Part 6: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope


Exposing the deception of religious deceivers regarding Hadeeth Khalifatayn

In this part we would be focusing on the deception of the religious deceivers(shian e dajjal). But importantly we will be presenting before you the clear signs of one of the most famous characteristic of shiatu dajjal, that is while trying answer Ahlesunnah they start behaving like donkeys, meaning they raise such silly and stupid arguments which no person with human brain could.

 

What kind of people are we going to expose?

Before, we start our refutation we would like to again make our readers aware that what kind of people are we going to refute and expose in this article. The ones to whom we are going to expose here have a lot of characteristics many of which are stated by their own Imams in their own books(eg: Hypocrites, etc), But some important characteristics which can’t be ignored before reading any argument raised by such people are : They are religious liars,  they consider deceiving and lying to be the teachings of their cult, and often they behave in a stupid manner like donkeys.

Here are the proofs on which we base our views that:

1. Shiatu dajjal are religious liars and religious deceivers:

Shia infallible Imam in shia hadeeth states:

إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .

Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation – other than shias or new shia – then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …
[tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152]

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ

“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’”

Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4

& Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77

(Shia scholars) al-Ansari and al-Roohani commented on the Hadith (Above) of Imam Abu Abdullah: “The words “Bahitouhum Kay La Yatma’ou” in the Hadith mean accusing them of things and thinking that they have ill intentions which is Haram in the case of dealing with a believer, so one cannot say about the believer things like: “He might be a Kaffir or a Zani”… And it could be left to its apparent form thus it would permissible to LIE to them for a certain benefit.” Shia sources (Kitab al-Makasib by al-Ansari 2/118), (Minhaj al-Fuqahaa 2/228).

Intrestingly Giant shia scholars give fatawas(verdicts) based on these narrations for example Grand Ayatullah Al Khoei’i

سؤال 1245: هل يجوز الكذب على المبدع أو مروج الضلال في مقام الاحتجاج عليه إذا كان الكذب يدحض حجته ويبطل دعاويه الباطلة؟ الخوئي: إذا توقف رد باطله عليه جاز.

Question”1245″: Is it Possible to Lie or produce Arguments which contain Lies when Debating with a person who Is a Follower of Bida’a (Innovation/ they probably mean Sunnis) and a spreader or Dala’la (Ignorance/ us as well) If this Lie would Destroy my Opponent’s Arguments?

Imam Khoei’i Answers: If it will stop his Falsehood then it is Permissible to do So. (Imam Khoei’i, Sirat el Najat, Volume 1, Page 447) (online source)

A similar fatwa was issue by Grand ayatullah sistani:

السؤال: هل يعاقب الله الشخص اذا اجبر على الكذب في مواضع محرجة اذا سئل عنها خاصة اذا كان المقابل يسال كثيرا عن اشياء لاتخصه ؟

الجواب: لايجوز الكذب الا اذا كان لدفع ضرر.

 

2. Shiatu dajjal are donkeys:

Aboo ‘Abdillah bin Ahmad Muhammad bin Hanbal ash-Shaybaanee said in“as-Sunnah” (Volume 2/ 548 #1276): I was informed by Muhammad bin Yahyaa bin Abee Sameenah who was informed by Ibn Abee Zaaidha from Isma’eel meaning Aboo Khaalid and his father Zakariyaa bin Abee Zaaidha and Maalik ibn Mighwal from ash-Sha’bee: “If the Shee’ah were birds they would be vultures and if they were animals they would be donkeys”

Comment: So the one who stated this reality was ash-Sha’bee ‘Aamir bin Sharaaheel al-Hamdaanee who was born in the caliphate of ‘Umar(ra)  and he is from the trustworthy of the Taabi’een and from the Fuqahaa who died in the year 103 AH.((Taqreeb))

Thus, in this article we will be exposing their lies and deceptions which they made in order to deceive innocent and lay muslims and we will be revealing before you that how they start behaving like donkeys and make some foolish arguments inorder to name it a refutation to Ahlesunah, So please don’t be surprised by seeing that how can people be so stupid and deceptive at the same time, because the fact is that such things are present in their blood. That is why you will find them least bothered even if their lies are exposed and if they are caught red handed while trying to deceive people.

 

Deception (1)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] SUNNI CONTRADICTION 2(B): THE FIRST PERIOD OF KHILAFAH LASTED 24 YEARS, UTHMAN WAS THE LAST KHALIFAH AND IMAM ALI WAS THE FIRST KING!!!!

Shaykh al-Albani has recorded in his Zilal al-Jannah, Number 1135:

1135 ثنا إبراهيم بن حجاج ثنا حماد بن سلمة عن علي بن زيد عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكرة عن أبيه أن رجلا قال يا رسول الله رأيت كأن ميزانا دلي من السماء فوزنت فيه أنت وأبو بكر فرجحت بأبي بكر ثم وزن فيه أبو بكر وعمر فرجح أبو بكر بعمر ثم وزن فيه عمر وعثمان فرجح عمر بعثمان ثم رفع الميزان فاستألها يعني تأولها ثم قال خلافة نبوة ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء

Narrated Abu Bakra: A man said, “O Allah’s Apostle, I saw (in my dream) as if a balance came down from the heaven in which you were weighed against Abubakr and outweighed him, then Abubakr was weighed against Umar and outweighed him, then Umar was weighed against UTHMAN and outweighed him. THEN THE BALANCE WAS RAISED UP.” He asked for its interpretation. The Prophet replied, “Successorship of Prophethood! THEN Allah shall give KINGSHIP to whomever He will.”

Shaykh al-Albani says: The Hadith is Sahih.

These Hadiths EXPLICITLY state that Khilafah ENDED with Uthman, AND KINGSHIP began with IMAM ALI (عليه السّلام)!!!

These Hadiths show that the first period of the Khilafah actually lasted 24 years, and NOT 30![Quote]

This narration could only appear as a contradiction to people who possess characteristics of donkeys, because no where in the narration is mentioned that period of the Khilafah lasted for 24 years, it’s the deceptive interpretations of religious deceivers nothing else.

This narration is an interpretation by Prophet(Saw) for  a dream of a man and its interpretation was NOT regarding TIME PERIOD of Khilafah but NATURE OF KHILAFAH, that Khilafah will be followed by Kingship. The interpretation of Prophet(saw) didn’t have even a single word regarding the time period. But ironically the dajjalis claimed that this narration explicitly states that Khilafah ended with Uthman(ra), see how easy its for religious liars to blatantly lie.

Prophet(Saw) DIDN’T interpret that kingship will begin with the rule of Ali(ra) NOR did the Prophet(Saw) say that the Caliphate will be substituted by Kingship AFTER the Khilafah of Uthman. As we said the interpretation of Prophet(saw) didn’t contain even a single word or sign regarding the “time period” of Khilafah.

Let us explain in a more elaborated manner:

The narration presented by shiatu dajjal contains a dream of a man which was interpreted by Prophet. So what counts is the interpretation of it by Prophet(Saw), since what is seen in the dream is not necessarily related to exact manner in which it is interpreted. [For example: Sahi bukhari 9.164: Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet said, “I saw in a dream that I waved a sword and it broke in the middle, and behold, that symbolized the casualties the believers suffered on the Day (of the battle) of Uhud. Then I waved the sword again, and it became better than it had ever been before, and behold, that symbolized the Conquest (of Mecca) which Allah brought about and the gathering of the believers. “] So we find that what was seen in dream(i.e breaking of sword or weaving of sword)was not exactly related to the way it was interpreted.

Here is what prophet(saw) interpreted about that dream: {The Prophet replied, “Successorship of Prophethood! THEN Allah shall give KINGSHIP to whomever He will.”  }. This interpretation of dream in no way indicates that the TIME PERIOD of Caliphate NOR about Caliphate of PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. It simply states the nature of Caliphate that it will be substituted by kingship, without any mention of time period or any mention of the Caliph after whose Caliphate the kingship will start.

So only fools could argue that the above narration contradicts this narration: {The Caliphate after me is thirty years and then kingship after that.

[Source: Al Sayl al Jarrar]} , Because this narration explicitly states about the time period of Caliphate, which is completely absent from the narration which was misused by the shiatu dajjal. In other words: The First narration talks about nature of Caliphate , that it is going to be substituted by Kingship. And the Second narration is an clarification for the first on the issue that what will be the “time period” of Caliphate before it gets substituted by Kingship.

Moreover even Muawiya(ra) understood this narration in the similar manner that is why he considered himself to be the first of the kings. Al-Dhahabi cites the saying by Mu`awiya: “ I am the first of the kings (anâ awwalu al-mulûk) in Siyar ( vol 3, page 157). Because there was no contradiction on the issue that whether Ali(ra) was Caliph or King. No one claimed that Ali(ra) was the first of Kings. Also none of the scholars of Ahlesunnah claimed that Ali(ra) was first of the Kings.

Thus the religious deceivers gave these narrations,  deceptive and false interpretations which were illogical and they tried to portray that these contradicts the other narrations present in the books of Ahlesunnah. But the fact is clear before our esteemed readers like sun in cloudless day. Both the narrations are different from one and another, because first one talks about general nature of khilafah, that Caliphate will be substituted by Kingship, WITHOUT any mention of time period nor any mention of the Caliph after whose Khilafah the kingship will start, where as the second narration is the explanation of the first narration which clears that what will be the time period for the Caliphate.

 

Misconception (1)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] SUNNI CONTRADICTION 2(C): THE FIRST PERIOD OF KHILAFAH LASTED 100 YEARS, AND MU’AWIYAH AND YAZID WERE KHALIFAHS AND NOT KINGS!!

Uthman al-Khamis (لعنه الله), has this fatwa on his accursed website:

Question: To His Eminence, Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis, may Allah show mercy to him. Narrated in Sahih Muslim are Hadiths which state that this religion will continue to be glorious till twelve Khalifahs, all of them from Quraysh. Who are these twelve Khalifahs in our view, the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. Thanks. I love you for Allah’s sake.

