ARE SHIA'S MUSLIM?

These are accusations against the Shia by an Ignorant Muslim

How powerful can propaganda be in this age? Flooded by publication in so many language, the Shi'a, for so many years, continously uttered falsehood as truth. For those who are ignorant of the Shi'a Beliefs, as every Muslim's duty, Sipah-e-Sahaba-USA intend to enlighten our brothers and sisters especially the REVERT MUSLIMS trying to understand the difference between being a Muslim and being a Shi'a.

Shi'a Beliefs according to their own BOOKS

Belief of the Immamat. The standard of Immamat is higher than the Prophethood. ( Hayatul Qaloob Vol. 3 pg. 10)Angels bring WEHI to the Immamas:every Friday, they go to MIRAJ ( Asool-e-Kaafi pg. 135, 155)
Every year the BOOK reveals on the Immam of the Time of the night of the Qadr ( Comt. Asool-e- Kaafi Vol. 2 pg.229)
Their Immams got higher status, that can't be achieved by the Angels nor the Prophet. ( Khomeini . Hakoomatil Islamia pg.52)
Alteration in the Qur'an. A big part of the Qur'an is missing (Sani Comt. Asool-e-Kaafi Vol. 6 pg. 75)Like the Torah and the Bible, they claim that the Qur'an is also corrupted and there were changes made in it. (Fazal-ul-Katab pg.70 )

Shi'a beliefs of 17,000 ayats (verses) in Qur'an ( Asool-e-Kaafi pg 671) Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umer were never became true Muslims according to the Shi'a. ( Jal'l Ayuoon pg. 45 ) After the Prophet ( Sallalahu Alayhis Wasallam) passed away, all the Sahabas left Islam except for three. ( Qur'an Kaafi Vol. 3 pg. 115 )

Mutt'a ( temporary marriage) In the name of Mutt'a, Shi'a faith allows its followers to commit adultery. They allow man and woman to have sexual relations without having the NIKKAH. Mutt'a is a temporary Nikkah whereby you do not need witnesses. If the man and woman agreed, they can do Mutt'a. Mutt'a could be performed for ONE hour, ONE day, ONE month or whatever time limit was agreed upon by the two consenting parties. Mutt'a could be done with any women even professional prostitutes. (Froaiy Kaafi Vol.2 pg.189)Mutt'a is higher than SALAT, FASTING, and HAJJ. When after performing Mutt'a , man and woman take Ghussul ( bath) , Allah(swt) forgive their sins in the amount of the hair in their bodies those became wet during the Ghussal ( Minal Yahderul Faqih pg. 431)

TAQIYYAH (lying) is an act of IBADAH ( worship ) in SHI'ASM. One who hides the faith (Shi'a), will be disgraced by Allah(swt). (Asool-e-Kaafi pg. 485) Taqiyyah is wajib(mandatory) . One who does not do Taqiyyah has no iman (faith) (Asool-e-Kaafi pg484)

Who can say these above mentioned aquaid (beliefs) to be Islamic? This is nothing but KUFR... Do not be mislead ! To the Muslim Ummah , SIPAH-e-SAHABA-USA, Inc. ( guardians of the SAHABA) urge all Believing Muslims to participate in this GREAT JIHAD, that Shi'a are not MUSLIMS ...

A write up by K. Zafar of Sipahe Sahaba (U.S.A.) entitled 'Are Shia Muslims?' has found its place in the internet, loaded with the time worn objections and arguments against the Shia sect of Islam. These have been adequately and amply answered time and again by the Shia scholars, but the zeal of Sipahe Sahaba to create dissention and disunity among the Ummah of Islam remains unabated.

Two cardinal points have to be clarified before we proceed with answering the objections raised by the writer:

It must be borne in mind that according to Shia belief, every book authored by a human mortal can be subject to error, and, therefore, unlike the Sunni brothers, they do not consider their books of Ahadith as 'SAHIH' or fully authentic and sound. While the Sunni school has 6 books labelled as 'SIHAH', eg SAHIH OF BUKHARI and MUSLIM etc., the Shias believe that the only book which can be classified as pristine and unsullied is the Book of Allah, the Holy Qur'an.

The quotations given by K Zafar are wholly inadequate. She does not quote from Usool al Kafi by giving Chapter and Hadith numbers, and contents herself by giving page numbers. As there are various editions of Usool al Kafi and the other books quoted by her, it is indeed difficult to verify their accuracy.

