Ten Questions for Sunni Brothers
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Dear Sunni `Ulama, may Allah protects you all,
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,
We hope that you are enjoying yourselves, and we beg Allah, the
Master, to protect you. We hereby, present to you some questions
regarding religion and beliefs. And we would like to receive your
kind answers and explanations.
We would like to thank you in advance for your response.
A group of your brothers.
The books of Sihah, especially the sahih of al-Bukhari and Muslim,
both have conveyed hadiths from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) in which
many human characteristics such as face, eyes, hands, fingers,
legs, feet, and etc... have been attributed to Allah. In those hadiths
it is also said that He laughs, has a certain place, He comes down
from heaven to the terrestrial world, and soon [ 1].
Now, our question is:
a) How could the ancestors accept such fabricated hadiths? Why
didn't they check the chain of narrators of these hadiths? Does not
these hadiths clearly refer to incarnation?
b) How could the ancestors urge the Muslims to believe in the
outward meaning of such hadiths without searching the
inward meaning [ 2], since their outward meaning forces us to
believe in the incarnation of Allah, and the Sunnis do not believe in
incarnation, especially when it is to be attributed to Allah, the
c) The same Sihah have conveyed other part of prophetic hadiths
which declare that a human being can see Allah, the Exalted, by his
natural eyes, and that in the Dooms Day He shall appear to those
who see as a full moon [ 3]. According to this, all Sunni scholars,
narrators, and the imams of the four main sects of Islam, believe
that it is possible to see Allah, the Exalted, and have considered
that as one of the principles that consist their belief [ 4]. Moreover,
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal regards anyone who does not believe in
the possibility of seeing Allah as an irreligious infidel and a
polytheist (Tafseer al-Manar, vol.9, p.135).
Here, we ask:
Does not the meaning of those hadiths contradict the concepts of
the Holy Quran in which Allah, the Exalted says:"Vision
comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision..."(An`am:
103); and "he said: My Lord! Show me (Thyself), so that I may look
upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me..."(A`raaf: 143);
and "nothing like a likeness of Him"(Shura: 11); and "And when you
said: O Musa! We will not believe in you until we see Allah
manifestly, so the punishment overtook you while you looked
And does not such a notion contradict rational intelligence, since
looking upon something requires that the seen thing exists in a
certain place, and that it is a certain distance away from looker.
Consequently, both the looker and the seen thing shall be in front
of each others, and such condition cannot apply to the Creator, the
Exalted, because that means that His Holy Essence must be
regarded as a certain material; and thus, He shall be in need of an
abode and direction. But, as we know, such conditions are only
related to materials, and it is also known that the Sunni `ulama do
not believe in incarnation?
Now, if these hadiths are contrary to the Holy Quran and
rational intelligence, then how could Sunni `ulama accept them and
agree upon them without even discussing their chains of narrators
or documentation? However, is it correct to agree on these hadiths
only because they have been mentioned in the two Sahihs?
Many Sunni `ulama do not agree with most of Muhammad
Abdul Wahhab's opinions. Some of those opinions are:
1- He considers the imitation of an Imam of the four famous
Islamic sects as heresy and illegal.
2- He regards all Muslims as polytheists because of the rites
and ceremonies they are performing, while Imam Abi Hanifa does
not agree on considering any Muslim as a polytheist.
3- He thinks that even the prophets shall undergo an ordinary life
after death, and that they shall not be distinguished from other
human beings during the isthmian interval, while the Hanafi `ulama
believe that the prophets shall have distinguished life after their
death, more distinguishing than the isthmian interval. They also
explain the reason why the Prophet's wives were forbidden to other
men. They say that this is because the Prophet (s.a.w.) is alive even
after his death.
4- He considers visiting the Prophet's tomb as illegal and heresy,
while Sunnis regard it as mustahabb, and sometimes, according to
some of their `ulama it is wajib.
5- He considers the celebration of the Prophet's birthday as
heresy, while the majority of Muslims regard it as mustahabb.
6- He considers Qunoot (raising of the hands for du`a while in
prayer) a heresy, while the rest of the Muslims regard it as a part of
7- Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his followers considers the
rites that a dervish (murshid) practices in the majalis of dhikr and
other spiritual ceremonies is mere heresy, while the majority of
Muslims considers it as a recommended act in order to have more
spiritual potential [potential [ 1].
8- The same Abdul Wahhab and followers consider asking
intercession from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and other saints as illegal
(haram) and as a type of polytheism, but we see that Sunni
Muslims are performing that.
These wicked and extreme opinions of Muhammad ibn Abdul
Wahhab are strongly refuted by the ancestors of the Sunni
Muslims. They also have compiled lots of books regarding this
issue, in which they could prove the vanity of such opinions in
comparison with the Holy Quran and the prophetic sunnah.
Ibn `Abdeen, a grand Sunni scholar, had described the followers
of Abdul Wahhab as the historical sect called Khawarij who
rebelled against Imam Ali (a.s.), because, as he thought, both
sects are pretending that they are the only representatives of Islam
and that all other Muslim sects are infidel, and they should be
slaughtered along with their scholars [ 2].
However, in these days, in spite of this great difference
between Sunnism and Wahhabism, we witness that the relationship
between both sects has improved - and the Sunnis have given up
their struggle against the Wahhabis.
Thus, we ask: Can this approaching and harmonization be
considered as a conclusion for the harmonization occurred
between the two schools of thought? Shall that be a retreat of one
part towards the other part? Or can we consider that as a result of
the political and economical pressures?
Without doubt, the main issue that caused the division of the
Muslims into two sects, Sunni and Shi`a, is the different opinion of
each sect towards Imamate and Caliphate after the demise of the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). Shi`a says that imamate, like any other
religious issues, must be under the control of Islamic legislation,
and that the succeeding and electing of an imam as a successor
and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) must be according to
Allah's commandment through His Prophet -since imamate is a
continuation of the prophecy, especially in its major obligations.
Imamate is the method by which a society is guided - it is the
faithful custodian of the religion that holds its main duties to
be guidance and upbringing.
The Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that imamate is a matter
that has a close relationship with the ummah (nation). That is to say
that it is upon the ummah to elect the appropriate leader, as it is
their exclusive right to do so.
However, the Shi`ites have their own demonstrations, both rational
and conclusive, to prove their belief about imamate, some of which
are as follows:
1- It is impossible that the Holy Prophet had left the issue of
imamate without specifying and appointing his successor. This is
because the most critical issue after his demise would have been
the rational and political leadership. Without a responsible
leadership there shall be a great vacancy which may cause serious
catastrophe to the Muslims, especially if we take into consideration
the dangerous of internal divisions of the Islamic ummah - between
the Ansars, the Muhajireen, and – the wicked factor inside the heart
of the ummah - the hypocrites whose animal ways was to destroy
Islam. This is in addition to outside factors, which were threatening
the ummah at that time. Thus, it would not be reasonable for an
apostolic leader to neglect this critical issue - letting it pass by
without giving it any heed. Hence, Muhammad (s.a.w.), as the Seal of
the Prophets and he who Allah had said about him: "Certainly
an Apostle has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to
him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting
you; to the believers (he is) compassionate, merciful"[Tawbah:
128], must fulfill this job very accurately.
If we check the texts of the Holy Quran we can discover that the
Holy Legislator had paid great attention to the issue of writing a will,
stating that a man must write his will so that his children and
relatives may not suffer from confusion and unexpected conflicts,
as the Quranic verse declares: "Bequest is prescribed for you
when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for
parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty (incumbent)
upon those who guard (against evil)[Baqarah: 180]".
A prophetic tradition said, "Whosoever dies without writing a will,
then certainly he shall die as a pagan". This tradition informs us that
the Legislator (Allah) is very precise with a personal matter such as
the writing of a will; so, how can such an important matter like
"leadership" be neglected - leaving the Islamic ummah to face
Now, let us suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) didn't refer to
this serious issue, wasn't it his companions' duty to ask him about
the matter of succession?
Therefore, in conclusion, because of the circumstances of the
Islamic ummah at that time, there was need to give special care to
such an issue.
2- According to what has been said, it is normal that the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) stands positively beside this sensitive case and
declares the main points of the succession after him. Thus, we
cannot possibly suppose but one of two probabilities: (1) either the
Prophet (s.a.w.) has to politically bring up the Muhajireen and Ansar
according to the rules of a shura (counsel) - when they want to
elect a leader (whether spiritual or political). After showing them the
bases of how to practice such an act, for example, appointing a
so-called committee consisting of members from both parties (i.e.
Muhajireen and Ansar), or it was upon him to appoint a certain
person who is capable to hold this heavy responsibility.
It is clear that history didn't convey to us any trace of the first
probability, neither through the Holy Prophet's (s.a.w.) attitudes, nor
in the policy of the caliphs after him. Therefore, the second
probability seems to be more logical.
3- A quick and brief look at the series of events that the
Prophet's mission has undergone, from the first moments of the
mission until the last seconds when his holy soul was leaving this
world, we come to this conclusion that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had
referred in many occasions to Imam Ali's (a.s.) virtues, great status,
and other unique characteristics, showing that he is the best
among the Prophet's companions.
In addition to this, Ali was brought up by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself; he was the first male who believed in the Prophet's mission and the only Muslim who never bowed to an idol before. Moreover, Imam Ali spent most of his life accompanying the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Imam Ali participated in almost all the battles that occurred between the
Muslims and the polytheists, and he was sipping on the pure cup of
knowledge directly from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). All Imam Ali's
behaviour, piety, worshipping, and etc... were indifferent to those of
the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). Most of the heroes from among the
polytheist were slaughtered by Imam Ali's sword in the battles of
Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq,and other famous wars. There was
only one battle that Imam Ali did not participate in; it was the battle
of Tabook, when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself ordered him to
stay in Madinah and protect it from any unexpected attack. Before
the battle of Khaybar, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, describing
Imam Ali,: "I am going to give the banner of this battle to a man
who loves Allah and His Apostle, and Allah and His Apostle
love him too. A man who is combative."
And when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) ordered him to stay in Medina, he said to him,"You have the same rank, with me, that Aaron had with his brother
Moses, except that there is not any prophet after me."
The Holy Prophet also had said, "I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its
gate", and "Ali is the best of judges among you."
He also said,
"Ali moves with Quran, and Quran moves with Ali; they won't
separate from each other until they both arrive to me near
the Pool", and "Ali moves with truth and truth turns with him
wherever he turns,", and "No one loves Ali save a believer, and
no one hates him save a hypocrite" and other traditions which
have been agreed upon by all Muslims and were mentioned in their
A tradition was narrated for the benefit of Imam Ali (a.s.), his wife
(Fatima Zahra (a.s.)) and their two beloved sons, al-Hasan and
al-Husayn (a.s.), that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "O my Lord!
These are the members of my family." and upon this Allah sent
down verses to him saying, "Allah only desires to keep away the
uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a
(thorough) purifying" (Ahzab:33); and "But whoever disputes with
you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, they
say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and
your women and our near people and your near people, then let us
be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."
(Aal `Imran: 61)
Allah also says, "Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives" (Shuraa: 23), and "And they give food out of love for Him to the Poor and the orphan and the captive." (al-Dahr: 8) Another verse mentioned about them is: "Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow"
(Ma'idah: 55),and "... and that the retaining ear might retain it"
(Haqqah: 12), and many other holy verses.
All these Quranic verses and in addition to prophetic traditions
are referring to the preference of Imam Ali over others as a leader,
Imam and caliph after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). Rather, the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) had openly declared this by the command of Allah
Who ordered him saying, "O Apostle! Deliver what has been
revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have
not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the
people" (Ma'idah: 67). This verse descended on the Day of
Ghadeer, during his (s.a.w.) return from Makkah. When he
delivered this verse, he ordered the pilgrims to perform the
prayers. After that, he delivered an oration wherein he said, "Am I
not the Master of you all?", the whole crowd answered: Sure, O
Apostle of Allah. He continued, "Then, whosoever I am his master,
Ali is his master. O Allah! Be friend to whom he becomes his friend,
and be enemy to whom he becomes his enemy..."
