Why Shia curse the wives of the prophet and his companions?
The one who curses the wives of the prophet and his companions is:
Either a irreligious anti-Islamic hypocrite who make a defamation against them as a way of slandering the prophet and as a scheme to attack Islaam. All the founders of the Shia's movements belong to this group. Note that not any one of Ahlul-Bayt belong to those Shia.
Or an inattentive who follows his act according to one's own wishes and ignorant. Almost all the Shia today belong to this group.
Remember that Abu-Bakr and Umar were the closest companions to Muhammad as all references indicates and Allaah confirmed in the Qur'ân. His good treat to them is very well known to Shia. They were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet and his right hand. So, if the Shia claim were correct then we have three possible situations:
Either they were hypocrites and the Prophet Muhammad did not know that. This is a great insult to Allaah since he did not warn his Messenger from his closest companions.
Or they were hypocrites and the Prophet knew that. This is even worst since they are insulting the Prophet by claiming that he did not warn his nation from those hypocrites and he made them his relatives.
Or they were good Muslims and they went astray after his death. This is abandonment from Allaah to his messenger since He did not tell him what would happen in the future to warn the Muslim Ummah. How come Allaah who promised to support his religion and his messenger, make to closest companions to his prophet renegades and hypocrites?!
By insulting the wives and the companions of the Prophet clearly the Shia want people to say: "Muhammad was a wanton man among wanton companions. If he were a virtuous man then his companions will be virtuous people too." The Shia curse the Companions who are the righteous pattern to this Ummah and Allah bear witness for that:
(Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs (the Companions who emigrated from Mecca), those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allaah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones;
But those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls; they are the ones that achieve prosperity. And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Qur'ân Hashr: 8-10)
Contradiction in Shiaism
Shia cusses Abu-Bakr and his daughter Aaishah, the wife of the prophet , but they regard his son since he fought with Ali. So, they hate the best one in this Ummah after The Prophet and they regard his son who does not have any contribution in raising Islaam.
Shia also claim that they love the family of the Prophet but they curse his wives who are the most important part of his family!
Why accusing the Companions (Sahâbah) of The Prophet is very dangerous?
Because the Companions of The Prophet are those who are denigrating and demolishing Islaam. For, indeed, it is the Sahâbah (my Allah be pleased with them) who are the ones through whom Islaam has been passed down to us. So those people who curse and insult them, in reality, are destroying Islaam.
During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Qur'ânic verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." So, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a disbeliever, because the verse says, "…the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)."
Shia curses the Rightly Guided Khalifas (May Allah be pleased with them)
If they had any sense, they would know and appreciate that they are in reality cursing the Holy Prophet himself. Abu Bakr and Umar were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet. Also, during the lifetime of the Prophet both were his right hand men; and after his demise, it is they who had great worry feeling for the welfare of Islaam. Who else has ever been honored with such a position and honor as was granted to these two? Again, it is these two who had always participated and had been with the Prophet during all the battles. These facts are enough to refute the Shia beliefs.
As for Uthmaan, he was the husband to two daughters of the Prophet. It is clear that Allaah does not choose for His Messenger a son-in-law and companions except those who are the best.
If the Rafidiya (Shia) are true to their claims, then could they explain why The Messenger did not forewarn the Ummah and clarify the alleged enmity of the Rightly Guided Khalifas (i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan) towards Islaam?
Allaah bears witness in the Qur'ân that Abu Bakr is a close companion to the prophet Muhammad by his saying:
"If ye help not (Muhammad ), (it is no matter): for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion (Abu Bakr): they two were in the Cave, and he said to his companion, Have no fear for Allaah is with us." (9:40)
Shia curses Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)
Their insults and curses are not limited just to the Rightly Guided Khalifas but are also directed towards Ali. Because Ali himself, in Masjid Rabia, gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Abu Bakr and also gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also willingly gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Uthmaan. Not only this, but he was actually the right hand man and a well wisher of the Rightly Guided Khalifas. So could Ali chosen a kafir as a son-in-law for himself? And could Ali have given the oath of allegiance (bai'ah), as he did, to a kafir? Subhân Allah (Glory to God)! This indeed is a great accusation!