K Zafar says:

(1) "Belief of the Imamat. The standard of Imamat is higher than the Prophethood".It is impossible to find anything objectionable in this belief, because it is based on the Holy Qur'an, see verse 124 of Sura Al Baqarah: "And when Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with certain Words, and he fulfilled them, He (Allah) said: Surely I will make you an Imam to the people,..."This verse clearly states that the elevation of status to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, came in the form of a WAHY (a revelation). This means that he was being promoted from Nubuwwah to Imamah.

(2) "Angels bring WEHI (sic) to the Imams: every Friday they go to MIRAJ(sic)".The writer may like to consider the following verses from the Holy Qur'an:"And your Lord sent WAHY to the bee to build its cells in hills...." (al Nahl, verse 68)"So We sent WAHY to the mother of Musa that suckle him...." (al Shua'raa, verse 7)"And we made them Imams, guiding men by Our command and We sent WAHY to them to do good deeds..." (al Anbiya', verse 73).

From the verses quoted above, it is evident that WAHY is used by the Holy Qur'an to mean inspirations, intuitive knowledge, apart from the WAHY in the form of a revelation to the Prophets. WAHY to Imams came as the inspirations as vouched by the Holy Qur'an. That is the meaning of revelation on the night of Qadr, coming to the righteous Imams.

(3,4) "Their Imams got higher status, that can't be achieved by the Angels nor the Prophet"

This objection is very surprising. For both Sunni and Shia schools agree that not only the Imams, but also an ordinary MU'MIN, following the Shariah of Islam can achieve higher status than the angels. Angels do not have emotions, passions and desires. Humans have to combat all the evils to achieve purity. Therefore, when he frees himself from base desires and obeys his Master, he has a higher place.

As for our Prophet, peace be upon him and his proginy, no Shia scholar has ever claimed a higher status for any Imam.

(5,6,7) These deal with quotations from Shia sources saying that the Holy Qur'an has had omissions or changes.

At the very outset, I made it clear that such reports are not accepted as sound. We, Shias, unlike our Sunni brothers do not accord the status of 'SAHIH' to any book other than the Holy Qur'an. Every report is subjected to a meticulous study, based on the laid down standards of RIJAAL and SANAD. Time and again we have reiterated that the Holy Qur'an as it exists is the WHOLE book, having no interpolations at all.

It might interest K Zafar and other partisans of Siph-e-Sahaba to consider the following reports from SAHIH books of Sunni school:

(i)"Reported from Caliph Umar(Rad.) who said from the pulpit: Surely Allah sent Muhammad, peace be upon him, with Truth, and sent down to him the Book, and among the things revealed therein was the verse of RAJM. We read it, understood it and assimilated it. (That is, the verse about stoning the adulterer: tr.) The Prophet stoned the adulterer and we did the same after his passing away. So, I fear that with the passage of time, someone may say that we do not find this verse in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by not practising that which has been ordained. The mention of RAJM in the Book of Allah is truth for the one who commits adultery." (Al Bukhari,Vol4/120. The chapter of Rajmul HUbla min al Zina. Kitabul Hudood).

According to this report appearing from Al Bukhari, which is SAHIH according to SUNNI school, a verse from the Holy Qur'an is missing.

In the SAHIH of Ibn MAJAH, Ayesha, the wife of our Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, is reported as under:

"The verse of RAJM and about suckling a child at least 10 times, had indeed been revealed and they were written on a page which was under my bed, but when the Prophet died, while we were occupied with the tragedy, a domestic animal entered and ate the page up." (SUNAN ibn MAJAH: Hadith no 1944 and 2553).

Hadhrat Ayesha tells us of the irretrievable loss of a verse from the Holy Qur'an.

In spite of the above reports from their own sources, which they consider as 'SAHIH', K Zafar and her likes have the audacity of throwing stones while living in glass houses. We, the Shias, believe that these reports appearing in Al Bukhari and Ibn MAJAH are false, and neither SUNNI nor SHIA believe in any change having occured in the Holy Book.

(8,9). About the SAHABA being true Muslims.We Shia believe that Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar were MUSLIMS. And the SAHABA who survived the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, were MUSLIMS. The qualifying term "true" is judged by the actions of an individual.