Even, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), in the last moments of his life he
wanted to put his speech in a written legal form and to call the
companions to witness this action; thus, he called the companions
- and `Umar ibn al-Khattab was among them. When the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) began his speech, `Umar immediately got the point
and retained the aim of the Prophet's call, so he (i.e. `Umar) said :
It is obvious that pain and illness have overcame the Prophet
(s.a.w.)!!! Other narrators declared that `Umar rather said, "It is clear
that the Prophet is hallucinating. The Book of Allah is sufficient for
us"!!! The companions were then divided into two groups, one
accepted the suggestion of `Umar, and the other protested
against his rough words and manner. And when they began to
argue loudly, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said to them, "Go away and
leave me alone!"
In a dialogue that occurred between `Umar and Ibn Abbas, `Umar
said, "The Apostle of Allah saved a serious sentence and he
wanted to say it in that gathering during his last illness. A sentence
that cannot be refuted by any pretension or excuse. He wanted Ali
to sit on his throne after him. He was about to mention Ali's name,
but I stood between him and that. "This same dialogue has also
been mentioned in (Sharhu Nahjil Balagha) by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed,
vol. III, p.141, published by Dar al-Fikr, and in vol. III, p.764 of
Maktabat al-Hayat's publication.
4- Now, because the legal caliphate was the right of Ali, he and the
rest of Bani Hashim, and many other companions refused to give
allegiance to Abu Bakr after the gathering of Saqifah.
However, Imam Ali showed in many occasions, in the presence of
many companions, his objection (to this situation) and that it is his
right, prior to anyone else, to have the caliphateship in his hand.
5- Some Muslims may say that it is not logical to say that the
Prophet's companions, who are considered the elite of the
Muslims, have rebelled against his (the Prophet's) will to give the
caliphate to Imam Ali. The Shi`ites' answer to this suspicion, is that
by studying the biographies of some of the Prophet's companions
we can discover that many of them have considering themselves
as the most appropriate persons to be the Prophet's successor;
and many times and on many occasions they were opposed the
Prophet's suggestions or orders - especially those suggestions
and orders that concerned the relationship of public affairs and
policy, wars, administrations, and so on. This was clear even
during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and became more
clear after his demise. They were giving themselves the right to
discuss the Prophet's commands and to argue against any of his
proposals. `Umar ibn al-Khattab was the leader of such a group. It
was he who protested against the Prophet's acceptance of the
treaty between the Muslims andthe polytheists of Makkah, known
as "Sulh al-Hudaybiyah". `Umar also wasthe one who refuted the
Holy Prophet's legislation called "mut`ah of Hajj".Other
companions refused to join the army of Usamah ibn Zayd
whom was prepared by the command of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
himself. He had appointed Usamah ibn Zayd to be a commander in
a battle against the Romans - exactly few days before his demise.
`Umar also prevented the attendants from bringing the paper and
ink which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had requested to write some
Here, our question is: Did not all these rational and intellectual
reasons and proofs indicate on the fact that the Holy Prophet had
indeed appointed Ali to be his successor and the caliph after him?
Some of the Prophet's companions were planning, even during his
lifetime, to conceal this important issue; and, thus, transferring the
caliphateship from the House of Bani Hashim to some men of
Quraysh, for legal and may be sometimes illegal purposes - God
knows the truth. If so, then why does some Islamic sects, other
than the Shi`a, blame the Shi`ites for adhering to the Household of
the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?
The historical records relate that Fatima al-Zahra (a.s.), the
daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), was angry with the two shaykhs
(i.e. Abu Bakr and `Umar) until she died. For this very reason she
requested her husband, Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), to bury her in
secret, permitting only a few of the very close companions of the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as Salman al-Farsi and Abu Tharr to know
of her burial. She also asked Imam Ali to conceal her grave, as a
form of protest.
The reasons for this protestation can be explained as follows:
1- `Umar's and his followers attacked the house of Imam Ali (a.s.)
and set it on fire. This was done in order to force Imam Ali and his
adherents to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.
2- Abu Bakr's and `Umar's refusal to give back to Fatima her
inheritance (from her father).
3- Also because she considered Ali as the legal successor
and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Historians have narrated that, when `Umar ibn al-Khattab brought
some wood in order to set Imam Ali's (a.s.) house on fire, he was
told that Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), is inside
the house too! He replied: LET IT BE!!! Then he kindled the fire
and began to set fire to the house of the daughter of the Holy
Prophet! "O son of Khattab! Are you really going to set our house
on fire?" Fatima (a.s.) asked. `Umar replied, "Sure! Unless you
agree on what the whole ummah had agreed upon." The daughter
of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I do not remember a people that
have done worse than yours... You have left the Holy Prophet's
body lying among us, while, at the same time, you were busy in
electing a caliph among yourselves, without consulting us or
asking our opinion. You have plainly misappropriated our right."
Then `Umar and muhajirin proceeded in burning the house!
Al-Ya`qoobi, in his book, had recorded the following: "There were a
bunch of people who attacked the house. They broke Ali's sword,
and pulled out Ali with all the force they could muster and drove
him toward Abu Bakr. Then Fatima cried `O Father! O the Apostle
of Allah! see what we are facing because of the son of Ibn
al-Khattab and Ibn Abi Quhafah(Abu Bakr) after your demise.' A
warm argumentation occurred between Ali and those who were
attending the meeting in the presence of Abu Bakr, `Umar, and
Abu `Ubaydah. Ali tried to explain to the people his right to be the
caliphate and his deserving of this position, but that didn't please
`Umar who then began to threaten Ali if the latter refused to
give allegiance to Abu Bakr, and said to Ali: "You have no choice
but to give allegiance!" "And what if I refused to give allegiance?"
Ali asked. `Umar replied roughly, "I swear by Allah, the only god,
that we shall behead you immediately!" Ali said, "Then you are
going to kill whom he is the servant of Allah and the brother of the
Apostle of Allah?" `Umar angrily answered, "It is right that you are
the servant of Allah, but it is not true that you are the brother of the
Apostle of Allah." After this dialogue, Imam Ali then left the
meeting and walked toward the tomb of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
There, he began to cry and speak to the tomb saying, "Son of
my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh
Regarding the issue that Abu Bakr and `Umar had refused to give
back to Fatima her inheritance, one can refer to various historical
sources and find more details.
