Is it True that Umar (ra) Demoted Khalid bin Waleed position ? ?

This is true. Khalid bin Walid was rewarding the Muslims from his khumms which he got as a commander. The Muslims praised him for leading the conquest, and he paid them from his khumms. This got Umar (ra) to demote Khalid as a result.

Also, here are more texts to support Umar (ra) decision.

إني لم أعزل خالداً عن سخطة ولا خيانة ، ولكن الناس فُتنوا به فأحببت أن يعلموا أن الله هو الصانع

"I have not dismissed Khalid because of my anger or because of any dishonesty on his part, but because people glorified him and were misled. I feared that people would rely on him. I want them to know that it is Allah who give us victory; and there should be no mischief in the land".
source: al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/81.
Here's a third Hadith which shows that 'Umar (ra) removed him for a specific reason in SIyar al-A'alam al-Nubalaa 1/378:

However, the problem is after he was replaced Khalid, the next commander who took his placed was not as competent of a warrior. So now the conquest missions began to slow down.

Khalid bin Walid was a strong warrior. On the contrary, he is not a high ranking sahabi. Refer to what the Sunni scholars have said.

Imam Bukhari said, which Imam Ibn Hajar mentioned in the Fat'h 3\7:

من صحب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أو رآه من المسلمين فهو من أصحابه

Now, there is really no difference between the Usuli's and the Muhadditheen definitions as far as the companioship is considered, except to further classify that the companionship as either general (aam) or close (khass). i.e. those who just saw him or met and sat with him briefly - sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam- are sahaba in the (aam =general) meaning, and those who spent lots of time and inhereted his knowledge are sahaba in the (khass =close) meaning. This how we should interpret the differences in definitions betweem the Usuli and the Muhadditheen scholars, this way we accept both's efforts and not reject one or the other. From this view we can understand the Hadith in Sahih Muslim where the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, when he was angered by Khaled bin Walid for cussing at Abdurahman bin Awf, he looked at him and told him: (the famous Hadith)

لا تسبوا أصحابي

Which means: ( Do not cuss/curse my companions). Some people brought up this Sahih Hadith to prove that Khaled Bin Walid is not a Sahabi, because this Hadith the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, told him directly: do not cuss at MY COMPANIONS. But we all know that based on the definition of Sahaba (ra) according to Ahlus Sunnah Ulama is everyone who saw or was seen or was present with the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. So by that definition, khaled (ra) is also a Sahabi. So how come the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, tells him do not curse my companions. The Ulama said: it is an indication that the level of companionship of people like Abdurahman bin Awf is nothing similar to that of Khaled Bin Al Walid (ra), not that the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, is denying that the late people coming to Islam (like Khaled and Amru bin Al-Aas, etc..) are not Sahabi's. In fact, Ahlus Sunnah agree that the people who entered Islam during the Liberatin of Makkah, like Muawiyah and his father and his tribe and all the people who held out in Makkah till the last minute, etc.. are Sahaba. Though they came later than Khaled and Amru and the similars. There are simply different levels of Sahaba, and the Prophet's words by not calling Khaled a Sahabi though he's calling Abdurahman as one, is simply to show that Khaled is not at the same rank of companionship like Abdurahman, so much that if the people like Khaled spends like the mountain of Uhud worth God, they would not be able to attain even half of the rank of people in the rank of Abdurrahman bin Awf. But Ahlus Sunnah agree that at the end, both Abdurahman and Khaled are Sahaba.

With that in mind, Ahle Sunnah still consider Khalid bin Waleed to be superior in status than Muawiyah. In fact of his sons supported Imam Ali (as) in Siffin and the other one fought against Imam Ali (as).

Refer to the 8 min mark in the clip below.

12r Shia Lies Against Imam Abu Hanifa (ra)

The 12rs Shia nowadays are using questionable non-Shia sources to advance their opposition against Imam Abu Hanifa (ra). However, when we look into their source we can discover the reason why they have to rely on another school.



Also, here is what brother Inshallah an Admin posted on shiachat.

Your argument is like that of Abu Hanifa, once upon a time. That is, if I beat the hell out of you, I can claim in an Islamic court that it is not my fault since it was pre-destined and the will of Allah. You are ignoring historical references and introducing "fate" as an argument to prove your point. Feel free to do so but it holds no ground in an intellectual argument.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234992853-was-imam-ali-ra-forced-to-give-bayah/

The above belief is not a belief of Abu Hanifa (ra), but a lie fabricated by the 12r Shia sect.

Here is Abu Hanifa's ra view on man's action.

Abu Hanifa used to deal with this question in a restrained way. He believed in the decree of good and evil and the comprehensiveness of Allah’s knowledge, will and power in created beings. None of aperson’s actions are independent of Allah’s will even though man’s acts of obedience and disobedience are ascribed to him and he has choice and will in respect of them. He will be questioned and accountable forthem. He will not be wronged the weight of an atom. This is the Qur’anic dogma which is derived from Book.He debated with the Qadarites to cut them off. (Abu Hanifa, Abu Zahara)

Reply by Brother Nader Zaveri on Blind Following of Ahadith.

