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 regardingreligion and beliefs. And we would like to receive your kind answers andexplanations. We would like to Thank you in advance for your response. Yours sincerely, A group of your brothers. Question No.1 The books of Sihah, especially the sahih of al-Bukhari and Muslim, bothhave conveyed hadiths from the Holy Prophet (s.w.) in which manyhuman characteristics such as face, eyes, hands, fingers, legs, feet, andetc... have been attributed to Allah. In those hadiths it is also said that Helaughs, has a certain place, He comes down from heaven to theterrestrial world, and soon [ 1]. Now, our question is: a\ How could the ancestors accept such fabricated hadiths? Why didn'tthey check the chain of narrators of these hadiths? Does not thesehadiths clearly refer to incarnation? b\ How could the ancestors urge the Muslims to believe in the outwardmeaning of such hadiths without searching the inwardmeaning [ 2], sincetheir outward meaning forces us to believe in the incarnation of Allah,and the Sunnis do not believe in incarnation, especially when it is to beattributed to Allah, the Exalted? c\ The same Sihah have conveyed other part of prophetic hadiths whichdeclare that a human being can see Allah, the Exalted, by his naturaleyes, and that in the Dooms Day He shall appear to those who see as afullmoon [ 3]. According to this, all Sunni scholars, narrators, and theimams of the four main sects of Islam, believe that it is possible to seeAllah, the Exalted, and have considered that as one of the principles thatconsist theirbelief [ 4]. Moreover, imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal regardsanyone who does not believe in the possibility of seeing Allah as anirreligious 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 theHoly Quran in which Allah, the Exalted says:"Vision comprehends Himnot, and He comprehends (all) vision..."(An`am: 103); and "he said: MyLord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: Youcannot (bear to) see Me..."(A`raaf: 143); and "nothing like a likeness ofHim"(Shura: 11); and "And when you said: O Musa! we will not believe inyou untill we see Allah manifestly, so the punishment overtook you whileyou looked on"(Baqarah: 55). And does not such a notion contradict rational intelligence, since lookingupon something requires that the seen thing exists in a certain place,and that it is a certain distance away from looker. Consequently, both thelooker and the seen thing shall be in front of each others, and suchcondition cannot apply to the Creator, the Exalted, because that meansthat 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, suchconditions are only related to materials, and it is also known that theSunni `ulama do not believe in incarnation? Now, if these hadiths are contrary to the Holy Quran and rationalintelligence, then how could Sunni `ulama accept them and agree uponthem without even discussing their chains of narrators ordocumentation? However, is it correct to agree on these hadiths onlybecause they have been mentioned in the two Sahihs? Question No.2 Many Sunni `ulama do not agree with most of Muhammad AbdulWahhab's opinions. Some of those opinions are: 1- He considers the imitation of an imam of the four famous Islamic sectsas heresy and illegal. 2- He regards all Muslims as polytheists because of the rites andceremonies they are performing, while imam Abi Hanifa does not agreeon considering any Muslim as a polytheist. 3- He thinks that even the prophets shall undergo an ordinary life afterdeath, and that they shall not be distinguished from other human beingsduring the isthmian interval, while the Hanafi `ulama believe that theprophets shall have distinguished life after their death, moredistinguishing than the isthmian interval. They also explain the reasonwhy the Prophet's wives were forbidden to other men. They say that thisis because the Prophet (s.w.) is alive even after his death. 4- He considers visiting the Prophet's tomb as illegal and heresy, whileSunnis regard it as mustahabb, and sometimes, according to some oftheir `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) aheresy, while the rest of the Muslims regard it as a part of du`a. 7- Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his followers considers the ritesthat a dervish (murshid) practices in the majalis of dhikr and otherspiritual ceremonies is mere heresy, while the majority of Muslimsconsiders it as a recommended act in order to have more spiritualpotential [potential [ 1]. 8- The same Abdul Wahhab and followers consider asking intercessionfrom the Holy Prophet (s.w.) and other saints as illegal (haram) and as atype of polytheism, but we see that Sunni Muslims are performing that. These wicked and extreme opinions of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhabare strongly refuted by the ancestors of the Sunni Muslims. They alsohave compiled lots of books regarding this issue, in which they couldprove the vanity of such opinions in comparison with the Holy Quran andthe prophetic sunnah. Ibn `Abdeen, a grand Sunni scholar, had described the followers ofAbdul Wahhab as the historical sect called Khawarij who rebelled againstImam Ali (a.s.), because, as he thought, both sects are pretending thatthey are the only representatives of Islam and that all other Muslim sectsare infidel, and they should be slaughtered along with theirscholars [ 2]. However, in these days, in spite of this great difference betweenSunnism and Wahhabism, we witness that the relationship between bothsects has improved - and the Sunnis have given up their struggle againstthe Wahhabis. Thus, we ask: Can this approaching and harmonization be consideredas a conclusion for the harmonization occurred between the two schoolsof thought? Shall that be a retreat of one part towards the other part? Orcan we consider that as a result of the political and economicalpressures? Question No.3 Without doubt, the main issue that caused the division of the Muslimsinto two sects, Sunni and Shi`a, is the different opinion of each secttowards Imamate and Caliphate after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s.w.). Shi`a says that imamate, like any other religious issues, must beunder the control of Islamic legislation, and that the succeeding andelecting of an imam as a successor and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet(s.w.) must be according to Allah's commandment through His Prophet -since imamate is a continuation of the prophecy, especially in its majorobligations.

