Tag Archives: ali-ibn-abu-talib

Pro Alid YouTube channel throws Ibn Abbas under the bus!

“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)

﷽ 

So, an ex-12er, Shi’i shared the following video with us and what an eye-opener!

The YouTube channel, known to be Pro-Alid, featured a “Sunni” ?? Scholar Dr. Suhail Zakkar (possibly Shi’i or diet-Shi’i) who pulled out all the stops to throw Ibn Abbas (ra) under the bus!

Ibn ‘Abbas reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to the privy and I placed water for him for ablution. When he came out he said:

Who placed it here? And in one version of Zuhair they (the Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I said: It is Ibn ‘Abbas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: May Allah grant him a deep understanding of religion.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2477)

The speaker in the video is Dr. Suhail Zakkar.

Dr. Suhail Zakkar – Curriculum Vitae

Dr. Suhail Zakkar (1936–2020) was a highly respected and prolific Syrian historian and academic, widely considered a leading authority on medieval Arab history, particularly the Crusades and early Islamic history.

  • Early Life & Formative Years: Being born under the French Mandate and experiencing its economic hardships firsthand instilled in him a strong sense of Arab nationalism and a desire to understand the forces—historical and colonial—that shaped the modern Arab world. This personal context deeply influenced his academic pursuits.
  • Academic Credentials: After obtaining his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Damascus, he earned a doctorate from the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This gave him Western academic training which he combined with his deep knowledge of Arabic sources.
  • Magnum Opus: His life’s work, the “Comprehensive Encyclopedia in the History of the Crusades” (Al-Mawsuʻah al-shamilah fi tarikh al-hurub al-salibiyah), is a monumental 50-volume reference work. It is not a narrative history but a critical compilation and analysis of primary sources, making it an indispensable resource for scholars.
  • Legacy: He represented a school of serious, source-critical Arab historiography. He passed away in Damascus in March 2020.

Ibn Abbas (ra) and his empathy with the Khawarij?

  1. Complete Withdrawal and Neutrality: Ibn Abbas did not just withdraw from his post; he withdrew entirely from the conflict. He did not return to Ali’s camp in Kufa, nor did he offer further political or military support during the escalating war with the so-called Khawarij. This neutrality in a conflict he had previously argued was a matter of truth versus error that could be interpreted by Dr. Zakkar as a fundamental shift in allegiance.
  2. Interpretation of His Silence: From a historical analysis perspective, Dr. Zakkar could argue that Ibn Abbas’s silence and absence during the latter part of Ali’s caliphate and during the period of the so-called Khawarij’s peak activity is deafening. For a figure of his stature and previous unwavering support, this silence could be read as tacit approval or, at a minimum, a strong empathy for the Khawarij’s grievances against Ali.

In our school we know why this is. For those who are reading up on history, and they know that Ibn Abbas (ra) saw the soundness of the argument of the sahaba of Al Nahrawan.

What the good Dr. left out was the fact that Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to the sahaba of Al Nahrawan to try and when them back after leaving Ali’s camp over the arbitration.

Ali knew that they had been correct from the beginning!

The companion Ibn Abbas (ra) debates the companions at Nahrawan.

Argument #1


“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.” (Qur’an 5:95)

As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.

The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) replied:

“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”


Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)

So, through qiyas (analogy), it is logical to reason that, in the above verse, during the pilgrimage, when someone kills a game animal, they are ordered to compensate for the following judgement by two just men than it stands to reason the shedding of Muslim blood has a better claim to be dealt with diplomatically.

In response to what Ibn Abbas (ra) had presented, the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) argued that there is a significant difference between the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) refereed to and the verse which is used to justify Ali’s war against Mu’awiya.

In the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) referred to, Allah did not mention any ruling, nor did he make any decision between contending parties. Instead, He assigned the task of arbitrating to men

On this point, there is no issue with Ibn Abbas (ra) and his thought process here.

However, in the verse which gave Ali the right to fight the war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) Himself has mentioned step by step the measures that should be taken and decided on. What should be done at each step?

Thus, Allah (swt) lays down the ruling in this case. The verse states:
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)

Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.

As adjudged by two just men among you


Naturally, people would ask, “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday?” If you believe that he is just, then we (including you — Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As who are just!”


So, the unfilled questions put to Ibn Abbas (ra) were.

  • A) Were there two arbitrators or one?
  • B) Were they just or unjust?

To the Shi’i reading this (Zaydi and Imami), we implore you to tell us. Who are the just ones in the camp of Mu’awiya? Can one who takes up arms against Ali be considered just? If you say yes, then let that stand on the record.

To the Sunnis reading this, we implore you to tell us.  The one who rebels against the recognized Imam who has not been proven to go against the Qur’an and Sunnah. Are they just or unjust? 

Ibn Abbas (ra) was quoted by Ahmad Ibn A’tham as saying:
“O, men! Amru bin Al’As was not an arbiter, why then oppose us because of him? He was but an arbiter representing Mu’awiya.”
Source: (Ibn A’tham, Al Futuh Vol. 4, p. 94.)

Is it imaginable that Ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to substantiate his position with a verse which strongly opposed him?


Naturally, our brothers from among the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or the ‘Shi’i’ are either not informed about this side of the story or simply the learned among them withhold information. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.

It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1853)


Argument #2
Let us look at the other verse that is said that Ibn Abbas (ra) brought as proof.


“If you fear a breach between couples, send an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If the couple desire to put things right, Allah will bring about a reconciliation between them.  “Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware” (Qur’an 4:35)

This verse orders us to reconcile between a man and his wife in case of misunderstanding or breach. But the steps that ought to be taken when resolving such domestic disputes have not been mentioned. The arbiters are generally required to do their best, in being fair and just, to reach a peaceful, acceptable resolution for the concerned parties.

When you compare the two mentioned verses you will notice that they are intended for different purposes.


In the verse which gave Ali the right to wage war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on the issue. But He rather ordered the believers to abide by what He had ruled.

