1

There is no doubt that the Shi'a of Ali (as) are a peace loving people, and are the standard bearers of unity amongst Muslims. The Shi'a Ulema have striven hard towards this goal inviting our brothers to sit and talk with us, it should be pointed out that the invitation does not constitute a defect in religious belief on our part.

It seemed that their efforts had borne fruit when in 1959 Shaykh Mahmood Shaltoot, Grand Mufti of Al Azhar University issued a fatwa declaring Fiqh-e-Jaferiyya an Islamic school of thought, and adherents were free to adopt it in the same way that they could follow the other four schools.

Despite this major breakthrough, it is with deep regret that we look around us and see that despite entering a new century, this polemical battle, with those who support and revere the enemies of Hadhrath Ali (as) is still going on today.

The contemporary Nasibis, the Deobandis (rigid Hanafees from the Indian Subcontinent) and the 'la madhabi' (Salafis from Saudi Arabia) have sought to undermine the spirit of the Al Azhar fatwa by orchestrating a well financed / baseless campaign of lies against the Shi'a, aimed at dividing the Muslims. Just like their Nasibi ancestors who sought to undermine and ruin Imam Ali (as) by accusing him of killing Hadhrath Uthman (when they themselves had his blood on their hands) to the point of slandering, cursing and fighting him, their modern day offspring have likewise adopted these same methods against his Shi'a. They have used every form of deception possible to achieve this aim. This has included the common Nasibi tactic of distorting / denying and re-writing historical facts, misquoting Shi'a texts and intentionally lying about the Shi'a faith to the ignorant masses so as to create a hatred of the adherents of the Ahlul'bayt. They are undoubtedly the leaders of sedition and they are responsible for inciting fitnah and sectarian violence everywhere they operate- in exchange for 'lucrative' handouts in the form of cash, presents and young boys from their Saudi / US paymasters.

Curiously whilst attacking the Shi'a, these groups are themselves divided and they frequently issue takfir against one another. The Prophet (s) had once compared the Ummah to a body. The Nasibis are a cancer attacking the body. It is imperative that we uproot this cancer from the body so as to save this Ummah from further fragmentation and destruction.
Our methodology


We will adopt the same steps, as would a Doctor seeking to identify a patient's ailment. He would:

1. Diagnose the condition - We will likewise diagnose the symptoms of a Nasibi.
2. Determine whether the symptoms have spread - We will examine the extent to which Nasibi thinking has penetrated through the body.
3. Take a biopsy to use quantifiable evidence / tissue diagnosis etc - We will likewise rely on quantifiable evidence presenting facts based on history, hadith and the texts of the Nasibis.

Defending our approach


There is no doubt be some that will criticize the harsh / attacking style used by the book. We however, feel that we have been left with no other choice. Having had to endure attack after attack of volatile abuse from the Nasibis whether that be in book form or on the Internet, we feel that the time has come to adopt this approach.

We wish to make it clear from the onset that this is not a defensive work where we set our stall on the market explaining our beliefs to passers by. There are excellent sites performing that very function those who want to know the truth about Shi'a faith should go there (e.g. www.al-islam.org). This book takes the method of attack.



Defining a Nasibi


For an introduction to the literal meaning of Nasibi we have relied on the definitions stipulated by several recognised Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars:
"Famhuus" page 53, Chapter "Al Ba".
"Taj al Uroous page 277, Volume 4 Chapter "Al Ba Murtazi al Zubaydi".
"Lisan al Arab" page 762, by Ibn Manzur.
"Hadiya al Sahil ay adalta al Masail" page 96.
"Tadhrib al Radhi" page 311 Allamah Jalaladeen as-Suyuti.
"Akrab al Muwarid" page 2 Chapter "Lananat Nusub".

In "Lisan al Arab" by Ibn Manzur states:

"Nawasib are those who hate Hadhrath Ali, and embrace that hatred as part of their faith"

May Allah's curse be upon such people!

In "Taj al Uroous", we read:

"Nasibi are those who hate Ameer ul Momineen Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and take that enmity as part of their faith".

"Tadhrib al Radhi" provides the following definition:

"Nasibi ideology means hating Ali and preferring Mu'awiya".

"Hadiya al Sahil" elaborates yet further:

"Nasibi ideology is a type of flawed character that is very bad, in its worst form is has a hatred for the Imam of Guidance Hadhrath Ali, and takes this as part of its Deen / Iman".

Note that we have proven the definition by faithfully translating the works of Ahl'ul Sunnah and we invite our Sunni brothers and sisters to ponder. Do not be fooled by these long beards because among these are the enemies of Imam 'Ali (as). Their enmity is evident from their speeches, but is disguised in such a way that the ordinary man would not recognise it. Their methodology is just like that of hypocrites. They read the Kalima with their tongues but their hearts are polluted with hatred and the proof is their animosity towards Hadhrath 'Ali (as). Just like a bad foot odour they carry the stench of Nasibi thought everywhere they go - seeking to deceive the majority by proclaiming that this is the correct faith of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa.

To recognise the Nasibi let us investigate the matter further.
Pinpointing the Nasibi founding forefathers


Whilst defining a Nasibi the pen of the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema has been somewhat reluctant to pinpoint where Nasibis existed in history and who their Imams were.

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz makes two interesting comments in his "Haddeeya Mujedeeya":

"One who fights 'Ali [r] with enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah."
"Haddeeya Mujedeeya" by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813

"Whoever deems 'Ali [r] to be a kaffir or opposes his khilafath is a kaffir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan".
"Haddeeya Mujedeeya" by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813

On the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come within this definition since:

"Mu'awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman".

Unfortunately Shah's efforts to protect Mu'awiya and his supporters are in vain because it is an established fact that Mu'awiya and his clansmen:

· Opposed the khilafath of Imam Ali (as)
· Bore enmity to Imam Ali (as) by cursing him
· Fought him

All of these points have been discussed at length in our refutation of Ansar's defence of Mu'awiya.

Hence we have pinpointed those that first wore the Nasibi garb, now let us delve further.
Identifying and recognising Nasibi ideology


Several authoritative Sunni works are being relied on for this section.

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz states in "Taufa Ithna Ashari" states:

"Marwan was a Nasibi and was in fact its leader".
Taufa Ithna Ashari" page 95 Chapter 2 paragraph number 74, by Al Muhaddith Shah 'Abdul Aziz Dehlavi

Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari attributes a different name as the actual Imam of the Nasibis, he writes:

"The founder of Nasibi ideology was Mu'awiya".
"Isthakhlaaf ai Yazid" by Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari page 216

In "Al Bidayah al Nihayah" Ibn Kathir states:

"Marwan was so evil that he would curse Hadhrath 'Ali".
"Al Bidayah al Nihayah" page 259, Volume 8 by Ibn Kathir

In "Fatwa Azizi" by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that:

"Mu'awiya would curse Hadhrath 'Ali (as)".
"Fatwa Azizi" by al' Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 123

Hence Marwan and Mu'awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of 'Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nasibis. Their hatred takes numerous guises. In their lectures and writings their Nasibi thought becomes evident as does their hatred for the Shi'a of 'Ali. This party who pass fatwas of Kufr upon the Shi'a are in fact the spiritual descendants of Marwan and Mu'awiya and thus they adhere to an illegitimate belief formulated in the minds of the enemies of Hadhrath Ali (as).

From the outside one might mistakenly assume that Nasibis are pious adherents of the Sunnah. In their speeches they advocate the importance of adhering to the Sunnah, they wear long caftans, carry miswak, grow long beards, and lick their fingers after a meal - why? Because they will tell you that this was the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). It is curious that they adhere to such minute details, mimicking the Prophet (s) even in his dress sense and yet the important Sunnah, namely that of loving and adhering to the teachings of his Ahl'ul bayt (as) is rejected by them. What is even worse is the fact that they display hatred towards Ahl'ul bayt (as), evident from the fact that they regard their enemies as their Imams.

The casual observer may indeed be taken in by their acts of charity, Islamic circles, lengthy prayers etc - but the reality is these deeds are of no avail, for Rasulullah (s) declared:

"Hatred of 'Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of 'Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you"
al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 67
Mu'awiya and Yazid were the Founding Forefathers of Nasibi ideology


A peculiarity of the Nasibis is the immense love they hold for Mu'awiya, the enemy of Ali. The reason is due the fact that the Nasibis owe their religious ideology to him. In the same way a child seeks to cover up the sins of his father, the Nasibis try their utmost to conceal the actions of their father Mu'awiya in hope that the cat is not let out of the bag and their hypocrisy is not publicly unveiled. They will try to convince their faithful that Mu'awiya was a pious man who never hated Ali (as) who fought him for the pleasure of Allah (swt). Alas the Nasibis can continue to deceive their flock but the classical works of the Ahl'ul Sunnah do not tally up with their lies, and as we shall prove the origin of the Nasibi movement in fact lies at the door of their beloved Imam Mu'awiya. We have again relied on two recognised Sunni sources for this section.

In "Al Bidayah al Nihayah" Ibn Kathir records that:

"Sad bin Abi Waqqas said to Mu'awiya you have sat me next me next to you on your throne and begun to curse Hadhrath 'Ali".
"Al Bidayah al Nihayah" page 341 Volume 7 the Chapter "The virtues of 'Ali".

This demonstrates that Mu'awiya used to curse Hadhrath 'Ali (as).

In "Shazaaruth al Dhahab" we read:

"Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Imam Dhahabi commented that Mu'awiya's son Yazid's was an enemy of Hadhrath 'Ali, a Nasibi, a man of evil nature, and a drunkard".
"Shazaaruth al Dhahab" page 69, Volume 1, by Salah al Hanbali

Mu'awiya and Yazid were hence both Nasibi and were the worst enemies of Hadhrath 'Ali (as) and their adherents follow the same principle; carrying this banner of hypocrisy everywhere they go. The contemporary Nasibis love these characters and praise the Banu Ummayya rule. Ansar.org;'s Abu Sulaiman is the perfect example, who has written an entire article extolling the merits of Nasibi Mu'awiya and portraying Yazeed as a pious Muslim. We have refuted his defence in our article on Mu'awiya. This should not come as much of a surprise after all - this was an era when Imam Ali (as) was openly cursed on the Mosque pulpits - and yet you never hear self-declared defenders of the companions such as the Nasibi Bilal Philips ever mention this.

