Category Archives: Shia/Raafidhi

Response to Shia’ Objections on “Al-Salaatu Khayrun Min al-Nawm”

This is from the book “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm” by the ex-Shia al-Baseer may Allah reward him.

Al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm

 Preface:

The most truthful of words are those within the book of Allah, and the best of examples is the example of Muhammad peace be upon him and his family and noble companions.

In the name of Allah most graceful most merciful,

Falsehood still appears to men in various shapes and images, some are good in appearance and some are better. We do not believe that falsehood would ever appear in its ugly true image because then it would not be accepted nor welcomed or adopted. This is why many men are dazzled and fooled by such fake images as they lack knowledge and perception and the ability to analyze the different opinions and evidence.

This is why the greatest of actions in the sight of Allah almighty is one which is taken to defend his religion, to stop falsehood in its tracks and expose the fakeness that is masked by purity and piety and the great concern for Islamic unity. There needs to be a cry of truth, loud and clear, a cry to shake the foundations of falsehood and reduce it to its original weak and pathetic form, to wake up those who have been blinded by the pleasant outward appearance of this falsehood which is being spread by huge organizations that are backed by several countries whose sole purpose is to “beautify” this falsehood in the eyes of the ignorant masses.

These organization have placed huge efforts especially in these past two decades to cast arrows of doubt on all the beliefs of the people of Islam and to poison the pure well of Islamic faith which is very far from the perverseness of Mazdak and the deviance of Zoroaster.

We have thus decided in this moment of weakness, and in these hard times that our nation is facing, to expel the darkness and make public to all the wickedness and maliciousness of those folks who have always been enemies to this religion and all that it represents.

Introduction:

In the past I had went through a book by one of the biggest contemporary scholars of the Imami Shia sect and he is `Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen, and his books are still being printed, print after print, and they generally are books full of lies, mis-quotations and mis-attributions which showcase the hatred these people have for Islamic history and Islamic figures, and so the man placed great effort in distorting the image of historical Islamic figures and icons.

We must remind the reader that this book is not intended to refute `Abdul-Husayn’s books, but it is aimed at a specific issue which is the expression “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm.” or “Prayer is better than sleep.” which Ahlul-Sunnah include in their call to prayer during Fajr. However, since `Abdul-Husayn was the first to expand on this issue from among his companions, and he took the lead in spreading the matter then we shall look into what he argued.

The Imami Shia sect has accused Ahlul-Sunnah in general and `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) in specific of adding to the Adhan (1) the expression “Prayer is better than sleep.” so we will show how this expression is established in the religion of Islam and how it was a part of the Adhan during the time of the Prophet (SAWS), and the four rightly guided Caliphs after him especially `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra).

(1) Adhan: Islamic call to prayer.

In this book we do not only aim to refute a single doubt that the Shia have cast on the religion of Islam, but we intend to refute and expose an entire methodology, the twisted method of the Shia in slandering their opponents, in covering the truth with falsehood and in the double standards and hypocrisy which they have built their entire religion upon.

We ask Allah to make it easy for us, and to accept from us this work, and to guide us all to what he loves and pleases, He is our Master.

A false charge:

We do not find it strange that such a big amount of lies and accusations have been directed towards the companions of the Prophet (SAWS) especially the first four Caliphs of Islam, this is because historically most accusations are directed to the greatest of personalities and virtuous men by a bunch of low-lives with evil intentions and filthy interests.

We do not find such a thing strange at all once we realize that these false charges come from a group of people, who curse the companions of our Prophet (SAWS) and slander them because it is the smallest of their sins, since they raise their saints to the level of gods!

The great Islamic conquests and the spreading of Islamic teachings and knowledge in the four corners of the earth, is reduced in the eyes of these filthy men to a couple of mere attempts to expand influence and seize the resources of the lands for personal gain. Yes, these Ghulat (2) were educated to believe that virtuous act accomplished by the pious companions may Allah be pleased with them is an evil act covered with ill will.

(2) Ghulat: Extremists.

The reader shall see many examples of this as we go on, as for the companions of the messenger may Allah be pleased with them, who sacrificed everything for their Prophet (SAWS) and his religion, and struggled in the battle-fields against the un-believers, and exhausted their bodies in the call to Islam, the culture they built in the eyes of the folks is no more than a culture of violence and thieves and usurpers, because history is fake, and the Qur’an is corrupted and insufficient, and the Prophet (SAWS) is helpless, and the infallible Imam is persecuted and weak, and the savior has been hiding for hundreds of years, and so Islamic history is reduced to a couple of people while everybody else is either a thief or a liar and a conspirator ect…

I add, that trying to convince these people that their methods are wrong and their Madhab is corrupt is almost impossible because the sect we are addressing has fallen victim to an extreme form of brainwashing, but nonetheless we shall do our duty in delivering the truth and guiding the lost.

The Imami Shia sect asserts that the expression “Prayer is better than sleep” is a fabrication by `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), and that Ahlul-Sunnah have simply followed the orders of the second Caliph in affirming this expression and they tried to bestow legitimacy to it by calling it “al-Tathweeb”.

Shia scholar Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi says in “Mu`jam Fiqh al-Jawahir” 1/207:

[Tathweeb in Adhan, as is famous among the linguists and jurists is saying: “Prayer is better than sleep.”]

What the Shia sources mentioned about this matter:

Almost all late Shia sources are in agreement that it was `Umar (ra) who is the first to fabricate “Prayer is better than sleep” and add it to the Adhan, and you almost don’t find any of the Shia scholars or their laymen say anything other than this.

To shed more light on the matter, we quote the late Shia scholar `Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi who didn’t spend his life fighting against communism and atheism and socialism which were the talk of the hour during his life, because when the red communist influence was expanding from continent to continent, and when the communists were attempting to swallow the entire Islamic world piece by piece, we find our friend `Abdul-Husayn using his pen as a pickaxe to destroy what remains of faith in the people’s hearts and by writing books which contained as many attacks on Islam as he could possibly find.

He said in “al-Fusoul al-Muhimmah fi Ta’leef al-Ummah” pg.117:

[And from them is their alteration of the morning call to prayer, as they changed it by inserting into it what was not in it during the days of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), which is “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm”, but rather it was not in it during the days of Abu Bakr, it is only that the second Khalifah ordered it as the Mutawatir (3) narrations of the pure progeny state.

As for other sources, it is sufficient for the reader to know what the Imam Malik narrated in the chapter of the call to prayer  in his Muwatta’: “That it had reached him that the Mu’adhin (4) came to `Umar bin al-Khattab to call him to prayer but found him asleep, so he said: Prayer is better than sleep. Then he ordered him to make it in the call of the morning.”

And al-`Allamah al-Zarqani said while commenting on this Hadith in his explanation of the Muwatta’: “This report was narrated by al-Daraqutni in his Sunan from Waki` in his Musannaf from al-`Umari from Nafi` from ibn `Umar from `Umar.

And Suffiyan narrated from Muhammad bin `Ajlan from Nafi` from ibn `Umar from `Umar that he said to his Mu’adhin: If you reach “Come to success” in your Fajr call, then say: Prayer is better than sleep, prayer is better than sleep.”

I say: This was narrated by ibn abi Shaybah from the narration of Hisham bin `Urwah, and it was narrated by a group of others that we shall not mention.

And you (reader) know that there is no trace of such an expression in the narrations of the prophet (saws), if you would like to verify you can revise the chapters of Adhan in the first part of Sahih al-Bukhari and the chapter on the description of Adhan and it is the beginning of the book of Salat in Sahih Muslim.]

(3) Mutawatir: Mass transmitted.

(4) Mu’adhin: Man responsible of making the call to prayer.

This is the Shia argument which is used to raise doubts on the position of Ahlul-Sunnah, the Shia author tried his best to collect every statement of any classical or contemporary scholar in order to make his accusation on Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra).

In fact the leader of the Shia and their Imam `Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen was so proud of himself that he raised this same doubt in his book “al-Nas wal-Ijtihad”. So to Allah we belong and to him we shall return, this is a new age that has dawned upon our nation, an age where there is no justice or knowledge, an age where the pathetic are raised to become leaders and icons while the true icons are lowered and mocked.

Attack is the best method of defense:

Before we analyze this claim, we need to inform the readers and the Imami Shia in specific of  an important matter. The sane Shia must know that their scholars have adopted a twisted method to defend against every criticism directed towards their Madhab, it is a method they use every-time their opponents defeat them in debate or silence them with clear proofs or prove to them the corruption of their Madhab. We shall explain below:

Whenever a criticism is directed towards the Imamiyyah proving to them that they have a certain problem, you will see them trying to prove that their opponents the Ahlul-Sunnah have similar a similar problem.

In other words, instead of:

1- Proving through Islamic texts that the matter is not a problem and that the ones throwing the accusation are wrong.

2- Agreeing that there is indeed a mistake on their part, and admitting that they have a problem, and then calling their followers to abandon it and correct it.

Instead of fixing the problem and defending their Madhab, we see the Shia scholars hurling similar accusations on other Madhabs in an attempt to escape those criticisms.

In order to make this clearer for the reader, I place in your hands one out of many live examples:

When the opponents of the Shia criticized them for adding the following expression to their Adhan “I bear witness that `Ali is the friend of Allah”, and they told them that this is a forbidden innovation and that the Imams narrated narrations that did not contain this expression and that they also narrated that innovations are evil, the Imami Shia scholars attacked Ahlul-Sunnah with “Prayer is better than sleep” as if telling us: “Why do you oppose us in this when we are all doing innovations at the end of the day?” .

I say: There is no doubt about the corruption of this method, because the goal of this method is not to prove the truth and reach it. It’s only goal is to change the subject and escape the criticism, like two men who met and one of them told the other: “You are a thief!” so the other man responded by saying: “Well you’re also a thief!” and by doing so he admitted that he himself is one!

This also makes the Shia Madhab a reactionary one that is affected by the Madhab of Ahlul-Sunnah, and they would follow them like their tail, so whatever Ahlul-Sunnah agree on or decide will be the standard to be used in authenticating or weakening or proving right from wrong. Also this method is based on the opponent  being from Ahlul-Sunnah, so what if the opponents were from the Waqifi Shia or even a Twelver such as ibn Babaweih al-Qummi? Would this method work with him? Or would the Shia scholars be stuck then? More importantly what will be their answer in front of Allah on the day of judgment?

This is why it is the duty of every Shia that when he sees one of their scholars on the Mimbar defending his Madhab by attacking Ahlul-Sunnah, that he should tell him to abandon this twisted method and give a proper scholarly refutation to the problem.

Now we shall go back to the topic and prove by the grace of Allah the ignorance of the one who claims that `Umar (ra) invented Tathweeb and added it to the Adhan, and that it was an order from the Prophet (SAWS) and was practiced during his days and the days of the companions and their followers.

Refuting the doubts raised by `Abdul-Husayn:

In order to refute this blind man we need to sum up his argument in a few organized points:

1- That there is no proof that “Prayer is better than sleep” is a saying of the Prophet (SAWS).

2- That there is no mention of this expression in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim.

3- This expression was not available in the Adhan in Abu Bakr’s (ra) Caliphate.

4- `Umar (ra) was the one to add the expression to the Adhan during his Caliphate.

5- `Abdul-Husayn stated several sources for narrations that he claims back up this accusation.

6- The Mutawatir mass transmitted narrations from Ahlul-Bayt prove that it was `Umar (ra) who added it.

THE ANSWERS TO HIS SIX POINTS RESPECTIVELY:

1- FIRST ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn says in “al-Nas wal-Ijtihad” pg192:

[We have closely followed all the prophetic traditions related to the prayer call during the time of the Prophet (SAWS) and we did not find “Prayer is better than sleep”.]

This leads us to two conclusions and there is no third:

Either the Shia scholar is not well informed about such sayings in the books of the Muslims and so he becomes an ignorant.

Or this Shia scholar has in fact read clear statements about this matter but decided to hide them, and by doing so he becomes a liar and this is what we lean towards as his book is full of lies as you shall see in the following pages.

“al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm” in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah.

Some of the books of Hadith of Ahlul-Sunnah have designated specific chapters about Tathweeb in Adhan, and under those chapters are many authentic narrations attributed to the Prophet (SAWS) affirming the expression “Prayer is better than sleep” in the Fajr Adhan.

From them we mention:

-Chapter of Tathweeb [Sunan abu Dawud 1/148]

-Chapter of the dislike of making Tathweeb in other than the morning Adhan [Sunan al-Bayhaqi 1/423]

-Chapter of Tathweeb in the Fajr Adhan [Sunan al-Darimi 1/270]

-Chapter of what was mentioned regarding Tathweeb in Fajr [Sunan al-Tirmithi 1/110]

-Chapter of al-Tathweeb in the Fajr Adhan [Sunan al-Nasa’i 2/13]

-Chapter of “Prayer is better than sleep” [Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq 1/472]

-Chapter of Tathweeb in the Adhan of the morning [Sahih ibn Khuzaymah 1/200]

-Chapter of Tathweeb in Adhan and Iqamah [Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq 1/474]

We shall also mention some of those narrations so that the readers can see that this expression was not just inserted by some individual into the Adhan just like the third Shahadah in the Adhan of the Shia.

-Ahmad bin Manee` told us, abu Ahmad al-Zubaydi told us, abu Isra’eel told us, from al-Hakam, from `Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla, from Bilal bin Rabah that he said: The Prophet (SAWS) told me: “Do not make Tathweeb in any prayer except that of al-Fajr.”

Source: Sunan al-Tirmithi / Kitab al-Salat – chapter “al-Tathweeb fil-Fajr” #182.

-Ibrahim bin al-Hasan told us, he said: Hajjaj told us, from ibn Jurayj, from `Uthman bin al-Sa’ib that he said: My father and Umm `Abdul-Malik bin abi Mahdhourah told me, from abu Mahdhourah that he said: When Rassul-Allah (SAWS) went from Hunayn, I came out among tens of men from Makkah asking for them, so we heard them make the call to prayer, so we did the same to mock them, then Rassul-Allah (SAWS) said: “I heard from those folks a call of a man with a good voice.” so he called on us and we made Adhan to him one by one and I was the last of them, so when I made Adhan to him, he said: “Come” and he sat me in front of him and wiped on my body and blessed me three times, then he (SAWS) said: “Go make your Adhan near the sacred house” I said: “How O messenger of Allah? Teach me to call like you” (he then said the full Adhan and at the end he stated) Prayer is better than sleep in the first of the morning.

Source: Sunan al-Nasa’i / Kitab al-Adhan – chapter “al-Adhan fil-Fajr” #629.

-Ibn Jurayj said: `Uthman told me this entire report from his father and Umm `Abdul-Malik bin abi Mahdhourah that they heard this from abu Mahdhourah.

Source: Ibid.

-Suwayd bin Nasr told us, he said: `Abdullah told us, from Suffiyan, from abu Ja`far, from abu Suleiman, from abu Mahdhourah, that he said: I used to make Adhan to Rassul-Allah (SAWS) and I used to say in the first Fajr Adhan “Come to success, prayer is better than sleep, prayer is better than sleep, Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, no god but Allah.”

Source: Sunan al-Nasa’i / Kitab al-Adhan – chapter “al-Tathweeb fi Adhan al-Fajr” #642.

-`Amro bin `Ali told us, Yahya and `Abdulrahman both said: Suffiyan told us, with this Isnad a similar narration.

Source: Sunan al-Nasa’i / Kitab al-Adhan – chapter “al-Tathweeb fi Adhan al-Fajr” 2/13.

-Musaddid told us, al-Harith bin `Ubayd told us, from Muhammad  bin `Abdul-Malik bin abi Mahdhourah, from his father, from his grandfather, that he said: “O messenger of Allah (SAWS), teach me the Sunnah of Adhan, so he wiped my forehead with his hand and said: ” Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, (…in the end he says…) and if it was the morning prayer you say Prayer is better than sleep, prayer is better than sleep, (…until the end of the narration).

Source: Sunan abu Dawud / chapter “Kayfiyat al-Adhan” 1/136.

-al-Hasan bin `Ali told us, abu `Assim and `Abdul-Razzaq both told us, from ibn Jurayj that he said: `Uthman bin al-Sa’ib told me, my father and Umm `Abdul-Malik bin abi Mahdhourah told me, from abi Mahdhourah from the Prophet (SAWS): (He narrated a similar one).

Source: Ibid.

-Muhammad bin Khalid bin `Abdullah al-Wasitiy told us, my father told me, from `Abdul-Rahman bin Ishaq, from al-Zuhri, from Salim, from his father: That the Prophet (SAWS) consulted the people as to what may gather them for prayer, so they mentioned him the horn but he hated it as it resembled the way of the Jews, and they mentioned him the bell but he hated it as it resembled the way of the Christians. Then that night the call to the prayer was shown in a dream to a man among the Ansar whose name was `Abdullah bin Zayd, and to `Umar bin Khattab. The Ansari man came to the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) at night, and the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) commanded Bilal to give the call to the prayer. Zuhri said: “Bilal added the phrase “The prayer is better than sleep” to the call for the morning prayer, and the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) approved of that.” `Umar said: “O Messenger of Allah, I saw the same as he did, but he beat me to it.”

Source:  Sunan abu Dawud / chapter “Kayfiyat al-Adhan” 1/138.

-al-Husayn bin Isma`eel told us, Muhammad bin `Uthman bin Karamah told us, abu Usamah told us, ibn `Awn told us, from Muhammad, from Anas that he said: “It is from the Sunnah if the Mu’adhin in the Fajr Adhan after ‘Come to success’ says ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ twice, Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, No god but Allah.”

Source: Sunan al-Daraqutni 1/243.

