Part 2: The Imams from Ahlebayt whom Shia consider to be their divinely appointed Imams were on the Creed of Ahlesunnah wal Jama’ah.

Exposing the reality of Shia propaganda that the love and adherence of Ahlesunnah for Ahlebayt is a Myth

From ages the Shias have been accusing Ahlesunnah for not adhering and loving Ahlebayt, but it is not something hidden that Ahlesunnah have always loved, respected and adhered to  COMPLETE Ahlebayt, Unlike the Shias who on one hand exaggerate in loving a portion of Ahlebayt and on other hand showing extreme hatred towards the other portion of Ahlebayt. Ahlesunnah are the people on middle course, who love and adhere complete Ahlebayt, being in the limits prescribed by shariah and not exaggerating in loving them and this is the straightway, as it was said by Ali(ra)[1st Shia Imam] in the most sacred book of Shias; Ali(ra)[1st Shia Imam] said: With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. (Nahjul balagha, sermon 126).But the Shias think that they own the “love of Ahl Al-Bayt” and they don’t tolerate when Ahlesunnah claim that they love and adhere to Ahlebayt. They are simply jealous when they find that most reverts choose the path of Ahlesunnah wal Jama’ah while reverting to Islam.Thus out of envy they try to potray themselves as some sort of “pro-ahlalbait, REAL lovers of Ahlebayt” and on the other hand they try to portray that Ahlesunnah are not lovers of Ahlebayt, by making false accusations that roots of Ahlesunnah is Nasibm or Kharijism, etc. So in this article we will be exposing and refuting some of the most common propagandas of Shias against Ahlesunnah inorder to prove that Ahlesunnah’s love for Ahlebayt is NOT a Myth but an undeniable fact. We will be exposing before our readers that how Shias misinterpret and disort the views of Ahlesunnah and its scholars inorder to accuse them. Apart from that we will be proving before our esteemed readers and truthseekers that such accusations come from Shias due to pure ignorance(jahalat) and biasedness, because the issues that are used by Shias to attack Ahlesunnah, similar issues are even found in Shiism.

Before we begin the refutation, we would like to share with our readers some beautiful examples from the scholars of Ahlesunnah, which testify the true love of Ahlesunnah for Ahlebayt.

1. Imam Abubakr(Ra)

Imam Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “Pay attention to the rights of the household of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” [Sahih Al Bukhari(3509)]

2. Imam abu Hanifa(rah)

Sheikh Yusuf ibn Ismail an-Nabhani in his book “Ash-Sharaful Muabad li ali Muhammad” (p 153) said:

هذا الإمام الأعظم أبو حنيفة النعمان رضي الله تعالي عنه والي إبراهيم بن عبد الله المحض ابن الحسن المثني ابن الحسن السبط رضوان الله تعالي عليهم , وأفتي الناس بلزوم وجودهم معه ومع أخيه محمد , وقيل إن سجنه رضي الله تعالي عنه كان في الباطن لهذا السبب , وفي الظاهر لأمتناعه عن القضاء .

وهذا إمام دار الهجرة مالك بن أنس رضي الله تعالي عنه والي إبراهيم بن زيد بن عليّ زين العابدين بن الحسين رضي الله تعالي عنهم , وأفتي الناسبلزوم وجودهم معه واختفي من أجله عدة سنين , وقيل : أن الذي والاه الإمام مالك هو محمد أخو إبراهيم بن عبد الله المحض الذي والاه الإمام أبو حنيفة

This is imam al-Azam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, a friend of Ibrahim ibn Abdullah al-Muhid ibn Al-Hasan al-Musanna ibn al-Hasan as-Sibt, may Allah be pleased with all of them. And he (Abu Hanifa) gave a fatwa to people to be with him and his brother. Even if it’s apparent that imam al-Azam was imprisoned due to his rejection of position of judge, it was said that this (his befriending with ahlalbait members) was a real reason of that.

And this is Imaam of city of Hijra, Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him. A friend of Ibrahim ibn Zaid ibn Ali Zaynalabidin ibn Hussain, may Allah be pleased with them. He gave a fatwa for people to be with him, and due to this disappeared for few years. And it was said that imam Malik was a friend of Muhammad brother of Ibrahim ibn Abdullah al-Muhid, the one whose friend was Imam Abu Hanifa.

3. Imam Shafei(rah)

Sheikh Yusuf ibn Ismail an-Nabhani in his book “Ash-Sharaful Muabad li ali Muhammad” (p 154) said:

أما الإمام القرشي ابن عم النبي محمد بن إدريس الشافعي رضي الله تعالي عنه , فقد حمل إلي بغداد مكبلا بالقيود بسبب شدة ولائه لآل رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم , ووقع له في ذلك أمور يطول شرحها بل بلغ معه الحال في محبتهم إلي أن نسبه أهل الزيغ والضلال إلي الرفض , وحاشاه ثم حاشاه

As for imam al-Qurashi, the son of uncle of prophet, Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafei may Allah be pleased with him. He was escorted till Baghdad (tied) with thick ropes due to his strong love of Aale-Muhammad, sallalahu alaihi wa a ala alihi wa sallam. Due to this (love) he went through lots things to explain. Due to such strong love of them, he was accused by people of deviation and misguidance in being rafidi. And he was far away from it, then far away from it.

4. Imam Malik(rah)

Mus’ab Az-Zubairi narrated from Malik that he said:
I kept going to Ja’far for a period of time and I did not see him except in any of the three conditions: Either praying or fasting or reciting the Qur’an. I have not seen him narrating from the Messenger of Allah(saw) except in state of purity. He would not indulge in vain talks. He was from the practicing scholars and an ascetic [Zahid] who would fear Allah (every time). I have performed a Hajj along with him. He wore Ihram at the Tree so whenever he starts saying Talbiyah he would almost faint. I told him that he had to do that – and he would honour me and would remain undisguised with me – so he said to me, “O Ibn Abi ‘Aamir, I fear that if I say Labbaik the Lord would say La Labbaik wa la sa’daik.”

Abu ‘Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr said: There are nine narrations through Ja’far in the Mu’atta of Malik. Five of them are connected (till the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), which are actually parts of a single hadith that is the long hadith of Jabir related to Hajj. Four of them are disconnected which are connected through the chain of other than Malik. [At-Tamheed (2/67-68) by Ibn Abd al-Barr]

5. Imam al Zuhri(rah)

أقول: الزهري و إن كان من علماء العامة إلا أنه يظهر من هذه الرواية و غيرها أنه كان يحب علي بن الحسين ع و يعظمه.
Esteemed Shia scholar (al-Khoei) said: al-Zuhri is from the `ulemaa of the `aamah (sunnis) except that he showed from this narration and others that he loved `Alee bin al-Hussayn(as)[4th Shia Imam] and held him (AS) in a dignified (position)
Source: al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal al-Hadeeth, vol. 16, pg. 182, hadeeth # 10960

6. Sheikhul-islam Taqi ad-deen Abul Abbas Ahmad ibn Abdulhaleem ibn Taymiyah

Explaining the Sunni creed, Shaykh al-Islam said:“They (Ahlus Sunnah) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allah; they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah concerning them…but they reject the way of the (Shia) Rafidhis who hate the Sahabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Nasibis who insult Ahlel Bayt in words and deed.” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, 3/154)

7. In regards to the Prophetic Household, Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The Ahlus Sunnah should love the Prophet’s family, give them support, and honor the Prophet’s will in regards to them, as he said at Ghadir Khumm: ‘I ask you by Allah to take care of my family; I ask you by Allah to take care of my family.’”  (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)

8. Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) said:

وأما من قتل ” الحسين ” أو أعان على قتله أو رضي بذلك فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“As for killers of Hussein, or those who helped to kill him, or those who were glad with his murder, may curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon them”.

And he also said:

من أبغضهم فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“May curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon the one who would hate them (ahlel-bayt)”.[See “Fatawa” 1/392].

And he said:

وأما علي رضي الله عنه فلا ريب أنه ممن يحب الله ويحبه الله
“And Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, without any doubt from people who loved Allah, and who were beloved by Allah”. [See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 218]

9. Esteemed Sunni scholar Imam Dhahabi in “Mizanul itidal” volume 4, while he was discussing a hadith which was fabricated in praise of Ali, Imam Dhahabi said:

وهذا باطل، قاله ابن عدى. قلت: إى والله من أبرد الموضوعات، وعلى فلعن الله من لا يحبه.

“And this is false, said ibn Adi. I say: Yes, by Allah from coldest fabrications, and Ali, may Allah curse the one who don’t love him”.

10. Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab At-Tamimi(rah) showed his love for Ahlelbayt by naming his children on their names.

Children of imam Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahab: His eldest son was Ali. He also have two other sons Hasan and Hussein, and daughter Fatima. (Durar as saniya 12/19).

Exposing the reality of Shia claim that the love and adherence of Ahlesunnah for Ahlebayt is a Myth

Argument 1:

A shia website named has now been proved as Deceiving-Ansar) in their article “Sunni myth of love and adherence to the Ahlulbayt (as)” stated:

When it comes to the grand Sunni Ulema we witness a very different stance, one that sought to discredit the Imams (as) by rejecting their reliability as Hadeeth narrators and downplaying their contributions towards the Deen. If the Ahle Sunnah do really love the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and adhere to them then why have they failed to condemn those scholars that objected to the reliability of the imams [as]? If they are going to offer the excuse that these were merely the opinions of Sunni Ulema pertaining to rijal, and it has no bearing on their love for such people, then we can counter this by pointing out that the Ahle Sunnah also love the Sahaba , what if someone were to deen Abu Hurrairah, Ayesha, Abu bakar etc as weak (in narrating), would that be called love and adherence to such individuals? Clearly this would be unpalatable to a Sunni, since this would turn the whole concept of love on its head. In the realms of religion loving those that we deem guides for the faith must be accompanied by an unshaking faith in their words, the moment such words become doubtful / subject to scepticism then that automatically erodes love for that person.

{then this website goes on to quote some opinions of Ahlesunnah scholars where they weakened SOME LATER shia Imams}  [Screen Shot of Quote]


This accusation by Shiawebsite[] was based on complete ignorance(Jahalat). Because loving, respecting or honoring Imams has nothing to do with their condition in hadeeth transmission. Its ridiculous to claim that if someone considers a person as weak in hadeeth then its kind of hatred or insult to that person. These ridiculous and baseless claims could only come from those who based their claims on biasedness and ignorance. So let us expose the stupidity of this accusation by providing our readers some other examples where scholars of Ahlesunnah even weakened their beloved ones(as per shias).

1. Sunni scholar Ali ibn al-Madeeni’s ruling that his father was da’eef (weak), and he knew that this ruling regarding his father would guarantee an end to his position as a scholar, but that did not prevent him from stating his opinion concerning him.

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  None of the people of hadeeth should show any favouritism with regard to the science of hadeeth, whether it is to his father or his son. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Madeeni, who was a prominent scholar of hadeeth in his time, never narrated even a letter to suggest that his father was strong in hadeeth, rather what was narrated from him was the opposite of that.[End quote from Sharaf Ashaab al-Hadeeth (41)].

Ibn Hibbaan said in al-Majrooheen (2/15): ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni was asked about his father and he said: Ask someone else. They said: We asked you. He paused, then he raised his head and said: This has to do with religion; my father is da’eef (weak).

Comment: So does this in any way proves that Ali ibn al madeeni insulted his father or he hated him? That would a stupid claim.

2. And Yahya ibn Ma’een spoke about a friend of his whom he loved, and al-Husayn ibn Hibbaan narrated that he said of Muhammad ibn Saleem al-Qaadi: By Allaah, he is our friend, and he is dear to us, but there is no way to praise him and I do not recommend anyone to narrate from him or encourage others to do so. And he said: By Allaah, he heard a great deal and he is well known, but he does not limit himself to what he heard, rather he includes things that he did not hear. I said to him: Should he be narrated from? He said: No. [Tareekh Baghdaad (5/325). ]

Comment: We find here that Imam Yahya Ibn Ma’een himself testifies that he loved and respected his friend, yet he says that his friend was weak in hadeeth. This is because loving someone or respecting someone doesn’t necessitates that the person cannot be considered as weak in hadeeth.

3. To end this confusion let us present before you a classical example where the Great Imam of Ahlesunnah, Imam Abu Hanifah(rah) was considered weak by “few” hadeeth scholars. Yet that doesn’t mean that Ahlesunnah hates or insults or dishonors or doesn’t adhere to Imam Abu Hanifah(rah). Even the shias acknowledge this fact that Ahlesunnah loves, respects and adheres to Imam Abu Hanifah(rah).

Here are some of the views of scholars where we find that Imam Abu Hanifah(rah) was weakened in Hadeeth:

Al-Uqailee says in ‘ad-Du`afaa’ [pg. 432], “Abdullaah bin Ahmad narrated to us saying: I heard my father (Imaam Ahmad) say: the hadeeth of Abu Haneefah are da`eef(weak).

Ibn Abee Haatim said in ‘al-Jarh wat-Ta`deel’ [4/1/450], “Hajjaaj bin Hamzah narrated to us saying:Abdaan ibn Uthmaan narrated to us saying: I heard ibn al-Mubaarak say: Abu Haneefah was miskeen (poor) with regards hadeeth.”

Abu Hafs ibn Shaaheen said, “Abu Haneefah with regards to fiqh then no one can fault his knowledge however he was not pleasing in hadeeth…” As is quoted at the end of ‘Taareekh al-Jarjaan’ [pg. 510-511]

Ibn Hibbaan said, “…hadeeth was not his field. He reported one hundred and thirty musnad ahaadeeth and no more, erring in one hundred and twenty either through reversing the isnaads or changing the text without knowing. Therefore when his errors outweigh that which he is correct in it is deserving to leave depending upon him in narrations.”

Ad-Daaruqutnee says in his Sunan [pg. 132]…., “no one reports it from Musa ibn Abee Aa`ishah except Abu Haneefah and al-Hasan ibn Umaarah and both are da`eef.”

Ibn Sa`d said in ‘at-Tabaqaat’ [6/256], “he is da`eef in hadeeth.”

Al-Haafidh Abdul Haqq al-Ishbeelee mentions ‘al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa’ [q. 17/2], ….”Abu Haneefah is not used as a proof due to his weakness in hadeeth.”

Ibn al-Jawzee mentions him in ‘Kitaab ad-Du`faah wal Matrookeen’ [3/163] mentioning the weakening of the Imaams of him and from ath-Thawree that he said, “he is not trustworthy and precise.” And from an-Nadr ibn Shameel, “abandoned in hadeeth.”

Adh-Dhahabee says in ‘ad-Du`afaah’, “an-Nu`maan, the Imaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him. Ibn Adee said: most of what he narrates are mistakes, errors and additions and he has some acceptable ahaadeeth. An-Nasaa`ee said: he is not strong in hadeeth, he makes many errors and mistakes even though he does not narrate very much. Ibn Ma`een said: his hadeeth are not to be recorded.”

Al-Haafidh al-Mubaarakfooree said in ‘Tuhfatul Ahwadhee’ [1/333], “…it is singularly narrated by Imaam Abu Haneefah and he has weak memory as was made clear by al-Haafidh ibn Abdul Barr. Allaah knows best,”]

Now let us see the view of Ahlesunnah scholars regarding the great Imam Abu Hanifah(rah), who was weakened in Hadeeth.

In this excellent and wonderful book, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, Imam Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentions Imam Abu Hanifah among those major hafizs of hadith of the fifth rank (al-tabaqat al-khamisah). He writes: “Abu Hanifah, the great imam (imam al-a‘zam), the jurist of Iraq, Nu‘man ibn Thabit ibn Zuta al-Taymi (who were their masters) al-Kufi. He was born in 80 AH and saw Anas ibn Malik more than once when he came to them in Kufa. Ibn Sa‘d has narrated this from Sayf ibn Jabir that he heard Abu Hanifah say this. He narrated from ‘Ata’a, Nafi‘, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hurmuz al-A‘raj, ‘Adi ibn Thabit, Salamah ibn Kuhayl, Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, Qatadah, ‘Amr ibn Dinar, Abu Ishaq and many others. Zufar ibn Hudhayl, Dawud al-Ta’i, Qadi Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Asad ibn ‘Amr, Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu’lui, Nuh al-Jami‘, Abu Muti‘ al-Balkhi and others learned fiqh from him. He learned fiqh from Hammad ibn Abu Sulayman and others. Waki‘, Yazid ibn Harun, Sa‘d ibn al-Sult, Abu ‘Asim, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Musa, Abu Na‘im, Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Muqri and others narrated from him. He was an imam, pious, knowledgeable, someone who practiced, someone who indulged in great worship and a man of great ranking; he would not accept the sultan’s gifts but would trade and earn a living.

“Dirar ibn Sard said, Yazid ibn Harun was asked, ‘Who is a greater faqih, al-Thawri or Abu Hanifah?’ He replied, ‘Abu Hanifah was a greater faqih and Sufyan was greater in remembering hadith.’ Ibn al-Mubarak said, ‘Abu Hanifah was the greatest faqih among the people.’ Al-Shafi‘i said, ‘People are children to Abu Hanifah in fiqh.’ Yazid said, ‘I never saw anyone more god fearing and more intelligent than Abu Hanifah.’ Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Qasim ibn Mihraz narrated from Yahya ibn Ma‘in who said, ‘There is no issue with him; he was not accused of anything. Yazid ibn ‘Umar ibn Hubayrah imposed on him to take up the judiciary but he refused to be qadi.’ Abu Dawud (may Allah mercy him) said, ‘Imam Abu Hanifah was an imam.’