Philips will write emphatically that the Shi'a do not respect the first three Khalifa's - and he seeks maximum publicity to exploit this in hope that people attack innocent Shi'as and call them kaffir. His hypocrisy is quite evident from the respect he gives to those who cursed Imam Ali (as). It was Mu'awiya that introduced the cursing of Imam Ali throughout his kingdom, a tradition that continued for 90 years of Banu Ummayya rule. Does Philips criticise / condemn / heap scorn on the perpetrator of such an action? Certainly not, how can a Nasibi criticise his father? Philips pen tactically gleans over this period he fails to pass any comment whatsoever - on the contrary Philips and his Nasibi contemporaries praise Mu'awiya calling him radiallahu 'anhu. This is clear evidence of his being a Nasibi disrespecting the three Khalifa's is an outrage and makes you a kaffir, cursing Imam Ali (as) is okay and whoever did it - Allah is pleased with him.

The Nasibis are the bitterest enemies of the family of the Prophet (s). Those who call Shi'as Kaffirs are the illegitimate descendants of these Nasibis and to extinguish the flames of animosity they pass kufr fatwas on Shi'as. We of course are aware that barking dogs have no bite.
By extolling Mu'awiya the Nasibis have opposed Allah (swt) and his beloved Prophet (S)


Such is their love for Mu'awiya these Nasibis go to huge lengths in extolling his virtues and his reign. They are only harming themselves, by saying Mu'awiya - May Allah be pleased with him, they are further pining their caftans to the gates of hell. This is because they have opposed the words of the Prophet:
Such are the double standard of the Salafi Nasibis that whilst on the one hand they advocate the science of hadith authenticity, and accuse the Shi'a of citing fabricated hadith, when it comes to Mu'awiya they will even rely on fabricated traditions to praise him. The reality is many of the leading classical Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema have declared all hadith in praise of Mu'awiya as fabrications. Al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in "Liyali al Musnuaa fi ahadith il Mauzuaa" Volume 1 page 424 states: "Imam Hakim claims that never came across a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that was Sahih". Muhammad bin Ali bin Shaukani in "Fawaid al Mujmuwwa fi bayyan ai hadith ai mauzoowa", page 47 states that "Ibne Habban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu'awiya are fabricated". Al Muhaddith Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in "Sharra Mishkat Shareef" Volume 4 page 716 (published in 1873) after citing the hadith in praise of Mu'awiya comments "It is recorded in Jami ul Usul that many muhaddith scholars have concluded that there exists not even a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih". Abul Hasan Quinani in "Thunziyaa as Shari'a al Murfoo'a", Volume 2, Chapter 8 page 7 comments "Imam Hakim cites from a chain used by Sibt Ibne Jauzi who cites Isaan bin Ruhiyaa that 'there exists nothing in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih". Allamah Abdul Rahman bin Jauzi al Qurshee in "al Mauzooath" Volume 2 page 420 states: "Imam Hakim narrated from Abul Abbas who heard from his father, who heard from Isaac bin Ibraheem Hanzali that 'no hadith in praise of Mu'awiya are Sahih'. Shaykh Ismail bin Muhammad in "Kashful Khaffa" Volume 2 page 20 states 'there exist no hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih'.

"Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into the Hell-fire".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33

Nasibis know very well that their Imam Mu'awiya started the tradition of cursing Ali (we have highlighted this fact in our rebuttal of Ansar Nasibis defence of Mu'awiya bin Hind). In doing so as the hadith testifies he was cursing Allah. And yet the Nasibis insist on the title Ameer Mu'awiya may Allah be pleased with him. Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him? - Astaghfirullah the Nasibis are opposing the words of the Prophet (s), and he who does so intentionally is a kaffir!
The tradition of cursing Ali (as) by Mu'awiya is a fact and not as the Nasibi Ulema would like their adherents to believe a Shi'a slander against the Sahaba. It is an attested fact, so much so that even one of their own scholars Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his "Khilafath aur Muluiyath". On page 79 he writes: "Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu'awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath 'Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam's position. This took such an extreme that this practise even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of his most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath 'Ali's family who would hear this abuse with their own ears (Tabari Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3" page 234, al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).
The position of the Imam of the Nasibis Ibn Taymeeya in the eyes of the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa


In the same way an illegitimate child yearns for acceptance from the hostile world around it - and searches out for a father to adopt it - the early Nasibis who were rejected by the majority, walked the wilderness desirous of a father to codify their hypocrisy into aqeedah. The Devil provided for them, by introducing them to Ibn Taymeeya - and their central source of deviancy comes from him. Revered to the point of Sainthood by the Nasibis, it is interesting to note that his contemporaries didn't ascribe to the same view; on the contrary they vilified him. Ibn Hajr al Asqalani in his biography of Ibn Taymeeya lists the differing views amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars.

For the purposes of this discussion it will suffice to quote the following.

"Others considered him a hypocrite [Munafiq] because of what he said about `Ali... that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the Khilafah and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's (s) saying (to `Ali): "Only a hypocrite would show you hatred".
"al-durar al-kaamina fi a`yaan al-mi'at al-thaamina" by Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's in the biography of Ibn Taymeeya (printed in Hyderabad: Daa'irat al-ma`aarif al-`uthmaaniyya, 1384 H, vol. 1:153-155)

Ibne Hajar in Fatawa al Hadeesa page 86 on Ibn Taymeeya:

"Ibn Taymeeya is such a man that may God disgrace him, lead him astray, blind him and make him dumb"

In Al Badr ul Thalay page 67 Volume 1 Muhammad Shawkani states:

"Maliki Judge Ibn Mukhlauf gave a fatwa that Ibn Taymeeya if not killed should be confined for the rest of his life, Ibn Taymeeya's kufr was then proven and it was declared in Damascus 'Whoever follows Ibn Taymeeya it is permissible to kill him and take his property".

We read in Jahar Munazzam Fi Ziyarath ai Kubra al Mukurrum taken from Isthaksa page 264:

"Ibn Hajr Makki condemned Ibn Taymeeya saying "How can we rely on him on matters of Deen? This Ibn Taymeeya is a misled person and God had cloaked him in disgrace, the Ulema of the time demanded that he be killed, or imprisoned, the Kings imprisoned him and he died in jail".

Deobandi scholar Anwar Shah Kashmiree in Anwar al Bari Volume 6 pages 220-221 states:

"Tahavi's acceptance of the hadith 'Radd ai Shams' as true and Ibn Taymeeya's reaction against Tahavi, indicates that he had Khwaarij views".
(Our note: Radd ai Shams is the hadith in which Imam Ali (as) returned the sunset via the pointing of his finger).

Shah Abdul Aziz in Fatawa Azizi Volume 2 page 79:

"The pen of Ibn Taymeeya in Minhaaj at some points is so atrocious, in particular his views on Ahl'ul bayt where he has sought to play down their merits, prohibits visiting the tomb of Rasulullah (s), is opposed to Saints and condemns the Sufis. According to the views of Ahl'ul Sunnah his pen is cursed, his writings cannot deemed to be those of the Ahl'ul Sunnah".
Takfir issued by the Ahl'ul Sunnah against Ibn Taymeeya


We should also point out to these Salafi Nasibis that 40 Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah deemed their beloved Imam Ibn Taymeeya to be a kaffir, names included leading Sunni Ulema (of the 4 schools) of the time such as:

· Muhammad bin Ibrahim Shaafi
· Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Maliki
· Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Jareer Ansari Hanafi
· Abdullah bin Umar Muqaddis Hanbali

These 40 Ulema declared Ibn Taymeeya to be a kaffir, and it was declared in Syria that if anyone shared the view of Ibn Taymeeya, then it was valid to shed their blood and appropriate their land". (The fatwa and this text can be found in Al Nabraas Sharh al Aqaid page 114 footnote 4 [printed in Meerath, India], Sharh Aqaid Jalali page 80 [printed in Afghanistan]. Ad Dhur ra al Kamina, by Ibn Hajr Asqalani, Volume 1 page 147 [Dakkan].

In addition to this we learn that Shaykh Zaynudeen bin Rajab Hanbali in light of Ibn Taymeeya incorrect views, deemed him to be a kaffir. (taken from Anwar al Bari Volume 11 page 190).

We further read in Anwar al Bari Volume 11 page 119 that:

"18 Egyptians deemed Ibn Taymeeya to be a kaffir, including Qadi Taqiudeen Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Akhi Maliki. This was based on the fact that his view, prohibiting pilgrimage to Madina in order to visit Rasulullah (s) proved his disrespect of Rasulullah (s), the penalty for such kufr was death".

Shaykh Alaudeen Bukhari al Hanafi:

"After analysing Ibn Taymeeya Fatwas he said 'Whoever deems Ibn Taymeeya to be "Shaykhul Islam" is a kaffir".
Takdhirathul Huffaz page 316 [Damascus];
Anwar al Bari Volume 11 page 192 [Multan].

Theses Nasibi followers of Ibn Taymeeya [who according to Ahl'ul Sunnah disrespected Rasulullah (s)] have been deemed to be kaffirs as they adhere to his thinking and call him "Shaykh ul Islam".

This is the position of the Imam of the Nasibis deemed a hypocrite by the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars on account of his enmity towards Hadhrath Ali (as) and yet revered by his Salafi adherents as Shaykh-ul-Islam! They cling to his every word in the same way that a fly sticks to faeces. If their Imam was a hypocrite on account of his hatred of Ali (as) what should be the verdict of his beloved followers? Since the Nasibis try their utmost to deny that Ibn Taymeeya bore any malice towards Imam Ali (as) we have dedicated the next section especially for these liars?
Imam of the Nasibis Ibn Taymeeya's comments vouch for the fact that he was a Nasibi who hated Hadhrath 'Ali (as)


It is indeed unfortunate to see that common Sunni's are being taken in by Nasibi propaganda about Ibn Taymeeya with many feeling that he was a defender of the Sunnah. Had anyone actually looked deep into his writing it becomes quite evident that he was a Nasibi with a deep hatred of 'Ali (as), dedicating his life to playing down his virtues. In this there is no doubt all one needs to do is consider these comments taken from Minhaaj al Sunnah the new edition.