On the other hand, what Ibn Abbas (ra) armed himself with, was the verse that Allah (swt) granted deciding on a role to two fair and just arbiters. That is a clear and a huge difference between the two verses. So, we can say with confidence that Ibn Abbas’s analogy of linking this verse with the conflict of war between Ali and Mu’awiya is debatable.


It does not seem suitable for a person of his stature and understanding.  Now, as mentioned above, Ibn Abbas (ra), after hearing all of this, knew very well that the arguments produced by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrawan were airtight!

When Ibn Abbas (ra) was convinced by their arguments, he (Ibn Abbas) sheathed his sword. Meaning he did not assist Ali in his unprovoked attack upon the Muslims at Nahrawan. Remember, as the Dr. said, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali at the battle of the Camel & Siffin.

So we are talking about the same Ibn Abbas (ra) who was with Ali opposite a field with Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr, and Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali opposite a field with Muaviya and Amr ibn al-As.

This same Ibn Abbas (ra) who said after his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrawan the following:

(The People of Nahrawan) have been on the Right Path

Source: (Al-Shammakhi, Al-Siyar Vol. 1 p, 72,)

Another account says concerning Ibn Abbas (ra) and his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrwan, that he (Ibn Abbas) “could not crush their proofs.”

Source: (Abu Qahtaan, Al-Siyar p. 107)

Another narration says he (Ibn Abbas) went back from this exchange with them: “Without being able to do anything.”

Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p 18, Al-Barrad Al-Jawaahir p. 122)

He could not prove anything to them!

Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf Vol. 15, p. 312)

The Nahrawanees established their proofs to him(Ibn Abbas).”

Source: (Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Taarikh Vol. 2 p. 191)

First they (Diet-Shi’i) tried to throw Ikrima (ra) under the bus. So, when they did not turn over any leaves, some of them started to go after Ibn Abbas (ra).

Ibn Abbas (ra) begins to distance himself from Ali

Can’t keep the truth hidden from the Muslims for too long!    

Look at what Ibn Abbas (ra) says here

I swear by Allah, it is better for me that I meet Allah with all that are beneath the Earth, starting with its gold and silver, and all that its surface is full with than meeting Him with my hands having split the blood of this umma (Islamic Nation) so that I may attain a kingship or leadership.” -Ibn Abbas

Ouch!

Source: (Al-Baladhuri, Al Ansab Vol 2, p 398. Ibn Abd Rabbi, Al-‘Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 326. Al Futuh by Ibn A’atham Vol. 4, p.75)

If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.” -Ibn Abbas.

Ouch Again!

Source: (Al-Qalhati, Al-Kashf Vol 2, p 251. IbnAbdiRabih, Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 331.)

It is very clear from the aforementioned that Ibn Abbas (ra) had developed a disapproving attitude towards the war fought against the sahaba of Al Nahrawan. A complete change of heart from the previous conflicts.

It is clear that, in this war with the Nahrawanees, Ibn Abbas (ra) found fault with Ali and condemned him for his unjustifiably wrong act of fighting those fellow sahaba.

After he was sent to debate with them, Ibn Abbas (ra) realized they were upon the truth. He accepted that he (Ibn Abbas) was wrong and the sahaba of Al Nahrawan were right. Certainly there is a lesson to be learnt from this experience that the accurate criteria with which to draw a distinction between right and wrong is not a coin-flip, but rather the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. After all, Ali made his hasty decision in the heat of the moment (giving in to pro-arbitration forces) and possibly did not consider the full ramifications of his decision.

When those sahaba who left Ali’s camp answered Ibn Abbas (ra) and his objections clearly and decisively, there was nowhere to go but the truth.

Having been fully convinced by the position of the Nahrwanees and the evidence that they had for their succession from Ali’s leadership, Ibn Abbas also detached himself from Ali and set out for Mecca.

Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p. 20)

Even though one of the reasons why Ibn Abbas (ra) left Ali and set out to Mecca was from their differences in the bait al-mal (House of Treasury/House of Properties), from which Ibn Abbas (ra) took what he regarded to be his lawful portion of the money, their differences were compounded by the fact that they were on opposing sides of the issue of the Nahrwanees.

Recall the statement:

If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer,” — Ibn Abbas.

In this statement, Ibn Abbas (ra) is basically saying: If I disagree with you on the issue of bait al-mal, then I am strongly opposing you on the issue of the Companions at Nahrawan. This was about the point in time where Ibn Abbas (ra) detached himself from Ali’s leadership.

May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the truth seekers!

Dear readers, you have been provided the information. All you need to do is to plug in the pieces. You were told that Ibn Abbas (ra) went and debated the companions at Nahrawan and that he (Ibn Abbas) had won hands down. Notice how you are never told their reply or their responses?

Brought to you by the same people who have no problem with mocking their own Imams!

You may also wish to read:

https://primaquran.com/2023/02/19/abd-allah-b-al-abbas-and-the-muhakkima-wilferd-madelung

May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

How the Muslim Ummah approach the Shi’a in the wrong way.

“And what is there after the truth but error.” (Qur’an 10:32)

﷽ 

It has been our observation that many in the Muslim Ummah take the wrong approach when dealing with the Shi’a or Pro-Alids in general. They revisit historical disputes and the same ol tired back and forth between those who think that Ali was robbed and those who say he was never intended to be the leader of the Muslims after the death of the Prophet (saw).

However, you see, at Primaquran.com we like to think ahead.

WE TOOK A RIDE ON THE SHI’A BUS AND WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO AS WELL!

That’s right! Pack your backs as we are going on an adventure folk! 

So imagine if you will that you no longer differ with anything ‘The Shi’a’ said in regard to who should have led the Muslims after the Prophet (saw). In this scenario, you just simply agree. Ali was robbed. Ali should have been the one and he was dealt a mighty injustice!

So let us say we agree with all of that. Where does this lead us? Where do the Ummah end up?

But here is the thing that is only the first leg of our journey. Ali is the first city on this tour. He is by no means the last. So, after Ali then who? Hassan or Hussein? Then after them, then who?