“Bishr ibn al-Walid narrates from Abu Yusuf who said, ‘I was walking with Abu Hanifah when a man said to another, “This is Abu Hanifah, he does not sleep at night.” Imam Abu Hanifah said, “I swear by Allah, people do not speak of me regarding that which I have not done.” He used to keep awake the night in prayer, du‘a and supplication.’ I (Imam Hafiz al-Dhahabi) say: I have devoted a chapter to the virtues of this imam. He died in Rajab, 150AH. May Allah be pleased with him.”

Imam Hafiz al-Dhahabi has written under the biography of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah mercy him) in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala: “And he took an interest in seeking hadiths and travelled for this. As for fiqh and being precise in providing an opinion and its innermost points, he was at the top. And people are his children in that…”

Shaykh Al-Albaanee concludes his discussion in ad-Da`eefah by saying, “so we conclude with the words of adh-Dhahabee in ‘Siyar A`laam an-Nubulaa’ [5/288/1], ‘his(abu hanifa) being an Imaam in fiqh and its fine points is accepted and there is no doubt in this…’” The criticism levelled against Abu Haneefah is not with regards his deen, or belief, or character or fiqh rather it was with regards his memorisation.

Comment: From this example we find that an person even after being considered as weak in hadeeth on the same time can be a great fiqh scholar, Imam, pious, noble, well resptected etc.

Conclusion: Thus these proofs should be sufficient to expose the accusations of Shia website[answering-ansar] that were based on ignorance and biasedness, because if some of later shia Imams(not all) were weakened in hadeth transmission then that doesn’t prove that Ahlesunnah do not love them, because they can still be respected and honored Imams. And the fact remains clear that Ahlesunnah loves, respects, honors, and adheres the Imams of Ahlebayt without inserting any kind of exaggeration in that.

Argument 2:

Shia website[] Stated:

one of his great Ulema Ibn Khaldun attacked the Imams for possessing these very beliefs in the following manner:

وشذ أهل البيت بمذاهب ابتدعوها وفقه انفردوا به وبنوه على مذهبهم في تناول بعض الصحابة بالقدح وعلى قولهم بعصمة الأئمة ورفع الخلاف عن أقوالهم وهي كلها أصول واهية وشذ بمثل ذلك الخوارج ولم يحتفل الجمهور بمذاهبهم بل أوسعوها جانب الإنكار والقدح فلا نعرف شيئا من مذاهبهم ولا نروي كتبهم ولا أثر لشيء منها إلا في مواطنهم فكتب الشيعة فل بلادهم وحيث كانت دولتهم قائمة في المغرب والمشرق واليمن
“… and Ahlulbayt had deviated in religion and fiqh that they invented, and only they and their children follow it, by back stabbing the Sahabah. Yet they call themselves Infallibles to clarify their claim of this religious doctrine, just like the deviated Khawarij. The majority of our religion do not accept their doctrine, rather strongly denounce and reject it. We have nothing to do with their religion, nor do we narrate from their books. And there is no influence of them except on their own lands. Verily, the Shia books are only in their own lands that is the East, West and the Yemen.” [Muqadmah Ibn Khaldun, page 446 ] ” [ScreenShot for this Quote]


This accusation was based on the deceit by this deceptive website. Because they made improper translation of this quote. [Alternate trans].

This: {“… and Ahlulbayt had deviated in religion and fiqh that they invented, and only they and their children follow it, by back stabbing the Sahabah. Yet they call themselves Infallibles”}

Should be translated as the following:
وشذ أهل البيت بمذاهب ابتدعوها وفقه انفردوا به وبنوه على مذهبهم في تناول بعض الصحابة بالقدح وعلى قولهم بعصمة الأئمة
“…and the Ahlul Bayt deviated by created sects that they formed, and fiqh that they came up with by themselves, which they built upon attacking some of the sahaba, and by saying that the Imams are infallible…”

Notice, that the first difference is that the Shia translator said that Ahlul Bayt didn’t mention that they created sects (plural). The Shia translator avoided mentioning this because it implies that it is referring to more than the Ithna Ashari(twelvers) sect, and that it is referring to more than one member of Ahlul Bayt that added to the religion in different ways.

The second difference is that the Shia translator changed the words “the Imams are infallible” to “they call themselves infallibles” to make it seem as though Ibn Khaldoon is accusing the twelve Imams of creating these sects. However, there is no indication that Ibn Khaldoon meant that one of the twelve Imams is behind the formation of a new sect, but rather someone else, because if he did, then Ibn Khaldoon would’ve said that they indeed called themselves infallible but instead Ibn Khaldoon said that “they..said Imams are infallible”. So, when we focus on the words in Arabic, we can easily tell that Ibn Khaldoon is implying that “they” are not the Imams, but rather, “they” attributed these things to the Imams.

It is the bias of the Shia website that caused them to believe that the word Ahlul Bayt only applies to the twelve Imams and nobody else, because the word Ahlul Bayt covers a very large number of people, not just 12 Imams. It was actually referring to Itra which means family of Prophet(S) who are prohibited from accepting charity which includes Banu Ali(Alids), Banu Abbas(Abbasids), Banu Aqeel, Banu Jafar, etc, and such statements were made by other scholars as well, as we find here, that Ijma of Itra is not a hujjah according to Jamhoor [Irshad al-Fuhul, page 396], because it’s a well known historical fact that over the passage of time, these groups greatly differed among themselves, over several matters.

Argument 3:

Shia website[] stated:

Nasibism in the roots Ahle Sunnah:The belief of any school originates from their principle books that they adhered to and in particularfrom those individuals that were responsible for narrating the teachings (i.e. the narrators) that act as a source of guidance. Almost every school of thought relies heavily on individuals to pass down their teachings that are ultimately codified into book form which is why the veracity of authors was checked and graded with terms like being Thiqa (authentic), Majhul (unknown) or Daeef (weak) etc.

So here we present some of the narrators of Ahle Sunnah Hadeeth material who despite being identified as clear Nasibies are deemed the most reliable authorities from whom Ahle Sunnah can derive their religion without any hesitation. This can be evidenced by the fact that these individuals have been given rijal standards like Thiqah, Seduq etc “[Screen Shot for this quote]


This is one of the most ridiculous allegation made by Shiawebsite[answering-ansar]. After analyzing the stupidity related to this allegation, our readers will surely know know what kind of stpudity and ignorance in being spread by popular shia websites amongst the ignorant Shias, because they haven’t read their own books nor do they know their own principles of Hadeeth. The ignorant shias never bother to check what these shia websites propagate, assuming that these websites of theirs are propagating the madhab of Ahlelbayt and are followers of Ahlebayt, So why would they deceive their own Shia brethren. But unfortunately those Shias are unaware regarding the reality of Shiatu dajjal, because Shiatu dajjal consider lying and deceiving as a part of religious teaching, so they never hesitate before lying , deceiving and creating false allegations against their opponents.

The allegation of  Shia website[] is that since Ahlesunnah considers some innovators like Nasibis, Khawarijis as trustworthy(thiqa) narrators in transmission of Ahadeeth, thus this proves that Nasibism and Kharijism is in the roots of Ahlesunnah. So let us accept this ridiculous slander for sake of argument to be true. But then we will realize that due to this ridiculous principle innovated by shiawebsite inorder to attack Ahlesunnah, EVEN SHIISM will be considered to have roots of Nasibism, Kharijism, Murjism, Qadrism, Zaydism, Waqifism, etc. And ironically Shiism will be considered as the mixture of all these innovated sects, in accordance to the rule invented by Shias.

Let us elaborate this issue in brief, so that the ignorant Shias who were deceived by dajjalis realize the deception of the so called promoters of madhab of Ahlelbayt.

و روى الصدوق في العلل بإسناده الصحيح عن أبي بصير عن أحدهما عليهما السلام قال:

لا تكذبوا بحديث أتاكم به مرجى‏ء و لا قدري و لا خارجي نسبه إلينا، فإنكم لا تدرون لعله شي‏ء من الحق فتكذبوا الله عز و جل فوق عرشه
And narrated al Sadooq(ra) in al Illal (Illul ul sharai) with sahih (authentic) sanad (chain of narration) from Abi Baseer from one of the 2 Imams(as) said: Don’t reject hadith which has come to you people through murj’i, qadari and kharji attributed to us, for verily you people don’t know for it is something from the truth so you rejected Allah(swt). [Shia book, Miraat ul uqool]

Comment: From this narration we find that divinely appointed Imams of Shias, commanded the shias to accept narrations from innovators(like Kharijis, Qadaris, etc). And the Shia scholars implemented on these commands of Imams, and they took reports from all sorts of innovators(according to them).

So let us re-examine before our readers the allegations of Shiawebsite where they invented a stupid rule. Shiawebsite[] said: { The belief of any school originates from their principle books that they adhered to and in particular from those individuals that were responsible for narrating the teachings (i.e. the narrators) that act as a source of guidance.}. Praise be to Allah! Now the Shiawebsite have cleared before us from their own reasoning, that the roots of their cult are Kharijism, Qadrism, Murjism, etc.

We hope that the above examination might have taught a good lesson to those deceivers behind the renowned shia website[], So now let us clear before our esteemed and truthseeking readers a very important principle of hadeeth science of Ahlesunnah, regarding accepting the reports of innovators(be it nasibis, Kharijis or Shias, etc).

A. Sheikh Ahmed Shakir writes in al Ba’ith al Hathith (Maktaba al Ma’arif: 1996/1417H) pp.301-302:
“[As for] the people of innovation and desires, if their innovation is that which necessitates the hukm of disbelief/kufr for the one who holds to it, then his narrations are not accepted by consensus (itifaq), as al Nawawi reported. Al Suyuti refuted him in al Tadrib [al Rawi] for claiming consensus and cited another saying that they are accepted absolutely (mutlaqan), and another saying wherein they are accepted if they believe that lying is haram. Then he [al Suyuti] quotes Hafiz Ibn Hajr that he said: ‘What is correct is that not everyone is rejected because of his innovation. This is so because every group declares that whoever differs with them is an innovator, and they go even further and make takfir [of those who oppose them]. So if this is taken unrestrictedly it would require making takfir of all the groups. What is relied upon is that the one whose narrations are rejected is the one who rejects something mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from the law which is known from the deen by necessity (darura), or he believes the opposite of it. As for one who isn’t like this, and together with that he is precise (dhabt) in what he narrates, while he is pious and God-fearing, then there is nothing to prevent him being acceptable…'” [end of quote from al Ba’ith al Hathith].

B. Dr Mahmud al Tahhan writes in Taysir Mustala al Hadith (pp.123-124):
“The ruling on the report of an innovator:
a. If his innovation is one of kufr, his reports are rejected
b. If his innovation is one of immorality (fisq), then the correct view of the majority is that his reports are accepted subject to two conditions:
– 1. That he does not give da’wah to his innovation
– 2. That what he reports does not support his innovation.”

From these important principles we find that the methodology of Ahlesunnah when accepting narrations from innovators(shias, nasibis, kharijis, etc) is that they should be trustworthy(thiqa) and that what they narrate SHOULD NOT support their innovation. So this shatters the false allegations of Shiawebsite[] that Nasibism or Kharijism is in the roots of Ahlesunnah. So we would like to repeat that Ahlesunnah accepted reports from innovators like Nasibis, Kharijis or Shias which DIDN’T support their innovations(Nasibism, Kharijism and Shiism). Thus in other words Ahlesunnah accepts the reports from innovators after filtering them and those which are pure and those narrations which contain the impurity of their innovations are rejected.


A. Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Murtada said:

” والذي يختص هذا الموضع مما لم نبينه هناك: أنه لا خلاف بين كل من ذهب إلى وجوب العمل بخبر الواحد في الشريعة، أنه لا بد من كون مخبره عدلا، والعدالة عندنا يقتضي أن يكون معتقدا ” للحق في الأصول والفروع، وغير ذاهب إلى مذهب قد دلت الأدلة على بطلانه، وأن يكون غير متظاهر بشئ من المعاصي والقبائح. وهذه الجملة تقتضي تعذر العمل بشئ من الأخبار التي رواها الواقفية على موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام الذاهبة إلى أنه المهدي عليه السلام، وتكذيب كل من بعده من الأئمة عليهم السلام، وهذا كفر بغير شبهة ورده، كالطاطري وابن سماعة وفلان وفلان، ومن لا يحصى كثرة. فإن معظم الفقه وجمهوره بل جميعه لا يخلو مستنده ممن يذهب مذهب الواقفة، إما أن يكون أصلا في الخبر أو فرعا “، راويا ” عن غيره ومرويا ” عنه. وإلى غلاة، وخطابية، ومخمسة، وأصحاب حلول، كفلان وفلان ومن لا يحصى أيضا ” كثرة، وإلى قمي مشبه مجبر، وأن القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه – رحمة الله عليه- بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة، وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق به. فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال، أو قمي مشبه مجبر، والاختبار بيننا وبينهم التفتيش” .( رسائل الشريف المرتضى 3/310 .
There is no difference amongst those who decided to accept and work with the Khabar al-Wahid (1) in matters of Shari’ah that it must come through a ‘Adl, in our madhab ‘Adl means that the narrator must have a correct belief in Usool and Furu’u, that he must not be from a corrupt madhab according to the proofs, that he must not commit disobedience and evil deeds apparently. This means that we must not work with any of the narrations by the Waqifah of Musa bin Ja’afar (as) who believe that he was a Mahdi and all those after him are liars, this is clear kufr, such as al TaTari and ibn Sama’ah and such people which we cannot count as to their large numbers. The majority of our(shia) Fiqh or all of it is related to narrations from the Waqifah, whether they narrated the Hadith from someone or someone narrated it from them. Also others such as the Ghulat (2), the Mukhammisah (3), the people of Hulul (4) and they are too many to count “Or from a Qummi who is a Mushabbih or a Mujabbir (5), and all qummies with no exceptions except for Ibn Babaweih are Moushabihah and Moujabirah, their books all bear wtiness to this clearly. So what narration is safe from having in its chain a Waqifi or a Ghali or a Qummi who is a Mushabbih and a Mujabbir.”(Rasael al-Shareef al-Murtada 3/310.)
(1) What is narrated through one narrator.
(2) Extremist Shia who commit Ghulu(exaggeration) and the Shia definition of Ghulu changes with the passing of time, this sect attributes divine features to ‘Ali, although many Twelvers in our days do this so ponder.
(3) Shia sect that believed that Allah came in the form of Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussein.
(4) Those who believe Allah can appear in a specified physical form.
(5) Shia sects such as al-Bayaniyah and al-Sabaiyyah and others, they liken the creator to the creation.

B. Another esteemed shia scholar said:
شيخ الطائفة :” إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الاصول ينتحلون المذاهب الفاسدة وان كانت كتبهم معتمدة ” الفهرست ص 2
While sheikh al-Taefa al-Tusi says: “Many of the authors from our companions and those who wrote the Usool(principles) have adopted corrupt Madhabs although their books are accepted.”( al-Fihrist pg 2)

Comment : We know from the reports present in the books of shias, that Waqifis and zaydis are at the same level of Nasibis. So now if the Shias want to apply the proper science based on the ‘Adalah, then a big part of their Madhab would collapse as they rely on the narrations by people of corrupt madhabs whom they themselves deem as Kouffar(disbelievers). Yet, we find that their madhab is heavily relied on the narrators who were innovators and had extremely corrupted beliefs, as the shia scholar himself confessed.

So now the Shiawebsite[] is trapped in its own pit, they are trapped in their own allegations which they raised inorder to portray before ignorant Shias that Ahlesunah have roots of Nasibism , etc because they accept reports from innovators(nasibis, etc), So we want the lay Shias who were being fooled by this website that please ponder now that how could Shias be considered as  lovers of ahlebayt? Because we find that the shias clearly fitting in the accusation which they used inorder to accuse Ahlesunnah, thus we leave it to the readers to ponder over this fact that and to Judge that who actually has the roots of Nasibism and other sorts of Biddah.

Argument 4:

Shia website[] stated:

Amongst the wonderful Nasibi Hadeeth narrators the Rijjal scholars noted that Hariz bin Uthman al Himsi, Kathir bin Shahab and Asad bin Wada’a were known for cursing Imam ‘Ali (as). Cursing any Muslim is a major sin, it is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud that : The Prophet, said, “Abusing a Muslim is Fisq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief).”  Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 197

We have already cited Sunni scholar Allamah Ahmad Shakir’s comments that makes it clear that a Fasiq cannot be Thiqah:

“The accepted fact is that Thiqah is one who is considered preserved for his reports, a Muslim, rational, adult, preserved from lasciviousness (fisq) …
If any of these conditions contains defects, his narration must be rejected”

al-B’aeth al-Hathith, page 29

With this in mind we challenge the Ahle Sunnah to answer us these questions:

1. Is cursing a Muslim an act of Fisq?

2. If it is how can a narrator be a Fasiq and Thiqah at the same time?

3. Allah (swt) says in Surah Hujuraath verse 6 ‘O ye who believe! If a Fasiq comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth’ with this verse in mind:

3(a). Why have Ahle Sunnah rather than ascertain the truth, graded Fasiq as men of truth?