Ibn Hajar had already cited Ibn Taymeeya's doubts about Imam Ali (as)'s Iman as a boy, these are his comments seeking to prove that Abu Bakr's Iman was superior:

· "Before Allah (swt) sent Muhammad (S) there was not a single momin from the Quraysh, people would pray to statues, children included, if one can concluded that the kufr of a child is not the same as the kufr of a man, then by the same token the Iman of a boy is not the same as the Iman of a grown man".
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 8 page 285)
· The hadith "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate is counted as a fabricated tradition, it even sounds fabricated"1.
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 7 page 515)

This tradition can be found in countless books, Nasibis are the only group that have tried their utmost to refute it. Their comments do not tally up with the conclusion of the classical Sunni Ulema, who have recorded it, and verified its authenticity. For the sake of brevity we will only cite the following sources: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 201,637; Al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 126-127,226, narrated on the authority of two reliable reporters: one, Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari. He said this tradition is Authentic (Sahih).; Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p635, Tradition number1081; Jami' al-Saghir, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v1, pp 107,374; He said this tradition is accepted (Hasan).; al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p38; v2, p461; Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Volume15, p13, Traditions number 348-379;al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, section 2,p189; Hafidh Salah al-Din al-Ulai, after quoting the poor arguments advanced by al-Dhahabi, has remarked "There are in this only mean attempts to oppose for the sake of opposition, and not a single valid argument"; Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Siddeeq al-Hasani al Maghribi, from Cairo, has compiled a book named "Fat'h al-Mulk al-'Ali bi Sihah Hadith-e-Bab-e-Madinat al-Ilm" to prove the authenticity of the very above tradition. This book was printed in the year 1354 AH in Matba' al-Islamiyyah, Egypt
· "The Sahaba Mu'azz bin Jabal was more knowledgeable that 'Ali with regards to what was halaal and what was haraam".
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 7 page 513-515)

To counter this it will suffice to quote Imam Ali (as) own words:
On a number of occasions Hadhrath 'Ali (as) declared in the presence of the people "Oh people ask me anything while I am still amongst you". Saeed bin Maseeb commented no other companions made such a challenge except 'Ali (Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p647, Tradition number 1098; al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p509; al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 9, section 3, p196; al-Faqih wal Mutafaqih, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v2, p167; Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171)

It is therefore little surprise that the modern day Sunni Scholar from Egypt Dr Muhammad Abdul Rauf who wrote: "Imam Ali was the most learned person among the Prophet's companions, as certified by the Prophet himself who described him as the Gate of Knowledge. He was indeed the first Muslim thinker, and the founder of the various branches of Islamic studies, including literary criticism. He laid down the foundations of Arabic grammar, and was the first to conceive the grammatical terms: "word", and its categories: "noun", "verb" and "particles" and he gave their definitions. He was impelled to do so when he heard people in al Kufah making grammatical errors in their speeches. The chains of teachers of those scholars at whose hands the various divisions of studies, including monotheistic theology, 'Ilm al Tawhid and jurisprudence, 'Ilm al Fiqh, can be traced to him, often through his cousin 'Abd Allah Ibn Abbas. Owing to his precedence in the academic field, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib alone was given the title Imam, "The Leader". It is an academic as well as a religious leadership which the Imam very well deserved"( Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib - The first intellectual Muslim Thinker, by Muhammad Abdul Raud, Ph.D, Ald Sadawi publications, USA first edition page xv - xvi).
· "Ali attained his knowledge from 'Abu Bakr"
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 5 page 513)

This is baseless, Imam 'Ali (as) attained his knowledge from the Prophet (s) due to his position as his Wasi., clear from fact the Holy Prophet (s) said to Imam 'Ali in the presence of the companions the hadith "You are my brother (Aki) and Inheritor (Wasi), when the Companions asked what previous Prophet's had left as inheritance, he replied 'The Book of God and the teaching (Sunnah) of that Prophet" Riyadh al Nadira, Mohibbudin al Tabari, Volume 3 page 123

In Islam knowledge is based on two sources Qur'an and Sunnah if Imam Ali (as) had attained inherited both from the Prophet (s) why would he need to make 'Abu Bakr his teacher?

Ibne Jauzi records the following incident: "When the Prophet died, the Christians of Rome decided to go and question his successor (who was Abu Bakr) about various issues. They had established in their own minds that if he gave the right answers, then the Holy Prophet was indeed a Prophet of God, some Jews joined the group and they proceeded to see Hadhrath Abu Bakr. When they saw Abu Bakr they began to ask him various questions, which he was unable to answer, he just looked Abdullah bin Masood and Maiazz. The group therefore concluded that the Holy Prophet (s) was a false Prophet. Suddenly, some of those present approached the group and said 'do not worry, for we can take you to that person who can answer your question from your books, whether they be the Gospel, Torah, Psalms or the Qur'an. The group was taken to Hadhrath 'Ali, Abdullah Ibne Masood comments that it was not until the group was taken to 'Ali, that the feelings of embarrassment and humiliation subsided. 'Ali gave the Christians answers to their satisfaction". Tadkhiratul Khawwas, by Sibt Ibne Jauzi page 85
· "Umar had only said "If it was not for 'Ali I would have perished on one occasion"

Recognised Sunni scholars have recorded the following acknowledgements of Hadhrath 'Ali (as)'s superiority:

"Abu Bakr said: "May Allah never put me in a situation where I can not have access to Abul Hasan (i.e., Ali) to solve a problem." Similarly, Sa'id al-Musayyib said: "Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to beg God to preserve him from a perplexing case, which the father of al-Hasan was not present to decide. "Furthermore Umar said: "If there was not Ali, Umar would have perished" (Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p647, Tradition #1100; al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p39; Manaqib, by al-Khawarizmi, p48; al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p338; al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v2, p194; Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171


Hadhrath Ali' (as)'s superiority in resolving disputes is even acknowledged by the Wahabi scholar Syed Abul Hasan Nadwi, he writes: "A number of reports testify that the Prophet said: "Ali is most capable among you to deliver a correct judgement". Ali is on record that he was a comparatively younger man when the Prophet asked him to go to Yemen. Ali reports: "thereupon I said to the Apostle of God 'You are sending me to a people who would be having disputes among them but I have no experience of deciding cases". The Prophet replied, 'Allah will help you to say only what is right and just and you would be yourself satisfied by it'. Ali then adds that he never had any doubt about the correctness of his judgement since then. Umar was often exacerbated if Ali was not available to solve an entangled problem. He often used to say: 'Umar would have been ruined if Ali was not there'. The Life of Caliph 'Ali, page 202 , by Abul Hasan Nadwi
· "Ali issued fatwas that contradicted the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah"
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 7 page 502)
· "Ali did not know about the Sunnah of the Prophet nor the Ahkaam (principles of the Sharia)"
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 6 page 43)
· "The number of Sahih ahadith in praise of Ali are three

1. Ali is to me as Harun is to Musa
2. Tomorrow I will give the banner to he who loves Allah and Allah loves him
3. Love of Ali is the sign of a momin, hatred of 'Ali is the sign of a hypocrite.

Everything else has been fabricated according to the ijma'a of the people of knowledge"
(Minhaaj al Sunnah Volume 7 page 320)

This was another lying technique of Ibn Taymiyyah suggesting this was the view of the majority of the Ulema when it was infact only the view of his Nasibi Master Ibne Jauzi

This final claim of Ibn Taymeeya is very interesting, since if one analyses the hadith in praise of Imam Ali(a) in Sahih al Bukhari the number of traditions he deemed as Sahih about Imam 'Ali (as) far exceeded three. Are we to therefore to presume that Ibn Taymeeya did not deem books of the rank of al Bukhari and Muslim to be reliable? If he did not, then why do his modern day Nasibi followers deem al Bukhari to be 100% authentic? Are they acting in opposition to the beliefs of their Nasibi Imam, and if so why? Whose word do they deem of greater value Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymeeya or Shaykh ul Hadith Ibn Taymeeya Ismail Bukhari?
Ibn Taymeeya's student Ibn Katheer was also a Nasibi


Another esteemed Imam of the Nasibis is Ibn Katheer Damishqi and today's Salafi will only deem his version of history (as set out on al Bidayah wa al Nihaya) as 'the truth'.



Before analysing Ibn Katheer's comments let us provide a quick overview of the city where Ibn Katheer resided. Damascus was the hub of Nasibi aqeedah, since it was the home of the Banu Umayya Kingdom from where the practice of cursing Imam 'Ali (as) was first introduced my Mu'awiya - a practice that was continued by his successors for a further ninety years. This was the same Damascus where the women of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) were walked through following the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as). Before being show pieced before Nasibi Yazeed the women were marched threw the market streets where the Syrians threw stones, dirt and abuse at them. Damascus was the city in which Yazeed imprisoned the women of Ahl'ul bayt (as). Hatred towards the Ahl'ul bayt (as) was imbedded in the people's hearts, so much so that Ibn Khallikan narrates in Wafaayth al Ayan that when Imam Nasai saw that the people of Damascus had turned away from Imam 'Ali (as) - he decided to write his book "al Khasais". Damascus was the city of Ibn Katheer, a die-hard supporter of the Banu Umayya, whose writings are filled with appraisals and fabricated traditions extolling Mu'awiya, Yazeed and their Nasibi successors.

