sameer s

all muslims belive that "IQRA" WAS THE FIRST VERSED EVER REVEALED (SURA AL ALAQ) THAN WHY IS IT THAT WHEN WE OPEN THE HOLY QURAN THE FIRST SURAH IS AL FATEHA(WICH WAS THE FIFTH SURA TO BEREVELED?

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/4.ht...

why was the grandsone(IMAM HUSEIN a.s)of your holy prophat sws killed alongside his entire family .and the grand daughters and members of your holy prophat sws imprisioned and paraded as captives by your kahalif yazeed(L.A).

what caused muslims to attack the house of their prophat sws!

Dear brothers and sisters asalamlykum

It is time that we should all unite as one ummah whether shia or sunni ,we all profess "LAILAAHAILLAH WA MUHAMMAD UR RASSULILLAH"

.It is our moral duty as muslims to stand up against the atrocities that have been committed by Israel against our brothers and sisters in GAZZA

SEEING SUCH HORRIFIC PICTURE OF BABIES AND WOMEN BEING KILLED AND MAIMED MUST SHAKE OUR CONSCIOUSES IN TO ACTION ,WAHT ARE WE AS MUSLIMS PERSONALY DOING FOR OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN GAZZA,THE LEAST WE CAN DO IS BOYYCOTT AMAERICAN AND ISRAILI PRODUCTS,.

IT IS SUCH A SHAME FOR ARAB COUNTRIES TO JUST SIT AND HOLD CONFREENCES AND TALK ,TALK AND TALK ABOT GAZZA AND DO NOTHING ELSE,NO ONE IS GOING TO HEED A RESOLUTION P[ASSED BY ARAB COUNTRIES IF THAT RESOLUTION ONLY CONDEMS ISRAEL IN WORD AND NO ACTION,

ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES SHOULD BREAK DIPLOMATIC AND COMMERCIAL TIES WITH AMERICA AND ISRAEIL ,IF MUSLIMCONTRIES DONT DO THAT I CALL ON ALL MUSLIMS TO STAGE STRIKES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES TO FORCE THEIR LEADERS TO ACT AGAINST THE ISRAELIS AND AMERICANS,REMEMBER THE PLIGHT OF INNOCENT CHILDREN

MURDERED AND MAIMED BY THE ISRAILIS THEIR BLOOD IS ON THE HANDS OF ALL MUSLIMS WHO WILL JUST SIT AROUND AND DO NOTHING AND PRETEND THAT WE CAN GO ON WITH OUR LIVES AS IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED ,ITS TIME ALL MUSLIMS SHOU;LD UNITE AND STAND UP AGAINST THE ZIONISTS AND AMERICANS IN ANY WAY YOU CAN

LETS UNITE FOR THE SAKE OF "LAILAHAILLAH"

HOW DO YOU REMEMBER THE SCARIFICE OF HUSSEIN(AS) THE GRANDSONE OF THE HOLY PROPHAT SWS IN KARBALA(61 AH)?

http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter8/4.ht...

can anyone shed light on the verse 187 of chapter 2 of the holy quran!

does it not say that we should break our fast at night?

In the last few years the term 'Wahhabi' has become infamous among the Muslims, however, there is very little understanding among the general Muslim populace as to the exact meaning of this term 'Wahhabi'.

Some say that there is no such thing as a 'Wahhabi' it is only a myth. Others say that a 'Wahhabi' is a person believes in Allah's attribute of Al-Wahhab. Yet others say that to call someone a 'Wahhabi' is an insult. So what is the mystery surrounding this term 'Wahhabi' ?

As to those who say that there is no such thing as a Wahhabi, they are either misinformed or lack knowledge on the subject. That leaves us with the other two possibilities as mentioned above. A Mullah in a local mosque in South London gave a lengthy Jum'a Khutba on the term Wahhabi. The Mullah was called a Wahhabi by a worshipper and the Mullah decided to clear his name. The Mullah argued, that, yes he was a Wahhabi because he believed in the attribute of Allah, Al-Wahhab.

It was an excellent attempt by this Mullah to clear his name and hide the facts. Ask yourself, why did a worshipper at the mosque call this Mullah a 'Wahhabi', the worshippers could have used any of Allah's other famous 99 attributes, why call the Mullah a 'Wahhabi'? And if the Mullah believes that he is a Wahhabi on account of his belief in the attribute of Allah Al-Wahhab, then why make such a song and dance about clearing his name as a 'Wahhabi'?