3(b). Does such grading not contradict this verse of the Qur’an?  [Screen shot for this quote]


Before answering this ignorance(jahalat)of Shiawebsite[], let us bring this in attention of our readers that Ahlesunnah didn’t just took reports from innovators who were enemies of Ahlebayt, but even those who were enemies of Sahaba too, like extremist Shias.  If we look into the most important hadeeth books of Ahlesunnah, that is Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, then Sunni scholar Jalal ad-Deen As-Suyoote in “Tadreeb ar rawi” 1/328-329 said that shaykhan (Buhari and Muslim) took narrations from(innovators like): 16 murjia, 7 nawaseeb, 27 shia, 30 qadariyah, 2 Khawarij, and 1 jahmiyah.

Now considering this fact, would the Shiawebsite accuse Ahlesunnah in favouritism toward shias rather towards khawarij and Nawasib?  Or would they make another ridiculous claim by accusing Ahlesunnah for having roots of Shiism too?

Now let us cut the feet of Shiawebsite’s allegation with their axe. Here is the list of Nasibi narrators who were considered Thiqa(trustworthy) by Shia hadeeth scholars. This might give the ignorant Shias the shock of their life, because of the fact that they never knew their own madhab and instead wasted their time in accusing others for the similar reason, due to their ignorance.

Shia scholar Najashi is the biggest Shia scholar of Rijal has authenticated one of the most famous Nasibis and enemies of Ahlul-Bayt (ra) in his book “Rijal al-Najashi” page 443:
يحيى بن سعيد القطان أبو زكريا
Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan (abu Zakariya) is considered Thiqah(trustworthy) by al-Najashi:
يحيى بن سعيد القطان
أبو زكريا، عامي، ثقة
“Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan, Commoner(Sunni), Thiqah(trustworthy)”

Here is the view of Some more shia scholars who considered Yahya bin Sa’eed Nasibi as Trustworthy(thiqa)

يحيى بن سعيد القطان، أبو زكريا، عامي، ثقة – خلاصة الأقوال ، 417۔

يحيى بن سعيد القطان: عامي – ثقة – المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث ، 663۔

Now what does Ayatullah Muhammad al-Sanad say about Imam Yahya in his book “al-Ijtihad wal-Taqleed fi ‘ilm al-Rijal” page 317:
يحيى هذا من النواصب
This Yahya is from the Nawasib

عداوة يحيى بن سعيد لأهل البيت و حقده عليهم , و قد طعن في عشرات الرواة لأنهم يتشيعون أو لأن عندهم هوى التشيع
“Yahya bin Sa’eed had enmity towards Ahlul-Bayt and he had a grudge against them, he attacked many narrators because they had some shi’ism or because they leaned towards it”

Now a much bigger Shia scholar sheikh al-Shari’ah al-Isfahani in his book “al-Qawl al-Sirah fil Bukhari wa Sahihihi al-Jami’i” page 40 says about him:
ويحيى بن سعيد ، الذي هو أقدمهم وأعلمهم بالنصب والانحراف عن أهل البيت – عليهم السلام
“Yahya bin Sa’eed who is the oldest and the best in Nasb and in his deviance from the path of Ahlul-Bayt (as)”

Another Shia scholar of Hadith Ja’afar al-Subhani in his introduction of al-Qawl al-Sirah criticizes Bukhari for not narrating from Ja’afar al-Sadiq and according to him this is because:
لتأثره بأمثال يحيى بن سعيد الناصبي
“Because he was influenced by the likes of Yahya bin Sa’eed the Nasibi.”

If the above doesn’t seem to be sufficient then allow us present before you the view of Shia scholars regarding some other innovators like Waqafiya and Zaydiyah who were at the same level of Nawasibs according to shia Imam.

Their other sheikh Muhammad Hassan Jawahiri in his book “Jawahir al-kalam” 6/67 quoted hadith:

ان الزيدية والواقفة والنصاب بمنزلة واحدة

Zaydiya, Waqifiyah and Nawaseeb are at the same level”.

Abu Amr al-Kashi in his rijal quoted imam saying: 410- محمد بن الحسن، قال حدثني أبو علي الفارسي، قال حكى منصور، عن الصادق علي بن محمد بن الرضا (عليهم السلام) : أن الزيدية و الواقفة و النصاب بمنزلة عنده سواء.

410 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan said: Abu `Ali al-Farsi narrated to me.  He said: Mansur related from as-Sadiq `Ali b. Muhammad b. ar-Ridaعليهم السلام that the Zaydiyya, the Waqifa, and the Nassab are according to him of an equal status.

Here is the list of  Trustworthy(thiqa) Waqafiya narrators(the ones who are at the same level of Nasibis) according to Shias scholars.

Ibn Dawud al-Hilli in his “Rijal” stated:
#584 – Dawud ibn Hasin. Thiqah(trustworthy) waqafi.
#834 – Abdullah ibn Jabalah ibn Hayyan. Thiqah(trustworthy), waqafi.
#1310 – Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Ammar ibn Hayyan. Thiqah(trustworthy), waqafi.
p 209: Ahmad ibn Abu Bashir as-Siraj. Thiqah(trustworthy), waqafi.
p 210: Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ismail. Thiqah(trusthworthy), waqafi. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Ribah. Thiqah, waqafi and etc.

Kitab al Rjal, Volume One, Compiled by: Shaikh Ibn Dawood (ra)

Section 2:

A mention of the group of people about whom Shaikh Najashi (ra) said: “Verily they are trustworthy in their narrations although they are confused upon their incorrect madhabs.”

Ahmad b. Bashir al Seraj, thiqah (trustworthy), Waqifi

Ahmad b. al Hasan b. Ismail, thiqah (trustworthy), Waqifi

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ali b. Rabah al Sawaq abu al Hasan, thiqah (trustworthy), Waqifi

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Saeed b. Abdur Rahman al Hamdani, dignified, thiqah (trustworthy), Zaydi Jaroodi

Ishaq b. Bashir abu Hudhaifah al Kahili al Khurasani, thiqah (trustworthy), ‘Aami

Ja’far b. Muhammad b. Sama’a al Hadhrami, thiqah (trustworthy), Waqifi

Al Hussain b. Ahmad b. al Mughirah abu Abdullah al Bushnaji Iraqi, confused in his madhab, thiqah (trustworthy) in his narrations.

Al Hasan b. Muhammad b. Sama’a abu Muhammad al Kindi al Seerafi, a faqih among the Waqifi fuqaha, thiqah (trustworthy).

Hamid b. Ziad b. Hamad b. Ziad al Dahqan, Waqifi, thiqah (trustworthy)

Ibad b. Suhaib, Al Kashi said: “He was a Murj’i.” And al Najashi said: “He was thiqah (trustworthy).”

Ali b. Muhammad b. Ali b. Qais b. Salim abu al Hasan al Wasaq, and is said to be al Qula'(patient of Alkalosis), al Najashi said: “Umar b. Rabah said he is al Qula’.”, and it was said that his kunyah is Abu al qasim, he was thiqah (trustworthy) in the hadith, a Waqifi in madhab, reliable.

Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Ghalib abu Abdullah al Ansari al Bazzaz, thiqah (trustworthy) in his narration, on the madhab of the Waqifis.

Haroon b. Muslim b. Su’dan al Katib, al Najashi said: “Thiqah (trustworthy) apparently, was on the madhab of Jabr (pre destination/fatalism) and tashbih (anthropomorphism).”

Yahya b. Salim al Fara’, al Najashi said: “From Kufa, a thiqah (trustworthy) Zaydi.”

Some more trustworthy(thiqa) waqifis according to Shia hadeeth scholars:

ثقات واقفيه(1) عبارتند از:

1 – ابراهيم بن ابى بكر بن ابى سمال

2 – ابراهيم بن صالح انماطى

3 – ابراهيم بن عبدالحميد (معالم العلماء)

4  احمد بن ابى بشر سراج(2)

5 – احمد بن حسن ميثمى (3)

6 – احمد بن محمد بن عمر بن رباح القلاء(4)

7 – ادريس بن فضل و اسحق بن جرير بجلى (خلاصه علامه)

8 – اسماعيل بن ابى بكر بن ابى سمال

9 – حسن بن محمد بن سماعه

10 –  حسين(حسن خ ل) بن ابى سعيد هاشم بن حيان مكارى (رجال ابن داوود)

11 – حميد بن زياد

12 –  حنان بن سدير (خلاصه در ترجمه حفص بن ميمون)

13 – زرعه بن محمد

14 – سماعه بن مهران (خلاصه)

15 – سيف بن عميره(معالم العلماء)

16 – عبدالكريم بن عمرو خثعمى

17 – عبدالله بن جبله

18 – عثمان بن عميس (5)

19 – غالب بن عثمان (خلاصه)

20 – وهيب بن حفص

21 – يحيى بن قاسم حذاء (6).

علاوه بر موارد فوق، جملاتى از قبيل:”ثقه فى حديثه” يا “ثقه فى روايته” و نظير اين‏تعبيرات درباره جماعتى از واقفه بكار برده شده چون:

22 – على بن محمد بن على بن عمر قلاء

23 – على بن ابى حمزه

24 – ابو عبدالله بن ثابت(7)

25 – محمد بن عبدالله بن ثابت

26 – بنو سماعه (8)

27 – طاطريون

Here is the list of  Trustworthy(thiqa) Zaydiyah narrators(the ones who are at the same level of Nasibis) as per shia hadeeth scholars.

عبارتند از:

1 – احمد بن محمد بن سعيد معروف به ابن عقده

2 – عامر بن كثير سراج

3 – عباده بن زياد

4 – غياث بن ابراهيم

5 – يحيى بن سالم فراء.


Here are few mushabiha(anthropomorhphics) narrators who were deemed trustworthy(thiqa) by shia hadeeth scholars.

Ibn Dawud al-Hilli in his “Rijal” p 210, said:
. هارون بن مسلم بن سعدان الكاتب، قال النجاشي: ثقة وجه وكان له مذهب في الجبر والتشبيه.
“Kharoon ibn Moslem ibn Sadan al-Katib. Najashe said: Thiqa wajh, and he was on the mushabiha(anthropomorhphics)  and jabare mazhab”.

Shia hadeth scholar Najashe authenticated another mushabiha:  Mohammad ibn Jafar ibn Mohammad ibn Awn.  In his book Najashe said that this man was thiqat, sahih al-hadith and he use to say (belief) in mushabiha(anthropomorhphics)  and jabr.

[Words of Najashe can be found in his “Rijal” #1180]:

[ 1020 ] محمد بن جعفر بن محمد بن عون الاسدي أبو الحسين الكوفي، ساكن الري. يقال له محمد بن أبي عبد الله، كان ثقة، صحيح الحديث، إلا أنه روى عن الضعفاء. وكان يقول بالجبر والتشبيه

Coming back to the CHALLENGE of Shiawebsite[], then they have a very bad habbit of throwing challenges and running away by keeping their tail beween their legs. So we advice the dajjalis who gave us the challenge to first acquire knowledge of their own cult, and the methodologies used by their scholars before throwing stones at others. And if they really want to know the answers to these questions then they should ask those questions to their own scholars first.

Though it’s a fact that it’s the Ahlesunnah who founded the hadeeth science and the other innovated sects like Shias, copied this from Ahlesunnah as it was testified by shia scholars, Yet that shouldn’t stop the in asking these question to their scholars.


Since we have answered the challenging questions of Shiawebsite[] from their own books, so we would now like to ask few questions to them in this regards. Importantly we are asking these questions for the benefit of truthseekers and ignorant shias who are being deceived by these deceptive websites, so that they protect themselves from being deceived by these websites in future. Inshallah.

1. Since you tried to portray that because Ahlesunnah considered some innovators(nasibis, kharijis , shias) as trustworthy(thiqa), so the roots of Ahlesunnah is Nasibism and Kharijism, Then we would like to ask you that since we have proven from the books of Shiism that even Shias consider Nasibis, and other innovators as trustworthy(thiqa) in narrating reports , THEN DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ROOTS OF SHIISM IS NASIBISM OR KHARIJISM ?

2. Moreover you tried to portray that since Ahlesunnah considers some innovators(Nasibis, Kharijis) as trusthworthy(thiqa) in narrating reports, so it means that they do not adhere to Imams from Ahlebayt , nor love them. So now we would like to ask the you that since the Shia scholars too considered Nasibis and other haters of Ahlebayt as Thiqa(reliable) then do you believe that even Shias, don’t adhere to Imams from Ahlebayt and they don’t love them?

3. You tried to portray that true lovers of Ali(ra) could never consider Nasibis or Kharijis as trustworthy or accept reports from them, So now as we have seen that shias too consider Nasibis as trusthworthy and accept reports from them, So now will you be declaring that even Shias are not true lovers of Ali(ra) ?

4. If you are going to reject all these claims on Shiism/Shias then would you please us let know that why did you try to deceive lay people by slandering Ahlesunnah for the thing which you yourself practice?

Argument 5:

Shia website[Answering] stated:

One who hates Ali bin Abi Talib [as] is a hypocrite according to the authentic traditions of Holy Prophet [s] and a hypocrite is the one who professes and displays ‘faith’ while he is firm at ‘disbelief’ within his heart. Khawarij not only hated Ali [as] but went to the length of issuing Takfeer against him [as]. Would the true lovers of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] have the audacity to deem such people as reliable?   [Screen Shot for this quote]


Though we have refuted these ridiculous and ignorant accusations of shiawebsite above, from their own sources where we proved that accepting reports from innovators is not a crime and it isn’t resticted to Ahlesunnah, but even the shia scholars used to accept reports from innovators and they even deemed many innovators as Thiqa(trustworthy). But we would like to throw some light on the emotional fraud of  this Shiawebsite[], so that our readers can realize the deceit and double standards of these emotional frauds.

Shiawebsite states: { Would the true lovers of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] have the audacity to deem such people as reliable? }

So the Shiawesbite have invented a sign to check whether someone possess true love for Ali(ra) or not. And they try to imply that, those who have deemed Khariji or Nasibi narrators as reliable(thiqa) they cannot be considered as true lovers of Ali(ra). But  ironically as we have shown above, that even the SHIA SCHOLARS deemed Nasibis as reliable. Moreover the SHIA IMAM has commanded them that they shouldn’t reject reports from innovators like Kharijis, etc. We would like our unbiased readers to judge the Shiawebsite and Shias in accordance to the rule which they themselves invented to judge whether someone truly loves Ali(ra) or not, So now can the Shia scholars or Shia Imams be considered as Lover of Ali(ra) in light of this rule invented by Shias?

Ofcourse we expect to get an apologetic and a double standard response from the Shias. But we brought these cross references before our esteemed readers, to make them aware of the Jahalat and deceit of Shiawebsite which is blindly relied by ignorant Shias.

Moreover since the Shias have raised the issue of accepting reports from Kharijis who were reliable, then we can’t let it go without bringing into limelight a classical example of double standards of Shias. Where they not only accept reports from Khariji but from that khariji who was not even deemed trustworthy(thiqa) by shia scholars, but was considered as weak and liar by them. Yet on the other hand they shamlessly accuse Ahlesunnah for accepting reports from trustworthy(thiqa) Kharijis.

Here we are talking about famous Khutba from most sacred Shia book Najhul Balagha, which called Khutba ash-shiqshiqiyah. This Khutba(sermon) was narrated by a narrator who was not only a Khariji(acc to shias) , but he was even deemed weak by Shia hadeeth scholars. Yet you will find the Shias dying to authenticate the Khutba ash-shiqshiqiyah.

So we are going to show our readers the weakness of shia religion and absurdness of their norms. The famous khutba ash-shiqshiqiyah, The most famous isnaad of it runs via Abban ibn Uthman and ends with Ikrima – ibn Abbas.

View of Shia scholars on Narrator IKRIMA.

In famous book Peshawar Nights, which is so beloved by shias, in its chapter “Association of Shiaizm with Imam Jafar as-Sadiq” Ikrima is mentioned in this form: {On the other hand, they have quoted hadith from people Like Abu Huraira, whose character is known to you all, and from the great liar and forger, Akrama, the Kharijite.}

Shia writer Baqir Sharif al-Qurashi in his book “Hayatu Imam al-Husayn” (1/61, translated by Sayyid Athar Husain S.H. Rizvi) said:

إنه عرف بالكذب ، وعدم الحريجة منه ، وقد إشتهر بهذه
He was famous for lying and he had no qualms about lying and he is well-known for this.

ومع إتهامه بالكذب لا يمكن التعويل على أي رواية من رواياته فإن إقتراف الكذب من أظهر الأسباب التي توجب القدح في الراوي.
Due to his being convicted of lying, none of the reports narrated by him is reliable because lying is an important factor that makes the narrator unreliable.

ومع هذه الطعون التي إحتفت به كيف يمكن الإعتماد على روايته والوثوق بها
In presence of such testimonies against him how could one rely on the narrations of Ikrama?