So we are currently on the Imam Ali bus, and we made an exchange and now are on the Imam Hassan bus (though later you will see some will not acknowledge this bus at all). 

After the Imam Hassan Bus, we took the Imam Hussein bus.  From here we get on board the Imam Ali ibn Hussein bus. This bus is also known as the Imam Zayn al-Abidin bus.  

Before we can get on to the next bus, we have a major dispute among the planners of our journey.  There is a huge tumult among the followers of the Imam Ali ibn Hussein bus.

ZAYDI Zayd Ibn Ali /Muhammed ibn Ali al-Baqir conflict on which bus to take

We have a huge layover, and it looks like for the rest of our journey the passengers will now be split. We will have to make a choice between taking the Imam Zayd Ibn Ali bus or the Muhammed Ibn Ali al-Baqir bus

So the passengers get on different buses at this point. Those passengers that take the Muhammed ibn Ali Al-Baqir bus then get on board the Ja’far al Sadiq bus and, not long after the travel on this bus, we unfortunately face another major dispute among the planners of the journey. There is another huge tumult among the followers of the Ja’far al Sadiq bus.

ISMAI’LI/JA’FARI Isma’il ibn Ja’far/Musa ibn Ja’far al-Kazim conflict on which bus to take.

We have another huge layover, and it looks like for the rest of our journey the passengers will now again be split. We will have to make a choice between taking the Isma’il ibn Ja’far bus or the Musa ibn Ja’far al-Kazim bus

So the passengers get on different buses at this point. Those passengers who get on the Musa Ibn Ja’far al-Kazim bus continue to take a series of buses until they board the last bus, known as the Muḥammed ibn al-Ḥasan al-Mahdi bus, which concludes the journey…thus far.

Those who get on board the Isma’il ibn Jafar bus continue to take a long series and succession of buses without further ado until they get on board the Abu Tamim Maʿad al-Mustanṣir biʾllah bus and not long after the travel on this, but we unfortunately face another major dispute among the planners of this journey. There is a huge tumult among the followers of the Abu Tamim Ma’ad al-Mustansir bi’llah bus.

NIZARI/MUSTA’LI Abu al-Qasim Aḥmad ibn al-Mustanṣir/Abu Mansur Nizar ibn al-Mustansir conflict on which bus to take. 

Those who get on board the Abu Mansur Nizar ibn al-Mustansir bus take a series of buses until they get on board the current bus, the Rahim Al-Hussain bus.

Those who get on board the Abu al-Qasim Aḥmad ibn al-Mustanṣir bus continue to take a series of buses and a succession of buses without further ado until they get on board the Abuʾl-Qasim al-Ṭayyib ibn al-Amir bus and not very long after the travel on this bus, that we unfortunately face another major dispute among the planners of this journey. There is a huge tumult among the followers of the Abuʾl-Qasim al-Ṭayyib ibn al-Amir bus.

HAFIZI/TAYYIBI Abuʾl-Maymun ʿAbd al-Majid ibn Muḥammed ibn al-Mustanṣir/Abuʾl-Qasim al-Ṭayyib ibn al-Amir conflict on which bus to take. 

For the first time in the Fatimid dynasty, power was not passed from father to son. This had to be justified. Thus, an appeal was made for the supposed appointment of the Blessed Prophet (saw) to Imam Ali. 

Those who take the Abuʾl-Maymun ʿAbd al-Majid ibn Muḥammed ibn al-Mustanṣir bus continue taking the bus until the 15th century, when it takes an abrupt turn off a cliff and the captain of the bus and those on board come to a tragic end. Those that remained on the Abuʾl-Qasim al-Ṭayyib ibn al-Amir bus believed that although al-Tayyib was gone, he and the subsequent Tayyibi imams all remain hidden. Thus, instead of one hidden Imam, we have a whole line of hidden imams. The Tayyibi community was instead led by a sequence of ‘absolute missionaries’, also known as the da’i al-mutlaq.

At this point, there is even more commotion as to which bus is being driven by the da’a that correctly speaks on behalf of the hidden imams.

DAWOODI/SULAYMINI/ Dawood Bin Qutubshah/Sulayman Bin Hassan conflict over which is the correct bus to take.

It is worth taking note that a huge contingent of these Ismai’li Mustaali converted to Sunni Islam. In particular, the Hanafi School. They were known as Sunni Bohra. Among some noteworthy descendants are: Shaykh Mufti Menk, Shaykh Ahmed Deedat, Hafiz Muhammed Patel-known for establishing the Tabligh Jamaat in the U.K., Ghulam Muhammed Vastanvi, the former vice chancellor of Darul Uloom Deoband. Yusuf Ali, the world-renowned translator of the Qur’an into English.

The historical conversion of groups like the Sunni Bohras to Sunni Islam often stemmed from a desire to exit this complex and fractious system of succession and return to what they saw as the simpler, more stable foundations of the Quran and Sunnah as understood by the majority scholarly tradition they immediately had as alternative.

Shi’i Bus Tour Division

REFLECTIONS ON WHERE THE SHI’A BUS LEADS.

So, at the end of the day, many Muslims spend time arguing with Shi’a over the succession of the Blessed Prophet (saw). However, as we suggested, we would rather a person take a peak into the future and see where it leads. As we said, if one were to grant that the Shi’a (as much as Ali should have been the one to lead the Muslims) are right, what does it say about further successions? As we said, the story begins with Ali. It certainly does not end there. So one would have to investigate further claims.

Are the Zaydis correct in their claim? Or are the Imami (Ja’fari/Dawoodi-Taybi-Musta’li-Ismai’li/Sulaymani-Taybi-Must’ali-Ismai’li/Nizari-Ismai’li) 

If we lean on the Imami side, then who is correct in the following schism?

The Ja’fari or the Ismai’li? 

If one were to lean on the Ismai’li side, then who is correct in the following schism?

The Nizari or the Must’ali? 

If one were to lean on the Musta’ali side, then who is correct in the following schism?