No doubt our opponents shall point out that Ibn Katheer (as shall be cited later) condemned the Nasibi as did Ibn Taymeeya - our reply is that both of these Nasibis were great politicians. If one analyses the politics of the West today, we see the increased presence of Far Right Nationalist Politicians. These fascists vigorously deny that that they are racists, but their 'actual viewpoints' can be ascertained via their speeches / writings. The same can be said of these two Salafi Imams, who despite their lip service condemnation of Nasibis made comments in their writings that serve as clear proof that they were die hard enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as). We have already proven this with regards to Ibn Taymeeya now let us see how Ibn Katheer respected the Ahl'ul bayt (as).
Ibn Katheer's attack on Sayyida Fatima (as)'s character


In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 5 page 289, Ibn Katheer makes the following comment:

"If by denying Rasulullah (s)'s inheritance and the Estate of Fadak, Fatima became angry, one should point out that Fatima was just an ordinary woman, and she got angry in the same way that ordinary women do, after all she was not infallible".

These type of comments clearly point to Ibn Katheer's enmity towards Sayyida Fatima (as), to the point that he was willing to lower her esteemed status so as to protect Abu Bakr. This Nasibi claimed that Sayyida Fatima (as)'s anger was just like that of any ordinary woman, when we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61

"Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry."

When Sayyida Fatima (as)'s anger is on par with Rasulullah (s)'s anger then can we really deem her anger to be that of 'ordinary' woman?

Whilst Ibn Katheer's Nasibi thinking was cemented yet further under the guidance of his teacher Ibn Taymeeya, his glaring support for the Nasibi Banu Umayya regime is also established in his writings. In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 11 page 192, whilst attacking the renowned Maliki author of Iqd al Fareed Ibn Abd Rabbah, Ibn Katheer states:

"His pen clearly proves that he was Shi'a, as he sought to lower the position of the Banu Umayya, it is ironic that he was their Servant and yet despite this fact, he was their enemy".

So according to Ibn Katheer this famous Sunni historian was Shi'a because he criticised the Banu Umayya - a fact that Ibn Katheer deemed as unacceptable. We should point out to our readers that the Sahaba Imran ibn Husayn narrated that:

"?Rasulullah (s) at the time of his death disliked three tribes: Thaqif, the Banu Hanifah and the Banu Umayyah". (Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition number 5983, taken from Tirmidhi).

Rasulullah (s) died hating the Banu Umayya and Ibn Katheer was expressing regret that Ibn Abd Rabbah bore hatred towards them. These comments of Ibn Katheer serve as clear proof that he was a Nasibi supporter of the Banu Umayya.
The traits of a contemporary Nasibi


Remaining faithful to their Nasibi Imam, the Salafis and Deobandis have continued this anti Ali movement, seeking to mislead the majority by proclaiming that they respect Hadhrath Ali (as) whilst at the same time they try their utmost to belittle his rank. They for example will try to convince the majority that Mutawatir hadith such as "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is its Gate" is a forgery, and in doing so reject the verdicts of countless renowned Sunni Ulema. They deny that the Prophet (s) declared Ali (as) his brother on the Day of Brotherhood - despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. The sermon at Ghadhir Khumm when the Prophet (s) declared, "Of whomsoever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla" is an undisputed fact, it is Mutawatir narrated by 110 companions. Despite this, in his book "The Evolution of Fiqh" we find the modern day Nasibi par excellence Shaykh Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips describing the event as a Shi'a fabrication! His contradiction and intentional deception is quite clear for he in the same book declares Dhahabi as a great scholar of hadith - it was this great scholar who narrated this hadith from 30 companions. Is this not clear evidence of dishonesty on the part of this Nasibi?

These sorts of reactions are of course displays of the natural human characteristic of jealousy and hatred. When an individual hates a respected figure, the typical reaction will be to downplay or deny his virtues in hope of lowering their status in the eyes of others.

Another method is to side with that person's opponents praising them- as the Nasibis do whilst downplaying Hadhrath Ali (as)'s role the Nasibis revere his enemies praising Mu'awiya and Marwan who cursed him, and encouraged others to do likewise.

Consider this logic of the Nasibis:

· Cursing the Sahaba is kufr and hence makes you a kaffir, Mu'awiya cursed Imam Ali (as) and is a pious believer should be called radhinathallanho.
· Abu Sufyan who fought the Prophet (s) is a Momin; Abu Talib the Protector of the Prophet was a kaffir!
· Those who mourn for Imam Husayn (as) are kaffir, the killers of Imam Husayn (as) are Muslim!
· It is haraam to marry a Shi'a due to the fact they have beliefs that diametrically oppose Sunni Islam, but it is permissible to marry Christians and Jews (because they are Ahl'ul Kitab!).

Their hypocrisy is as clear as day when one recounts Imam Ali (as)'s virtues in front of them - their faces will immediately exhibit symptoms of discomfort. There reactions are the same as the hypocrites who sat in the presence of Rasulullah (s), Allah (swt) says in Surah Nisa verse 61:

When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed and to the Apostle": thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali's transliteration

Once confronted with the hadith the next tactic will be deny the virtue, downplay it or counter it by extolling the virtues of others.

Whereas the sun characteristics can be identified by its appearance, hypocrisy needs a physical example to identify it - for the Muslims that identification can be located by pointing to the Nasibis. They hide behind their filthy caftans seeking to convince the Muslims that they are the true adherents of the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa - but when the virtues of Imam Ali (as) are aired in their presence they become perturbed, the words of the great Sahaba Abu Dharr al Ghaffari are just as relevant today:

"After the death of the Prophet we used to recognise the hypocrites on account of their hatred of Ali".
"Tarikh ul Khulafa" by Al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti
Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition 1086
al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47
al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242
Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91

It is with pride that despite all the lies of the Nasibis, their slurs that we are Kaffirs, the descendants of Jews, even they have never deemed as hypocrites for they know that hypocrites hate Imam (as) even they would never claim this! On the contrary we, according Shaykh-ul Shaytan Bilal Philips have "an inordinate obsession with the Prophets descendents".
Tafseer Surah al Hujuraat by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, page 19

Nasibi are those that write passionate defences for the enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as) who fought, cursed and killed them. They seek to portray the enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as) as fine upstanding Muslims, in their writings they tirelessly defend the actions of Mu'awiya and Yazeed and cover up their sins. They defend the actions of Mu'awiya in Sifeen, and deem his deeds against Imam 'Ali (as) as legitimate. When they discuss the Caliphate of Yazeed, they try to avoid any mention of Kerbala, and when they do make comment they seek to defend Yazeed as the rightful Imam (as) who was within his rights to quash the 'rebellion' of Imam Husayn. Nasibi Bilal Philips in his Tafseer Surah Hujuraath specifically refers to Imam Husayn (as) actions as 'rebellion'. Sunnis and Shi'a both deem Imam Husayn (as)'s position as rightful, but these Nasibi deem Imam Husayn (as) to be a baghi - this is significant as in Sunni aqeedah you cannot even read the funeral prayers of a slain baghi (Sharh Muslim Vol 1 page 314 by Nawawi; Durre Mukhtar page 70 Volume 1). When these Nasibi relay Kerbala they try their utmost to defend Yazeed, whilst Sunni and Shi'a hate and curse Yazeed for his killing of Imam Husayn (as), these Nasibi try and protect their Imam, stating that he had no desire to kill Imam Husayn (as) and that he was kind and courteous to the Ahl'ul bayt (as). Bilal Philips is the perfect example of this type of Nasibi advocacy. In footnote 76, page 79 of his translation of Ibn Jauzi's "The Devils Deception" he states:

"The Prophet's grandson fell dead on the 10th of Muharram (October 10, 680 CE), and his head was severed and sent to Caliph Yazeed in Damascus. The Caliph deplored this horrible ending which he had neither desired nor ordered. His instructions had been to secure the person of al-Husayn, to prevent him from prolonging a dangerous agitation. He gave the head back to al-Husayn's sister, Fatimah and son, Alee, Zain al-'Aabideen, who buried it with body in Karbala. Yazeed treated the Alids who survived with honour, providing generously for their needs, and have then an escort back to Madinah.

We have cited this reference to show the extreme lengths that these Nasibi go to protect Yazeed. Philips seeks to reinvent history and cover up the sins of his Imam and instead seeks to present him in a kind favourable light, a man who had no desire to kill Imam Husayn (as) and was kind to his family. Not only does such a claim fly in the face of established historical facts this is the clearest proof that Salafis such as Philips are a sham, claiming they are Sunnis, they are in fact Nasibis who love Yazeed and seek to defend him (We Inshallah intend on refuting this Nasibis claim and similar passionate defences for Yazeed in a future article). These Nasibi deem the Imam's position to be one of 'dangerous agitation' - if anything is said to counter such a claim they become outraged.

These are the same Nasibi that refuse to recite salaams on the family of the Prophet (s) when saying Rasulullah's name, they love and support Mu'awiya and Yazeed and refrain from making any comment with regards to the faults of the Banu Umayya regime.
A further distinguishing characteristic of a contemporary Nasibi


We have relied on the advocate of Mu'awiya and highly reputed alleged Sunni scholar Ibn Kathir's work for this section.

He writes:

"?People differ with their opinions on Yazid, there are some that take the evil man as their friend, and these people are Nasibis from Syria".
"Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah" page 229 Volume 6, "The Chapter on Dissension"

He further comments:

"On the day Imam Husayn's martyrdom to counter the Shi'as the Nasibis celebrate Eid and rejoice on that day".
"Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah" page 202 Volume 8

Nasibis sign is to love Yazid and to celebrate on the 10th of Muharram rather than mourn. Take a look at how these Salafi and Deobandi behave on the 10 of Muharram. You will see them going about their own daily business without a care in the world, deeming mourning for Imam Husayn (as) to be a bidah, and actions such as refraining from marriage on that day to be based on custom that should be abandoned. These Nasibis even lead by example and have no shame of even marrying on the 10th of Muharram. Our recommendation to these Nasibi is to refrain from marrying on the day that Imam Husayn (as) died. If you really are desirous to seek pleasure on a solemn occasion, we suggest that you set aside a special day called "Uthman al Affan day" - as you are the adherents of that individual who spent the night having sex, on the same evening that his wife had died.