When Fatima (a.s.) was ill for the last time before her demise, Abu
Bakr and `Umar visited her. She seized the opportunity and spoke
to them, "I shall inform you a hadith of the Holy Prophet, but, shall
you be honest enough and tell me whether you have heard it from
the Holy Prophet or not?" "Sure we will!" They both answered.
Then Fatima (a.s.) said,"I administer an oath to you to say the truth.
Didn't you hear the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say that, "Fatima's
satisfaction is my satisfaction, and if she becomes angry I will
become angry too. He who seek Fatima's love, is as one who
seeks my love; and he who satisfies Fatima, it is as if he has
satisfied me. Whosoever makes Fatima angry shall make me
angry too." Abu Bakr and `Umar said, "For sure we have heard this
hadith from the Apostle of Allah." "Then I bear witness that you two
have made me angry and did not satisfy me. When I meet the
Prophet (s.a.w.), I shall complain to him against both of you." Fatima
(a.s.) continued. Here, Abu Bakr said, "I seek refuge in Allah
against His anger and your anger, Fatima!" Then he began to cry
until his soul was about to come out of his body. Fatima (a.s.)
continued, saying, "By Allah I shall curse you in every prayer I may
Here, our question is: What is your opinion in this regard, to the
manner of the two Shaykhs toward the Household of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.)?Wasn't it more humane for Abu Bakr and `Umar to
satisfy the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), especially during
and after loosing their (the Household's) Great Father, the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.)? Would it not have been more honorable if Abu
Bakr and `Umar tried to solve the suspended issues between them
and Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (a.s.) and at the same time they could
have keep the respect of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) and guarded the
benefit of the Islamic Ummah?
Question No.5 :
What was the reason for the argument between the Muslims in the
situation when some companions were preventing the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) from writing down his will?
1- The holy body of the Prophet (s.a.w.) was still lying on the bed
when all those disputes occurred, concerning the matter of who
shall succeed him after his demise. And if some of the
companions had done what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had asked
them (i.e. by bringing the ink and a pen) such catastrophes wouldn't
have happened among the Islamic sects.
In a tradition narrated in the sahih of al-Bukhaari (vol.1, chapter
no.83), it is said that the companions who were present during the
moment of the Holy Prophet's death divided into two parties: a
party called to bring the ink and pen to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), and
the other party tried to prevent that. And if the second party had
obeyed the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), would they therefore, need to
fabricate a false character called Abdullah ibn Saba' and relate all
the confusions to him, and free those companions who were the
main players in this objection from any charge or responsibility? Is
it possible for anyone who works in the field of researching and
study history to be convinced with illogical interpretations of those
2- Without doubt the source of the Islamic differences returns to
those who did the following:
a\ Preparing the appropriate ground and time for the Umayyad and
the Abbaside dynasties. This is especially seen in the time of
Mu`awiyah,who had destroyed the powers of Islam and distorted
b\ Excelling many of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.)from Medina, such as Abu Tharr al-Ghifaari whom the Holy
Prophet(s.a.w.) had described him saying, "There isn't a person
upon whom a tree's shadow fell, or a piece of ground hold, truer
than Abu Tharr!" And on the other hand, they had returned all those
whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had exiled or dismissed like
al-Hakam ibn al-`Aas, Marwan ibnal-Hakam (to whom Othman had
given his daughter as a wife) while it is not compatible with the Holy
Prophet's (s.a.w.) tradition.
c\ All those who had participated in the assassination of Othman
werepeople like Marwan ibn al-Hakam who killed Talha ibn
al-Zubayr in the battle al-Jamal, and forged the seal of Othman that
was supposed to be sent to the wali of Egypt, which of course was
the main reason for the anger of the Egyptians against the caliph.
d\ Those who broke their allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.), and began to
rebel against him, especially in the battles of Siffin, al-Jamal, and
al-Nahrawan. In fact, if Mu`awiyah, Talha, Zubayr, `Ayisha, and the
chiefs of the Kharijites would not have incited their followers to
participate in battles against Imam Ali (a.s.),then all the riots and
arguments among the Muslims would not have occurred - leading
them to such a miserable situation like that which they are living in
nowadays. Nor would it have been possible for the deviators, the
irreligious, or the hypocrites to lead the Islamic ummah to that
e\ wasn't the assassination of Othman a plea to create two
destroying battles in which many of the Prophet's companions
were killed? Wasn't the battle of Nahrawan a logical result for the
battle of Siffin? Can anyone deny that the active factors for inciting
`Ayisha (the Prophet's wife) to participate in a battle in which she
had indeed disgraced the respect of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), were
the Umayyad and the Marwanian, and because of her many of the
pious were martyred for their resistance against that gang who had
f\ Wasn't that gang the same gang who fought against Ali (a.s.)
and his household? Did not they deny the Aalul Bayt's virtues and
fabricated false hadiths which insulted them and eulogized their
Some Sunni ulama and researchers blame Mu`awiyah for what
the ummah had faced, and they considered his acts contradictory
to the Islamic rules. At the same time, some of them used to
eulogize Mu`awiyah and began to justify his acts, deeds, and
deviations. They call him the writer of the revelation and the uncle
of the believers, while there are many other companions who
deserve this title more than him -people like Muhammad ibn Abi
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight Imam Hasan (a.s.), the son of the Holy
Prophet(s.a.w.), and after he made a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.)
he broke his oath and planned against Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
Didn't he kill all the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as
Hijribn `Adiyy without any reason or accusation except for the
reason that he loves Ali and adheres to his way? Didn't he order
his gang to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit, in all states and
provinces, which lasted until the period of `Umar ibn `Abdil `Aziz?