In short, the Mullah was offended when the worshipper called him a Wahhabi, this clearly indicates that there is more to this term 'Wahhabi' then meets the eye. So, we are left with the third possibility which indicates that there is something sinister about the term 'Wahhabi'. And to accuse someone of being a 'Wahhabi' is an insulting remark, but why? We shall now clearly define the term 'Wahhabi' and how it came about.

1. A 'Wahhabi' is a person who follows the teachings of a Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi. Just as we call people who follow the Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa(RA), Hanafi. Wahhabis are not called 'Wahhabis' because they believe in Allah's attribute Al-Wahhab, all Muslims believe in Allah's attribute Al-Wahhab.

2. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi was born in 1699 and died in 1792. Before he appeared, there was no such term as 'Wahhabi'.

3. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi rebelled against the Akida of Ahle Sunna Wa Jama'a and established his own Wahhabi School of thought. He took as his mentor Ibn Taimiyya (b1263/d1328), who also had rebelled against the Akida of Ahle Sunna Wa Jama'a and established his own school of thought.

4. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi was spoon feed and supported by the British Government who were looking for rebellious people like Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi to destroy the Islamic Caliphate from within its self. (Read the 'Confessions of a British spy' for a detailed account of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi's partnership with the British).

5. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi was despised by his father and brother, who were both learned ulama of the Ahle Sunna Wa Jama'a. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi's brother, Sheikh Suleman, refuted Wahhabism in his book 'As-sawa'iq al-ilahiyya fi'r-raddi'ala 'i-Wahahabiya'.

6. Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi declared the Ahle Sunna Wa Jama'a as 'Kafirs'. He passed a ruling that it was lawful to kill men, women and children belonging to the Ahle Sunna Wa Jama'a. In fact, it is recorded in the books of history, that, the Wahhabis killed over 100,000 thousand Muslim men and enslaved the women and children.

7. Wahhabis came into power by torturing and killing Muslims. They finally took Mecca with the help of the British in 1924 and bombarded the Shrine of the Holy Prophet(Sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) in Medina. But it was in 1931 that they finally took Medina. And in 1932 the Wahhabis founded the state of Saudi Arabia.

These, then are the beliefs and atrocities that the Wahhabis committed not too far in history but they have managed to cover their tracks successfully with 'Petro-Dollars', by buying the weak Iman of some corrupt scholars who also became Wahhabis. So, the Mullah in the Mosque gave a totally misconstrued definition of a 'Wahhabi'. He was in reality offended when the worshipper called him a Wahhabi, because the Mullah knew full well what the worshipper meant when he called him a Wahhabi. The worshipper clearly knew the account of the Wahhabi history of murder and disrespect towards the Prophet(Sallalahu alayhi wa sallam). Our Mullah belongs to the Deobandi school of thought and this is what one of the founding fathers of the Deobandi/Tableeghi movement had to say about the Wahhabis.

"Mohammed Ibne Abdul Wahhab is known as a Wahhabi. His beliefs were excellent."

(Fatawa-e-Rashidia, Book 1,pp/111 by Rashid Ahmed Gangoi).

Now when the founding father of the Deobandi/Tableeghi school of thought praises the Wahhabi beliefs, then surely he also condones the slaughter and rape of the Muslims by these very Wahhabis. He also condones the Bombing of the Holy Shrine of the Prophet(Sallalahu alayhi wa sallam). Then, we the Sunni Muslims, would like to know, why the Deobandis/ Tableeghis object on being called Wahhabis, when their own leader has praised the Wahhabis for their 'excellent beliefs'?

We seriously urge the unsuspecting Muslim populace to rethink their views and study the recent Islamic history in respect of the Wahhabi/Deobandi/ Tableeghi movements which all stand for the same cause but under different names.

It will be seen that these three notorious movements are bent on defaming the Holy Prophet(Sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) and destroying Islam from the inside. These three movements are the products of British Conspiracies and nothing else.