This is clearly proven from Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 374:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, "Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?" Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down in her grave.

Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that Rasulullah (s) had three daughters, two were allegedly married to Uthman. If Uthman had NOT had sex on the same night that his wife had died, then why he did he not get down in the grave? Nasibi should take note of this tradition and take the example of Uthman, who rather than mourn a deceased wife preferred to spend the night having sex.
The striking similarity between Nasibi thought and Neo Darwinism


The Nasibis are like the Neo-Darwinists. Like them they claim to follow the teachings of a great man of truth, and to revive and propagate his teachings - neo Darwinism is disseminated like neo Islam or Wahabi'ism. But like Darwin, Ibn Taymeeya was profoundly misguided. Both noticed material facts, and both drew an implausible reason for them, and both downgrade orthodox religion.

The Holy Prophet (s) is revered, so to prevent worship of him he has been downgraded by the Nasibis. That is their logic. Yet there exists no man who has worshipped the Holy Prophet (s). Nasibi ideology attracts men who are perceptive enough to see anomalies or links in the world around them, but fall into the quagmire of drawing the wrong conclusions to piece them together, laughing at the believers in the process, when the intellectual defect and the arrogance is in them themselves.

Their beliefs attract men who are perceptive enough to see anomalies or links in the world around them, but fall into the quagmire of drawing the wrong conclusions to piece them together, laughing at the believers in the process, when the intellectual defect and the arrogance is in them themselves.

In the same way that neo Darwinism, took its teachings of a certain Cambridge scholar and under the influence of the materialists and masons made it a religion - the Nasibis took the teachings of a certain Ibn Taymeeya and with the British pulling the strings, the Wahabi movement was formulated in its bid to throw off the power of the Turkish Uthmani Khalifas.

The teachings of Ibn Taymeeya were themselves manifestations of a certain peculiar type of deviancy that had existed in Islam since the earliest days. In the same way that the musings of Charles Darwin were the result of a diseased mind that drew sharp observations but which was infected with hatred for the established religion and his own arrogance- Darwin, like Ibn Taymeeya, was a partially trained, failed and frustrated former theologian. The corruption in the mind of Ibn Taymeeya came this time not from his humiliation at the hands of the established Church as had Darwin's, but from the viciously anti-'Alid sentiments of the Banu Ummayya and many of the early Muhajirs who resented the Banu Hashim, the Holy Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (as).

· Hadhrath Umar sought to reflect a general opinion that it was felt the Prophethood and the khilafat should not be combined in the Banu Hashim.
History of al-Tabari, Volume 14 page 136 -137, English translation, by G. Rex Smith
· Mu'awiya said that it was intolerable to him that he had to hear the name of Muhammad (saws) in the Adhaan in the kingdom that he ruled.
Sharh Nahj-ul Balagha, Volume 5 page 130 by Ibn al Hadid
· Yazid said that by slaying Imam Husayn (as) he had taken revenge for the slaying of his family at the hands of the Banu Hashim.
Al Iqdul Fareed, page 125

These three viewpoints essentially formulate the thinking of the Nasibi - keep Ahl'ulbayt on the sidelines, mock the Prophet (s) by narrating lies about him and shower praise on the killers of Imam Hussain (as).
The development of the Nasibi school of thought


In the same way that the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars record that four people claimed to be Mu'awiya's father when he was born, all four having slept with his prostitute mother, the Nasibis are also the sons of four fathers (we have discussed this in detail in our rebuttal of Ansar's defence of Mu'awiya).

1. The family of the Banu Ummayya perpetrated the first entry, Islamic Burgos, (40AH till their end). King Mu'awiya the son of four fathers led this party, with help rendered by his squire Marwan who was exiled by the Holy Prophet. Additional support came from Mu'awiya's bastard half-brother Ibn Ziyad and his beloved Crown Prince and Crown Pervert HRH Yazid, Prince of Darkness. This line of deviance culminated in Walid, a young man of high spirits - who Dhahabi has called a "fajir, fasiq and homosexual".
Tarikh al Khulafa chapter "Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan"
2. The seeds of Nasibi ideology began to blossom the perfect time for the second entry to occur - it was time for Ibn Taymiyyah of the Syrian School of Najd to enter the scene. Now the Devil's Deception was nearly complete, Ibn Taymiyyah and his sidekick Ibn Kathir then legitimised the Nasibi thinking in print - just like some mediaeval Hugh Heffner, whose books with their pages stuck together are masturbated over many years later by frustrated Nasibi / Salafi men.
3. Swapping religion with Arab nationalism brought about the third and entry. The honorary coconut Sir Abdul Wahab flew the British Empire's flag.
4. With the British product 'Wahabi thought' cemented in the hearts of the Nasibis the fourth and final entry was made by Laurence of Arabia who like his personal preferences attached himself to the Nasibi male folk taking the rear guard, infiltrating the Muslims from behind. Mission accomplished Nasibi ideology finally had a homeland / base to carry out their fitnah activities, the Nasibis had a King to Crown it, this school of thought continues to be propagated by King Fahad.

This is the esteemed history of the Nasibis. They would have of course not had gained credence had it not been for the legitimising of it by their adopted father Ibn Taymeeya, the high priest of Wahabi'ism, foremost, and propagated by Saudi petrodollars.




Defining a Nasibi


For an introduction to the literal meaning of Nasibi we have relied on the definitions stipulated by several recognised Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars:
"Famhuus" page 53, Chapter "Al Ba".
"Taj al Uroous page 277, Volume 4 Chapter "Al Ba Murtazi al Zubaydi".
"Lisan al Arab" page 762, by Ibn Manzur.
"Hadiya al Sahil ay adalta al Masail" page 96.
"Tadhrib al Radhi" page 311 Allamah Jalaladeen as-Suyuti.
"Akrab al Muwarid" page 2 Chapter "Lananat Nusub".

In "Lisan al Arab" by Ibn Manzur states:

"Nawasib are those who hate Hadhrath Ali, and embrace that hatred as part of their faith"

May Allah's curse be upon such people!

In "Taj al Uroous", we read:

"Nasibi are those who hate Ameer ul Momineen Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and take that enmity as part of their faith".

"Tadhrib al Radhi" provides the following definition:

"Nasibi ideology means hating Ali and preferring Mu'awiya".

"Hadiya al Sahil" elaborates yet further:

"Nasibi ideology is a type of flawed character that is very bad, in its worst form is has a hatred for the Imam of Guidance Hadhrath Ali, and takes this as part of its Deen / Iman".

Note that we have proven the definition by faithfully translating the works of Ahl'ul Sunnah and we invite our Sunni brothers and sisters to ponder. Do not be fooled by these long beards because among these are the enemies of Imam 'Ali (as). Their enmity is evident from their speeches, but is disguised in such a way that the ordinary man would not recognise it. Their methodology is just like that of hypocrites. They read the Kalima with their tongues but their hearts are polluted with hatred and the proof is their animosity towards Hadhrath 'Ali (as). Just like a bad foot odour they carry the stench of Nasibi thought everywhere they go - seeking to deceive the majority by proclaiming that this is the correct faith of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa.

To recognise the Nasibi let us investigate the matter further.
Pinpointing the Nasibi founding forefathers


Whilst defining a Nasibi the pen of the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema has been somewhat reluctant to pinpoint where Nasibis existed in history and who their Imams were.

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz makes two interesting comments in his "Haddeeya Mujedeeya":

"One who fights 'Ali [r] with enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah."
"Haddeeya Mujedeeya" by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813

"Whoever deems 'Ali [r] to be a kaffir or opposes his khilafath is a kaffir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan".
"Haddeeya Mujedeeya" by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813

On the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu'awiya by pointing out that Mu'awiya does NOT come within this definition since:

"Mu'awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman".

Unfortunately Shah's efforts to protect Mu'awiya and his supporters are in vain because it is an established fact that Mu'awiya and his clansmen:

· Opposed the khilafath of Imam Ali (as)
· Bore enmity to Imam Ali (as) by cursing him
· Fought him

All of these points have been discussed at length in our refutation of Ansar's defence of Mu'awiya.

Hence we have pinpointed those that first wore the Nasibi garb, now let us delve further.
Identifying and recognising Nasibi ideology


Several authoritative Sunni works are being relied on for this section.

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz states in "Taufa Ithna Ashari" states:

"Marwan was a Nasibi and was in fact its leader".
Taufa Ithna Ashari" page 95 Chapter 2 paragraph number 74, by Al Muhaddith Shah 'Abdul Aziz Dehlavi

Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari attributes a different name as the actual Imam of the Nasibis, he writes:

"The founder of Nasibi ideology was Mu'awiya".
"Isthakhlaaf ai Yazid" by Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari page 216

In "Al Bidayah al Nihayah" Ibn Kathir states:

"Marwan was so evil that he would curse Hadhrath 'Ali".
"Al Bidayah al Nihayah" page 259, Volume 8 by Ibn Kathir

In "Fatwa Azizi" by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that:

"Mu'awiya would curse Hadhrath 'Ali (as)".
"Fatwa Azizi" by al' Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 123

Hence Marwan and Mu'awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of 'Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nasibis. Their hatred takes numerous guises. In their lectures and writings their Nasibi thought becomes evident as does their hatred for the Shi'a of 'Ali. This party who pass fatwas of Kufr upon the Shi'a are in fact the spiritual descendants of Marwan and Mu'awiya and thus they adhere to an illegitimate belief formulated in the minds of the enemies of Hadhrath Ali (as).

From the outside one might mistakenly assume that Nasibis are pious adherents of the Sunnah. In their speeches they advocate the importance of adhering to the Sunnah, they wear long caftans, carry miswak, grow long beards, and lick their fingers after a meal - why? Because they will tell you that this was the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). It is curious that they adhere to such minute details, mimicking the Prophet (s) even in his dress sense and yet the important Sunnah, namely that of loving and adhering to the teachings of his Ahl'ul bayt (as) is rejected by them. What is even worse is the fact that they display hatred towards Ahl'ul bayt (as), evident from the fact that they regard their enemies as their Imams.