Answer: It is well-known that they are: (1) Abubakr, (2) Umar, (3) Uthman, (4) Ali, (5) Mu’awiyah, (6) Yazid, (7) Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, (8) al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, (9) Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, (10) Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, (11) Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik and (12) Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik.

Al-Hasan passed among them for six months.

In other words, in the view of the accursed al-Khamis, the Khilafah was continuous and the 30-years Hadith cited by al-Hindi al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) are FABRICATIONS!![Quote]

We want make our readers aware that the personal and odd(shadh) views of scholars are not taken as hujjah by Ahlesunnah. Ahlesunnah are not like uncivilized Shiatu dajjal who believe and follow their scholars blindly.

The opinion of sheikh uthman alkhamis is based on his personal opinion and not on any narrations of Prophet(saw) neither is this the opinion of Ahlesunnah in general as the dajjali tried to portray. Thus this view is to be rejected since it goes against the authentic narrations of prophet(saw).

To completely clear this issue before our readers lets us bring before you a very important and beautiful principle of Ahlesunnah, which will leave no doubt in the mind of readers.

Imam of Ahlesunnah Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The view of any of us may be accepted or rejected, except the occupant of this grave (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)).

Imam of Ahlesunnah Al-Shaafa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The people are unanimously agreed that once the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has become clear to a person, he has no right overlook it and follow the view of any person.

Al-Imam Adh-Dhahabee said: “If the major scholar is right most of the time, and his meticulous concern for the truth, and the vastness of his knowledge, and his intelligence are all well known; as is his righteousness and piety, and his adherence (to the Sunnah), then his mistakes are forgiven. And we do not say that he is astray and throw him away, forgetting all of the good that he has done! That’s right! However, (at the same time) we do not follow him in his bid’ah or his mistake, and we hope that he will repent.”[ Sayr-ul-A’laam An-Nubalaa (Vol. 5, pg. 271).]

Thus the matter is clear now, and the odd and incorrect view of sheikh Uthman al khamis in this matter is invalid and is to be rejected because it is against the authentic narrations of Prophet(saw), and also the view of sheikh uthman khamis is NOT the view of Ahlesunnah.

 

Deception (2)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] SUNNI CONTRADICTION 2(D): THE FIRST PERIOD OF KHILAFAH LASTS TILL THE DAY OF RESURRECTION!!!

Shaykh al-Albani has recorded in his Zilal al-Jannah, Number 1109:

الخلافة في قريش إلى قيام الساعة

The Khilafah will remain with Quraysh TILL THE HOUR.

Muslim too records: It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only two persons are left (on the earth).Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4476 [Quote]

This again is another example of the characteristic of shiatu dajjal, that is behaving like donkeys, and raising illogical and foolish arguments.

This narration is referring to the RIGHT of Caliphate which Quraish had, NOT the time period for which Caliphate will remain on earth, as the stupid dajjalis thought. Because the wordings of narration are, The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish but if the narration was referring to time period for caliphate then the wording should have been The Caliphate will remain ON EARTH even if two persons are left but these are not the wording we find in the narration which clearly proves that the narration was referring to the RIGHT of Caliphate which Quraish had. The narration means that Caliphate is only the right of Quraysh, one cannot become caliph if he is not from Quraysh.(even if one becomes a ruler or king he will not be Caliph), in this way Caliphate will remain among Quraish.

This logical explanation is also supported by other narrations regarding this issue, where we will see that prophet(saw) MADE SURE that the Caliphate must be with Quraysh as all Arabs agree on them.

Sahi muslim Book 020, Number 4474:
It has been narrated on the authority of Hammam b. Munabbih who said: This is one of the traditions narrated by Abu Huraira from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among them being subservient to the disbelievers among them.

Sahi muslim Book 020, Number 4475:
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: People are the followers of Quraish in good as well as evil (i. e. in the customs of Islamic as well as pre-Islamic times)

These narrations which we presented here from Sahi muslim comes just before the narration which the Shiatu dajjal quoted, from Sahi muslim. They presented narration Number 4476, and we presented Number 4474 and 4475 from the same chapter, which helps us clear the deceptive interpretation of religious deceivers.

Interestingly the narration which shiatu dajjal presented from Sahi muslim is under the chapter titled as,”Chapter 1: THE PEOPLE ARE SUBSERVIENT TO THE QURAISH AND THE CALIPHATE IS THE RIGHT OF THE QURAISH”, which should not leave any doubt in the mind of readers that this narration just refers to the right Quraish had regarding Caliphate, NOT the time period for which Caliphate will remain on earth as the foolish dajjalis tried to portray. Thus it just the damaged brains of donkeys which couldn’t understand a simple narration and they went on to claim it to be a contradiction.

 

Misconception (2)

The shiatu dajjal quotes from our original article where we stated that Imams and Khaliphs are not the same, So the dajjalis stated:

[Quote] AL-HINDI AL-NASIBI CLAIMS THAT THERE ARE NO IMAMS, ONLY CALIPHS!!!

Then the dajjali quotes narrations which prove that Caliphs, Imams, Amirs are the same.

This is the summary:

1.         The Imams are also the Amirs.

2.         The Amirs are also the Khalifahs.

3.         The Imams are the Amirs and Khalifahs.

3.         Since the Amirs, also called Khalifahs are twelve in number, then it is clear that the Imams are only twelve.

4.         The twelve Amirs/Khalifahs are none other than the TWELVE IMAMS. [Quote]

Unfortunately the point which shiatu dajjal didn’t understood due to their damaged brains is that in our original article on hadeeth Khalifatayn, we didn’t base our view on standard definitions but on practical examples. Since the standard meaning of Caliph doesn’t fits to 9 shia Imams. The reason we did was to open the eyes of those fools who always try to portray that the 12 Caliphs prophesized in authentic sunni narrations are the Shia Imams, but as we said that the Shia Imams doesn’t fit in the standard definition of Caliph or Imam.

Moreover the examples on which we based our explanation were from shia narration, let us quote you again that narration:
عليا قال من لم يقل إني رابع الخلفاء فعليه لعنة الله ثم ذكر ع آدم و داود و موسى ع
Ali said: Whoever wouldn’t say that I am fourth caliph, upon him curse of Allah, then alaihi salam mentioned Adam, Dawud and Musa (alaihuma salam). [Siraat Al-Mustaqeen, by Ali bin yunus Alamili vol. 2, pg. 47] Online reference (click here)

Comment: So, basically Ali(ra) refers to himself as fourth caliph after those 3 prophets. Now from this shia ahadees, we find that hz ali(ra) was the fourth caliph. But the point to ponder is that, hz Ibrahim(ra), hz Ismail(as) etc were not included in the list of Caliphs. Though they were Imams as the shias say. The only plausible answer to this is that the reason they were not called as Caliphs but as Imams is because they didn’t govern the state or Ummah,  So the same applies to the 9 shias Imams  since none of them governed the state or Ummah, though they might have been Imams. Thus the narration present in sunni ahadees about 12 caliphs in no way fits to shias Imams.

Important: Let us explain our readers in a more elaborated manner:

Defination of Imamah: In Islamic terminology al-imamah (Imamate) means ‘universal authority in all religious and secular affairs, in succession to the Prophet’. al-Imam means ‘the man who, in succession to the Prophet, has the right to the absolute command of the Muslims in all religious and secular affairs.[ al-’Allamah al-Hilli: al-Babu ‘l-hadi ‘ashar, Eng. tr. W. M. Miller, p. 62; Mughniyyah: Falsafat Islamiyyah, p. 392.]

Defination of Khilafah: The word al-khilafah means ‘to succeed’ and al-khalifah means ‘the successor’. In Islamic terminology al-khilafah and al-khalifah practically signify the same meanings as al-ima’mah and al-ima’m repectively.

Now we find that Caliph or Imam is the person who has absolute authority over religious and SECULAR affairs. But the fact is that accept 3 shia imams, none of the 9 Imams fits in the standard defination of Caliph or Imam, because those 9 Imams were never Government rulers nor  possessed absolute command of the muslims in all secular affairs. On the contrary those 9 Imams were under the command of rulers of their era and they used to follow the commands of those rulers regarding the secular affairs.

This fact from history made the dajjalis commit another stupidity, because when some of them found these things troublesome they went on to invent some new categories in Caliphate , they said that Caliphate has two categories one is spiritual Caliphate and other is Secular Caliphat. With this they tried to cover the flaw in their beliefs by explaining that their Imams were spiritual Caliphs though they were not Secular caliphs.

However even this interpretation is based on foolishness because according to the standard defination a khaliph has right over secular and social affairs collectively. These rights are inseparable, because a candidate cannot be called as Khaliph who has authority over spiritual affairs only, it has to be that one should collectively possess authority in secular as well as spiritual affairs in order to be termed as Khaliph. Here is one example from most sacred shia book:

والله ما كانت لي في الخلافة رغبة و لا في الولاية إربة ولكنكم دعوتموني إليها و حملتموني عليها فلما أفضت إليّ نظرت إلى كتاب الله و ما وضع لنا و أمرنا بالحكم
Ali(ra) said: By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions.[sermon 205]

Comment: This sermon of Ali(ra) was made after more than 20 years had passed after the death of Prophet(saw) , Even this sermon of Ali(ra) proves that Ali(ra) never considered that he was a Caliph, instead he said here that, “WHEN CALIPHATE CAME TO ME”  which signifies that he didn’t consider himself to be as the Caliph before it, same signifies from the words “I had no liking for Caliphate” .

That is why Shia Imam disassociated himself from those who considered him an infallible Imam.
جعفر الصادق : من زعم أني إمام معصوم مفترض الطاعة فأنا منه بريء
Ja’afar al-Sadiq (rah) said: “He who claims that I am an infallible Imam whose obedience is obligatory then tell him that I disassociate myself from him.“ [sources: al-Mezzi mentioned it in “Tahtheeb al-Kamal” and al-Imam al-Dhahabi in “Siyar al-A’alam” 6/259, Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Imam said in the commentary: Isnaduhu Hasan.]