For too long the Sunni Muslims have been sitting idle, while the Wahhabi/Deobandi/Tableeghi movements have brain washed our Sunni brothers & sisters. They have destroyed the very fabric of our pure beliefs and polluted our Mosques with their twisted beliefs. These people never debate with the learned scholars of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, fearing the lose of face should their congregations hear of their defeat. They always run away making an excuse of not wanting to make fitna, when in reality they are the fitna makers who have divided the Muslim communities everywhere.

Now it is up to you fair minded Muslims to study the beliefs of these movements, their leaders and their aims. And it is up to you fair minded Muslims to ask Mosque committees to allow Sunni Muslims to preach and practice true Islam. Why should only the Wahhabis, Deobandis and Tableeghis have control of all our Mosques. Why don't the Mosque committees allow Ahle Sunna scholars to lead prayer, is it because, like the Wahhabis, they think that Ahle Sunna Muslims are Kafirs?

Yes, we need to ask these question to the Mosque committees, unless the committee members are themselves Wahhabis, they should allow the Sunni Muslims to use the Mosques for Milad-un-Nabi, Salat-o-Salaam on Fridays and Urs Sharif. If the beliefs of the Ahle Sunna Wal Jama'a are wrong, then prove it, come and debate with as face to face!

Because the Wahhabis could not dominate the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent with their corrupt beliefs, they bought a few corrupt Mullahs to do their dirty work for them. These Mullahs pretended to be Sunni Muslims until such a time when they had brainwashed enough unsuspecting Sunni Muslims, then they declared their corrupt beliefs openly.

It is about time that the Mosque committees did justice to the Muslim populace. It is about time they accepted the truth instead of running away from it. It is about time that they realised they will have to carry the burden of all the congregation, whom they have allowed to be exposed to Wahhabi beliefs.

We only pray that Allah opens the eyes and minds of the Mosque committee members and makes them distinguish truth from falsehood. Ameen.

May Allah protect us from these evil movements and their beliefs. May Allah give us the strength to speak the truth. Ameen.

Exposing the Enemy With in!

please go to this site and tell me your opinion

http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm

In the Tafseer of Dur Manthur Suyuti, vol. 54, and Izalatul Khifa of Shah Waliyyullaah Muhaddath Dahlavi, page 199 etc. it is written that the holy Prophet[saww] told Abu Bakr 'The polytheism is moving in you like the moving of an ant'. Take notice of this hadeeth and tell us how then was he a siddeeq? And if he did not have shirk within himself then dare to belie like a disbeliever the truthfulness of the holy Prophet[saww].

The soldiers that the holy prophet (saww) had prepared against Musailimah ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]'s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?

See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18

ibn kazzab were commanded by Usama and Abu Bakr and Umar were also instructed to be under him. Why did Abu Bakr and Umar not go? What legal dispensation did they have that entitled them to ignore the holy Prophet[saww]'s commands? If they have such dispensation, why did the holy Prophet[saww] curse those who were appointed for participation but did not go?

See also: Milal wa Al-Nihal [English translation] page 18

Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?

Imam, Abu Hanifa insists that while we are on a journey and if we cannot find water, we should perform ghusl and wuzu' with nabiz (date syrup). But everybody knows that nabiz is the juice of dates and it is not lawful to perform ablution with adulterated water.

The Holy Qur'an ordains that it is necessary for us to perform the ablution for ritual prayer with pure water. If water is not available, we should perform tayammum. Imam A'zam Abu Hanifa says that we may perform ghusl or wuzu' using nabiz. This is a clear violation of the Qur'anic ordinance. On the other hand, Bukhari in his Sahih has written "It is not lawful to perform ablution with nabiz or an intoxicant."

This verdict of Abu Hanifa has been consecutively narrated. I quote Fakhru'd-din Razi, who says in his commentary Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, p.553, regarding the verse of tayammum, problem V, Shafi'i says that "Wuzu' using Nabiz (date juice) is not lawful, and Abu Hanifa says that it is lawful while one is on a journey." Also Ibn Rushd has recorded this verdict of Abu Hanifa in his book Hidayatu'l-Mujtahid.

Sunnis follow Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari in the fundamentals of Islam and the four Imams in the articles of practice of the faith. To follow such a course is due to fanaticism and arrogance. And even if we suppose what you say is true, that your four Imams are worthy of your allegiance because they were learned and pious, then why has each of them accused the other of infidelity?

Your own distinguished ulema have written books concerning their rejection. Even the four Imams have charged one another with violating divine laws.