Imamate is the method by which a society is guided - it isthe faithful custodian of the religion that holds its main duties to beguidance and upbringing. The Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that imamate is a matter that hasa close relationship with the ummah (nation). That is to say that it isupon the ummah to elect the appropriate leader, as it is their exclusiveright to do so. However, the Shi`ites have their own demonstrations, both rational andconclusive, to prove their belief about imamate, some of which are asfollows: 1- It is impossible that the Holy Prophet had left the issue of imamatewithout specifying and appointing his successor. This is because themost critical issue after his demise would have been the rational andpolitical leadership. Without a responsible leadership there shall be agreat vacancy which may cause serious catastrophe to the Muslims,especially if we take into consideration the dangerous of internal divisionsof the Islamic ummah - between the Ansars, the Muhajireen, and - thewicked factor inside the heart of the ummah - the hypocrites whose aimalways was to destroy Islam. This is in addition to outside factors, whichwere threatening the ummah at that time. Thus, it would not bereasonable for an apostolic leader to neglect this critical issue - letting itpass by without giving it any heed. Hence, Muhammad (s.w.), as theSeal of the Prophets and he who Allah had said about him: "Certainly anApostle has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him isyour falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to thebelievers (he is) compassionate, merciful"[Tawbah: 128], must fulfill thisjob very accurately. If we check the texts of the Holy Quran we can discover that the HolyLegislator had paid great attention to the issue of writing a will, statingthat a man must write his will so that his children and relatives may notsuffer from confusion and unexpected conflicts, as the Quranic versedeclares: "Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one ofyou, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, accordingto usage, a duty (incumbent) upon those who guard (against evil)[Baqarah: 180]". A prophetic tradition said,"Whosoever dies without writing a will, thencertainly he shall die as a pagan". This tradition informs us that theLegislator (Allah) is very precise with a personal matter such as thewriting of a will; so, how can such an important matter like "leadership"be neglected - leaving the Islamic ummah to face unperceived destiny?! Now, let us suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.w.) didn't refer to thisserious issue, wasn't it his companions' duty to ask him about the matterof succession? Therefore, in conclusion, because of the circumstances of the

Islamicummah at that time, there was need to give special care to such anissue. 2- According to what has been said, it is normal that the Holy Prophet(s.w.) stands positively beside this sensitive case and declares the mainpoints of the succession after him. Thus, we cannot possibly supposebut one of two probabilities: (1) either the Prophet (s.w.) has to politicallybring up the Muhajireen and Ansar according to the rules of a shura(counsel) - when they want to elect a leader (whether spiritual orpolitical). After showing them the bases of how to practise such an act,for example, appointing a so-called committee consisting of membersfrom both parties (i.e. Muhajireen and Ansar), or it was upon him toappoint a certain person who is capable to hold this heavyresponsibility. It is clear that history didn't convey to us any trace of the first probability,neither through the Holy Prophet's (s.w.) attitudes, nor in the policy ofthe caliphs after him. Therefore, the second probability seems to bemore logical. 3- A quick and brief look at the series of events that the Prophet'smission has undergone, from the first moments of the mission until thelast seconds when his holy soul was leaving this world, we come to thisconclusion that the Holy Prophet (s.w.) had referred in many occasionsto Imam Ali's (s.a) virtues, great status, and other unique characteristics,showing that he is the best among the Prophet's companions. Inaddition to this, Ali was brought up by the Holy Prophet (s.w.) himself; hewas the first male who believed in the Prophet's mission and the onlyMuslim who never bowed to an idol before. Moreover, Imam Ali spentmost of his life accompanying the Holy Prophet (s.w.). Imam Aliparticipated in almost all the battles that occured between the Muslimsand the polytheists, and he was sipping on the pure cup of knowledgedirectly from the Holy Prophet (s.w.). All Imam Ali's behaviour, piety,worshipping, and etc... were indifferent to those of the Holy Prophet(s.w.). Most of the heroes from among the polytheist were slaughteredby 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 notparticipate in; it was the battle of Tabook, when the Holy Prophet (s.w.)himself ordered him to stay in Medina and protect it from anyunexpected attack. Before the battle of Khaybar, the Holy Prophet (s.w.)said, describing Imam Ali,: "I am going to give the banner of this battle toa man who loves Allah and His Apostle, and Allah and His Apostle lovehim too. A man who is combative."[1] And when the Holy Prophet (s.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 notany prophet after me."[2] The Holy Prophet also had said, "I am the cityof knowledge, and Ali is its

gate"[3], and "Ali is the best of judges amongyou."[4] 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 thePool"[5], and "Ali moves with truth and truth turns with him wherever heturns,"[6], and "No one loves Ali save a believer, and no one hates himsave a hypocrite"[7] and other traditions which have been agreed uponby all Muslims and were mentioned in their sihah. A tradition was narrated for the benefit of Imam Ali (a.s.), his wife (Fatimaal-Zahra (a.s.)) and their two beloved sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn(a.s.), that the Holy Prophet (s.w.) had said, "O my Lord! these are themembers of my family." and upon this Allah sent down verses to himsaying, "Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, Opeople of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying" (Ahzab:33); and "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what hascome to you of knowledge, they say: Come let us call our sons and yoursons and our women and your women and our near people and yournear people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse ofAllah on the liars." (Aal `Imran: 61) Allah also says, "Say: I do not ask ofyou 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 andthe captive." (al-Dahr: 8) Another verse mentioned about them is: "OnlyAllah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those whokeep 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 manyother holy verses. All these Quranic verses and in addition to prophetic traditions arereferring to the preference of Imam Ali over others as a leader, Imam andcaliph after the Holy Prophet (s.w.). Rather, the Holy Prophet (s.w.) hadopenly declared this by the command of Allah Who ordered him saying,"O Apostle! deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and ifyou do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah willprotect you from the people" (Ma'idah: 67). This verse descended on theDay of Ghadeer, during his (s.w.) return from Mecca. When he deliveredthis verse, he ordered the pilgrims to perform the prayers. After that, hedelivered 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 fried towhom he becomes his friend, and be enemy to whom he becomes hisenemy..."[14] Even, the Holy Prophet (s.w.), in the last moments of his life he wantedto put his speech in a written legal form and to call the companions towitness this action; thus, he called the companions - and `Umar ibnal-Khattab was among them. When the Holy