Thus the fact is that we tried to solve the problem of dajjalis which they experience when questioned that how could there Imams be Khaliphs though 9 of them never possessed authority in secular affairs. So we tried to educate them from their own narrations that the solution to their problem is to consider that Caliphate and Imamate is not the same position. But how shameless and stupid the dajjalis are, instead of thanking us they tried to attack us again with their stupid arguments, by which they made a mockery of their own nonsensical beliefs.

Clearing another misconception:

Some dajjalis who possess the characteristic of behaving like donkeys might argue that the narration which talks about twelve Caliphs in authentic narrations present in books of Ahlesunnah, that its about APPOINTMENT of Caliphs NOT PREDICTION!. Thus since the shia Imams didn’t get authority for secular affairs that doesn’t mean they were not Caliphs.

Answer: The answer to this hilarious stupidity is that the narration about twelve Caliphs in books of Ahlesunnah is actually a PROPHESY NOT APPOINTMENT.

Here it is: Sahi bukhari 9.329:Narrated Jabir bin Samura: I heard the Prophet saying, “There WILL BE twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, “All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish.”

We find in the above narration that it clearly shows that it’s a Prophesy not an appointment because Prophet(Saw) said, “There WILL BE twelve rulers”.

Thus if at all in the above narration the prophesized ones were the shia Imams then, it would have occurred as predicted and they would have become Caliphs who had complete authority in religious and secular affairs, because it is revelation revealed, and Allah never fails in His promises. But we know that 9 of the shia Imams never got authority over secular issues.

 

Deception (3)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] In the Shiite creed, all the twelve Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام) are also Khalifahs. Shaykh Saduq (رحمه الله تعالى), in his al-Amali, page 415, Majlis 64, Number 15, also records:

حدثنا الحسن بن علي بن شعيب الجوهري رض قال حدثنا عيسى بن محمد العلوي قال حدثنا أبو عمرو أحمد بن أبي حازم الغفاري قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن موسى عن شريك عن الركين بن الربيع عن القاسم بن حسان عن زيد بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و آله) إني تارك فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله عز و جل و عترتي أهل بيتي ألا و هما الخليفتان من بعدي و لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit: Allah’s Apostle, peace be upon him and his family, said: “I will always leave among you the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allah the Glorious and my ‘itra, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, BOTH ARE MY TWO KHALIFAHS AFTER MY DEATH. And both shall never separate until they meet me at the Lake-Font.[Quote]

The dajjalis quoted this narration from shia book, which doesn’t hold any importance for Ahlesunnah, since its renowned fact that the shiatu dajjal were the masters in fabrications regarding virtues of Ahlebayt.

Though this narration talks about Khilafah but this contradicts the historical facts, as well as authentic narrations present in books of Ahlesunnah. And this narration is weak even from according to shia hadeeth standards.

First narrator in the chain is majhool(unknown). In “alMufid min mojam rijal ahadeth” of Muhammad al-Jawhari, we can see:
2968 – 2967 – 2975 – الحسن بن علي بن شعيب : الجوهري ، من مشايخ الصدوق ، ترضى عليه في الأمالي- مجهول – .
Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Shuayb al-Jawhari, from shuyukh of as-Saduq, he made tarade upon him in al-Amali – MAJHOOL.

In the chain also Rukin ibn Rabia, in the same book we can see:
4622 – 4621 – 4630 – ركين بن الربيع : – من أصحاب الصادق ( ع ) – مجهول –
Rukin ibn Rabia fom companions of Sadiq – MAJHOOL.

Thus this narration from shia books too is weak as per shia rijal.   

 

Deception (4)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Now, let us link this. The Sufi heavyweight, Shaykh al-Islam Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri records: “It is narrated by ‘Ammār bin Yāsir that the Messenger of Allāh said: whoso believed me and endorsed me, I shall pass on to him the legacy of ‘Alī’s spiritual LEADERSHIP. Anyone who regarded him as his GUARDIAN, he regarded me as his GUARDIAN, and anyone who regarded me as his GUARDIAN, he regarded Allāh as his GUARDIAN, and anyone who loved him (‘Alī) , he loved me and one who loved me loved Allāh, and one who bore malice towards him (‘Alī) bore malice towards me and one who bore malice towards me bore malice towards Allāh.”1

1. Haythamī has related this tradition from Tabarānī in Majma‘-uzzawā’id (9:108, 109) and has called its narrators credible (thiqah); and Hindī copied it in Kanz-ul-‘ummāl (11:611 # 32958). Ibn ‘Asākir narrated it in Tārīkh Dimashq al-kabīr (45:181, 182).

Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, The Ghadir Declaration (Lahore, Pakistan: Minhaj-ul-Qur’an Publications; 2002), Hadith No. 25, p. 50

Yep, Imam Ali (عليه السّلام) was the first guardian of the believers after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). He was the first IMAM![Quote]

This claim is made on several errors, firstly tahir ul qadri is well known for his deceitfulness so one cannot rely on him without checking the actual sources which he quotes, and ironically even the dajjalis view the same about Tahir ul qadri.

The first flaw in it is that Haythami considered the narrators to be weak NOT credible.

This is found in Majmau zawaid number 14640
رواه الطبراني بإسنادين أحسب فيهما ( في الأصل ” أحسبهما فيه ” ) جماعة ضعفاء وقد وثقوا
al-Heythami said: That Tabarani narrated it via two chains ….. that in the chain (there is) group of weak narrators which were credited(supposedly by Ibn hibban who is known to be mutasahil[lenient]) (source)

So the fact is that al haythami actually considered the narrators to be weak. So let us provide you the weakness of those narrators:

Here is first chain:

It was narrated by ibn Asakir from the way of Tabarani:
أخرجه ابن عساكر في “التاريخ” (12/ 120/ 1) من طريق الطبراني : أخبرنا محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة : أخبرنا أحمد بن طارق الوابشي : أخبرنا عمرو بن ثابت عن محمد بن أبي عبيدة بن محمد بن عمار بن ياسر عن أبيه أبي عبيدة عن محمد بن عمار بن ياسر عن أبيه مرفوعا
Narrator Muhammad ibn Abu Sheiba in him is weakness.
Narrator Ahmad ibn Taraq is not known(majhool).
Narrator Amr ibn Thabit is rafidi(dajjali).
Narrator Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasir is unknown(majhool).

Thus this narration is a fabrication of dajjalis as we can see from it and is unreliable, Tahir Qadri also states that {“Hindī copied it in Kanz-ul-‘ummāl}, So lets see what was said regarding that by renowned scholar of Hadeeth Science.

32958 اللهم ! من آمن بي وصدقني فليتول علي بن أبي طالب فان ولايته ولايتي وولايتي ولاية الله.
(طب – عن محمد بن أبي عبيدة بن محمد بن عمار بن ياسر عن أبيه عن جده عن عمار).
Hadith is EXTREMELY WEAK as said Albani in Silsila ad-daeefa 4882

Here is the second chain:

Quoted from Kamil by ibn Adi 6/113:
أخبرني محمد بن عبيد الله بن فضيل ثنا عبد الوهاب بن الضحاك ثنا بن عياش عن محمد بن عبيد الله بن أبي رافع عن أبي عبيدة بن محمد بن عمار بن ياسر عن أبيه عن جده قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أوصي من آمن بي وصدقني بولاية علي فمن تولاه أخللنا ومن أخللنا تولى الل
In the chain:
Abdulwahab ibn Dahhak – abandoned liar (Mizan 2/679)
Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafi extremely weak. (check Mizan 3/634)
From ibn Abu Rafi al-Madani reported Ismail ibn Ayash ash-Shame. Ismail was disputed, and his ahadeth were accepted when he reported from people of his place, meaning from Sham (Mizan 1/240). Here he reported from al-Madani.

Thus this chain too has major flaws in it, which proves even it unreliable and rejected.

 

Deception (5)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] WHO IS IMAM AL-MAHDI: MUHAMMAD IBN ABDULLAH AL-HASANI OR MUHAMMAD IBN AL-HASAN AL-ASKARI AL-HUSAYNI?

In volume 2 of his Yanabi al-Mawaddah (1965 edition), Shaykh al-Qunduzi writes a chapter with the title:

الباب السادس والثمانون في إيراد أقوال ممن صرح من علماء الحروف والمحدثين أن المهدي الموعود ولد الامام الحسن العسكري (رضي الله عنهما)

Chapter 86: Statements Of Some Among The Scholars of Grammar and Hadith Who Declared That the Promised Mahdi is the son of Imam al-Hasan al-Askari, may Allah be pleased with them both.

This Sunni scholar wants to tell us about other Sunni scholars who hold that the REAL Imam al-Mahdi is Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari.[Quote]

The religious deceivers have made another hilarious claim, WITHOUT any solid proof they claim that the fathers name of Imam Mahdi will not be “Abdullah” as reported in authentic narration present in sunni books which we had provided in our original article, but the religious deceivers claim that the father name of Imam Mahdi is Hasan al askari. So let us shatter this ridiculous attempt of deception.

Reply 1:

The book cited by the religious deceivers is a Shia book not a sunni one, This can also be confirmed from the content of the book. The author of the book “Yanabi al-Mawaddah” whose name was Sulayman ibn Ibrahim al-Qunduzi  was an undercover shia. Let us expose this fact before you from the saying of great shia scholar.

Shia scholar Aga Buzurg Tehrani included his(Al-Qunduzi’s) book “Al-Thareea” , which is an Encyclopedia on Shia books. Aga Buzurg Tahrani in his “Zaria” [25/290] said:: “ Even though the Shiism of the author is not known, but he is Gnostic, and the Book is considered to be one of the books of Shia” (source)

So the book of undercover shia scholars doesn’t carry any weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah, specially when it goes against the established authentic narrations of Prophet(Saw).

Reply 2:

The views of scholars which this undercover shia gathered in his book, most of those scholars were also Shia, to whom the deceptive undercover shia tried to portray as Sunni scholars.

Here is the info of those Shia scholars, whose views were gathered by  Al-Qunduzi in his shia book Yanabi al mawaddah. [undercover shia scholars]

Reply 3:

Even if for sake of argument we believe for a moment that Yanabi al mawadda is sunni book, even then what is written in it cannot become Hujjah over Ahlesunnah because what is present in that book are mere views of scholars, those are not narrations of Prophet(Saw), nor Sahaba. And let us remind our readers the Golden principle of Ahlesunnah.