Shia curses Hasan son of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them)
Also, by cursing Mu'awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him), these Rafidiya (Shia) are actually cursing Hasan (May Allah be pleased with him). Because Hasan withdrew from, and gave up the Khilaafah to Mu'awiyah purely for the pleasure of Allaah. The Messenger foretold of this in the hadith. So can the grandson of The Messenger actually have withdrawn from and left the Khilaafah in the hands of a Kafir for him to rule over the people? Subhân Allah! This indeed is a great accusation and insult!
If the Rafidiya say that Ali and Hasan were forced into doing this, then this is proof enough that these Rafidiya have no sense whatsoever. The accusations leveled against these two honored companions of the Prophet are the worst insults ever imaginable and are beyond belief. They should remember that Ali faced the unbelievers in Mecca face to face although Muslims were less than 40 man. So, why does he hide his Islaam when Muslims became the majority and why he does not face the hypocrites?
Shia vs. Ahlu-Bayt
All members of Ahl-ul-Bayt (the family of the Holy Prophet) belong to Sunni Muslims. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq for instance, is the teacher of Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa. None of Ahlu-Bayt subscribed to the false beliefs of these Rafidiya (Shia). There are numerous solid arguments based on logic and Sharee'ah refuting their religion and false beliefs. These arguments are so many that it would be difficult to recount them all. Therefore they should repent from their false and unfounded beliefs and enter into the fold of Islam.
"They are the enemies, so beware of them. May Allah curse them! How are they denying (or deviating from) the Right Path." (al-Munaafiqoon, verse 4)
These Raafidi (Shia) actually descend from Abu Lu'luah Majoosi (a Persian fire worshipper) and Abdullaah ibn Saba' (a Jew). However they are more dangerous from the Christians themselves. Christians fight Islaam face to face (if they did) while Rafidiya stab Islam from its back.
The Prophet (saw) said that the Dajjaal will descend in Marqand .......then Allah will grant the Muslims victory on him who will kill him and his SHIA in so much that when the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone, then the tree and the stone will say to the Muslim that there is a Jew behind me come and kill him, (Musnad Imam Ahmad #5099)
the question arises here: Why didn't the prophet not say “Itib’aa” or followers instead of “SHIA” or partisans? they were actually called rawafids in the past but now they are called Shiites, and the Prophet doesn't speak of his own!
The Prophet (saw) said, “To every Ummah there is a magian and the magian of this ummah are those who reject the Qadr or predestination. If anyone amongst them dies do not attend their funeral, and if anyone amongst them becomes sick don’t visit them AND THEY ARE SHIATUL DAJJAAL OR PARTISANS OF THE DAJJAL and it is the right of God to join them with the Dajjaal (Sunan Abi Dawoud #4072)
So the Shiites are the magians of this ummah and their Iranian nation. Khomeini has clearly stated that he rejected predestination (Tahreer al-Waseela vol.1, p.79)
The Prophet (saw) has stated : “The Dajjaal will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan, having on themselves Persian shawls.” [Sahih Muslim #5227]
What makes the Dajjaal to go to Isfahan as it is a Shiite land and why is the involvement of the Jews in a Shiite city? Is this a coincidence?
We all know the that the Shiites say that may God hasten the coming of their locked Qaem and we all know that the one who is locked and made hidden is the Dajjaal as reported in the narration of Tamim ad-Darri in Sahih Bukhari, so there is no place for the Shiites to err, oops I mean to show Taqiyyah!
Baarak-Allaahu Feekum - wa sal-Allâhu wa-sallam ''alaa Nabiyyinaa Muhammad, was-Salaam ''alaykum wa-Rahmatullaahe wa-Barakaatuhu.
Wa'' Jazâkum Allâhu Khairan
Wa Billâhi-t-Tawfîq
Akhûkum Fillâh,
No comments:
Post a Comment