Prophet (s.w.) began hisspeech, `Umar immediately got the point and retained the aim of theProphet's call, so he (i.e. `Umar) said : It is obvious that pain and illnesshave overcame the Prophet (s.w.)!!! Other narrators declared that `Umarrather said, "It is clear that the Prophet is hallucinating. The Book of Allahis sufficient for us"!!! The companions were then divided into two groups,one accepted the suggestion of `Umar, and the other protested againsthis rough words and manner. And when they began to argue loudly, theHoly Prophet (s.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 itin that gathering during his last illness. A sentence that cannot be refutedby 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 invol.III, p.764 of Maktabat al-Hayat's publication. 4- Now, because the legal caliphate was the right of Ali, he and the restof Bani Hashim, and many other companions refused to give allegianceto Abu Bakr after the gathering of Saqifah. Imam Ali did not giveallegiance to Abu Bakr at that time, rather, after several months hadpassed. And his giving of allegiance to Abu Bakr was only to protect theIslamic ummah from unexpected troubles or calamities; and it was a wayto protect the Muslims from division and argumentation. However, Imam Ali showed in many occasions, in the presence of manycompanions, his objection (to this sistuation) and that it is his right, priorto anyone else, to have the caliphateship in his hand. 5- Some Muslims may say that it is not logical to say that the Prophet'scompanions, who are considered the elite of the Muslims, have rebelledagainst his (the Prophet's) will to give the caliphate to Imam Ali. TheShi`ites' answer to this suspicion, is that by studying the biographies ofsome of the Prophet's companions we can discover that many of themhave considering themselves as the most appropriate persons to be theProphet's successor; and many times and on many occasions they wereopposed the Prophet's suggestions or orders - especially thosesuggestions and orders that concerned the relationship of public affairsand policy, wars, administrations, and so on. This was clear even duringthe lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) and became more clear after hisdemise. They were giving themselves the right to discuss the Prophet'scommands and to argue against any of his proposals. `Umar ibnal-Khattab was the leader of such a group. It was he who protestedagainst the Prophet's acceptance of the

treaty between the Muslims andthe polytheists of Mecca, 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 whomwas prepared by the command of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) himself. Hehad appointed Usamah ibn Zayd to be a commander in a battle againstthe Romans - exactly few days before his demise. `Umar also preventedthe attendants from bringing the paper and ink which the Holy Prophet(s.w.) had requested to write some important text. Here, our question is: Did not all these rational and intellectual reasonsand proofs indicate on the fact that the Holy Prophet had indeedappointed Ali to be his successor and the caliph after him? Some of theProphet's companions were planning, even during his lifetime, to concealthis important issue; and, thus, transferring the caliphateship from theHouse of Bani Hashim to some men of Quraysh, for legal and maybesometimes illegal purposes - God knows the truth. If so, then why doessome Islamic sects, other than the Shi`a, blame the Shi`ites for adheringto the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)? Question No.4 The historical records relate that Fatima al-Zahra (a.s.), the daughter ofthe Holy Prophet (s.w.), was angry with the two shaykhs (i.e. Abu Bakrand `Umar) until she died. For this very reason she requested herhusband, Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), to bury her in secret, permitting only afew of the very close companions of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) such asSalman al-Farsi and Abu Tharr to know of her barial. She also askedImam 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.) andset it on fire. This was done in order to force Imam Ali and his adherentsto 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 andvicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.w.). Historians have narrated that, when `Umar ibn al-Khattab brought somewood in order to set Imam Ali's (a.s.) house on fire, he was told thatFatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.w.), is inside the house too!He replied: LET IT BE!!! Then he kindled the fire and began to set fire tothe house of the daughter of the Holy Prophet! "O son of Khattab! areyou really going to set our house on fire?" Fatima (a.s.) asked. `Umarreplied, "Sure! Unless you

agree on what the whole ummah had agreedupon." The daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) said, "I do not remembera people that have done worse than yours... You have left the HolyProphet's body lying among us, while, at the same time, you were busyin electing a caliph among yourselves, without consulting us or askingour opinion. You have plainly misappropriated our right." Then `Umar andmuhajirin proceeded in burning the house! Al-Ya`qoobi, in his book, had recorded the following:"There were a bunchof people who attacked the house. They broke Ali's sword, and pulledout Ali with all the force they could muster and drove him toward AbuBakr. Then Fatima cried `O Father! O the Apostle of Allah! see what weare facing because of the son of Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Abi Quhafah(Abu Bakr) after your demise.' A warm argumentation occurred betweenAli and those who were attending the meeting in the presence of AbuBakr, `Umar, and Abu `Ubaydah. Ali tried to explain to the people hisright to be the caliphate and his deserving of this position, but that didn'tplease `Umar who then began to threaten Ali if the latter refused to giveallegiance to Abu Bakr, and said to Ali:"You have no choice but to giveallegiance!" "And what if I refused to give allegiance?" Ali asked. `Umarreplied roughly, "I swear by Allah, the only god, that we shall behead youimmediately!" Ali said,"Then you are going to kill whom he is the servantof Allah and the brother of the Apostle of Allah?" `Umar angrilyanswered, "It is right that you are the servant of Allah, but it is not truethat you are the brother of the Apostle of Allah." After this dialogue, ImamAli then left the meeting and walked toward the tomb of the Holy Prophet(s.w.). There, he began to cry and speak to the tomb saying,"Son of mymother! surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slainme!" Regarding the issue that Abu Bakr and `Umar had refused to give backto Fatima her inheritance, one can refer to various historical sources andfind more details. When Fatima (a.s.) was ill for the last time before her demise, Abu Bakrand `Umar visited her. She seized the opportunity and spoke to them,"Ishall inform you a hadith of the Holy Prophet, but, shall you be honestenough and tell me whether you have heard it from the Holy Prophet ornot?" "Sure we will!" They both answered. Then Fatima (a.s.) said,"Iadminister an oath to you to say the truth. Didn't you hear the HolyProphet (s.w.) say that, "Fatima's satisfaction is my satisfaction, and ifshe 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 hehas satisfied me. Whosoever makes Fatima angry shall make me angrytoo." Abu Bakr and `Umar said, "For sure we have heard this hadith fromthe Apostle of Allah." "Then I bear witness that you two

