Khubathaa ar-Rafidhiyyah: Answering the Lies of the Shi’a Part 6

Question 51.

In a reliable book of your sect, ‘Itteqaan’ by Suyuti, vol. 1 page 59, it is narrated that Ali (as) had once told Abu Bakr that an addition was being made to the Qur’an and that my heart tells me that apart from the salaam, I am not going to wear my robe up until I have collected the Qur’an, to which Abu Bakr said, you saw the right thing. This report has been received from Akramah who is a reliable leader of the Sunnis and every Sunni accepts this report as correct. Is this not a sufficient proof that after the departure of the holy prophet (saww), according to your sect efforts were made to interpolate the word of Allah (swt) and obviously the doers of that were Muslims themselves? What evidence can you then produce in support of the Qur’an being free from Tahreef (addition)?

Consequently, I couldn’t find this riwaya in the Itqaan of as-Suyootee in all of the relevant places, including using search terms. This is what I have of page 59 volume one

كَانَ عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِ} {وَأَقِمِ الصَّلاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ} .

قلت: دليل الثالثة ما صح من عدة طرق أنها نزلت بالمدينة في حق أبي اليسر.

يوسف: استثني منها ثلاث آيات من أولها حكاه أبو حيان وهو واه جدا لا يلتفت إليه.

الرعد: أخرج أبو الشيخ عن قتادة قال: سورة الرعد مدنية إلا آية قوله: {وَلا يَزَالُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا تُصِيبُهُمْ بِمَا صَنَعُوا قَارِعَةٌ} وعلى القول بأنها مكية يستثنى قوله: {اللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ} إلى قوله: {شَدِيدُ الْمِحَالِ} كما تقدم والآية آخرها فقد أخرج ابن مردويه عن جندب قال: جاء عبد الله بن سلام حتى أخذ بعضادتي باب المسجد قال: أنشدكم بالله أي قوم أتعلمون أني الذي أنزلت فيه: {وَمَنْ عِنْدَهُ عِلْمُ الْكِتَابِ} ؟ قالوا: اللهم نعم.

.إبراهيم: أخرج أبو الشيخ عن قتادة قال سورة إبراهيم مكية غير آيتين مدنيتين: {أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ بَدَّلُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ كُفْراً} إلى: {وَبِئْسَ الْقَرَارُ} .

الحجر: استثنى بعضهم منها: {وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعاً} الآية.

However, in spite of not find this in the Itqaan, given the recent history (and your confirmed reality of being arch liars) one must check the reliability of this riwaya and one just cannot take your word for it.

In the event it is authentic, all one has to do is use their brain. We have always argued the preservation of the Quran with the following fact

—–Since the quran was conserved by memory, then upon it’s transcription onto paper, there were plenty of hufaadh to correct any mistake of its compilers in case the compiler got it wrong—-

And this is true. This is our argument against the kuffar in general or when we give dawah, this explanation is one of the pivotal tools used by us to enlighten the non muslims we are giving dawah to in order to explain how we preserved the Quran.

So now we have a narration where this narration is a living example of that. Ali saw a mistake, and corrected it, and Abu Bakr recognized it, and followed along.

So yeah, this is sufficient proof that there has been a mistake by a compiler and Ali, being the haafidh that he was, pointed that mistake out, and Abu Bakr, who was the Caliph of the Muslims and haafidh, conceded to the stance of Ali. It is not proof of any willful interpolation as you have deceitfully made it out to be.

Question 52.

It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur’an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word’s correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur’an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur’an and Rasul’Allah? If Rasul’Allah (s) can err in relation to the Qur’an then does this not also mean he can forget on the Sunnah as well? When the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah comes into question, how can your sect be the true one?

See also: Sunan Abu-Dawud, page 350

Wrong. The understanding that comes with this narration from al-Bukharee is that Allah caused him to forget AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, but that on a later occasion, his memory was restored as Allah said in His Book

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #106)

The additional clause “cause to be forgotten” only to be initiated by the word “aow” i.e. “or” signifies within the sciences of the Quran that this signifies a different reality (state, condition) than “naskh”. Part of the meaning of “cause to be forgotten” is how Allah is the one who may strip the hifdh of an ayaah or some, and will either replace it with something equal, or better than it.

Secondly, your argument’s weakness is the roadway to kufr.

Allah says about the forgetfulness of other prophets

And when you (Muhammad SAW) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Quran) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaitan (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.).

( سورة الأنعام , Al-Anaam, Chapter #6, Verse #68)

Here Allah affirms that shaytan has the ability to cause the greatest messenger to forget


And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: “Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king, so as to get me out of the prison).” But Shaitan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his Lord (or Satan made ((Yoosuf (Joseph)) to forget the remembrance of his Lord (Allah) as to ask for His Help, instead of others). So (Yoosuf (Joseph)) stayed in prison a few (more) years.

( سورة يوسف , Yusuf, Chapter #12, Verse #42)

Again, Allah affirmed that Prophet Yusif alaihi salaam has forgotten.

Their forgetfulness has no bearing on the actual revelation they receive from Allah.

Furthermore, bringing the narration from al-Bukharee into context is the following ayaah

We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) shall not forget (it),

( سورة الأعلى , Al-Ala, Chapter #87, Verse #6)

Clearly the narration from al-Bukharee was purely incidental, and not a general condition and the same is the case with any other haafidh who may forget a series of ayaat or an ayaah, and then later on he remembers.

Question 53.

In your innumerable books of hadeeth, there are various reports that the Qur’an has Tahreef in it. For instance it’s mentioned in al Itteqaan that Surah Ahzaab had two hundred verses before and now it has 73 verses. What happened to the rest? If they were abrogated then refer us to those verses that came down to abrogate them? Similarly in Itteqaan, vol. 2, page 25 Abdullah Ibn Umar states that none of you should ever claim to have received the whole Qur’an, rather what remains. The presence of such reports shows that according to your sect the Qur’an has been changed. Can you elaborate?

1. So what. who cares about the rest of the 127. Can’t they be abrogated?

2. Not everything that was a verse needs a narration to show it was abrogated. That is the words of Allah is also applicable in this case, that being “or cause to be forgotten” meaning erased from memories or from anyone after them. There is nothing required in the deen that we must have a narration for all and each abrogated verse.

3. Again, much to my dismay, I haven’t found this narration in al-Itqaan by as-Suyootee

Question 54.

Can the apostle forbid what has been allowed by Allah? Can you reply by relying on a Qur’anic verse?

The apostle forbidding something that the Quran allowed is not called “forbidding what the Qur’an allowed”, rather it is Allah’s allowance of His apostle to abrogate it by route of revelation. In other words, the foundational core of Islamic shariah is based that law is formed by ash-Shaar’i i.e. the law giver. It is Allah Himself and it is the Messenger who is as well legislating in the deen because he has been granted this authority by Allah. This is similar to the concept of “borrowed authority” in Western jurisprudence.

The example of this is the ayaah

“It is prescribed for you, when any of you approaches death and he has wealth, that he make a bequest to his parents and next of kin…[2:180]

This was abrogated by the hadeeth of the messenger of Allah

“There is no bequest to an heir” reported by Abu Dawud.

Question 55.

Is anyone from among the ummah authorised to forbid what has been allowed by Allah and His messenger?


Question 56.

Allamah Shibli Nu’mani in al Farooq page 217 narrates from Saheeh Muslim that Umar had said that two Mut’a were allowed during the time of the holy prophet but I disallow them from now and these are the Mut’a of Hajj and the Mut’a of Nisaa. On what religious authority did Umar forbid what the apostle and Allah (swt) allowed? Clarify this point.

The prophet himself during his last Hajj

It is misleading to blame Caliph Hazrat Umar for repealing or changing a law of Shariah on his own. He only announced the strict implementation of the prohibition declared by the Prophet (Pbuh) after Hajj-atul-wida’ (the last Hajj in his lifetime). The charge of Shias on Hazrat Umar stands annulled on two counts.

1. If Muta’ was permitted in Shariah and the second Caliph repealed it at his whim, the fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali whose actions are binding on Shias could again have announced its permission. The prohibition of Muta’ remained enforced during the reign of Hazrat Ali.

2. No Shia would ever permit his daughter to enter into Muta’ contract with any one. The permanent marriages are announced with pride and the world knows of it but we have never come across even a small list of clerics’ daughters who were given into Muta’ proudly. It shows that the practice is practically disgraceful in their own eyes.

Narrated Saburah ibn Ma’bad al-Juhani: “The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited temporary marriage with women. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2068)”

Question 57.

The Qur’an says that ‘Qaala Mumin min aale firaun yukassim imaanahu’ a believer from the Aal of Firaun had concealed his belief and hence its shown that the concealment of belief out of fear is not disbelief or abhorrent on the part of a believer. Why then is the Taqiyyah of a Shia abhorrent to you?

Because the condition as explained by Imaam Ibn Katheer is that the performance of this must be upon the circumstance of duroora i.e. necessitated for the safety of one’s own life. It is prohibited outside of this factor. This is world of difference between this, and your shameful deception in which you have no excuse other than to conceal your kufr like the mutazilah, who concealed their kufr by calling their creed in Allah “at-tawheed”.

Secondly, the nature of your taqiyyah is basically synonymous with occult satanist groups and this is exactly what it is. The exact meaning of “occult” means “hidden” and therefore it is hidden from the populace. Your cult madhaabist sought to justify the occult phenomenon by guising it under an Islamic concept, taqiyyah being a suitable candidate.

Question 58.

Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 4, page 123 Egyptian edition reports from Hassan Basri that ‘Al taqiyyah baaqiyata ila yawmil qiyaamat, (Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgement). When taqiyya is proved to be permissible from both the Qur’an and the Hadeeth, why then your sect attacks the Shi’a practice of taqiyyah?

Because again, the practice of this is based on the duroora of one’s life at stake, and that is what was meant by Hasan al-Basri

Secondly, your taqiyyah is the complete opposite of the quranic taqiyyah. WHY?

Here is the verse


“Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.” (Yusuf Ali)

In this case, taqiyya is performed by the believer to outwardly display and concede to the conditions of kufr and its people and to disassociate from Islam. Your taqiyyah is the exact opposite whereby your munafiqs outwardly and openly display emaan and accord your statements with emaan, but inside you conceal your true beliefs of kufr and shirk and bida.

In short, believers made taqiyyah to preserve their life by expressing disbelief in the Islamic faith and affirming belief in kufr whereas you practice taqiyyah without having a necessity to do so and adding to that, you express it by leaving kufr and affirming emaan but that your heart does not match this action. that is the world of difference between ours, and yours. Your taqiyyah is more synonymous with “nifaaq” because the practice of the munaafiqeen was to affirm emaan in Islam while disbelieving in its authority. Likewise your taqiyyah is absolutely synonymous with this ideology, hence the entire cult religion of the shia mythology is based on pure nifaaq.

Question 59.

Fataawa Qaadhi Khan vol. 4, page 821 states, that if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty. Can we really adhere to a Sect that issues such a fatwa? Give us a rational reply?

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 98

Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 821

That is not a decision that is representative of Islam i.e. Sunnism. When expressing your argument against us, please bring something that all sunnis can relate to, and not a fringe fatwa that even hanafis have rejected too.

Moreover, there are many strange and absurd rulings that came from the Hanafi scholars. These rulings meet with overwhelming opposition from the Sunnis, this holding odd opinions that technically emerge from our collective is not a sufficient form of argument when arguing against the sunnis.

Question 60.

The Qur’an states that ‘Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun’ No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah). Could you justify this claim?

Fatawa Siraajiya, Page 75

Most of the Muslims and sunnis are not hanafi, and adding to that many Hanafis do not agree on every single fatwa issued by their own.

We don’t justify this claim, but I or anyone else that believes in what I believe do not see a connection on how this has to do with “sunnism” in which you have a problem with.