Imam of Ahlesunnah Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The view of any of us may be accepted or rejected, except the occupant of this grave (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)).

Imam of Ahlesunnah Al-Shaafa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The people are unanimously agreed that once the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has become clear to a person, he has no right overlook it and follow the view of any person.

So this golden rule states that, be it anyone but if their views goes against the saying of prophet(Saw), then it is to be rejected. So let us make the narration of Prophet(Saw) as a deciding factor on this issue. Here is what Prophet(Saw) said in an authentic narrations:

قرة بن إياس المزني
يبعث الله رجلا مني ، اسمه اسمي ، واسم أبيه اسم أبي ، فيملؤها عدلا وقسطا ، كما ملئت جورا وظلما ، فلا تمنع السماء شيئا من قطرها ، ولا الأرض شيئا من نباتها ، يمكث فيكم سبعا ، أو ثمانيا ، فإن أكثر فتسعا Qurrah ibn Iyas al-Mazni: The Prophet SAWS said: “Allah will send a man from my progeny, his name will match mine and his father’s name will match my father’s name, he will fill it with justice as it was filled with oppression…”
source: Sahih al-Jami’i #5073.
grading: SAHIH.

عبدالله بن مسعود
لو لم يبق من الدنيا إلا يوم لطول الله ذلك اليوم حتى يبعث فيه رجلا مني – أو – من أهل بيتي ، يواطئ اسمه اسمي ، واسم أبيه اسم أبي يملأ الأرض قسطا وعدلا ، كما ملئت ظلما وجورا

‘Abdullah ibn Mas’oud: The Prophet SAWS said: “Even if no longer than one day remains then Allah would extend it until he sends a man from my progeny whose name matches mine and his father’s name matches my father’s name, he will fill the earth with justice…”
source: Sahih Abu Dawoud #4282.
grading: SAHIH.

Proof from Shia Narration:

Here is gift for shias from their own book, which supports the sunni narrations.

Shia book Ghaybat by al-Tusi:

عنه عن علي عن بكار عن علي بن قادم عن فطر عن عاصم عن زر بن حبيش عن عبد الله بن مسعود قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لو لم يبق من الدنيا إلا يوم لطول الله تعالى ذلك اليوم حتى يبعث رجلا مني يواطئ اسمه اسمي واسم أبيه اسم أبي يملأ الأرض عدلا كما ملئت ظلما

(Online source) This Hadith is in the books of Shia check out these sources:

أمالي الطوسي: (362)، غيبة الطوسي: (112)، كشف الغمة: (3/235، 271، 277)، البحار: (28/46) (37/2) (51/42، 74، 82، 84، 86، 102 103) (52/189)، إثبات الهداة: (3/594، 598)، ملاحم ابن طاوس: (132، 162)، غيبة النعماني: (152).
Comment: We know that the father’s name of Prophet(saw) was Abdullah not Hasan Askari and the name of father of Imam Mahdi will be Abdullah not Hasan Askari, this proves that the Mahdi of shias is not Imam Mahdi of Ahlesunnah. As for the Shia belief that Imam Mahdi will be the son of Imam Hasan Askari, then even the Shias don’t have any authentic hadeeth regarding the birth of their Imam. Refer this link for a detailed research on this subject.[Click Here] .

Deception (6)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] The Hadith cited from Faraid al-Simtayn is reproduced here:

Narrated Da’bal al-Khuza’ from Ali al-Rida ibn Musa al-Kazim who said: “Verily, the Imam after me is my son al-Jawad al-Taqi, THEN the Imam after him is his son Ali al-Hadi al-Taqi, THEN the Imam after him is his son al-Hasan al-Askari, THEN the Imam after him is his son Muhammad al-Hujjah al-Mahdi, who will be the Expected One during his occultation, and will be obeyed during his reappearance.”[Quote]

It seems that poor shiatu dajjal failed to find any sunni hadeeth to back up their dogma. That is why out of their frustration these religious deceivers are going on quoting shia books inorder to deceive lay people. But by the help of Allah we will not let the innocent muslims be deceived by these shiatu dajjal.

The book cited here by the shiatu dajjal is actually a shia book, Its author is Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Al-Juwaini (also called Al-Hamweeni) here is the info about this Shia scholar:

He is the author of “Faraid Al-Simtayn” He has been included in the book “Ayan Al-Shia” , an Encyclodia of Shia prominent figures, by Al-Ameen Al-Amili. Aga Buzurgh Tehrani, in “Thayl Kashf Al-Dhunoon” p. 70, pointed out that the chief of the Mongols, Ghazan, embrassed Islam through him and became a Shiite, and also his brother Shah Khudabanda who made his Shiasm apparent. Amongst the sheikhs that he was taught by, are Ibn Al-Muttahir Al-Hili and Khawaja Nusair Al-Din Al-Tusi. These are two prominent shia figures.

So these shia fabrications doesn’t worth even a penny in the sight of Ahlesunnah, specially when they contradict the authentic narrations of Prophet(Saw).

 

Deception (7)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Moreover, Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin, an authorized deputy of H.E Mawlana Shaykh Nazim Adil al-Haqqani, the great Sufi heavyweight, in his article  Shaykh Nazim: Imam Mahdi’s Helpers believe he is the son of Imam Hasan al-Askari states:

Mawlana Shaykh Mehmet Nazim al-Qubrusi: The Helpers of Imam Mahdi (as) are from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jam’ah, but they believe he is the son of Imam Hasan al-Askari (as)-Jan 16th, 2011

This was also the belief of Ghawth al-Adham Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani as highlighted by his grandsons in the book Mishkaat an-Nubuwat, and also that of Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiuddin Ibn Arabi, Hadrat Ihsan Khwaja Ubaydullah al-Ahrar and the venerable Khwaja Baha al-Din Shah Naqshband as mentioned by his caliph and biographer Khwaja Muhammad Parsa, who wrote in his Fasl al-Khitab, in the chapter “Ahwal al-Aqtab: Fadhail Khulafa wa Ahlul Bayt”:

Imam Hasan al-Askari (rad) is the father of Abul Qasim Muhammad al-Muntadhar (rad)…the birth of al-Muntadhar (rad) was on the night of the 15th of Sha’ban, 255…his mother’s name is Narjis”[Fasl al-Khitab [Arabic]: Fadhail Khulafa wa Ahlul Bayt, p. 592, Khwaja Muhammad Parsa].[Quote]

Firstly some of the deviant Sufis should not to be mixed with Ahlesunnah, because they are not the people of sunnah but people of desire. Secondly the dajjalis cited a blog which is run by some unknown people, moreover the references they provided are dubious because such statement is not proven from Shaykh Abd Al qadir Jilani. So most likely either the sufi shaykh was misquoted or he made a grave error, because his claim was without any proof. Moreover, none of these Sufis have direct testimony or a sanad that reaches to somebody who saw this man “exist”. Just because later scholars recorded multiple opinions about a imaginary character doesn’t mean it constitutes proof he was real for any reasonable person.

But here we will prove before our readers that another Sufi Giant states that Sufi shaykhs were being misquoted regarding this issue.

Shiatu dajjal quoted “Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin, an authorized deputy of H.E Mawlana Shaykh Nazim Adil al-Haqqani, the great Sufi heavyweight” . So let us quote before you what the Sufi heavy weight himself had said regarding this issue, which has been explained by renowned sufi scholar Gf Haddad.  He states that: “Those who believe that the Mahdi is the son of al-`Askari ARE NOT from Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jama`a.” and later he provides the same evidence which we have provided in our original article to prove that Imam Mahdi of sunnis is different from Imam Mahdi of shiities.

Sufi giant GF Haddad further explains that:

[Quote]In neither recording does Mawlana Shaykh Nazim (q) “state that the Mahdi is the son of al-Imam al-Hasan al-Askari.” As Mawlana indicated, Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama`a do not hold such a belief but rather:

(i) as the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) said, “His name will match my name and his father’s name will match my father’s name” (Sunan Abi Dawud), i.e. “Muhammad ibn `Abdullah,” not “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan”; and

(ii) he will be a descendant of Sayyidina al-Hasan as stated verbatim by Sayyidina `Ali (Sunan Abi Dawud), NOT OF Sayyidina al-Husayn like al-`Askari (Allah be well-pleased with all of them).[Quote]

 Moreover, perosnal views of Sufis doesn’t carry any weight:

Even if supposedly for sake of argument if we accept that the Sufi Sheikh said that even then the personal view of any Sufi or scholar doesn’t carry any weight when it goes against authentic narrations of Prophet(saw). Though the argument of Shiatudajjal was destroyed by another Sufi Giant, but let us present before you another side of the coin. Where we will find different views of Sufis based on their personal views.

1. There were Sufis who themselves claimed that they were Mahdi, let us quote you this reality from a shia website.

Sudanese Sufi Muhammad Ahmad, declared himself Mahdi in 1882 :Mahdi Sudani was born in 1848 at the Sudanese village of Dolga inhabited by people whose main occupation was building boats. He became the most well-known pseudo-Mahdi in Europe. His real name was Muhammad Ahmad and he assumed the title of Mahdi. By displaying excessive piety, he gained respect and honor at the age of twenty-two years. He was an eloquent speaker and he mostly condemned Egyptian authorities in his speeches. He exposed the tyranny of the rulers to the people and laid great stress upon the reappearance of Mahdi…he entered into the Sanusiya Sufi order and on the Island of Abba began to spend his time in meditation. His false claim of Mahdaviyat received support for the first time on this Island, which is 150 miles south of Khartoum. [Source]

2. The great Sufi heavy weight(as the shia claim) Maulana Sheikh Nazim Al Haqqani Al Qubrusi states: Muhammad-ul-Mehdi alaihi salaam peace be upon him is a descendant of the Holy Prophet Sayyidena Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam peace be upon him through his daughter Fatima-tu-Zahra and her sons Sayyidena Hassan and Sayyidena Hussein radiyallahu anh may Allah be well pleased with them, in the 40th generation. So he is Sayid- Hassani and Husseini. His parents live near Jeddah. He was born between 1930 and 1940 in the Wadi Fatima, a green valley on the way from Jeddah to Medina. [Source]

Comment: So these are some views of Sufis regarding Imam Mahdi, So we ask the shiatu dajjal that are they willing to agree with these Sufis? Well the obvious answer would be, No. This is sufficient to expose the deceptive nature and double standards of shiatudajjal infront of our esteemed readers.

