s argument has no basis for truth.

Read More: Who Poisoned Hadhrat Hasan (Radhiyallahu Anhu)??

Seventh: Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah changed the caliphate from Shoora to a hereditary one, and the answer to this claim:

Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him as being correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah [consultative] system to a hereditary one?” [Then I Was Guided, p.121]

Also: “After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al-Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk – who abolished the Islamic caliphate – there has been no correct acclamation except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.” [Then I Was Guided, p.145]

And: “How could they judge his Ijtihad, when he was the one who took the nation’s acclamation for himself by force, then gave it to his son Yazid after him, and changed the Shura system to a hereditary one.” [Then I Was Guided, p.169]


1) Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) after peace occurred between them. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh that Al-Hasan Al-Basri (rahimahullah) says: “Narrated Al-Hasan Al-Basri: By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Mu’awiyah. Amr bin Al-As said (to Mu’awiyah), “I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents.” Mu’awiyah who was really the best of the two men said to him, “O ‘Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?” Then Mu’awiyah sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of ‘Abd-i-Shams called ‘Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin ‘Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, “Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him.” So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, “We, the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them).” They said to Al-Hasan, “Mu’awiyah offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace.” Al-Hasan said to them, “But who will be responsible for what you have said?” They said, “We will be responsible for it.” So, whatever Al-Hasan asked they said, “We will be responsible for it for you.” So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Mu’awiyah. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, “I saw Allah’s Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali was by his side. The Prophet ﷺ was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali saying, ‘This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him.”   [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Peacemaking,” vol.2, #2557]

2) Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was eager for people’s agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district’s governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdul Ghani Al-Maqdisi says: “His (Yazeed’s) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the Prophet ﷺ gave him the allegiance. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was one of them.” [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldun, p.70]

It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gave allegiance to Yazeed and when the rebellion against Yazeed happened in Al-Madinah, Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gathered his family and warned them from revolting against Yazeed.

Narrated Nafi’: When the people of Madinah dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet ﷺ saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”) [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions”, vol.7, #6694]

Ibn Al-Zubair and Al-Hussain (radhiyallahu anhum) disagreed on this allegiance but it does not defame this allegiance because it must have some objectors. From this we know that Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was eager to have the acceptance of the Ummah in giving the allegiance to Yazeed. If Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted to oppress and take the allegiance to Yazeed by force and coercion, as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would be sufficed by one allegiance and impose it forcibly on people. This Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not do. Whoever wanted to refuse objected and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not force them to give the allegiance.

1. Perhaps the reason that pushed Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) to take allegiance to Yazeed was to push away the disagreement and to be one in this crucial time at which the Ummah lived and where a lot of people claimed the caliphate. Hence, Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) thought that by giving the leadership to Yazeed would be a good thing for the Ummah and it would prevent another affliction of happening by the agreement of Ahl Al-Hil wa Al-A’qd (A group of people with a degree in religion, manners, and knowledge of people’s situations. They are also called the people of Choosing, people of Shoora, People of Decision, and they are responsible for choosing a leader for the Ummah instead of the common people. Islamic Scholars put some certain conditions to be eligible for this position on Yazeed.

2. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did not invent a new system for the caliphate by inheriting the leadership to his son Yazeed. Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was the first to do it when he gave the leadership to Umar bin Al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) did the same when he limited the leadership in six Companions.

If Al-Tijani disputed that leadership was not to sons at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiyallahu anhum) i.e. hereditary Kingdom, then I would say that the first person to do it was Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) when he gave the leadership to his son Al-Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu).

Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book “Usool Al-Kafi” from Saleem bin Qays who says: “I eye-witnessed the will of the Commander of the Faithful peace be upon him when he gave the leadership to his son Al-Hasan peace be upon him. As witnesses, Ali took Al-Hussain and Muhammad (Al-Hanafiyah) peace be upon both of them and all of this sons, leaders of his party and his household. Then Ali gave Al-Hasan the Book and the weapon…”  [Usool Al-Kafi, vol.1,  p.236, bab “Al-Esharah wa Al-Nas ala Al-Hasan bin Ali alayhima Al-salam”]

3. The Imamiyah Shia originally refuses the idea of Shoora, and claim that the leadership should be stated by the prophet peace be upon him with a clear declaration. Al-Tijani himself repudiated the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (radhiyallahu anhum). Therefore, why is he crying on the system of Al-Shura which he himself rejects, and disputes what Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) did by giving the leadership to son Yazeed? If Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) made the leadership a Shura, would Al-Tijani and his Rafidites brothers accept it? Or it does not matter? The answer is that they will not accept it even if it was a Shura from all the Muslims. So why this uproar and the fabricated piety from Al-Tijani on the principle of Al-Shura?

The strangest thing in this matter is that Al-Tijani refuses Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son Yazeed yet the greatest doctrine of the Imamiyah Rafidites is their belief that the leadership is a hereditary in the sons of Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) by the father giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son! Is it allowed for them and forbidden on others?

Al-Tijani claims that there had never been a correct allegiance in the history of Islam from the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until the era of Kemal Ataturk who ended the Islamic Caliphate except the Caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful Ali Bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu):

This saying is only said by the least person in understanding, the highest person in ignorance, and the most blind-folded. I would say to this Tijani: What supported your false claim? And what are the conditions of a correct allegiance? If you said that the consensus of people is necessary for a correct allegiance, then I would say: Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) was the furthest of the three caliphs from consensus. A lot of people disagreed on the caliphate of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), a lot more than who disagreed on the caliphate of the early three caliphates. Wars had been risen between Ali and his opponents and Ali died before achieving Muslim’s unity on allegiance. If you said that the caliphate of the three caliphs was by force, I would say: this is of the biggest lies, and history proves you wrong. You by yourself said that the caliphate was Shura until Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) turned it into a hereditary system. If the opponents of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) wanted the caliphate by force, then their argument would be stronger than yours would because Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) fought for his caliphate until thousand of Muslim bloods were shed. If you claimed that the caliphate of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is correct because it is proven through hadiths, then I would say: this is a lie too, all of the evidences you represented do not prove that the leadership should be given to Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). If that were true, then Ali would not give allegiance to the three rightly guided Caliphs. The hadiths, which prove Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) as a caliph, is much stronger and more obvious in making the Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) the successor of the Prophet ﷺ. All of Al-Tijani arguments are plain and clear false. It is strange that Al-Tijani who denies the existence of a correct caliphate except for Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), admits the truth in a way he does not know by saying: “From the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until Kemal Ataturk – who abolished the Islamic caliphate.”

Praise be the Lord how the truth appears from their tongues for the sake of Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). By now, I guess I had answered all of the allegations that Al-Tijani represented. Thanks are due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.


The Shia’ Menace

[By Mujlisul Ulama]

Islam and the Ummah are threatened by many menaces all over the world. Here in South Africa, the Muslim community has to contend with the worst of all menaces, namely, Shi’ism – the religion of the Shiahs which is deceptively portrayed as ‘Islam’.  The most cunning and satanic slogan the Shiahs employ is their cry of “Shiah-Sunni Unity”.

With the chimera of so-called minor academic differences, the Shiahs seek to befuddle and mislead ignorant Muslims. With their belief of holy hypocrisy called Taqiyah, the Shiahs entrap ignorant and stupid Muslims into their tentacles of kufr – KUFR which is comprised of the following fundamental doctrines of the Shi’i religion:

⚫ Rejection of the Qur’aan as a fabrication of the Sahaabah

⚫ Hatred for the Sahaabah in general, and in particular Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Aishah and Hadhrat Muaawiyyah (Radhiyallahu anhum)

⚫ Extension of Nubuwwat (Prophethood) to their ‘imaams’  who according to Shi’i doctrine  are  sinless (ma’soom), and even of a higher status than  many Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). A cardinal article of Shiah belief is the infallibility of their imaams.