Dawoodi or Sulaymani?

By “taking the Shia bus,” one is not just accepting the status of Ali as the one who should have been the Imam. One is implicitly accepting the entire theological system of Imamah—the belief in a divinely appointed, and necessary guide in every age.

The subsequent splits we have mapped reveal the inherent instability of this system of succession outside of a clear, unambiguous, and divinely protected text (like the Qur’an). Each schism is proof that the question “Who is the Imam now?” has rarely had a single, universally accepted answer within the Shia paradigm. This is the primary theological objection that Allah would not leave guidance for His Ummah to a system that results in such perpetual uncertainty and division.

Our bus tour is a simple heuristic device. It demonstrates that:

  1. The doctrine of Imamah is the engine of the Shia bus, and every major dispute is a breakdown in that engine’s transmission.
  2. The journey doesn’t end with acknowledging Ali; it requires navigating a labyrinth of subsequent successions, each with its own claims and counter-claims.
  3. The question isn’t just “Was Ali right?” but also “If he was, what was the system supposed to be, and does any group actually have it functioning today?” 

It presents some difficult challenges.

Example: Two brothers both claim to be Imam. Both of these brothers are descendants of the Blessed Prophet (saw), they are Ahl Bayt. 

If the masses support Brother A and fight Brother B, does this mean they hate the ahl bayt?

If the masses support Brother B and fight Brother A, does this mean they hate the ahl bayt?

Will the masses make an infallible decision to choose an infallible guide?

So let us look at where each of these would bring us today.

The Zaydis have been without an Imam from the line of Fatima (ra) since the passing of Imam Muhammed al Badir in 1996. 30 years without an Amir Ul Mumineen and the community seems to be doing just fine without one.

The Ja’fari have been without a living accessible Imam available to all since 874. Instead, the faithful have to put their trust in the Wilayat al-Faqih , which they hope is able to discern the will of the Mahdi. They have to settle for the Imam to return in some future dramatic eschatological event.

The Nizari Ismai’li are the only ones who can, at the very least, claim they have a living accessible Imam in the Aga Khan. They are basically a philanthropic organization for those satisfied with secularism. If their Imam walks into a 7-11 and buys a Snickers candy bar, he has to pay taxes like everyone else.

Dawoodi-Taybi-Musta’li-Ismai’li & The Sulaymani-Taybi-Must’ali-Ismai’li are in the same condition as the Ja’fari in that their living Imam is not accessible to the masses but only available via the da’i al-mutlaq.

CONCLUSION AFTER TAKING A RIDE ON THE SHI’A BUS.

Zaydis have not put themselves in a corner by describing their imams as being infallible or by having nass imamate. So they can have an interlude (like they have currently).

When we think of the last Zaydi Imam, Muhammed ibn al-Hasan, again, some may have a hard time registering in their minds that the commander of the faithful would leave a war-torn region to go live in the United Kingdom and pay taxes to their government. It is just not something that one pictures Ali doing. Especially considering the English government recognized the Yemeni government in the same way that the Saudis did.

Zaydis have two perspectives when it comes to dealing with what are believed to be the rights of Ali.

Al-Jarudiyyah (Jarudiyyah)
Named after its founder, Abu’l-Jarud Ziyad ibn Abi Ziyad.

Key Belief: This is the most hardline Zaydi position regarding the early Caliphs.

They hold that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) explicitly designated Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor through numerous clear texts (nass jali).

Therefore, anyone who opposed Ali’s right to leadership was effectively an unbeliever or a major sinner who had strayed from the truth. This view is very close to that of Twelver (Ithna’ashari) Shi’a.

This position is perhaps the most dominant among the Yemeni Zaydis today.

Al-Batriyyah (Batriyyah)
A more moderate wing of early Zaydism. The name “Batri” is said to come from the word batr, meaning “to curtail” or “cut off,” implying they “curtailed” their allegiance to Ali or his rights.

Key Belief: They took a much softer stance on the early Caliphs.

They believed that while Ali was the most qualified and deserved to be the Imam, the community’s election of Abu Bakr and Umar was valid because they were righteous rulers who judged according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. They practiced “postponement” (irja), withholding judgment on the matter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-imam-muhammad-albadr-1309697.html

Here is Hussain Badreddin al-Huti, a Yemeni scholar and Zaydi politician who says that Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) is the beginning of all the problems.

“Every calamity the ummah has faced, Umar was the main cause of that evil”

The Ja’fari. One would think if we are going to say that we need an infallible guide and interpreter to correctly understand the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and then we are going to say that a fallible human being (wilayat al-faqih) now interprets infallible information (from the hidden Imam) this view is wanting.

That being said, the more traditional and sober among them (The Ja’fari) will have to reign in some of these more extreme practices and statements that would put those who state them outside the fold of Islam, without doubt. Granted, this video is polemical in nature and directed towards some online Ja’fari personalities. Albeit the concern of the rest of the Ummah is that the more sober-minded among the Ja’fari will reign in these practices and statements. In a gathering that is more akin to a rave, you can hear the main correcting people who say that Ali is Allah. He corrects them by asserting that Ali can create 1000s of Allahs! May Allah forgive us and guide us!

The video below is an example of some of these extreme beliefs. We also want to inform the readers that we do endorse the personal attacks at the beginning of the video.

“O believers! Do not let some ridicule others, they may be better than them, nor letwomen ridicule other women, they may be better than them. Do not defame one another, nor call each other by offensive nicknames. How evil it is to act rebelliously after having faith! And whoever does not repent, it is they who are the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 49:11)

It should be stated unequivocally that many Ja’fari Shi’a learned people themselves find the above practices abhorrent and deeply problematic. Unfortunately, there is much to be done by the Ja’fari Shi’a scholarship to reign in these beliefs and practices.

The current biggest challenge of the Ja’fari Shi’a?