The bottom line is that the views of Sufis which dajjalis cited cannot be taken into consideration(EVEN IF SUPPOSEDLY WE ACCEPT THAT IT WAS SAID BY SUFI SHAYKH) because like the above weird Sufi claims even those doesn’t have any evidence from Sunnah. Those are just their personal view nothing else, which are to be rejected.

Lastly we will shatter this argument by bringing before you the golden principle of Ahlesunnah:

Imam of Ahlesunnah Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The view of any of us may be accepted or rejected, except the occupant of this grave (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)).

Imam of Ahlesunnah Al-Shaafa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The people are unanimously agreed that once the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has become clear to a person, he has no right overlook it and follow the view of any person.

So this golden rule states that, be it anyone but if their views goes against the saying of prophet(Saw), then it is to be rejected. So let us make the narration of Prophet(Saw) as a deciding factor on this issue. Here is what Prophet(Saw) said in an authentic narration: “The world will not come to an end until the Arabs are ruled by a man from my family whose name is the same as mine and whose father’s name is the same as my father’s.” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 11/370).

We know that the father’s name of Prophet(saw) was Abdullah not Hasan Askari and the name of father of Imam Mahdi will be Abdullah not Hasan Askari, this proves that the Mahdi of shias is not Imam Mahdi of Ahlesunnah.

We are feeling sorry because all the deceptive efforts of Shiatu dajjal, to somehow prove that Imam Mahdi is the son of Hasan Askari went invain, So we would like to give them a last chance to prove their point. Here is another Challenge for them, though the shiatu dajjal never dared to take up any of our Challenge, yet we hope that they do this time to save their image in the sight of their own followers.

So here is the challenge :

Provide us any single AUTHENTIC narration(complete chain + text) from Prophet(Saw) present in the books of Ahlesunnah which explicitly states that Hasan Askari will be the father of Imam Mahdi.

We give the shiatu dajjal 4 months time to respond us with the answer but if they can’t then, Praise be to Allah that he has given people intellect to judge that who are the liars and who are the truthful ones, because when truth is heard against falsehood , falsehood perishes because falsehood by its nature bound to perish.

Interesting, as for the Shia belief that Imam Mahdi will be the son of Imam Hasan Askari, then even the Shias don’t have any authentic hadeeth regarding the birth of their Imam. Refer this link for a detailed research on this subject.[Click Here] .

 

Misconception (3)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] The Sunni scholar,  Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p. 232 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah):

وفي أحاديث الحث على التمسك بأهل البيت إشارة إلى عدم انقطاع متأهل منهم للتمسك به إلى يوم القيامة كما أنّ الكتاب العزيز كذلك

In the Hadiths that emphasis adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt is an indication of the unbroken existence each of those to be followed among them TILL THE DAY OF RESURRECTION, just as the Noble Qur’an itself is.[Quote]

This is just a view of scholar and there are different views of scholars regarding hadeeth thaqalayn so this view is not a generally one. Yet we would like to explain that what did al haytami meant in his view and we will also show that this view in no way supports the beliefs of Shiatu dajjal, rather it stands against them.

Firstly let us present before you that what was the view of al-haythami regarding WHO AHLEBAYT were so that there doesn’t remain chance for dajjalis to misuse this view of Al haytami, and if they would try to reject this view of al haytami then obviously the above view of Al haytami quoted by shiatu dajjal will not hold any weight.

Ibn Hajar al Haytami mentions that he considers the correct opinion is that ahl albayt are his(prophet’s) wives, Fatimah, Ali, al Hasan, al Husain, and Bani Hashim and Muttalib.[ al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, Ch. 11, section 1, p220]

So, this shows that in no way does the view of Al haytami which was used by dajjalis supports their propaganda. Rather it exposes their deceptions before people, because this proves that Ahlebayt is not just a small group of 12 members but a large group which will exist till day of resurrection, by that time even the last hidden Imam of shias, whom they consider as last member of Ahlebayt will not live, since he will die much before the day of resurrection.

Thus its talking about a larger group of Ahlebayt which always exists, but the dajjalis might argue that how could muslims follow a larger group of Ahlebayt, because among them there could be evil as well as good people, the answer to this query is in the basics of Prophet’s teachings, because whenever Quran or Prophet(saw) says to follow or obey any one it is to be understood that it means to follow those people in goodness. Whether be it a Ruler(caliph), or members of Ahlebayt or Sahaba in general, all these are to be followed and obeyed as long as they don’t command anything against the Sunnah of Prophet(Saw).

Here is an example from Quran: {And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them IN GOODNESS, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him. (9:100) },

Similar to what we explained is reported from shia Imam: {It has been narrated from Hisham bin Al-Hakam that he heard Imam Jafar that he said : “Don’t accept from us except which is according to Quran and Sunnah.[Tanqih al maqal , Vol. 1 , p. 174}.

So we find from the above examples that though Ahlebayt may be big group but we should only follow them in goodness not in those things which they did against the sunnah of Prophet(saw), because  neither shia nor sunnis can follow Ali(ra)’s act of burning alive people as a punishment because it was against the sunnah of Prophet(saw).  Moreover this is also complimented by other narrations of Prophet(saw) which also talk about the same issue.

إني قد خلفت فيكم شيئين لن تضلوا بعدهما أبدا ما أخذتم بهما أو عملتم بهما : كتاب الله وسنتي ولم يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض
الراوي: أبو هريرة المحدث: ابن حزم – المصدر: أصول الأحكام – لصفحة أو الرقم: 2/251
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح
I Have left with you two things which you’ll never go astray after you grasp them or work with them: The Book of Allah and my Sunnah, these two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)..
Muhaddith: ibn Hazm.
Rank: Sahih.

Thus, what Al haythami meant was that there exists a large group of Ahlebayt but they should only be followed in goodness(i.e when their act are abiding by sunnah of Prophet).

Analyzing the dajjali prespective:

We know that our explanation might not go down the throat of dajjalis, because they are renowned for behaving like donkeys so we decided to analyze the view of al-haythami from shia prespective, so let us see that does this in any way supports their beliefs?

We know that the religious deceivers might say that the view of Haythami is indicating to shia Imams and it indicates presence of their 12th  hidden Imam whom the shias are SUPPOSEDLY following from 1200 years. But this claim is based on pure ignorance as we know that the shias in NO WAY follow their 12th hidden Imam, even if there is some sectret and hidden way in which the hidden Imam is guiding shias, then we can prove that in THE VERY SAME WAY is Prophet Muhammad(Saw) guiding us. So such claim infact exposes the biggest flaw in shiism.

We have discussed this in detail in one of our article where we explained and made indepth analysis of all the flaws in this belief of shiatu dajjal, and there we concluded by setting a challenge for all the dajjalis. So please refer this article. [Is Shia Imam guiding Shias?]

Secondly, if supposedly the shiatu dajjal like ignorants want to argue without any sound evidence that they follow ahlebayt and for now its their 12th hidden Imam, then the important question that raises is that, to whom are the shiatu dajjal going to follow after the death of their hidden Imam? Because as per the view of al-haytami they cited, Ahlebayt are going to remain till day of resurrection, but the hidden Imam of shias will die much before that, So ofcourse this shows that this view of al haytami doesn’t supports the shia belief, rather it proves their belief to be wrong.

The dajjalis out of frustration might claim that after the death of their hidden Imam, the shias would follow the hidden Imam through his teachings, which means that they are following Ahlebayt. Well if this is the case then the belief of Ahlesunnah stands more stronger than theirs, since Ahlesunnah are following the teachings of Prophet(Saw), which should also mean that they are following the leader of Ahlebayt. And if shias can follow the teachings of their hidden Imam after him and claim that Ahlebayt never separated till day of resurrection so why can’t Ahlesunnah say the same in regards to Prophet(saw), who is the leader of Ahlebayt? The fact is that the practice of Ahlesunnah in following Ahlebayt is more stronger and reasonable and is even affirmed by shia Imam in shia book.

عن هشام بن الحكم أنه سمع أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول : لا تقبلوا علينا حديثا إلا ما وافق القرآن والسنة

It has been narrated from Hisham bin Al-Hakam that he heard Imam Jafar that he said : “Don’t accept from us except which is according to Quran and Sunnah.[Tanqih al maqal , Vol. 1 , p. 174]

We see that even the shia Imam says that if anything they say is in accordance to sunnah of Prophet(saw) then ONLY it should be accepted. Moreover in another narration too the shia Imam repeats a similar message, which makes us to realize that ultimately its the sunnah of Prophet(saw) which is sufficient and that is to be followed.

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الْمَغْرَاءِ عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ أَ كُلُّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَ سُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ ص أَوْ تَقُولُونَ فِيهِ قَالَ بَلْ كُلُّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَ سُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ ص

From Samaa`ah from Abee Al-Hasan Moosa (عليه السلام) said, I said to him (عليه السلام): “Is everything in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), or do you have a say in it?” He (عليه السلام) said: “Rather, everything is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)”Source:1. Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, pg. 62, hadeeth # 10. Grading:1. Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 209

Thirdly, it’s the shiatu dajjal who are violating the command of prophet(Saw) by not following Ahlebayt, because Prophet(Saw) said to follow Ahlebayt, but the shias have been following hundreds of various other misguiding people(Ayatullahs) and their Marja’s, whose Taqlid(following) they do. Taqlid literally means “to follow (someone)”, “to imitate”. In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a mujtahid in religious laws and commandment as he has derived them.(Source) .