Ali al-Milani in his “Tasheed al-Murajiat” 1/203 said:

فإن عكرمة البربري من أشهر الزنادقة الذين وضعوا الأحاديث للطعن في الإسلام
Ikrima al-Barbare from most famous zanadiqah which fabricated ahadeth mocking to islam

كذب على سيده إبن عباس
(He) lied upon his master ibn Abbas

Ibn Dawud al-Hilli in Rijal said Ikrima was Da’eef(weak). [Rijal ibn Dawud #323, pg 258].

Allama Hilli in Khulasah said about Ikrima: “Not from on our way neither from our companions”. See Khulasah 13, p 383

Sheikh Hasan Zaynutdin Sahib al-Mualim said: “Reports came that he wasn’t on the way”. See Tahrir at-Tawusi 314, p 436.

In famous Peshawar Nights, which is so beloved by shias, in chapter “Doubts and Complications regarding the verse of Guardianship and their clarifications”, Ikrima described as: Neither you nor I – none of the community – including the great companions of the Prophet, have any right to interfere with the real interpretation of the verses. Qur’anic verses are not revealed according to our wishes. If some people interpret their meaning based on mere opinion or point out the occasion on which they were revealed, they are certainly irreligious. For example, followers of Abu Bakr say that according to the hadith narrated by the notorious forger Akrama, this verse was revealed about Abu Bakr. Can you tell us how this verse lowers the position of Ali?

Shining star of shias, Tijani Samawi Dajal in his “Guided” chapter “Dialogue with scholar” said: I have committed myself to the nine infallible men from the posterity of al-Husayn, Imams of all Muslims and the good friends of Allah. I have changed the Companions who turned back on their heels, like Muawiah, Amr ibn al-As, al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba, Abu Hurayra,Ikrima, Ka’b al-Ahbar and others

In same book chapter “Reason behind the enlightenment” this man said: The virtues of Abu Bakr were also mentioned by Amr ibn al-’As, Abu Hurayrah, Urwa and Ikrima, and all of them hated Ali and fought him either with arms or by plotting against him and attributing virtues to his enemies.

So as a result, Ikrima in shia books was described by shias as: Khariji, Notorious liar, forger, Weak narrator, The one who turn back on his heel, Zindiq and etc. So what do we have in result?

Conclusion: Khutba shiqshiqiya was reported by: Nawusi – (NON imami)Abban from Ikrima(Khariji, liar, zindiq, kaafir, weak) – from ibn Abbas.


Question! What is a purpose of science of ahadeth in shia world, if they would accept hadith OF LIAR, ZINDIQ, KAAFIR, if it was narrated from him by one of their super heroes?! This is indeed most ridiculous thing that has been ever invented by misguided sects for supporting their mazhaab. And this reveals before the readers the double standards and hypocrisy of Shias. Who on one hand accuse Ahlesunnah for accepting reports from trustworthy(reliable) Kharijis, by portraying that this is a sign that they don’t love Ali(ra) and on the other hand with open arms they accept reports of Khariji who was not even considered trustworthy by their own scholars, And this is a sign of love for Ali(ra) for them. What a joke!

Argument 6:

Shia website[RTS] stated:

Consider the well known narration in which Imam Alee (a.s) was accused of drinking alcohol and thereafter leading prayer in an intoxicated state. Such a narration was considered to be reliable according to classical scholars such as Suyuti and even modern day scholars such as Albani. If we refer back to the original narration, we find a sub-narrator known as ‘Aboo Abdurrahman Sulami’ also known as Abdullah ibn Hubayb ibn Rabea. According to ‘Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib’ by ibn Hajar Asqalani. Vol.5, Pg. # 184, it is stated he was an Uthmani. We shall deal with the Uthmani faction later on in the article, but it is suffice to say that they were amongst those who cursed and opposed Imam Alee (a.s). Should such reports seriously be deemed reliable?


Yes, it should be deemed reliable for multiple reasons.

This is the narration that RTS is referring to. It seems as though RTS preferred to not provide the quote since it is clearly against his favour:
From Mustadrak Al-Hakim:

عن أبي عبد الرحمن السلمي ، عن علي ، رضي الله عنه قال : « دعانا رجل من الأنصار قبل أن تحرم الخمر فتقدم عبد الرحمن بن عوف وصلى بهم المغرب فقرأ : قل يا أيها الكافرون فالتبس عليه فيها » فنزلت : ( لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى

Rough translation: “From Abu Abdulrahman Al-Sulami from Ali bin Abi Talib: A man from the Ansar, before the prohibition of alcohol invited us, and we prayed behind Abdulrahman bin Awf the Maghrib prayer, so he prayed: O’ say ye disbelievers… and made mistakes. Then the verse of: Don’t approach prayers while being drunk, was revealed.”

First of all, there is nothing in the narration that implies ill-will towards Ali (ra), since the narrator clearly says that this was before the prohibition of alcohol, so Ali (ra) is not harmed by this narration.

Secondly, if we assume that this is a condemnation against Ali (ra) then we have to assume that it is a greater condemnation towards Abdulrahman bin Awf (ra), and Abdulrahman, as anyone that is familiar with Islamic history is aware, was responsible for the caliphate of Uthman (ra) himself, so he is more of an Uthmani than Abu Abdulrahman Al-Sulami, who RTS is condemning.

Thirdly, the very Qur’anic recitation of Ali (ra) that everyone reads today is the recitation of Abu Abdulrahman Al-Sulami, so if RTS does not want to accept his narration, then perhaps RTS should just look for an alternative Qur’an other than the one the Muslims read today.

Fourthly, If drinking wine when it wasn’t prohibited is unacceptable on part of Ali(ra), then how could these shameless Shias accuse Prophet Muhammad(saw) for performing Mutah(May Allah forbid) ?

وقال الصادق عليه السلام: (إني لاكره للرجل أن يموت وقد بقيت عليه خلة من خلال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله وسلم لم يأتها، فقلت له: فهل تمتع رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله وسلمقال: نعم وقرأ هذه الآية (وإذ أسر النبي إلى بعض أزواجه حديثا إلى قوله تعالى: ثيبات وأبكارا

And Imam al Sadiq(as) said “I have dislike for the man who is to die in a state that upon him may be a sunnah from the Prophet’s sunnahs he didn’t fulfil.” so(narrator) said to Imam(as) “So did Prophet also do mutah?” (Imam(as)) said “Yes” then he(as) recited these verses of Qur’an “When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives ” till ” widows and virgins.”(Shia book: Man la yah dhuruhul faqih).

In the Preface of Man la yahdhuruhul faqih  the author  Shaikh Sadooq states:

وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الأسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه وإن كثرت فوائده ، ولم أقصد فيه قصدالمصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه ، بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي

And compiled for him this book with truncated chain of narrations so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are many. I did not intend intention of the [other] compilers in presenting all of what they have narrated; instead I intended to present that by which I issue fatwa and judge to be sahih (authentic), and I believe in it that it is proof [hujjat] between me and my Rabb (Lord).
Comment: So if Sunnis the believe of Sunnis that Ali(ra) consumed wine when it WAS’T prohibited makes them Nasibi, then the believe of Shias that Prophet(Saw) committed Mutah(Mazallah) makes them Shian e dajjal.

Moreover, wailing over dead(not weeping or crying which is allowed) is a punishable act and a Sin,  as it was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:“Wailing over the dead is one of the affairs of the Days of Ignorance and if the woman who wails does not repent before she dies, she will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection wearing a shirt of pitch (tar), over which she will wear a shirt of flaming fire.”(Sunan ibn majah Vol. 1, Book 6, Hadith 1582: Grading: Hasan) (Also by narrated Abu Malik Ash’ari refer Sunan ibn majah Book 6, Hadith 1648)

Similarly we read in Shia book Hayat-ul-Quloob vol.2 page-994 Ch:62:  Ibn Babawiya narrated with a reliable(motabar) chain to Imam Jafar(as) that Messenger of Allah(saw) said: There are four matters in my nation that are from the matters of Jahiliyyah(ignorance) which the people will not leave:  Being proud of their lineage, slandering one’s lineage, believing that, rainfall is due to this or that celestial positioning and wailing over the dead, and the one who wails if dies without repenting, then they will be made to wear shirt of pitch(tar).

And on the other hand Shias claim that the noble women from Ahlelbayt wailed on the death of Hussain(ra). So what should be ruling upon them?

Argument 7:

Shia website[RTS] States;

Now, we shall examine some of the narrators that are found in the books of Hadeeth within the so-called ‘Ahl ul Sunnah.’A point to note is that a Shi’ee will immediately criticize and reject narrations on the authority of such cursed individuals due to their belittlement of the Ahlulbayt (a.s). On the other hand, the ‘Ahl ul Sunnah’ deem them to be reliable. One wonders how the so-called Sunni’s can maintain a consistent stance of love for the Ahlulbayt (a.s) and their enemies, given such a disposition.


The list provided by RTS, even though it may be accurate, does not demonstrate the weight of the narrations of Nawasib upon Sunni Hadiths. In order to give readers a clearer picture, I’ve decided to include the number of narrations that each of these narrators have in the Saheehain (Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim) besides their name, as well as what they narrated.

1- Ibn Abi Dawood – None. 
2- Khaalid ibn Salama ibn Al-Aas – One narration in the chapter of Wudu’u (Saheeh Muslim), that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to mention the name of Allah in all occasions.
3- Ibraheem ibn Ya`qoob – None.
4- Maymoon ibn Mehran Al-Jezri – One narration in the chapter of Hunting (Saheeh Muslim), that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) prohibited eating animals with fangs and birds that have talons.
5- Abdullah ibn Shaqiq Al-Aqeeli – He has multiple narrations in Saheeh Muslim, around eleven. The first is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) never saw Allah. The second is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) ordered the washing of the hands after waking up from sleep. The third is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to seek refuge through Allah from the grave, hellfire, and the fitna of Al-Dajjal. The fourth is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to combine some prayers. The fifth is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to pray the duha prayer whenever possible. The sixth is about the amount of nawafil prayers of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam). The seventh describes how he used to pray when he was sick. The eighth is that he (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to push people to pray a single raka’a before morning prayers. The ninth describes how much he (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to fast. The tenth narration shows the validity of the Muta’ah of Hajj (Which is against the view of `Uthman). The eleventh is the narration of Musa and the rock (which is also narrated by Hammam bin Al-Munabih). The twelfth is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) was sent amongst the best generation (the same chapter in Saheeh Muslim includes multiple narrations that support this). The thirteenth describes the soul of the Mu’min and how the angels lift it into the sky and the difference between it and the soul of the kaffir.
6- Ziyaad ibn Alaqah – He has multiple narrations in both Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim. The first (in Al-Bukhari and Muslim) is the narration from Jabir that he was ordered by the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) to advise other Muslims. The second (in Al-Bukhari and Muslim), is the narration about the sun eclipse when Ibrahim the son of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) died. The third, is that the Prophet’s (salalahu alaihi wa salam) feet used to increase in size due to excessive prayer. The fourth (from Saheeh Muslim) is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to pray while reciting Surat Qaaf. The fifth (from Saheeh Muslim), is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to kiss his wives in Ramadhan, while fasting, implying that it doesn’t break the fast. The sixth (from Saheeh Muslim), is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) prohibited breaking apart the ummah and causing division, and even suggested killing those who cause division (the narration is supported by another hadith in Saheeh Muslim).
7- Muhammad ibn Haaroon – None.
8- Abd Allaah ibn Saalim – One narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari in which the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) spoke negatively about a house that contained farming tools.
Ahmad ibn `Abdah ibn Moosaa Al-Dabee – Muslim narrates from his shaikh multiple time in his Saheeh. All of which are supported by other shaikhs. The only exception is one narration in which he (salalahu alaihi wa salam) says that in the end of times, Allah will send a wind that takes the souls of the mu’mins.
9- Al-Haytham ibn Al-Aswad – None.
10- Hussain ibn Numayr Al-Wasti – He has only one narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari in which the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) describes that seventy thousand people will enter heaven from his ummah without judgement.
11- Limaazah ibn Zabar Al-Azdi – None.
12- Na`eem bin Abee Hind – He has a narration in Al-Bukhari and a few in Muslim. The narration in Al-Bukhari and Muslim is about being easy going with loans. The second (in Muslim) is about how Allah saved the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) from Abu Jahl. The third is a narration from Huthaifa and Ibn Masu’d about the dangers of Al-Dajjal.
13- Amr bin Al-Huarith – His first narration (in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim) is in praise of a herb.  The second narration, he says that he hears the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) reading Surat Al-Takweer in Fajr prayer. The third is that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) used to like to hear others read the Qur’an, and that he cried when he heard Ibn Mas’ud recite a verse from Al-Baqara. The fourth is that he saw the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) wearing a black turban.
14- Umaar bin Sa’ad – None.
15- Ubayd-Allah ibn Ziyad – None.
16- Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan Ibn Rabiah – None.
17- Shureh ibn Al-Harith ibn Qays – None.
18- Thawr bin Yazeed bin Ziyaad Al-Kalaa’ee – He has two narrations in Saheeh Al-Bukhari. The first is a narration in which the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) is praising those that will have conquests across the sea (and this has been narrated through multiple authentic chains in the Saheehain). The second narration is a dua’a of praise to Allah after meals.
19- Ishaq ibn Saw’aaid ibn Hubairah Al-Adwi – He has one narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari in praise of Ramadhan and Thu Al-Hijjah (which is supported by other narrators).
20- Azhar bin Abdullah bin Jam’ee – None.
21- Abdullah ibn Zaid bin Amroo – Abu Qilaba has been only described as someone who showed a small amount of Nasb, and most of his narrations in the Saheehain are about prayer, and have nothing to do with Ali or Ahlulbayt.
22- Khaalid ibn Abdullah ibn Yazid – None.
23- Sulaiman ibn Abdul Hameed bin Raf’i – None.
24- Ziyad ibn Jubair Al-Thaqafi – He has three narrations in Al-Bukhari and Muslim. One is about the description of how to slaughter animals. The second is about the prohibition of fasting on Eid.
25- Qais ibn Abi Hazim – There is not sufficient evidence that he was a Nasibi. The passage that RTS quoted implies that he preferred Uthman over Ali, not that he hated Ali.
26- Asad ibn Wada’a – None.
27- Assad ibn Moosa – Al-Bukhari only included disconnected narrations from him in his Saheeh, which isn’t from his condition.
28- Muhammad ibn Ziyaad – The shaikh of Abdullah bin Salim. Only one narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, see above.
29- Assaib ibn Farukh Adbul Abbas – He has three narrations in the Saheehain. The first (from the Saheehain) is a narration in which the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) suggests not fasting every day in a row. The second narration (from the Saheehain) describes the circumstances of Al-Ta’if. The third (from the Saheehain) is one wherein the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) tells a man that caring for one’s parents is a form of jihad.
30- Al-Hajjaj bin Yousif – None.
31- Bilal bin Aboo Huraira – None.
32- Habis ibn Sa’ad – None.
33- Busr ibn Irtat – None. 
34- Mughira ibn Shu’ba – He has several narrations in the Saheehain. They are mainly about advising, cleanliness, the dajjal, and other matters that have nothing to do with Ali or Ahlulbayt.
35- Hariz bin Uthman – He has two narrations in Saheeh Al-Bukhari. The first describes the white hairs of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam), and the second, describes the worst forms of lying.
36- Kathir bin Shahab – None.

As we can see through the list above, half of these narrators aren’t even narrators of the Saheehain, while most of the rest barely have any narrations. More importantly, none of their narrations have anything to do with their innovations, which is why the authors of the Saheehain had no problem documenting their hadiths. This is in line with what RTS said earlier on that one can accept the reports of innovators as long as their narrations have nothing to do with their innovation.

Important note: Even though this view is what RTS seems as the correct one, it should be clear that some major contemporary Shia scholars, like Al-Khoei, accept the narrations of Nawasib if they are deemed as truthful.

Shia scholar al-Saduq said in “Kamal-ul-Deen” pg.76:

ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن التشيع إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال

“We have not heard of anyone who converted to Tashayyu` and then converted to Nasb except Ahmad bin Hilal.”

Shia scholar Al-Khoei says about him in “Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith” 3/149:

أقول: لا ينبغي الاشكال في فساد الرجل من جهة عقيدته، بل لا يبعد استفادة أنه لم يكن يتدين بشئ، ومن ثم كان يظهر الغلو مرة، والنصب أخرى، ومع ذلك لا يهمنا إثبات ذلك، إذ لا أثر لفساد العقيدة، أو العمل، في سقوط الرواية عن الحجية، بعد وثاقة الراوي

Rough translation: “It shouldn’t be problematic that this man has a corrupt ideology, and it isn’t too preposterous to assume that he didn’t have a specific belief, and showed Ghulu once, and at times Nasb, and either way, and we don’t need to prove it, since his corrupted ideology or actions don’t affect his reliability after the declaration of his trustworthiness.”