The 6th imam tells ` Yunus ibn Ammar: "Whatever Zararah has quoted through Imam Baqir [a], it is not lawful for us to refute it.`
http://www.al-islam.org/hesham/17.htm

Here is the hadeeth:
211 - حدثني حمدويه بن نصير قال حدثني محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب عن الحسن بن محبوب السراد عن العلاء بن رزين عن يونس بن عمار قال قلت لأبي عبد الله (ع) إن زرارة قد روى عن أبي جعفر (ع) أنه لا يرث مع الأم و الأب و الابن و البنت أحد من الناس شيئا إلا زوج أو زوجة فقال أبو عبد الله (ع) أما ما رواه زرارة عن أبي جعفر (ع) فلا يجوز لي رده
Source:

al-Kashi, Ikhtiyaar Ma`arifah al-Rijaal, pg. 133 - 134, statement # 211


The issue with the chain is Yoonus bin `Ammaar, who is majhool (unknown), therefore this hadeeth cannot be taken. Some people might take the tawtheeq of al-Najaashi of his son Ismaa`eel bin Yoonus.




However, in brother Nader Zaveri didn't reply to the first statement where it states.

Zararah b. Ayan Sheibani, was one of the chief companions of Imam Baqir [a] and Imam Al-Sadiq [a]. He was so respected and trustworthy that Imam Al-Sadiq [a] said: If this man, Zararah did not exist my traditions would have been lost. (Rejal-Kashi, Wasa'il Shiah v.18, Monlahal Amal, v.2. Pg. 871).

So the 12rs admit their religion is not fully codified by the Imams of Ahlul bayt (as).

12r Shia Required To Rely on Fallibles such as Zararah b Ayan Sheibani

In many debates, the 12r point out areas where Sunni personalities have shown the Ahlul Bayt (as) to be the most superior leaders on earth. One example is where Umar (ra) says if it wasn`t for Ali I would have been ruined. Another areas is where Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) says `If it wasn`t for my two years with Jafar I would have been ruined. Now these saying are true, but the 12r use these quotation to prove the Sunni aqeeda wrong. They say this is proof that we shouldn`t depend on anyone but the imams to transmit knowledge of Islam. They further add these imams are infallible so it is wrong to follow anyone else.

On the contrary, when you dig up 12r Shia sources you realize that they don`t have any direct books from the imams themselves. Look at the Jafari fiqh itself it depends on various different books and hypothesis of the shia scholars to derive fiqhi ruling. Then from this ruling we have contradiction in areas such as Kalma, Khumms, Taqiyyah, Tabarra, Takfir, Jumah & Namaz Eid Namaz, Azaan, Mattam, Jihad etc. All these areas, have contradictions within one school of thought. Anyway, aside for these ruling, we discover from a 12r Shia perspective `the infallible` imams depended on fallible students to spread Islam. Among the famous traditions in the 12r shia sect, we encounter a strong praise of one of the chiefs of the 12rs Zararah bin Ayan Shebani. When we look into his status the 6th imam says without him Shia Islam would be perished. Below is an extract from the 12r Shia sources.

Zararah b. Ayan Sheibani, was one of the chief companions of Imam Baqir [a] and Imam Al-Sadiq [a]. He was so respected and trustworthy that Imam Al-Sadiq [a] said: If this man, Zararah did not exist my traditions would have been lost. (Rejal-Kashi, Wasa'il Shiah v.18, Monlahal Amal, v.2. Pg. 871).
http://www.al-islam.org/hesham/17.htm

I was always told that the number of imams in the 12r sect were 12. Yet here we see even after reaching half a dozen imams, the deen of Shia Islam had to spread by fallible. You would think the full responsibility would be left to the imams numbering 7-11. Yet the 6th imam supposedly predicts with his unseen knowledge that its not the case.

Next, the 12rs tell us we should only follow a dozen imams, and nobody else. Yet in another famous tradition the 6th imams supposedly says to do taqleed of Zurara bin Ayan. The 6th imam tells ` Yunus ibn Ammar: "Whatever Zararah has quoted through Imam Baqir [a], it is not lawful for us to refute it.`
http://www.al-islam.org/hesham/17.htm

With this tradition above saying it does not even leave room for a Muslim to apply aql toward the naql from Zararah.

After my experience with the 12rs, I have come to a conclusion that when a 12r tells us to accept Shia Islam and follow Ahlul Bayt (as), this is not the reality of the sect. In reality when one accept 12r Shia islam, they are following an Islam which is transmitted and interpreted most of the time by non-Ahlul Bayt members such as Al-Kulayni, ibn Babawaih, al-’Ukbari, Tusi, Hilli, Al-Majlisi, etc.. ( the four books). This projection presented by the 12rs is not definitive path of Islam, but an limited interpretation of who the Ahlul Bayt were from another perspective.

Why Did Shaykh Mufid have Mutazilli Teachers ?

The 12rs say that the 12th imam is the imam of the time, but after reading the biography of Shaykh Mufid it states that he had Mutazilli teachers. I was refuted on shi'achat. However, at that time I was relying on a orientalist source. The other day I came across a mainstream Shia site which states that this Shaykh did study under the Mutazilli.

He was born in the year 338 A.H./949 and was brought up in a village. His father brought him to Baghdad for his education. There he studied under Shi'i and Mu'tazili scholars. He showed such promise that one of his teachers recommended that he study under one of the leading scholars of the period, 'Ali b. 'Isa al-Ramani. He also studied under the leading Shi'i traditionists of the time, al-Shaikh al-Saduq.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/irshad-howard.htm

Ali Ibn-e-Isa ar-Ramani is a Mutazilli scholar.