have made meangry and did not satisfied me. When I meet the Prophet (s.w.), I shallcomplain to him against both of you." Fatima (a.s.) continued. Here, AbuBakr 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 ofhis body. Fatima (a.s.) continued, saying, "By Allah I shall curse you inevery prayer I may perform!" Here, our question is: What is your opinion in this regard, to the mannerof the two Shaykhs toward the Household of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)?Wasn't it more humane for Abu Bakr and `Umar to satisfy the Householdof the Holy Prophet (s.w.), especially during and after loosing their (theHousehold's) Great Father, the Holy Prophet (s.w.)? Would it not havebeen more honorable if Abu Bakr and `Umar tried to solve thesuspended issues between them and Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (a.s.) and atthe same time they could have keep the respect of the Holy Prophet(s.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 HolyProphet (s.w.) from writing down his will? 1- The holy body of the Prophet (s.w.) was still lying on the bed when allthose disputes occurred, concerning the matter of who shall succeedhim after his demise. And if some of the companions had done what theHoly Prophet (s.w.) had asked them (i.e. by bringing the ink and a pen)such catastrphies wouldn't have happened among the Islamic sects. In a tradition narrated in the sahih of al-Bukhaari (vol.1, chpater no.83), itis said that the companions who were present during the moment of theHoly Prophet's death divided into two parties: a party called to bring theink and pen to the Holy Prophet (s.w.), and the other party tried toprevent that. And if the second party had obeyed the Holy Prophet(s.w.), would they therefore, need to fabricate a false character calledAbdullah ibn Saba' and relate all the confusions to him, and free thosecompanions who were the main players in this objection from any chargeor responsibility? Is it possible for anyone who works in the field ofresearching and study history to be convinced with illogicalinterpretations of those events? 2- Without doubt the source of the Islamic differences returns to thosewho did the following: a\ Preparing the appropriate ground and time for the Umayyad and theAbbaside dynasties. This is especially seen in the time of Mu`awiyah,who had destroyed the powers of Islam and distorted

its facts. b\ Excilling many of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)from Medina, such as Abu Tharr al-Ghifaari whom the Holy Prophet(s.w.) had described him saying, "There isn't a person upon whom atree's shadow fell, or a piece of ground hold, truer than Abu Tharr!" Andon the other hand, they had returned all those whom the Holy Prophet(s.w.) had exciled or dismissed like al-Hakam ibn al-`Aass, Marwan ibnal-Hakam (to whom Othman had given his daughter as a wife) while it isnot compatible with the Holy Prophet's (s.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 thebattle al-Jamal, and forged the seal of Othman that was supposed to besent to the wali of Egypt, which of course was the main reason for theanger of the Egyptians against the caliph.

d\ Those who broke their allegiane to Imam Ali (a.s.), and began to rebelagainst him, especially in the battles of Siffin, al-Jamal, and al-Nahrawan.In fact, if Mu`awiyah, Talha, Zubayr, `Ayisha, and the chiefs of theKharijites would not have incited their followers to participate in battlesagainst Imam Ali (a.s.),then all the riots and arguments among theMuslims would not have occured - leading them to such a miserablesituation like that which they are living in nowadays. Nor would it havebeen possible for the deviators, the irreligious, or the hypocrites to leadthe Islamic ummah to that catastrophic deviation. e\ Wasn't the assassination of Othman a plea to create two destroyingbattles in which many of the Prophet's companions were killed? Wasn'tthe battle of Nahrawan a logical result for the battle of Siffin? Can anyonedeny that the active factors for inciting `Ayisha (the Prophet's wife) toparticipate in a battle in which she had indeed disgraced the respect ofthe Holy Prophet (s.w.), were the Umayyad and the Marwanian, andbecause of her many of the pious were martyred for their resistanceagainst that gang who had gone astray? f\ Wasn't that gang the same gang who fought against Ali (a.s.) and hishousehold? Did not they deny the Aalul Bayt's virtues and fabricatedfalse hadiths which insulted them and eulogized their enemies? Some Sunni ulama and researchers blame Mu`awiyah for what theummah had faced, and they considered his acts contradictary to theIslamic rules. At the same time, some of them used to eulogizeMu`awiyah and began to justify his acts, deeds, and deviations. They callhim the writer of the revelation and the uncle