Argument 8:

Shiawebsite[RTS] Stated:

RTS, in this article starts off by attempting to give evidence that the Khawarij are Kuffar. Then, starts to quote statements by scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah in which they praise of the reliability of Khariji narrators. RTS argues:

Unknown to many the connection with the Khawarij is more closer to home for the so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’. So much so they have in fact have taken their Prophetic teachings from them even though the Prophet (saw) declared them out of the folds of Islam!

The evidence that RTS shares about the Kufur of the Khawarif is the following narration:

Narrated Alee: I relate the traditions of Allah’s Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur’aan) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection!.”

Source: Saheeh Bukhari. Pg. 888, H. # 3211.

RTS also quotes the opinion of Ibn Hajar:
The apostates were the people of Al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) due to the establishment of the authentic report about them that “They will apostasies from the religion as the arrow leaves the bow.”
Source: Talkhis Al-Habir fīiAhadith Raafi’i Al-Kabir. Vol. 4, Pg. # 44.


Firstly, RTS’ translation is more of an interpretation, since Ibn Hajar does not even include the word “apostate” in his statement. The word he uses is Al-Mariqeen المارقين: Those that cut through the religion like an arrow through its target. Al-Murooq, means to cut through something. RTS incorrectly translates the term Ramiyya as “bow” as well. (Al-Nihaya, p. 866, Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, 1427, 4th edition)

Furthermore, the narration of the Messenger (pbuh) in which he orders the killing of the Mariqeen does not suggest that they are Kuffar. The death penalty is also applied to adulterers and those that commit homicide, and yet, they are considered Muslims as well.

Truthfully, the narration of the Messenger (pbuh) is open to interpretation, and since it is, those that follow the school of Ahl Al-Sunnah return to the opinions of the companions regarding their status.

In Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 7/562 we find that Ali was asked about the people of the river (Nahrawan):

حدثنا يحيى بن آدم ثنا معضل بن مهلهل عن الشيباني عن قيس بن مسلم عن طارق بن شهاب قال : كنت عند علي ، فسئل عن أهل النهر أهم مشركون ؟ قال : من الشرك فروا ، قيل : فمنافقون هم ؟ قال : إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا ، قيل له : فما هم ؟ قال : قوم بغوا علينا .

Are they Mushrik? He said: From Shirk they turned away. Are they hypocrites? He replied: The hypocrites rarely mention Allah (in praise). They said: So what are they? He said: A group that wronged us. (Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, 1416, first edition)

The chain is authentic, and معضل بن مهلهل should be مفضل بن مهلهل instead.

In another narration in Sunan Al-Bayhaqi 8/215, we find Shaqeeq bin Salama testifying that Ali did not take female captives from the Kharijites. The special treatment implies that they were not Kuffar in his eyes.

Carrying on, RTS continues by quoting the names of a small group of Khariji narrators and showing evidences that they are reliable in the eyes of Ahl Al-Sunnah, implying that Ahl Al-Sunnah accept the narrations of Kuffar.

However, as we have established above, the Khawarij are not Kuffar in the eyes of Ahl Al-Sunnah, based on the position of Ali. Ahl Al-Sunnah, however, would not accept the narrations of the Khawarij if they believed that their innovation takes them outside the fold of Islam.

Yet, this is contrary to the Shia view. Shia scholar Ayatollah Al-Khoei in Al-Mu’jam, as seen here says about Al-Sajjadah, the cursed Shia narrator:

أقول: الرجل وإن وثقه علي بن إبراهيم، لوقوعه في اسناد تفسيره إلا أنه مع ذلك لا يمكن الاعتماد على رواياته لشهادة النجاشي بأن الأصحاب ضعفوه، وكذلك ضعفه ابن الغضائري.
نعم لو لم يكن في البين تضعيف، لأمكننا الحكم بوثاقته، مع فساد عقيدته، بل مع كفره أيضا.

I (Al-Khoei) say: The man, even with the claim of reliability by Ali bin Ibrahim, for being in a chain of his Tafseer, cannot be relied upon since Al-Najashi testified that the companions have weakened him, as well as Ibn Al-Ghada’iree. Yes, if there wasn’t a clear weakening, we could have accepted him as trustworthy, even with a corrupt ideology, not only that, but even with his Kufr.

As we can see here, the Shias have no qualms with accepting narrations from Kuffar, as long as they are reliable in hadith. Therefore, the arguments brought by RTS are meaningless since this position is adopted by esteemed Shia scholar Al-Khoei.

Argument 9:

Shia website[] Stated:

As for the popular Chaar Yaar (Four friends) myth propagated by the Nawasib of the Indian subcontinent suggesting that the Ahle Sunnah consider Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali hold an esteemed rank in sequence, the truth is that Ali [as] is not included in the superiority list while he is only included in the list those who became Caliphs. As we read the words of Imam Ahmad:

وأخبرنا محمد بن أبي هارون قال ثنا إسحاق أن أبا عبدالله سئل عن الرجل لا يفضل عثمان على علي قال ينبغي أن نفضل عثمان على علي لم يكن بين أصحاب رسول الله اختلاف إن عثمان أفضل من علي رحمهما الله ثم قال نقول أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان ثم نسكت هذا في التفضيل وفي الخلافة أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي وهذا في الخلفاء على هذا الطريق وعلى ذا كان أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
إسناده صحيح
Ishaq reported that Aba Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) was asked about a man who doesn’t prefer Uthman on Ali. He (ibn Hanbal) replied: ‘It is must to prefer Uthman over Ali, there was no disagreement amongst the companions of the prophet (p.b.u.h) about Uthman being better than Ali may Allah mercy be upon them’.
Then he (ibn Hanbal) said: ‘We say Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman then we hold on, this is about preference, but in Caliphs its Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. This is among the Caliphs and that is what the companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) used to do.’ [The isnaad is Sahih.  As Sunnah, Volume 2 page 392 Hadith 559]   [Screen Shot for this Quote]


Firstly, What the Shiawebsite[] claimed, that the view which was mentioned by Indian Sunnis is Myth; is infact misconception of shias, because this view was stated centuries ago by esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah, Shaykh ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) [661 A.H – 728 A.H].

Let us present before you what Ibn taymiyyah said regarding this matter:

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) said: They(ahlesunnah) affirm the frequent traditions which have come down about amirul momineen Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra). In other words they regard Abu Bakr(ra) as the best person after Prophet Muhammad(saw) , then comes umar(ra). They give the third postion to Uthman(ra) and the fourth to Ali(ra), as is proved by the traditions, and as the Sahaba had unanimously agreed at the time of offering Bai’ah(oath of loyalty) to Uthman(ra).

Albeit, some Ahlesunnah have a difference regarding Uthman(ra) and Ali(ra) as to who is superior between the two, but they also are unanimous about Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra). As to who among Uthman(ra) and Ali(ra) is superior, some have given priority to Uthman(ra) and have then kept quiet and have given fourth place to Ali(ra). Some have given priority to Ali(ra) and some have kept silent. But in the case of Ahlus sunnah it is established that Uthman has priority over Ali(ra), although according to the mass of the Ahlesunnah the problem regarding priority to Uthman(ra) over Ali(ra) is not such that oppsition to it may be called misguidance. This will ofcourse, be considered misguidance on the question of caliphate. The Ahlesunnah believe that Abubakr(ra) is the caliph after Prophet(Saw), then Umar(ra), then Uthman(ra), then Ali(ra). Whoever objects against anyone of these regarding this order of caliphate , he will be regarded more misguided than the domestic donkey.[ Sharh Al Aqeedat il Wasitiyah, chapter: The views of Ahlesunnah towards the sahaba, page 198]

Comment: So above is the view of esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah, who clearly stated that Ali(ra) was considered as the fourth best person after Prophet(saw) by Ahlesunnah. Although some others from Ahlesunnah might have a difference of opinion on this issue, but that will not be considered as misguidance.

Secondly,  those from Ahlesunnah who kept quiet after ranking Uthman(ra), they based their opinion on the views of sahabis like Ibn Umar(ra) and Ali(ra). Undoubtedly the noble Sahaabi ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib was one of the wisest and most determined of people. He is well known for his courage and bravery. He was the first youth to enter Islam, then he stayed close to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) before the Hijrah, etc which were reported in authentic traditions in the books of Ahlesunnah. But just as ‘Ali had many virtues and good characteristics, other Sahaabah also had other virtues and good characteristics and there are other evidences too which points to the virtues of other Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). But the fact that some of them were superior to others is something that makes sense and is proven in sharee’ah.

So we should refer to the shar’i evidence in order to find out the status of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “We used to compare the people as to who was better at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, then ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with them).”[ Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3655].

According to another report Ibn Umar said: “At the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) we did not regard anyone as equal with Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan, then we left the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and we did not differentiate between them.”[ Al-Bukhaari, 2679].

Moreover this was not just the view sahaba(ra) but even Ali(ra), whom Shias consider as their first divinely appointed Imam.

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya:  I asked my father (‘Ali bin Abi Talib), “Who are the best people after Allah’s Apostle ?” He said, “Abu Bakr.” I asked, “Who then?” He said, “Then ‘Umar. ” I was afraid he would say “Uthman, so I said, “Then you?” He said, “I am only an ordinary person.[ Sahi Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 57 :: Hadith 20]

Comment: So infact those from Ahlesunnah who held this view are following sahaba(ra) like Ali(ra) and Ibn umar(ra). Thus the accusation of Shias on them is an accusation on Ali(ra).

Thirdly, some companions used to Rank Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) as the best people after Prophet(saw), and used to remain silent for the rest.

It was narrated from Abu Juhayfah that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) ascended the minbar and praised and glorified Allaah and sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then he said: “The best of this ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr. The second is ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), and after that, whoever Allaah wants to be good will be good.”  [Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, 839. And Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’oot said: its isnaad is qawiy.]

It was narrated that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “No one is brought to me who regards me as superior to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but I will punish him with a beating like a fabricator.” Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: It was narrated that he used to speak from the minbar of Kufa and say that the best of this ummah after our Prophet was Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar. This was narrated from him via more than eighty isnaads, and it was narrated by al-Bukhaari and others. Hence the earlier Shi’ah all used to agree that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were superior, as has been mentioned by more than one. Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 1/308

Comment: So now will the Shiawebsite accuse Ahlesunnah that they don’t even adhere to Uthman(ra)? If so then they will be making a mockery of their ownself with such contradictory claims.

If people  analyze this issue rationally then they will definitely admit that this claim of Shiawebsite[] is baseless because if someone believes that honey is sweeter than sugar, So will it mean that he believes that sugar cannot be used as a sweetener? No not at all because even if sugar is not sweeter than honey, yet it has its own characteristics of sweetening and is still considered as a vital ingredient when there is a need of sweetener, so it’s not forsaken by those people who considered honey to be sweeter than sugar. Infact they like sugar and they don’t hesitate in having it.

Similar is the example of the stupidity of Shias who accuse Ahlesunnah for not adhering or respecting Ali(ra) if he was not included in the list of best people after prophet(saw), because Ali(ra) is still considered as high ranking sahabi, as he was included among ashra mubashara(10 people who were given the glad tiding of heaven during their lives) by Ahlesunah. So this in itself is sufficient to prove that Ali(ra) is highly virtues , highly respected , honored, loved and adhered by Ahlesunnah.

Incase if this doesn’t seem to be satisfactory explanation to Shias, then we would like to ask them about a report which is accepted as authentic by Shias since its present in their own book, where Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra) were declared as the chiefs of youth in the Jannah. So since we don’t find the names of remaining Shia Imams here, then does it mean that believing in this report is an insult to remaining Shia Imams? And those who believe in these reports do not adhere or love the remaining Shia Imams? We hope when the Shias ponder over these questions then Inshallah they will realize the stupidity of their claim.

Argument 10:

Shiawebsite[] stated:

Ibn Tamiyah who is known for having a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib [as] proudly claims that none of the Sunni jurists attained teachings from Imam Ali [as].

فليس في الأئمة الأربعة و لا غيرهم من أئمة الفقهاء من يرجع إليه في فقهه أما مالك فان علمه عن أهل المدينة و أهل المدينة لا يكادون يأخذون بقول علي بل اخذوا فقههم عن الفقهاء السبعة عن زيد و عمر و ابن عمر و نحوهم
أما الشافعي فانه تفقه أولا على المكيين أصحاب ابن جريج كسعيد بن سالم القداح و مسلم بن خالد الزنجي و ابن جريج اخذ ذلك عن أصحاب ابن عباس كعطاء و غيره و ابن عباس كان مجتهدا مستقلا و كان إذا أفتى بقول الصحابة أفتى بقول أبي بكر و عمر لا بقول علي وكان ينكر على علي أشياء

None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence, verily if Malik’s knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali’s statements, they take their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.

Shafiee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Makka, the companions of ibn Juraij like Saeed bin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji, ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the companions of ibn Abbas, like Atta and others, verily ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid, when ever he gives fatwa, according to the sahabas he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar, not Ali’s. He disagreed with Ali on few things.
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 pages 529 – 530   [Screen shot for this quote]


It is important to realize when presented with quotes from the book “Minhaaj al-Sunnah” that its author, Shaik ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyah [May Allah shower him with Mercy] was replying to the Shias(esp Shia scholar al hilli)) who made claims usually void of any evidence to try to attract people to their misguidance. Thus the moment we realize, that what the Shias were claiming then it would be a lot easier to understand what Ibn Taymiya [May Allah shower him with Mercy] is saying/answering to them, although what he is saying is usually clear in and of itself.

As we are probably aware the Shias believe that Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] is the door to the city of knowledge and that he is the sole or main source of all Islamic (as well as other) knowledge and teachings. Their claim makes it sound like when any of the companions, the Tabi’een, and all those that followed in their footsteps thought of a Fiqhi(jurisprudence) or any other issue in the Deen that may arise they thought to themselves: “Hmm, what would Ali do?”

So the Shias based this on nothing, and supported it with their claim that their Imams took their knowledge from their fathers until you trace it back to Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], and then back to Allah [Exalted is He], thus claiming that their knowledge return solely to Ali, and is derived from him. When it comes to the knowledge of Ahl Al-Sunnah they(Shias) claim that even that is traced back to Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], and they make it seem that “knowledge of Ahlesunnah” and  “Fiqh of Ahlesunnah” is derived solely from him [May Allah be pleased with him].

People might ask, How so?

Well, they claim that Imam Ahmad(rah)[sunni Imam] took his knowledge from al-Shafii[sunni Imam], and al-Imam al-Shafii took his knowledge from Malik[Sunni Imam], and Imam Malik took his knowledge from Abu Hanifa[Sunni Imam], and Imam Abu Hanifa took his knowledge from Ja’far al-Sadiq[6th Shia Imam], and Imam Ja’far took his knowledge from his fathers until it reaches Ali … Thus making Ali the source they all return to in matters of Fiqh! Shias bring no evidence for what they claim, and when they do it is typically weak or fabricated, and when it is authentic it is misunderstood. So its like Jahl(ignorance) upon Jahl(ignorance) upon Jahl(ignorance).

It is as Allah described in the Quran: {… darkness, one above another, if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light}

Ahl Al-Sunnah [May Allah be pleased with them] say that Allah sent His Messenger[Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam] as his last and final Messenger, the authoritative source matters of the Deen return to. He(saw) taught the Ummah this Deen, and left them upon a clear path which its day is like its night in clarity, no one can deviate from that path except a misguided fool doomed to perish.

The companions[May Allah be pleased with them] took this knowledge straight from the words and the actions of the Messenger of Allah. They acted upon it, breathed it, and lived it. They tried their utmost to follow his(saw) footsteps in what he said and what he did. The Messenger(saw) encouraged them to spread this knowledge they got from him, asking Allah to brighten faces of those who spread what they heard and took from him. Rather he sent himself some of his companions (other than Ali) to teach people this knowledge from the early stages of the Da’wah. He sent Mus’ab -May Allah be pleased with him- early on to teach the people in Medina, Abu Zaar to Ghifaar, al-Tufayl to Daws, and continued to send people as callers to Allah and teachers to different tribes. That continued till the very last years of his Noble life when he sent Moaz(May Allah be pleased with them) to Yemen, setting for him the guidelines which he is to call the people through when it comes to Creed and when it comes to Fiqh.

Now the companions after the death of the Messenger of Allah(Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam) spread in the land. From them are those who spent their lives in Jihad as Khaled Ibn Waleed[May Allah be pleased with him] did, others settled in newly opened lands teaching the people about the Deen, some specilized in teaching the Quran, others in narration of Ahadeeth, others in the Halal and Haram, others in Tafseer. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali [May Allah be pleased with them and all the companions] were occupied with the Khilafa and in arranging the affairs of the Muslims, yet this did not prevent them in teaching the people when needed and judging in matters that may arise.

That is the reason the narrations of Abu Bakr are fewer than other companions whom are lesser than him in knowledge [May Allah be pleased with them all]. Yet with that we say and have said that the most knowledgeable of the companions is Abu Bakr [May Allah be pleased with him]. Some scholars narrate a concensus in this matter as Ibn Taymiyah[Rahimahu Allah] points out. Whenever the companions differed in matters it was usually Abu Bakr that settles it, as what happened in regards to the dispute on the death of the Messenger (where Umar, Uthman, and even Ali where all reported to have been in a state of shock or confusion), or where to bury him, or in regards to fighting those who didn’t pay the Zakah. All these disputes where settled by Abu Bakr [May allah be pleased with him].