Bibi Fatima (sa) Called Shaykh Mufid her Shaykh ?

Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Mo'tazaly in his commentary on Nahjul Balaghah writes that once Sheikh Mufid saw Fatima al-Zahra, peace be upon her, in his dream. She was accompanied by her two young sons, al-Hasan and al-Husain, peace be upon them. Addressing him, she said: "O my Sheikh, teach Fiqh (Jurisprudence) to these two boys of mine." Next day, Fatimah, the mother of Seyyid Murtadha and Syed al-Radhi came to Sheikh, holding hands of her two young sons, and uttered the same words which Fatemah al-Zahra, peace be upon her, had uttered in his dream.

http://www.al-islam.org/amali/2.htm


Notice, how the pronoun 'my' is used before Shaykh. After seeing this I can immediately dismiss this dream.

Shaykh Al Mufid's Dream With Umar ibn Khattab

If you ever read the biography of Shaykh Al Mufid, a giant in the 12r Shia school you will always stumble across this dream narration.

Al-Karajaki has reported that once Sheikh Mufid saw a dream, and then dictated it to his companions and disciples. He said: I dreamt that as I was passing through a street, I saw a large crowd gathered around someone. On enquiry, I was told that they had surrounded Umar b. al-Khattab, the second Caliph. I pushed myself forward, and when I came near him, I said: "O Sheikh, do you allow me to ask a question?" He said: "Ask." So I said: "Would you explain me how is the excellence of your friend Abu Bakr established by the Ayah in which Allah says: 'the second of the two, when they were in the cave'. Your friends are making too much out of it."
He said: "This Ayah proves Abu Bakr's excellence in six ways:
Allah mentions the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then mentions Abu Bakr with him, as his second of the two;
Allah mentions them as being together at one place; which is a sign of mutual affinity;
Allah adds further quality of being the Prophet's "SAHIB", the Companion;
Allah relates how kind and caring the Prophet was towards Abu Bakr when he told him, "Don't grieve";
Where the Prophet assured Abu Bakr that "Allah is with us" meaning that He will help both of them simultaneously;
Allah revealed that He will send down AS-SAKINAH (serenity) upon Abu Bakr because as far as the Prophet was concerned, AS SAKINAH never parted from him
These are six proofs of Abu Bakr's excellence from the mentioned Ayah."
Sheikh Mufid says: "I told him that he had indeed made a good effort to make his point, and had left no room for any other person to be a better advocate for his friend. But I was going to demolish the arguments, making it like ashes blown away by the fast wind."
Sheikh said:
"When you say that Allah has mentioned the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, and then mentioned Abu Bakr as his second, I do not see anything extraordinary in that. For if you ponder over it, you will find that Allah was only revealing the number of persons present in the cave.

Mufid's Point 1

They were two; there could have been a Mo'min and a Kafir and they would still be two."

From Mufid’s first point, it demonstrates that even he understood that during the Meccan period till the beginning of the Madianian period there were only 2 groups of people. These groups were categories as Infidels (Kuffar) and committed Muslims(believers). The hypocrites and borderline Muslims did not exist. On the contrary, there are many 12rs who will waste your time trying to convince you that a third category existed during the revelation of this verse, and that Abi Bakr (ra) belong to that group of people. From Shaykh’s Mufid’s understanding we can skip that baseless understand and focus on the main verse of the Quran. The reality is Shaykh al Mufid’s first argument is based on pure speculation. If you observe the how the ayat begins it actually defines how the Kuffar are.
Allah (swt) tells us “If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] (Quran 9:40)”
Abi Bakr (ra) did not drive the Prophet (pbuh) out of Mecca. Therefore, he doesn’t fall in the category of disbelievers.

Mufid's Point 2

"And when you talk of they being together at one place, it is again as simple as the first case. If there was one place only, it could have been occupied by a Mo'min and a disbeliever also. The Mosque of the Prophet is definitely a better place than the cave, and yet it was a gathering place for the believers and the hypocrites. The Ark of Prophet Noah carried the Prophet Noah, together with Satan and the animals. So being together at one place is no virtue."

It is ironic how Mufid makes this argument when his works indicate the virtues of ziyarath of the imams. Shaikh al-Mufid, in his book Masar al-Shi’a, discusses how commendable and rewardable it is to perform a visit to the Imam's grave on the 20th of Safar.
Refer to http://www.al-islam.org/maqtal/71.htm

Mufid's Point 3

And when you talk about the added quality of being 'SAHIB', the companion, this indeed is a weaker point than the first two, because a believer and a disbeliever can both be in the company of each other. Allah, Most High, used the word 'SAHIB' in the following Ayah: 'His "SAHIB" (companion) said to him while he was conversing with him: Have you disbelieved in the One Who created you from soil and then from a small quantity of sperm, then fashioned you harmoniously as a man?' (al-KAHF V. 37). Further, we find in Arabic literature that the word "SAHIB" is used for the accompanying donkey, and also for the sword. So, if the term can be used between a Momin and a Kafir, between a man and his animal, and between a living and an inanimate object, then what is so special in it about your friend?"

