Fri11222019

Last updateD, d M Y ga

Birthday and Childhood of Fatima Ma'sumah (s.a.)

Birthday and Childhood of Fatima Ma'sumah (s.a.)

In the holy city of Medina, the holy household was awaiting the arrival of a new born.

In the house of Imam Kadhim (A.S.)...

Every Father Should Try Educating His Child

Every Father Should Try Educating His Child

Among the factors which build up man's personality are the family environment and parental guidance. The latter factor i...

Relaxation Techniques for Children

Relaxation Techniques for Children

Relaxation techniques are methods of distracting away from tensions by means of recreational activities. They are helpfu...

  • Most Read

  • Latest Post

  • Most Reviews

  • Photo gallery

  • Bookmark pages

  • Book Reviews

Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image Sample image


Fatima is Fatima

by : Dr. Ali Shari'ati

Back You are here: Home Books Yazeed Azam Tariq's False Attempts To Represent Sunni Aqeedah

Azam Tariq's False Attempts To Represent Sunni Aqeedah


Azam Tariq's false attempts
to represent Sunni aqeedah

Azam Tariq's objection to the terminology 'Imam'Azam Tariq then sets his sites on our Imam as follows:

Kr-hcy.com states:ANOTHER THING TO GUARD AGAINST IS THE USE OF TITLE OF "IMAM" AND ALAYHI SALLAAM FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN. THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS UNCONSCIOUSLY REMEMBER HAZRAT HUSAYN AS "IMAM HUSAYN ALAYHI SALLAAM", ALTHOUGH THIS SMACKS OF SHIAISM. FOR ALL THE SAHABA, WE USE WORD (HAZRAT) OUT OF RESPECT AND REVERENCE FOR THEM SUCH AS HAZRAT ABU BAKAR, HAZRAT UMAR, HAZRAT USMAN, HAZRAT ALI ETC. WE NEVER SAY IMAM ABU BAKAR OR IMAM UMAR.

Reply One

Yet again this lying Nasibi is making a claim without any foundation ... i.e. lying again, yes the kaftan is being held high till the very end of this article. We could produce countless writings of the Ahl'ul Sunnah wherein Husayn (as) has been referred to as Imam. This Nasibi's objective has nothing to with bringing Sunni Islam back to the grand old days and way of the Salaf. It is do with replacing Sunni Islam with Nasibi ideology that showers grand accolades on the enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as) such as Mu'awiya and Yazeed, something that none of the old ulema did save Ghazali (because of lack of knowledge), while Ghazali's boss imam Shafi'i said cursing Yazeed was acceptable.

Reply Two

Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to set the alleged record straight by stating: Kr-hcy.com states:FOR ALL THE SAHABA, WE USE WORD (HAZRAT) OUT OF RESPECT AND REVERENCE FOR THEM SUCH AS HAZRAT ABU BAKAR, HAZRAT UMAR, HAZRAT USMAN, HAZRAT ALI ETC. WE NEVER SAY IMAM ABU BAKAR OR IMAM UMAR.

If the terms Imam are not used for Abu Bakr and Umar it is because they never viewed themselves as Imams nor did Rasulullah (s) view them as such. An Imam under Arabic terminology is one who leads and a Khalifah is one who follows. Abu Bakr never viewed himself as an Imam and underlined his own failings in his inaugural speech to mark his momentous coming to power in Saqifa Bani Sa'da, we are quoting from Tarikh Tabari Volume 9 page 201:

"Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong".

If their own failings as Imams are proven it does in any way mean that no one can else can be referred to as Imam. Tariq's patriarchal efforts to bestow his corrupt views on the unsuspecting Ahl'ul Sunnah means nothing when we have specific hadith wherein the Prophet of Allah (s) referred to Imam 'Ali (as) as an Imam, when he declared:

"Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa Qa'id ul Ghurrul Muhajj'ileen (Leader of the bright-faced people on Yaum al Qiyamah)"

Taken from Al Mustadrak, by Imam Hakim, p 137 & 138 Riyadh al Nadira, by Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 2, p 122

If Azam Tariq finds the term abhorrent then he is free to do so, for the only people that are entitled to refer to 'Ali (as) as an Imam are those that are pious. Nasibi have no correlation with piety. They extol Dhaalim Khalifahs, incite fitnah, lies and shed the blood of innocent Muslims. Imam 'Ali (as) is not the Imam of Dhaalims and dog/bear/sister/mother/man/daughter/boy penetrator, only the pious.

Azam Tariq's objection to the terminology 'alahis salaam'

Kr-hcy.com states:SIMILARLY AFTER THE NAME OF EVERY SAHABI WE USE AND WRITE THE WORD (RADIALLAHU ANHU I.E. MAY ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM) AND NEVER USE THE WORDS LIKE (ALAYHI SALLAAM I.E. PEACE AND BLESSINGS OF ALLAH BE UPON HIM) WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR ONLY THE PROPHETS. AS SUCH, WE NEVER WRITE OR UTTER HAZRAT ABU BAKAR (ALAYHI SALLAAM) OR HAZRAT UMAR ALAYHI SALLAAM BUT IN CASE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN WE USE ALAYHI SALLAAM. HAVE WE EVER GIVEN A THOUGHT WHY IT IS SO? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAISM WHICH HAS IMPERCEPTIBLY CREPT INTO OUR MINDS.

Reply

Although this Nasibi's comments have no bearing on the Shi'a, we would like to point out that he is yet again falsely claiming to represent Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah. What greater evidence can we cite to counter this Nasibi than the fatwa of Sunni Islam's most beloved opponent of the Shi'a, al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi? When this question was posed to him he replied as follows:

"The term alahis salaam can also be referred to for non-prophets, and evidence of this can be ascertained from the fact that in the books of hadith the words alahis salaam can be found next to the names of Hadhrath 'Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Fatima, Khadija, Abbas. Some Ulema have opposed this, in opposition to the Shi'a, but this terminology is not prohibited under the Shari'a

Fatal Azeezi page 235

Similarly Allamah Alusi wrote:

"On this matter the views of the Ulema are different. In the view of most Ulema it is permissible. In other words whoever first refers to Rasulullah (s) and then to Husayn, or where he refers to Rasulullah (s) in the same context that he refers to Husayn (as), then usage in both contexts is permissible. They have sought to prove this in reliance of this verse:

'Allah and his Angels send blessings on Rasulullah (s), Salute him with the best salutation"'

and also the sahih hadith:

1. My father went to the Prophet with his alms and the Prophet said, "O Allah! Send your blessings upon the offspring of Abu Aufa."

2. Rasulullah (s) opened his hands and stated:

'O Allah send your mercies upon the family Sa'd ibn Ubadah

3. Hadhrath Jabir narrates that he approached Rasulullah and requested 'O Allah send blessings on me and my family' and Rasulullah (s) sent blessings in this manner. Ibn Habban commented on this narration in detail.

4. Rasulullah (s) stated 'Angels recite for every momin 'Salam alayka wa alai jasdhaak'" Ruh al Ma'ani Part 22 page 85

Azam Tariq's attack on the concept of Imamate

Kr-hcy.com states:REMEMBER THAT IMAMATE IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH WITH THE SHIAS AND ACCORDING TO THEIR BELIEF IMAM IS SINLESS LIKE THE PROPHET AND APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. HAZRAT HUSAYN IS ONE OF THEIR (SHIA) TWELVE IMAMS. AS SUCH THE SHIAS USE THE TITLE OF "IMAM" FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN ALTHOUGH IN THE SIGHT OF SUNNI MUSLIMS, HE IS A SAHABI AND NOT A "SINLESS IMAM" APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. WE DO NOT SUSCRIBE TO THE SHIA BELIEF OF IMAMATE.

Whilst Ahl'ul Sunnah my not ascribe to the concept of Imamate within their pillars it still forms a part of their aqeedah, and their Ulema have confirmed this fact in their books of aqaid. Both Sunni and Shi'a schools hold Imamate as a part of aqeedah. Rather the difference lies over the method of appointment.

Quoting Mulla Ali Qari's book "Sharh Fiqh Akbar", which sets out the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa, this is what we read in the Chapter "Masala Nusbul Imamah" (Issue of appointment of the Imam):

"It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But there is a difference, as to whether this is Allah's duty or whether this is incumbent on the public. The belief in the eyes of Ahl'ul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public. In accordance with this belief, there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyyah'. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented"

Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi)

Maulana Abdul Aziz Fehrawi expands on this matter yet further:

"The appointment of the Imam is compulsory, its foundation is based on the fact that Rasulullah (s) said whoever dies in a state where he has failed to recognise the Imam of his time. who dies at a time when the Imam is present and fails to recognise him, or dies when no Imam exists (nevertheless), his death shall be the death of jahiliyyah (one belonging to the time of ignorance). We have a hadith in Sahih Muslim by Ibn Umar - whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of jahiliyya. In the tradition of Muslim we find these precise words "Whoever dies in state, having not had bayya over his neck shall die the death of one belonging to the time of jahiliyyah".

al Nabraas Sharh al aqaid page 512

Incidentally the last sentence of this discourse on the Sunni concept of imamate also shows the real reason why the modern-day Nasibi ulema oppose Imam Husayn (as) being called as such by the majority of Sunnis. Since imamate is linked here to the bayya, by calling him Imam Husayn (as) the Nasibis are aware of the fact that most Sunnis accept Imam Husayn (as) as their imam and rightful khalifa and not Yazeed. This is a perplexing phenomenon of which the Nasibis are aware, for Husayn (as) was not appointed by man, and could thus only have been appointed by Allah, as the Shias claim their Imams are. Yet such was the vindication of truth that he achieved over a demonic khalifa that Husayn (as) is accepted as the rightful Imam in the spiritual sense by the Sunni majority, and the khalifa of the time Yazeed is cursed. The Shia Imam embodying pure goodness fought against the Sunni imam embodying pure evil. Yet the Sunni majority to this day side with the Shia Imam. This is intolerable to the Nasibis.

These two references from classical Hanafi scholars confirm that the Imamate is a part of aqeedah and that:

Man has the duty to appoint the Imam

Failure to recognise the Imam leads to the individual dying a kaafir.

If an issue as the difference between dying a Momin or a kaafir has nothing to do with aqeedah then what on earth does?

The Shi'a, as Azam Tariq has (for a change) correctly said, believe that the Imam is appointed by Allah (swt) and is infallible. We have proven this belief from the Qur'an and Sunni sources in the article 'The creed of the Shi'a' available on this site. It is the difference in the two approaches that came to loggerheads at Karbala: the khalifa appointed by man - imam Yazeed, versus Allah's appointed Imam Husayn (as). And the Sunni majority supports the Shia imam against their own imam. Sometimes whole populations oppose their leader over an issue of conscience and an intuitive understanding, deep down, as to who is right and who is wrong. We see this in the phenomenon of peace demonstrations by western civilians against the various wars that western governments have fought in their name. It is the same thing here with the Sunni majority's attitude to Imam Husayn (as) and Yazeed. Azam Tariq cannot stand this as it destructures the whole edifice of Sunni Islam. We would like to end this section with a simple question to our brothers from Ahl'ul Sunnah: 'Supporting which Imam at that time meant the difference between dying the death of jahiliyyah and attaining salvation, Yazeed or Husayn?'.

Azam Tariq has implied above that he cannot stand the fact that the Sunni majority say it is Imam Husayn (as) that they choose.

We pray that this question, in light of our analysis of Yazeed's character, leads our Ahl'ul Sunnah brothers to understand the serious flaw that exists in believing that man NOT Allah (swt) decides on Imamate over a people. We saw what happens when a man rules. Yazeed was one of several similarly degenerate khalifas. But he embodied these degenerate traits to an unrivalled degree, This is what man's appointment of khalifa means. This is why the Nasibis come up with the most ridiculous lies to hide his reality, for it is so scathing for the Sunni notion of khilafat. Not only scathing because Yazeed was so low, it is ten times more scathing because good was represented by an Imam of the Shia.

Why do these Nasibi vigorously defend the reign of Yazeed?

This is one of those questions that automatically comes to mind when one analyses the character of Yazeed. The reason lies in aqeedah, and goes to the heart of where the Sunni / Shi'a viewpoints diverge. The core difference between the two schools is on the topic of Imamate: who has the right to lead the Ummah. Shi'a Muslims believe that this leadership is religious guidance and hence the appointment is the sole right of Allah (swt), for He (swt) knows what is best for his Servants and He (swt) shall appoint the man best suited / most superior to lead the Ummah through all times. Allah (swt) will select an Imam who is best in character, most excelled on the components of Deen, who shall only rule via justice (if you want details see a 'moderate' article by a separate author but which we have copied and pasted onto this site called "The Khalifatullah in Shia Belief" for proof of this). There is no need for ijma, or votes since Allah (swt) appoints and no one has a voice in the matter.

The Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that the appointment of the Imam is a duty of the Public - they decide on who comes to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya - once the Khalifah has received ijma then his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is the crucial factor here - the people decide who is in power (a democratically elected dictatorship for life), and the khalifa's character has no further bearing since once in power the Khalifah has to be obeyed. Any opposition is squashed, with violence. From the time of Mu'awiya onwards, all the khalifates become monarchies.

When this is the basis for Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah, then over time their jurists have sought to revise the concept of imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics that Imam should possess, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after the embarrassing debacle (for Sunni Islam) with Yazeed and certain other members of the Banu Umayyad dynasty - for example the khalifa Waleed who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of the Ka'aba. Unfortunately these writings have been nothing more than a 'Dear Santa Wish List' since an analysis of early Islamic history will quickly lead to us learning that characteristics such as justice were completely devoid in these Khalifahs, and there is no better example than Yazeed. Indeed with the exception of perhaps Umar bin Abdul Aziz in 1,100 years of khilafat after Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most were as bad as kings anywhere were. This left many classical Salaf scholars with a very difficult problem:

If they reject Yazeed, they are then rejecting the concept of ijma that had been allegedly created at Saqifa Bani Sa'ada, and underpins Sunni Islam

Rejecting this ijma'a in effect discredits Sunni aqeedah that the duty to appoint the imam is the right of the public.

If this concept is discredited, by highlighting Yazeed's demonic character and satanic actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as ascribed to by the Shi'a school of thought.

The Salaf Ulema, faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of Yazeed's reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be maintained. This accounts for their pathological and indeed blatant lying, which embarrasses even the Nasibis. We shall now seek to set out the consequence of this belief

Rasulullah (s) said that he would be
suceeded by twelve khalifahs

We are quoting from Sahih Muslim hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui:

"The Islamic religion will continue, until the hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by 12 Caliphs, all of them being from Quraish".

This is what we read in Mishkat al Masabih:

"I heard the Apostle of Allah say 'Islam shall not cease to be glorious up to twelve Caliphs, every one of them being from the Quraish". (And in a narration) "The affairs of men will not cease to decline so long as twelve men will rule over them, every one of them coming from Quraysh." And in a narration: "The religion will continue to be established till the hour comes as there are twelve Caliphs over them, everyone of them coming from the Quraish"

Mishkat al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5

<>The Salafi and Hanafi Schools of thought have graded Yazeed as the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 50 Dhikr Fadail Uns Bad un Nabi

Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 12 Chapter 3

Tareekh al Khulafa page 11 Fadail Dhikr Khilafath Islam

Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 291 Dhikr Khilafat Hasan

Umdah' thul Qari fi Sharh Bukhari Volume 11 page 435, Kitab al Ahkaam

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:

Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen shall remain strong as long as these twelve Khalifahs are at the helm, and the twelve are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, 'Ali Mu'awiya, Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan

The sixth Imam of truth according to Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq is Yazeed, but this is a fact that these Ulema often don't mention to the public.

Abdullah Ibn Umar deemed the bayya to Yazeed
to be in accordance with the conditions
set by Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s)

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Narrated Nafi':

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227

This fatwa epitomises the entire Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. We leave it to those with open minds to now decide which concept of Imamate holds true. One that deems this to be based purely on Allah (swt)'s selection, or one that deems it man's choice no matter who, so much so that reign of Yazeed, a drunk, fornicating, Dhaalim homosexual is also in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). Would Allah (swt) really bless the reign of such a man?

Our Ahl'ul Sunnah brothers should know that 'you can't keep your cake and eat it' - if you want to reject the khilafat of Yazeed, then you are in effect rejecting Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. If you accept the khilafat of Yazeed, you are in effect joining the camp of the Salafi and Deobandi Nasibi shaped around the fatwa of Abdullah ibn Umar. On the plains of Kerbala the two concepts of Imamate came to a head - man-made appointment (Yazeed) versus Allah's appointment (Imam Husayn (as)). We pray that this article shall shed light over the consequence of believing that man, not Allah (swt) decides on the appointment of the Imam. It took the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) to lay down his life and that of his dearest blood family to save the religion for you.

Fatwa of Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, al Muhaddith Shah Abdul
Aziz Dehlavi - whoever opposes the teachings of
the Ahl'ul bayt (as) is a liar

We read in Fatwa Azizi page 251, Hadith Saqlain (The Hadith of the Two Significant Things). It should be known that the Sunni and Shi'a madhab are in agreement that Rasulullah (s) stated:

'I am leaving amongst you two things; if you follow them you shall never go astray after me. These two compliment one another. One is the Book of Allah, the other is my Ahl'ul bayt (as)".

This is the most tawatur (reliable) Hadith in Sunni Hadith methodology. It is shocking that the most incontrovertibly correct statement that Sunni scholars accept that ever came from the tongue of the Prophet (saws) is rarely recounted to the Sunni public. It really is shocking and it smells of a cover-up of the truth by paternalistic-minded Sunni scholars. From here it can be ascertained in relation to the Shari'a of Allah that man must adhere to following both these two significant things. It is clear that the aqeedah and deeds are false of one who does not follow these two weighty things - any authority and anyone that denies these two has rebelled against the Deen. At Karbala, Imam Husayn (as) was the symbol of Allah (swt), and it was Yazeed who was the rebel against the sign of Allah (swt). The Sunni khilafat had turned against Allah (swt) and had done so before all mankind. This is why Yazeed is such an embarrassment to the Sunni establishment. Yet Husayn (as) was so good, that even they cannot help but revere him.

Our appeal to justice

We have cited the fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi with regards to the position of one that rejects the Ahl'ul bayt (as). This was from the mouth of one of the lead opponents of the Shi'a of his time. The Shah stated that a madhab that opposes the Ahl'ul bayt is false and bears no value. When we see today's Nasibi presentation of the Ahl'ul bayt (as):

Their raising doubts over the teachings upheld by the Ahl'ul bayt in Karbala,

Their rejection of the great sacrifice of Imam Husayn (as) in Karbala,

Their refusal to accept that the stance of Ahl'ul bayt (as) was a stance between truth and falsehood

Their belief that Imam Husayn (as)'s opposition was 'dangerous agitation' and that he was a baghi

These facts have been presented before you, and we appeal to those who claim themselves to be Ahl'ul Sunnah, why do you remain silent and allow the Nasibi to bark in the manner that Azam Tariq and Co. do?

If your silence is on account of the fact that to speak out to defend Imam Husayn (as), may be misconstrued as support for the Shi'a as he is their Imam, then what judgement can we give on the state of your claiming to have iman, shahada and love for Ahl'ul bayt (as)? When it comes to the issue of disrespecting the Sahaba your honour is immediately challenged and you stand up vocally and attack the Shi'a on your websites, and yet when these Nasibi openly bark against the Ahl'ul bayt (as) in this type of manner then you all remain silent on the matter. You might not know it but the Nasibi plague is subconsciously affecting your hearts. The true scholars of ahl-al-Sunna vehemently condemned Yazeed. Yet the Nasibi ulema, for reasons we have exposed, blatantly lie and say that in the battle between good and evil, good was evil and evil was good. Yet are you becoming those masses of whom the Prophet (saws) said that the Ummah would, in the last days, listen to ulema who lie? You should know that even if the entire Sunni world sides alongside the Nasibi on this issue, it shall not effect the Ahl'ul bayt in the slightest. It is your soul in the balance, not that of Imam Husayn (as). All Muslims accept he is the Chief of the Youths of Paradise. And we are all youths in Paradise. Will you be one of those youths? For more details on the supreme sacrifice of Karbala access any Shia bookshop. We plan to produce details on the ultimate battle of good versus evil on this site.