With his immense knowledge, it was due to him being busy during his Khilafa, stabilizing the Ummah, and fighting those tribes that turned on their backs, sending the armies for the Futoohat, as well as his early death that made other teach or narrate more than what was reported from him.

Now as the Islamic state expanded, and new people entered the Deen and started to seek knowledge and learn about Islam, they started relying on and learning from the companions that were settled in their lands (these same companions who took this knowledge from the Messenger of Allah himself). Each land, city, and town had scholars from among the companions established who taught the people their Deen, and became the source the knowledge of the people in that city relied more heavily on. If something specific was not in their land they would travel to ask about it to where ever that knowledge might be present.

This includes companions who traveled to other companions to learn from them what they wish to inquire about what they do not have knowledge of. The Imams after that traveled to gather what those who met the companions took from them, of what they took from the Messenger of Allah. The Imams of Fiqh that came after took their knowledge from those who learned from these people, who learned from those who learned from the companions … (note: companions(plural) with a ‘s’).

In all this, the source they all wished to reach is the teachings of the Messenger of Allah [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam], the authoritative source in our Deen.

Now all this is quite basic, so what did that Shia scholar, to whom Ibn Taymiyah replied claim?

Shia scholar Al hilli said:

قال الرافضي و في الفقه الفقهاء يرجعون إليه … أما المالكية فاخذوا علمهم عنه و عن أولاده

Which we can translate as: “When it comes to Fiqh, he (i.e. Ali) is their source” or “the Fuqahaa(scholars of Jurispudence) refer back to him” … “and that the Malikis took their knowledge from him and his children” … and … and … and …[A series of absurd claims, void of any evidence.].

It is not saying that the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah neglect the knowledge of Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], rather Ibn Taymiyah [Rahimahu Allah] even did affirm that Imam Malik narrated from Ali in his Muwatta a few narrations, but the fact remains that what he narrated from the way of the other companions is much more.  So how did this claim come about that Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] is the source of knowledge of the Imams of Fiqh?

Rather we (as Ibn Taymiyah -Rahimahu Allah-) even mentioned that Ja’far(ra)[6th Shia Imam) took knowledge from his father, and EVEN from PEOPLE other than his father.

Muhammad ibn Ali(5th Shia Imam) the father of Ja’far, took knowledge from his father as he took from others.

His father, Ali Ibn al-Husien(4th Shia Imam) took more knowledge from others than he took from his father al-Husien [May Allah be pleased with him]. Ali Ibn Al-Husien [May Allah shower him with Mercy] is known to take knowledge from the mothers of the believers, Ibn Abbas, and others.

So this claim of Shias that all the knowledge of the Imams of Ahlesunnah, which is claimed by the Shiah to be traced back to solely Ali, and is derived from his is void of evidence and is incorrect.

When speaking of the Imams of Fiqh of Ahl al Sunnah, the claim becomes more ridiculous. For Imam Abu Hanifa is known to have taken his knowledge mostly from Hamaad ibn Abi Sulayman (with his chain back to Ibn Mas’oud May Allah be pleased with him). Yet that is not to say that Abu Hanifa did not take from others.

Imam Malik took from the scholars of Medina, and Medina always had big companions settled there as well as the mothers of the believers, and the scholars there took their knowledge from them. When the Fitna happened Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] moved to Kuffa, so the Tabi’een that went or settled in Medina took from the companions that remained there, and the knowledge of the people of Medina relied on the seven Fuqahaa of Medina.

If these are known then the similar claims about Al-Shafii and Ahmad [May Allah shower them with Mercy] becomes more absurd. For they traveled and took knowledge from many scholars whose knowledged is traced back to many of the companions. Here is something beneficial in this regards (Chain from Imam Ahmad to Ibn Umar not Ali). Also not through al-Shafii further destroying this claim that Imam Ahmad’s knowledge is taken solely from al-Shafii (Rahimahum Allah).

Thus came the reply of Ibn Taymiya -Rahimahu Allah- pointing out the absurdity of what that Shia scholar(al hilli) claimed, its voidness of any evidence, and how that Shia scholar is unaware of how this knowledge and how the teachings of this Deen spread.

Argument 11:

Shia scholar [Muhammad Al-sanad] stated:

Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa (trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn.


This Shia has left out an important opinion, which is that of Yahya bin Ma’een, arguably the greatest of all the rijalis, in which he says: How can the killer of Al-Hussain be thiqa? (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb) Why didn’t this Shia quote the opinion of Yahya bin Ma’een? Perhaps it is because it will destroy his very argument that the Sunni system revolves around Nasb.

Ibn Hajar said that he is Saduq, but he is hated for his involvement in the death of Al-Hussain.

Al-Thahabi said that he was criticized by Ibn Ma’een for the same reason.

It doesn’t really matter though, because Umar bin Sa’ad only has like one hadith in the six books anyways of Ahlesunnah. The same narration includes other paths that don’t include Umar bin Sa’ad. So, even if we went with Al-Ijali’s view of tawtheeq, it isn’t like we are making a fabricated hadith into an authentic one, or vice versa.

Anyways the simplest way to understand this issue is by taking the examples of the Khawarij. Their actions were terrible, and they were perhaps the worst of the creation. However, out of fairness, they barely lied. This was because they saw lying as a terrible sin. Similarly, Marwan bin Al-Hakam, according to a decent narration is cursed as well. However, Ibn Al-Zubair stated that the man is not a liar.

Omar bin Sa’ad is a very similar example. His actions are terrible. However, when we compare his narrations to others, we realize that he didn’t narrate anything that wasn’t already authentic. So, even though he lacks in the ‘adala category, as stated by Yahya ibn Ma’een, his narrations are still fine according to Al-Ijali. In simple words, he is a bad person, but he is trustworthy in narration because he was never known to have lied. That does not mean that Sunnis like him.

Argument 12:

Shia scholar [Muhammad Al-sanad] Stated:

Imrān b. Hattān : leader of the Khawārij. He wrote well-known poetry regarding Ibn Muljam al-Murādī praising him. al-`Ijlī authenticated him. al-Bukhārī included him amongst the narrators of his Sahīh and selected his narrations.


Sunni Rijal scholars Al-Daraqutni and Al-Uqaili both criticized him and rejected his narrations. This is clear that there is no conspiracy among the scholars of hadith against Ahlulbayt and the Shias.

The views that Shia scholar Al-Khoei holds in regards to narrators with innovations is similar to the view that most Sunni scholars hold. It has no affect as long as the narrator is considered truthful, so it doesn’t matter if they hate him for his beliefs and actions. The only time it is an issue is if the innovation is kufur literally. At that point, there is a consensus that this person is to be weakened. Anyhow, the existence of a difference of opinion is just our point. Shia scholar Al-Sanad is trying to make it seem as all Sunni scholars are simplifying matters by arguing that hating Ahlulbayt leads to tawtheeq(trustwortiness). However, we can clearly see that this is incorrect.

Argument 13:

Shia scholar [Al- Sanad] States:

4 – Harīz b. `Uthmān : The one would who would pray in the masjid and would not leave until he had cursed (yal`an) `Alī seventy times every single day. al-Bukhārī, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmizhī, and others presented his narrations as proof [as a matter of dalīl]. In al-Riyād al-Nadra : Thiqa, except he hates `Alī, Allah hates him.


Abu Hatim Al-Razi has said that there is nothing authentic about him cursing Ali. Yazeed bin Harun, his student, said that he never heard him say that he doesn’t love Ali. Ali bin Ayyash said that Hareez denied cursing Ali. It is very possible that each of these three scholars held the same view, which is that Hareez never committed this sin. Al-Bukhari though, in Al-Tareekh Al-Kabeer quotes Abu Al-Yamaan who implied that this is Hareez’s old view, and that he left it.

Argument 14:

Shia website[RTS] Stated:

Ibn Taymiyyah Regarding The Ahlulbayt (a.s)

And likewise, most of the Imams of the people of Hadeeth like Malik, and Shi’ba, and Al-Thawri, and Ahmad bin Hanbal whoever knows their case knows a certain knowledge that they absolutely do not believe that any lie has occurred in the narration of the Prophet (saw) and they know that they (i.e. the narrators) do not commit mistakes except for one or two pronounciations. And from among them there are some who knows that he would commit mistakes in the Prophetic narration, for Ahmad bin Hanbal absolutely knew that he would commit mistakes in it, but neither Al-Thawri or Al-Zuhri did, and so did a lot of people other than them. And those who know that they would commit mistakes like Himad bin Salama and Ja’far bin Mohammad (Imam Saddiq) would know that their mistake would be something that would pass on and would be in occasions they would know.

Source: Jawab Al-I’tiraadhat Al-Masriya ‘Alal-Futya Al-Hamawiya. Pg. # 42.

“Verily Al-Zuhri is more knowledgeable about the Prophetic hadeeths, statements and actions than Aboo Ja’far Muhammad bin Alee and the scholars agreed on that, and (al-Zuhri) was a contemporary for the Prophet (saw).

Note(from Youpuncturedtheark): Al-Zuhri was not a contemporary of the Prophet (pbuh). However, this is a misunderstanding by RTS. The Arabic text says that he was a contemporary to him, meaning Al-Zuhri was a contemporary to Al-Baqir.

Carrying on, RTS quotes:

However regarding Musa bin Ja’far, Alee bin Musa and Muhammad bin Alee, no one among those who possess knowledge doubt that Malik bin Anas, Hamaad bin Zaid, Hamaad bin Salama, Al-Laith bin Saad, Al-Awzaei, Yahya bin Saeed, W’akei bin Al-Jarah, Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak, Al-Shaf’i, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahwei and others were more knowledgeable about the Prophetic hadeeth than them.”
Source: Minhaj Al-Sunnah. Vol. 2, Pg. # 460 – 461 – 462.

“Alee bin Al-Hussain, his son Aboo Ja’far and his son Ja’far bin Muhammad taught people what Allah (swt) taught them in the same manner that (Allah) taught the other scholars during their lives. Verily there were people during their lifetimes that were more knowledgeable and more useful for the nation than them.”

Source: Minhaj Al-Sunnah. Vol. 4, Pg. # 387.


The response to these is simple. There is a consensus among Sunni scholars that what Ibn Taymiyyah has said above is true, and that these scholars from Ahlulbayt were inferior to some of the scholars of their time. However, such a thing does not mean that we do not take knowledge from them. Similarly, no Sunni will disagree that Abu Bakr was superior to Omar, however, we take knowledge from both. There is no reason why Sunnis cannot see certain scholars as superior to Ja’far Al-Sadiq while still choose to take knowledge from him.
RTS went on to quote various Sunni scholars casting doubt upon the reliability of Al-Redha, the eighth Shia Imam, and the Imams that came after him, then accuses Sunnis of not following Ahlulbayt. Again, we say that the Sunnis are the followers of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ali bin Abdullah bin Al-Abbas, Mohammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Al-Abbas, Mohamad bin Al-Hanafiya, Zaid bin Al-Hasan, Ali bin Al-Hussain, Mohammad bin Ali, Ja’far bin Mohamad, and the list goes on and on. If RTS or any other Shias want to assert their definition on the term Ahlulbayt, then they are free to do so, given that they can provide proper evidence that it is a term that is exclusive to twelve people.

Argument 15:

One of the harshest opponents of the Shias was Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah), who was one of the greatest scholars of Ahlesunnah and because of this some of his opponents have slandered him by claiming that he was a Nasibi (i.e. hater of Ahlel Bayt). Shiawesbsite[] refers to him as “Imam of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya”. And yet, Ibn Taymiyyah was a lover of Ahlel Bayt; not only did he love the Ahlel Bayt, but he publically declared the necessity of loving the Ahlel Bayt as a part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. So here we would like to refute the commonly used arguments by Shias, which they use inorder to accuse Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) for being a Nasibi.

Before we begin, we would like to make of readers aware regarding the accusations of Shias, that most of the time the Shias misquote Ibn taymiyyah’s statements and misinterpret them. Here is what another esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah have said regarding these accusations against Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

With regard to accusation of Nasibism on Imam Ibn Taymiyah, Shah Waliyullah said:

and it was said that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) showed bad manner while talking about Sayyiduna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. And I read his statements, so I found some of his statements were actually said in refutation of shia in their insult of the three caliphs for the things which they (the shia) thought to be bad. So this Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah) stands for mentioning things like that which existed in Ali (RA). As though he is saying, these things are not actually shortcomings as you have assumed it to be. Because these same things are proven from Sayyidna Ali, and he, may Allah be pleased with him, is well accepted by both shia and sunnis. So the answer you give in defense of Ali (ra) is our answer with regards to the three caliphs. And this was from his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) great knowledge and powerful ability of debate and his acceptance of the virtues of Sayyidna Ali.” [Taken from Shaykh Muhammad Basheer Siyalkoti’s biography of Shah Waliyullah (pg. 54-59) referring it to “Maktubat Shah Waliyullah” (pg. 18-23)].

Refutation of the accusations of Shiawebsite[] against Imam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah)

Accusation #1

While comparing Abu Bakar with Ali bin Abi Talib [as], Ibn Taimiyah states in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 331:

وان ولايته الأمة خير من ولاية علي وان منفعته للمسلمين في دينهم ودنياهم اعظم من منفعة علي
“His reign is better than Ali’s reign and his benefit to Muslims in their religion and life is greater than Ali’s”


We don’t know how this is an insult towards Ali [ra]. Ibn Taymiyyah said that Abu Bakr’s reign was better than Ali, not that Ali’s reign was bad. If a sunni says that Abu Bakr was higher in status than Ali, it doesn’t mean Ali’s status was low. Similarly, just before the above qoute Imam Ibn Taymiyya states:
وانه كان اكمل عقلا ودينا وسياسة من الثلاثة
“and he (Abu Bakr) was better in intelligence, religion & politics than the three (Umar, Uthman & Ali).”

Does this mean he was insulting the three caliphs??

Truthseekers can analyze that how pathetic and silly arguments shias create inorder to insult and accuse the reviver of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(rah).

Accusation #2

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 230:

وعلي يقاتل ليطاع ويتصرف في النفوس والأموال فكيف يجعل هذا قتالا على الدين
“Ali fought to secure obedience and rule the people and money, so how can that be deemed as fighting for sake of religion?”


This is a Half quote by Shiawebsite[] inorder to fool the ignorant Shias, because they know very well that any lie or false accusation against Ibn Taymiyyah can easily be pushed among the ignorant Shias.

Here is what Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) said:
وعلي يقاتل ليطاع ويتصرف في النفوس والأموال فكيف يجعل هذا قتالا على الدين وأبو بكر يقاتل من ارتد عن الإسلام ومن ترك ما فرض الله ليطيع الله ورسوله فقط ولا يكون هذا قتالا على الدين
“Ali fought to save leadership and to took control over people and property, so how come this is considered the fight for the cause of religion and Abu Bakr fighting apostates and those who stopped giving what was compulsory on them is not the fighting in the cause of religion.”

Explanation: Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument was, if Abu Bakr’s Jihad was not for the sake of religion than Ali’s Jihad was also not for better cause than Abu Bakr. To understand the answer of Ibn taymiyyah we should see the context when he said these words. And when we check that then we will find thatIbn Taymiyyah was actually answering the argument of Shia scholar Al-Hilee, who said that Abu Bakr fought against Banu Hanifa by falsely labelling them as apostates.

Ibn Taymiyya did not say that Ali’s Jihad was not for the sake of religion. He said in his Fatawa…

قال رحمه الله عند الكلام على حديث ( ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية ، يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار ) . حديث صحيح متفق عليه و اللفظ للبخاري .
قال : و هذا أيضاً يدل على صحة إمامة علي و وجوب طاعته

مجموع الفتاوى (4/437

The hadeeth (Oh Ammar will kill him the transgressing group, he calls them to heaven and they call him to hell) is a Sahih hadeeth and agreed upon and this text is Bukharis’s. Ibn Taymiyyah said: and this is proof of the correctness of the leadership of Ali and obeying him.

Accusation #3

We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 205:

وأما إسلام علي فهل يكون مخرجا له من الكفر على قولين
There are two opinions as to whether Ali’s conversion to Islam released him from kufr or not”


Again even this statement should be analyzed in the context in which it was said, because Ibn Taymiyyah was answering Al-Hilee’s argument that first three caliph were idol-worshippers before their conversion and Ali was Muwahhid from his childhood. Ibn Taymiyyah just applied two fiqh opinions on Ali’s conversion for the sake of answering Shias scholar(al hilli), not necessarily it was his own opinion. The fiqh opinion is related to treating a child born to non-Muslim parents in the world.