. The Paradox of the Fallible Interpreting the Infallible

The point is devastatingly logical from first principles:

  • Premise 1: Humanity requires an infallible (ma’sum), divinely-appointed guide to correctly understand and implement the Quran and Sunnah. Without him, error is inevitable.
  • Premise 2: This guide, the 12th Imam, is in occultation and inaccessible.
  • Solution: A class of fallible scholars (fuqaha) study his teachings and deduce his will.
  • Contradiction: The entire system was created because fallible humans (the community without an Imam) are deemed incapable of correctly understanding revelation on their own. Yet, the solution is to have… fallible humans interpret the will of the infallible guide.

Nizari Ismai’li

Maintain a living, present Imam. Result: The Imam’s role adapts (some would say dilutes) to fit a modern, secular world.

This may surprise the readers, but of all Shi’a groups that believe we should be led by an Imam from the line of Fatima (ra) the Nizari Ismaili would be the sensible choice. Muhammed (saw) was the Imam of the Muslims, and he was accessible to all. He was not hidden by some “pay wall”. The Nizari Ismai’li never needed the doctrine of wilayat al-faqih or needed some da’i al-mutlaq (fallible human-contrived methods) to ascertain the infallible perfect guide. 

Alas, the current Aga Khan does not declare it wajib for Muslims to pray five times a day or fast in the month of Ramadan.

Interestingly though fasting in Ramadan is optional and praying the prayers are optional, the Zakat or the money in which the Aga Khan can dip his hands into is not. You can read more about that here: https://ismailignosis.com/2018/03/08/what-does-mawlana-hazar-imam-do-with-the-religious-dues-given-by-the-community/

The Aga Khan’s role is indeed heavily focused on global philanthropy, development, and cosmopolitanism. Critics argue this comes at the expense of traditional Islamic law and ritual, making the faith more of a cultural-ethical identity. Our “7-11 and Snickers” analogy humorously drives home the point: the Imam exists within the modern secular system; he doesn’t stand entirely outside it as a purely spiritual sovereign.

Dawoodi-Taybi-Musta’li-Ismai’li & The Sulaymani-Taybi-Must’ali-Ismai’li

  1. They may need to challenge the Nizari view who has the correct Nass of the Imam.
  2. Something that one cannot help to notice is all those 7 year old children among the Sulaymani and Dawoodi that have better recitation of the Qur’an than a proclaimed Imam of the Muslims! The Nizari Imam-The Aga Khan. We have never seen a public demonstration of his ability to properly recite the Qur’an.

However; the Musta’li Ismai’li have the same problem that the Ja’fari do. The doctrine of wilayat al-faqih or some da’i al-mutlaq (fallible human contrived methods) to ascertain the infallible perfect guide. Both will have continuing to look to the horizons.

So this brings us to the end of the Shi’a bus tour. This is where we are in 2025. The journey begins with Ali, but it does not end there.

So your choices are…

Zaydi-no current Imam.

Ja’fari-Imam in hiding relates matters to Wilayat Al Faqih

Ismai’li Nizari-Aga Khan

Ismai’li Mustali Sulaymani-Imam in hiding relates matters to Da’i al-Mutlaq.

Ismai’li Mustali Dawoodi-Imam in hiding relates matters to Da’i al-Mutlaq.

When we step back and look at the landscape we’ve so thoroughly mapped—the complex schisms, the theological paradoxes, the modern-day compromises—the question “what’s the big deal?” isn’t a dismissal of history; it’s a profound critique of present-day priorities.

Our encouragement to “ride the Shi’a bus and see where it takes you” is the ultimate reality check. That journey, as we’ve shown, doesn’t lead to a single, unified, triumphant destination of perfect justice and guidance. Instead, it leads to:

  • A 30-year vacancy for the Zaydis.
  • A 1,150-year (and counting) absence for the Twelvers, managed by fallible scholars.
  • A living but secular-adjacent Imam for the Nizaris, focused on philanthropy within the modern nation-state system.
  • A hidden Imam represented by a single “Absolute Missionary” for the Bohras.

This isn’t a critique of the sincerity of their faith. It is, however, a stark demonstration that no branch of Shiism has successfully actualized the ideal of a divinely-guided, infallible political and spiritual leader in the modern era. Every group has had to adapt, compromise, or accept a state of perpetual waiting.

Therefore, the intense focus on who was right about 7th-century succession begins to look like a monumental distraction from the pressing issues facing the entire Ummah today: oppression, poverty, intellectual stagnation, and internal strife.

Further implications.

Shi’i often talk about Shi’i -Sunni unity. To the credit of Sunni Muslims, they do often have

Intra-Sunni unity conferences where they come together.  Sunni-Sunni unity.

When can we expect the same from the Shi’i? Shi’i-Shi’i Unity?

When can we see an intra-Shi’i unity conference? A conference that would include a Jafari, Taybi, Zaydi, Nizari Shi’a altogether?

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Time Ali Ibn Abu Talib slaughters 2/3 of the Aliens in Space?

“This is the Book! There is no doubt about it—a guide for those mindful ˹of Allah˺, who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 2:2-3)

﷽ 

A video of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani of the Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi Tariqa resurfaced that I was not aware of at the time it became known.

The Prophet (s) said, “I will tell you that I sent him because in this universe Allah created Creations, and the nearest one to Earth, the dangerous one. If they invade the Earth…if they invade the Earth, The Earth will be finished. They will kill everyone! I send Sayyidina `Ali to fight them alone!!! To these aliens that are they the most nearest to Earth; and with his sword and his power, He is Asadullah al-Ghaalib! Destroyed two-third of them! That’s why they don’t have power anymore to come on Earth. That is why I sent him, he’s absent from the house.” -Shaykh Hisham Kabbani

The above part that is in bold black text is the beginning of the paragraph but it was cut off. You can read the whole transcript and context from their official website:

https://sufilive.com/The-Secret-of-the-Naqshbandi-Tariqah-is-in-the-Hands-of-Shah-Mardan–5658-EN-print.html

Now when one reads the context, it does seem like an abrupt change of course to start speaking about the time when it was alleged that the Blessed Messenger (saw) sent Ali Ibn Abu Talib to take down a large contingent of aliens. Apparently 67% of them were wiped out! I do not know if that means their military forces, their people as a whole (men, women, children-offspring) as those details were not provided.