10. K. Zafar's hue and cry against MUTA'H is very amusing. This practice of MUTA'H was ordained by the HOLY Quran is its verse:" And for the pleasure you derive from them, give them their dowers, as prescribed...... "(al Nisa, V 24)

In order to understand the verse from SUNNI sources, refer to Tafseer of al-Tabari elucidating the verse from a report by Habib b. Ali Thabit. Also see al Bayhaqi in his SUNAH 7/205, Sharah of SAHIH MUSLIM by al-Nawawi 9/179, al-Kasshaf by Zama Khshari 1/519, Tafseer of Ibn Katheer 1/474, and also al-Durr al Manthoor of Suyuti 2/140-141.

Now, in order to explain to K. Zafar what MUTA'H actually means in the FIQH of ISLAM, I quote herebelow from TAUDHIHUL MASAIL according to the Fatawa of Shia scholars, because she has levelled allegations against the Shias.

"Whether marriage is permanent or temporary, the formal formula must be pronounced; mere tacit approval and consent, or written agreement, is not sufficient. And the formula (Sigha) of the marriage contract is pronounced either by the man and the woman themselves, or by a person who is appointed by them as their representatives to recite it on their behalf.

"If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, makes a condition that her husband will not have sexual intercourse with her, the marriage as well as the condition imposed by her will be valid, and the husband can then derive only other pleasures from her. However, if she agrees to sexual intercourse later, her husband can have sexual intercourse with her, and this rule applies to permanent marriage as well."A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other, such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then, precaution should be exercised by putting it into effect.

"If a wife of temporary marriage goes out of the house without the permission of her husband, and the right of the husband is in anyway violated, it is haram for her to leave. And if the right of her husband remains protected, it is recommended precaution that she should not leave the house without the permission.

"If a man contracted a temporary marriage with a woman, and the period of her Iddah has not ended yet, he is allowed to contract a permanent marriage with her or renew a contract for temporary marriage with her."

From those ramifications, it is easy to observe that MUTA'H is a contract, just like NIKAH in a permanent marriage, it has a formula to pronounce, and it has certain responsibilities. This was ordained to prevent MUSLIMS from committing adultery and fornication, and from demeaning the status of MUSLIM women. Today, this ordinance is even more pertinent and relevant.

In his MUSNAD, Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal reports from Abu Saeed al-KHUDARI, who said: "We contracted MUTA'H during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in lieu of the cloth. (see MUSNAD of AHMAD 3/22).

In the SAHIH of MUSLIM, a report from ATA' appears who said: "JABIR b. Abdillah once came for Umrah, and we met him in his house. People gathered there asked him a few things, and then they mentioned MUTA'H. He said: "Yes, we contracted MUTA'H during the times of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and of Abu Bakr and Umar" (see SAHIH MUSLIM. KITAB AN-NIKAH, Hadith No. 1405, page 1023).

It was Umar b. Khattab, who later forbade MUTA'H, and opened the gate of vices for MUSLIMS. In his Tafsir al-Kabir, Imam Fakhr Al-Razi says: "Had it not been for Umar who forbade MUTA'H, no one would have indulged in fornication except the wretched one". (see Tafseer al-Kabir - 3/200 in the exegesis of the Ayah).

11. K. Zafar has totally misunderstood the meaning of Taqayyah. It is not lying. It is hiding ones faith in a situation which justifies it.The Holy Quran says:-"A believing Man, from among the people of Pharaoh who had concealed his faith said...." (al MO'MIN v. 28)

For the one who was concealing his faith, the verse says he was "RAJULUN MOMINUN". So, what is wrong if one has to conceal his faith if circumstances warrant? The early history of Islam is fraught with incidents when the early converts had to conceal their faith. The most glowing example is that of Ammar b. Yasir. And yet, when he came to the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, ashamed of what he had done by way of simulation, the Prophet said: "Faith has covered Ammar from his heed to his toes".Inshallah, these explanations will allow Sipahe Sahaba to understand Shia beliefs dispassionately. Let the Ummah of Islam be saved from the unscrupulous hands, and from the enemies within and without.

Our final prayer is that "All Praise belong to the Lord of the worlds".

Obama, Emanuel and Israel

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel is an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" - i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

In rapid response to this news, the editorial in the next day's Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled "Don't pin much hope on Obama - Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message". This editorial referred to the Irgun as a "terror organization" and concluded: "Far from challenging Israel, the new team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing.