The casual observer may indeed be taken in by their acts of charity, Islamic circles, lengthy prayers etc - but the reality is these deeds are of no avail, for Rasulullah (s) declared:

"Hatred of 'Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of 'Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you"
al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 67
Mu'awiya and Yazid were the Founding Forefathers of Nasibi ideology


A peculiarity of the Nasibis is the immense love they hold for Mu'awiya, the enemy of Ali. The reason is due the fact that the Nasibis owe their religious ideology to him. In the same way a child seeks to cover up the sins of his father, the Nasibis try their utmost to conceal the actions of their father Mu'awiya in hope that the cat is not let out of the bag and their hypocrisy is not publicly unveiled. They will try to convince their faithful that Mu'awiya was a pious man who never hated Ali (as) who fought him for the pleasure of Allah (swt). Alas the Nasibis can continue to deceive their flock but the classical works of the Ahl'ul Sunnah do not tally up with their lies, and as we shall prove the origin of the Nasibi movement in fact lies at the door of their beloved Imam Mu'awiya. We have again relied on two recognised Sunni sources for this section.

In "Al Bidayah al Nihayah" Ibn Kathir records that:

"Sad bin Abi Waqqas said to Mu'awiya you have sat me next me next to you on your throne and begun to curse Hadhrath 'Ali".
"Al Bidayah al Nihayah" page 341 Volume 7 the Chapter "The virtues of 'Ali".

This demonstrates that Mu'awiya used to curse Hadhrath 'Ali (as).

In "Shazaaruth al Dhahab" we read:

"Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Imam Dhahabi commented that Mu'awiya's son Yazid's was an enemy of Hadhrath 'Ali, a Nasibi, a man of evil nature, and a drunkard".
"Shazaaruth al Dhahab" page 69, Volume 1, by Salah al Hanbali

Mu'awiya and Yazid were hence both Nasibi and were the worst enemies of Hadhrath 'Ali (as) and their adherents follow the same principle; carrying this banner of hypocrisy everywhere they go. The contemporary Nasibis love these characters and praise the Banu Ummayya rule. Ansar.org;'s Abu Sulaiman is the perfect example, who has written an entire article extolling the merits of Nasibi Mu'awiya and portraying Yazeed as a pious Muslim. We have refuted his defence in our article on Mu'awiya. This should not come as much of a surprise after all - this was an era when Imam Ali (as) was openly cursed on the Mosque pulpits - and yet you never hear self-declared defenders of the companions such as the Nasibi Bilal Philips ever mention this.

Philips will write emphatically that the Shi'a do not respect the first three Khalifa's - and he seeks maximum publicity to exploit this in hope that people attack innocent Shi'as and call them kaffir. His hypocrisy is quite evident from the respect he gives to those who cursed Imam Ali (as). It was Mu'awiya that introduced the cursing of Imam Ali throughout his kingdom, a tradition that continued for 90 years of Banu Ummayya rule. Does Philips criticise / condemn / heap scorn on the perpetrator of such an action? Certainly not, how can a Nasibi criticise his father? Philips pen tactically gleans over this period he fails to pass any comment whatsoever - on the contrary Philips and his Nasibi contemporaries praise Mu'awiya calling him radiallahu 'anhu. This is clear evidence of his being a Nasibi disrespecting the three Khalifa's is an outrage and makes you a kaffir, cursing Imam Ali (as) is okay and whoever did it - Allah is pleased with him.

The Nasibis are the bitterest enemies of the family of the Prophet (s). Those who call Shi'as Kaffirs are the illegitimate descendants of these Nasibis and to extinguish the flames of animosity they pass kufr fatwas on Shi'as. We of course are aware that barking dogs have no bite.
By extolling Mu'awiya the Nasibis have opposed Allah (swt) and his beloved Prophet (S)


Such is their love for Mu'awiya these Nasibis go to huge lengths in extolling his virtues and his reign. They are only harming themselves, by saying Mu'awiya - May Allah be pleased with him, they are further pining their caftans to the gates of hell. This is because they have opposed the words of the Prophet:
Such are the double standard of the Salafi Nasibis that whilst on the one hand they advocate the science of hadith authenticity, and accuse the Shi'a of citing fabricated hadith, when it comes to Mu'awiya they will even rely on fabricated traditions to praise him. The reality is many of the leading classical Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema have declared all hadith in praise of Mu'awiya as fabrications. Al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in "Liyali al Musnuaa fi ahadith il Mauzuaa" Volume 1 page 424 states: "Imam Hakim claims that never came across a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that was Sahih". Muhammad bin Ali bin Shaukani in "Fawaid al Mujmuwwa fi bayyan ai hadith ai mauzoowa", page 47 states that "Ibne Habban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu'awiya are fabricated". Al Muhaddith Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in "Sharra Mishkat Shareef" Volume 4 page 716 (published in 1873) after citing the hadith in praise of Mu'awiya comments "It is recorded in Jami ul Usul that many muhaddith scholars have concluded that there exists not even a single hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih". Abul Hasan Quinani in "Thunziyaa as Shari'a al Murfoo'a", Volume 2, Chapter 8 page 7 comments "Imam Hakim cites from a chain used by Sibt Ibne Jauzi who cites Isaan bin Ruhiyaa that 'there exists nothing in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih". Allamah Abdul Rahman bin Jauzi al Qurshee in "al Mauzooath" Volume 2 page 420 states: "Imam Hakim narrated from Abul Abbas who heard from his father, who heard from Isaac bin Ibraheem Hanzali that 'no hadith in praise of Mu'awiya are Sahih'. Shaykh Ismail bin Muhammad in "Kashful Khaffa" Volume 2 page 20 states 'there exist no hadith in praise of Mu'awiya that is Sahih'.

"Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into the Hell-fire".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33

Nasibis know very well that their Imam Mu'awiya started the tradition of cursing Ali (we have highlighted this fact in our rebuttal of Ansar Nasibis defence of Mu'awiya bin Hind). In doing so as the hadith testifies he was cursing Allah. And yet the Nasibis insist on the title Ameer Mu'awiya may Allah be pleased with him. Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him? - Astaghfirullah the Nasibis are opposing the words of the Prophet (s), and he who does so intentionally is a kaffir!
The tradition of cursing Ali (as) by Mu'awiya is a fact and not as the Nasibi Ulema would like their adherents to believe a Shi'a slander against the Sahaba. It is an attested fact, so much so that even one of their own scholars Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his "Khilafath aur Muluiyath". On page 79 he writes: "Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu'awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath 'Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam's position. This took such an extreme that this practise even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of his most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath 'Ali's family who would hear this abuse with their own ears (Tabari Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3" page 234, al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).
The position of the Imam of the Nasibis Ibn Taymeeya in the eyes of the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa


In the same way an illegitimate child yearns for acceptance from the hostile world around it - and searches out for a father to adopt it

PERMALINK | POST COMMENT

2

It is over the nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) that Islam and Christianity really differ. I could agree with the Muslim on basically every other issue, as I found Islam to be both simple and rational. That Jesus was the divine Son of God and part of the Trinity is the essential belief of most Christians. That Jesus was not divine but rather an honored prophet of Allah is the essential belief of every Muslim. I knew that I had to prove to myself (in order to remain a Christian) that the Bible unequivocally affirms the trinity (i.e. that God is One yet made of three equal and distinct parts), one of part of the trinity being Jesus, the Son. Yet, when I earnestly searched, I could find no real base for the trinity in the Bible. I could not find proof that Jesus or any of the prophets who came before him (peace be upon them all) taught trinity. They all preached monotheism. And how could it be that all of the prophets were ignorant of the very basic nature of God and misguided of the true religion? This could never be! Further investigation showed that the word "trinity" itself is found nowhere in the Bible. The verse that for years seemed to give it some justification has been expunged from the Revised Standard Version and other versions of the Bible because it is not found in any old texts of the New Testament (i.e. it was added to the Bible much later). This is the verse found at I John (5:7) in the King James Version: "The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."


According to Christian sources, "Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead." (Watchtower) This is the fundamental doctrine of most churches. Because there is no rational or logical way to explain the trinity teaching that three can be separate yet equal.. 1)! most churches say this doctrine is a "mystery," cannot be proved, and must be accepted merely on faith. But I began to question how or why I should accept such a doctrine on faith when it is not explicitly taught in the Bible. If it was not a Biblical teaching, then whose teaching was it? It seems that the trinity concept evolved as an explanation of the supposed divinity of Jesus (p.b.u.h.). So I decided to look further for Bible proofs of Jesus' (p.b.u.h.) divinity.


Most Christians claim that the titles assigned to Jesus (p.b.u.h.) are proof of this divinity. Unfortunately, close examination of each title shows that not one of the titles associated with Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is used exclusively to indicate divine nature. For example, the term "Son of God" is used throughout the Bible metaphorically, not literally. Prophets called "Son of God" include David (II Samuel 7:14) and Solomon (I Chron 22:10, who is also given an "eternal throne"). "Peacemakers" are called "sons of God" (Mathew 5:9). "All those led by the Spirit" are "sons of God" (Roman 8:14). "All who believed" are "children of God" (John 1:12). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is quoted often as telling the crowds that God is their "father". Here are some verses associating "sonship" with others than Jesus (p.b.u.h.): Ephesians (1:5, 4:6), Philippians (4:20), Hebrews (12:7), I John (3:1, 5:1), II Corinthians (6:18), Jeremiah (31:1, 31:9), Hosea (1:10), Romans (1:7), Luke (6:36, 12:32), Mathew (5:16, 5:45, 6:1, 7:11, 23:9), and John (8:41-42).


Some say, "but Jesus is the 'only son' of God." Again, this term "only son" cannot in itself be taken literally because the Bible also refers to Isaac as the "only son" of Abraham (Genesis 22:2 and Hebrews 11:17) and at no time was this ever literally true.


Some say, "but Jesus was the 'begotten son' of God." The Prophet David (p.b.u.h.) is also referred to by this title (Psalms 2:7).


Some say, "but Jesus has no father, thus God is his father, making Jesus' sonship divine," but Adam (p.b.u.h.) had no father and is also referred to as "son of God" (Luke 3:38). The high priest Melchezidek is even more incredible "without father or mother or genealogy and has neither beginning of days nor end of life," (Hebrews 7:3) yet I am not aware of any Christian teaching that gives Melchezidek equality with God.


Some say, "but Jesus was the 'first born son of God." Israel (Exodus 4:22) and Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) (peace be upon them both) are also "first born" sons of God.


Some say, "but Jesus is in the 'image of the Father' or 'likeness of the Father'." The bible refers to all men as being in the image and likeness of the Father (Genesis 1:26).


Some refer to Jesus as "God, the Son" but I did not find this title for Jesus at all in the Bible.


The Jews sought to kill Jesus (p.b.u.h.) for blasphemy for they said he was claiming to be "son of God" (John 5:18) and "king of the Jews" (John 18:33-36). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) refuted this claim and said that his enemies misunderstood him because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand (Mathew 13:13). The Jews said, "We stone you for blasphemy; because you being a man make yourself God." (John 10:33). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) tells them that they have no grounds to say he is claiming to be God and quotes their own scripture to them (John 10:34-36, Psalm 82).


Indeed, it is of no benefit to make the claim of sonship a claim of being equal with God because "sonship" describes someone who has received life. "Divinity" or "divine nature" describes someone who received life from no one.


As for the title "Savior", the Bible tells us that there will be "saviors", in the plural (Obediah 21, Nemiah 9:27, II Kings 13:5). Thus, this title is not reserved exclusively for Jesus (p.b.u.h.).


Jesus' title "Messiah" or its Greek version "Christ" literally means the "anointed" and more specifically means the expected king and deliverer of the Jews. This title on its own does not indicate a divine nature. The Jews have also never believed that the promised Messiah would be a man equal to God. Incidently, Cyrus, the Persian, is also called a Messiah in the Bible. (Isaiah 45:1)


Likewise, the title "Lord" cannot be used to prove divinity. A lord is one who exercises dominion over subordinate beings. The word God frequently signifies "Lord", but certainly every lord is not God. A slave may call his owner "Lord" or a woman may call her husband by this title as Sarah did Abraham (p.b.u.h.) (I Peter 3:6). One should not be confused about the frequent use of "Lord" for God in the Old Testament and the frequent use of "Lord" for Jesus in the New Testament. The notes to the RSV version of the Bible say that the name of God found in the Hebrew scriptures - sometimes rendered in English as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" has been translated by them as "Lord" throughout the Old Testament. It is erroneous to conclude that because God is called "Lord" and Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is called "Lord" that Jesus equals God.


In the Gospel of John, Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is called the "Word", the "Word" which "became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14) Some Christians believe that this title proves Jesus' divinity because the first verse of John says "the Word was with God and the Word was God." However, other Bible scholars say that this is not an accurate translation of the verse. The oldest Greek texts say, "the Word was with 'ho-theos' (or " the god", generally rendered in English as "God" with a capital "G") and the Word was 'ton-theos' (or "a god", generally rendered in English as "god" with a lower-case "g"). This same term, "ton-theos", is found in Exodus 7:1 referring to Moses. "And the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I have made thee ton-theos (or a god) to Pharaoh.'" So, calling Jesus (p.b.u.h.) the "Word" cannot be shown to equate him with God (exalted be He). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) tells his followers that God's word could abide in them also, if they had faith (John 5:38). Some Christians use Jesus' "pre-birth existence" as the "Word" as proof of his divinity, but this in itself is no proof of divinity. God tells Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you." (Jeremiah 1:5) Paul also says of himself, "God had set me apart before I was born." (Galatians 1:15)


Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is frequently called by the title "teacher": Mark (4:38, 5:35, 9:17, 10:17) and Luke (7:40, 8:49, 12:13, 18:18, 19:39, 20:21,28,39). His disciples call him God's "holy servant" (Acts 4:27,30). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) calls himself "a prophet", and he is addressed by this title, too: Mathew (13:57, 21:11, 21:46), Mark (6:4), Luke (4:24, 13:33, 24:19), and John (4:44, 6:14, 9:17). Even after the "resurrection", his apostles still refer to him as "a prophet" (Acts 3:22-3, 7:37) and "servant of God" (Acts 3:13). And prophets are but worshipping servants of God (Revelations 22:9), human beings. Prophets are "sent" just as Jesus (p.b.u.h.) was sent (Mathew 23:39, John 3:17, 8:26), and as Jesus (p.b.u.h.) says "a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him." (John 13:16) He makes this clear again in John (14:28) saying, "For the Father is greater than I." Jesus says, "You call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) submits to God, and tells his disciples that honor in paradise "is not mine to grant." (Mathew 20:23 and Mark 10:40) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) never instructs his disciples to worship him but teaches them to "worship the Lord your God and only Him shall you serve." (Luke 4:8) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) tells them, "I can do nothing on my own authority. I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me." (John 5:30) Again, "for I have come not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me." (John 6:38, 7:28) And again, "I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31) Similar verses are also at John (7:16-18).


Jesus (p.b.u.h.), through his words and actions, submits himself to God and fears God; a God he knows is greater than he. "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear." (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus' prayers to God are mentioned in many Bible verses: Mathew (14:23, 26:36), Mark (14:32), Luke (5:16, 6:12, 9:28, 11:1, 22:41), and John (17:9). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) refers to God not merely as God of the people but as his own God as well: "my God" - Mathew (27:46), Mark (15:34), John (20:17); "the God of our Lord Jesus" - Ephesians (1:17). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) gives thanks to God for food (Mathew 15:36). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) shows his lack of complete knowledge by his ignorance of the seasons (Mark 11:13) and his ignorance of the final hour (Mathew 24:36 and Mark 13:32). Only God is All-Knowing. Jesus (p.b.u.h) was also tempted by the devil (Mathew 4:1, Mark 1:13, and Luke 4:2), and as we read in James (1:13) "God cannot be tempted with evil." Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is completely human "made like his brethren in every respect." (Hebrews 2:17)


I looked at some of the other "proofs" put forward to claim divinity for Jesus (p.b.u.h.). Some claim that the miracles he performed prove his divinity, but close examination shows that the miracles performed by Jesus (p.b.u.h.) were also performed by others. (Walking on water - Exodus (14:22); raising the dead - I Kings (17:22), II Kings (4:34, 13:21); healing the blind and lepers - II Kings (5:14, 6:17, 6:20); multiplying food - II Kings (4:1-7, 4:43-44); casting out devils - Mathew (12:27), Mark (9:38), Luke (11:19)) It is clear that the apostles knew these miracles were achieved only by the power of God. ("Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst." Acts 2:22) And those healed understood this also and glorified and praised God (Mathew 15:31, Luke 13:13, 17:15 and Acts 4:21). Jesus himself supplicates to God before raising Lazarus from the dead begging God to make this a sign for the people "that they may believe Thou (God) hast sent me." (John 11:42) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) tells his followers that if they had faith they could do as he does (Mathew 21:18-22), that others will be able to do "greater works than these" (John 14:12) and warns that even "false christs and false prophets will arise and show great sign and wonders." (Mathew 24:24)


Some claim that because Jesus "rose from the dead" he is divine. The verse at Acts 26:23 even claims that Jesus (p.b.u.h.) was "the first to rise from the dead", but others were raised from the dead before him (I Kings 17:22, II Kings 13:21, Ezekiel 37:1-14, John 11:17-44). Some claim that because Jesus (p.b.u.h.) was raised into heaven that he is divine, but Elijah (II Kings 2:11-12) and Enoch (Hebrews 11:5) were also raised into heaven.


Others claim that because the coming of Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament he is divine, but the ministry of John the Baptist was also predicted in the Old Testament and no one claims his divinity.


Some claim divinity for Jesus (p.b.u.h.) because he had the authority to forgive sins. Jesus (p.b.u.h.) himself says that this authority to declare forgiveness is only given to him by God (Mathew 9:2-8, Mark 2:5-12, and Luke 5:24-26); he speaks only what God commanded him to say. (John 8:28, 12:49) In each of these forgiveness incidents the people understood this and returned to their homes "glorifying God", not Jesus (p.b.u.h.). (Mathew 9:2-8, Mark 2:5-12, and Luke 5:24-26) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) knows that forgiveness is only from God and exhorts his followers to pray and forgive one another "so that your Father also who is in heaven may (also) forgive you." (Mark 11:25) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) also tells his disciples that they will have a role in judging and forgiving others. When "the new world" is established, the twelve disciples "will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mathew 19:28 - of course I also questioned whether this would include Judas Iscariot, the "traitor" among Jesus' disciples?)


Yet others claim divinity for Jesus based on the statement: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14:9) This saying cannot be taken literally for two reasons. First, it is an ancient heresy in the church to claim that Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is the Father. Separateness of Father and Son is essential to the doctrine of the trinity. Secondly, it directly contradicts what Jesus states in John (5:37). Jesus (p.b.u.h.) says of God "His voice you have never heard, His form you have never seen." This was also understood by Jesus' followers as Paul writes about God as "the Blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen." (I Timothy 6:16) The author of I John says," No man has ever seen God" (I John 4:12) and certainly many had seen Jesus (p.b.u.h.). Statements such as John (14:9) can be counted among the many parables Jesus (p.b.u.h.) used to teach his followers (Mathew 13:13-15). His message was essentially the same as all the earlier prophets: "follow and obey me and you obey God."


Again, some claim divinity for Jesus (p.b.u.h.) based on the statements "I (Jesus) am in the Father and the Father in me" (John 14:11) and "I and the Father are one." John (10:30) What is meant here is "one in purpose" as is shown in John (17:11-23) where Jesus (p.b.u.h.) included his disciples in this oneness. (The same Greek word for "one", "hen", is used in both places.) And, clearly no one is using these verses to claim a god-unit of 15! ("15", i.e. God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and 12 disciples) In I John (3:9) we are told that of any righteous believer "God's nature abides in him" and in I John (4:12-13) "if we love one another God abides in us and...we abide in Him." A literal interpretation of Paul's statement to the Colossians (2:9) that in Jesus "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" is also contradicted by the verse "but will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold the heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee (God)." (I Kings 8:27)


Some claim divinity for Jesus (p.b.u.h.) because he was filled with the Holy Spirit, but many others in the Bible were also filled with the Holy Spirit including Barnabas (Acts 11:24), John the Baptist from within the womb (Luke 1:13-15), Stephen (Acts 6:5), and the disciples who are told "it is not you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Mathew 10:20) Finally, the Bible also speaks of earlier prophets as being "holy". (II Peter 3:2)


Some Christians use several verses to justify praying to Jesus (p.b.u.h.), as if he were God. I am referring to the incidents where the "wise men" came to the infant Jesus and "worshipped him" (Mathew 2:2, 2:11) and when the disciples saw Jesus after assuming him dead and "worshipped him" (Mathew 28:9, 28:17). This "worship" of Jesus (p.b.u.h.) can only be in the sense of showing "reverence, respect, admiration or devotion" (Webster's Dictionary) as is shown by the blind man who knew Jesus was a "prophet" (John 9:17) yet "worshipped him" (John 9:38) and because we find throughout the Bible that prayer should only be directed to God. No where in the Bible is it mentioned that anyone prayed to Jesus (p.b.u.h.) or his mother, Mary. Jesus (p.b.u.h.) himself says, "Pray to your Father" (Mathew 6:6) and instructs his disciples in how to offer that prayer (Mathew 6:9-13). He also quotes scripture saying, "you shall worship the Lord your God, and only Him shall you serve." (Luke 4:8) After Jesus, his followers continued in their prayer to God: Romans (10:1, 15:30), Ephesians (3:14), and Acts (2:46-3:1). An angel tells John in Revelations (19:10 and 22:9) to "worship God", not fellow servants of God, prophets or angels. Paul sums this up Philippians (4:6) stating, "in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God."


Some claim divinity for Jesus (p.b.u.h.) because of the special role that the Bible describes him as having in the creation of the earth, but this claim, too, has no real weight. Jesus is called the "first-born of creation" (Col 1:15), clearly showing that Jesus was created by God. In other words, God existed when Jesus did not yet exist. The Bible describes God creating Jesus first as His "Word", which would later become flesh (John 1:14), then giving Jesus (p.b.u.h.) authority to do His will (Mathew 28:18, John 3:35, Hebrews 1:2). Clearly, the Bible states that it was "God who created all things" (Ephesians 3:9), and it was "God who made the world and everything in it...He gives to all men life and breath and everything." (Acts 17:24-25) (See also II Kings 19:15 and Isaiah 45:18). The fact that all creation does not belong to Jesus (p.b.u.h.) is made clear when Satan tries to tempt Jesus by offering it to him (Mathew 4:8-9). Jesus is honored among creation, but indeed all mankind has been honored as God crowned man "with honor putting everything in subjection under his feet." (Hebrews 2:7-8) Yet, "God...is over all." (Romans 9:5) Jesus (p.b.u.h.) says, "My Father...is greater than all." (John 10:29) "But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection under him (Jesus)', it is plain that He is excepted who put all things under him...the son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone." (I Corinthians 15:27-28) "Christ Jesus...did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped...he humbled himself and became obedient." (Philippians 2:5-8)


Jesus (p.b.u.h.) also did not consider himself equal with the Holy Spirit. He says, "every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever says a word against the son of man (me, Jesus) will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come." (Mathew 12:32, and found again at Luke 12:10)

The End.


To proceed: The Quran seeks to bring people back to the true faith that was taught by Jesus (pbuh), and by his true disciples who continued in his teaching. That teaching emphasized a continued commitment to the first commandment that Allah (God), that He is One. In the Quran, Allah (God) directs Muslims to call readers of the Bible and Torah back to that true faith. Allah (God) has said:


O People of the Book! Come to a word between us and you that we will not worship anyone besides Allah and we will not associate anything with Him and we will not take each other as lords besides Allah. So if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims." (Quran 3:64)

PERMALINK | POST COMMENT

3

What make Islam unique!

1. Respect and honour all human beings irrespective of their religion,
colour, race, sex, language, status, property, birth, profession/job
and so on [17/70]


2. Talk straight, to the point, without any ambiguity or deception
[33/70]

3. Choose best words to speak and say them in the best possible way
[17/53,2 /83]


4. Do not shout. Speak politely keeping your voice low. [31/19]


5. Always speak the truth. Shun words that are deceitful and
ostentatious [22/30]


6. Do not confound truth with falsehood [2/42]


7. Say with your mouth what is in your heart [3/167]


8. Speak in a civilised manner in a language that is recognised by the
society and is commonly used [4/5]


9. When you voice an opinion, be just, even if it is against a
relative [6/152]


10. Do not be a bragging boaster [31/18]


11. Do not talk, listen or do anything vain [23/3,28 /55]


12. Do not participate in any paltry. If you pass near a futile play,
then pass by with dignity [25/72]


13. Do not verge upon any immodesty or lewdness whether surreptitious
or overt [6/151].


14. If, unintentionally, any misconduct occurs by you, then correct
yourself expeditiously [3/134].


15. Do not be contemptuous or arrogant with people [31/18]


16. Do not walk haughtily or with conceit [17/37,31 /18]


17. Be moderate in thy pace [31/19]


18. Walk with humility and sedateness [25/63]


19. Keep your gazes lowered devoid of any lecherous leers and
salacious stares [24/30-31,40 /19].


20. If you do not have complete knowledge about anything, better keep
your mouth shut. You might think that speaking about something without
full knowledge is a trivial matter. But it might have grave
consequences [24/15-16]


21. When you hear something malicious about someone, keep a favourable
view about him/her until you attain full knowledge about the matter.
Consider others innocent until they are proven guilty with solid and
truthful evidence [24/12-13]


22. Ascertain the truth of any news, lest you smite someone in
ignorance and afterwards repent of what you did [49/6]


23. Do not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct
knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you
must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be
held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning
[17/36].


24. Never think that you have reached the final stage of knowledge and
nobody knows more than yourself. Remember! Above everyone endowed with
knowledge is another endowed with more knowledge [12/76]. Even the
Prophet [p.b.u.h] was asked to keep praying, "O My sustainer! Advance
me in knowledge." [20:114]


25. The believers are but a single Brotherhood. Live like members of
one family, brothers and sisters unto one another [49/10].


26. Do not make mockery of others or ridicule others [49/11]


27. Do not defame others [49/11]


28. Do not insult others by nicknames [49/11]


29. Avoid suspicion and guesswork. Suspicion and guesswork might
deplete your communal energy [49/12]


30. Spy not upon one another [49/12]


31. Do not backbite one another [49/12]


32. When you meet each other, offer good wishes and blessings for
safety. One who conveys to you a message of safety and security and
also when a courteous greeting is offered to you, meet it with a
greeting still more courteous or (at least) of equal courtesy [4/86]


33. When you enter your own home or the home of somebody else,
compliment the inmates [24/61]


34. Do not enter houses other than your own until you have sought
permission; and then greet the inmates and wish them a life of
blessing, purity and pleasure [24/27]


35. Treat kindly
" Your parents
" Relatives
" The orphans
" And those who have been left alone in the society [4/36]


36. Take care of
" The needy,
" The disabled
" Those whose hard earned income is insufficient to meet their needs
" And those whose businesses have stalled
" And those who have lost their jobs. [4/36]


37. Treat kindly
" Your related neighbours, and unrelated neighbours
" Companions by your side in public gatherings, or public
transportation. [4/36]


38. Be generous to the needy wayfarer, the homeless son of the street,
and the one who reaches you in a destitute condition [4/36]


39. Be nice to people who work under your care. [4/36]


40. Do not follow up what you have given to others to afflict them
with reminders of your generosity [2/262].


41. Do not expect a return for your good behaviour, not even thanks
[76/9]


42. Cooperate with one another in good deeds and do not cooperate with
others in evil and bad matters [5/2]


43. Do no try to impress people on account of self-proclaimed virtues
[53/32]


44. You should enjoin right conduct on others but mend your own ways
first. Actions speak louder than words. You must first practice good
deeds yourself, then preach [2/44]


45. Correct yourself and your families first [before trying to correct
others] [66/6]


46. Pardon gracefully if anyone among you who commits a bad deed out
of ignorance, and then repents and amends [6/54,3 /134]


47. Divert and sublimate your anger and potentially virulent emotions
to creative energy, and become a source of tranquillity and comfort to
people [3/134]


48. Call people to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful
exhortation. Reason with them most decently [16/125]


49. Leave to themselves those who do not give any importance to the
Divine code and have adopted and consider it as mere play and
amusement [6/70]


50. Sit not in the company of those who ridicule Divine Law unless
they engage in some other conversation [4/140]


51. Do not be jealous of those who are blessed [4/54]


52. In your collective life, make rooms for others [58/11]


53. When invited to dine, Go at the appointed time. Do not arrive too
early to wait for the preparation of meal or linger after eating to
engage in bootless babble. Such things may cause inconvenience to the
host [33/53]


54. Eat and drink [what is lawful] in moderation [7/31].


55. Do not squander your wealth senselessly [17/26]


56. Fulfil your promises and commitments [17/34]


57. Keep yourself clean, pure [9/108,4 /43,5 /6].


58. Dress-up in agreeable attire and adorn yourself with exquisite
character from inside out [7/26]


59. Seek your provision only by fair endeavour [29/17,2 /188]


60. Do not devour the wealth and property of others unjustly, nor
bribe the officials or the judges to deprive others of their
possessions [2/188]

PERMALINK | POST COMMENT