No one knows if these are the same beings that former Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer was speaking about either. I will link to the article where he (Paul Hellyer) speaks of these beings.

As Muslims, we believe in the unseen. Yet, we also believe in what is rational, sensible and logical. I guess the issue that I have with the idea of sending Ali Ibn Abu Talib into cosmic forays to fight these Aliens is you have to wonder about a few things.

Why only take out 2/3 of them? Is leaving the 1/3 left a mercy to them? As in, “Look, I wiped out 2/3, or you so like chill or else!”

But then you really have to wonder about horrific situations like Palestine.

But I know the retort will be swift: “Palestine or the whole planet brother?”

Over all, personally, my encounters with Naqshanbai Haqqani have been positive. Though I know that they, like all Sufi Tariqah, are in a spiritual Jihad with one another to vie for dominance to be ‘The Tariqah above all others’.

May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth of such matters. May Allah (swt) cause us to think logically and reflect upon such matters.

You may also be interested in the following entries:

The entry: Aliens, UFO’s, The Jinn & Islam has the video from Mr. Paul Hellyer (mentioned above).

https://primaquran.com/2023/03/20/aliens-ufos-the-jinn-islam

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ali Ibn Abi Talib his ijtihad and burning people alive

“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption in the land it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:32

﷽ 

Narrated `Ikrima:

“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)

It was narrated from Anas that :

Ali came to some people of Az-Zutt, who worshipped idols, and burned them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:4065)

There is something similar in Imami Shi’i sources.

Narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq), who said: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī), said:
“If it were possible for me, and if I found someone to help me, I would kill all the adherents of these sects (aṣnāf), and I would burn them with fire
. And this is [in accordance with] the saying of Allah, Mighty and Exalted:

‘Say, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is but one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord’ (Qur’an 18:110).”

Source: (Bihār al-Anwār al-Jāmiʿah li-Durar Akhbār al-Aʾimmat al-Aṭhār Volume and Page: Vol. 25, p. 265, Hadith #30)

Now we are going to examine a hadith that reports that Ali Ibn Abi Talib had a group of apostates burned alive.

What is important to note is that Ibn Abbas (ra) felt that Ali made an error in his ijtihad, in his decision to burn apostates.

In this regard Ibn Abbas (ra) was acting upon what Allah (swt) has mentioned in the Qur’an.

You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from (l-munkari) evil, and you believe in Allah.” (Qur’an 3:11)

Ibn Abbas (ra) was saying he would not have done the munkar that Ali had done. He would have acted according to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

We are also going to look at how a top Sunni scholar and a top Sunni apologist approach the issue.

Thus, in this particular article. We are also get to see some insights from Bassam Zawadi and Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah

Now according to the scholars of our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah’, all the companions are ‘adil’-just.

Burning people alive doesn’t seem to be a very upright thing to do!

I have saved the published works of both links. Things do tend to disappear from the internet (from time to time).

Let us deal with imminent and respected scholar Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah and his response to this first.

http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/01/19/did-imam-ali-burn-the-kharijites/

Question:

“I read on a website that Ali ibn Abu Talib burnt some of the Kharijites during his caliphate. But this made me confused due to the hadith we know where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade torturing others with fire since this is a sort of associating others with Allah. So how did Ali do this?”

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah replies:

“And upon you is the peace of Allah, together with his mercy and blessings.
This report was narrated by al-Bukhary (6922) on the authority of `Ikrimah who said: Heretics were brought before Ali and he burnt them. When Ibn `Abbas was informed about this, he said, “If I were in his place, I would not have burnt them for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this saying, “Do not torment with the torment of Allah” and I would have killed them, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

When a deviant group called al-Saba’iyyah, who were the followers of the Jewish `Abdullah ibn Saba’, went astray and believed that Ali was a god – we seek refuge with Allah from this – he (Ali) set them on fire and said, “When I saw such an enormous evil, I set them on fire and called.

“Besides, this issue is a particular case that has no general application, as al-Shatiby said,


In general, there are many interpretations concerning this report, whether he burnt them after he had killed them, or he was just about to burn them, but he did not. Whatever the case was, this was an opinion viewed by a companion that has nothing to do with associating gods with Allah. Burning a person is not permissible in the Shari`ah; but this does not amount to associating others with Allah. Associating others with Allah means to worship another god with Allah or to believe in other gods with Almighty Allah. Yes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade burning others and said, “None should torment with fire except Allah.” [Reported by al-Bukhary (3016)]”

“Yet, this does not mean that whoever burns others with fire is considered as associating others with Allah. It rather means that this punishment is a punishment in the Hereafter, not in this world. This is what we should believe. The issue has no relation to associating others with Allah. As mentioned above, this interpretation may prove untrue. Perhaps he intended to burn them, but he did not, or he intended to burn them after killing them. Even if he actually burnt them, this would be a kind of ijtihad from a companion that disagrees with the text. The ultimate reference is always to the text. Nonetheless, we have to believe that they acted according to their ijtihad and that they are illuminating guides.” -Shayh Bin Bayyah (May Allah continue to benefit many by him and bless him)

Our focus here is on the following statement:

Even if he actually burnt them, this would be a kind of ijtihad from a companion that disagrees with the text. The ultimate reference is always to the text. Nonetheless, we have to believe that they acted according to their ijtihad and that they are illuminating guides.”

This is because for our brothers in ‘Ahl Sunnah’ the doctrine is that the companions can do no wrong. Even though we clearly have Ibn Abbas (ra) saying that he would not have done what Ali did!

Prima Qur’an comments:

Notice that Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah did not attack the chain of narrators. He also did not have any critique of the hadith at all.

The frightening prospect from respected Shaykh bin Bayyah’s response is that even if he did burn them it’s simply his ‘ijtihad’ and we have to believe he is still an illuminating guide.