Wasn't Mu`awiyah the one whom the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had
Wasn't it right that Mu`awiyah had broken the terms of the peace
treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) by appointing his son Yazid as his
successor? Wasn't it Yazid who killed the son of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.) (i.e. ImamHusayn), invaded Makkah, and assassinated its
inhabitants? Was not Mu`awiyah his son's partner in all those
Why did `Ayesha (the Holy Prophet's wife) rebel against the
successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.),
while it is said in a clear hadith that whoever rebels against the
Imam of his time, he shall be considered rebellious and
irreligious?! Was not her rebellion against Amiral-Muminin in
al-Jamal battle a frank contradiction to the Quranic
texts, especially the well-known verse, "And stay in your
Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "O Ali! Whosoever fights against
you, he is like that who fights against me; and whosoever makes
peace with you, then he is making peace with me"? Now,
according to this holy tradition, were not Mu`awiyah, `Ayesha,
Talha, and al-Zubayr fighting against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) when
they rebelled against Imam Ali(a.s.)?
Can we not discover the source of disputes by reading history and
study its events? Those disputes which were the main reasons for
the division of the Islamic ummah.
Can anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and saw
him be considered a just sahaabi?
There is no doubt that anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.)is considered a companion. The companions were very
fortunate because they have seen the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and
benefited from his holy existence and spirituality. But, at the same
time, we have to say that this accompaniment does not protect the
companion from falling in the wrong, and it cannot be anyone's
ticket to enter paradise. Rather, true belief in Allah, good deeds,
and adhering to the Islamic shari`ah is the real security. This is
clear from the holy verses, especially the surah of al-`Asr.
We don't have in our hand any hadith or narration conferring that
anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is infallible or
just, or even pious. On the contrary, we have many verses
declaring that some of the Holy Prophet's companions were
hypocrite and they remained on their hypocrisy until they died.
Thus, the opinion which says that all the Holy Prophet's
companions are just, and that they must be obeyed is absolutely
incorrect, rather it contradicts the Holy Quran. How can we regard
all the companions to be just and that they must be followed, while
some of them have accused the Holy Prophet's wife of having
an illegal relationship?! This event has been mentioned in the Holy
Quran inthe surah of al-Noor, verse 11. Some other companions
were drunkards, like Qudamah ibn Madh`oon who had been
punished for this act. Walid ibn `Uqbah was also a companion
about whom the following Quranic verse had been revealed: "O
you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look
carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6].
Other companions had committed adultery!(See: Usd al-Ghaabah,
vol. 4&5, where you can get more information about their names
and shameful biography in details). How can we adhere to any
companion, while at the same time when we find outright contradictions between what they say and what they do.
This is beside the mental, dogmatic, and political disputes that had
happened between the companions themselves? When Abdul
Rahman ibn `Awf said to Imam Ali (a.s.) in the gathering when
`Umar was dying: I swear allegiance to you according to the Quran,
the sunnah of the Prophet, and the way of life of the two caliphs.
Imam Ali (a.s.) said, "No! I accept your allegiance according to the
Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and my opinion! "This means
that Imam Ali (a.s.) didn't agree to follow the way of life of the two
Thus, we can ask that:
1- Does investigating the companions' biographies and way of
life contradict the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran itself discloses
many facts and unveils many characters, the following verses are
examples: (1) "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief
and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what
Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise"; (2)
"And of the dwellers of the desert are those who take what they
spend to be a fine, and what they wait (the befalling of) calamities
to you; on them (will be) the evil calamity"; (3) "And of the dwellers
of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and
take what they spend to be (means of) the nearness of Allah"; (4)
"And as for the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars...
and from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of
the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of
Medina(also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know
them; We know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they
be turned back to a grievous chastisement" [Tawbah:98-100].
In other Quranic verses we see that the names of some of
the companions have been mentioned in the Holy Quran. In these
verses they have been considered irreligious, like Walid ibn
`Uqbah about whom the Holy Quran has said, "O you who believe! if
an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest
you harm a people in ignorance" [al-Hujurat:6]. The narrations of
Sunni sources have disclosed the name of this person whom the
Quran is making reference too. A narration had been mentioned in
the Sahih of al-Bukhari (the book of du`as) declares the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had said,"I am your missing baby near the pool. There, some men will be lifted unto me, but when I come down to lift them up, they will
be scattered around me! At that time, I will say, `O my Lord! these
are my companions!' He will answer me saying, `You don't know
what they did after you!'
Many traditions have been narrated in The Sunni sources
(Sahih al-Bukhari that are having such meaning - vol.8, pp.13,504,505.)
It is incorrect to look at all the companions with one eye; this is in
fact opposite of the Holy Quran. The truth is that many of the Holy
Prophet's companions were pious and true believers, while there
were some who were known for their false belief and hypocrisy.
History shows us many examples of such individuals.
2- Is it correct to close our eyes and ears, saying that all the
companions were pious, good, and that all of their deeds were
credible even if they had some deeds which were opposed to the
Islamic law (sharia)?
3- Is it right to justify their evil deeds, saying that they were
practicing ijtihad, and that their wrong doings did not happen
If they were free to practise ijtihad, why can't we also practise
ijtihad? Why is it that some say: You are kafir (an infidel)! if you
practise ijtihad?Why do you consider all those who criticizes the
companions according to the Holy Quran, kafirs? One of the Hanafi
scholars, Ibn `Abdeen, had made a nice statement, saying,
"Considering others as kafirs without evidences is the behaviour of
the pagans not the mujtahids!"
4- Can we call this behaviour of yours but extremity and
exaggeration? How could you accuse others of exaggeration and
forget to criticize yourselves? We haven't any evidence that the
companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) were infallible, but when you
talk about their deeds you talk exaggeratedly, and even at times,
you consider the companions even better than an infallible or the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) himself. However, when the Shi`ites speak
about their Imams as infallible imam as, you accuse them of
fabrication and lies! Many Sunni scholars have dared to say that
many Quranic verses were revealed according to `Umar's will.Yes,
these words have been written by a Sunni scholar under the
The Sunni people perform the prayers known as "taraweeh"
in Ramadhan in congregation, while it is an innovation fabricated by
`Umar.Was such a prayer mention in the sunnah of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.)?When the Shi`ites practise their deeds according
to Imam Sadiq's sayings and narrations, the Sunni people say that
the Shi`ites refer their deeds to their Imams because they are
ma`soom, while they (the Sunnis)give a better rank to a companion
than the rank of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.). This clearly discloses their
It is better for those who accuse the Shi`ites of untrue
performance to look to their beliefs and sayings?