-`Abdullah bin Mahmud bin `Abdul-`Aziz told us, `Abdullah bin `Umar bin Abban told us, `Abdul-Rahman bin al-Hasan abu Mas`ud al-Zajjaj told us, from abu Sa`eed, from `Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla, from Bilal that he said: “The messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me to make Tathweeb in the dawn Adhan, and forbade me from doing it in the evening Adhan.”

Source: Ibid.

-Abu Hazim al-Hafiz told us, abu Ahmad al-Hafiz told  us, Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Marwan bin `Abdul-Malik al-Bazzar told us in al-Sham, Hisham bin `Ammar told us, `Abdul-Hameed bin Habib bin abi `Ishreen, al-Awza`ee told us, he said: Yahya bin Sa`eed al-Ansari Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Harith al-Tamimi told me, that Na`eem bin al-Nahham told him: “I was with my wife under the cover of our bed in a very cold night, so the caller of the messenger (SAWS) called for the morning prayer, when I heard it I said to myself ‘I wish the messenger (SAWS) would say: And he who sits then there is no fault.’ so when he reached ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ he continued with ‘And there is no fault on he who sits’.”

Source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi / chapter “al-Tathweeb fi Adhan al-Fajr.” 1/421-422.

-`Ali told me, Salamah bin al-Khaleel al-Kula`ee al-Humsi told me, Marwan bin Thawban Qadi Hums told me, al-Nu`man bin al-Mundhir told me, from al-Zuhri, from Sa`eed bin al-Musayyib, from abu Hurayrah that Bilal came to the Prophet (SAWS) on the time of the call of the morning but found him asleep, so he called ‘Prayer is better than sleep’ and the Prophet (SAWS) did not reject this but he included it in the Adhan, so no Adhan can be made to any prayer before its time comes except Fajr.

Source: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat by al-Tabarani 4/267.

-Abu Bakr told us, he said: abu Khalid al-Ahmar told us, from Hajjaj, from `Ata’, from abu Mahdhourah, that he made Adhan to the messenger of Allah (SAWS) and to Abu Bakr and to `Umar and in his Adhan was “Prayer is better than sleep.”

Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 1/189.

The author `Ala’-ul-Deen al-Baseer goes on to narrate a total of sixty five narrations proving Tathweeb as a Sunnah from the books of Hadith of Ahlul-Sunnah but we shall stop here in order to shorten the book and so that we may not bore the reader.

We add that the book “Kanz-ul-`Ummal” by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, this book that the Shia scholars often refer to in order to attack Ahlul-Sunnah and the Sahaba (ra), the author of that book alone lists twenty seven narrations proving that “Prayer is better than sleep” is a prophetic tradition, and `Ala’-ul-Deen al-Baseer mentions only one of them from the sixty seven narrations he listed.

As for the authenticity of the narration, the opponents are using only one weak narration as an argument against `Umar (ra), so it is enough if we prove the authenticity of only one of the many narrations declaring Tathweeb as being a part of the Sunnah.

For this we quickly refer to Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra 1/423, where he narrates the following:

[Abu Bakr bin al-Harith al-Faqih told us, `Ali bin `Umar al-Hafiz told us, al-Husayn bin Isma`il told us, Muhammad bin `Uthman bin Karamah told us, abu Usamah told us, ibn `Awn told us, from Muhammad, from Anas that he said: “It is from the Sunnah that if the Mu’adhin reached in the Fajr Adhan “Hay `ala al-Falah”, that he should say “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm, al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, La Ilaha Illa Allah.” A group also narrated it from abu Usamah and it is an authentic Isnad(Chain).]

So according to the Imam of Hadith al-Bayhaqi, the chain of narrators is Sahih.

2- SECOND ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi said:

[Review if you wish the book of Adhan in the first part of  Sahih al-Bukhari, and the chapter “Sifat-ul-Adhan” which is at the beginning of the book of Salat in Sahih Muslim, so that you may know the truth of what we say.]

Firstly we say, his argument that if a certain religious practice is not mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim then this means we reject it, is itself rejected. As is known by all scholars of Hadith, these two books do not contain all prophetic narrations, nor are all the religious rulings covered in the two books.

Shia scholar `Ali al-Sharastani answers those who have not included the expression “Come to the best of deeds” in Adhan because it wasn’t mentioned in the Sahihayn (5):

[It is not necessary that if it wasn’t mentioned in the Sahihayn then it isn’t correct, and not every authentic tradition is mentioned in the Sahihayn.]

(5) Sahihayn: A term referring to the two authentic books, Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim.

Source: al-Adhan by al-Asalah wal-Tahreef by `Ali al-Shahrastani, pg.203-204.

This is agreed upon by all teams, that there is no one book that gathers all the narrations nor does any author claim this, just like the Shia book al-Kafi doesn’t contain all religious rulings so their scholars have to rely on later books such as al-Faqih or al-Tahtheeb to learn them.

As counter argument I say to `Abdul-Husayn, these narrations are also not reported in the Sahihayn, does this mean we should ignore them as well?

“He whom I’m his Mawla then `Ali is also his Mawla, O Allah be the ally of his ally and the enemy of his enemy.”

“`Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is the Wali of every believer after me.”

“I’m leaving among you the Thaqalayn: The book of Allah and my `Itrah, and they shall not separate until they join me at the fount.”

“The example of my Ahlul-Bayt among you is that of Noah’s ark, he who boards it is safe.”

“`Ali is with the truth and the truth is with `Ali, and they shall not separate until they join me at the fount.”

“I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its gate, he who seeks the knowledge must enter the gate.”

And many more…

3- THIRD ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn says that the Sahaba (ra) altered the Adhan and changed it and this new Adhan was not even practiced during the days of Abu Bakr (ra):

[They changed it by inserting into it what was not in it during the days of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), which is “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm”, but rather it was not in it during the days of Abu Bakr]

This is a useless argument, because we proved that this tradition was practiced during the days of the Prophet (SAWS), so the burden of proof now lies on the Shia scholar to show us that in Abu Bakr’s (ra) Khilafah the Tathweeb was not practiced.

`Abdul-Husayn says in “al-Nass wal-Ijtihad” pg.192:

[We have closely followed all the prophetic traditions related to the prayer call during the time of the Prophet (SAWS) and we did not find “Prayer is better than sleep”, this expression wasn’t even found in Abu Bakr’s rule, as the grand scholars of prophetic narrations know.]

Since `Abdul-Husayn mentioned the experts in prophetic narrations, let’s see what they have to say about the expression of Tathweeb.

`Abdul-Rahman al-Jaziree the author of “al-Fiqh `ala al-Madhahib al-Arba`ah” says in his book of Salat, pg.312:

[it is recommended to add “Prayer is better than sleep” in the Adhan of the morning after “Come to success”, there is agreement that abandoning this addition is disliked.]

al-Nawawi al-Shafi`i said in “al-Majmu` Sharh al-Muhadhab” 3/101:

[We have mentioned that our Madhab is that it is a Sunnah in the Adhan of the morning to make the Tathweeb. From those who have mentioned practicing it are `Umar bin al-Khattab and his son, and al-Hasan al-Basri, and ibn Sireen, and al-Zuhri, and Malik, and al-Thawri, and Ahmad, and Ishaq, and abu Thawr, and Dawud … and others.]

Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali said in “al-Mughni” 1/245:

[it is a Sunnah to say “Prayer is better than sleep” in the morning Adhan twice, after saying “Come to success”, and it is called Tathweeb and it was mentioned by ibn `Umar and al-Hasan al-Basri and ibn Sireen and al-Zuhri and Malik and al-Thawri and al-Awza`ee and Ishaq and abu Thawr and al-Shafi`i … and others.]

In brief, what we find is that the grand scholars of Hadith and experts in the field all say that it is a correct and authentic expression and saying it is recommended at the very least and some said obligatory like ibn al-Muflih in his book “al-Mubdi`” 1/318.

So far, we have proven that it is an authentic prophetic tradition that was practiced in the days of prophet-hood as well as the days of Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra) and `Uthman (ra) and `Ali (ra), and if the Shia scholars disagree then they must bring proofs that the Adhan in the days of `Ali (ra) was different than those before him.

4- FOURTH ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn claimed that this was an addition by `Umar (ra), and his only proof was one narration that he quoted from “Muwatta’ Malik”, and in this narration the Mu’adhin of `Umar (ra) came to him while he was sleeping, so he told him “prayer is better than sleep” so `Umar (ra) ordered him to announce it in the Adhan of the morning.

As is their habit, the Shia scholars left all those countless narrations which state that Tathweeb is a Sunnah and that the Prophet (SAWS) ordered it, and they held on to this one narration just to attack `Umar (ra).

The narration is as follows:

Muwatta’ Malik, chapter “Ma Ja’ fi nida’ al-Salat” pg.68:

[And Malik told me, that it had reached him, that the Mu’adhin came to `Umar bin al-Khattab to call him for the morning prayer, and he found him sleeping, so he said: “prayer is better than sleep” so `Umar ordered him to make it in the morning call.]

We shall discuss this from two perspectives:

1- The Sanad (Chain).

This narration is what Imam Malik (rah) heard from some people, he does not state their identities and so the narration is considered disconnected. It would be enough to quote what al-Imam al-Qurtubi (rah) said with regards to this narration when he quoted ibn `Abdul-Barr in “Tanweer al-Hawalik” pg.92:

[I do not know that this was narrated about `Umar in any authentic way, it is only in the narration of Hisham ibn `Urwah from some man called Isma`eel and I do not know him, but the Tathweeb is known to be from the Adhan of Bilal and abi Mahdhourah in the  morning prayer of the Prophet (SAWS).]

The narration is “Majhool” which is the weakest form of narration, so it has to be rejected.

2- The Matn (Text).

Even if the narration was authentic it can still be given an interpretation so as to reconcile between it and the numerous narrations that state that it was a prophetic order. It can be said that the Mu’adhin of `Umar (ra) came and saw him sleeping, so he called “Prayer is better than sleep” but `Umar (ra) did not accept this and told him to only announce it during the call to prayer as was the habit.

As the reader can see, the Shia are very desperate in their attempts to criticize the chief of believers `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra), and all of their accusations against this great companion are similar to this one in terms of weakness and absurdity. In fact, whenever their scholars write books to attack Ahlul-Sunnah and the religion in general, this weak narration is always used as an argument, as if they all agreed to follow the same twisted hypocritical path and I shall list some of their sources who mention this narration:

-Ameer Muhammad Kazimi in “al-Shia fi `Aqa’idihim wa Ahkamihim” pg.124.

-al-Majma` al-`Ilmi li Ahlul-Bayt in “Mas’alat al-Salat Khayr min al-Nawm” pg.35.

-Marwan Khalifat in his book “Wa Rakibt-ul-Safinah” pg.348.

-Asad Haydar in “al-Imam al-Sadiq wal-Madhahib al-Arba`ah” 3/284.

-Muhammad Jameel Humud in “Abha al-Midad fi Sharh Mu’tamar Baghdad” 2/700.

-`Aynullah al-Hasani in his commentary on “Nahj-ul-Haqq wa Kashf-ul-Sidq” pg.352.

-`Ali Aal-Muhsin in “Masa’il al-Khilafiyah” pg.172.

-Muhammad Hasan al-Muzaffar in “Dala’il al-Sidq” 3/99.

-Ja`far al-Subhani in “Rasa’il wa Maqalat” pg.55.

-Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in “Bihar al-Anwar” 31/43.

-Ahmad al-Wa’ili in “Hawiyat al-Tashayyu`” pg.46.

-Najah al-Ta’ee in “Nazariyat al-Khalifatayn” 2/405.

-`Ali al-Shehrestani in “al-Adhan bayn al-Asalah wal-Tahreef” pg.99-271.

-Nazih al-Qumayha in “Risalah ila Kull Shi`ee” pg.461.

-Isma`eel bin Ahmad al-Mur`ashee in “Ijma`at Fiqh al-Shia” 1/271.

-Sayyid Hasan al-`Amili “Shubuhat wa Rudud” pg.120.

-`Abdul-Jabbar Shararah “al-Muwajahat, Hiwar bayn al-Sunnah wal-Shia” pg.217.

-Sayyid Murtada al-Radwi “Difa` `an al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah” pg.66.

-As`ad al-Qassim “Azmat al-Khilafah wal-Imamah” pg.91.

-al-Ahmadi al-Miyanji “Mawaqif al-Shia” 3/131.

-Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi, Sayyid Hasan Musawi al-Khurasan “Hayy `ala Khayr al-`Amal” pg.102.

-`Abdul-Samad Shakir “Nazrah ila al-Sihah” pg.473.

-Sayyid Muhammad Rida Mudarrisi “al-Sunnah wal-Bid`ah fil-Adhan” pg.17.

-Murtada al-`Askari “ma`alim al-Madrasatayn” 2/472.

-`Abdul-Muhsin al-Sarawi “al-Qutuf al-Daniyah” pg.51.

-Idris al-Husayni al-Maghribi “Laqad Shayya`ani al-Husayn” pg.180.

-Tariq Zayn-ul-`Abideen “al-Da`wah” pg.33.

-Markaz al-Mustafa “al-Ijtihad wal-Taqlid” pg.120.

-Salih al-Wardani in his commentary on “al-Munazarat” pg.62.

-Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili “al-Sahih min al-Seerah” 4/284.

ect..ect…

So you can only imagine the number of Shia scholars who lied against `Umar (ra).

Also if `Umar (ra) had actually added a phrase to the Adhan then all the books of history would have mentioned it and all the scholars would have narrated it and recorded it just as they narrated and recorded his opinion on divorce and his prohibition of practicing the two Mut`ahs or his opinion on practicing Taraweeh in congregation ect… Because in the end, Adhan was as wide spread as Islam, and if a sentence was added this would have been popular among the people of the lands.

And the Sahaba (ra) would have not allowed `Umar (ra) to add and subtract what he wishes from the religion, and it is famous and known that abu Dharr (ra) disagreed with other Sahaba (ra) regarding the matter of storing wealth, and `Ali (ra) disagreed with `Uthman (ra) regarding the Mut`ah of Hajj, and ibn `Umar (ra) disagreed with ibn `Abbas (ra) in the matter of the Mut`ah of women, so why didn’t history report that anyone disagreed  with `Umar (ra) if he had actually changed the Adhan of Islam?

The Shia scholar Ja`far al-Subhani said in “al-Hadith al-Nabawi bayn al-Riwayah wal-Dirayah” pg.53:

[There is an academic methodology that is often ignored by those who criticize Hadith, it is to present any narration (before accepting it) in front of the Book of Allah firstly, then presenting it in front of the Mutawatir Sunnah that the grand scholars of Hadith received with acceptance secondly, and then thirdly in front of the intelligent mind through which we got to know Allah and his prophets, and fourthly in front of the authentic historical facts, and fifthly in front of the consensus of the nation.]

Beautiful words.. although Ja`far al-Subhani himself ignored this “academic methodology” when he got the chance to talk about “prayer is better than sleep”, as his hatred for `Umar (ra) and for this nation’s history got the better of him.

When this Shia al-Subhani accused `Umar (ra) of this matter in his book “al-I`tisam bil-kitab wal-Sunnah” I ask:

When he supposedly presented this report in front of the Qur’an, doesn’t the Qur’an constantly praise those who accompanied the Prophet (SAWS)? Doesn’t the Qur’an tell us to ask forgiveness for those who preceded us in faith? Doesn’t it tell us not to have much negative assumption towards our brothers?

And when he presented it to the authentic Mutawatir Sunnah that is accepted by the grand scholars, doesn’t the Mutawatir Sunnah tell us that Tathweeb was a prophetic order? Isn’t the narration that he and his companions relying on a weak one that is rejected by the grand scholars of Hadith?

And when he presented it to his “intelligent mind”, does his intelligent mind think that it is possible that `Umar (ra) can change the entire religion without anyone standing up to him or criticizing him for it? Furthermore, what great motive is this which pushes him to add such a statement “prayer is better than sleep” to the Adhan? An intelligent mind would reject such an accusation.

And when he presents it to the authentic history, didn’t he notice that authentic or even non-authentic history never mentioned that `Umar (ra) changed anything in the Adhan?

Finally, when he presents it to the consensus of the nation, which nation is this that agreed to believe that `Umar (ra) added that phrase to the Adhan?

Truly the example of the Shia scholars is that of a wondering Arab whom they asked:

“How is it that you have controlled the people?”

He replied:

“I excel in lying and when someone dies I make sure to attend his funeral.”

Just like a politician.

What is the origin of this accusation?

To learn the origins of this claim we will look at two matters:

First matter: Who accused `Umar (ra) of adding the expression to Adhan?

The one who reads all the books of Ahlul-Sunnah will not find anyone mentioning that `Umar (ra) added an expression to the Adhan, whether it is authentic books or books of weak narrations or books of history or any other books, even the Sunni books whose authors are said to be Shia or of Shia tendencies like al-Mas`udi or al-Waqidi.

The answer is that this accusation came from the books of the Shia Hadith scholars exclusively, only they accused our master `Umar (ra) of altering the Adhan. Not all of them mentioned it however, as this “theory” was not known to the early Shia scholars of Hadith such as ibn Shadhan, al-Tusi, al-Murtada, al-Mufid, al-Saduq, ibn al-Salah and the others, because we never found any statement of accusation against `Umar (ra) in their main books.

Yes, they did research the matter in their books but to them it was only considered to be one of the common differences of Fiqh among Ahlul-Sunnah and the Shia, even among Ahlul-Sunnah themselves.

Second matter: What are the proofs which led them to believe that `Umar (ra) did so?

All those who accused `Umar (ra) of adding this expression have used as evidence the narrations from Muwatta’ Malik that we previously discussed, and here we shall begin discussing this accusation from their earliest books below.

1- “Kitab Sulaym bin Qays al-Hilali” by Sulaym bin Qays (died 76 AH), this book did not mention the accusation nor did it point to it, although it is supposedly written in a time near the time of `Umar (ra). This author heavily criticized the first two Khulafa’, Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra), he even wrote a chapter about `Umar (ra) called “Dropping a part of the Adhan”, he said on pg.231:

[As for what he dropped from the Adhan “Come to the best of deeds” they took this as a Sunnah after him and followed him in it.]

The author mentioned that `Umar (ra) removed from the Adhan the expression “Hayy `ala Khayr-il-`Amal” but he never said anything about him adding “al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm”.

2- “al-Idah” by al-Fadl bin Shadhan (died 260 AH), is one of the early and important Shia books, it did not mention `Umar (ra) adding anything to the Adhan nor did it quote the narration of the Muwatta’, he only said on pg.203 while addressing Ahlul-Sunnah:

[I truly wonder, that from among you are those who say in the Fajr Adhan and in the last `Isha’, between the Adhan and the Iqamah, after “Come to success”: “Prayer is better than sleep”, and some of you do not say it, and none of you criticize each-other for this?]

So he did not mention anything remotely related to `Umar (ra) adding the statement to the Adhan, he actually stated that Ahlul-Sunnah had differences of opinion in Fiqh and jurisprudence and they never had to resort to Taqiyyah in order to hide their opinions like the Shia Imams supposedly did.

Then the late Muhaqqiq (6) of this book al-Sayyid Jalal-ul-Deen al-Husayni wrote in the footnotes the words of their scholar al-Majlisi (died 1110 AH) who accused `Umar (ra) of adding it.

(6) Muhaqqiq: A Muhaqqiq of a book, is usually a late scholar who researches and comments on an old classical book written by an early scholar and adds information in the footnotes.

3- “al-Istighatha fil-Bida` il-Thalathah” by abu al-Qassim al-Kufi (died 352 AH) is a book that accused `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) of adding the expression “Prayer is better than sleep” but did not provide any evidence for it, it only hurled an accusation.

He says:

[`Umar established “Prayer is better than sleep” in the Adhan]

This vague book is the only early one that accused `Umar (ra) of adding this expression without proof from either Shia or Sunni sources.

The Muhaqqiq of this book though, a contemporary Shia scholar, has placed a footnote on that same page quoting the narration of the Muwatta’ and claiming it as proof, but it’s pointless because the original author never stated his evidence. The Muhaqqiq actually quotes the exact same passage from the book “al-Fusoul al-Muhimmah” by `Abdul-Husayn al-Musawi, as he says so himself.

As for the original author, this is what the Shia scholars of Rijal (7) said about him as reported in al-Khu’i’s “Mu`jam al-Rijal” 11/263:

(7) Scholars of Rijal: Means the scholars who are knowledgeable in the field of narrators, they know the condition of each narrator, his biography and his reliability.

[al-Najashi said:

`Ali bin Ahmad abu al-Qassim al-Kufi, a man from Kufa, used to say that he is from the descendants of abu Talib, he became from the Ghulat (8) at the end of his life, and his Madhab became corrupt, and he wrote many books, most were corrupt…

(8) Ghulu: Extremism, and a man from the Ghulat is a man who became an extremist in his beliefs to the point that he clearly deviated from truth.

al-Sheikh al-Tusi said:

He was an Imami on the straight path, and he wrote many books … then he became confused and adopted the Madhab of the Mukhammisah, and he wrote many books full of Ghulu and confusion, some (deviant) beliefs are attributed to him.

al-`Allamah said at the end of the man’s biography:

The meaning of Takhmis(Mukhammisah) in the Madhab of the Ghulat may Allah curse them, is that Allah handed the provisions and affairs of the people to: Salman al-Farisi, al-Miqdad, `Ammar, abu Dharr and `Amro bin Umayyah al-Dumari, may Allah be elevated above this greatly!

ibn al-Ghada’iri said:

Claims to be from `Alawite descent but is an extremist and a liar, a man of innovations and deviant sayings, I saw many books for him but they are to be ignored.]

4- ibn Babaweih al-Qummi al-Saduq (died 381 AH) who was relatively close to that period, did not mention in his books, which numbered around three hundred, anything to point that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) added anything to the Adhan, nor did he speak about the narration in Muwatta’ Malik.

5- al-Mufid (died 413 AH) in his books that numbered a hundred and ninety four, although he wrote loads of criticism against `Umar (ra) and the Sahaba (ra) in general, he did not mention this accusation.

6- al-Sayyid al-Murtada (died 436 AH) in his book al-Shafi fil-Imamah, under the chapter “criticisms against `Umar”, did not mention this accusation, although he mentioned that he forbade the two Mut`ahs, and that he invented the Taraweeh prayer.

7-al-Sheikh al-Tusi (died 460 AH) did not mention anything related to this as well in his book “Talkhees al-Shafi” which is a summary of al-Murtada’s book.

In his other books, “Masa’il al-Nasiriyat”, “al-Intisar”, “Masa’il al-Murtada” and “al-Nihayah” he also never mentioned it.

In his book “al-Khilaf” he discussed that the matter of Tathweeb like he discussed any other difference of opinion between Ahlul-Sunnah and the Shia, without mentioning `Umar (ra) or the narration of the Muwatta’.

In fact, in “al-Khilaf” 1/95, al-Tusi proves `Umar’s (ra) innocence by quoting this narration: It is narrated that once his Mu’adhin abu Mahdhourah (ra) came to him after he had done the original Adhan, and said to him “Prayer O chief of believers, Come to prayer, Come to prayer, Come to Success, Come to Success” so `Umar (ra) said to him “Stop! are you a mad man!? Was your first call not sufficient for us to realize that we must come!?”

This shows that `Umar (ra) rejected any addition to the call to prayer that was not originally found in it, and was very clear that he wants absolutely nothing added to its original text.

8- abu al-Salah al-Halabi (died 447 AH) in his book “Taqreeb al-Ma`arif” pg.334, included a chapter titled: “Mentioning the hideous acts that they -Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman- committed which cancel their leadership”.

In this chapter he mentioned everything he can get his hands on concerning `Umar (ra), such as his prohibition of the Mut`ah of women, and the Mut`ah of Hajj, and his prohibition of increasing the dowry, and inventing the prayer of Taraweeh and so on… but never mentioned the narration of the Muwatta’ or anything related to Adhan.

9- Nasir-ul-Deen al-Tusi (died 672 AH) the author of “Tajreed al-I`tiqad” mentioned many criticisms against `Umar (ra) such as him ordering the stoning of a pregnant woman or forbidding Mut`ah, but nothing related to Adhan.

Even those who wrote summaries of al-Tusi’s book, never mentioned this accusation, such as:

al-Helli (died 726 AH) in “Kashf-ul-Murad fi Sharh Tajreed al-I`tiqad.”

or Shams-ul-Deen al-Asfahani (died 746 AH) in his Sharh.

or the Sharh by al-Qushaji (died 879 AH).

10- The book “Nahj-ul-Haqq wa Kashf-ul-Sidq” by al-`Allamah al-Helli (died 726 AH) wrote a chapter titled “The criticisms reported by Ahlul-Sunnah towards `Umar bin al-Khattab”, in this book he wrote every single thing he could get his hands on regarding `Umar (ra) even very rare opinions, and it was stated in this book that every accusation was documented from the books of Hadith and history and Seerah so that the reader may refer to it.

So he said on pg.351:

[And he added after the death of the Prophet “Prayer is better than sleep.”]

But he did not write down the source of this accusation as opposed to what was promised, although he wrote down the sources of all other accusations. So all that the poor contemporary Muhaqqiq of this book could do was refer us to the narration of the Muwatta’.

As for his other books such as “Muntaha al-Matlab”, “Minhaj al-Karamah”, “Mukhtalaf al-Shia”,  “Tadhkirat-ul-Huffaz”, “Tahrir al-Ahkam”, “Nihayat al-Ahkam” and “Tabsirat al-Muta`allimeen” he never mentioned this accusation while criticizing `Umar (ra).

11-The book “al-Sirat-ul-Mustaqeem” by `Ali al-Bayadi (died 877 AH) also never mentioned  the accusation, while knowing that he mentioned `Umar (ra) removing the expression “Come to the best of deeds”, and he mentioned many criticisms such as making three divorces in one, or protecting al-Mugheerah, or the congregational Taraweeh, or the Duha prayer ect…

12-The book “Bihar al-Anwar” by Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (died 1111 AH), is a one hundred and ten volumes book, among them are four volumes of criticisms against the companions (ra), there is even a two hundred sixty four page chapter called:

“The Kufr of the three -Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman- and their hypocrisy and scandalous acts and ugly traditions, and the virtues of disowning them.”

He filled this chapter with cursing them and insulting them and calling them names.

Under it is a chapter called “Detailing the flaws of `Umar and using them as arguments against the opponents.” it is a hundred and sixty two pages, and in it he mentioned that `Umar (ra) added Tathweeb to the Adhan and his only proof was the narration of the Muwatta’ that he quoted.

13- The book “al-Ghadeer” by al-Amini (died 1390 AH), who collected as much as he could in this eleven volume book from the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, and he wrote two hundred and fifty pages in criticism of `Umar (ra), trying to show that he is an innovator, and that he was ignorant about the religious laws and rulings… but he never mentioned the accusation about `Umar (ra) adding Tathweeb.

There are many other major Shia scholars and major books that did not mention `Umar (ra) adding to the Adhan but we will not mention them so as to not bore the reader, for a short list of these books, please refer to the original Arabic book by the brother `Ala’-ul-Deen al-Baseer. However, what we mentioned above are the main books of Fiqh and `Aqidah of the Twelver Shia sect, and one can notice that all the early Shia had no knowledge of `Umar (ra) adding anything nor were they familiar with the narration from Muwatta’ Malik or its interpretation.

We conclude from this, that this Shia accusation was put together by the late Shia scholars not their early ones, it was not known by the masters of their sect such as ibn Shadhan or Tusi or Mufid or Saduq or Murtada, it was first mentioned by an extremist liar called abu al-Qassim al-Kufi with no proof to back it, later it was mentioned in the eight century by al-Helli also without any sources. The first Shia to claim that `Umar (ra) added it and using the tradition found in Muwatta’ Malik to prove this was al-Majlisi in the twelfth century and all the rest of the Shia scholars followed his example like parrots.

`Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi clings to a very weak argument by every standard, simply to attack `Umar (ra), the man has no shame or respect for academic research, and if Ahlul-Sunnah found any evidence showing that `Umar (ra) did add such an expression, they would have openly stated it without fear just as they admitted that `Uthman (ra) added the third Adhan of Friday prayer.

In the end I would like to mention a Shia narration related to this topic, it is narrated by al-Imam al-Kazim in “Asl Zayd al-Nursi” a part of “al-Usoul al-Sitta-`Ashar” pg.54, that he said:

[“Prayer is better than sleep” is the innovation of the Umayyads and is not a part of the Adhan, and there is no harm if anyone wishes to call people by it to wake them for prayer but he should not make it a part of the Adhan as we do not see it as such.]

What choice will the Shia scholars make? will they take the weak Sunni narration? or one of their own Shia narrations and the words of their infallible leaders? apparently their hatred for `Umar (ra) was so great that they slammed the word of their infallible against the wall and took the narration from Muwatta’ Malik. Although Allah ordered us not to oppress our brothers, the Almighty ordered us not to even oppress Ahlul-Kitab:

{Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.} [60:8]

It is as if the Shia forget verses like this one when it comes to the companions and wives of our Prophet (SAWS):

{O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.} [5:8]

Writing history according to their desires:

The way of the Shia since their first appearance was a twisted one, it is a twisted reading of history that reflected negatively on their writings, which are in turn based on following their desires when it comes to accepting a narration or rejecting it. They pick the books that back up their views, and from these books they hand pick the narrations that benefit them, and from these narrations they take only the parts that suit them, and finally they interpret those parts in ways that agree to their twisted understanding of history. Also from their way, is to accept the version of history that suits them regardless of authenticity, they would pick the fabricated narration even if it is contradicted by many authentic ones.

This is why their version of history is a dark and depressing one, where the first generation of Islam and best of men were turned to a bunch of thieves and hypocrites, where the great conquests of Islam were pictured as the evil ambitions of these men, and that their purpose was only to expand their influence and enjoy material wealth.

Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili and “Tathweeb”:

This so called Sayyid Ja`far al-`Amili has accused the chief of believers `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) of adding Tathweeb to the Adhan in his books. However, he himself has rejected many historical narrations that do not suit his desires and do not agree with his Madhab, he said in his book “al-Madkhal li-Dirasat al-Seerah” pg.11:

[The one who intends to study history and benefit from historical books, has to read them with caution and awareness, so that he does not fall as a victim of misguidance. He has to open his eyes and heart for every word that passes him by, to understand it, and extract from it what consistent with reality, from the events that are backed by many proofs and evidences, and he must ignore all narrations that have been tampered by desires and tainted by extreme bias.]

I say: This same man who is saying those “wise” words above, uses his own biases and personal preferences as a scale to weigh down which  historical narrations need to be accepted, if the narration agrees with his personal views he will accept it, otherwise he rejects it! And any narration that goes against his personal views and biases, becomes from those that have been tampered by desires and tainted by extreme bias.

This man has discussed the matter of Tathweeb, so we will now show you that he didn’t apply his own standards nor did he follow this methodology that he wrote down for us in the beginning of his book, instead he followed the desires of his companions who preceded him in their hatred for `Umar (ra).

It is as Allah said:

{O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?} [61:2]

Ja`far al-`Amili comments on the following narration:

From Bilal, that he was making the Adhan of the morning, and he would say “Come to the best of deeds” so the messenger (SAWS) ordered that he replace it with “Prayer is better than sleep”.

al-`Amili comments in “al-Sahih min al-Seerah”, 4/284:

[As for the last part of the narration, it is apparently an addition by the narrators because the expression “Prayer is better than sleep” was added some time after the Prophet’s death, specifically by `Umar bin al-Khattab as many narrations state.]

Truly as Allah said:

{Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?} [45:23]

As for those “many narrations”, al-`Amili wrote down as a footnote on that same page what they were:

[Muwatta’ Malik 1/93 – Sunan al-Daraqutni – Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq vol.1 #1827, 1829, 1832, pages 474, 475 – Kanz-ul-`Ummal vol.4, 5567, 5568 – And his Muntakhab as footnote of al-Musnad 3/278, and in it he said that it was an innovation – and al-Tirmithy – and abu Dawud – and others.]

Notice that in some sources he placed the page and volume number while in others he did not, this is one of the methods they adopt to fool the poor readers, so remember it.

The bias starts with al-`Amili claiming that the last part of the narration is an addition, but he provides absolutely no proof to back up his claim, how does he know that it was added? and who added it? No one knows. We will see later that another Shia scholar `Ali al-Milani will use a different technique, he will simply erase the last part of the narration when quoting it. Whereas, another of their scholars called Ja`far al-Subhani, will quote this narration but his technique is to ignore it and not comment on it.

Now the reader is wondering, what are those many sources that al-`Amili listed? The answer is that the only source he listed was the same old narration from Muwatta’ Malik, and all other sources don’t mention anything related to `Umar (ra) adding the expression to prayer, as for the sources whose page numbers were not mentioned, he didn’t mention them as they contain authentic narrations proving that Tathweeb is a prophetic Sunnah, in other words he is fooling the readers!!

In fact, just to show you I will go through some of these sources:

1- Muwatta’ Malik 1/93:

Contains the weak narration that we discussed previously.

2- Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq #1827:

It states that Bilal (ra) added it during the time of Abu Bakr (ra) after he heard it from some man. `Umar (ra) asked him to stop this innovation!!

3- Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq #1829:

It states that the first to invent the Tathweeb was Sa`d during the Khilafah of `Umar (ra), and he said “It is an innovation” and he left it.

4- Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq #1832:

`Umar’s son (ra) heard a man making Tathweeb in a mosque so he said “Let’s leave this innovator alone!”

So as the reader can see, none of these narrations accuse `Umar (ra), in fact one accuses Bilal (ra) and the other accuses Sa`d (ra). Keep in mind that in the same book there are narrations in which both Bilal (ra) and abu Mahdhourah (ra) said that this was an order from the Prophet (SAWS), such as narration #1824, #1823, and even the son of `Umar (ra) used to do it in #1822.

5- Sunan al-Daraqutni:

Contains several narrations stating that it was an order from the Prophet (SAWS). Nothing about `Umar (ra) inventing this expression.

And so on and so forth… there is absolutely no proof whatsoever for their claim that `Umar (ra) added it, except what is narrated in al-Muwatta’ of Imam Malik and is disconnected and weak… yet they will use this pathetic narration just in order to attack `Umar (ra)!

Ja`far al-`Amili says in another book “Mukhtasar Mufid As’ilah wa Ajwibah fil-Deen” 9/37:

[That reporting a narration about a matter, does not mean that the one who reported it accepts its content, especially if he reports what opposes it.]

So how is it then, that in our case there are plenty of strong narrations, even entire chapters to oppose this claim, yet the Shia will stick to that one narration out of hatred for the Sahabah.

Actually one can refer to “al-Mughni” by ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, vol.1, pg.211 to see that Imam Malik was from those who considered Tathweeb a prophetic Sunnah.

Murtada al-`Askari and “Tathweeb”:

The way of the Shia is to cling to any random weak narration and make it an undisputed historical fact if it happens to agree with their beliefs and if it supports their case against the companions of the Prophet (SAWS). However, if a narration is quoted against them, you will see them researching and citing sources and studying the authenticity and the text and trying to give various interpretations in order to defend their Madhab.

Their scholar Murtada al-`Askari is no different than all his other companions when it comes to hypocrisy, this man wanted to defend the Shia religion because they were being accused of believing in the corruption of the Qur’an. Their books are fully loaded with narrations about how the Qur’an was altered and changed by the companions of the Prophet (SAWS), and how the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt were deleted from it and such…

Shia scholar al-`Allamah Muhammad Salih al-Mazindarani says in “Sharh al-Kafi” 11/76:

[The deletion of some parts of the Qur’an and its corruption was established in our sources with Tawatur, as it is apparent for those who observe the books of Hadith from beginning to end.]

Shia scholar Sultan Muhammad al-Janabidhi says in “Tafsir Bayan al-Sa`adah fi Maqamat al-`Ibadah” pg.19:

[Know (O reader) that a plentiful amount of narrations from the pure Imams state that additions and deletions and corruption and change have taken place in it, in a way that leaves no doubt.]

Shia scholar Muhammad al-Lucknawi wrote in “Darbat Haydari” 2/78:

[The claim that no corruption took place in the Qur’an is apparently corrupt, because the narrations showing this corruption have reached Tawatur.]

Shia scholar `Abdullah Shubbar said in “Masabih al-Anwar fi Hall Mushkilat al-Akhbar” 2/294-295:

[Most of what is in our hands today is the Qur’an that was revealed upon the Prophet (as) and many parts of it have been removed, as proven by the great amount of narrations that are almost Mutawatir, and we have clarified this in our book: Muniyah al-Muhasileen fi Haqiyat Tareeq al-Mujtahideen.]

Shia scholar Muhammad Mahdi al-Naraqi said in “Minhaj al-Ahkam” under the chapter “Hujjiyat Zawahir al-Kitab”:

[Deletion has taken place in the Qur’an, meaning: Parts of it have been removed, even if we do not know specifically where it is, as shown by the many un-contradicted narrations and proofs.]

The Shia belief that narrations reaching Tawatur from the Imams state that the Qur’an was corrupted, this belief has been reported by many Shia scholars that we cannot mention now so that we do not go off-topic, one of their scholars called al-Noori al-Tabrasi has collected a huge amount of these narrations, their scholar Muhammad Hadi Ma`rifah wrote in “Siyanat al-Qur’an” pg.239:

[What al-Noori had collected from narrations of corruption, are more than a thousand and one hundred (1122) to be exact.]

Now we return to Murtada al-`Askari who wanted to defend his Madhab from the accusation of corruption, wrote a three volume set called “al-Qur’an wa Riwayat al-Madrasatayn”, in the third volume which is 847 pages, he went through 1062 narrations of corruption and rejected all of them, by weakening their chain of transmission or by giving them a suitable interpretation, he then said at the end of his book:

[al-Sheikh al-Noori and Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer have quoted 1062 narrations which they claimed prove the corruption of the Qur’an, and by the favor of Allah we have studied them one by one, their chains and their texts, and we found that all of them share one of two things:

Either their chains contain extremists or liars or unknown or weak narrators, or the text is only an explanation for the verse as opposed to their claim that it was erased from it, and at many times both.]

And finally he declares on page 874, that all those narrations are “zero” and they amount to nothing at all!

I say: First of all, if this hypocrite were to apply his methods of weakening narrations, to all the Shia books of Hadith, then their entire library of books would become one big zero, not one narration would be left!

Murtada al-`Askari placed a huge effort to weaken all those narrations that he had  to criticize and attack some of their most popular books such as Tafsir al-Qummi, Tafsir al-`Ayyashi, Tafsir Furat al-Kufi and Kitab Sulaym bin Qays.

Secondly, the hypocrite dropped a thousand and sixty two narrations of corruption but he held on to that one narration from Muwatta’ Malik just in order to attack `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), so our question to this so called un-biased Shia scholar is:

Couldn’t you have placed just a tiny little bit of your effort, to look at the chain and the text of the narration of the Muwatta’, that you used in order to attack a leader of this nation and the chief of believers `Umar al-Farouq!?

In that same book he wrote a section on how the Caliphs opposed the Qur’an and Sunnah, from the examples he gave in vol.2, pg.472 was:

[`Umar substituting “Come to the best of deeds” with “Prayer is better than sleep” in the morning, refer to: Musnnaf ibn abi Shaybah, and Muwatta’ Malik under chapter “Adhan wal-Tathweeb.”]

I seek refuge in Allah from their extremism and blindness, all I can say is that on the day of judgment these oppressors shall not any light emanating from their faces.

{He who lieth faileth miserably.} [20:61]

Then they accuse Ahlul-Sunnah of doing this to them and complain, just like their scholar Muhammad Rida al-Husayni al-Jalali said in “Difa` `an il-Qur’an” pg.10:

[Many times, the Salafis would rely in their researches on words taken from corrupt books or mis-quotation of texts, or they fail to understand certain terms because of their ignorance of their meanings, and they give them incorrect explanations then accuse those who wrote them of blasphemy.]

I say: The text above would be very accurate should you make a slight adjustment, replace the word “Salafis” with the word “Shia”.

In the light of Sayyid Jalali’s words, let’s compare what the Shia did in the matter of Tathweeb, with what Ahlul-Sunnah did in the matter of corruption of Qur’an.

A-

A huge group of Shia scholars have admitted that the Qur’an is corrupt.

You will not find even one scholar from Ahlul-Sunnah saying “`Umar added al-Salatu Khayrun min al-Nawm.”

B-

Ahlul-Sunnah quote the words of some of the major Shia scholars in the most popular and praised books, admitting to corruption.

The Shia could not even find any reliable or un-reliable Sunni book stating that `Umar innovated Tathweeb.

C-

Ahlul-Sunnah did not mis-understand the terms, they quoted clear and popular Shia views.

The Shia are the ones who explained the narration of the Muwatta’ as they pleased and desired.

D-

If Ahlul-Sunnah accused those Shia scholars of blasphemy after admitting that the Qur’an is corrupt, they cannot be blamed.

The Shia scholars will actually use something as minor as an adding an expression to the morning Adhan to accuse `Umar (ra) of blasphemy.

And when you debate them, they rejoice and celebrate and boast in pride that they don’t have even one Sahih book.

And when you use arguments against the Shia from the Shia books, such as al-Kafi and I assume all readers know the importance of this book in Shia faith, Ahlul-Sunnah will not just quote a narration or two, but they will quote entire chapters that explicitly illustrate corrupt beliefs, you will receive the popular answer accompanied by wailing and weeping:

“al-Kafi is not all authentic, who told you it is Sahih!!?”

They are glad that they have no authentic book, and as far as I know, not one religious group on the face of the planet rejoices for not having an authentic book. They later turn their back at you in joy, that no argument can be used against them since their books are not authentic, yet they have the audacity to claim that they are the saved sect and the truthful sect… but have not one authentic book to preserve their religion for them.

Where were the thirteen infallible individuals during these three centuries?

Why did they leave them with no authentic books?

Why didn’t their Mahdi write them at least one book during his minor occultation which lasted more than 70 years!? As it is not established historically that any of their Imams wrote even one book of Hadith, Tafseer, Tareekh or `Aqeedah. On the other hand, those who lived during the time of the Imams, from the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah, have written many books and volumes, the second century did not end until most religious sciences were matured, they even wrote books to refute deviant sects and religions like Zoroastrians and Buddhists and Christians and so on…

Isn’t it from the duties of the Imams to preserve religion from being lost, or tampered? Why did those infallible Imams make us rely on the narrations of non-infallible people like Zurarah and Jabir al-Ju`fi and Sahl bin Ziyad? And why did they allow them to rely on non-infallible people like Kulayni and Tusi and Saduq to write them down in book form? And why did they allow those non-infallible people to make us rely on the grading of narrations which is taken by non-infallible people like Majlisi and Khu’i and Khomayni?

Where are those so called divine books that the Imams wrote, like Sahifat `Ali, Mushaf Fatima, al-Jafr, al-Jami`ah,`Ali’s Qur’an?

Why accuse `Umar (ra) of creating confusion by not allowing Hadith to be written, when their own Imams left their followers in a great chaos that led some of their own companions to become misguided, and many Shia left the sect because of the huge amount of contradicting narrations!?

The dear reader will find that with the presence of twelve infallible divine scholars and with the passing of hundreds of years, the Shia still cannot agree on a book that they can rely on entirely, and you will find a huge difference among their contemporaries about the reliability of some of their major narrators, and some don’t even believe in the methodology of Hadith grading to begin with.

It truly boggles the mind how a sect with so many problems would have the time to dive into the books of another sect in order to find bits and scraps that they can use to attack the companions of the Prophet (SAWS).

5- FIFTH ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn al-Musawi said:

[al-`Allamah al-Zarqani said when he reached this Hadith in “Sharh al-Muwatta’”:

This narration was reported by al-Daraqutni in his Sunan, with his chain to the Musannaf of Waki`, from al-`Umari, from Nafi`, from ibn `Umar, from `Umar. And he reported it also from Suffiyan, from Muhammad bin `Ajalan, from Nafi`, from ibn `Umar, from `Umar, that he told his Mu’adhin: “When you reach ‘Come to success’ during Fajr, then say: Prayer is better than sleep, prayer is better than sleep.”

I say: Ibn abi Shaybah also  reported it from Hisham bin `Urwah. It is also narrated by another group of scholars who are too numerous to mention.]

First of all, the part which says “I say”, these are not the words of al-Musawi, they are the words of the same Sunni scholar al-Zarqani taken from another paragraph that al-Musawi did not wish to quote. al-Musawi just wanted to give his readers the impression that they were his words, so they’d  think the man put some effort in his search for truth, although he is far from it removed.

What `Abdul-Husayn did not mention from al-Zarqani’s words was the following:

[I do not know that this was narrated from `Umar in any authentic way, it was only reported by ibn abi Shaybah from the Hadith of Hisham ibn `Urwah, from a man called Isma`eel and I do not know who he is.

And Tathweeb is established in the Adhan of Bilal, and ibn abi Mahdhourah when they would do it in the morning prayers with the Prophet (SAWS).

The meaning of this narration here, is that this expression must be announced only in the Adhan of the morning, not like the Mu’adhin did it, he (`Umar) disliked that there would be a different call on the door of the leader, as some leaders would later do. Otherwise, Tathweeb is popular among the scholars and laypeople, and it cannot be that `Umar (ra) did not know of what the Prophet (SAWS) had ordered his two Mu’adhins, Bilal in Madinah and abu Mahdhourah in Makkah.

This was also an explanation by al-Baji, who said that it is possible that `Umar refused that the Mu’adhin would use an expression from the expressions of Adhan outside of it, so he ordered him to keep it within the Adhan.

It has been narrated by ibn Majah, from the route of ibn al-Musayyib, from Bilal, that he came to the Prophet (SAWS) to make Adhan for him in Fajr, so they told him “He is asleep.” he said: Prayer is better than sleep, twice. So it was accepted in the Adhan of Fajr and it remained that way.

Baqi ibn Makhlad narrated, from abi Mahdhourah, that he said:

“I was a boy, so I made Adhan to the Prophet (SAWS) during Fajr on the day of Hunayn, when I reached Come to success, he (SAWS) said: Follow it with: Prayer is better than sleep.”

Malik said in Mukhtasar ibn Sha`ban: A Mu’adhin must not leave the saying “Prayer is better than sleep” in the morning call whether he is traveling or not. However, if one made this call in his village, in a secluded or isolated place (where no one can hear him), then it is allowed for him to leave it but it is preferable if he did not leave it.

Malik from his uncle abu Suhayl ibn Malik, from his father Malik bin `Amir al-Asbahi, that he said:

Since I first became aware, the only matter that they did -The Sahaba- and still remains unchanged is the call to prayer, it remained as it was and no change came to it, as opposed to the prayer because it was delayed from its rightful times, and change crept into many of the actions, a lot from enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil is gone even if the people knew them, as al-Baji said.

Ibn `Abdul-Barr said:

“Adhan did not change from how it first was.”

`Ata’ said:

“I do not know that the Adhan of today differs from their Adhan in the past, even though many things  are different today than they were during the time of the four Caliphs.”

And some who do not accept the opinions of the people of Madinah used this as an argument, and said that the only argument is what was reported with the authentic chains from the Prophet (SAWS) and the four Caliphs and those who followed their way.]

Source: Sharh al-Zarqani `ala Muwatta’ al-Imam Malik, by Muhammad al-Zarqani, vol.1, pg.150.

It is truly shocking, the amount of dishonesty the Shia scholar has. He only quoted one sentence from al-Zarqani, out of context, and left all the rest of the paragraph which mentions the following points:

1- The narration accusing `Umar (ra) was weak in terms of the chain of transmission.

2- The narration of `Umar (ra) can easily be given another interpretation that does not oppose all other narrations on Tathweeb.

3- “Prayer is better than sleep.” was a part of the Adhan since the time of the Prophet (SAWS) as narrated by his two Mu’adhins.

4- Imam Malik himself is of the opinion that Tathweeb is a Sunnah and it is disliked to leave it.

5- The major early scholars all agree that Adhan was among the things that were unchanged, not even slightly.

Even the narration from Musannaf Waki` in which `Umar (ra) tells his Mu’adhin to announce Tathweeb in the morning call, that can easily be given the following interpretation: `Umar (ra) reminded his old Mu’adhin or informed his new Mu’adhin that reciting Tathweeb in Fajr is a Sunnah, so he must do  it. It doesn’t say he invented it or added something that was not already there, so it’s unacceptable as an argument and is completely different than the narration of Muwatta’ Malik.

`Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi says:

[It is also narrated by another group of scholars who are too numerous to mention.]

And he placed a footnote under it:

[Review al-Wasa’il, vol.4, pg.642 – Chapters of Adhan and Iqamah – chapter 19]

I say: After al-Musawi felt that he did not have much proofs, and that his argument was weak, and he lost hope in trying to find new sources, although he threw every arrow in his possession. al-Musawi resorted to deceive his readers and said: “Also narrated by another group of scholars who are too numerous to mention.” He said it to fool the readers into thinking that it’s actually true.

The biggest proof we have that this man is a liar, is his own book, review his book and see for yourself that he fills the pages of his books with as many sources and quotes as he can, even in the smallest matters, you will find page after page of sources and quotes even if they are sometimes completely irrelevant! But in our case, he knows he has no more proofs except for that one narration, so he simply says “They’re too numerous to mention.”

After this hypocrite scholar died, his followers wanted to save him from his shame, so one of the contemporary Shia Dr.`Abdul-Jabbar Shararah volunteered to become the Muhaqqiq of `Abdul-Husayn’s book, and when he reached this part of the book he was dumbfounded, he had absolutely nothing to write in the footnotes, there was no “other group of scholars” nor was there any mention of this in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah! So what can this poor man do? He can’t say his master is wrong, after all the Shia granted their Ayatullahs a level near infallibility, so what can the poor doctor do?

Dr.`Abdul-Jabbar, found that the only solution to save his master’s reputation, was to act like a confused mule, and refer the readers in the footnotes to the book “al-Wasa’il”. This O dear reader is the famous Shia book “Wasa’il al-Shi`ah” by their scholar al-Hurr al-`Amili!! There was no “group of scholars who are too numerous to count” nor was there any narrations in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, so he decided to refer us to a Shia book that isn’t even relied upon by the Shia themselves!! By doing so, admitting that his master `Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi was a big liar.

This isn’t the end of it however.

The Shia source that he referred us to, also has nothing to do with `Umar (ra) adding an expression to the Adhan. If the reader checks the chapter of Adhan and Iqamah in Kitab al-Salat from Wasa’il al-Shia, he will see that the author collected twenty five narrations, that inform us about the text of the Adhan which the Shia supposedly narrated from their Imams.

What we conclude, is that the author of the book and the Muhaqqiq of the book, both of these Shia scholars are dishonest deceivers.

Still this isn’t the end of it!

When checking that chapter which the deceiver referred us to,  we will see that in four of the narrations, the Imams themselves announce “Prayer is better than sleep” as being part of the Adhan! We will cover these in the coming pages Insha-Allah. Do we really need more evidence to prove that these people are extremists in their hatred, twisted in their confused understanding, weak in their poor comprehension and followers of their own evil desires!?

If this is the level of their renowned Ayatullah and leader `Abdul-Husayn Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi, then what did he leave for the average Shia scholars? Can there be a lower level of ignorance than this?

Lies and misquotations in Ayatullah `Ali al-Milani’s book:

In a few quick paragraphs we intend to show the readers the dishonest methods of the Imami Shia sect and their scholars. We will use Ayatullah al-Milani’s books “al-Shahadah al-Thalithah” and “Muhadarat fil-I`tiqadat” for this purpose.

We will quote a paragraph with its footnotes from the man’s books “al-Shahadah bil-Wilayah” pg.43 & “Muhadarat fil-I`tiqadat” pg.672:

[As for Ahlul-Sunnah, they altered the Adhan in two ways:

The first alteration: Removing “Come to the best of deeds.”

The second alteration: Adding “Prayer is better than sleep.” With no proof for both acts.

This is in “Sharh al-Tajreed” by al-Qawshaji (1), and he defended it as he defended the two Mut`ahs, so from this it appears that “Come to the best of deeds” was a part from the Adhan in the time of the Prophet (SAWS), and `Umar forbade it as he forbade the two Mut`ahs.