of the believers, while thereare many other companions who deserve this title more than him -people like Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. Didn't Mu`awiyah fight Imam Hasan (a.s.), the son of the Holy Prophet(s.w.), and after he made a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) he broke hisoath and planned against Imam Hasan (a.s.)? Didn't he kill all the companions of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) such as Hijribn `Adiyy without any reason or accusation except for the reason that heloves Ali and adheres to his way? Didn't he order his gang to insultImam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit, in all states and provinces, which lasted untilthe period of `Umar ibn `Abdil `Aziz? Wasn't Mu`awiyah the one whomthe Holy Prophet (s.w.) had cursed(チ)? Wasn't it right that Mu`awiyah had broken the terms of the peace treatywith 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.w.) (i.e. ImamHusayn), invaded Mecca, and assassinated its inhabitants? Was notMu`awiyah his son's partner in all those crimes? Why did `Ayesha (the Holy Prophet's wife) rebell against the successorof the Holy Prophet (s.w.), i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), while it is said in aclear hadith that whoever rebels against the Imam of his time, he shall beconsidered rebellious and irreligious?! Was not her rebellion against Amiral-Muminin in al-Jamal battle a frank contracdiction to the Quranic texts,especially the well-known verse, "And stay in your houses..."[Holy QuranXXXIII:33]? Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.w.) say, "O Ali! whosoever fights against you,he is like that who fights against me; and whosoever makes peace withyou, then he is making peace with me"? Now, according to this holytradition, were not Mu`awiyah, `Ayesha, Talha, and al-Zubayr fightingagainst the Holy Prophet (s.w.) when they rebelled against Imam Ali(a.s.)? Can we not discover the source of disputes by reading history and studyits events? Those disputes which were the main reasons for the divisionof the Islamic ummah. Question No.6 Can anyone who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.w.) and saw him beconsidered a just sahaabi? There is no doubt that anyone who acompanied the Holy Prophet (s.w.)is considered a companion. The companions were very fortunatebecause they have seen the Holy Prophet (s.w.) and benefitted from hisholy existence and spirituality. But, at the same

time, we have to say thatthis accompaniment does not protect the companion from falling in thewrong, and it cannot be anyone's ticket to enter paradise. Rather, truebelief in Allah, good deeds, and adhering to the Islamic shari`ah is thereal security. This is clear from the holy verses, especially the surah ofal-`Asr. We don't have in our hand any hadith or narration confiring that anyonewho accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.w.) is infallible or just, or evenpious. On the contrary, we have many verses declaring that some of theHoly Prophet's companions were hypocrite and they remained on theirhypocrisy until they died. Thus, the opinion which says that all the HolyProphet's companions are just, and that they must be obeyed isabsolutely incorrect, rather it contradicts the Holy Quran. How can weregard 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 anillegal 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. Walidibn `Uqbah was also a companion about whom the following Quranicverse had been revealed: "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes toyou with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people inignorance" [al-Hujurat:6]. Other companions had committed adultry!(See: Usd al-Ghaabah, vol. 4&5, where you can get more informationabout their names and shameful biography in details). How can weadhere to any companion, while at the same time when we find outrightcontradictions between what they say and what they do. This is besidethe mental, dogmatic, and political disputes that had happened betweenthe companions themselves? When Abdul Rahman ibn `Awf said to ImamAli (a.s.) in the gathering when `Umar was dying: I swear allegiance toyou according to the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, and the way oflife of the two caliphs. Imam Ali (a.s.) said,"No! I accept your allegianceaccording 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 ofthe two caliphs. Thus, we can ask that: 1- Does investigating the companions' biographies and way of lifecontradict the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran itself discloses many factsand unveils many characters, the following verses are examples: (1) "Thedwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and moredisposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to HisApostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise"; (2) "And of the dwellers of thedesert are those who take what they spend to be a fine, and what theywait (the befalling of) calamities to you; on them (will be) the evilcalamity"; (3) "And of the dwellers