So we find that presently the shiatu dajjal are following their Mujtahids which is a reality though the dajjalis may not like to acknowledge this fact, due to their belief in some fantacies. But reality is before you, they do taqlid(follow) of Ayatullahs. Even there are many disagreements among the twelver shias regarding which Mujtahid is to be followed(taqlid), they don’t even unite on one scholar, because the beliefs of these Mujtahids are also not common because those Shia Mujtahids hold some contradictory beliefs. Now had it been that their hidden Imam is the only ahlebayt then Shiatu dajjal need to follow him instead of following Ayatullahs and Marja’s.

 

Deception (8)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Al-Hindi al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) has lied repeatedly here again! He has failed to provide clear evidence that Imam Ali (عليه السّلام) saved the lives of his idols, Umar and Uthman. But even then, Imam Ali (عليه السّلام) was a pragmatist, just as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was. Imam Ali (عليه السّلام) was well aware of the dangers if the Islamic Ummah were to have no leader at a particular point in time. Umar and Uthman were thieves. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But removing them by force could lead to worse calamities for the Ummah.[Quote]

Indeed, the religious liars and accusers yet again followed the teachings of their cult and like staunch followers of those satanic teachings they accused us of lying, where as infact lying is one of the characteristic of shiatu dajjal.

Firstly, we would like to recommend these religious slanderers, religious liars and religious deceivers to take up a course where they are taught some basics of comprehension understanding. Because these shiatu dajjal failed to understand the point due to their characteristics of behaving like brainless donkeys and went on to insult the beloved friends of Ali(ra), that is Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra).

Moreover the narration we had cited in our orginal article to which the dajjalis tried refute by raising senseless arguments is that the other Caliph should be KILLED NOT REMOVED.

Here it is: Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later. [sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4568]

If seen from a closer view this narration also proves that there were no caliphs appointed by Prophet(Saw). Because had it been so then prophet(Saw) wouldn’t have said “kill the one for whom the oath was taken later” , he(saw) would have said “kill the one who takes the oath other than the khaliph appointed by me“.

This was a command of Prophet(saw), ofcourse Prophet(saw) was well aware that what sort of situations could come up in future,  knowing all of those yet Prophet(Saw) gave this command, So Ali(ra)’s thinking couldn’t be superior to Prophet(saw). And it would have been mandatory for Ali(ra) to follow the command of Prophet(Saw), even if it seems weird and not appropriate, because according to Shias Caliphate of Ali(ra) is a divine issue, and it is like rejecting the Prophethood, which is a serious matter.

Moreover if supposedly Ali(ra) didn’t implement on the command of Prophet(saw) inorder for welfare of Ummah then why did Ali(ra) fight the battle of Jamal, Siffin etc? Because even in those battles Ummah received great losses.

Secondly, it’s a pity that we have come across such idiots who have no knowledge of history, they don’t even know that Ali(ra) was the one who tried to save Uthman(ra) from rebels. But due to the jahalat and lack of knowledge of shiatu dajjal they accused us of lying. Praise be to Allah since we are free from such shia characteristics and we are going to provide prove our honesty from history.

1. Shia book states: It also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days Ali continued to play his conciliatory and mediatory role. He many times did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph, and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at the house of ‘Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were, however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed. Hearing the news, Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the Caliph. [(Origins and development of Shiaism by SHIA SCHOLAR S.H.M Jaffri. chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the ‘Alid Party) ; (Baladhurl, V, pp.62 if., 69); (Tabarl, I, pp. 2988 ); (Mas’udi, Muruj, II, p.232); (‘Iqd, IV, p.290)]

2.
( أيها الناس! إن الذي تفعلون لا يشبه أمر المؤمنين ولا أمر الكافرين، إن فارس والروم لتؤسر فتطعم فتسقي، فوالله لا تقطعوا الماء عن الرجل، وبعث إليه بثلاث قرب مملوءة ماء مع فتية من بني هاشم ) .

[“ناسخ التواريخ” ج2 ص531، ومثله في “أنساب الأشراف”، للبلاذري ج5 ص69].

When the rebels seized Uthman(ra) from even drinking water, Ali(ra) addressed them saying: O people! The thing you are doing neither the muslims did nor the disbelievers, even the Iranis and Romans when arrest someone they allow them to eat and drink. For the sake of Allah don’t stop this man from drinking water. Then Ali(ra) sent water through a woman from bani hashim to Uthman(ra). (Nasikh al tawareekh, vol 2, page 531) similar report is even mentioned in Ansaab Al asraaf, vol 5, pg 69)

3. Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, “When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions’ sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house.” [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

4.

أخرج ابن عساكر عن جابر بن عبد الله، رضي الله عنه، أن عليًا أرسل إلى عثمان فقال: إن معي خمسمائة دارع، فأذن لي، فأمنعك من القوم، فإنك لم تحدث شيئًا يستحل به دمك، فقال: جزيت خيرًا، ما أحب أن يهراق دم في سببي

Jabbir bin Abdullah said: Ali (رضّى الله عنه) sent a letter to Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) saying, “I have 500 men, so give me the permission to defend you from these people, otherwise things would happen that they would kill you.” Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) answered, “May Allah reward you for your good intentions, but I do not want blood to be shed for my cause.” [Tareekh Damascus, p.403]

5. Al Hassan bin Ali RA guarded the house of Uthman RA and was wounded and then carried away from the house.
source: الطبقات لابن سعد (8/128) بسند صحيح.
Al-Tabaqat for Ibn Sa’ad 8/128.
grading: chain SAHIH.

6. . Ali(ra) said to his sons:

كيف قتل عثمان وأنتم على الباب؟ ولطم الحسن، وكان قد جرح

“How did they kill Uthman while you were guarding the door!? and he hit his son al-Hassan even though he was wounded”. [Ibn abi ‘Asem al Ahad wal Thamani 1/125 from “Khilafat Ali” p87.]

Comment: We hope these evidences are sufficient to shut the mouth of shameless and religious liars .

These facts prove us that Ali(ra) was actually never appointed as Caliph, had he been so then surely he would have killed the other ones who took his right as the Prophet(Saw) commanded. Or atleast would have stayed back when some tried to kill the Caliph, but contrary to this he always tried to defend and save them which shows that he was never appointed as Caliph by Prophet(saw).

This was also explained by Ahlebayt:

The Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to Al Hasan ibn Hasan, “Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: ‘If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla?’”  He (Al Hasan) replied, “By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, ‘Oh people! This is your leader after me.’ The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning). “If it is like what you say, that Ali was chosen for this after the Prophet (pbuh), then he would be the most flawed from all the people, because he didn’t do as the Prophet (pbuh) commanded””(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5) Similar is present in Ibn `Asakir (volume 4, page 166) and (awaasim min qawaasim page 115)

Similar thing is reported from Ali(ra) :

I read to Abi al Fihm bin Ahmed Alsalmi, Abu Ahmed Abdullah bin Ahmed the jurisprudent told you in the year 617 (AH), Abu al Fatih Muhammad bin Abd al Baqi told us, Malik bin Ahmed told us in the year 484, Ali bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al Adl dictated to us in the year 406, Abu Ali Ahmed bin Al Fadl bin Khuzaymah narrated to us, Abdullah bin Rooh narrated to us, Shabaabah narrated, Abu Bakr an Hizli narrated, from al Hassan who said: When Ali came to Basrah, Ibn al Kuwaa came to him, and Qays bin Abaad came so they said to him: Won’t you tell us about this expedition of yours, you are reigning over the ummah which is slicing at each other, the Prophet (pbuh) promised you what he promised, so he told us, and you are trustworthy regarding what you heard, he said: As for having a promise with the Prophet (pbuh) in that matter, I did not, by God if I was the first person to believe in him I will not be the first to lie about him, and if I had from the Prophet (pbuh) a promise about that matter, I would not have left the brother of bani teem bin murrah or Umar bin al Khattab to take their place on the minbar, I would have fought them with my own hands, even if by my words, but the Prophet (pbuh) was not murdered, nor did he die suddenly, he remained sick for days and nights, the caller to prayer would come to him to announce the prayer, and he would order Abu Bakr to pray as Imam for the people, and he (pbuh) saw my place, and the announcer to prayer would call to prayer, and he would command Abu Bakr to pray as imam for the people, and he (pbuh) saw my place, and one of his womenfolk wanted to distance him from Abu Bakr but he became angry and said: You are the friends of Yousef, command Abu Bakr to lead the
And al Jariri narrated like it, from Abi Nadra. [Source: The history of Islam by Al Dhahabi, pages 486-487]

Finally let us shatter this deception of dajjalis from their own sacred book:

Ali(ra) said:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

Comment: This proves that Caliphate of first three Caliphs was with the pleasure of Allah, according to Ali(ra). Subhanallah! Moreover Ali(ra) didn’t accuse anyone for using wrong methodology for making a Caliph, he didn’t object that the mode of making caliph to be incorrect,  infact he approves the way Muhajirs and Ansar elected the Caliph to be correct.This is the reason Ali(ra) remained obedient to previous caliphs, helped them, obeyed their commands, defended them, accepted gifts from them, married his daughter to one of them, named his children on their names, etc. Had it been that the Caliphate of first three caliphs was based on incorrect methods, Ali(ra) wouldn’t have referred that as an example to proof his Caliphate to be correct, Nor would have defended them.

 

Deception (9)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] In case al-Hindi al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) still thinks the above explanations are not enough, let us cite Hadiths. Imam al-Hakim also records in his al-Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 153, Number 4686:

عن حيان الأسدي سمعت عليا يقول : قال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إن الأمة ستغدر بك بعدي

Narrated Hayyan al-Asdi: I heard Ali saying: “Allah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said to me: ‘Verily, THE UMMAH WILL SOON BETRAY YOU AFTER ME.

Al-Hakim says: sahih [Quote]

The shiatu dajjal knew very well that their stupid arguments are based on lies and ignorance and will be crushed like a bug, that is why they came up with a weak narration, So that lay people shouldn’t doubt on their deceptions.