What proves that “Come to the best of deeds” was a part of the Adhan during the time of the Prophet (SAWS) and after him, is what is narrated in “Kanz-ul-`Ummal”, Kitab al-Salat (2), from al-Tabarani:

Bilal used to make Adhan in the morning, he would say: “Come to the best of deeds”, and it is similarly reported in “al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah” (3), and it is mentioned that `Abdullah ibn `Umar and al-Imam al-Sajjad used to both announce in their Adhan “Come to the best of deeds”, but as for “Prayer is better than sleep” they have many narrations that it is an innovation so review them (4).

Footnotes:

1-Sharh al-Tajreed by Qawshaji, section on Imamah, manuscript.

2-Kanz-ul-`Ummal by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, vol.8, pg.342.

3- al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah, vol.2, pg.305.

4-Kanz-ul-`Ummal by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, vol.8, pg.356-357.]

Presenting his lies:

We shall not discuss all of al-Milani’s words in this book as we’ve done so in another book.

al-Milani says:

[As for “Prayer is better than sleep.” they (Sunnies) have many narrations declaring it as an innovation, so refer to them. (He pointed us to Kanz al-`Ummal)]

I say: al-Milani spoke of many narrations yet he pointed us to Kanz al-`Ummal, sadly this book contains only one narration which claims that Sa`d was the first one who innovated it, it also contains twenty six other narrations proving that “Prayer is better than sleep.” is a part of the Adhan and Sunnah.

In fact, this one narration that al-Milani pointed us to says the following:

[From ibn Jurayj that he said: `Umar bin Hafs told me that Sa`d was the first one to say: “Prayer is better than sleep” during the Caliphate of `Umar, so `Umar said: “An innovation!” and he left it, and Bilal did not make Adhan for `Umar.]

In other words, the only narration al-Milani quoted is on that proves `Umar’s (ra) innocence! and he ignored the twenty six others for some satanic reason in his head.

Ayatullah `Ali al-Milani the liar then said:

[The proof that shows that “Come to the best of deeds” was found in the Adhan of the Prophet (as) and after him: The Hadith from Kanz al-`Ummal, in Kitab al-Salat, from al-Tabarani:

Bilal used to make Adhan in the morning, he would say: “Come to the best of deeds.”]

I say: You will very soon see inshaAllah the dishonesty of their leader al-Milani, we truly wonder how the likes of  al-Milani and al-`Amili and `Abdul-Husayn shall defend themselves in front of Allah on the day of judgment.

We shall present the narrations from the three sources that al-Milani relied on to accuse `Umar (ra). They’re Kanz al-`Ummal, al-Tabarani, and al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah. It’s actually two sources since the author of Kanz al-`Ummal reported a narration from al-Tabarani’s book.

The first narration from Tabarani is as follows:

[Muhammad bin `Ali al-Sa’igh al-Makki told us, Ya`qoub bin Humayd bin Kasib told us, `Abdul-Rahman bin Sa`d bin `Ammar bin Sa`d told us, from `Abdullah bin Muhammad, and `Umar and `Ammar, the sons of Hafs, from their fathers, from their grandfathers, from Bilal: That he used to make Adhan in the morning, he would say: “Come to the best of deeds.” so the Prophet (SAWS) ordered him to replace it with “Prayer is better than sleep.” and to leave “Come to the best of deeds.”]

source: al-Mu`jam al-Kabir lil-Tabarani 1/352.

What al-Milani did, is that he quoted a part of this narration out of context, and left the rest of the narration because it exposes his lies.

Can we say that it is a mistake? well NO, because al-Milani would then quote his second source, he quotes the exact same narration again from Kanz al-`Ummal, and he would do it out of context again, since both books contain the same text. If he made a mistake in the first one, he can’t have made it again in the second.

As for the last narration we discussed it in our other book so refer to it there (9)

(9): The book is “al-Shahadah al-Thalithah fil-Adhan” by `Ala’-ul-Deen al-Baseer, it is not yet translated into English.

6- SIXTH ARGUMENT:

`Abdul-Husayn says:

[It is only that the second Caliph ordered it as proven by the mass transmitted(Mutawatir) narrations of the pure progeny.]

I say: The Imams of the Shia in their narrations said: “Prayer is better than sleep” and some Shia scholars even agreed that this expression is valid.

Here are some of them:

1) al-Mu`tabar pg.166 – Wasa’il al-Shi`ah 4/652 #5:

[Ja`far bin al-Hasan al-Muhaqqiq in al-Mu`tabar, quotes from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin abi Nasr’s book, from `Abdullah bin Sinan, from abu `Abdillah (as) that he said: “If you were in the Fajr Adhan then say “Prayer is better than sleep” after “Come to the best of deeds”, and do not say “Prayer is better than sleep” in Iqamah, it is only in Adhan.”]

2) al-Tahdheeb 1/151 – al-Istibsar 1/157 – Wasa’il al-Shi`ah 4/651 #3:

[As for what Muhammad bin `Ali bin Mahboub, from Ahmad bin al-Hasan, from al-Husayn, from Hamad bin `Isa, from Shu`ayb bin Ya`qoub, from abu Basir, from abu `Abdillah (as): “Calling and Tathweeb in the Adhan is from the Sunnah.”]

3) al-Usoul al-Sittah-`Ashar Kitab Zayd al-Nursi pg.205 – Mustadrak al-Wasa’il by al-Tabrasi 4/25 chapter 7:

[From abi al-Hasan (as): I asked him about the Adhan before Fajr so he (as) said:”No, it is only during Fajr when it first begins.” I said: “But if he wishes to call the people to prayer and alarm them?” he (as) said: “He does not make the Adhan. However, he must call “Prayer is better than sleep, prayer is better than sleep.” he says it repeatedly and when Fajr comes he makes Adhan.”]

4) al-Istibsar 1/308 – Tahdheeb al-Ahkam 1/150 – Wasa’il al-Shi`ah 4/651 – Bihar al-Anwar 81/168 – al-Sara’ir by ibn Idris 3/601:

[From al-Husayn bin Sa`eed, from Fadalah, from al-`Ala, from Muhammad bin Muslim, from abi Ja`far (as): “My father (Zayn al-`Abideen) used to call in his home “Prayer is better than sleep.” and if you repeat these words there is no harm.”

al-Tusi said: Any expression resembling the one in these two narrations is considered Taqiyyah, because the sect agreed to abandon doing it.”]

Instead of taking the words of the Imams and following their example, the Shia scholars out of hatred for Ahlul-Sunnah decided to stop practicing them and they claimed that their Imams said this out of Taqiyyah only.

al-`Allamah al-Helli admits that the chain of narrators of this narration and the one before it are authentic. He says in “Muntaha al-Matlab fi Tahqiq al-Madhab” 4/383:

[Because we say, after admitting to the authenticity of the chain: The two narrations are weak because they are not backed by any others, and because our companions do not practice according to them, and the other narrations oppose them, so they’re considered Taqiyyah.]

5) Tahdheeb al-Ahkam 1/150 – al-Istibsar 1/307 – Wasa’il al-Shi`ah 4/644:

[From Ahmad, from al-Husayn, from Fadalah, from Sayf bin `Umayrah, from abi Bakr al-Hadrami and Kulayb al-Asadi both, from abu `Abdillah (as) “That he recited to them the Adhan: Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar …ect… Hay `ala Khayr al-`Amal, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, La Ilaha illa Allah, La Ilaha illa Allah, and so is the Iqamah.”

And al-Saduq narrated it with his Isnad from abi Bakr al-Hadrami and Kulayb al-Asadi, a Hadith like it but he added: “And there is no harm in adding to the morning call, after “Come to the best of deeds”, the words “Prayer is better than sleep” twice for Taqiyyah.]

al-Majlisi however replies to al-Tusi who claimed these to be for Taqiyyah, he said in “Bihar al-Anwar” 18/119:

[He said it’s for Taqiyyah and I do not see this as correct in any way, because a part of the Adhan (in that narration) was “Come to the best of deeds”, and only our companions (the Shia) says this, so if it were for Taqiyyah he would not have mentioned this.”]

And al-Majlisi is correct, because Taqiyyah is used to hide the fact that one is Shia, and in the narration above the expression “Come  to the best of deeds” is used, and this is a famous Shia expression, so how can saying “Prayer is better than sleep” after it be for Taqiyyah? The example of this is that of a Shia who cursed Abu Bakr (ra) and then praised `Umar (ra) after it for Taqiyyah.

Their scholar Yusuf al-Bahrani angrily refutes al-Majlisi, in “al-Hada’iq al-Nadirah” 7/418:

[Rather what is correct is what al-Sheikh (al-Tusi) said, it agrees with the numerous narrations from the Imams of guidance (as) that state that we must present our narrations to the Madhab of the `Amah (Sunnies) and accept what opposes them, even if he (al-Majlisi) and others decided to throw these established laws behind their backs.]

6) Bihar al-Anwar 81/118,119:

[The author of al-Mu`tabar said, that in the book of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin abi Nasr al-Bzanti from our companions, he said: `Abdullah bin Sinan  told me, from abu `Abdullah (as) that he said: “The Adhan is: Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar …ect… then he said: If you were in the Fajr Adhan then say “Prayer is better than sleep” after “Come to the best of deeds”. and Say after “Allahu Akbar, Allahu AKbar” “La Ilaha illa Allah”.  And do not say in Iqamah “Prayer is better than sleep” it is only in Adhan.”]

I say: The proofs in the Shia books for saying “Prayer is better than sleep” are much stronger than the proof for saying “`Ali Waliyullah” in Adhan, but the Shia will always say the latter because it agrees with their desires, and they will always abandon the former because of hatred for Ahlul-Sunnah.

Taqiyyah as an excuse:

Taqiyyah played a big role in corrupting the text of the Adhan in Shia books, many of their narrations were similar to those of Ahlul-Sunnah but they rejected the correct Adhan just to oppose them, because the Imam supposedly narrates to them in al-Kafi:

“What opposes the `Amah(Sunnies), in it will be guidance.”

So Taqiyyah is simply an excuse to reject all narrations, authentic or not, if they do not suit thee leaders of the Madhab and do not appeal to their desires. Otherwise, how could it make sense that `Ali bin al-Husayn (rah) is secretly calling “Prayer is better than sleep” in his own house out of Taqiyyah? Was he really so afraid that there’d be someone standing at his door in Fajr listening to his Adhan? Did the rulers at the time really care if this man said “Prayer is better than sleep” or not?

The issue of Taqiyyah and conflicting Shia narrations led many of the Shia to abandon this corrupt Madhab, Yusuf al-Bahrani himself admits in al-Hada’iq al-Nadirah 1/5:

“Only a little of the rulings of the religion are know by certainty, because of the narrations being mixed with Taqiyyah.”

Shia scholar Ja`far al-Shakhouri said in his book “Harakiyyat al-`Aql al-Ijtihadi” pg.72-75:

[We find that the biggest of the Shia scholars differ in identifying the narrations of Taqiyyah from those that announce the true rulings. Take for example the matter of the purity of wine, many are of the opinion that it is impure such as al-Tusi, this is because they considered the narrations declaring it to be pure as Taqiyyah. Whereas, some jurists say it is pure like al-Muqaddas al-Ardibilee and others, because they considered the narrations of impurity as Taqiyyah. This shows great confusion among the early scholars when it comes to Taqiyyah.]

And he said:

[If we wanted to present tens of other examples we could write volumes about the chaos of identifying Taqiyyah]

Also the Shia scholar al-Fayd al-Kashani the author of Tafsir al-Safi complained about identifying the narrations of Taqiyyah, he said that the Shia scholars differed greatly in this in “Muqaddimat al-Wafi” pg.9:

[You will see them disagreeing on one issue with twenty opinions or thirty or more, if you wish I can even say that they differed in all branches of religion or matters related to them.]

The author of al-Hada’iq al-Nadirah even said in vol.1 pg.5 that the Imams of the Shia can reply to the Shia questioners with strange opinions that even the Sunnies don’t have, they do this just spread disagreement among their followers, he said:

[The Imams make opposing rulings even if none of them (Sunnies) are present, you will see them replying to the same question with numerous replies even if none of them are adopted by those who oppose us (Sunnies).]

Ironically, and after all this, the Imami Shia still claim that Allah appointed the Imams out of grace so they can protect the religion from corruption and guide the people to the correct opinions, and stop division and misguidance.

Khomeini was an agent for the West

Khomeini’s Background & His British Father

With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah. With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.

Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya – his body was never found- opened the way for Khomeini to invade Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreigner like Khomeini taking over a country in which he (Khomeini) was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.

While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a great man, similar to Hitler, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan the Mongol scourge.

The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was Ayatollah Khomeini and the structure which he put in place. However, there is compelling evidence that Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to impose his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964. Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini’s non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of Ayatollah.

One of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left, was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false Ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian national intelligence and security organization.

Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly-respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to allow Khomeini, then literally awaiting death on charges of treason, to be called an Ayatollah to save his life: it was forbidden to execute an Ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeinis execution at that time.

Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, incommunicado and under house arrest, without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose anti-Khomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.

Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise know his fathers origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help, on Khomeini’s personal orders, immediately on Khomaini return from France after the 1979 coup.

SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini’s life in 1964, was taken that same night onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official, who defected and joined SAVAMA (the clerics equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the file for a rainy day.

Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly stated that he would kill as many Iranians. He considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian authorities.

Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.

Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later known as British Petroleum- BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.

The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked for me. He certainly went native but whether he is Khomeini’s father I could not say. Would not an outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British paternity? From someone who knew Haji [and thus the truth] well?

Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his no comment.

How it all happened:

A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula in South Yemen, where he joined the local police force.

His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.

A few points should be remembered about the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that time. Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.

British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz, but politically controlled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Mohammareh) with assistance from E. Elkington in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr. Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later represented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence, who gained fame as Lawrence of Arabia, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Khorramshahr during this same period.

Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and exploited by the British, including via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran.

Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political and oil personnel. Haji Abdullah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65. Earlier, in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the first name of Abdullah. Family names were still unusual and son of the son of or son of a type of worker or craftsman was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca, took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactors name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it as a distinguisher. Thus, William Richard Williamson became known as Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.

During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdullah took his vacations in Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women each under Muslim marriage rituals. He had 13 children of whom seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood. His repeated Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to the Kashmir Indian father misconception.

With dark-haired Haji Abdullah a fanatically devout Muslim, a characteristic he imposed on his children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman. He insisted his four surviving sons attend religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their own right.

The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residence, Khomein, as the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning: “from Khomein city”).

The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas (petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini through that brother with Haji Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeinis undisputed brother use the Williamson family name? The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdullah Williamson in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for anti-Iranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50 agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932 pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.

His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm (see above), a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdullah’s political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know Khomeini’s father well. Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of foreign oil companies, which decided not Iran how much oil the country was allowed to produce and at what price it had to be sold.

With his own and his family’s theological background, Khomeni began to foment an anti-monarchy revolt through the mosques, which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently he was given the life-saving Ayatollah title which he had not earned.

After formally being exiled to Turkey, Khomeini ended up in Iraq where he wrote some philosophical and social behavior dissertations which were so bizarre by religious standards that, where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, cleaner versions appeared as edited translations in Farsi.

Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the language. With the number of Iranians who have died because of him and his successors over the past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian may have had no love or compassion for Iranians either.

In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras rolling, a journalist asked: What do you feel about returning to Iran? He replied: Nothing! The question was repeated, and again he replied: Nothing!

Summary of Khomeini’s Background

  1. In 1964 Ayatollah Shariatmadari and Ayatollah Golpayegani gave Khomeini the title of Ayatollah. Reportedly, they had done this to save Khomeini’s life, as Khomeini was facing a charge of treason against the Shah. And reportedly it was the UK ambassador who had urged that Khomeini be saved.

    2. Shariatmadari was higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini. In 1979, after Khomeini took over Iran, he placed Shariatmadari under house arrest.

    3. Reportedly, Khomeini was not Iranian. He “was neither born (in Iran) nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.” Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian. Reportedly, a story was invented that Khomeini had a Kashmiri Indian father with Iranian origins. The Iranian Senator Moussavi knew Khomeini’s real father. Reportedly Khomeini had Moussavi killed.

    4. Reportedly, Khomeini’s real father, was William Richard Williamson, born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. A witness to this was a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later BP), who knew the Khomeini family. In 1979, when Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, was asked about this, he neither confirmed nor denied the story.

    William Richard Williamson’s biography was written in the early 1950s, by Stanton Hope, a British Journalist and writer who had met Williamson in his home near Basra in the late 1940s. The book title is: Arabian Adventurer: the Story of Haji Williamson

    5. Reportedly, Richard Williamson, at the age of 20, was working in South Yemen in the local police force.

    “His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.”

    6. In Iran at this time, the British were exploiting the oilfields. Williamson, now a Muslim, joined British Petroleum as political officer. He called himself Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.

    7. Williamson took holidays in Kashmir and married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women. His sons attended religious schools. Reportedly, one son went to the Iranian holy city of Qom and took the name Khomeini.

    8. In the early 1960s, Khomeini began to plot against the Shah. In 1964 Khomeini was sentenced to death. By becoming an Ayatollah, his life was saved.

    9. Reportedly, in 1979, Khomeini was flown from France to Iran, with the help of the British Intelligence Service, MI6. He took over Iran.

    In 1979, Imam (Ayatollah) Mussa Sadr disappeared during a visit to Libya. Imam Mussa Sadr was the Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia and he “was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world.”

Why was the Shah of Iran toppled by the CIA and MI6?

The mainstream media would like us to believe that the Shah was overthrown by People Power and that the CIA and MI6 were taken by surprise. However, there is evidence that the CIA and MI6 toppled the Shah because he had become too much of a nationalist, like Egypt’s President Jamal Abdul-Naser, and was not following instructions on oil or even opium.