Allah (swt) tells us who the Kuffar are when he states “- Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] (Quran 9:40)”
Abi Bakr (ra) did not drive the Prophet (pbuh) out of Mecca.
Also, the term Shia is used in a negative and a positive connotation.
For positive connotation refer to the Quran 28:15
For negative connotation refer to Quran, 28:4
During Imam Ali’s (as) Calipate the shia were those who accepted him as the 4th Calipah.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However, there was one group who was swearing allegiance to him as a religious obligation regarding his Caliphate as determined by Allah. Otherwise, the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mufid's Point 4

"And the words 'Don't grieve' were not meant for any solace;. Because it was a statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have 'donts' and 'dos' as imperative verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Abu Bakr was either an act of obedience or disobedience. If it was obedience, the Prophet would not have forbidden it, therefore it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience."

If this was a forbidden act then Allah (swt) did Allah (swt) make a mistake appointing Prophet Musa (as) as a Prophet ?
"And throw down your stick!" But when he saw it moving as if it were a snake, he turned in flight, and did not look back. (It was said): "O Mûsa (Moses)! Fear not, verily! the Messengers fear not in front of Me. (Qur'an, 27: 10) Allâh said:"Grasp it, and fear not, We shall return it to its former state, (Qur'an, 20: 21)

In Surrat al Fussilat Allah (swt) says
Verily those who say our Sustainer is Allah and they proceed straight-forwardly their visitations will be with Angels who come to them and say "don't fear and don't grieve/feel sad, we are your supporters/allies/reinforcement in this worldly life…" (Surah Al Fussilat verse 30)

Here the momins are address in the same way Abi Bakr (ra) was addressed. Therefore, how can one conclude the fear cannot be attributed to a momin? If ‘fear is sign of kufr’ then what about the verses above ?
Mufid's Point 5

As for the assurance that 'Allah is with us', the pronoun 'us' was used by the Prophet for himself The use of plural pronoun for oneself is a sign of ones elevated status. Allah says: 'Indeed, We are the One who has revealed the Quran, and We will most surely preserve it.' (Al-Hijr V.9). And again: 'We are the One who gives life and ordains death, and We are the inheritor' (al-Hijr V.23). And the Shias have their own version, which does not seem far-fetched. They say that Abu Bakr told the Prophet that his grief was for Ali b. Abi Talib (who was left behind in Makkah), and the Prophet replied: 'Do not grieve, surely, Allah is with us' meaning; with me and my brother, Ali b. Abi Talib."

Who is they ? How can a belief be based on hearsay.

Mufid's Point 6

Your claim that AS-SAKINAH (serenity) was sent down to Abu Bakr is indeed outrageous. Because the verse clearly states that the serenity came unto him who was helped with the unseen army.
The Ayah says:
'... Then Allah sent down on him His serenity and strengthened him with unseen forces'
(al-Tawbah: 40).
So if AS-SAKINAH had descended upon Abu Bakr, he would have received the support of the unseen army. In fact, it would have been better if you had not attributed this to Abu Bakr. For according to Quran, this serenity was sent down on the Prophet twice:
'Then Allah sent down His serenity upon His messenger and the believers, and sent down forces which you did not see ...'.
(al Taubah:V.26).
'Then Allah sent down His serenity upon His Messenger and the believers, and adhered them to the word of pity.
In both places, the believers shared the serenity with the Prophet, but in this event of the cave, serenity was sent down to the Prophet alone, excluding Abu Bakr. This may be a pointer to the fact that Abu Bakr was not among the believers!"
Sheikh Mufid says that Umar made no reply to my arguments, and as people around him scattered, he woke up from his sleep.

I don’t see how Abi Bakr (ra) was harmed after this incident. In fact, when Haroon Rasheed opposed Hisham ibn Hakam the SAKINAH received his loyality of the 6 imam did not cure his heart problem.
For a more detailed article refer to this link.

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/abu-bakr.html

Anyway, the reason I am confused about this dream is how Umar (ra) is Shaykh Mufid’s dream was still able to defend himself for a few more centuries. Then all of sudden Shaykh Al Mufid comes in and refutes him. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
In the 12r Shia aqeeda Umar (ra) is supposed be in hell.

" Until, when death comes to one of them, he says: ‘O my Lord. Send me back to life (on earth) in order that I may do good deeds in the things that I neglected.’ By no means! It is only an utterance that he says. And before them is a barrier (preventing them from returning: the life of the grave) until the Day (of Resurrection) they are ressurected.” (Quran 23:99-100)

However, with Shaykh Mufid's dream Umar (ra) is still able to defend Sunni Islam. So another words, from Shaykh AL Mufid’s view, we will still not know his version of the truth in the grave until another shia scholar comes in a refutes us.

Also I like AhleBayt.com conclusion.

Congratulations, O great Shaikh Mufid! You have defeated Umar bin Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) in your imaginary dream, how brave you are. I will now go dream of Mike Tyson and in my dream I will knock him out. That will just prove how great I am and how weak Mike Tyson is.

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/abu-bakr.html

Abu Bakr's (ra) Company in the Cave

In this article I will dismiss one the myth our opponents the Rafida have placed against the beloved Sahabi of Prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr (ra). When presented with the incident of the cave which is in reference to Quran 9:40, the 12r Shia immediately character assassinate the sahabi, by saying it actually presents the sahabi in negative light.

If we refer to Surat At-Tawbah the verse states

If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise (Quran 9:40)

When the 12r Shias refer to this verse they come to conclusion which is contrary to what the Ahle Sunnah conclude.
From 12r Shia prospective their conclusion toward Abu Bakr (ra) in reference to the Quran 9:40 is
a) Abi Bakr (ra) was with the Prophet (pbuh) he has no right to have any fear.
b) Fear cannot be an attribute of a momin
c) Fear is a sign limited to hypocrisy.
d) Since Abi Bakr (ra) was in the state of fear Allah did not sent down tranquility on him.
e) The verse of tranquility is singular and not plural.

Now with the points stated above I will provide counter arguments, and present why the 12r Shia interpretation is flawed.
The 12rs Shia state that ``fear cannot be an attributed to momin.`` To counter this argument the verses of Quran will be used to prove this is not the case. In the Quran, when Prophet Musa (as) saw his stick turn into a snake what was his immediate reaction? Let us refer to the Quran.

"And throw down your stick!" But when he saw it moving as if it were a snake, he turned in flight, and did not look back. (It was said): "O Mûsa (Moses)! Fear not, verily! the Messengers fear not in front of Me. (Qur'an, 27: 10) Allâh said:"Grasp it, and fear not, We shall return it to its former state, (Qur'an, 20: 21)

Here Allah (swt) tells an infallible Prophet (as) not to have fear.

Further Allah (swt) address the momin in Surrat al Fussiiat, not to have fear.

In Surrat al Fussilat Allah (swt) says

Verily those who say our Sustainer is Allah and they proceed straight-forwardly their visitations will be with Angels who come to them and say "don't fear and don't grieve/feel sad, we are your supporters/allies/reinforcement in this worldly life…" (Surah Al Fussilat verse 30)

Here the momins are address in the same way Abi Bakr (ra) was addressed. Therefore, how can one conclude the fear cannot be attributed to a momin? If ‘fear is sign of hypocrisy’ then what about the verses above ?

Next the 12rs claim that the “The verse of tranquility is in singular and not plural. This is actually a correct statement. However, it was Abi Bakr (ra) who was in fear and not the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]: . Therefore, tranquility descended upon Abi Bakr (ra). The Prophet (pbuh) was already in a tranquil state before the verse was revealed.

Now with all the conclusions pointed out by the 12r Shia, I will like to point out the double standards of the 12r Shia interpretations and conclusions. The major chief of the 12r sect is Hisham ibn Hakam. They consider to be the greatest sahabi of Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as). This man in his debates was the first man to attack Abi Bakr (ra) about the incident of the cave. Below I will site Hisham’s view which was later adopted by the 12rs.

Hesham: If you think, God was pleased about the sadness of Abu Bakr, then why did the Apostle of God tell him not to be sad. Did the Prophet [s] prohibit him from committing the acts to please God? If you deem, God was not pleased with the grief of Abu Bakr, then can you be proud of a thing which was contrary to that of God's pleasure. O' man you yourself know better what God has said in their respect: Thus the Creator sent His peace and tranquillity to His Prophet and believers"
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7766

Hisham attacks Abi Bakr (ra) however, later the tables turn on him. In the end of his life Hisham ibn Hakam himself was put in a state of fear which gave him heart problems and resulted to his death. If you refer to his biography by you will see that he feared the Abbasid rulers of the time. Here is his incident with Haroon Al Rasheed.

Haroon who was very much annoyed and alarmed by the matter considered the speeches of Hesham as the biggest danger to the caliphate, and had decided several times to kill Hesham. He had warned him of his death, especially on that very day when Yahya ibn Khaled had arranged the meeting by the order of Haroon and he had listened to the convincing speech of Hesham personally and had sworn to kill him. At last he called for Hesham and ordered to imprison and kill him. So, Hesham had to escape to Kufa and hid away for some time in the house of Bashir Nabbal where he was too ill. However much they asked him to see a doctor he would refuse saying: I shall die and shall not recover from this illness. Finally Bashir brought a few doctors. When they finished their examinations Hesham asked them about his illness. Some of them said: We do not know what the illness is, and others told him something else as a result of their examinations. Hesham said: You are telling a lie; my illness is due to my heart trouble which is affected by the fear I have. It cannot be treated. (ibid)

Lastly, the ibn Hakam’s life is concluded.

It was because of this obstinacy and intrepidity that the caliph had decided several times to kill him and at last due to anxiety, fear and serious heart trouble, Hesham sacrificed his life. (ibid)

Now we ask the 12r Shia if fear is only restricted to hypocrites then what was Hisham ibn Hakam's position ? If tranquility cures a momin then why didn’t it cure Hisham ibn Hakam’s heart problems ?

Why didn't Imam Ali (as) partake in any battles During the Calipate of First 3 Calipahs ?

This is one of the questions which is asked by the 12r Shias umpteen times. They seem to think just because they ask something umpteen times or make a statement umpteen times, it become a valid argument against their opponents. Also, we must recall that their statement a level of truth to it. However, this historical fact about Imam Ali's (as) lack of participation of wars, is not indication that Imam Ali (as) believed that the calipate of the 3 calipahs was illegitimate. What the 12rs fail to initially realize is their definition of imamate is not the same as the Sunni definition of Calipate. In fact, their definition of imamate in reality is suspended till the reappearance of the 12th imam. Anyway, in this topic I will explain why Imam Ali (as) didn't partake in any battles during the calipate of the 3 calipahs, and also provide a rational to why the 12r Shia arguement is flawed.

Jihad is compulsory duty in Islam, so why did Imam Ali (as) decide to stay back after he eventually gave bayah to Abi Bakr (ra) after 6 months, gave bayah to Umar (ra) and Uthmaan (ra) ? To answer this question we must refer to the Quran, where an exception for exalted sahabi such as Imam Ali (as) is made.
In the Quran, Allah (swt) tells us

It is not for the believers to go forward in battle all at once. Rather, there should be a separate group from every division that [remains behind] to obtain understanding (fiqh) in the religion and warn their people towards cautiousness when they return} (Q. 9:122).

Now since, Imam Ali (as) believed he was the most knowledgeable in Islam, the imam extracted this ayah and decided to stay back and council the 3 Calipahs instead. If this is the case, how can we dismiss the 12rs statement ? In history, Ammar bin Yassir (ra) who the 12rs consider to be a Shia among the Sahabis did partake in the wars of calipahs. He fought in the wars of apostasy under the rule of Abi Bakr (ra).

In the meantime Musaylima and his followers who were lying in ambush attacked the Muslims. The Muslims were faced with great trouble and began running away like a scared flock of sheep.




Historians like Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd and others who have recorded the biography of Ammar have written that Abdullah bin Umar said: "I saw Ammar Yasir on a hillock while his detached ear, wounded by a sword, was bleeding, and he was going on fighting in the same condition, and was calling out the fleeing Muslims and saying “O' Muslims! Are you running away from Paradise! "Then again he raised his voice and said: "I am Ammar! I am Ammar! Come to me, and run towards me!"



"I (Abdullah) saw that the ear of Ammar was hanging and I also saw that in that very condition he was killing the enemies, reciting epic verses, shouting and encouraging others so that eventually the Muslims gathered round him. When the Muslims had gathered near him he attacked the enemies and came out victorious from the battlefield". We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.
http://www.al-islam.org/ammaryasir/12.htm

On the contrary, for the 12rs the sahaba who rejected waliyah are bigger apostates since status of imamate is higher than Prophethood.

Next when Imam Hassan (as) reached at level of maturity, the imam fought under the rule of Hz Uthmaan (ra).

At the Time of Uthman

We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam02_hasan/the_life_of_imam_hasan/10_1.htm

Also, what is interesting to note that Hz Umar (ra) himself wanted to partake in battles during his own calipate. Yet it was Imam Ali (as) who stopped him from going further. In fact, even the 12r Shia till this day cannot deny this. Also, let go a step further and see the 12rs themselves citing the words of Imam Ali (as).





Imam Ali (as) wanted Umar's (ra) to live.
Instead of following Imam Ali's (as) sunnah the 12rs praise the pioneer of Rafidism who is none other than Abu Lulu.



Also, another interesting fact to note down is Umar (ra) leaving Madina to go to Palestine.

In 636 CE, at the battle of Yarmuk, the Byzantines were defeated by the Muslim Army. Christian Patriarch Sophoronius offered to surrender the city if Caliph Umar (RA) himself would come in person to ratify the terms of surrender. Umar (RA) agreed to the suggestion. The encounter between these two men was very dramatic.

Umar (RA) took to the road immediately, accompanied by a guard, and leaving Ali ibn Talib (RA) as his deputy in Madinah. Traveling by camel is a slow process. Umar (RA) and his guard would alternate mounting on the camel. So, it took few weeks before Umar (RA) arrived in Jerusalem. The crowd had gathered, and the eyes were wide open with curiosity. The Patriarch had prepared himself to meet with the most powerful ruler of his time, Caliph Umar, who had just defeated the Byzantines. From where he was standing, he saw a tall man walking, dressed in ordinary clothes, while holding the rope of a camel, and surrounded by Muslim generals; another person was riding on the camel. For a moment, the high priest, used to the pompous way Heraclius had carried his affairs, was confused as to who the Caliph was. Was the Caliph the man riding on the camel or the one pulling the camel? Eventually, recognizing the Caliph, he surrendered the key of the city. In the words of a Christian historian, Anthony Nutting, “Umar taught the caparisoned throng of Christian commanders and bishops a lesson in humility by accepting their surrender in a patched and ragged robe and seated on a donkey.” [The Arabs, New American Library, N.Y. (1964)]

When he left Madina he left Imam Ali (as) in charge of Madina. In a non-war zone Imam Ali (as) doesn't stop Umar (ra). However, in a war zone he prevents Umar (ra) from dying.

Imam Ali (as) Says Be With The Great Majority

"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. (Sermon 126 Nahjul Balaghah) "

The 12rs think the shias in time of Imam Ali (as) were shias like themselves. So they say that is the majority. As for placing Ahle sunnah in this ahadith the 12rs say we don't even fall under this ahadith. They believe this hadith applies to only those who surrounded Imam Ali (as) and supported him in the battles of Jamal and Siffin. Therefore, within that ahadith they say those who love the imam too much are those who say Ali was god, the haters they classify as Khawari, and the middle they call those shias who fought under Imam Ali (as) in the Jamal, Siffin and Narwaan.

However, I have trapped the 12r by posting another tafseer of a sermon where it proves their interpretation to be false.

Who was the majority in the time of the Imam ?

The 12r Shia tafseer of sermon 97 says the majority of Imam Ali (as) followers accepted him as the 4th calipah.

However, there was one group who was swearing allegiance to him as a religious obligation regarding his Caliphate as determined by Allah. Otherwise, the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/

Did Imam Ali (as) tell Muawiyah that the Sahaba Were Cowards ?