Can you imagine? This is the standard for being ‘adil’ -upright.

The noble Shaykh bin Bayyah’s response was short and yet it has left us wanting.

In many ways, Shaykh Bin Bayyah’s understanding of this text gives grounds for extremism.

Why?

“Even if he actually burnt them, this would be a kind of ijtihad from a companion that disagrees with the text. The ultimate reference is always to the text. Nonetheless, we have to believe that they acted according to their ijtihad and that they are illuminating guides.”- Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah.

Now take a moment and think about that.  So even if Ali actually burned apostates, it was his ijtihad.  In other words, he did what he thought was right!  The very problematic response by Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah is that no principles of the sanctity of life, rules of engagement, etc. were given to us.

So, what if now ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others want to use their ‘ijtihad’?

So let us look at how brother Bassam Zawadi deals with the issue:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_ali_burn_some_apostates___by_understanding_islam

Question:

A Christian missionary has cited the following Hadith from Bukhari and is demanding an explanation:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated `Ikrima:

“Some Zanadiqa(atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

—————

“Can you briefly describe the background, which compelled Hadhrat`Ali to take this action? How valid is the isnad[1] and matn [2] and the legality of such a punishment? If there is an argument that Hadhrat`Ali cited to justify this action, that too is welcome. Jazakumallah Khaira”

Answer Bassam Zawadi:

“The referred narrative is placed in the Kitaab Al-Jihaad as well as the Kitaab Istitaabah Al-Murtaddeen by Al-Bukhari in his “Sahih”.

Although Bukhari’s narratives do not give any details regarding the incident, yet in his exegesis on Bukhari – “Fath Al-Baari” – Ibn Hajar has mentioned a few other versions of the same incident [3]. Considering all the narratives reporting this incident, the following major variations come to the forefront:

Firstly, there is quite a bit of variation regarding the people, who were subjected to this punishment. According to one version, they were atheists, according to a second version, they were apostates, according to a third version, they were a group of people, who secretly used to practice idolatry and according to a fourth version, they were a group of Rawafidh [4], who believed in the divinity of Ali.”

“Secondly, there is a significant difference between the reports regarding the incident itself. Although, the narratives given in Bukhari do not give any details of how the incident happened, yet Ibn Hajar has given a few narratives, which give some details of the happening. According to one version, when `Ali was informed regarding a people who considered him to be God, he called them and asked them to refrain from such blasphemy. They refused to comply. This went on for three days. Till, finally, `Ali ordered to dig a deep pit and burn a huge fire in it. The criminals were brought to the fire. `Ali told them that if they do not agree to refrain from their blasphemy, they would be thrown in the fire. They persisted in their refusal and were, subsequently, thrown in the fire. According to a second version, `Ali was informed of a people who secretly worshipped idols in a house. `Ali went to investigate the report. An idol was recovered from the house and, subsequently, the house was burnt to ashes. According to a third version, `Ali was informed of some apostates. He called for them. When they arrived, `Ali gave them food to eat and asked them to return to Islam. They refused. At their refusal, `Ali made them stand in a pit and killed them in it. Subsequently, he burnt them.”

“These are some of the various versions of the incident as reported in books of history and Hadith. One may take whichever explanation he believes to be more plausible to be accurate.”

“In my opinion, the second and third versions of the incident are quite considerable. It seems that:

After it had become evident that the house was secretly being used for idolatry, `Ali (ra) ordered that it be burnt down. However, due to a mistake on the part of one or more of the narrators, the incident has been reported in a way that it gives the impression that the house was burnt down with its inhabitants. Whereas, it may not have been so; or

People were killed for their apostasy and later, their corpses were burnt to ashes. This is clearly implied in the third stated version of the incident.”

“Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism of Ali’s decision – not a criticism of Islam.”

“After all, `Ali was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.”

I hope this helps.

October 11, 2000

[1] That is the chain of narrators of this reporting.

[2] That is, the text of this reporting.

[3]Al-Fath Al-Baari, Kitaab Istitaabah Al-Murtaddeen, Vol. 12, Pg. 270

[4] i.e. rejecters.


Prima Qur’an comments:

Now, this is why I really miss Bassam Zawadi when he was involved in apologetic. I know Bassam Zawadi is passionate about his understanding of Islam, but who isn’t?

Notice also, that Bassam like Bin Bayyah did not attack the chain of narrators, nor does he have any issue with the hadith themselves.

Though it would have been nice to have all the narrations laid out for us, we can clearly see that there is a need to rescue Ali from anything wrongfully attributed to him. That is admirable.  That is understandable because that is usually what our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ will do to rescue the character of all the companions.

However, at least Bassam is willing to make the following assertion/concession.

“`Ali actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism of `Ali’s decision – not a criticism of Islam.

After all, `Ali was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.”

Beautiful!  Well said!

So, in other words like Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, Bassam is trying to clear Ali of these reports.  Yet, unlike Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, Bassam is not willing to be defined by this!  In other words, look the companions could have made mistakes, big errors in judgment, and did things that are not correct.

I also hope that one has gleaned the following from what Bassam has said as well.

Although Bukhari’s narratives do not give any details regarding the incident”

Firstly, there is quite a bit of variation regarding the people, who were subjected to this punishment. According to one version.”  

“According to a second version,”  

“According to a third version”

“According to a fourth version,”

The narratives given in Bukhari do not give any details of how the incident happened, yet Ibn Hajar has given a few narratives, which give some details of the happening.”

However, due to a mistake on the part of one or more of the narrators, the incident has been reported in a way that it gives the impression….”

I hope people reflect well on these statements.  This is true for the vast corpus of hadith literature. They simply give you snippets and snapshots. Just bits and pieces of information.

The interesting observation is how two champions of the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ have made their concluding remarks.  

To me, in my humble opinion brother, Bassam’s response was more robust and more keeping to the truth.

Whatever these companions and successors did does not have to be a reflection upon Islam!