The CIA did not want left-wing democrats taking over from the Shah as they might not be easy to control. So, reportedly, the CIA allowed the Ayatollahs to take over.

Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom, the Ayatollah Khomeini received a “monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British.”

On 19 January 1980, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Shah had said, two years before he was overthrown, that he had heard from two different sources connected with oil companies that the regime in Iran would change.

‘We believe that there was a plan to ensure less oil was offered to the world markets in order to bring down the price (of oil). One country was to be chosen for the sacrifice… It seems that the country chosen to drop its oil production was mine’ said the Shah.

According to the Guardian: “Shah- Oil Companies Helped to Oust Him”

The Shah’s nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown’s own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one and a half million people became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

Former intelligence officer, Dr John Coleman, considers opium to be of prime importance in the toppling of the Shah (Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 – 6). Dr Coleman is sometimes described as being a conspiracy theorist.

Coleman believes that the U.S. government toppled the Shah of Iran. He writes:

Why was the Shah deposed…?

In a word, because of DRUGS. The Shah had clamped down and virtually put an end to the immensely lucrative opium trade being conducted out of Iran by the British. At the time that the Shah took over in Iran, there were already one million opium/heroin addicts.

This the British would not tolerate, so they sent the United States to do their dirty work for them in terms of the “special relationship” between the two countries.

When Khomeini took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, arms sales by the United States, which had begun with the Shah, were not discontinued…

After 1984, Khomeini’s liberal attitude toward opium had increased the number of addicts to 2 million, according to United Nations and World Health Organization statistics.

Both President Carter and his successor, Ronald Reagan, willingly and with full knowledge of what was at stake, went on supplying arms to Iran even while American hostages languished in captivity…

The arms trade with Iran was sealed at a meeting between Cyrus Vance… and Dr. Hashemi, which resulted in the U.S. Air Force beginning an immediate airlift of arms to Iran, carried on even at the height of the hostage crisis the arms came from U.S. Army stockpiles in Germany and some were even flown directly from the United States with re-fuelling stops at the Azores.

This is The Real Story of Khomaini which the Iranian Regime hides from whole world.

Shia Iran Allied with Israel and their Quest for ‘Super-Iran’

By Javadi ibn Tauseef al-Hashimi

Iran Allied with Israel

  • Introduction
Since the dawn of the so-called “Islamic Revolution” of Iran, the Iranian government has had spiritual relevance to the Shia.  Ayatollah Khomeini claimed, using the doctrine of Wilayat ul-Faqih, that he was the sole representative of the Imam Mehdi in his absence.  Most Shia alive today revere Ayatollah Khomeini as well as his successors.  The question must be asked:  are these Iranian leaders such as Khomeini using the Imam Mehdi to help the Muslims as they claim or are they actually enemies of Islam who exploit the imaginary memory of Mehdi for their own political gain?

 

The truth is that the Iranian military is allied with Israel.  Of course, the Shia lay-person will scoff at this statement and think it absurd.  At first glance, we’d be tempted to agree.  Admittedly, on the surface it does seem that Iran is a country full of anti-Israeli propaganda.  The Iranian Ayatollahs speak out against the Zionist Jews frequently and with full vigor.

However, those in the intelligence community realize that this is a simple cover.  The Ayatollahs are making use of the doctrine of Taqiyyah, which is a part of Shia faith.  Taqiyyah is a Shia concept which allows the Shia believer to lie and use deciet in order to further his life or, in this case, his religion.

Despite what the Ayatollahs claim, the Iranian government is most definitely allied militarily with Israel, and we shall provide the irrefutable proof in this article.  Both Israel and Iran are non-Arab states surrounded by “hordes” of Sunni Arabs;  this is the uniting element between the two countries, both of which cannot see their neighbors, namely the Sunni Arabs, rise to power and question their hegemony.  As such, both Israel and Iran act as satellite nations for the United States, which also fears the rise of an Islamist Sunni rise to power in Arabia.  The two non-Arab countries, Iran and Israel, are thus used by the United States to prevent this from happening.  To hide this nefarious Iran-Israel-US alliance, public officials on both sides (Iran and Israel/US) have engaged in public diatribes against the other.  While their words may seem like their swords are drawn against each other, their actions show that they are indeed allied at the hip.

  • London Observor

The London Observer estimated that Israel’s arms sales to Iran total $500 million annually. This is by far a conservative estimate, and this was in the 1980’s. Over time, with inflation, that number has increased. Current estimates range in the billions of dollars.

  • Global Security

Let us now provide the irrefutable proof. Here is an article from the Global Security website, the respected think tank organization the United States government relies on:

After the Revolution, Iranians continued to buy arms from the United States using Israeli, European, and Latin American intermediaries to place orders, despite the official United States embargo. Israeli sales, for example, were recorded as early as 1979. On several occasions, attempted arms sales to Iran have been thwarted by law enforcement operations or broker-initiated leaks. One operation set up by the United States Department of Justice foiled the shipment of more than US$2 billion of United States weapons to Iran from Israel and other foreign countries. The material included 18 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 skyhawk fighter-bombers, and nearly 4,000 missiles. But while the department of Justice was attempting to prevent arms sales to Iran, senior officials in the administration of President Ronald Reagan admitted that 2,008 TOW missiles and 235 parts kits for Hawk missiles had been sent to Iran via Israel.

Despite official denials, it is believed that Israel has been a supplier of weapons and spare parts for Iran’s American-made arsenal. Reports indicate that an initial order for 250 retread tires for F-4 Phantom jets was delivered in 1979 for about US$27 million. Since that time, unverified reports have alleged that Israel agreed to sell Iran Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar equipment, mortar and machinegun ammunition, field telephones, M-60 tank engines and artillery shells, and spare parts for C-130 transport planes

Source: Global Security Article(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/intro.htm)

We urge our readers to actually view the original articles themselves by clicking on the links above, since no doubt this is a hard idea to pallate.  This is not a conspiracy theory.  This is a well-documented fact that is known in the intelligence community.  The alliance between Iran and Israel is an undeniable fact.

  • TIME Magazine

Here is an article from TIME Magazine about the military alliance between Iran and Israel:

Or it could be said that the drama started in 1981, just after Reagan came into office, when U.S. officials learned that Israel was ignoring the 1979 American ban on the sale of arms to Iran. At the time Iran badly needed spare parts for the American-made weapons it had acquired during the Shah’s reign. In their hour of need the Iranians looked to Israel, which had also supplied weapons to the Shah.

The Israelis reportedly set up Swiss bank accounts to handle the financial end of the deals. Despite its embargo, the U.S. appeared to look the other way. Administration officials seemed interested in Israel’s notion that the arms sales would help foster ties with leaders in the Iranian military…

…In late August, Israel sent a planeload of arms to Iran. The cargo consisted mostly of Soviet-made weapons that the Israelis had captured in Lebanon

In the fall of 1985 Iran was presumably making payments to Israel through the Swiss bank accounts set up to handle Israeli-Iranian arms sales in the early 1980s. At the same time, Israel was demanding that the U.S. replace the items that had been taken from Israeli stockpiles and sold to the Iranians. But Washington reportedly grew suspicious about the finances. In asking for fresh weapons, Israeli officials claimed that they could not pay full price, but Washington suspected that Iran was paying the Israeli dealers far more than the arms were actually worth. The U.S. urged Israeli officials to drop the arms merchants from the Iran deal and allow Jerusalem to take over the operation…

Israel sold Iran $12 million worth of weapons at a price that included a markup as high as 250%, or $42 million…

Source: TIME Magazine Article, (http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir861208.html)
TIME Archives:
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.html
time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.html

The Russians sold the Lebanese weapons which were used against Israel.  Israel seized these weapons and then gave them over to Iran.  What an irony, considering that this was the same time that the Ayatollahs were making public statements lambasting the Israeli presence in Lebanon.

  • MSNBC

Here is an excerpt from MSNBC:

Reagan would wait and disclose his intentions in private. So it was with the disputed decision in August 1985 to condone arms sales by Israel to Iran. “He called and said, ‘I think we ought to get on with that. Let’s go ahead with that,” McFarlane told the commission.

Source: MSNBC Article,
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5165237/site/newsweek/)

This is all very strange, because at this exact same time, the Ayatollahs are publically condemning both Israel and America. And yet, they were actually having heavy arms dealing with their supposed enemies? In fact, we often see Israel publically decrying Iran and then Iranian leaders retorting back, but this is all one big facade to hide the truth: Israel and Iran are very much allied militarily, with the Zionist Jews providing advanced weaponry to the Shia in the hopes of empowering them against the Sunni Arabia.

  • History

Historically, the Kufaar (infidels) have always sought alliances with the Shia nations against the Sunni majority.  During the Crusades, the Shia Fatimids were providing material aid to the Crusaders against the Sunni majority which held the Holy Land.  The Shia Fatimids thus facilitated the take-over of the Holy Land (al-Aqsa) by the Crusaders.  Then arose Salahuddin Ayyoubi (Saladin), the great leader of the Ahlus Sunnah, who first had to crush the Shia Fatimids before he could focus on the Crusaders and liberate the Holy Land.

The Shia also helped the Mongols, allowing the Mongol hordes to loot and pillage the Muslim lands.  The Mongols were invited to attack the Sunnis by the Shia, and the sack of Baghdad consequently ended the Golden Age of the Muslims and heralded the rise of Europe.  When the Ottoman Empire rose to power, again the Shia plotted and planned against the Muslims;  the Safavid Empire was backed by the Western powers who sought to keep it as an ally against the more powerful Ottoman Empire.  Once again, the Shia were allied with the West against the bulk of the orthodox Muslims.

This alliance between the Kufaar and the Shia continued with the Shah of Iran. He was no doubt an agent of America, and Iran became a key ally of Zionist Israel against the majority Sunni Arab countries. Many people thought that this status of Iran as Israel’s stooge ended with the Iranian Revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. But the truth is, Iran’s alliance with Israel continued in full force.

  • Irangate: The Israel Connection

The book “The Iran Contra Connection” discusses the relationship between Iran and Israel:

The Israeli Interest in Iran

… Though Israel, along with the United States, suffered a grievous loss with the fall of the Shah, its leaders concluded that lasting geo-political interests would eventually triumph over religious ideology and produce an accommodation between Tel Aviv and Tehran. The onset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 gave Israeli leaders a special incentive to keep their door open to the Islamic rulers in Iran: the two non-Arab countries now shared a common Arab enemy. As Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post in May 1982, justifying Israeli arms sales to Tehran, “…we hope that diplomatic relations between us and Iran will be renewed as in the past.” Four months later he told a Paris press conference, “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing of the war in the Persian Gulf, and in Iran’s victory.” Such views were not Sharon’s alone; Prime Ministers Itzhak Shamir (Likud) and Shimon Peres (Labor) shared them too…

The Arms Channel Opens

Israel lost no time supplying the new Khomeini regime with small quantities of arms, even after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. The first sales included spare parts for U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets; a later deal in October 1980 included parts for U.S.-made tanks…

Notes Ha’aretz correspondent Yo’av Karny “The cloak of secrecy that surrounds Israeli arms exports is so tight that one can compare it to the technique for smuggling hard drugs.” When caught in the act, Israeli officials maintained they were simply selling domestic arms, not embargoed U.S. weapons. “Whenever we would get word of shipments,” one American official explained, “the State Department would raise the issue with Israel, and we would get the standard lecture and promises that there were no U.S. weapons involved.”

…[The Israelis] signed a deal with Iran’s Ministry of National Defense to sell $135,842,000 worth of arms, including Lance missiles, Copperhead shells and Hawk missiles…

In November 1981, Israeli Defense Minister Sharon visited Washington, shopping for approval of similar arms sales [to Iran]. His U S. counterpart Caspar Weinberger, flatly turned him down. Sharon then went to Haig, hoping for acquiescence from the State Department. Again, McFarlane handled many of the discussions with Sharon and Kimche; this time Haig unequivocally opposed any violation of the embargo.

Yet as in 1979-80, Israel pursued its policy anyway, in flat violation of its arms re-export agreements with the Pentagon. In a May 1982 interview with the Washington Post, Sharon claimed that Israeli shipments had been cleared “with our American colleagues” months earlier and that details of all the shipments were supplied to the administration. Later that year, Israel’s ambassador Moshe Arens declared that Israel’s arms sales were cleared at “almost the highest levels” in Washington…

And those shipments would continue to be enormous in size, estimated by experts at the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv at $500 million in value from 1980-83. Other arms market experts have put the total value at more than $500 million a year, including aircraft parts, artillery and ammunition.

(Source: p.169, “Irangate: The Israel Connection” excerpted from the book The Iran Contra Connection by Johnathan Marshall and Peter Dale Scott, South End Press, 1987, paper)

  • Today 

Iran continues to recieve support from Israel.  On the one hand, the Iranian Ayatollahs make vociferous condemnations of Israel, but on the other hand, they are secretly allied with the Israelis.  This all in the name of religion, in the name of Taqiyyah, and in the name of some Hidden Imam who has made the Ayatollah his sole representative on earth, who has made him the Absolute Authority of Allah Himself.

Ayatollah Khomeini and his government were allied militarily with the likes of such Zionists as Ariel Sharon, the killer of Muslims in Palestine.  The truth is that the Shia have always been allied with the enemies of Islam, which gives away their origins from Abdullah ibn Saba who supposedly converted to Islam from Judaism.  Abdullah ibn Saba sought to create a group that would forever fight the Muslims from the inside, and we see this role being fulfilled by the Shia who claim to want unity with the Ahlus Sunnah but then they betray the Ahlus Sunnah whenever and wherever they can.  The Shia fear that if the Ahlus Sunnah awakens to this threat, then they could easily crush the Shia everywhere due to the overwhelming numbers of the Ahlus Sunnah.  So the Shia have adopted the policy of publically asking for unity and privately waging a war against the Ahlus Sunnah.

It is a huge fraud that the Iranian government claims to be enemies with Israel and yet is supplied arms from this same enemy.  The Shia may claim to be allied with the Muslims, but they are secretly allied with the Zionist Jews and the Crusading Christians.  The Quran says:  “Of the people there are some who say: ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day,’ notwithstanding their unbelief. Fain would they deceive Allah and the believers, but they only deceive themselves, and realize it not. In their hearts there is a disease, and Allah permitted this disease to increase. Grievous is the penalty they incur, because they are false.”  (Quran, 2:8-10)

Super Iran

  • Introduction
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran aspired to annex the land of Iraq and thereby expand its borders to form a “Super Iran.”  Publically, the United States declared that it wanted an Iraqi victory;  however, the CIA secretly supported an Iranian victory.  Thus began the ever famous Iran Contra debacle, in which the United States was caught red-handed supplying weapons and arms to Iran.  It was indeed very embarassing to both the United States and Iran that they were publically declaring one thing and privately doing something completely opposite.  During this entire time period, the two-faced Iranian government was publically condemning Israel but recieving billions of dollars worth of military armaments from America via Israel.

The United States had long ago recognized the importance of keeping Persian and Shia Iran as an ally against the Arab and Sunni Arabia.  Both Israel and Iran felt surrounded by “seas of Arabs” and this was the unifying factor between Israel and Iran.  During the Iran-Iraq War, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon (future Prime Minister of Israel) told the Washington Post in May 1982, justifying Israeli arms sales to Tehran, “…we hope that diplomatic relations between us and Iran will be renewed as in the past.” Four months later he told a Paris press conference, “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing of the war in the Persian Gulf, and in Iran’s victory.”

However, Iran was unable to conquer Iraq and instead the war ended in a draw in 1988.  But the United States quickly came to Iran’s aid and invaded Iraq in 1990.  Once, Iraq had been the strongest force in the region next to Israel.  Slowly, after years of war and sanctions enacted by the US government, Iraq was greatly weakened.  Finally, the United States occupied Iraq, using September the 11th as a pretext.  The US forces then turned a blind eye to the influx of Iranian influence in occupied Iraq.  By allowing their cohort Iran to manage a puppet government in Iraq, the United States would give legitimacy to the new government since Iranian-backed Shia would seem more indigenous than foreign Westerners.

Iran began the process of demographic change and sent thousands of Iranians over the border and into Iraq.  This included many Ayatollahs (who became the religious leaders in Iraq), as well as hundreds of thousands of fighters belonging to armed militias.

  • The Associated Press
The Associated Press declared:

A resounding Shiite victory in next month’s elections will bring Iraq closer to Tehran, forming a “Super Iran” that could change the face of the Middle East, critics say…

Views vary dramatically over what shape Iraq’s political future will take following nationwide elections scheduled for Jan. 30, but few dispute that this Shiite-majority country’s relations with its eastern neighbor — which is ruled by Shiite ayatollahs — will grow closer…

This may embolden Shiites here and throughout the Middle East, some regional analysts say. But Iraq’s likely political shift is also stirring fears of the spread of an Iranian-brand of Shiite power throughout the Sunni Muslim-dominated region.

Jordan’s King Abdullah, a pro-U.S. Sunni Muslim, this month said Iraq’s elections could lead to the establishment of a hard-line Shiite regime based on the model in Iran…

Iraq’s interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite running a separate ticket to the al-Sistani-backed one, accuses Iran of opposing Iraq’s postwar reconstruction. His defense minister labels Iran as his country’s “number one enemy” and calls the United Iraqi Alliance the “Iranian list” that would install a rule of “turbaned clerics” in Iran if it succeeds in the polls…

[Many of the Iraqi Shiites] also look to Iran’s Shiite establishment for religious guidance…

Such a scenario worries people like Iraqi-born Mustafa Alani, director of national security at the Dubai-based regional think-tank the Gulf Research Center.