These are just some of the vile beliefs of Kufr of the Shiah religion. Insha-Allah, each of their beliefs of Kufr which are in violent conflict with Islam, shall be discussed in subsequent articles.

The Shiahs seek to mislead ignorant Muslims by claiming that Shi’ism is like one of the other Four Math-habs. This is a contemptible satanic lie. To bolster this vile falsehood reared on the basis of their corrupt belief of Taqiyah, Shiahs and their snake-like supporters masquerading as Muslims in our midst, present as ‘proof’ two putrid and silly claims:

(1) Some Sheikh of Al-Azhar university in Egypt had proclaimed Shi’ism a ‘valid’ math-hab.

(2) The so-called ‘amman accord’.

As for the first claim, be informed that Al-Azhar and its sheikhs are all person non grata in terms of the Shariah. They are modernist sell-outs supporting and justifying all the butchery, oppression and suppression of the Egyptian kuffaar regime. They have no Shar’i status. They are Zindeeqs masquerading as Muslims. They have destroyed the Deen at the behest of the zaalim, corrupt kuffaar rulers of Egypt, Thus, the views and opinions of the sheikhs of Al-Azhar constitute flotsam designed to undermine and destroy Islam. What they say about Shi’ism has absolutely no worth.

As for the so-called ‘amman accord’, this is a scrap of paper which has no Shar’i validity. A herd of scholars for dollars who have betrayed Islam and the Ummah, who have sold their Imaan for the miserable pittance and carrion of the dunya, who authored the junk paper, do not represent the Ummah nor Islam in any way whatsoever. They are among the worst ulama-e-soo’ (evil scholars).

In pursuance of the conspiracy of undermining Islam and converting ignorant and stupid Muslims to the religion of the Shiahs, the Iranian authorities have established the Shiah Temple Complex in Cape Town. This is an organ of Iblees. Muslims should give this place of fitnah a wide berth. Performance of Salaat in the temple of Sahaabah-Haters is not valid. Although the conspirators have dubbed the project a Musjid, it is essential to understand that it is not a MUSJID. The complex is a Shiah temple established for the objective of Fitnah. It is designed to lure ignorant Muslims into the cauldron of Shiah Kufr.

The lackadaisical attitude of the Cape Town molvis and sheikhs towards the Shiah menace is deplorable. They are grossly failing in their obligation of alerting and educating their ignorant flocks about the dangers of the Shiah menace.  Issuing a lukewarm statement occasionally, really serves no constructive purpose. The Waajib need of the time is for the Cape Town sheikhs and molvis to embark on an intensive grassroots campaign to educate the Muslim community about the Shiah religion.

Education is the most potent weapon to counter and overcome the dangers to Imaan posed by Shi’ism as well as all other false and satanic ideologies.

Kufr is darkness – satanic darkness. Shi’ism is this type of zulmat (darkness).  The darkness of kufr can be dispelled only by the Noor of Ilm.  Educating the masses is therefore of imperative and of urgent need and importance.

A weapon of the forces of Kufr such as Shi’ism and Gulenism, is to lure the ignorant Muslims in poor areas with monetary perks an contributions.

The Haqq confronts and combats baatil with Ilm. We have no need to imitate and adopt the ways of the Shiahs and other satanists. Our methodology glitters like the sunlight. It is the way of the Salafus Saaliheen.


False Accusation on Imam Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri About Tahreef al-Qur’an

The Shiites and other people of innovation have been misconstruing a statement of Shaykh Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri and allege that he said there has been textual tampering with the Qur’an. The statement is actually a comment to a hadith from Sahih Bukhari.