"That was always likely. Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.

Still, one of the greatest advantages for the United States in electing Barack Hussein Obama was the prospect that the world's billion-plus Muslims, who now view the United States with almost universal loathing and hatred, would be dazzled by the new president's eloquence, life story, skin color and middle name, would think again with open minds and would give America a chance to redeem itself in their eyes and hearts - not incidentally, drastically shortening the long lines of aspiring jihadis eager to sacrifice their lives while striking a blow against the evil empire.

The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America's unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and "national security" problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the earliest opportunity?

A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Nevertheless, since it is almost always constructive to seek a silver lining in the darkest clouds, a silver lining can be found and cited. For decades, the Palestinian leadership has been "waiting for Godot" - waiting for the US Government to finally do the right thing (if only in its own obvious self-interest) and to force Israel to comply with international law and UN Resolutions and permit them to have a decent mini-state on a tiny portion of the land that once was theirs.

This was never a realistic hope. It has not happened, and it will never happen. So it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more Jewish colonies and Jews-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing. It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new "only game in town".

Furthermore, in February, Israel will elect a new Knesset. Bibi Netanyahu, who, most polls and coalition-building calculations suggest, is most likely to emerge as the next prime minister, has one (if only one) great virtue. He is absolutely honest in not professing any desire (however insincere) to see the creation of any Palestinian "state" (whether decent or less-than-a-Bantustan in nature) or to engage in any talks (even never-ending and fraudulent ones) ostensibly about that possibility. His return to power would definitively slam the door on the illusion of a "two-state solution" somewhere over an ever-receding horizon.

This would constitute a blessing and a liberation for Palestinian minds and Palestinian aspirations. Their leadership(s) could then return, after a long, costly and painful diversion, to fundamental principles, to pursuing the goal of a democratic, nonracist and nonsectarian state in all of Israel/Palestine with equal rights for all who live there.

This just goal could and should be pursued by strictly nonviolent means. If the goal is to convince a determined and powerful settler-colonial movement which wishes to seize your land, settle it and keep it (eventually cleansing it of you and your fellow natives) that it should cease, desist and leave, nonviolent forms of resistance are suicidal. If, however, the goal were to be to obtain the full rights of citizenship in a democratic, nonracist state (as was the case in the American civil rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid movement), then nonviolence would be the only viable approach. Violence would be totally inappropriate and counterproductive. The morally impeccable approach would also be the tactically effective approach. The high road would be the only road.

No American president - least of all Barack Obama - could easily support racism and apartheid and oppose democracy and equal rights, particularly if democracy and equal rights were being pursued by nonviolent means. No one anywhere could easily do so. The writing would be on the wall, and the clock would be running out on the tired game of using a perpetual "peace process" as an excuse to delay decisions (while building more "facts on the ground") forever.

Democracy and equal rights would not come quickly or easily. Forty years passed between when, on the night before his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King cried out that he had been to the mountaintop and had seen the promised land and when Barack Obama was elected as president of the United States. (The Bible suggests a similar waiting period in the wilderness for Moses.) Forty-six years passed between the installation of a formal apartheid regime in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela as president of a fully democratic and nonracist "rainbow nation".

While it may be hoped that the transformation would be significantly quicker in Israel/Palestine, it is clear that many who already qualify as "senior citizens" will not live to see the promised land. However, if the promised land of a democratic state with equal rights for all is correctly and clearly perceived and persistently and peacefully pursued, there is ample reason for confidence that Israel/Palestine will one day experience the tearful exaltation of a "Mandela Moment" or an "Obama Moment", restoring hope in the moral potential both of a nation and of mankind, and that the Jews, Muslims and Christians who live there will finally reach their promised land.

Imam Ali's (a) Approach towards the Khawarij

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Imam Ali acted towards the Khawarij with the utmost degree of liberality and democracy. He was the caliph and they were his subjects; every kind of punitive action was within his power, but he did not put them into prison, neither did he flog them; he did not even cut off their quota from the treasury (baitu 'l-mal). He looked upon them in the same way as upon other individuals. This matter is no exception in the history of Ali's life, but it is something of which there are few examples in the world. Everywhere they were free to express their opinions, and Ali and his companions freely opposed them with their own opinions and spoke to them. The two sides put forth their reasoning, and countered their opponent's reasoning.Maybe such a degree of freedom is without precedent in the world, in which a government acts towards its opponents with such a degree of democracy. They came into the mosques and disrupted Ali's speeches and sermons. One day, Ali was speaking from the minbar when a man came forward and asked a question, and Ali gave an impromptu answer. A Khawarij who was among the people called out: "May God kill this man; what a knowledgeable man he is!" The others wanted to hold him back, but Ali ordered them to release him, saying: "It was only me he insulted."