“The nightmare scenario in the region is the election of an Iranian-influenced Shiite government in Iraq will lead to the creation of a ‘Super Iran’ emerging as a regional superpower” says Alani. “We are talking about a huge shift in the region’s power balance.”

(Source:  The Associated Press,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1103376461734_84/?hub=World)

  • USA Today

Armed Iranian militias are crossing the border into Iraq.  USA Today declared that there are concerns regarding a recent

…buildup of Iranian spies and militants in Iraq…Iran is trying to influence, and possibly disrupt, plans for a transition to Iraqi rule.

Iran is setting up civilian and armed cells in Iraq to intimidate Iraqis and covertly influence elections, says one of the four officials, a high-level officer with the U.S. military command in Baghdad.

Because the topic is so sensitive, U.S. officials won’t discuss it on the record. Iranian officials deny trying to manipulate the transition…

Since the fall of Baghdad in April, Iraq’s 900-mile border with Iran has not been patrolled as strictly as it was under Saddam Hussein. Thousands of Iranians have entered Iraq, apparently with their [Iranian] government’s blessing…

“The Iranians believe their ship is coming in and that Shiite Islamicists will achieve dominance,” Katzman [a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service] says…

“The Iranians are setting up an intelligence infrastructure in Iraq,” Tanter [another Middle East expert at the Washington Institute] says. “They can use it for political influence and/or military action…”

[The Iraqi group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq] has its own Iranian-trained militia…

(Source:  USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-12-iran-iraq-usat_x.htm)

The links between the United States and Iran become apparent when we see that the United States actually shut down anti-Iranian radio stations in Iraq.  USA Today says:

Mindful of Iran’s leverage in Iraq…U.S. authorities in Iraq shut down a radio station operated by the Mujahedin el-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group that had been harbored by Saddam. U.S. authorities also took DNA samples from several thousand MEK members under U.S. guard in apparent preparation to charge some with terrorist crimes.

(Source:  USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-12-iran-iraq-usat_x.htm)

  • BBC News

Moqtada al-Sadr, Ayatollah al-Hakim, Ayatollah Sistani, and so many more Shia leaders in Iraq are really supporters and citizens of Iran.  BBC News said:

Moqtada Sadr’s popularity partly derives from his links to Iran…The more senior Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), is even more beholden to Iran. He is the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), which was established in 1982 in Tehran by the Iranian government. He returned to Iraq after spending 22 years in Iran.

Shia militia

Sciri’s 10,000-strong militia, called the Badr Brigades, has been trained and equipped by Iran.

Ayatollah Hakim underscored his continued closeness to Iran on 11 February, the 25th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Opening a book fair in Baghdad, sponsored by the Iranian embassy, he praised the Vilayat-e Faqih (ie Rule of Religious Jurisprudent) doctrine on which the Iranian constitution is founded.

Then there is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric, who is now being routinely described by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) as a moderate, even pro-Western…Ayatollah Sistani was born and brought up in the Iranian city of Mashhad…Most of his nine charitable ventures, primarily providing housing for pilgrims and theology students, are in Iran. So too are the four religious foundations sponsored by him…

Increasing influence

Outside official circles, there are signs of growing Iranian influence among Iraqi Shias…Also, Iranian Shias are pouring into Iraq, which has six holy Shia sites, across the unguarded border at the rate of 10,000 a day.

Covert activities

Then there are covert activities purportedly sponsored by Iran.

Soon after Saddam’s downfall, some 100 “security specialists” of the Lebanese Hezbollah arrived in Basra, at the behest of the Iranian intelligence agency…Since then two groups of Iraqi Shias calling themselves Hezbollah have emerged, one of them allegedly sponsored by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard, with its headquarters in Amara and branches in other cities. This is widely seen as a move to establish an Iranian intelligence infrastructure in Iraq…

(Source: BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3629765.stm)

  • The Washington Post

The Washington Post said that there were

fears that Iran will move in as a major player after months of quietly building networks among Iraqi politicians and religious circles…Iran [has] built up its influence, deploying hundreds of personnel and channeling millions of dollars to secure ties that were impossible during Saddam Hussein’s rule…Iran is using all instruments available to interfere and be a very active player in Iraq…

Ironically, U.S. officials said the United States and Iran share the long-term goal…[to] give Shiite leaders a decisive edge.  Iranian analysts agreed.

(Source:  Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35283-2004Jun11.html)

  • The International Herald Tribune

That the United States and Iran share the same objectives in Iraq.  The Herald Tribune declared:

Paradoxically, it is in Iraq, where U.S. and Iranian interests coincide…The United States and Iran have many common interests in Iraq…Iran can help U.S. economic reconstruction efforts through its ties to the Iraqi merchant community and its own official aid to Baghdad. As for political stability, the United States may have the boots on the ground, but America’s coercive potential must be backed up by Iran’s soft power.

Iran’s seminaries, clerics, politicians and businessmen hold powerful sway over elites in Baghdad as well as local leaders.

(Source: International Herald Tribune,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/30/opinion/edtakeyh.php

 

  • Conclusion

Details on the increased Iranian influence in post-war Iraq are easily accessible to anyone who has the Internet (and Google) or even a cursory glance at recent newspaper clippings.  In fact, there are too many sources to cite.  The conclusion that is reached is that one of the countries that had the most to gain from the War on Iraq is none other than Iran.  The United States and Iran conspired to take over Iraq;  the United States would conquer the country, and Iran would manage it.  In this manner, the new Iraqi regime would seem to be indigenous, as opposed to being run by a Western power.

Iran has been the historic arch-rival of Iraq and even fought a brutal war that lasted many years and resulted in many millions of Iraqi deaths.  It is thus unprecedented that this same enemy (Iran) is now coming to power in Iraq.

کیا حضرت علی رضی اللہ عنہ کعبہ کے اندر پیدہ ہوئے؟

آز- نجیب اللہ عمر

ﺑﺮﯾﻠﻮیﻮں ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﮐﮯ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻧﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﺎﺋﮯ ﺑﮭﻼ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﮬﻮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﮬﮯ.
ﺍﺳﻠﺌﮯ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ اﭘﻨﺎ ﻟﯿﺎﮬﮯ ﮐﮧ
ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮬﻮﺋﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ .
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ .
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﭙﺮ ﻭﮦ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺩﻻﺋﻞ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ
ﺟﻨﮑﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﮬﻢ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﮐﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ .

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 1

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﯿﺤﯿﻦ” ﺳﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ:

ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺃﺳﺪ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻛﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﯿﺤﯿﻦ 550:3 ﺑﺎﺏ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﯽ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ، ﺭﻗﻢ 6044 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﯾﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺍٓﺩﮬﺎ ﺍٓﺧﺮﯼ ﺣﺼﮧ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮨﮯ:

ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺑﻜﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻳﻪ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺑﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﺬﻛﺮ ﻧﺴﺐ ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﺯﺍﺩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻣﻪ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻯ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﺣﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻀﺮﺑﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﺽ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻓﻮﻟﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺤﻤﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻄﻊ ﻭﻏﺴﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻴﺎﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﻮﺽ ﺯﻣﺰﻡ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻭﻻ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ۔
ﺍﺱ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﻮ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﮩﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺍٓﭖ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﺩﯾﺪ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ” ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ” ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺧﺒﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

‏(1‏) ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻭﮨﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻗﺮﺷﯽ ﺍﺳﺪﯼ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻭﻻﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﺴﺐ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺑﮍﮮ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺗﮭﮯ ۔ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺍﻧﺲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﮏ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﮦ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ “ﺛﺒﺖ”،”ﺛﻘۃ” ﺍﻭﺭ “ﺻﺪﻭﻕ” ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺳﮯ ﯾﺎﺩ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺟﻠﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺟﺲ ﮐﮯ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺆﯾﺪ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻭﮨﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻭﮨﻢ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺑﮍﺍ ﺗﺴﺎﻣﺢ ﮨﮯ ۔

‏(2) ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺎ ﮐﮧ “ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﺧﺒﺮﻭﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺎ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﮯ” ﯾﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﺗﺒﺼﺮﮦ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ:

ﺍﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤۃ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﯿﺎ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﻟﻢ ﺍﺟﺪ ﻓﯽ ﮐﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺷﯿﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫٰﻟﮏ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻥ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮬﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﮧ، ﻣﻦ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﮐﻢ ﺍﻧﮧ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻧﮧ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﺗﻌﻘﺒﮧ ﺑﺎﻧﮧ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤۃ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﯿﺎ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﻭﮐﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺋﻖ ﺑﮧ ﺍﯼ ﯾﺎﺗﯽ ﺑﺘﻠﮏ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﯾۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮﺓ ۔ ‏(ﺷﺒﮭﺎﺕ ﻭﺭﺩﻭ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﯾﺤﺘﺞ ﺑﮭﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﯿﻌۃ 136:1‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ: ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﮦ ﻣﺎﺟﺪﮦ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﮧ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺘﺐِ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﻼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﺪﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ۔ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﮦ ﻣﺎﺟﺪﮦ ﻧﮯ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺑﺖ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﺧﺒﺮﯾﮟ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﯾﮧ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺐ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺘﺎً ﮨﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺍﺱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺗﮭﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﻮ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﮯ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ۔

ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﺷﺎﻓﻌﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺑﺘﺎﺅﮞ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﺟﻨﮭﯿﮟ ﻋﺎﻟﻢِ ﺑﯿﺪﺍﺭﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﷺ ﮐﯽ ﺳﺘﺮ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﮧ ﺯﯾﺎﺭﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺷﺮﻑ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ. ﻭﮦ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻭﻱ 880:2 ﺩﺍﺭ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ ﺑﺮﺗﻮﺕ)

ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻮﻳﻠﻢ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺷُﻬﺒﺔ ﻧﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ:

ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ” ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﻭﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ، ﺹ 660 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﻣﻮﺕ)

ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺻﺮﻑ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ” ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﮐﻤﺰﻭﺭﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺟﻨﮑﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺫﮬﺒﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮬﮯ
ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯿﺎ؟ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﻫﻞ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺳﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻟﻴﻨﻘﺤﻪ ﻓﺄﻋﻠﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻴﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻭﻱ 113:1 ﺩﺍﺭ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺕ)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ: ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻏﻔﻠﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺳﺒﺐ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺴﻮﺩﮦ ﺗﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ، ﺍﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﮨﻮ ﮔﯿﺎ ۔

ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺷﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﺎﻭﯼ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

‏(ﻭﻛﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ) ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﻴﻦ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻓﺎﺗﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﺎﺑﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ‏( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻞ ‏) ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ، ﺑﺈﺩﺧﺎﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ، ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﻬﺎ ; ﺇﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺼﺐ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺭﻣﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ، ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ، ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻩ ۔ ﺑﻞ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ : ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺻﻨﻔﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ، ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻏﻔﻠﺔ ﻭﺗﻐﻴﺮ، ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻴﺴﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮﻩ ﻭﺗﻨﻘﻴﺤﻪ ۔ ‏(ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺚ ﺑﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻟﻠﻌﺮﺍﻗﻲ 54:1 ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‏)

ﺍﺱ ﻃﻮﯾﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﮕﻮ ﮐﺎ ﺧﻼﺻﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮨﮯ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺟﺲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﮯ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 2

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺷﺎﮦ ﻭﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﺍﺯﺍﻟۃ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﺎﺀ” ﮐﺎ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﭘﮭﻼ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ
ﺷﺎﮦ ﻭﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﺭﺡ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺸﮭﻮﺭ ﺑﺮﯾﻠﻮﯼ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺍﭼﮭﺮﻭﯼ ﻧﮯ ﻭﮬﺎﺑﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮬﮯ.

ﺍﻭﺭﻇﺎﮬﺮ ﮬﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﮯ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﻭﮬﺎﺑﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺎﺥ ﮬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﻟﻔﻆ ﮬﮯ.

ﺗﻮ ﻧﻌﻮﺫﺑﺎﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮔﺴﺘﺎﺥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﺣﺠﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻃﻮﺭﭘﺮ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮬﮯ.

ﺑﮭﺮﺣﺎﻝ ﺷﺎﮦ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﮨﯽ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﺗﻮ ﺍٓﭖ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﮨﯽ ﻟﯽ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 3

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺳﺒﻂ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺯﯼ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﺗﺬﮐﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﺍﺹ” ﺳﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﮨﮯ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺳﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺯﯼ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺻﯿﻐﮧ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﺾ ﺳﮯ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﻼﺣﻈﮧ ﮐﯿﺠﯿﮯ:

ﻭﺭﻭﯼ ﺍﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﺪ ﮐﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻄﻮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﯿﺖ ﻭﮬﯽ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻌﻠﯽ ‏(ﻉ‏) ﻓﻀﺮﺑﮭﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﻖ ﻓﻔﺘﺢ ﻟﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﺔ ﻓﺪﺧﻠﺖ ﻓﻮﺿﻌﺘﮧ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﻭﮐﺬﺍ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﻟﺪﺗﮧ ﺍﻣﮧ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺬﮐﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﺍﺹ، ﺹ 10 ﺫﮐﺮ ﻧﺴﺐ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ، ﻓﺼﻞ ﻓﯽ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺗﮧ، ﻃﺒﻊ ﻃﮩﺮﺍﻥ‏)

ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺳﮯ ﭘﻮﺷﯿﺪﮦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ “ﺭﻭﯼ” ﺳﮯ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﺩﺭﺟﮧ ﺻﺤﺖ ﮐﻮ ﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﭘﮭﻨﭽﺘﯽ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 4

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺷﯿﺦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻖ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ” ﺳﮯ ﺍﺭﺩﻭ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ
ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ، ﺷﯿﺦ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ: ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﻭﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ. ‏(ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ 531:2)

“ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ” ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ﮐﻮﻥ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﺼﺮﯾﺢ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﺨﻮﺑﯽ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ “ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ” ﺻﯿﻐﮧ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﺾ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﯿﮟ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 5

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﮬﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﮐﯽ “ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﺒﻴﺔ” ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ “ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺧﺎﻧﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ” ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻋﺮﺑﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺷﺎﯾﺪ ﻭﮦ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺳﮯ ﮐﺎﭘﯽ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ۔

ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ، ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻐﻴﺮﻩ ۔ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﺒﻴﺔ 202:1 ﺑﺎﺏ ﺗﺰﻭﺟﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺧﺪﻳﺠﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺧﻮﻳﻠﺪ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺦ، ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻗﻮﻝ ﮐﻮ ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﮮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ‏

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﮐﮩﺎﮞ ﮨﮯ؟
ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ، ﺗﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﻲ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﻰ: 832 ﻫـ) ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﻞ، ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻜﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ……… ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ : ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ. ‏(ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻡ ﺑﺄﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻡ 358:1 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻔﻲ، ﺑﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ، ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺑﺎﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﺀ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﻰ 854) ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺑﺄﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻟﺪ ……… ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺑﻪ ﺣﺠﺮ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ، ﺻﻔﺤﮧ 185 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﻧﺒﯽ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﷺ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻣﮑﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺑﻼ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺸﮩﻮﺭ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺭﻭﺍﺯﮮ ﭘﺮ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮨﮯ.

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﺧﺎﻥ “ﺗﺤﻔﮧ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﺸﺮﯼ” ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﮧ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﮐﻮ ﻭﺣﯽ ﺁﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺧﺎﻧﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮨﺎﮞ ﺑﭽﮯ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺪﺍﺋﺶ ﮐﺮ، ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﺟﮭﻮﭦ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮯ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ۔” ‏(ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺭﺿﻮﯾﮧ 193:15 ﺍﻭﺭ 248:15 ﺭﺿﺎ ﻓﺎﺅﻧﮉﯾﺸﻦ)

Brief History of the Shi’ite Safawid Dynasty

[By Hadhrat Muhammad Ishaq Sindhelwi (Rahimahullah)]

It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the tenth century of the Hijri calendar. During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in every discipline; the most salient of these facts is that the six most authentic Hadith books (i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasai, Ibn Majah & Tirmidhi) were written by scholars from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran.

However, when the Safawid Shi’ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of the Sunni scholars and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of the large cities that were the foremost centres of the Islamic sciences, such as Tabriz, Isfahan, Ray and Tus. Many Sunni Muslims were murdered, forced into Shi’ism and compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving Iran as a centre for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims.

Ferdinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King, remarked, “Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur’an this day like the Algerians,” meaning that his nation would have been introduced to Islam by the Ottomans. However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna.

The rise of the Safawid dynasty started in 905 A.H in Iran and Khurasan. While under the rule of the Mongols, in the 1200s (596 A.H), the Persians had given up on politics and militarism and had submerged themselves in ibaadah. During this time, Iran was constantly visited by Mongol and Turkish immigrants who adopted the Persian language and Persian customs. In the 1300s (699 A.H), a dynasty founded by a grandson of Genghis Khan, Halaku Khan, ruled in Iran. Meanwhile a heretical Shi’ite order, the Safawids, appeared with their homebase at Ardebil – west of the Caspian Sea.

By 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the Safawids had implemented the Dogmas of the Ithna Ashari Shi’ite sect. Safawid males wore red headgear for identification (representing their beliefs in the twelve Imams), and they were eager to advance Shi’ism by any possible means.

In the year 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the thirteen-year old son of a recently deceased Safawid leader set out to conquer territory. By 1501 C.E (906 A.H), the Safawids seized Tabriz and made it their capital. They also butchered their way into Armenia, Azerbaijan & Khorasan. The Safawids became the strongest force in Iran, and their leader, Isma’il (905 A.H – 930 A.H) now fifteen, was declared “Shah” (King).