Ibn Taymiyyah stated:

Before Allah sent Muhammad(SAWS) there wasn’t any believer amongst Quraysh, neither a man, nor a woman, nor a child, neither the three(Caliphs), nor Ali(ra). When it is said about the adults that they used to worship idols, then the children used to do the same, which includes Ali(ra) and other children. If it is said that the kufr of a child is not like kufr of an adult, then we will respond that, the belief of a child is not like the belief of an adult. If the ruling of Kufr and Emaan(belief) is proven for the three(Caliphs) in adulthood, then the ruling of Kufr and Emaan(belief) is proven for Ali(ra) before adulthood. And when a child is born to Non-Muslim parents then he/she is treated as a Non-Muslim in the world, with the consensus of Muslims. If they accept Islam before attaining adulthood then whether the ruling of Islam apply on them? On this matter there are two opinions of Scholars. However, if an adult accepts Islam then he/she will become a Muslim by the consensus of Muslims. Thus, there is consensus of Muslims upon the Islam of the three(Caliphs) that this Islam released them from Kufr, but there are two opinions as to whether Ali’s(ra) conversion to Islam released him from kufr or not. The Madhab of al-Shafi’i is that, Acceptance of Islam of a child who has attained maturity, doesn’t release him from Kufr.  See, [Minhaj as-sunnah, vol 8, page 285-286] ; [Minhaj al-Sunnah(Urdu), vol 2, page 500-501].

Accusation #4

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 137:

وعلي رضي الله عنه كان قصده أن يتزوج عليها فله في أذاها غرض
“Ali intended to marry so as to hurt her (Fatima) on purpose.”


Again Ibn taymiyyah was answering the Shia scholar(al hilli) and this response can easily be understood by those who have common sense. When Abu Bakr was the reason of Fatima’s [ra] anger, then Abu Bakr did not had any intention to do something for his own sake. All he was doing is to save the money for poor and needy. But when Ali was the reason for Fatima’s anger then Ali had his own requirement or need. He was not marrying for someone else, wal ‘iyadh bilAllah, unlike Abu Bakr who was doing that for the sake of poor and needy and was just following Prophet’s [SAW]’s command.

Now the argument was…. If if if Abu Bakr became Kaffir by hurting Prophet’s daughter (hence hurt Prohet{saw}), then what about the fact that Ali also hurt her, having the fact that Abu Bakr’s intention was to take care of poor and to implement Prophet’s command, on the other hand Ali’s intention was to marry so as to fulfill his own need.

Note that, We are concluding all this in our own words because the discussion in Mihaj As-Sunnah is long. One can just check the book, with the references given by Shiawebsite, to get the whole picture. We’re just representing the scenario of his statements in short.

Accusation #5

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 172:

وقد أنزل الله تعالى في على يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى حتى تعلموا ما تقولون لما صلى فقرا وخلطوا
“Allah had revealed for Ali {O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter,} when he prayed and recited and then got mixed up.”


It was about when the wine was NOT prohibited. This incident took place when consummation of wine was permissible, hence no insult for any companions. It’s just a hadeeth which Ibn Taymiyyah qouted in his book. This hadeeth was also qouted by Tahawi, Tabri, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and loads of other scholars.

We know that offering Salah(prayers) in direction other than Kaba is not lawful, yet we will find that Sahaba(ra) including Ali(ra) offered Salah in direction of Bait ul Muqaddas for a particular period of time. Now will the Shias accuse Ali(ra) and Sahaba(ra) for offering Salah in an incorrect direction? No, not at all, because at that time Bayt ul Muqaddas was made as Qibla of muslims and it was lawful to offer prayers in that direction. So similarly when Ali(ra) or other Sahaba(ra) consumed wine then at that time drinking of wine had not been made unlawful, it was permissible to consume wine at that time.

So Ali(ra) didn’t do anything against Shariah, neither Ibn Taymiyyah claimed so, then how could this silly argument be used to denote that Ibn taymiyyah(ra) was Nasibi?

Accusation #6

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 53:

فإنه لما أمرهم بقيام الليل فاعتل علي رضي الله عنه بالقدر وأنه لو شاء الله لأيقظنا علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن هذا ليس فيه إلا مجرد الجدل الذي ليس بحق فقال وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا.
“When he (the Prophet) ordered them to offer the night prayer, Ali [ra] came up with the prepared excuse that ‘if Allah wants he will wake us up’, the prophet realized that this was merely an argument that was not right, therefore he recited {but man is more than anything contentious}”.


Firstly the Shias have inserted a particular word in the translation inorder to portray Ibn taymiyyah in a negative manner. Here is more correct translation:

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 3 page 53:

فإنه لما أمرهم بقيام الليل فاعتل علي رضي الله عنه بالقدر وأنه لو شاء الله لأيقظنا علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن هذا ليس فيه إلا مجرد الجدل الذي ليس بحق فقال وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلا

” When he (the Prophet) ordered them to offer the night prayer, ‘Ali (ra) used the excuse of Qadar, that if Allah wills He will wake us up ……

Note:We don’t find any word such as “prepared” before the word “excuse” in the text.

Secondly, this was merely an explanation of an authentic narration by Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn taymiyyah didn’t invent anything from his own, and we must keep in mind that Ali(ra) was not infallible, he used to make humanly errors. This is in contradiction to the Shiism not with Islam. That is why the Shias try to make a big fuss out of it.  But as far as Ahlesunnah is concerned then they don’t believe that any of the companion of Prophet(saw) was infallible. On the contrary they have several examples in their authentic books regarding fallible nature of some high ranking Sahaba(ra)[exclusing Ali(ra)]. So this argument by Shias, has not got any solid base.

Accusation #7

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 161:

وعلي قد اختلف فيه هل حفظ القرآن كله أم لا
“Ali, there is disagreement about him as to whether he had memorized the whole Quran or not.”


How is this, a kind of insult? There were many great companions who were not Huffaz(memorizers of Quran). Neither is it compulsory to memorize the whole Quran. Secondly the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah just implies that there isn’t a definite proof to declare that Ali(ra) had memorized the whole Quran. And anyone who is unbiased will surely say this is in no way an insult towards Ali(ra).

Accusation #8

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 6 page 67:

ولم يحصل بقتلهم مصلحة للمسلمين لا في دينهم ولا في دنياهم بل نقص الخير عما كان وزاد الشر
“Their fighting served no benefit for the Muslims in their religion nor in their life, on the contrary the good had been decreased and the evil had been increased.”


Again this is a half quote by shiawebsite. Ibn Taymiyya was replying to the Shia scholar’s  argument that Umar used his own Ra’y (opinion) in matter of Talaq(divorce) etc. To this Ibn Taimiya replied that there is nothing bad in using Ra’iy and most of the Sahaba also used their own logic and view, including Ali [ra].

Ibn Taymiyah was trying to refute Shia scholar by arguing that, If one can excuse some selected people(like Ali, etc) for having opinions which in future caused bloodshed among Muslims and did not give any benefit to muslim, then why can’t Umar be excused for having his opinions on small matters.

Do we need to state that the fightings among companions was of no benefit to this Ummah. Thats why we call it ‘Fitna among Sahaba’. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah was saying.

Ibn Taymiyya’s statement:
ومعلوم أن الرأي إن لم يكن مذموما فلا لوم على من قال به وإن كان مذموما فلا رأى أعظم ذما من رأي أريق به دم ألوف مؤلفة من المسلمين ولم يحصل بقتلهم مصلحة للمسلمين لا في دينهم ولا في دنياهم بل نقص الخير عما كان وزاد الشر على ما كان فإذا كان مثل هذا الرأي لا يعاب به فرأى عمر وغيره في مسائل الفرائض والطلاق أولى أن لا يعاب مع أن عليا شركهم في هذا الرأي وامتاز برأيه في الدماء

Translation: and it is known that if the opinion is not blameworthy then there is no blame on the one who argued it and if it were blame worthy then there is no blame greater than an opinion that lead to spilling of blood of thousands and thousands of Muslims when no good to the benefit of the muslims happened by their killing, not in their religion and not in their lives. Instead the good became less than it was and the bad became more than it was. So, if such an opinion does not make it’s holder blameworthy, then the opinion of Umar and others in the issues of Faraid and divorce are more worthy not to make him blameworthy. This is in addition that Ali agreed with them in this opinion but was alone in his opinion related to blood.

Accusation 9:

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 20:

قوله في على إنه كان يصلي الف ركعة فإن هذا لا فضيلة فيه
“His (Allamah Heli’s) statement that Ali would pray one thousand raka, surely there is no virtue in it”


This is true, because it’s against Prophet’s[saw] sunnah. However at the same time Ibn Taymiyya said that it’s unproven from Ali. So the whole accusation of Shias is baseless.

Accusation #10

It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi had argued that Ibn Taimiyah loved the Ahl’ul bayt (as). But the reality was comments like the above that we cited that were so outrageous that we read in Lisan al-Mizan, by ibn Hajar, Volume 6, page 320:

وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي أدته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضي الله عنه
“The exaggeration in refuting the Rafidhi text has sometimes taken him to towards belittling Ali [ra]”


This was personal view of Imam Ibn Hajar(rah). A scholar’s opinion is not hujjah against another scholar. Besides we have just seen that Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) never belittled Ali [ra]. In fact that was his own style of refuting the opponents through using opponent’s logic against them. And some times people failed to understand this style of refuting the opponents, which led them to criticize Ibn taymiyyah(rah).

So let us quote before our readers the clarification and explanation for this style of Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) , by another esteemed scholar of Ahlesunnah:

With regard to accusation of Nasibism on Imam Ibn Taymiyah, Shah Waliyullah said:

“and it was said that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) showed bad manner while talking about Sayyiduna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. And I read his statements, so I found some of his statements were actually said in refutation of shia in their insult of the three caliphs for the things which they (the shia) thought to be bad. So this Shaykh (Ibn Taymiyyah) stands for mentioning things like that which existed in Ali (RA). As though he is saying, these things are not actually shortcomings as you have assumed it to be. Because these same things are proven from Sayyidna Ali, and he, may Allah be pleased with him, is well accepted by both shia and sunnis. So the answer you give in defense of Ali (ra) is our answer with regards to the three caliphs. And this was from his (Ibn Taymiyyah’s) great knowledge and powerful ability of debate and his acceptance of the virtues of Sayyidna Ali.” [Taken from Shaykh Muhammad Basheer Siyalkoti’s biography of Shah Waliyullah (pg. 54-59) referring it to “Maktubat Shah Waliyullah” (pg. 18-23)]

And if this doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory response to shias then let us place a mirror before them, which will surely shut their mouths.

In the introduction to “Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih” the Shia scholar al-‘Allamah al-Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al-Faqih writes:

مقدمة كتاب من لايحضره الفقيه – ج 1 – ص 709/ جواز السهو على النبي (ص) وسماه اسهاء من الله تعالى تبع في رايه ذلك شيخه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد وتبعه على رأيه ذلك الشيخ الطبرسي في مجمع البيان كما نقل عنه التنكانبي في قصص العلماء والسيد الجزائري في الانوار النعمانية وفخر الدين الطريحي في مجمع البيان مادة (بدا) والمحقق الفيض الكاشاني في الوافي على مايظهر من كلامه ونقل عن الشيخ البهائي رحمه الله انه قال : ( الحمد لله الذي قطع عمره ولم يوفقه لكتابة مثل ذلك ) ونقل عن الشيخ أحمد الاحسائي انه قال : ( الصدوق في هذه المسألة كذوب ) ولايخلو قولهما من سوء ادب نربأ بامثالهما عن ذلك ونسأل الله العصمة والتوفيق . . . أ.هـ
(9) The permissibility of Sahu (forgetfulness) for the Prophet SAWS: From those who saw this are Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin al-Walid and from those who followed him in his opinion are Sheikh al-Tabrasi in Majma’a al-Bayan as reported from him by Sheikh al-Tinkanbi in Qasas al-‘Ulemaa, also al-Sayyed al-Jazaeri in al-Anwar al-Nu’umaniyyah, also Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi in Majma’a al-Bayan and al-Muhaqqiq al-Faydh al-Kashani in al-Wafi from what is apparent. It is reported by al-Sheikh al-Bahaee (rah) that he said (About al-Saduq): “Praise be to Allah who cut his life and did not allow him to write what he intended.” and Sheikh Ahmad al-Ahissaee said (About al-Saduq): “In this matter al-Saduq is a liar.” both of them have displayed poor Adab by saying this and we did not expect this from people such as them…( introduction of Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih vol.1 pg.70)

From this example we find that a shia scholar called another esteemed Shia scholar “al sadooq” as a liar, So will the shias now consider sheikh Al sadooq as liar, just because another Shia scholar called him so?

Accusation #11

Ibn Taimiyah’s views of Sayyida Fatima Zahra (as)
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 522:

فإن أبا بكر إمام لا يتصرف لنفسه بل للمسلمين ، والمال لم يأخذه لنفسه بل للمسلمين ، وفاطمة تطلب لنفسها
Verily Abu Bakr is an Imam who did not act for himself but for the Muslims and as for the money, he did not take it for himself but for the Muslims whilst Fatima was demanding it for herself.


Again an argument, whih implies that if according to Shias Abu Bakr(ra) has to be cursed for not giving fadak then according to this logic Fatima(ra) should also be, because Abu Bakr(ra) was not giving Fadak so as to save it for poor, and Fatima(ra) was asking for herself. So why Abu Bakr is to be cursed and not Fatima, may Allah be please with both of them. That is called ‘Ilzami Jawab’ in urdu(something similar to counter attack). This isn’t an insult on any of these great personalities(Fatima and Abubakr), but its using the logic of opponents against them.

This is the full statement of Ibn Taymiyyah…
وليس تبرئة الإنسان لفاطمة من الظن والهوى بأولى من تبرئة أبي بكر فإن أبا بكر إمام لا يتصرف لنفسه بل للمسلمين والمال لم يأخذه لنفسه بل للمسلمين وفاطمة تطلب لنفسها

Translation: It is more worthy to declare that Abu Bakr is free from suspicion and desires than to declare this for Fatima, because Abu Bakr is an Imam who acts for the Muslims and not for himself, he did not take the money for himself but gave it to the Muslims while Fatima asked for this money for herself.

Accusation #12

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 132:

أو ليس الله قد ذم المنافقين الذين قال فيهم ومنهم من يلمزك في الصدقات فإن أعطوا منها ورضا وإن لم يعطوا منها إذا هم يسخطون ولو نهم رضوا ما اتاهم الله ورسوله وقالوا حسبنا الله سيوتينا الله من فضله ورسوله إنا إلى الله راغبون فذكر الله قوما رضوا إن اعطوا وغضبوا إن لم يعطوا فذمهم بذلك
Hasn’t Allah (swt) condemned the hypocrites those who said about them {And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content, and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged. If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty to Allah do we turn our hopes} Allah mentioned people that if they are given they will be pleased, but if they are not given they get angry, and Allah condemned them.


Ibn taymiyyah was refuting the shia scholar who made the anger of Fatima [ra] as something praiseworthy. Ibn taymiiyah refutes the argument of shia scholar( al hilli) by saying that how could it be praiseworthy when Allah condemn this in Qu’ran. So this doesn’t mean that Ibn taymiyyah(rah) was calling Fatima [ra] a hypocrite.(Mazallah). How could it be when Ibn taymiyyah himself, after two three line, called Fatima(ra) “the leader of women of paradise”.?

It’s just the sickness in the brains of Shias, which stops them from understanding the statements of taymiyyah.

Accusation #13

Ibn Taimiyah then proceeds to widen his attacks further to encompass Imam Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi (as) and Imam Hassan Askari (as) whom he referred to as ‘Askaris’:

“Verily al-Zuhari is more knowledgeable about the Prophetic hadiths, statements and actions than Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali and the scholars agreed on that, and (al-Zuhari) was a contemporary of the Prophet (s).
However regarding Musa bin Jafar, Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali, no one among those who possess knowledge doubt that Malik bin Anas, Hamaad bin Zaid, Hamaad bin Salama, al-Laith bin Saad, al-Awzaei, Yahya bin Saeed, W’akei bin al-Jarah, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, al-Shafiyee, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahwei and others were more knowledgeable about the Prophetetic hadith than them”Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 2 page 460-462


How could these views of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah be considered as hatred for Ahlebayt? Ofcourse from the glasses of Rafidism this may appear so, but not according to the mainstream muslims because it isn’t impossible that Non-Ahlebayt could be more knowledgeable than some members from Ahlebayt. This isn’t a correct belief that no one could be more knowledgable than Ahlebayt, and infact there are solid proofs which shows us that this is just the myth of Shias.

Secondly, even this view of Ibn taymiyyah could never be counted as signs of hatred for Ahlebayt, because Ibn Taymiyyah(ra), didn’t say that those Imams DIDN’T have any knowledge at all. He just said some other scholars were more knowledgeable than them. Likewise if one says that honey is sweeter than sugar, then does this mean that sugar is not sweet?  Or if any shia says that classical shia scholar sheikh sadooq was more knowledgeable than supreme leader of Iran Khomeini then does it mean that Shia possesses a kind of hatred for Khomeini?  What sort of foolishness is this by the Shias?

Thirdly if indeed Ibn taymiyyah(rah) wanted to insult Ahlebayt or that he possessed hatred for them, then he would have said the same thing for ALL the Imams from Ahlebayt. Not just a few later ones. Let us cite before you that what Ibn taymiyyah said regarding some other Imams:

Ali ibn Abi Taalib, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with them). They are noble Sahaabah and no one doubts their virtue and leadership, but many others shared with them the virtue of being companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and among the Sahaabah there are others who were more virtuous than them, based on saheeh (authentic) evidence from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). (Where as) Ali ibn al-Husayn(4th shia Imam), Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Baaqir(5th), Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq(6th) and Moosa ibn Ja’far.(7th) They are among the trustworthy and reliable scholars. [Minhaaj al-Sunnah (2/243, 244)]

Thus we leave the case to unbiased people with sense and wisdom, to judge how stupid and silly the Shia arguments are, inorder to attack the great scholar of Ahlesunnah.