There are many irrationalities presented by the 12r shia sect on Imam Ali’s (as) actions and decision. Here is list of some irrationalities which 12rs present
1) Unity with hypocrites for the sake of Islam
2) Allowing a command of Allah (ie divine appointment) to be pressured.
3) Imam Ali (as) allowing his wife to be killed
4) Imam Ali (as) and a few companion being the only results for victory of Islamic wars
5) Imam Ali (as) accepting Shura for his own Calipate
6) Imam Ali (as) failing to implement the divinely appointed belief of the shia/12rs during his rule
7) Prophet (pbuh) plus the 11 imams failing to establish justice, but the 12th imam will be able to fulfill it.
8) Rajah
9) Imam Ali (as) failing to convert his supporters from to today form of shiaism/12r Shiaism.
10) Imam Ali (as) not giving any takfiri fatwa against his supporters who opposed him in the arbitration
11) Imam Ali (as) saying that follow the majority ( the majority in his camp accepted him as the 4th calipah instead of the first)
12) Imam Ali (as) calling the companions as cowards in a letter to Muawiyah.

In this topic I will emphasize on point 12. In a letter to Muawiyah, Imam Ali (as) presents his merits and slanders the companions.

From amongst the Quraysh, the condition of those who had embraced Islam, was not as bad as ours. Either they had defensive alliance with the non-believers or some tribes decided to defend them despite their differences in religion. While it was the practice of the Holy Prophet (s) that whenever a battle was raged and his companions behaved cowardly or ran away from the battlefield (as in Badr, Uhud and Hunayn) which was usually the case or started making the Muslims nervous (as in Khandaq), he sent members of his family (Bani Hashim) to fight out the battle to protect his companions. These members of Bani Hashim often fought single handed and some even met martyrdom as for instance, Ubayda bin Haarith was killed in the Battle of Badr, Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib in Uhud and Ja'far bin Abu Taalib in the Battle of Mu'tah. Besides these three, there was another person (here Imam Ali (a) meant himself) who also tried his best to meet martyrdom. I could name him but the date of his death had not yet approached and he passed through these terrible ordeals alive. (Najh al Balagha, Letter 9)

Now compare this to the Sunni Version.

As for those from the Quraysh who embraced Islam afterwards, they were relieved from the trials that we went through. Because from among them were protected tribes and individuals that had protection from their clans so that no one [from the pagan Quraysh] would do to them what they did to us. They were in asylum and were saved from being killed. This was as Allah willed. Then He ordered His Messenger to emigrate and later allowed him to fight against the polytheists. Whenever matters got tough and the battles began, he sent the people of his family to the forefront in order to protect the Companions from the heat of the battle. Thus, Ubayda [bin Harith bin al-Muttalib] was sacrificed at Badr, Hamza at Uhud, and Ja'far and Zayd at Mu'ta. The one whose name I would mention [i.e. Ali himself], more than once, sought martyrdom for the sake of Allah similar to these, yet there time was expedited and his [mine] was prolonged. Allah now grants them provision and rewards them for that which they have done. Consequently, I have not heard of or seen anyone from the people who was more sincere to Allah through obedience to His Messenger or more submissive to the Messenger in obedience to his Lord, more steadfast during hardships and times of distress than those who I have just named! Although, there were good people amongst the Muhajirun as well, may Allah reward them. (al-Baladhuri and the Wa'qat Siffin by al-Minqari.)

So in the 12r Shia version it states that only the Hashimis sided with the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]: in the Islamic wars in opposition to the Kuffar.
From this view a question immediately arises. If the Hashimis are the only Sahabis then what about Pro Ali companions such as Abu Dharr (ra), Salman Farsi (ra) , Ammar Yassir (ra), Miqdad (ra) etc ? Did Imam Ali (as) forget to mention them ? After all they were companions too.
Now the 12rs might want to say the imam is only taking about the 3 calipahs or the Sunni definition of the sahaba. Even if this is the case are 12r Shia trying to say that all wars were won by a small minority which numbered from 5-14 ? If this is the supposed reality of Islam then we have problems. The reason behind that, since Imam Ali (as) insulted the majority of sahaba in front of his greatest enemy then couldn't I conclude the his opponent used this information against him and turned the tables on the Imam ?

If I had an enemy and that he insulted his own side then, can I not use that information against him to advance my agenda?


In the end look at the results of history. What happened in aftermath the arbitration between Imam Ali (as) and Muawiyah ? On contrary we find a sermon where Imam Ali 9as) praises the sahaba which contradicts his statement in Letter 9.

I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them. They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind. ( Najh Al Balaghah, Sermon 97)

It was these sahaba who fought under the 3 calipahs and gained them victory in the Islamic conquest.


On the contrary, Imam Ali (as) praises the opposite side military commitment and becomes disappointed with his own side.

I called you for war but you did not come. I warned you but you did not listen. I called you secretly as well as openly, but you did not respond. I gave you sincere counsel, but you did not accept it. Are you present like the absent, and slaves like masters? I recite before you points of wisdom but you turn away from them, and I advise you with far reaching advice but you disperse away from it. I rouse you for jihad against the people of revolt but before I come to the end of my speech, I see you disperse like the sons of Saba.[2] You return to your places and deceive one another by your counsel. I straighten you in the morning but you are back to me in the evening as curved as the back of a bow. The straightener has become weary while those to be straightened have become incorrigible.
O' those whose bodies are present but wits are absent, and whose wishes are scattered. Their rulers are on trial. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobeyed him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Mu`awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them. ( Najh Al Balaghah, Sermon 97)

Now earlier in the 12r Shia view he was slandering the companions.
If the sahaba were so bad did the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]: ever wish to trade his companions for Abu Sufyan's supporters ?

Also, the question comes back to the 12rs. If is only a minority which caused victory in the Islamic wars where was this minority's power in the Battle of Siffin & Karbala ? Why did the 9 imams remaining have to go into taqiyyah ? Why does Hisham ibn Hakam claim the 6th imam suspended Jihad until the reappearance of the Mahdi ? Why did Shaykh Al Mufid compare 313 companions of Badr with the 313 shias of the Mahdi ?

In history, the 12 imams were under the radar of the Ummavi and Abbasid rulers. On the contrary 12rs Shia were pacifist. The Ummavis and Abbasids never harmed them since they restricted their activities to their culture centers. Unless of course the 12r Shia decided to challenge the ruler of the time. Then again many Sunni Scholars go in trouble when they questioned the rulers of their time.

Now when we go deeper into history even during the Mongal invasion the 12rs chose to work with an aggressive enemy instead of declaring jihad.



Imam Musa Al Kazim's (as) janazah had restriction due to the pressure. Refer to 40 second mark in the clip below.




Yet the 12rs still did noting when the Mongols destroyed Imam Al Kazim's (as) shrine.


Whereas the Muslims who support and love Muawiyah such as Shaykh ibn Taymiyah declared a war on the Mongols and prevented them from advancing into Egypt. Is it not ironic ?

Why do the 12r Shia Care About The Causalities of Jamal ?

The 12rs claim they disassociate from Bibi Ayesha (ra) since her actions during Imam Ali’s (as) caliphate resulted to high number of Muslim casualties.

From my understanding of the 12r Shia theology, it is not battle of Jamal or her rejection of Shura that got Imam Ali (as) in power which causes the 12rs to make an initial tabarra against her. However, it is her rejection of Waliyah, which is main reason 12rs hate and curse her.
Bibi Ayesha (ra) actions during Imam Ali's (as) calipahate are presented by the 12rs for purpose of dawah. These events actually compliment their creed instead of proving Imam Ali’s (as) waliyah.

For example a 12r says the wahabis call us kaffir. Now a Sunni might ask don't the 12r shia do the same ?
Instead of answering that question, the 12r Shia say we refer to Sunnis as Muslims. What they hide from Sunnis is this term Muslim they are using in its context has no links to momins. In fact, the term Muslim aimed at Sunni Islam by the 12rs is indirectly linked with the term monafiq or hypocrite.
If we refer to the Quran, the hypocrites are actually considered worst than the Kuffar.
Anyway the 12rs go into historical events to try to justify their hatred toward the Sahaba. By just claiming those who reject the Waliyah of Ali are apostates, does not give them the ability to use an emotional card to antagonize their opponents. On the contrary, historical events is best emotional card is play against the Sunni who opposes the 12r and has no clue that such and such event occurred. In the end the Sunni is left at a confused state. At that state the Sunni challenger is helpless to defend Bibi Ayesha (ra).

Anyway, the main reason I started this topic is to ask 12rs why they really care about the causalities of Jamal. In the end, the number casualties which occurred only resulted in Sunni lives only. The reason for this is the majority of supporters of Imam Ali (as) were Sunni in reality.
According to the 12r Shia own sources the majority of accepted Imam Ali’s (as) caliphate accepted him as the 4th Calipah instead of the first. In Najh Al Balagha Sermon 97 the commentary of the sermon suggests that “the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.” (Nahj al-Balaghah Commentry Sermon 97)
Once again the causalities suffered in Jamal are those who were Sunnis. There is ahadith about Hz Ammar bin Yassir (as) being killed by rebellious group.

Sahih al-Bukhari - Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67
Narrated 'Ikrima: That Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

Sahih Muslim - Book 41, Number 6968 - 6970
Umm Salama reported that Allah's Messenger (s) said to 'Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.

However, once again the Shia sahabis such as Ammar ibn Yassir (ra) did not as kuffar.
Now if we look further into the 12r Shia theology they consider Sunnis calipahs to be same category of Muawiyah and Yazid.

Here is a 12r Shia Scholar who teach the 12r Dawah methods.




Also, they play the unity card with Sunnis, yet within the so called unity the 12r have their agenda to get rid of Sunni Islam.



Therefore, in the end the casualties killed in Jamal, were Yazidis from the 12r Shia prespective. It is not matter if they had side with Imam Ali (as) or not. The reason for that is the majority of the supporters of who rallied behind Imam Ali (as) accepted him as the 4th calipah instead of the first.

Did Monafiqeen Exist in the Meccan Period of Islam ?

The 12rs say the sahaba became apostates after the demise of the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]:

However, my question to the 12rs is can you prove that the muhajireen among the sahaba who you consider as apostates or non-momin were non-Momin /borderline Muslims or monafiqeen during the Meccan period of Islam ?

As far as I know the term monafiqeen did not exist till migration to Madina took place.

So far I have ironically only seen the 12rs use Qiyas to justify their aqeeda, and their disassociation from the non-shias among the sahaba.