of the desert are those who believe inAllah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) thenearness of Allah"; (4) "And as for the foremost, the first of the Muhajirsand the Ansars... and from among those who are round about you of thedwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the peopleof Medina(also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them;We know them; We will chastise them twice, then shall they be turnedback to a grievous chastisement" [Tawbah:98-100]. In other Quranic verses we see that the names of some of thecompanions have been mentioned in the Holy Quran. In these versesthey have been considered irreligious, like Walid ibn `Uqbah about whomthe Holy Quran has said,"O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes toyou with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people inignorance" [al-Hujurat:6]. The narrations of Sunni sources have disclosedthe name of this person whom the Quran is making reference too. Anarration had been mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (the book ofdu`as, a chapter on al-Hawdhöthe poolö) declares the Holy Prophet(s.w.) had said,"I am your missing baby near the pool. There, some menwill be lifted unto me, but when I come down to lift them up, they will bescattered around me! At that time, I will say, `O my Lord! these are mycompanions!' He will answer me saying, `You don't know what they didafter you!' Many traditions have been narrated in The Sunni sources (Sahihal-Bukhari that are having such meaning - a chapter on al-Hawdhöthepoolö, vol.8, pp.13,504,505.) It is incorrect to look at all the companions with one eye; this is in factopposite of the Holy Quran. The truth is that many of the Holy Prophet'scompanions were pious and true believers, while there were some whowere known for their false belief and hypocrisy. History shows us manyexamples of such individuals. 2- Is it correct to close our eyes and ears, saying that all the companionswere pious, good, and that all of their deeds were credible even if theyhad some deeds which were opposed to the Islamic law (shar`)? 3- Is it right to justify their evil deeds, saying that they were practisingijtihad, and that their wrong doings did not happen intentionally? 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 accordingto the Holy Quran, kafirs? One of the Hanafi scholars, Ibn `Abdeen, hadmade a nice statement, saying, "Considering others as kafirs withoutevidences 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 criticizeyourselves? We haven't any evidence that the companions of the HolyProphet (s.w.) were infallible, but when you talk about their deeds youtalk exaggeratedly, and even at times, you consider the companionseven better than an infallible or the Holy Prophet (s.w.) himself. However,when the Shi`ites speak about their Imams as infallible imamas, youaccuse them of fabrication and lies! Many Sunni scholars have dared tosay that many Quranic verses were revealed according to `Umar's will.Yes, these words have been written by a Sunni scholar under the title"Muwafaqaat `Umar". The Sunni people perform the prayers known as "taraweeh" inRamadhan in congregation, while it is an inovation fabricated by `Umar.Was such a prayer mention in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)?When the Shi`ites practise their deeds according to Imam Sadiq'ssayings and narrations, the Sunni people say that the Shi`ites refer theirdeeds 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.w.). This clearly dicloses their contradictions. It is better for those who accuse the shi`ites of untrue performance tolook to their beliefs and sayings? What a beautiful saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) said: "The lover of a thing isblind 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.); thewar which caused many eminent companions to die? It is not logical to interpret some Quranic verses like,"You are best of thenations raised up for (the benefit of) men," or "And thus We have madeyou a medium (just) nation," etc..., that they are describing thecompanions and their being just and equal. This is because it is clearthat these verses and others are talking about the whole ummah notcertain individuals. For example, when it is says that the inhabitants ofthe so city are bettere than others, the whole inhabitants of that city areincluded in this expression generally speaking, not necessarily meaningeach of them. Anyhow, a person may be pious in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.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 havetold. Question No.7 What are the references and sources from which we can identify theHoly 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 doubtin 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 intheir books in which the Holy Prophet (s.w.) said, "I am leaving with youtwo weighty things (Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you won't bemisguided at all. They are the Book of Allah and my family. They won'tseparate from each other until they arrive to me near the Pool." All sects have agreed on the chain of this hadith. Ibn Hajar, a Sunninarrator, has said, "This tradition has been conveyed by more than 20companions. It is also mentioned in the sahih of Muslim, sunan ofal-Daarimi, musnad Ahmad, and tens of sources. This clearly makesindicates that the Holy Prophet (s.w.) had shown us how to derive hissunnah and from which sources. There is no doubt that the main sourceof the Prophet's (s.w.) sunnah is the Aalul Bayt (a.s.). However, at thesame time we see that the Sunni ulama do not paying any attention tothis sahih hadith. Why? Is the Prophet's hadith insufficient. 2- Why do they follow the other tradition which says,"...the Book of Allahand my sunnah"? Now, suppose that the Holy Prophet (s.w.) did wordthis tradition in this fashion, does it differ with the first one? Ibn Hajar hadsaid that the Islamic ummah needs the Holy Quran, the sunnah, andAhlul Bayt (a.s.). If we examin the text we shall be quite sure that itconfirms the infallibility of the Imams and that they are unique intellectualsand political sources. Hence, we have no other choice but to adhere tothem because they are the firmest link handle between us, Allah and HisProphet (s.w.). The Sunnis believe that the traditions and the sunnah have not beenrecorded for about a century, i.e. from the caliphate of `Umar till thecaliphate of `Umar ibn Abdil Aziz (the Umayyad caliph). Many traditionshave been burned in the lifetime of Abu Bakr and Umar. 3- Can we expect any remaining of the trdaitions and sunnah after acentury of prohibition? Even if we found some of them, we should askhow much and to what degree of accuracy were they recorded? Do wedare say that all the traditions existing in the Sunni sources remainedsafe from abrogation? And, if those traditions were all accredited andreliable, then why did Muslim choose only six thousand hadith fromabout three hundred thousand? Or why did al-Bukhari choose only fourthousand hadiths from more than six hundred thousand - and left therest? If all the traditions that are talking about the Prophet (s.w.) and hissunnah were reliable and trustworthy then why do the Sunnis practiseijtihad, qiyas and istihsan? Wasn't Abu Hanifa, and other scholarspractising qiyas and istihsan in order to derive certain

rules of the Islamiclaw (shar`)? Doesn't this prove that the traditions do not contain religiousrules? Even those which contain some religious rule, are not reliable. Weread in the book titled "Kitaab al-Mawdhou`aat" (vol.1, Beirut edition, thelast lines of the chapter called `fadhaa`il al-Khulafa'') that the two greatand eminent scholars, i.e. al-Soyouti and Ibn al-Jawzi, had declared thatmost of the known narrations which eulogize the caliphs are fabricatedand not trustworthy! 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'sHouse, and in their place they fabricated thousands of traditions thateulogize their enemies! (See the first volume of tafseer al-Fakhral-Raaziöa great Sunni scholaröwhen interpreting the phrase "BismAllah"; he says: The traditionalists have concealed many traditions thatrelated 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 tofollow the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (a.s.), then why do they refuse tonarrate the traditions that eulogize the Holy Imams (a.s.), especially ImamSadiq (a.s.). This is so, while in the same time they narrate manytraditions about the Khawarij and Nawasib. For example, Bukhaarinarrated in his sahih, from `Imran ibn Hittan (a khariji). 6- Why do Sunnis narrate most of the traditions through the chain of AbuHurayra? 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.w.) except in the last two years of the Holy Prophet's lifetime - afteraccepting Islam. As for Imam Ali (a.s.), who accompanied the Holy Prophet (s.w.) sincehis childhood until the Holy Prophet (s.w.) died between his hands, thereare only 537 traditions narrated from him (a.s.) in Sunnis books. This isso, while Imam Ali (a.s.) delivered the most remarkable orations andsayings especially during the time which he ruled over the Muslimummah, which lasted less than five years. And in this five years heexplained to the Muslims every minute rule and regulation in the Islamicshari`ah and the prophetic sunnah. None of these orations and sayingshas been mentioned in the sahih of al-Baukhari or Muslim. 7- Didn't the Holy Prophet (s.w.) say, "I am the city of knowledge, and Aliis its gate"; "I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its gate"; "Ali is withtruth and truth is with Ali", etc... Are these not clear proofs that show thehigh 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" hadbeen 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 andmentioning their virtues in gatherings of those with true faith, andsecond: adhering to them by word and act, as the Holy Prophet (s.w.)had said, "if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all." Canone love the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) only by words instead of heart? 10- Is it logical that the Muslims follow any individual, even if thatindividual was like Mu`awiyah who was known for his enmity againstAalul Bayt (a.s.)? Can't we consider this following as an open enmityagainst the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) and the Holy Quran? The Holy Quran had clearly mentioned that loving the Aalul Bayt (a.s.) isthe cause of receiving a great reward; thus, is it right to follow anyfabricated hadith or to call the Muslims to follow individuals likeMu`awiyah who is not infallible. He is the one who had committed lots ofmistakes and crimes against Islam and its regulations. The most wickedamong Mu`awiyah's deeds is his warfare against Imam Ali (a.s.) and thewicked ritual - enacted by him - to insult Imam Ali (a.s.) on the pulpit inevery part of the Islamic country - this lasted until the ruling time of theUmayyad caliph `Umar ibn Abdil `Aziz. It is worthy to mention that theHoly Prophet (s.w.) had already said, "Whosoever enacts a wicked ritual,then the penalty of enacting such a ritual shall be on him and those whofollow this ritual." Question No.8 When did the Sunni Sects Exist? It is certain that there was nothing called "Sunni sects" in the lifetime ofthe Holy Prophet (s.w.), not even after his demise. The Sunni sects haveemerged in the 3rd and 4th centuries (Hijri) as a result of political anddogmatic differences. Some of those sects have been abrogated andother were authorized. We have here some questions in regard to this subject: 1- Why were some of those sects authroized and other were rejected?Are there any Quranic evidences and demonstrations, or prophetictraditions 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 anymujtahis the right to disclose his own opinion, like Abu Hanifa whopractised 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? Werethe caliphs performing their duties and judging people according to theirown opinions? We can notice the great difference between the Sunnis in the time

of theUmayyad, Abbasid, and the Ottoman dynasties, and between the Sunnisin 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 theirown benefit and to keep them in power traditions which were cosider tobe the exact words of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)? 4- Can we regard all the savage behaviours of the partisans called "theArmy of Sahabah" or the Wahhabites as Islamic propagation, and thatthey are guiding people to the true rules of Islam? Are the Sunnispropagating the true sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.w.), or in fact, theyare propagating the sunnah of the Umayyads and the Abbasids? 5- Were there any sects in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.w.)? Allhistorical records confirm that there were not any sects in that time.Moreover, the term "Sunni" had generated in the time of Mu`awiyah andlater 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 whilethey can consult contemporary scholars (faqihs) and eminent `ulamawho have obtained high ranks not less than those who have pasted? Why isn't there any scholar (mujtahid) among the Sunnis who can savethem from disputes and answer their religious questions of the day, whilethe Shi`ites have many scholars in every time and place? Is the present knowledge and science the same as the knowledge andscience of past times? Are the needs of our communities today the sameas those which were existing 1,300 years ago? 9- Why don't the Sunnis follow the fatwa of the shaykh MahmoudShaltoot, the dean al-Azhar who considered Shi`ism as an authorizedsect, as he says it depends on the intellectual and fiqh bases? Isn't thata clear religious prejudice? Is not Shi`ism the right sect which is basedon that which the Holy Prophet (s.w.) had recommended? Wasn't thefamous tradition (i.e., "I am leaving with you two weighty things(Thaqalayn); if you adhered to them, you won't be misguided at all. Theyare 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 famousfour sects?

Surely the answer will be "NO"! If you study the Shi`a bookswithout partisanship or prejudice, you will certainly not find any kind ofcontradictions and you will notice that they are not forging lies againstanyone. However, we may find some Sunnis when they want toinvestigate other sects and their beliefs, they depend only on their ownscholars' (shaykhs') speeches and opinions without paying any attentionto the ideas of the `ulama of the other sects. Is it correct to follow suchmethodology to investigate another sects' teachings? Question No.9 What is the Sunnis' attitude in regard to the revolution of Imam Husayn(a.s.)? Every body recognize the high rank of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Hisgrandfather is the Holy Prophet (s.w.). The Holy Prophet (s.w.) wasalways describing Imam Husayn (a.s.), that he is the counter-balance ofthe Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.w.) declared that Husayn ibnAli (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam whether he rises (rebelled againstthe oppressors) or not. He (s.w.) also insisted that the Muslims shouldlove Imam Husayn (a.s.) and adhere to his teachings. Anyhow, it iswell-known that Imam Husayn (a.s.) is the best person of his era after hisfather and elder brother. As it is known that Imam Husayn had rose up against the authority ofYazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfill his duty toward the Holy Quran and his Holygrandfather (s.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad caliphs hadexceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and injustice. ImamHusayn (a.s.) followed the tradition of his grandfather, namely, "He whosees an oppressor and tyrant ruler, who is changing what is forbidden(haram) into what is allowed (halal) - those who broke their covenantwith Allah and fight against the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.w.). And inthe face of this he doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler'sillegal deeds neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in thesame place where He shall put that tyrant." Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist ImamHusayn (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they wrote toImam Husayn (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same time, some ofthe companions, whom the Sunnis are still eulogize, like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and manyothers, didn't give their allegiance to Imam Husayn (a.s.). We should askwhy? Moreover, abdullah ibn `Umar began calling the people to payallegiance 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 ImamHusayn's uprising? If we search in historical records we shall come tothe conclusion that the Sunnis had preferred silence and agreed to bewith those who remained behind. But all of us know that whosoeverremains silent - not support his Imam (a.s.), knowing that the Imam, theson of the Holy Prophet (s.w.) is right agrees with Yazid and his wickeddeeds. Thus, these people shall be considered as those who haveparticipated with Yazid's army and fought against Imam Husayn (a.s.)and were indirect partners in the massacres of Yazid's army on the dayof `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 ofImam Hasan's martyrdom? Didn't he submit the key of caliphate to hisinsane son Yazid, and by doing so breaking the covenants he gave toImam Hasan (a.s.)? We put these questions in front of those who assisted Yazin and stoodwith him. Those who remained behind and abandoned Imam Husayn(a.s.) in the hour of straitness, when he rose against oppression andcorruption. Question No.10 Some commentaries on the Sunni Islamic laws (fiqh): Every sect has its own rules and regulations, and it is indisputable thatthe imam of that sect had derived those rules and regulations by meansof ijtihad. However, we still find some rules in Sunni fiqh that have nolegal or logical base. The most wonderful matter here is that the Sunnisinsist on following those baseless rules which sometimes arecontradictory to the texts of the Holy Quran and the prophetic traditions.Here are some of those rules: 1- Regrading (wudhu) abolution, the Holy Quran says, "... and wipe yourheads and your feet to the ankles"; this part of the verse is acontinuation 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 theverse?

2- All Sunni sects do not consider performing prayer (salat) with thearms 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 openarms (with their arms to their sides); so why does other sects insist onpraying with folded arms? 3- All narrations and historical record show that in the early times ofIslam, the Nabawi Masjid was not furnished with carpet, rather, theMuslims were performing their prayers on the bare ground, andsometimes on plants that were not eaten or woven (into cloths). We haveno truthful tradition that mentioned that the Prophet (s.w.) had called theMuslims to perform their prayers on carpets or the like of it. Why then doyou insist on performing prayers on carpets and fabrics in spite of themany narrations (written in your books too) that refer to performpostration (sojood) on the bare ground? Why do you blame the Shi`a forprostrating on a piece of clay? Isn't prostrating on the ground one of theProphet's sunnah? Can you verify that prostrating on carpet andgarments was his (s.w.) sunnah? We hope to receive the answer for these questions from the learned andwise men. 4- One of Islam's obligatory duties is the five daily prayers, andwhosoever denies them is considered a kafir. Each prayer has its ownand mutual time. Many Sunni and Shi`ite narrations have declared thatthe Holy Prophet (s.w.) on many occasions, and had performed - manytimes, the noon prayers in the beginning of the noon, and in other timeshe (s.w.) performed it in the afternoon. He did the same thing with thelate evening (maghrib) and `isha prayers. It is also narrated that the HolyProphet (s.w.) had performed the five prayers with in three times frames,with or without reasons - he only wanted to remove all kinds of burdensfrom his ummah. Why do the Sunnis insist on not performing some of the prayers togetherat one time, which has been permitted by the Prophet (s.w.)? Isn't thisclear contradiction to the Holy Quran "and has not laid upon you anyhardship in religion", and the holy sunnah? Isn't the tradition narrated from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) which declares that itis permissible to perform some prayers together at one time accordingto the holy verse "Keep up prayers from the declining of the sun till thedarkness 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 support it?

6- There is no doubt that the prayers have lots of benefits and rewardsfor anyone who performs them, especially the congregational prayers -when a pious and just imam leads it. So, why do the Sunnis perform thecongregational prayers behind any individual (no matter whether he isirreligious, injust, oppressive or he was not)? Do you think that this ispermissible in Islam? 7- It is known among the Muslims that the obligatory prayers must beperformed in congregation, while the mustahabb prayers can beperformed alone. Umar himself confess that this issue is true. So, fromwhere did he bring the prayers of taraawih? Why did he oblige theMuslims to perform it in congregation? He has then inovated a heresy:Obliging the people to perform the mustahabb prayers in congregationand insisting on that. He announced that anyone who does not performthe obligatory prayers in congregation, must perform the taraawihprayers in congregation. Is this correct?! 8- The Holy Prophet (s.w.) encourged the Muslims to get married andsaid that this is a part of his sunnah. And to save this sacredrelationship, Islam legislated lots of rules and regulations. An example ofthose rules is that Islam prohibited forced divorces. To perform the legal divorce ceremony, there must be two witnessesbefore the judge during the three times of divorce. After the third divorcethe relationship shall absolutely be cut! The Hanafi sect, however, doesnot care for the husband's psychological situation. In this sect it ispermissible for the man to divorce his wife three time orally, only bysaying the phrase by which man divorces his wife: "I divorce you (threetimes)." Now, does not this fatwa bring about difficulty (in remaining married)while the Holy Quran says, "and has not laid upon you any hardship inreligion"? The above question was the last to the Sunni brothers, although thereare many more to be asked. However, we shall suffice with what wehave asked, hoping that the learned researchers will continue theirstruggle for aquiring the truth. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. 1- Sahih Muslim, the book of benevolence, the chapter of those whomthe Holy Prophet(s.w.) had cursed or insulted.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful