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.

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 ?

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 ?

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.

Shia Scholar Warns Not To Curse \ Make Dua Against The Sahaba

This lecture was recorded by in Pakistan in early 80s. This was the annual Sham-e-Ghariba from PTV. The Scholar from his views is a Tafzili Shia, and his name is Sayyid Naseer-ud-Deen sahab. After listening to this clip some 12rs might say that Sahaba are only those who reject the 3 calipahs, and accept Imam Ali (as) as the first calipah. However, to prove such narrow minded and taqiyyah abusing 12rs Shia wrong, I have added the clip where he praised Umar (ra) in the end.

Mistakes of A Sahaba

There are many examples where the sahaba made mistakes during their lifetime. However, the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaat do not believe in the infallibility of the sahaba. Since the sahaba made mistakes does this mean we should stop following them ? The correct answer to this question is the sahaba should be only followed when they are correct. For example Abi Bakr (ra) himself is believed to have said "Follow me until I lead you on the path of Allah." He said: "Help me, if I be the right; set me right, if I be the wrong. The weak among you shall be strong to me until his rights have been vindicated. The strong among you shall be weak with me until, if God wills, I have taken what is due to him. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and his Prophet, obey me not.""
Therefore, when a sahaba commits a mistake it is not compulsory for us to follow him. Now when one debates against the shia they point out these mistakes of the sahaba and force a sunni to curse them. For example in Tijani's book "Then I Guided" he cites a quote where Umar (ra) gives an incorrect rule regarding Tayamum. He cites from Bukhari:
Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, "What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?" Abdullah answered, "He should not pray until he finds water." Abu Musa then asked, "What do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar [regarding the issue of impurity] when Ammar asked him?" Abdullah said, "For that reason Umar was not satisfied with [that]." Abu Musa said, "Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur'anic verse?" Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, "If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand. I said to Shaqiq, "Abdullah is most certainly hated for that." He said, "Yes".
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54

Over here it is clear that Umar (ra) made a mistake. However, does this mean accepting the shia sect will make a prevent a person from making mistakes or committing sins? Are the scholars which the 12rs follow also not capable of making mistakes ? Are they infallible ?

Below is a pictures of Al Tijani where he is using his left hand to drink coffee.




It is reported in Suyuti book regarding the Calipate Imam Hassan ibn Ali (as), that Imam Hassan (as) gave a ruling in fiqh to only use one's left hand when dealing with impure acts such as cleaning the nose, or any other form of cleansing.

In fact, Marwan bin Hakam used to abuse to Imam Hassan (as) on many occasions, and the only time Imam Hassan (as) reprimanded him was when he saw that Marwaan using his right hand to clean his nose.

Ibn Saád reports from Zurayq ibn Suwār: Marwān and al-Ĥasan had an argument. and Marwān began to speak rough; al-Ĥasan kept silent. And then Marwān began picking his nose with his right hand. Al-Ĥasan said: 'Woe unto you. Do you not know to use the right hand for clean things, and the left for the unclean? Shame on you.' This silenced Marwān. (Tareek e Khulufa, Suyuti)



Anyway, this is just example. On top of that there are examples when there were mistakes by Imam Khomeini when he took a temporal position to rule over Iran. I'm still in process of researching the details of those events. However, my purpose of this research is not ask shias or sunnis to curse Imam Khomeini, but it is point out that we are all human who don't have a status to be infallible. If shias think I am impressed by the way they quote our sunni sources to prove the mistakes of the sahaba, they are wrong. In fact, I have seen fiqhi mistakes made by the 12r marja too made big mistakes. So in this case who are we suppose to follow ? We are only suppose to follow our fallible leadership when their teachings are parallel to Quran, Sunnah and the Ahlul Bayt.

May Allah Forgive us for our Sins which we commit day and night !