What a beautiful saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) said: "The lover of a
thing is blind and deaf."
What are the basis upon which Mu`wiyah depended to practise
ijtihad -eventually causing him to wage a savage war against Imam
Ali (a.s.); the war which caused many eminent companions to die?
It is not logical to interpret some Quranic verses like, "You are best
of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men," or "And thus We
have made you a medium (just) nation," etc..., that they are
describing the companions and their being just and equal. This is
because it is clear that these verses and others are talking about
the whole ummah not certain individuals. For example, when it is
says that the inhabitants of the so city are better than others; the
whole inhabitants of that city are included in this expression -
generally speaking, not necessarily meaning each of them.
Anyhow, a person may be pious in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.)and it is possible that he changes his behaviours after his
(the Prophet's)demise. This is exactly what happened and what
the narrations have told.
What are the references and sources from which we can identify
the Holy Prophet's sunnah?
Allah, the Exalted, said, "... and whatever the Apostle gives you,
accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back..."
All the Islamic sects agree on the prophetic sunnah - no one has
doubt in it. The dispute is in regard to the sources of this prophetic
sunnah. Both the Shi`ites and Sunnis have narrated the well-known
tradition in their books in which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I am
leaving with you two weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to
them, you won't be misguided at all. They are the Book of Allah
and my family. They won't separate from each other until they
arrive to me near the Pool."
All sects have agreed on the chain of this hadith. Ibn Hajar, a
Sunni narrator, has said, "This tradition has been conveyed by
more than 20 companions. It is also mentioned in the sahih of
Muslim, sunan of al-Daarimi, musnad Ahmad, and tens of sources.
This clearly makes indicates that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had
shown us how to derive his sunnah and from which sources. There
is no doubt that the main source of the Prophet's (s.a.w.) sunnah is
the Aalul Bayt (a.s.). However, at the same time we see that the
Sunni ulama do not paying any attention to this sahih hadith. Why?
Is the Prophet's hadith not sufficient.
2- Why do they follow the other tradition which says,"...the Book of
Allah and my sunnah"? Now, suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
did word this tradition in this fashion, does it differ with the first
one? Ibn Hajar had said that the Islamic ummah needs the Holy
Quran, the sunnah, and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If we examine the text we
shall be quite sure that it confirms the infallibility of the Imams and
that they are unique intellectuals and political sources. Hence, we
have no other choice but to adhere to them because they are the
firmest link handle between us, Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.).
The Sunnis believe that the traditions and the sunnah have not
been recorded for about a century, i.e. from the caliphate of `Umar
till the caliphate of `Umar ibn Abdil Aziz (the Umayyad caliph). Many
traditions have been burned in the lifetime of Abu Bakr and Umar.
3- Can we expect any remaining of the traditions and sunnah after
a century of prohibition? Even if we found some of them, we
should ask how much and to what degree of accuracy were they
recorded? Do we dare say that all the traditions existing in the
Sunni sources remained safe from abrogation? And, if those
traditions were all accredited and reliable, then why did Muslim
choose only six thousand hadith from about three hundred
thousand? Or why did al-Bukhari choose only four thousand
hadiths from more than six hundred thousand - and left the rest?
If all the traditions that are talking about the Prophet (s.a.w.) and
his sunnah were reliable and trustworthy then why do the Sunnis
practice ijtihad, qiyas and istihsan? Wasn't Abu Hanifa, and other
scholars practising qiyas and istihsan in order to derive certain
rules of the Islamic law (shar`)? Doesn't this prove that the
traditions do not contain religious rules? Even those which contain
some religious rule, are not reliable. We read in the book titled
"Kitaab al-Mawdhou`aat" (vol.1, Beirut edition, the last lines of the
chapter called `fadhaa`il al-Khulafa'') that the two great and eminent
scholars, i.e. al-Soyouti and Ibn al-Jawzi, had declared that most of
the known narrations which eulogize the caliphs are fabricated and
4- Prohibiting the writing of the traditions led the enemies of Ahlul
Bayt(a.s.) to omit all these traditions containing the virtues of the
Prophet's House, and in their place they fabricated thousands of
traditions that eulogize their enemies! (See the first volume of
tafseer al-Fakhral-Raazi?a great Sunni scholars when interpreting the
phrase "BismAllah"; he says: The traditionalists have concealed
many traditions that related the virtues of Imam Ali (a.s.) because
they feared Mu`awiyah!!!
5- If the Sunnis are true when they pretend that the Muslims have
to follow the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (a.s.), then why do they
refuse to narrate the traditions that eulogize the Holy Imams (a.s.),
especially ImamSadiq (a.s.). This is so, while in the same time
they narrate many traditions about the Khawarij and Nawasib. For
example, Bukhaari narrated in his sahih, from `Imran ibn Hittan (a
6- Why do Sunnis narrate most of the traditions through the chain
of Abu Hurayra? It is said that the number of traditions narrated by
Abu Hurayraare about 5,374, while Abu Hurayra didn't accompany
the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) except in the last two years of the Holy
Prophet's lifetime – after accepting Islam.
As for Imam Ali (a.s.), who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
since his childhood until the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) died between his
hands, there are only 537 traditions narrated from him (a.s.) in
Sunnis books. This is so, while Imam Ali (a.s.) delivered the most
remarkable orations and sayings especially during the time which
he ruled over the Muslim ummah, which lasted less than five years.
And in this five years he explained to the Muslims every minute rule
and regulation in the Islamic shari`ah and the prophetic sunnah.
None of these orations and sayings has been mentioned in the
sahih of al-Baukhari or Muslim.
7- Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) say, "I am the city of knowledge,
and Ali is its gate"; "I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its gate";
"Ali is with truth and truth is with Ali", etc... Are these not clear
proofs that show the high rank of Imam Ali (a.s.)?
8- Weren't Ali (a.s.), Fatima (a.s.) and their sons al-Hasan and
al-Husayn(a.s.) the people about whom the verse of "tatheer" and
"mubahala" had been revealed?