The Khawarij would not pray behind Ali in communal prayers because they considered him a disbeliever, but they went to the mosque and refused to let `Ali alone, sometimes molesting him. One day, Ali had stood up to pray and the people had stoop up behind him, when one of the Khawarij whose name was Ibn al-Kawwa' shouted out, and read a verse from the Qur'an in allusion to Ali: This verse was addressed to the Prophet:And indeed it has been revealed to thee and to those (prophets) before thee, "If thou associatest (other gods with Allah), thy work shall surely fail and thou wilt be among the losers." (az-Zumar, 39:65 )Ibn al-Kawwa' wanted to insinuate about `Ali by reciting this verse that: "Yes, we know your past history in Islam! First you were a believer, the Prophet chose you as a brother, your selflessness shone out on the night of the Prophet's escape from Mecca (laylatu 'l-mabit) when you slept in the place of the Prophet in his bed, you put yourself forward as a lure for swords. Truly your service for Islam cannot be denied. But God also said to His Prophet: `If you associate (others with God) your work will come to naught.' Now that you have become a disbeliever you have cancelled out your past deeds."What could `Ali do, faced with this, with this man's voice shouting out the Qur'an? He remained silent until the man reached the end of the verse; and when he finished, Ali continued with the prayer. Then Ibn al-Kawwa' repeated the verse, and meanwhile `Ali fell silent again. He kept silent because it is a Qur'anic command that:And when the Qur'an is recited, give you ear to it and be silent. (al-A'raf, 7:204)And this is the proof for the fact that when the prayer leader is reciting the Qur'an, believers must be silent and listen.After he had repeated the verse several times, wanting to disrupt the prayer, Ali recited this verse:So be thou patient: surely Allah's promise is true; and let not those who have not sure faith make thee unsteady. (ar-Rum, 30:60)Then he paid no more attention and continued with his prayer. [1]In the beginning, the Khawarij were peaceable, and contented themselves with merely criticising and speaking openly.

Ali's behaviour with them was also just as we noted before, namely, he never caused them any trouble, not even cutting off their wages from the treasury (baitu 'l-mal). However, as they began to despair of Ali ever repenting, their activities gradually changed. They decided to bring about a revolution, so they gathered in the house of one of their brethren, who gave an aggressive and provocative speech in which he invited his friends to rise up in the name of "bidding to good and forbidding evil." He said (after praise to God)I swear by God that it is not worthy of a group which has faith in a Merciful God and which adheres to the command of the Qur'an that the world should seem dearer to them than "bidding to good and forbidding evil" and speaking the truth, even though these (activities) may bring loss and involve danger; for everyone who incurs loss and danger in this world will be rewarded on the Day of the Resurrection with the felicity of God and the eternity of Paradise. O brothers! Le us go out from this city where injustice dwells (and go) to mountainous places or some other towns so that we can take a stand against these misguided innovations and put a stop to them.With this morale-raising and fiery speech, they became even more fiery and went out form that place to try to bring about an uprising and a revolution. They threatened the security of the highways and took to marauding and sedition.

Their aim was to weaken the government by this means, and to bring down the then existent rule.Now it was no longer the time to leave them at liberty, for it was not a matter of the expression of beliefs, but of sabotage against public security and an armed uprising against the legal government. Thus Ali pursued them and met them face to face on the banks of the Nahrawan. He made a speech in which he advised them and gave them an incontrovertible proof. Then he put the flag of true faith into the hands of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari as a sign that everyone who gathered round it was a true believer. Out of twelve thousand men, eight thousand turned back from Khawarijism while the remainder showed their obstinacy. They were severely beaten, and apart from a very small band none remained.

Welcome to the ICC- Center Blog

Established in Manila in 2006, It aims to promote the Islamic Justice. It is composed of professionals from government, private sector, businessmen and students.