Accusation #14:

Shia Scholar ‘Ali al-Milani claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah defended Ibn Muljim the Khariji who killed Sayyiduna ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.


Firstly, Shias claim that Ibn Taymiyyah said that Ibn Muljim did what he did thinking he is doing it for the pleasure of Allah. However this is what Ibn Taymiyyah stated it in the following context:

وَلِهَذَا كَانَ الَّذِي قَتَلَ عُمَرَ كَافِرًا يُبْغِضُ دِينَ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَيُبْغِضُ الرَّسُولَ وَأُمَّتَهُ فَقَتَلَهُ بُغْضًا لِلرَّسُولِ وَدِينِهِ وَأُمَّتِهِ. وَالَّذِي قَتَلَ عَلِيًّا كَانَ يُصَلِّي وَيَصُومُ وَيَقْرَأُ الْقُرْآنَ، وَقَتَلَهُ مُعْتَقِدًا أَنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ يُحِبُّ قَتْلَ عَلِيٍّ، وَفَعَلَ ذَلِكَ مَحَبَّةً لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ – فِي زَعْمِهِ – وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي ذَلِكَ ضَالًّا مُبْتَدِعًا

“And that is why the one who killed Umar was a Kafir who would hate the religion of Islam, its Messenger and his Ummar. He killed him because of his hate for the Messenger, his religion and its people. And the one who killed ‘Ali would pray, fast and he would recite Quran, and he killed him thinking that Allah and his Prophet would love the murder of Ali. He did this for his love for Allah and His Messenger – according to his thinking – even though he was misguided and an innovator in that. (Minhaj as-Sunnah 7/153).

It is clear from the context Ibn Taymiyyah was doing a comparison, for Rafidhi Ibn Mutahhar, between the killer of Umar and Ali. So the discussion was not about who of them was good and who was bad, rather it is about who is worse than whom. One need to be smarter to grasp the difference in both.

Ibn Taymiyyah rightly added at the end that even though Ibn Muljim considered his view to be Islam but in fact he was misguided and an innovator in that. This is something everyone agree that Khawarij fought Ali because they considered that Ali had left the religion of the Islam by committing Kufr.

As for Ibn taymiyyah’s description of his prayer then it is something our Prophet has described in the following words:

يَحْقِرُ أَحَدُكُمْ صَلَاتَهُ مَعَ صَلَاتِهِمْ

“You will look down at your prayer when comparing with their prayers…”

In fact the same thing, which is said by Ibn taymiyyah, was said by al-Dhahabi in Meezan and copied by Ibn hajar in Lisan al-Meezan:

وكان عابدا قانتا لله، لكنه ختم بشر، فقتل أمير المؤمنين عليا متقربا إلى الله بدمه بزعمه

“He was an ‘Abid, obedient to Allah’s command but he ended it with Sharr. SO HE KILLED ALI SEEKING CLOSENESS TO ALLAH WITH HIS BLOOD IN HIS VIEWS.” [Lisan (5/141)].

This is exactly what Ibn taymiyyah was saying.

Argument #15:

A Shia  Stated:

I will only quote the words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, and leave the comments to you guys. He states in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pp. 243-244::

ونحن نعلم أن ما يحكى عن فاطمة وغيرها من الصحابة من القوادح كثير؛ منها كذب، وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين. وإذا كان بعضها ذنباً فليس القوم معصومين، بل هم مع كونهم أولياء الله ومن أهل الجنة، لهم ذنوب يغفرها الله لهم

And we know that what is narrated about the evil deeds of Faatimah, and others apart from her from the Sahaabah, , INCLUDING TELLING LIES, are several; and in some of these evil deeds they (Faatimah and the other Sahaabah) were only doing taaweel. Of course, some of these evil deeds were sins. However, they were not infallible. Rather, although they were friends of Allaah and from the people of Jannah, they committed sins that Allaah forgave for them.

Salafees call him “Shaykh al-Islaam” nonetheless. I wonder what they would have said if a Shee’ah had said the same thing about ‘Aaishah and some other Sahaabah??


This is a deceitful translation done by the Shia.

Correct translation:
“And we know what has been narrated regarding Fatimah and other companions from the slanders (ar. Qawadeh), many of them are falsehood [falsely attributed to them], and in some of them they were excused due to ta’weel [i.e. Ijtihad]. And (even) if some of them [i.e. acts] were sins, then these people [Sahaba] were not infallible. Rather they, besides being AwliyaAllah and people of Jannah, had sins which Allah will forgive for them.” ——–

Best translation for the word “Qawadeh” which was translated by shia as “evil deeds ” is “Defamation/Slander”. Which is common knowledge , but since the  Shia would reject whatever we say, then maybe they’ll accept that they are wrong if a renowned translator said so.

Famous translator Khalid Williams, he said:


Alaykum Salam,

Sorry to be quick but I’m a bit pressed for time. Your translation is correct in sha Allah; if it were “including telling lies” it would be الكذب with alif-lam for the jins. Also for وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين, I would say it should be “and for others they [the scholars] provided excuses by means of ta’wil.” Allahu A’lam.


[End quote]

So basically the Shia’s translation could be correct if the sentence were to say:
من القوادح كثير منها الكذب” or “من القوادح الكثير منها الكذب

But since it says this as you can see in the text quoted by shia:
من القوادح كثير منها كذب

Then the correct translation would be:
“And we know that there is much defamation being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these [attributions] are lies, and for others they [the Shia scholars] provided excuses by means of Ta’weel.”

Right after the text quoted by the shia, Shiekh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyya (rah) continues and list down those slanders against Fatimah (ra) and says

وكذلك ما ذكره من حلفها أنها لا تكلمه ولا صاحبه حتى تلقى أباها وتشتكي إليه أمر لا يليق أن يذكر عن فاطمة رضي الله عنها فإن الشكوى إليه أمر لا يليق أن يذكر عن فاطمة رضي الله عنها فإن الشكوى إنما تكون إلى الله تعالى كما قال العبد الصالح إنما أشكو بثى وحزني إلى الله وفي دعاء موسى عليه السلام اللهم لك التكلان وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لابن عباس إذا سألت فاسأل الله وإذا استعنت فاستعن بالله ولم يقل سلني ولا استعن بي
وقد قال تعالى فإذا فرغت فانصب وإلى ربك فارغب

{{ And like what (the slander) which is mentioned, she took oath not to talk to him (Abu Bakr) and his companion (Umar) until she meets her father (prophet saw) and complain to him about the issue, (such) doesn’t suit to mention about Fatimah (ra) [Ibn Taymiyya defending Fatimah (ra)] because the complain must be directed towards Allah like what pious servant (Yaqoob) said : “I only complain of my suffering and my grief to Allah” and in the supplication of Musa (as) “O Allah to you I entrust my affairs” and Prophet (saw) said to Ibn Abbas “If you ask, then ask Allah; and if you seek help, seek help from Allah” and he (saw) did not tell him (Ibn Abbas) to ask me nor did he tell him to seek help from me. And Allah said: “So when you have finished [your duties], then stand up [for worship]. And to your Lord direct [your] longing.” }}

After Ibn Taymiyyah refutes rafidi slander against Sayyedatul Nisa Al-alameen Fatimah (ra) and defends her he ends with this statement.

فقاتل الله الرافضة وانتصف لأهل البيت منهم فإنهم ألصقوا بهم من العيوب والشين مالا يخفى على ذي عين

May Allah fight the rafidah and take revenge for ahlul-bait for they have attached shortcomings and disgrace upon them which is not hidden from the one who have eyes.

So its clear that ibn Taymiyya (rh) was defending al-Zahra (ra) from Rafidi-Nasibi slander.

Lastly, this would clarify, what Ibn Tayymiyah said in Minhaj al-Sunnah:

أما الصحابة فلم يعرف فيهم ولله الحمد من تعمد الكذب على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كما لم يعرف فيهم من كان من أهل البدع المعروفة كبدع الخوارج والرافضة والقدرية والمرجئة فلم يعرف فيهم أحد من هؤلاء الفرق .

[As for the Sahaba -praise be to Allah- none of them were known for having intentionally lied on the Prophet (SAWS), also none of them were known to have been from the popular Ahlul-Bid`ah such as the innovation of the Khawarij, and al-Rafidhah, and al-Murji’ah, so none were known to be from among these teams.]

Secondly, we find that Ibn Taymiyyah(rah), didn’t just made an assumption that Fatima(as) could have committed sins, but THAT INCLUDED EVEN THE SAHABA(AS).. Now no sane person could say that Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) was attacking sahaba(as) to… Because the shias themselves testify that Ibn taymiyyah(rah) was a defender of Sahaba(as).

They wanted to prove that Ibn Tayymiyah (rah) was a Nasibi, instead they proved that he loved Ahlul-Bayt and defended them, and they proved that their sect is that of evil liars who attribute falsehoods to pious people.

Love of Ibn taymiyyah for Ahlebayt:

Lastly to clear before our readers that Ibn taymiyyah(rah) was a true lover of Ahlebayt and all the allegations against him were based on misinterpretations , misquotations and misunderstanding. We would like to present before our readers some of the views of Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) regarding Ahlebayt.

1. Sheikhul-islam Taqiad-deen Abul Abbas Ahmad ibn Abdulhaleem ibn Taymiya said:

وأما من قتل ” الحسين ” أو أعان على قتله أو رضي بذلك فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“As for killers of Hussein, or those who helped to kill him, or those who were glad with his murder, may curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon them”.

He further said:

من أبغضهم فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
“May curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon the one who would hate them (ahlel-bayt)”.[See “Majmua Fatawa” 1/392].

2. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The best men of this Ummah after its Prophet are: Abu Bakr; then Umar; third: Uthman; and fourth: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them all).” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)

3. Ibn Taymiyyah said:

وأما علي رضي الله عنه فلا ريب أنه ممن يحب الله ويحبه الله
“And Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, without any doubt is from people who loved Allah, and who were beloved by Allah”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 218]

4. Ibn taymiyyah  said:

وأما كون عليّ وغيره مولى كل مؤمن ، فهو وصف ثابت لعليّ في حياة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعد مماته، وبعد ممات عليّ، فعلي اليوم مولى كل مؤمن
“And Ali and others were mawla of all believers. That’s a description established for Ali during the life of prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam), and after his death, and after the death of Ali (himself). And Ali today is a mawla(friend) of all believers”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 325]

5. Ibn taymiyyah said:

لا ريب أن موالاة علي واجبة على كل مؤمن، كما يجب على كل مؤمن موالاة أمثاله من المؤمنين
“No doubt that mawlat (friendship) of Ali is obligatory for all believers, as it obligatory on all believers mawlat of believers like him”. [See: Minhaj us sunna 7 / 27]

6. Ibn taymiyyah said:

لا ريب أن علياً رضي الله عنه كان من شجعان الصحابة، وممن نصر الله الإسلام بجهاده، ومن كبار السابقين الأوَّلين من المهاجرين والأنصار، ومن
سادات من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله، وممن قاتل بسيفه عدداً من الكفار

“No doubt that Ali is from the bravest companions, and from those by whose jihad Allah granted victory to islam, and from the greatest who “first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar”.[See: Minhaj us sunna 8 / 76]

7. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The Ahlus Sunnah should love the Prophet’s family, give them support, and honor the Prophet’s will in regards to them, as he said at Ghadir Khumm: ‘I ask you by Allah to take care of my family; I ask you by Allah to take care of my family.’”  (Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah, Chapter 4)

8. Ibn taymiyyah said: “They (Ahlus Sunnah) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allah; they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allah concerning them…but they reject the way of the (Shia) Rafidhis who hate the Sahabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Nasibis who insult Ahlel Bayt in words and deed.” (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo al-Fatawa, 3/154).

9. Ibn Taymiyyah says in Minhaj Al-Sunnah 8/223:

There is no disagreement between Ahlulsunnah in the perfection of Ali, and that he is in a high degree of perfection, but rather the difference is whether he is more perfect than the three, and more deserving of the caliphate than them….(Minhaj Al-Sunnah 8/223)

We do not think that any sane person can possibly argue that Ibn Taymiyyah can hold such a view and still be a Nasibi.

Thus the accusation that Ibn Taymiyyah was Nasibi is one of the most absurd myth, that is always propagated by Shiawebsite amongst ignorant Shias. As we can see, that Ibn Taymiyyah always encouraged in Loving Ahlebayt, and calling it the way of Ahlesunnah. And Ibn taymiyyah himself condemned the creed of Nasibis.


The things the Shias are doing for their missionary call and trick is by calling people to love the Prophet’s(saw) Ahl Albayt(household). It’s like setting a trap for a mouse by using a cheese to lure it in. And then they use this by telling ignorant muslims about the false stories about the Prophet’s(saw) household being oppressed, just to stir people’s emotions to make them cry. Then they slowly make the ignorant muslims have doubts about their beliefs. And lastly what the dajjalis do is that they inject those people with the feelings of revenge, so they could train them to kill and cause bloodshed. So this whole procedure is completely based on the matter of call towards love of Ahl Albayt, thus they want to show themselves as the ONLY ones who call towards love of Ahl Albayt, and that no other group loves Ahl Albayt. Because if they acknolwledge that someother groups too love the Ahl Albayt, then there are high possibilities of people abandoning the call of Shiism and joining other groups. And if this happens then all their plans and dreams will be destroyed in one blow.

That is why they inccur the maximum insecurity and jealousy when they find that Ahlesunnah too calls people towards love of complete Ahl Albayt, in more balanced and correct manner, without any sort of exaggerations involved in that. Thus inorder to stop people from joining the true lovers of Ahl Albayt and to deviate them, they use all such deceptions and propaganda that love of Ahlesunnah for Ahl Albayt is myth, etc, Which we have refuted in our article, because those arguments of dajjalis were based on ignorance, misquotations, misinterpretations and mistranslations. So we want to advice our esteemed readers[be it sunnis or ignorant Shias] that please don’t be deceived by such Shias or Shia websites because all they want is to deceive people and to stop them from loving the COMPLETE Ahl Albayt, in a balanced and correct manner. In other words they don’t want people to join the path of Ahlesunnah wal Jama’ah, the ones who are on the middle course.

4 thoughts on “Part 2: The Imams from Ahlebayt whom Shia consider to be their divinely appointed Imams were on the Creed of Ahlesunnah wal Jama’ah.

  1. Question from Shia: Umar bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas is the killer of Hussien(as) but yet consider as trustworthy by sunni scholars?

    Answer: He was weakened by a giant hadeeth scholar Yahya bin Ma’een. Yahya bin Ma`een said “How can the one who killed al-Hussyan be thiqah?”.

    Ibn Hajar said that he is Saduq, but he is hated for his involvement in the death of Al-Hussain.

    Al-Thahabi said that he was criticized by Ibn Ma’een for the same reason.

    It doesn’t really matter though, I mean, Umar bin Sa’ad only has like one hadith in the six books anyways of Ahlesunnah. The same narration includes other paths that don’t include Umar bin Sa’ad. So, even if we went with Al-Ijali’s view of tawtheeq, it isn’t like we are making a fabricated hadith into an authentic one, or vice versa.

    Anyways the simplest way to understand this issue is by taking the examples of the Khawarij. Their actions were terrible, and they were perhaps the worst of the creation. However, out of fairness, they barely lied. This was because they saw lying as a terrible sin. Similarly, Marwan bin Al-Hakam, according to a decent narration is cursed as well. However, Ibn Al-Zubair stated that the man is not a liar.

    Omar bin Sa’ad is a very similar example. His actions are terrible. However, when we compare his narrations to others, we realize that he didn’t narrate anything that wasn’t already authentic. So, even though he lacks in the ‘adala category, as stated by Yahya ibn Ma’een, his narrations are still fine according to Al-Ijali.

  2. Shia scholar al-Saduq said in “Kamal-ul-Deen” pg.76:

    ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن التشيع إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال

    “We have not heard of anyone who converted to Tashayyu` and then converted to Nasb except Ahmad bin Hilal.”

    Al-Khoei says about him in “Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith” 3/149:

    أقول: لا ينبغي الاشكال في فساد الرجل من جهة عقيدته، بل لا يبعد استفادة أنه لم يكن يتدين بشئ، ومن ثم كان يظهر الغلو مرة، والنصب أخرى، ومع ذلك لا يهمنا إثبات ذلك، إذ لا أثر لفساد العقيدة، أو العمل، في سقوط الرواية عن الحجية، بعد وثاقة الراوي

    Rough translation: “It shouldn’t be problematic that this man has a corrupt ideology, and it isn’t too preposterous to assume that he didn’t have a specific belief, and showed Ghulu once, and at times Nasb, and either way, and we don’t need to prove it, since his corrupted ideology or actions don’t affect his reliability after the declaration of his trustworthiness.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s