Hakim’s report Contains Yunus Ibn Abi Yafur, an extremist Shiite. This hidden defect (in the narration) was spotted by Ibn Hajar, who provided the complete Sanad with this extremist Shiite in it, see إتحاف المهرة11/296
Part of this hadith was narrated in separate form. There are 3 ways of transmission for words “The nation will turn treacherous to you”. And all are weak and unreliable. (See “Silsila ad-daeefa” 4905).

Way of transmission #1.

It was narrated by al-Hakim ibn Jubayr from Ibrahim an-Nakhai from Alqama from Ali. Ibn Jawzi in “Ilal al-mutahaniya” (1/244/#390) said: “Daraqutni said: “Hakim ibn Jubayr stated alone in narrating this from an-Nakhai. Ahmad said: Hakim is daeef al-hadith. As-Saade said he’s liar”.

Way of transmission #2.

It was also narrated by al-Hakim in “Mostadrak” (#4676), :

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أحمد الجمحي بمكة ثنا علي بن عبد العزيز ثنا عمرو بن عون ثنا هشيم عن إسماعيل بن سالم عن أبي إدريس الأودي عن علي رضي الله عنه قال : إن مما عهد إلي النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أن الأمة ستغدر بي بعده

Narrator Abu Hafs `Umar b. Ahmad is `Umar b. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. `Abd al-Rahman and he is majhool (anonymous).

Narrator Hushaym is Hushaym b. Basheer al-Salami, he is thiqah, but he is a mudallis.  (“Mizanul itidal” 4/306/#9250) And this hadeeth would be weak since Hushaym never specified how he has obtained this hadeeth from Isma`eel b. Saalim. This hadeeth is in `an`an form.

al-Albaani agreed and said this hadeeth is Da`eef (weak) (See: al-Albaani, Silsalsah al-Ahaadeeth al-Da`eefah, vol. 10, pg. 552, hadeeth # 4905).

Narrator Abu Idris al-Awde. Bukhari in “Kunya” (p 5/#26) said that this Abu Idris seen ibn Zubayr, and from him narrated Abu Maslamat. In “Tahzib at-tahzib” (11/302) it’s written that ibn Hibban included him in “Thiqat”, and Ijli also authenticated him. However both of them known for lenience in taskhih of Majhool narrators. Thefore this narrator is majhool, as declared by Imam Abu Hatim.

أبو إدريس: وثقه ابن حبان (الثقات4/11) على عادته في التساهل في توثيق المجاهيل. فقد قال عنه أبو حاتم « مجهول» (الضعفاء والمتروكون1/29).

Way of transmission #3.

Uqayli in “Duafa al-kabir” (4/8/#1561) narrated it via chain: Kamil Abul Ala from Hubayb ibn Abu Thabit from Thalaba ibn Yazeed al-Hamani from Ali.

Kamil Abul Ala was weak. Ibn Maeen said he’s thiqat, Nasai said: Not strong. Ibn Hibban said: “He was from those people who corrupted chains, and raised mursal reports, and didn’t understand than themselves” (“Mizanul itidal” 3/400/#6929).

Hubayb ibn Abu Thabit was upright narrator, but known for tadlis, and he narrated this hadith in /muanan/ form.

Thalaba ibn Yazeed was under question, and he’s not from people who should be rely on (Bukhari “Tareeh al-kabir” 2/174/#2103). He was extreme shia, Nasai said he’s thiqat (“Mizanul itidal” 1/371/#1391).

(ii). Bazzar in his “Mosnad” (#869, shamela) narrated it via chain: Ali ibn Qadam – Sherik – Ajlah – Hubayb ibn Abu Tabit – Thalaba ibn Yazeed.

Ali ibn Qadam was extreme shia and weak. Yahya said he’s weak. Ibn Sad said: “Munkar al-hadith” (“Mizanul itidal” 3/150/#5909) .

Sherik ibn Abdullah upright narrator, with extremely bad memory.

Ajlah ibn Abdullah was shia, saduq. Abu Hatim said he’s not strong. Nasai said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal” 1/78/#274).

(ii). Abu Nuaym in “Dalail” narrated it via two chains, but both them ending with link: Hubayb ibn Abu Thabit from Thalaba. Whose weakness was discussed above.

Therefore, Shiekh al-Albaani rightly said this hadeeth is Da`eef (weak) (See: al-Albaani, Silsalsah al-Ahaadeeth al-Da`eefah, vol. 10, pg. 552, hadeeth # 4905).

If the Shiatu dajjal argue back using the grading of al-Hakim’s in al-Mustadarak,  then the people of knowledge are agreed upon the fact that, the grading of a-hakim is not to be paid much attention, as he was regarded as Mutasahil(lenient). And the grading of Dhababi in Talkhees is not his own grading, but rather its the summarized grading of al-Hakim, as apparent from the title of the book itself. And when we scrutinize the chains with standard rules of hadeeth science, the hadeeth is certainly turns out to be weak.

Analysis of Text(Matn):

قـال : ( حدثنا أبو علي الحافظ ، حدثنا الهيثم بن خلف الدوري ، حدثني محمد بن عمر بن هياج ، حدثنا يحيى بن عبد الرحمن الأرحبي ، حدثنا يونس بن أبي يعفور ، عن أبيه ، قال :حدثني حيان الأسدي ، قال : سمعت علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه ، يقول : قال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : عهد معهود أن الأمة ستغدر بك بعدي ، وأنت تعيش على ملتي ، وتقتل على سنتي ، من أحبك أحبني ، ومن أبغضك أبغضني ، وإن هذه ستخضب من هذا ، يعني لحيته من رأسه ) .

[…] […] Ali said, the Messenger of Allah told him: ”The nation will turn treacherous to you; you shall live adhering to my nation and will fight for my sunnah; whoever loves you loves me too and whoever hates you hates me too and this (`Ali’s beard) will be drenched with blood from this (`Ali’s head).” (Mustadrak by Al-Hakim) […]

1. The Prophet is obviously talking about the Khawarij who eventually killed Ali
2. Ahl Al-Sunnah love Ali, so did the Khulafa’

This narration simply means that a part of this nation turned on him and killed him. It does not support the deceitful Shia connotations in the slightest. The Prophet(saw) says that this Ummah will betray Ali, then he connects it with Ali’s DEATH. So it is obviously about the Khawarij who were thirsty for his blood.  And yes, the khawarij were considered as a part of Ummah. Refer [Sahih Muslim. Book 005, Number 2333].

Interestingly we read in Shia book:

ولما تنازل الحسن لمعاوية وصالحه ،نادى شيعتة الذين غدروا به قائلاً :” ياأهل الكوفة :ذهلت نفسي عنكم لثلاث :مقتلكم لأبي ،وسلبكم ثقلي ،وطعنكم في بطني و إني قد بايعت معاوية فاسمعوا و أطيعوا ،فطعنه رجل من بني أسد في فخذه فشقه حتى بلغ العظم .{ كشف الغمة540، الإرشاد للمفيد190، الفصول المهمة 162، مروج الذهب للمسعودي 431:1} .

And when Al-Hassan stepped down from his position (Khilafah) and peacefully handed it over to Muawiyah,  SHIA – who BETRAYED him – started shouting at him. He told them: “Oh people of Kufa , you shocked me thrice. First when you killed my father and robbed me of my thaql and stabbed me in my stomach. I have truly pledged allegiance to Muawiyah, so listen and obey him. Upon that a man from Bani Assad slandered him (Al-Hassan) […] – (Al-Irshad by Al-Mufid and other sources).

Indeed Shaykh Al Islam Ahmed Ibn Taimiyyah beautifully said:
هكذا أهل البدع لا يكادون يحتجون بحجة سمعية، ولا عقلية، إلا وهي عند التأمل حجة عليهم، لا لهم‏.الكتب » مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية » العقيدة » كتاب الأسماء والصفات الجزء الثاني
[…] and this is how the people of innovation (Ahl Al-Bida’) are. They barely can argue with a textual or a rational proof, except that after examination (of their ‘evidence’) it turns out to be against them and not for them.”(Majmoo’ Al-Fatawah).

If the deceitful Shiatu dajjal try to interpret to mean the Ummah as a whole, then we say that this misinterpretation contradicts Quran and several authetic narrations, which make it to be rejected, because the Ummah of Prophet Muhamad(Saw) is not like the Ummah of other Prophets like Musa(as) etc, which the dajjalis often try to portray. This Ummah is the best and most honored Ummah in the sight of Allah.

Here are the Proofs :

Quran states: You are the best of the (Ummah) nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah.(3:110)

Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Al-Hakim recorded that Hakim bin Mu`awiyah bin Haydah narrated that his father said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أَنْتُمْ تُوَفُّون سَبْعِينَ أُمَّةً، أَنْتُمْ خَيْرُهَا، وَأَنْتُمْ أَكْرَمُ عَلَى اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَل

(You(muslims) are the seventieth nation(Ummah), but you are the best and most honored among them to Allah.)  This is a well-known Hadith about which At-Tirmidhi said, “Hasan”, and which is also narrated from Mu`adh bin Jabal and Abu Sa`id.

Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said, “The Messenger of Allah said,

«أُعْطِيتُ مَا لَمْ يُعْطَ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الْأَنْبِيَاء» «نُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْبِ، وَأُعْطِيتُ مَفَاتِيحَ الْأَرْضِ، وَسُمِّيتُ أَحْمَدَ، وَجُعِلَ التُّرَابُ لِي طَهُورًا، وَجُعِلَتْ أُمَّتِي خَيْرَ الْأُمَم»

(I was given what no other Prophet before me was given.) We said, `O Messenger of Allah! What is it’ He said, (I was given victory by fear, I was given the keys of the earth, I was called Ahmad, the earth was made a clean place for me (to pray and perform Tayammum with it) and my Ummah was made the best Ummah.).”The chain of narration for this Hadith is Hasan.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Buraydah said that the Prophet said,

«أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ عِشْرُونَ وَمِائَةُ صَفَ، هذِهِ الْأُمَّةُ مِنْ ذلِكَ ثَمَانُونَ صَفًّا»

 The people of Paradise are one hundred and twenty rows, this Ummah takes up eighty of them. Imam Ahmad also collected this Hadith through another chain of narration. At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah also collected this Hadith, and At-Tirmidhi said, `This Hadith is Hasan.