Shah Isma’il descends from the lineage of Shaykh Safiuddin 1334 C.E (734 A.H), the student and son-in-law of Shaykh Zaahid Gilani 1300 C.E (699 A.H). Amongst the primary teachings of Shaikh Saifuddin was the notion of fanatical love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. They believed that the Ummahatul Mu’mineen, the noble wives of Nabi are not included in the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah firmly believe that respect and love for all the family members of Nabi  is an integral part of Imaan.

In the Shi’ite terminology love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ is termed as ‘Tawalla’ and hatred for the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and the Sahaaba (whom the Shi’ite consider the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt) is termed as ‘Tabarra’.

It was this very spark of ‘pretentious love for the Ahlul Bayt’ that established the foundation of Shi’ism. There were also seven Turkish tribes (Istaajilo, Turklo, Biharlo, Dhul Qadr, Shaamilo, Qaachar and Afshaar) who assisted the Safawids in their ascent to kingship. These tribes were influenced and brainwashed by the Safawid fake Sufis, who indoctrinated their beliefs with Shi’ism.

When the Safawids established their rule, they realised that their own beliefs with regards to the hidden Imam will become an unnecessary impediment. They needed to find a ruse to allow their governors to rule upon the masses as the Imams would have as the Shi’ites believed that only the Imams were innocent and were lawmakers.

Once, Isma’il went out of Tabriz with his ministers and friends. Upon reaching a stream he ordered his companions to wait for him whilst he entered the cave. A few hours later he emerged from the cave and announced that he met with the hidden Imam of the Shi’ites who had granted him permission to become his representative on earth and the time for his (the hidden Imam) appearance is near.

Thereafter, he declared that he saw Sayyidina Ali bin Abi’ Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) in a dream who ordered to gather his followers in the Grand Masjid of Tabriz. They should all be armed  and ready to oppose those who are against Shi’ite ideologies and the establishment of a Shi’ite state. After these declaration he began oppressing the Sunnis, forcing the to accept Shi’ism.

In 1510 C.E (915 A.H), Isma’il Safawi waged war against Shaybani Khan who was a sunni ruler. A bloodbath ensued at Merv where unfortunately Shaybani Khan was defeated. Isma’il Safawi severed his head and filled it with jewels.

Thereafter, Isma’il Safawi began to instigate his followers to crush the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, Sultan Selim I responded to this mischief. A great war ensued near Tabriz where by the grace of Allah Ta’ala, Isma’il Safawi was defeated. It is mentioned no one ever saw Isma’il Safawi smiling after his disgraceful defeat by Sultan Selim I.

Evil Habits and Traits of the Safawids

⚫ The Safawids believed that the Persians were the chosen people of Allah 7000 years prior to Islam. The basis for them believing that they were the most noble of people is because, Sayyidina Hussain ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu) married the daughter of Yazdgerd (a Persian), from whom Sayyidina Zainul Abideen (rahimahullah) whom the Shi’ites regard as one of their Imams was born. This is why, Isma’il Safawi declared himself as the representative of Allah, the Khalifah of the twelve Imams and the representative of the hidden Imam on earth.

⚫ The grandfather of Isma’il Safawi had married his daughter to Zaahid Kasaani, an individual who had claimed prophethood.

⚫ The Safawid kings consumed alcohol, punished whomsoever they wanted whenever they wanted and were involved in all sorts of wrongdoings.

⚫ Isma’il Safawi enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Khulafah, Sayyidina Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu Anhu), Sayyidina ‘Umar (radhiyallahu Anhu) and Sayyidina Uthman (radhiyallahu Anhu) as usurpers, from all the Masajid, disbanded Sunni groupsand seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and arts and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars.

⚫ They introduced the statement Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah (I bear witness that Ali is the delegate of Allah) in the Adhan.

⚫ The Safawis shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and Masajid of the Sunnis. The Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II advised and asked Isma’il Safawi to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Isma’il was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultans warning and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword.

⚫ In 1512 C.E (917 A.H) all the Sunni scholars of Iran who opposed the imposed dogmas of the Safawids were slained and butchered. Two-thirds of the population of Tabriz was forced into Shi’ism. Over one million Sunnis were slained and butchered. Streams of blood ran along the streets of Tabriz.

⚫ As soon as Isma’il Safawi has established his kingdom he ordered his clerics to educate the masses with one belief only, and that is Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah, whilst every other important beliefs of Islam should be discarded.

⚫ No Sunni scholar was allowed to lecture or deliver a Khutbah on the day of Jumu’ah. The Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah were slaughtered, so much so that the bones of great scholars who had passed away (such as Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), Qadhi Hamdani (rahimahullah and Allamah Nasruddeen Baydawi (rahimahullah), were dug from their graves and burnt in public.

⚫ Islamic literature, books and manuscripts with authentic Islamic sciences were seized and burnt.

⚫ The Safawid dynasty destroyed all existing Islamic literature and encouraged the propagation of Shi’ism forcefully because prior to the rise of the Safawid dynasty the majority in Iran were Hanafi Sunni Muslims.

⚫ With the establishment of the Safawid rule, there was a raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on the 26th of Dhul-Hijjah exhibiting their happiness for the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu). The highlight of the day was making an effigy to be cursed, insulted and finally burned.

⚫ In 1501 C.E (906 A.H), Isma’il invited all Shi’ite adherents livinh outside Iran to settle in Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority.

⚫ The early Safawid rulers took a number of steps against the Sunni Ulama’ of Iran. These steps included giving the Ulama the choice of conversion, death or exile.

Coalition of the Safawid Dynasty and the Imperialists against the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire had established a true Islamic Nation. Sultan Muhammad Fatih had conquered Constantinople. His conquest and valour had overawed the hearts of the Europeans. Upon his demise, the grand pope declared that the Roman Catholics should celebrate thanksgiving for three continous days. 

The Safawi Shi’ites were known for conspiring against the Ottoman Empire, with the aim of hindering the progress and expansion of Islam. The Shi’ites had signed an agreement with the disbelievers that they will assist them against the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, that is the Ottoman Empire.

A German historian, Brookman writes: “From 1588 C.E to 1619 C.E (996 A.H – 1038 A.H) the Safawid dynasty was expanding exponentially. Shah Abbas Safawi had received all the assistance he needed from the British to expand his tyrannical conquest. The British fervently assisted the Safawids in their efforts to destroy the Ottoman Empire; and the Safawids returned the favour by comimg to their aid against the Austrians.

A coalition between the Safawids and the Crusaders was created during the lifetime of Isma’il Safawi. Isma’il met with Leo, Maximillan and King Charles the fifth and made an agreement to assist them against the Ottoman Empire.

Innovations and Mischief of the Safawids

⚫ Isma’il Safawi declared that he is sinless and that there is no difference between him and Hadhrat Mahdi (alayhis salaam)

⚫ He claimed that Sayyidina Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was a Nabi and he would prostrate to Sayyidina Ali

⚫ Sultan Tehmasep Safawi was a drunkard whose son was in love with a young lad. He passed away in the house of the same lad.

⚫ It was compulsory to celebrate the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Christian rituals were introducted it their religious gatherings

⚫ They introduced the sentence ‘Hayya Alaa Khayril Amal’ in the Adhan

⚫ Performing Sajdah on tablets of sand (dedicated to the land of martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Performing Sajdah to their leaders and clerics

⚫ Changing the Qiblah of the Masjid in Iran

⚫ Burying their dead in coffins and caskets

⚫ The Safawid Shi’ite clerics toom possession of the Awqaf system. They believe that they have the right to make that which is haraam, as halal whenever it suited them. For example, when the Moghul king Khudabanda issued three divorces to his wife, Ibn Mutahhir Halli (a Safawid Shi’ite cleric) stated that such a divorce is baseless.

⚫ The Safawid clerics went to the extent of stating that only Sayyidatuna Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) was the daughter of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The other daughters of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Sayyidatuna Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha) were from her previous marriage.

⚫ They also negated Sayyidatuna Aisha and Hafsa (radhiyallahu anhuma) as being the noble wuves of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam.

⚫ The Safawids would celebrate the 10th of Muharram as a day of mourning for Sayyidina Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Abbas Safawi would wear black clothing only and he would apply mud on his face to express his grief.

⚫ The Shi’ites would lash and cut themselves with daggers on the day of Ashurah. Such actions have no basis in Islam. Even their British and Western allies have commentated that they have not seen such animosity and ignorance anyone else.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi

Muhammad Baqir Ibn Muhammad Taqi Ibn Mansur al-Majlisi, also known as Mulla Baqir Majlisi is considered as the most renown and reliable scholar of the Shi’ite faith. He was the grand cleric of the Safawid Dynasty.

He is the same person who invented and promoted the beliefs regarding Mut’ah, Raj’at and reincarnation. He has fabricated numerous accusations against the first three Khulafah, the Sahabah and the Umaahatul Mu’mineen and he promoted these fabrications as authentic Ahadith. An example of his heresy as he writes in his book ‘Jila al-Uyun’:

Ali (alayhis salaam) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is a coffin in Jahannum in which twelve individuals are imprisoned. Six of them are from the previous nations and six are from my nation. This coffin is at the bottom of a well filled with lave and fire. It has been closed with a huge boulder. When Allah will intend to set Jahannum ablaze, he will order the Angels to remove this huge boulder and the lava and fire of this well will consume Jahannum.

The narrator then asked Sayyidina Ali (alayhis salaam) ‘who are these twelve individuals?’ And he answered, “the six accursed individuals from the previous nations are:

1. Qabil
2. Namrud
3. Fir’awn
4. The person who killed the Camel of Nabi Salih (alayhis salaam)
5. The two individuals who misguided the Bani Isra’eel after the demise of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam)

And the six individuals from this Ummah are:

1. Dajjal
2. Abu Bakr
3. Umar
4. Abu Ubaidah al-Jarrah
5. Saalim Mawla Hudhaifah
6. Sa’d al-‘Aas

May Allah Ta’ala protect us from such utterances.

In another narration, he states that Iblis said, “When Allah cursed me and I was driven out of Jannah, I asked Allah if there is anyone more accursed than me. The angel in-charge of Jahannum was ordered to take me to the farthest section of Jahannum where I was shown those who are more accursed than me. The fire and punishment of that place was of such an extent that I thought I would die. I saw two individuals who were shackled and were being punished. I asked the angel, “Who are they?” He replied, “Didn’t you read what was written on the Arsh 2000 years ago before the creation of Adam. Iblis said, “It is written “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger and I (Allah) assisted Muhammad through Ali”. These two, who ae shackled in flames are the enemies of Ali, they are Abu Bakr & Umar.”

These are the some of the beliefs and teachings that were promoted by the Safawid Shi’ite clerics. Even the Shi’ite scholars have attested that the Safawids have drifted against humanity, reason and Islam.

Today, the same ideologies have been implemented by the stooges of Khomeini who regard every Sunni to be a disbeliever. These sons of the Safawids have picked up exactly where their forefathers left off. Chastising the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) is a part of their religion.

Did you Know?

⚫ Although there are around 2 million Sunnis living in Tehran, there is not a single Masjid where they can perform their Jumu’ah but Tehran is home to 40 Christian Churches and a cemetry for the Baha’is.

⚫ The publication of Sunni books are illegal in Iran.

⚫ A third of the population of Iran are being deprieved of their most basic rights.

⚫ Sunnis living in Iran are not allowed to name their children as they like. There is a book of permitted names at civil registers, and no one can pick up a name that is not in this book. For instance, Iranian authorities do not allow people to name their children Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Aisha. Civil registers will not put these names on ID cards.

⚫ On the day of the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the Shi’ites hold a ceremony called Jashn-e-Umar Koshan (the celebration of the killing of Umar). An effigy is erected. Dirt and other filthy things are thrown on it. This ceremony is still held in the south of Tehran and other parts of the country.

⚫ Schools in predominantly Muslim regions teach Shi’ite beliefs.

Today, Muslims in Iran number approximately 15 million. The above facts clearly prove that in the past centuries and currently there is ongoing oppressive Shi’ite sectarian discrimination in Iran against the Muslims.

May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and protect the Ummah from the scrouge of Shi’ism and other mischiefs. May Allah Ta’ala elevate the status of the Sahabah in this world and the hereafter.

Reasons why Shias are KAAFIR

[By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape]

REASONS WHY SHIAS ARE KAAFIR – THE KUFR, ZANAADAQAH AND ILHAAD OF THE SHIAS

Kufr means disbelief. Kufr means to reject. A person who does not accept that Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam is the Messenger of Allah has even rejected the Nabuwwat of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. Such a person is a Kaafir. There are many types of Kaafir. One type of Kaafir is called a Zindeeq or Mulhid.

Zandaqah means heresy. A zindeeq is a person who believes in his heart that he is a Muslim, and he expresses this also. However, his interpretations of  the Qur’aan and Hadith are kufr, hence he is a kaafir. Alternatively, he outwardly expresses Kufr beliefs, but by means of Baatil Ta’weelaat (false/wrong interpretation), he declares such Kufr beliefs to be Islamic Aqaaid.

A Zindeeq is also called a ‘Mulhid’ or a ‘Baatini’. Those who distort the meanings of the Qur’aan are perpetrating Ilhaad. Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri Rahimahullah has written a very detailed book in Arabic on Takfeer titled as ‘Ikfaarul Mulhideen’ (Declaring the Mulhids as Kaafir).

Hazrat Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhiyaanwi has mentioned 19 solid grounds for declaring Shias as Kaafir. Takfeer means to declare someone as Kaafir. Takfeer is something serious and excessive caution is necessary. The fact that thousands of Ulama had declared Shias as Kaafir since more than 1000 years is more than adequate to explain that Shias are undoubtedly Kaafir.

We present to you below the Question and Answer by Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhiyaanwi Saheb who is known as Faqeehul Asr – Mufti Aa’zam (Grand Mufti – Pakistan. May Allah fill Hazrat’s Qabr with Nur. Aameen)

Question: The filth of the Shias is obvious. However, for which reasons is the Fatwa of Kufr issued upon them? Please explain a little in detail.

Answer:  The rationale for the Takfeer of the Shias are innumerable. Those reasons which are well-known, most famous amongst the special ones (i.e. the Ulama) and the general public (i.e. the non-Ulama), and which are recorded in almost all Kitaabs, will be written (mentioned) below. 

1) Aqeedah Tehreef-e-Qur’aan. The belief that the Qur’aan is distorted, altered, changed and incomplete. (This alone is enough to declare them Kaafir – JamiatNC)

2) Badaa. The Shia belief that Allah Ta’ala makes errors. (Nauthubillah -JamiatNC)

3) Attributing a Nifaaq like  Taqiyah to the Ambiyaa Alayhimus Salaam.

4) Ascribing Kufr and Nifaaq to  Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiyallahu Anhu.

5) Rejecting the Sahaabi-status  of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiyallahu Anhu.

6) Rejecting the Khilaafat of  Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiyallahu Anhu which is announced daily on the loudspeakers by the Shia ‘Muezzins’ in their fabricated ‘Azaan’.

7)  Ascribing Kufr and Nifaaq to 
Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu.

8) Rejecting the Sahaabi-status of Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu.

9) Rejecting the Khilaafat of Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu  which is announced daily on the loudspeakers in their fabricated ‘Azaan’.

10) Ascribing Kufr and Nifaaq to Hazrat Uthmaan Radhiyallahu Anhu.

11) Rejecting the Sahaabi-status of Hazrat Uthmaan Radhiyallahu Anhu.

12) Rejecting the Khilaafat of  Hazrat Uthmaan Radhiyallahu Anhu which is announced daily on the loudspeakers (by the Shia ‘Muezzins’) in their fabricated ‘Azaan’.

13) With regards to the other  Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum, besides three, they (the Shias) regard the rest of the Sahaabah to be Kaafirs and Munaafiqs.

14) The purity and chasteness of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha is explicitly proven from the Qur’aan. These Mal’oon (accursed) and Mardood (vile) Shias reject it and they accuse Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha of Zina (Allah forbid). They reject what Allah Ta’ala stated and claim that the Qur’aan is erroneous!

15)  They regard their ‘Imaams’ to be sinless and ‘Aalimul Ghaib’  (knowers of the Unseen).(Only Allah Ta’ala is Aalimul Ghaib – JamiatNC)

16) They regard their ‘Imaams’ to be more virtuous and more superior than the Honourable Ambiyaa-e-Kiraam Alayhimus Salaam.

17) They reject ‘Khatme-Nabuwwat’ (the finality of Prophethood) because they hold the belief of continuity/transference of ‘Nabuwwat’  amongst their ‘Imaams’.

18) They regard adultery/prostitution, cuckoldry and excessive shamelessness like Mut’ah (a type of Zina) to be  Halaal. In fact, they regard such wanton immorality to be a very meritorious act of great rewards, and a means of salvation from Jahannam as well as a means of attaining high stages in Jannah.

19) They regard promiscuity/fornication, extreme obscenity and illicit sexual relations such as Tahleel (a type of Zina) to be Halaal.

In light of the above, these scoundrels (i.e. the Shias) are more despicable than the other Kuffaar – Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Bangis, Chammars, etc.

They (the Shias) are Akfarul Kuffaar (the worse of the Kuffaar)! 

The slaughtered animals of Shias are Murdaar (carrion) and Haraam. In addition, the Nikah of any Muslim is impossible (i.e. Haraam) with a Shia man or woman!

[Ahsanul Fataawa – Haqeeqat-e-Shia – Anwaarur Rasheed]

May Allah save us from the filth called Shiism. Aameen

THE REALITY OF MATAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading:

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

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