Lastly, I also think that Bassam Zawadi’s understanding and response is much grounded and keeping with the justice and compassion of Islam. 

 Bassam Zawadi’s response does not give room for groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda to act brash in the name of “personal ijtihad.” Where as Bin Bayyah’s response certainly does.

THE REACTION OF IBN ABBAS IS KEY

Also, Bassam Zawadi’s response shows that Ali could have made an error in his ijtihad. In fact, Ibn Abbas (ra) is shown not to agree with Ali’s decision. This means that Ibn Abbas (ra) felt that the Ijtihad of Ali was incorrect. After all that is a key part of these hadith reports about what Ali is said to have done.  Surely Ibn Abbas (ra) is not going to object to Ali burning dead bodies?

If Ali could be wrong in ijtihad in this area, could he have been wrong in his ijtihad in the battle of Siffin?

Whereas Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah’s response was, well, ‘It was his opinion’.  This is important in the jargon of ‘Ahl Sunnah’ because it implicitly implies that Ali could very well have made an error.  

However, he would still be rewarded for his error. Whereas Bassam Zawadi made clear daylight between the teachings of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and a very probable and unjust emotional decision based upon a companion.  

This is also important because this is exactly what happened at Siffin. Many companions felt that Ali not only made an error in his ijtihad but that he failed to judge by what Allah (swt) had instructed us to judge by.

Alas, some people maybe dismissive of Bassam Zawadi being a Salafi. It is rather unfortunate to dismiss him on account of that. However, this statement by Shaykh Muhammed Al Yaqubi in his book is not so easily dismissed. * Would like to give credit to a brother who commented on this entry for the following information. Hamza Malik -May Allah (swt) reward you.

“ISIS uses the story of Ali as a proof, as it is narrated that he burned someone. However, the story does not provide any proof to the permissibility of burning people for the following reasons. First, Ibn Abbas, cousin of Ali, opposed him and declared that it was wrong. Second, Imam al-Bukhari narrated this story to caution the reader that it is not valid, as he narrated the counter-proofs. His job was to compile every text related to the subject, and the job of the doctors of law was to establish what is valid and what is not. Third, Ali himself agreed with his cousin Ibn Abbas that this is forbidden, as narrated by al-Tirmidhi (Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, vol. 5, pp. 24-25).”

Source: (Refuting Isis (2nd edition p. 27) in regard to Ali using fire to punish.)

It is note worthy that Shaykhs: Muhammed Al Yaqubi is widely believed to be a descendant of the Blessed Prophet’s grandson Hassan. Yet, this did stop Shaykh Yaqubi from seeing Ali as someone who could be mistaken in his ijtihad.

In other words, the common gas lighting tactics of: “He is from the Ahl Bayt how could you?” was not used.

Islam does not stand, or fall based upon what companions did or did not do. It is based upon the teachings of the Qur’an and the clear teachings of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

May Allah (swt) bless Bassam Zawadi and Shaykh Bin Bayyah for their sincere efforts.

Allah (swt) knows best, and the help of Allah (swt) is sought in all matters.  It is also interesting that this hadith so bothers crypto-Shi’i (Shi’a in the guise of a Sunni) don’t be surprised to see them try and discredit ‘Ikrma altogether! Not only that but some Shi’a have failed to discredit ‘Ikrma have tried to have a go at Ibn Abbas (ra) Even though, ‘Ikrma also narrates a juicy hadith that the Shi’i like to use about Ammar bin Yassar being killed by the rebellious group. Can’t have your cake and eat it to folks!

You might interested in reading the following:

https://primaquran.com/2023/07/07/pro-alid-youtube-channel-throws-ibn-abbas-under-the-bus/

https://primaquran.com/2023/02/19/abd-allah-b-al-abbas-and-the-muhakkima-wilferd-madelung/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/abu-hanifa-ikrima-and-the-truth/

https://primaquran.com/2023/02/17/the-narrator-ikrima-you-cannot-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too/


May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ibn Taymiyya claims the majority of Sahabah (Companions) and Tabi’in (Followers) hated Ali Ibn Abi Talib

“Verily, those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers).” (Qur’an 19:96)

﷽ 

Ibn Taymiyya al Harrani in his asSunnah an-Nabawiyyah when he comments about the above ayat in relation to Ali ibn Abi Talib that:

“Allah (swt) has told that He will place on the believers and those that preform good, love. And this is a true promise from him. Especially for the Caliphs Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) for the general amount of companions loved them and they were the best periods of Islam. Ali was not like that, as a large number of companions (sahabah) and followers (tab’ieen) hated him, cursed him and fought him.”

Source: (منهاج السنة النبوية في نقض كلام الشيعة والقدرية Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi’a wa al-Qadariyyah)

The implication (though not explicitly stated by Ibn Taymiyya) was that Ali was not of those who worked deeds of righteousness.

Ibn Taymiyya continues:

“They love and venerate him, while Abu Bakr and Umar – may God be pleased with them – have been hated and cursed by the Rafidah (Rejectors), the Nusayriyyah, the Ghulat (Extremists), and the Ismailis. However, it is known that those who loved those two (1) are better and more numerous, and that those who hated them are further from Islam and fewer.”

This contradicts the case of Ali, for those who hated and fought him are better than those who hated Abu Bakr and Umar. In fact, the faction of Uthman, who love him and hate Ali, even if they are innovators and wrongdoers, are more knowledgeable and religious than the faction of Ali who love him and hate Uthman, and they are greater in jihad and justice. Thus, it is clear that the affection mandated for the three [first Caliphs] is greater.”

“And if it is said: ‘Claims of divinity and prophethood have been made about Ali (2),’ it is replied: ‘All the Khawarij considered him a disbeliever and the Marwaniyyah hated him. And these are better than the Rafidah who curse Abu Bakr and Umar – may God be pleased with them – let alone the Extremists (3).'”

Source: [Chapter: The Thirteenth Proof “You are only a warner, and for every people there is a guide.”]

You may be interested in reading the following:

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized