i got this in my email...

author: Seyyed Mahrad al-Motahari
title: A Refutation of Wahhabi Propoganda

Bismillahi Rahmaani Raheem

Was-salaatu was-salaamu 'alaa sayyidinna anbiya Muhammad al-Mustapha wa aalihi at-tayibeen at-tahireen al-ma'soomeen.

As-salaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatu

The arguments presented by the ignorant Wahhabi (and iterated by this particular member of that cult) are not new. They've been refuted thousands of times throughout the coarse of Islamic scholarship by not only Shia scholars but scholars of the four mainstream schools of jurisprudence also. Insha-Allah I'll present a few of these arguments to show the falsehood underlying the premises of this Wahhabi's beliefs.

He writes, "The Rafeedah began by an errant Jew, Abdullah ibn Sabah, who claimed inordinate love for Alee, and the 'ahl ul bayt [members of the Prophets family] and from this he recruited followers to this new and dangerous innovation. He tried to destroy Islam from within. Ali [ra] executed many of these deviants to suppress their mischief. "

(1) Abdullah ibn Saba (l) was an extremist. The Shia ulama unanimously condemn his kufr. Furthermore, any who claim that Imam Ali (a) was the divine or held independent authority or that Allah delegated the matter to him is a kaffir. This is self-evident and doesn't require any proofs.

(2) The myths regarding ibn Saba (l)--particularly those regarding how he was the founder of the Shia--are false; and they've been proven false by very eminent mainstream Sunni scholars. All of the narrations asserting ibn Saba (l) as the founder of the Shia have within their chain an individual named Sayf ibn Umar al-Dhabbi al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi (l). Sayf ibn Umar (l) lived during the eighth century CE and died during Harun al-Rashid's (l) rule. Regarding his character and trustworthiness it has been said by Yahya ibn Mueen, ibn Abi Hatam, Abu Dawud, al-Suyuti, ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and many, many others that he was a liar and that his word is not to be taken. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (who is regarded as perhaps the most eminent Sunni hadith scholar) writes in his Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 3, p. 289: "Ibn Asakir mentioned in his history that 'his [Abdullah ibn Saba] origin was from Yemen and that he was a Jew who adopted Islam and traveled in the cities of Muslims and preached to disobey their rulers, to induce evil amongst them, then he entered Damascus for that purpose.' Then ibn Asakir mentioned a long story from the book of al-Futooh by Sayf ibn Umar, which does not have correct support/authorities." The only sound conclusion is to disregard those myths of ibn Saba (l) as founder of the Shia because they were propogated by a confirmed liar.

Next, the ignorant argued, "You have written what you call 'evidences that Ali had knowledge of the unseen, etc., however, your evidences are from the Books of the Shia. And attributing knowledge to other than Allah is kufr, as the rafeedah attribute to the 'hidden imams. And Allah says; "AND WITH HIM ARE THE KEYS OF THE 'GHAIB {unseen}, NONE KNOWS THEM BUT HE" Q6:59

(1) No Shia believes that the Prophet's (s) knowledge or the knowledge of the Imams (a) is independent of Allah. Allah teaches them what He wills; Subhan-Allah!

(2) The verse you cite doesn't preclude the possibility of Allah blessing His servants (the Prophets, Messengers, and Imams) with portions of the unseen. Consider 2:255, "...They encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He will." And consider 72:26-27, "The Knower of the unseen, so He makes His secrets known to none, except a messenger whom He chooses." Allah's book is not meant to be taken out of context; remember that next time you cite portions of it.

(3) On this matter Shaykh al-Mufid (who is perhaps the most eminent Shia mind to ever exist) wrote in Awa'il al-Maqalaat, p. 38: "Saying that they [the Prophets and Imams] possess the knowledge of ghayb should be refuted as being something clearly incorrect, because the attribute of this can only be for someone who possesses the knowledge of (all) things within himself, not the knowledge obtained from another. And this can only be for Allah, to whom belongs Might and Majesty. All Imamis agree on this except those who deviated from them and are called Mutawwidah and extremists (al-Ghulat)."

The ignorant further argues, "Additionally, you treat the hatred and claims of kufr on the beloved brothers of Muhammad [saw] (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) as a simple deviation, yet it is a gross deviation that is in the in the realm of disbelief."

I say the grossest deviation is to declare one as the Imam who has no rightful authority to be the Imam. Furthermore, Ayatollah Khomeini (r) taught that the mainstream Shia position regarding the three earlier Khulafah is the position of Prophet Muhammad (s). We say of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman whatever the Prophet (s) said of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. By Allah, whoever adds or subtracts to this is not from among us!

The ignorant argues, "The Messenger of Allah [saw] specifically ordered to not do what the rafeedah do today; and the Prophet [saw] said; "Do not abuse my Companions for if any of you were to spend gold equal to Uhud in charity, it would not equal a handful of one of them or even half of that."

Then can't we repudiate Muawiya for his aggression against Imam Ali (a), who was as dear and integral to the Prophet's (s) mission as Harun (a) was to Musa (a)? Answer that! Can't we repudiate all of Muawiya's helpers? Can't we repudiate Talha, Zubayr, Amr ibn Al-Ass, Khalid bin Walid and even Aisha for their aggressions against Imam Ali (a)? Surely they were the ones to abuse Ali (a) because he was the first male to embrace Islam. Surely they abused him because he was rightly guided, as you even admit; and if he was rightly guided, and his position is inscrutible, then Muawiya and all those who stood against Ali (a) were wrong and worthy of being called kuffar because as you said, abusing a Companion is tantamount to kufr. I agree, by Allah!

The ignorant argues, "Also, part of faith for all who proclaim belief in "La illah illah Allaah" [there is no god worthy of worship except for Allaah] is to believe that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are buried in the same room as Aaisha [wife of the Prophet (saw)] along with the Messenger of Allaah [saw]. They were buried there with him and if you go to Masjid Nabawee [Prophets Mosque] in Medina then you must give salam to them. (as is customary when visiting any Muslim grave)"

(1) Where in the Qur'an does it make blessing those two compulsory during Hajj? But consider that it's absolutely compulsory to send blessings on the Ahlul Bayt in every salaat, otherwise the prayers are void.

(2) Why did Aisha prevent the burial of Imam Hasan (a) beside his grandfather when she knew that the Prophet (s) bestowed the honor of being the master of the youths of paradise upon Imam Hasan (a)? The position of the Ahlul Bayt is incomparable to the Companions; comparing them is like comparing Heaven and Earth (and in some cases Heaven and Hell).

The ignorant argues, "And the Rafeedah also reject the wives of the Prophets, the Mothers of the Believers as they are called in the Book of Allah [Q33:6], yet we must respect and love them, and make dua for them."

(1) Being the wife of the Prophet (s) isn't a sign of spiritual and moral righteousness. Consider 66:10, "Allah sets forth an example for those who disbelieve--the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them, so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter the Fire with those who enter."

(2) Aisha and Hafsa are both censured in the Noble Qur'an. Consider 66:3 and 5, "And when the Prophet confided an information to one of his wives--but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah informed him of it, he made known part of it and passed over part....Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows, and virgins." This verse has two other implications: (1) it further supports the argument about Allah bestowing knowledge of the unseen on His chosen, as he revealed to the Prophet (s) Aisha's treachery; and (2) Allah's promise to Aisha and Hafsa that He would bestow upon Muhammad (s) devout, obedient, penitent, and faithful wives in their place logically suggests that they possessed none of the virtues He enumerates because had they possessed them their would be no threat, and no treachery.

The ignorant argues, "And we see from the Rafeedites that they do not associate with those outside of this deviation. They do not join the Salat at the time of the Iqama, and pray after the Jammaa'ah as finished. Praying in congregation is obligatory on those who can hear the adhan..."

What's your point? Do you want Rafidhis to pray with you? If you want us among your congregations why do you persecute us when we enter your mosques? Why do your governments butcher innocent Shia men, women and children? Why do your ulama issue fatawa that proclaim Shia blood to be halaal? By Allah, you're in no moral position to argue that we're the ones causing disunity!

The ignorant argues, "However, Allah Ta'ala says; "If you obey the Messenger [sallahu alaihi wa sallam] you will be on the right guidance". Q Q24:54"

By Allah, I agree! Recall the verses of the Noble Qur'an, "(Moses said:) 'O Allah assign me a vizier from my family...(Allah) said: 'We granted your requests, O Moses" (20:29-30); "And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: 'Take my place among the people'" (7:142). In Arabic "Take my place" is "Ukhlufni" which is the root of Khalida. Consider this hadith from your Sahih Bukhari, tradition 5.56, 5.700 and your Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p. 1870-71: "The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: 'Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except there shall be no prophet after me." Why is it that you only accept the ahaadith that serve your purposes, but you don't accept the ahaadith which explains the verses of the Book of Allah? If you don't want to accept that hadith then consider this one narrated in Tafsir al-Kabir, written by al-Thalabi under the commentary of 5:55-56,

Narrated by Abu Dharr (r):

"Ali was in a state of kneeling in the prayer. He pointed out his ring to [a] beggar, who appraoched him and removed the ring from his finger. Thereupon the Prophet, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him and his posterity, implored Allah the Mighty and Glorious, saying: 'O Allah! My brother Moses begged you saying, "My Lord, delight my heart and make my taskeasy and undo the knot in my tongue so that they may understand me,and appoint from my kinsmen, Haroon, my brother, as my vizier..." And You inspired him: "O Musa! All your requests have been granted." O Allah! I am your slave and your prophet. Delight my heart and make my task easy and appoint from among my kinsmen Ali as my vizier and strengthen my back with him.'

"By Allah, the Messenger of Allah, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him and his posterity had not yet finished his supplication when thetrustworthy Gabriel descended to him with this verse: 'Certainly Allah is Your Master, and His Prophet and those who believe who establish prayer and give charity while they bow. And whoever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe as a guardian, so surely the party of Allah will be victorious' (5:55-56).

I ask again, why do you selectively take ahaadith? By Allah, your inconsistency is an insult to human intelligence!

The ignorant argued, "Kalini reported in Usul Alkafi that Imam Ja'far said: We are the keepers of the knowledge of Allah, we translate the orders of Allah and we are immune. Allah ordained that we must be obeyed. We are the evidence against the creation under the sky and above the earth....Kalini also reported under the sub-heading: if the Imams want to know they will know. Also, the Imams know when they will die and death befalls them with their permission."

(1) Unlike your absolutism regarding your books of ahaadith, the Shia don't claim Usul al-Kafi to be Sahih. We have one Sahih book and that is the Noble Qur'an.

(2) It is our belief that Allah answers the prayers of righteous men because He is the Excellent Answerer of Prayers. He answered Musa's (a) prayer for a vizier, He answered Zakaria's (a) prayer for a child, He answered Yusuf's (a) prayer for deliverance from lust and temptation, He answered Ibrahim's (a) prayers for a prophet among his people, He answered Nuh's (a) prayer to destroy the wicked, He answered Isa's (a) prayer to be delivered from the evil of the Jews, and, according to your own sources, He answered Muhammad's (s) prayer for a successor. Why is it difficult to believe that if the Imams prayed to Allah for a longer life or for knowledge, Allah would grant it to them? Haven't you prayed for the health of a family member in the past?

The ignorant claims, "If anyone would have been granted this knowledge that the Rafeedah claim it would have been the best of humanity, Muhammad [saw] and yet, he did not know the time of his death, nor could he delay it, nor did he face the trials of the death and the grave, and Allah says; "AND WE GRANTED NOT TO ANY HUMAN BEING IMMORTALITY BEFORE YOU [O MUHAMMAD] THEN IF YOU DIE, WOULD THEY LIVE FOREVER? EVERYONE IS GOING TO TASTE DEATH, AND WE SHALL MAKE A TRIAL OF YOU WITH EVIL AND WITH GOOD, AND TO US YOU WILL BE RETURNED." Q21:34-35"

(1) Prophet Muhammad (s), the best of creation, is superior to all other Prophets, Messengers and Imams because he possessed all three from the beginning of his creation. We believe this and we don't exclude him from his due status as the beloved of Allah.

(2) We don't claim our Imams (a) are immortal. They will die just as we die. Our belief in the longevity of Imam al-Mahdi is consistent with the belief in the longevity of Nuh (a), Isa (a), and Khidhr (a).

The ignorant argues, "In an essay by Alkoumeini, he said; "Our imams have a reached a position even the angels and messengers cannot reach." Thus, accepting this as ones faith is disbelief. May Allah protect us from this falsehood and fitna. "

This is not false. The Qur'an relates the history of creation in Surah al-Baqarah--how the angels prostrated themselves to Adam (a); so surely Prophethood is superior to the status of angels. But recall the example of Ibrahim (a), how he was a Prophet before he was a Messenger; and how he was a Messenger before he was an Imam: "And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make thee an Imam of men" (2:124). Notice how Ibrahim (a)--who is one of the greatest of Allah's servants--was tested before he was appointed by Allah as an Imam, but none of the Ahlul Bayt were tested. Allah simply purified them for this station without condition: "Allah only desires to take away uncleanness from you, O Ahlul Bayt, and to purify you a thorough purifying" (33:33). And also recall the narration by Abu Dharr (r) about Imam Ali's appointment. Surely their status is greater than the Prophets and Messengers because Allah appointed them as Imams without trial or exception.

The ignorant argues, "Part of the creed of the shia is Tawqya. This abomination is explained by the rejecter Mohammed Joud as meaning; "To say or to do what one does not believe. It is exercised to protect wealth and dignity of a Rejecter." Thus, whatever may be presented back as proofs and evidences that the shia are correct in their deviation cannot be trusted. And, thus one must exercise caution in dealing with the Rafeedah as they do not follow the Sunnah of Muhammad [saw],they say the Quran has been tampered with and deleted while Allah says; "WE DESCENDED THE THIKER [QURAN] AND WE WILL PROTECT IT." Q15:9"

(1) Taqiyya is made permissable by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is a practice that has conditions; and if these conditions are disregarded, then the individual has sinned; and if the individual believes that his act is permissible while disregarding Allah's conditions, he is a kaffir. Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-Ma'athoor," narrates ibn Abbas's--the most renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis--opinion regarding al-Taqiyya on the Quranic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them..." (3:28). Ibn Abbas said: "al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been coerced into saying that which angers Allah, and his heart is comfortable, then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will not harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (not the heart)." Furthermore, Abu Bakr al-Razi in his book, "Ahkam al-Quran," vol. 2, p. 10, has said concerning the aforementioned verse, "It is permissible to speak words of unbelief when al-Taqiyya is mandatory." Both of these are eminent Sunni exegetes and jurists.

(2) Al-Taqiyyah is a derivation of the words "tat-taqooh" and "tooqatan" used in 3:28. These words contain the same roots.

(3) It has been narrated by Abd al-Razak, ibn Sa'd, ibn Jarir, ibn Abi Hatim, ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book "al- Dala-il," and it was corrected by al-Hakim in his book "al-Mustadrak" that: "The nonbelievers arrested Ammar ibn Yasir (r) and (tortured him until) he uttered foul words about the Prophet (s) and praised their gods; and when they released him, he went straight to the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) said: "Is there something on your mind?' Ammar ibn Yasir (r) said: 'Bad (news)! They would not release me until I defamed you and praised their gods!' The Prophet (s) said: 'How do you find your heart to be?' Ammar (r) answered: 'Comfortable with faith.' So the Prophet (s) said: 'Then if they come back for you, then do the same thing all over again.' Allah at that moment revealed the verse 16:106."

(3) Allah says in the Noble Qur'an: "Whoso disbelieves in Allah after his belief--not he who is compelled while his heart is content with faith, but he who opens (his) breast for disbelief--on them is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a grievous chastisement" (16:106).

(4) Your claim about our disbelief in the perfection of the Noble Qur'an is a lie. By Allah, not a single Shia will say such a thing! Where is your proof? All throughout your conclusions have been reductio ad absurdum fallacies and blanket statements that twist our aqidah and take ahaadith and verses of the Noble Qur'an out of context. Where is your proof?

Insha-Allah these responses are adequate; although there are numerous other proofs for our beliefs regarding the issues this ignorant Wahhabi has raised.


Seyyed Mahrad al-Motahari