9- What is the meaning of "loving the Household of the Holy
Prophet(a.s.)"? Their love can be verified by two means, first:
speaking and mentioning their virtues in gatherings of those with
true faith, and second: adhering to them by word and act, as the
Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had said, "if you adhered to them, you won't be
misguided at all." Can one love the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) only by words
instead of heart?
10- Is it logical that the Muslims follow any individual, even if
that individual was like Mu`awiyah who was known for his enmity
against Aalul Bayt (a.s.)? Can't we consider this following as an
open enmity against the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) and the Holy Quran?
The Holy Quran had clearly mentioned that loving the Aalul Bayt
(a.s.) is the cause of receiving a great reward; thus, is it right to
follow any fabricated hadith or to call the Muslims to follow
individuals like Mu`awiyah who is not infallible. He is the one who
had committed lots of mistakes and crimes against Islam and its
regulations. The most wicked among Mu`awiyah's deeds is his
warfare against Imam Ali (a.s.) and the wicked ritual - enacted by
him - to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit in every part of the
Islamic country - this lasted until the ruling time of the Umayyad
caliph `Umar ibn Abdil `Aziz. It is worthy to mention that the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.) had already said, "Whosoever enacts a wicked
ritual, then the penalty of enacting such a ritual shall be on him and
those who follow this ritual."
When did the Sunni Sects Exist?
It is certain that there was nothing called "Sunni sects" in the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), not even after his demise. The
Sunni sects have emerged in the 3rd and 4th centuries (Hijri) as a
result of political and dogmatic differences. Some of those sects
have been abrogated and other were authorized.
We have here some questions in regard to this subject:
1- Why were some of those sects authorized and other were
rejected? Are there any Quranic evidences and demonstrations, or
prophetic traditions that urge us to follow, for example, the Hanafi
or Maaliki sect? Weren't the founders of the rejected sects
mujtahids? If so, hasn't any mujtahis the right to disclose his own
opinion, like Abu Hanifa who practised ijtihad - which he remained
doing so till the end of his life?
2- Were the four famous sects existing in the time of the caliphs?
Were the caliphs performing their duties and judging people
according to their own opinions?
We can notice the great difference between the Sunnis in the time
of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and the Ottoman dynasties, and
between the Sunnis in present time, especially in regard to issues
of fiqh and beliefs.
3- Can we trust those traditions fabricated by the oppressive
Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman caliphs; traditions which were
fabricated in their own benefit and to keep them in power -
traditions which were consider to be the exact words of the Holy
4- Can we regard all the savage behaviours of the partisans called
"the Army of Sahabah" or the Wahhabites as Islamic propagation,
and that they are guiding people to the true rules of Islam? Are the
Sunnis propagating the true sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), or in
fact, they are propagating the sunnah of the Umayyads and the
5- Were there any sects in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)?
All historical records confirm that there were not any sects in that
time. Moreover, the term "Sunni" had generated in the time of
Mu`awiyah and later on.
6- Wasn't the belief of the determinists declaring that man must
obey hisruler, no matter whether he (i.e. the ruler) was just or
oppressor? Wasn'tthe opinion that "all the companions are just"
derived from the falsetraditions which Mu`awiyah and the
Umayyads had generated?
7- Is it correct to return to the old texts of a person who died
centuriesago, to derive new issues?
8- Why do the Sunnis return to persons who died 13 centuries ago
while they can consult contemporary scholars (faqihs) and eminent
`ulama who have obtained high ranks not less than those who have
Why isn't there any scholar (mujtahid) among the Sunnis who can
save them from disputes and answer their religious questions of
the day, while the Shi`ites have many scholars in every time and
Is the present knowledge and science the same as the knowledge
and science of past times? Are the needs of our communities
today the same as those which were existing 1,300 years ago?
9- Why don't the Sunnis follow the fatwa of the shaykh
Mahmoud Shaltoot, the dean al-Azhar who considered Shi`ism as
an authorized sect, as he says it depends on the intellectual and
fiqh bases? Isn't that a clear religious prejudice? Is not Shi`ism the
right sect which is based on that which the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had
recommended? Wasn't the famous tradition (i.e., "I am leaving with
you two weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you
won't be misguided at all. They are the Book of Allah and my
family") sufficient to follow the Shi`a sect? Have you any other
evidences to prove the correctness of the famous four sects?
Surely the answer will be "NO"! If you study the Shi`a books without
partisanship or prejudice, you will certainly not find any kind
of contradictions and you will notice that they are not forging lies
against anyone. However, we may find some Sunnis when they
want to investigate other sects and their beliefs, they depend only
on their own scholars' (shaykhs') speeches and opinions without
paying any attention to the ideas of the `ulama of the other sects. Is
it correct to follow such methodology to investigate another sects'
What is the Sunnis' attitude in regard to the revolution of Imam
Every body recognizes the high rank of Imam Husayn (a.s.).
His grandfather is the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)
was always describing Imam Husayn (a.s.), that he is the
counter-balance of the Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.a.w.)
declared that Husayn ibn Ali (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam
whether he rises (rebelled against the oppressors) or not. He (s.a.w.)
also insisted that the Muslims should love Imam Husayn (a.s.) and
adhere to his teachings. Anyhow, it is well-known that Imam Husayn
(a.s.) is the best person of his era after his father and elder brother.
As it is known that Imam Husayn had rose up against the authority
of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfill his duty toward the Holy Quran and
his Holy grandfather (s.a.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad
caliphs had exceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and
injustice. Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the tradition of his
grandfather, namely, "He who sees an oppressor and tyrant ruler,
who is changing what is forbidden (haram) into what is allowed
(halal) - those who broke their covenant with Allah and fight against
the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). And in the face of this he
doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler's illegal deeds
neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in the same
place where He shall put that tyrant."
Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist
Imam Husayn (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they
wrote to Imam Husayn (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same
time, some of the companions, whom the Sunnis are still eulogize,
like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn
Abi Bakr and many others, didn't give their allegiance to Imam
Husayn (a.s.). We should ask why? Moreover, Abdullah ibn `Umar
began calling the people to pay allegiance to Yazid, preventing
them from assisting Imam Husayn (a.s.)!This had been recorded
by al-Bukhari (vol.IX, the book of riots, chapter:`if he said anything
before the folk'), and in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal(vol.II, p.48)
[This narration was conveyed by Naafi`].
Now, we ask this question from the Sunnis: Do you disagree with
Imam Husayn's uprising? If we search in historical records we shall
come to the conclusion that the Sunnis had preferred silence and
agreed to be with those who remained behind. But all of us know
that whosoever remains silent - not support his Imam (a.s.),
knowing that the Imam, the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is right -
agrees with Yazid and his wicked deeds. Thus, these people shall
be considered as those who have participated with Yazid's army
and fought against Imam Husayn (a.s.) and were indirect partners
in the massacres of Yazid's army on the day of `Ashoora.
In fact, the rule of Yazid over the Islamic emperor was the
continuation of`Umar, `Uthman, and Mu`awiyah rule.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight against Ali (a.s.), and therefore the main
factor of Imam Hasan's martyrdom? Didn't he submit the key of
caliphate to his insane son Yazid, and by doing so breaking the
covenants he gave to Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
We put these questions in front of those who assisted Yazid and
stood with him. Those who remained behind and abandoned Imam
Husayn(a.s.) in the hour of straightness, when he rose against
oppression and corruption.
Some commentaries on the Sunni Islamic laws (fiqh):
Every sect has its own rules and regulations, and it is indisputable
that the imam of that sect had derived those rules and regulations
by means of ijtihad. However, we still find some rules in Sunni fiqh
that have no legal or logical base. The most wonderful matter here
is that the Sunnis insist on following those baseless rules which
sometimes are contradictory to the texts of the Holy Quran and the
prophetic traditions. Here are some of those rules:
1- Regarding (wudhu) ablution, the Holy Quran says, "... and wipe
your heads and your feet to the ankles"; this part of the verse is
a continuation of the first part which is "wash your faces and your
hands", so, why do the Sunnis wash their feet - contrary to the
meaning of the verse?
2- All Sunni sects do not consider performing prayer (salat) with
the arms folded across each other as an obligation in the prayer,
however, they still insist on performing it. Even some famous
sects, like Shafi`ee, does not regard that as obligatory, and they
sometimes pray with open arms (with their arms to their sides); so
why does other sects insist on praying with folded arms?
3- All narrations and historical record show that in the early times
of Islam, the Nabawi Masjid was not furnished with carpet, rather,
the Muslims were performing their prayers on the bare ground,
and sometimes on plants that were not eaten or woven (into
cloths). We have no truthful tradition that mentioned that the
Prophet (s.a.w.) had called the Muslims to perform their prayers on
carpets or the like of it. Why then do you insist on performing
prayers on carpets and fabrics in spite of them any narrations
(written in your books too) that refer to perform prostration (sojood)
on the bare ground? Why do you blame the Shi`a for prostrating on
a piece of clay? Isn't prostrating on the ground one of
the Prophet's sunnah? Can you verify that prostrating on carpet
and garments was his (s.a.w.) sunnah?
We hope to receive the answer for these questions from the
learned and wise men.
4- One of Islam's obligatory duties is the five daily prayers,
and whosoever denies them is considered a kafir. Each prayer has
its own and mutual time. Many Sunni and Shi`ite narrations have
declared that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) on many occasions, and had
performed – many times, the noon prayers in the beginning of the
noon, and in other times he (s.a.w.) performed it in the afternoon. He
did the same thing with the late evening (maghrib) and `isha
prayers. It is also narrated that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) had
performed the five prayers with in three times frames, with or
without reasons - he only wanted to remove all kinds of
burdens from his ummah.
Why do the Sunnis insist on not performing some of the prayers
together at one time, which has been permitted by the Prophet
(s.a.w.)? Isn't this clear contradiction to the Holy Quran "and has not
laid upon you any hardship in religion", and the holy sunnah?
Isn't the tradition narrated from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) which declares
that it is permissible to perform some prayers together at one time
according to the holy verse "Keep up prayers from the declining of
the sun till the darkness of the night"?
5- Why don't the Sunnis repeat the sentence "hayya `ala khayr
al-`amal" although it is recommended, and in its place they added
"al-salaatkhayrun min al-nawm" which has no legal evidence to
6- There is no doubt that the prayers have lots of benefits and
rewards for anyone who performs them, especially the
congregational prayers -when a pious and just imam leads it. So,
why do the Sunnis perform the congregational prayers behind any
individual (no matter whether he is irreligious, unjust, oppressive or
he was not)? Do you think that this is permissible in Islam?
7- It is known among the Muslims that the obligatory prayers must
be performed in congregation, while the mustahabb prayers can
be performed alone. Umar himself confess that this issue is true.
So, from where did he bring the prayers of taraawih? Why did he
oblige the Muslims to perform it in congregation? He has then
innovated a heresy: Obliging the people to perform the mustahabb
prayers in congregation and insisting on that. He announced that
anyone who does not perform the obligatory prayers in
congregation must perform the taraawih prayers in congregation.
Is this correct?!
8- The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) encouraged the Muslims to get married
and said that this is a part of his sunnah. And to save this
sacred relationship, Islam legislate lots of rules and regulations.
An example of those rules is that Islam prohibited forced divorces.
To perform the legal divorce ceremony, there must be two
witnesses before the judge during the three times of divorce. After
the third divorce the relationship shall absolutely be cut! The Hanafi
sect, however, does not care for the husband's psychological
situation. In this sect it is permissible for the man to divorce his
wife three time orally, only by saying the phrase by which man
divorces his wife: "I divorce you (three times)."
Now, does not this fatwa bring about difficulty (in remaining
married)while the Holy Quran says, "and has not laid upon you any
hardship in religion"?
The above question was the last to the Sunni brothers, although
there are many more to be asked. However, we shall suffice with
what we have asked, hoping that the learned researchers will
continue their struggle for acquiring the truth.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
1- Sahih Muslim, the book of benevolence, the chapter of those
whom the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.) had cursed or insulted.