 

Deception (10)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] there were further instructions. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad (Muasassat al-Risalah, 1999 edition), vol. 2, p. 106, Number 696 or (Muasassat al-Qurtuba) vol. 1, p. 90, Number 695 or (edited by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir) vol. 2, p. 85 records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني محمد بن أبي بكر المقدمي ثنا فضيل بن سليمان يعنى النميري ثنا محمد بن أبي يحيى عن إياس بن عمرو الأسلمي عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : إنه سيكون بعدي اختلاف أو أمر فإن استطعت أن تكون السلم فافعل

Narrated Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him:

Allah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: “Soon after me, there will be conflicts and disagreement. If you (O Ali) can remain peaceful, please do.”

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir says:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain is Sahih.[Quote]

Again the characteristic of shiatu dajjal which is behaving like donkeys shines out here, because this narration has nothing to do with Caliphate after the death of Prophet(Saw), since there was NO much disagreement or conflicts during the caliphate of sheikhan(Abu bakr and Umar) and during part of caliphate of Uthman.

For example here are some reports from Ahlebayt :

Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (2/563) via trustworthy narrators: Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnesses the sermon of Ali on the day of Basarah, he said: ” He praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah swt took his soul. (After he said that) then the Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu Bakr (RA) so they pledged their allegiance and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They were pleased and SO WAS I. He (Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his soul may Allah have mercy on him.”

This report has nothing to do with Khilafah, Imamah and usurpation. But yes, conflict did happen (Jamal, Siffeen, Khawarij of Nahravan etc.), so the Prophet said IF Ali(ra) can remain peaceful, please do so, ironically we have narrations where Al-Hassan asked his father not to participate in the fitan.

‘Ali (ra) would go to al-Hassan (ra) and hug him as recorded in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah7/521:
وضمّهإلى صدره، وصار يبكى ويقول له: يا بُنى، ليت أباك مات قبل هذا اليوم بعشرين عامًا.فقال الحسن: يا أبت، لقد كنت نهيتك عن هذا، فقال على: ما كنت أظن أن الأمر سيصلإلى هذا الحد، وما طعمُ الحياة بعد هذا؟ وأيُّ خير يُرجى بعد هذا؟
‘Ali hugged al-Hassan and said while he cried: “O my son, I wish your father had died twenty years before this day.” Then al-Hassan would tell him: “Dear father, I told you not to do it.” ‘Ali said: “I never thought it would come to this, what taste life has after this? What goodness would come after this?”

So the hadith which the dajjali cited is not referring towards any disagreement regarding caliphate of first 3 Caliphs,  but its about the turmoil which started after death of Uthman. And indeed history testifies that during those days there took place major disagreements and conflicts which that narration is prophecizing, for example battle of siffin, etc.

Here is the proof from similar narrations which helps in understanding the narration cited by shiatu dajjal.

سيكون بينك وبين عائشة أمر قال : أنا يا رسول الله ، قال : نعم ، قال : أنا من بين أصحابي قال : نعم ، قال : فأنا أشقاهم ، قال : لا ولكن إذا كان ذلك فأرددها إلى مأمنها.

Abu Rafi’i said: The Prophet(saw) told ‘Ali: There will be a problem between you and ‘Aisha, ‘Ali said: Me O Rasulullah!? he said: yes, ‘Ali repeated: Me from amongst all my friends!? he said: yes, ‘Ali then said: Then I must have a really horrible end, He(saw) replied: “No, but if it does happen then return her to the safety of her home.” [sources: Narrated by Ahmad 6/393, and al-Tabarani #995, also narrated by al-Bazzar #3272, al-Haythami said the narrators are trustworthy in Majma’a al-Zawaed, Ibn Hajar said: Isnaduhu Hasan in Fath al-Bari 59/13].

Sahi bukhari 9.204: Narrated Al−Hasan: (Al−Ahnaf said:) I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between `Ali and `Aisha).

Comment: So we find that the conflicts and disagreement mentioned in the narration cited by dajjalis is about the wars that occurred during the era of Ali(ra). So for that situation Prophet(saw) advised Ali(ra) to maintain peace. This is the reason, Ali(ra) remained patient against the Khawarij and asked them to be left, unless the Khawarij start any corruption, and only when they started killing innocent Muslims, then Ali(ra) fought them, similarly, with his fight with Muawiya(ra), he decided to make peace.

 

Deception (11):

A Shia quoted the below report:

حَدَّثَنَا الْقَوَارِيرِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا حَرَمِيُّ بْنُ عُمَارَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عُمَيْرَةَ أَبُو قُتَيْبَةَ الْقَيْسِيُّ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي مَيْمُونُ الْكُرْدِيُّ أَبُو نُصَيْرٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، قَالَ : بَيْنَمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ آخِذٌ بِيَدِي ، وَنَحْنُ نَمْشِي فِي بَعْضِ سِكَكِ الْمَدِينَةِ ، إِذْ أَتَيْنَا عَلَى حَدِيقَةٍ ، فَقُلْتُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا أَحْسَنَهَا مِنْ حَدِيقَةٍ ! قَالَ : ” لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا ” ، ثُمَّ مَرَرْنَا بِأُخْرَى ، فَقُلْتُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا أَحْسَنَهَا مِنْ حَدِيقَةٍ ! ، قَالَ : ” لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا ” ، حَتَّى مَرَرْنَا بِسَبْعِ حَدَائِقَ ، كُلُّ ذَلِكَ أَقُولُ مَا أَحْسَنَهَا ! ، وَيَقُولُ : ” لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَحْسَنُ مِنْهَا ” ، فَلَمَّا خَلا لَهُ الطَّرِيقُ اعْتَنَقَنِي ثُمَّ أَجْهَشَ بَاكِيًا ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا يُبْكِيكَ ؟ قَالَ : ” ضَغَائِنُ فِي صُدُورِ أَقْوَامٍ ، لا يُبْدُونَهَا لَكَ إِلا مِنْ بَعْدِي ” ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، فِي سَلامَةٍ مِنْ دِينِي ؟ ، قَالَ : ” فِي سَلامَةٍ مِنْ دَيْنِكَ

Prophet(saw) told to Imam Ali(as) ‘grievance in the hearts of people to you will manifest only after me’

Musnad of Abu Yali al-Movsuli, Vol 1, Hadith Number # 585

This hadeeth is Munkar.

Al-Saji: mentioned it in his “Al-Dhu’afaa'” (compilation of WEAK Ahadih). The Hadith is weak (sanadan) AND has Manakir (defects).
Al-Uqayli said: Al-Fadhl (the narrator) is not to be trusted in Ahadith
Al-Dhahabi: Hadith Munkar

 

Conclusion

We hope that our readers weren’t surprised by finding such number of deceptions from Shiatu dajjal, because of the fact we have already stated in the beginning of our article. These deceptions were like just few drops from the ocean of deception of the religious deceivers. So we want to advice our readers to beware of deceptions of shiatu dajjal, which they try to commit using fabricated narrations or misinterpreting authentic narrations. And that never take any claim of shias for granted unless properly researched by asking people of knowledge(scholars from Ahlesunnah) regarding those, because remember that lying and deceiving  is in the teachings of this cult.

4 thoughts on “Part 6: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope

  1. First of all do you believe that the Kheelafah is greater than Prophethood? If not them how do we answer the argument that a Khaleefah’s duty is greater with regards to the political and the secular affairs, whereas the Prophets duty was to proclaim And teach only?

    As for your argument, as far as Iam aware, the Shia belief is that though their Imams were appointed as Khaleefah’s, it was for the Muslims to follow them willingly…

    It was because of the majority disregarding them caused them not to rule…so they claim that the Muslims would be held responsible and not the Imams since Allah had provided them with the leaders, thus leaving no argument against His ownself.

    • 1. Firstly, a caliph doesn’t necessarily have all the characteristics of a Prophet(saw), Like receiving wahi(revelation) etc. Everyone agrees with this.

      2. Secondly a Caliph is the one who takes over(as a successor), He already has a platform set for him. Unlike for prophets where they need to struggle and strive to set that platform.So your analogy that the duty of Caliph is greater than Prophet, is invalid and wrong.Like Yusha bin noon who was the Caliph after Moosa(as) cannot be superior to Prophet Haroon(as).

      IN REGARDS TO TO YOUR RESPONSE THAT SHIA IMAMS WERE APPOINTED AS CALIPHS, IT WAS FOR THE MUSLIMS TO FOLLOW THEM WILLINGLY
      Here is the response:
      1. Firstly you didn’t get the gist of what we said in this article. Our point here is that: from the characteristics of Khaliph are that he need to HAVE authority over religious and secular issues. Unless these characteristics are present in Shia Imams, you cannot label them as Caliphs.(even if you assume that they was made caliph by Allah).

      For example: From the characteristics of Prophet is that: Prophet needs to receive wahi. Now even if whole world rejects that certain person is NOT prophet, Yet he will have to be considered as Prophet since he is receiving wahi(one of characteristic of Prophet) of Allah.

      2. Secondly when Allah decides to make someone prophet(Saw), then even if all the humans or Satans combine to stop what is being delivered to that person, yet Allah will somehow deliver the revelation to him. Because its the characteristic of a prophet and that candidate cannot claim that he is prophet, if he doesn’t receives any wahi. Similarly even if whole world combines to stop someone becoming caliph , then yet Allah will make him, if he promised that. He will somehow grant the secular and religious authority to that person. Remember the promise of Allah to mother of Musa(as), that he will return musa(as) to her. You must be aware how miraculously Allah fulfilled that promise.

      3. Thirdly, you will never see the caliph of Allah obeying , non-caliphs in religious issues and secular issues. If they are doing that then its ridiculous to say that they are Caliphs(having authority). But we find that Imams of Shias supposedly being granted authority over religious and secular affairs, yet used to follow non-caliphs in religious commands and secular issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s