To understand the thing fully it is important to first read the hadith to which he commented. It goes as;

عن عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنهما، قال: ” يا معشر المسلمين، كيف تسألون أهل الكتاب، وكتابكم الذي أنزل على نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم أحدث الأخبار بالله، تقرءونه لم يشب، وقد حدثكم الله أن أهل الكتاب بدلوا ما كتب الله وغيروا بأيديهم الكتاب، فقالوا: هو من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا، أفلا ينهاكم ما جاءكم من العلم عن مساءلتهم، ولا والله ما رأينا منهم رجلا قط يسألكم عن الذي أنزل عليكم “

Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “O assembly of Muslims! How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite it, (the Qur’an) that has not been distorted? Allah has informed you that the people of the Scriptures distorted and changed what was revealed to them, with their own hands and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): ‘This is from Allah,’ in order to get some worldly benefit thereby.” Ibn Abbas added: “Isn’t the knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you.”

[See, Sahih Bukhari, Book 48, Hadith 850.  (It is Hadith No. 2685 according to Fath al-Bari numbering system)]

Clearly, here is the subject is tampering with the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. Commenting on this hadith Shaykh al-Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) said:

واعلم أن في التحريف ثلاثة مذاهب: ذهب جماعة إلى أن التحريف في الكتب السماوية قد وقع بكل نحو في اللفظ والمعنى جميعا، وهو الذي مال إليه ابن حزم؛ وذهب جماعة إلى أن التحريف قليل، ولعل الحافظ ابن تيمية جنح إليه؛ وذهب جماعة إلى إنكار التحريف اللفظي رأسا، فالتحريف عندهم كله معنوي. قلت: يلزم على هذا المذهب أن يكون القرآن أيضا محرفا، فإن التحريف المعنوي غير قليل فيه أيضا، والذي تحقق عندي أن التحريف فيه لفظي أيضا، أما إنه عن عمد منهم، لمغلطة.  فا لله تعالى أعلم به.

“And know that there are three opinions regarding the tampering (with the previous Scriptures): A group (of scholars) said that tampering was done with the earlier revealed scriptures in every way; both in text and meanings. This is what Ibn Hazm (also) said. Another group said that (textual) tampering is minimal and seemingly Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah inclined to this opinion. A group altogether denied (occurrence of) textual tampering. According to them all tampering was by the meaning alone. I say: Going by this opinion entails there is tampering with the Qur’an as well, for tampering by the way of meaning is not less in its case either. What is established in my opinion is that there was textual tampering as well. Either they have done it intentionally or it happened by error. And Allah knows the best!”

[See, Faid al-Bari ‘ala Sahih al-Bukhari, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2005 vol.4 p.98]

Clearly, the entire discussion is about the tampering with the previous scriptures only. The mention of Qur’an is only in the comment to the third opinion. Maulana Kashmiri says that if  the previous nations tampered with the scriptures only  by the way of meaning and yet we say they are tampered then it would mean Qur’an is also tampered for tampering by the way of meaning is also a fact with regards to Qur’an (as the deviants like the shias/bidatis misuse the verses to justify their deviation). By saying so he meant to show the weakness of the third opinion that limits tampering of previous scriptures only to the meanings. Also it goes against the very spirit of the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) to which the comment was made.

Thereafter, he gives his own opinion that the previously revealed scriptures have indeed suffered textual tampering, whether deliberate or otherwise.

It is ironical that such an allegation is made against a scholar who was very cautious with regards to Qur’an. In fact some of his students had the feeling that he intentionally did not make any elaborate comments about the Qur’an for the respect and honor of the Word of Allah.

[See, Syed Manazir Ahsan Gilani’s memoirs, “Ihata-e-Darul ‘Uloom me bête Huwe Din“, Idara Talifat Ashrafia, Multan,  1425 AH, pp.93-94]

May Allah guide those who for some reasons keep spreading such lies against the scholars of Sunnah.

And Allah knows the best!

— Yahya Ja’far