The companions of Abu Hanifa, Ibn Hajar (Ali Bin Ahmad Andalusi, who died in 456 A.H.), and others have always censured Imam Malik and Muhammad Bin Idris Shafi'i. Similarly, the companions of Imam Shafi'i, like Imamu'l- Haramain, Imam Ghazali and others have condemned Abu Hanifa and Malik. Let me ask you something: what sort of people were Imam Shafi'i, Abu Hamid Muhammad Bin Muhammad Ghazali, and Jarullah Zamakhshari?

Imam Shafi'i said: "There never was born a more damned person in Islam than Abu Hanifa." He also said: "I looked into the books of the companions of Abu Hanifa, and I found in them 130 pages containing matter in opposition to the Holy Qur'an and the Sunna."

Abu Hamid Ghazali in his book Manqul fi Ilmi'l-Usul says: "In fact Abu Hanifa distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed its arrangement, and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet was totally disfigured. One who does so deliberately and considers it lawful is an infidel. One who does it knowing it to be unlawful is a sinner." According to this great scholar, Abu Hanifa was either an infidel or a sinner. Many other books condemn Abu Hanifa. Jarullah Zamakhshari, the author of Tafsir-e-Kashshaf and one of your pious ulema, writes in Rabiu'l-Abrar that Yusuf Bin Asbat said: "Abu Hanifa rejected at least 400 hadith of the Prophet of Islam." Yusuf remarked that "Abu Hanifa said: 'Had the Prophet of Islam known me, he would have accepted many of my sayings.'"

Your own ulema have made similar criticisms of Abu Hanifa and the other three Imams. They can be found in Ghazali's Mutahawwal, Shafi'i's Nuqtu'sh-Sharifa, Zamakhshari's Rabiu'l-Abrar, and Ibn Jauzi's Muntazim. Imam Ghazali says in his Mutahawwal, "There are many mistakes in Abu Hanifa's work. He had no knowledge of etymology, grammar, or hadith." He also writes, "Since he had no knowledge of hadith, he relied on his own conjecture. The first being who acted on conjecture was Satan."

Ibn Jauzi writes in his Muntazim, "All the ulema are united in condemning Abu Hanifa. There are three categories of such critics: one group holds that his faith in the fundamentals of Islam was uncertain; another says that he lacked a strong memory and could not remember hadith; a third believes that he acted on conjecture and that his opinion was always at variance with the true hadith."

Your own ulema have criticized your Imams. The Shia ulema have not attributed anything to them except what your own ulema have said about them. On the other hand, there is no difference of opinion among the Shia ulema concerning the position of the twelve Imams. We regard the holy imams as the pupils of the same teaching. These Imams - all of them - acted according to divine laws which the last of the Prophets gave them. They never acted on conjecture or approved of innovations. What they said or did agreed with the sayings of the Prophet. Hence, there was no difference among them.

YOUR PROMINANT ULEMA(SUNNIS)Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq-e-Muhriqa, page 78; Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in Faza'il as well as Musnad; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, page 85, 87, Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir Kafshu'l-Bayan, Allama Ibn Qayyim Jauzi in Turuqi'l-Hakim, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya as well as in Ma Nazala'l-Qur'an fi Ali, and a host of other great ulema of your sect, with slight variation in words, have narrated Umar's saying, "If there were no Ali, Umar would have been ruined."

The great theologian, Ganji Shafi'i, in Chapter 57, of his Kifayatu't-Talib Fi Manaqib Ali Bin Abu Talib, after narrating some authentic hadith, reports from Hudhaifa Bin Yaman that "one day Umar met him and asked him: 'What was your condition when you awoke in the morning?' Hudhaifa said, 'I rose in the morning hating the Truth, liking mischief, bearing witness to the thing unseen; learning by heart the uncreated, reciting salutations without being in the state of ritual purity, and knowing that, what is for me on the earth is not for Allah in the Sky.' Umar was infuriated by these remarks and intended to punish Hudhaifa when Ali came in. He noticed the signs of rage on Umar's face and asked why he was so angry. Umar told him, and Ali said: 'There is nothing serious about this remark: What Hudhaifa said was correct. Truth means death, which he detests; mischief means wealth and children, which he likes; and when he says he bears witness to what he has not seen, this means that he testifies to the oneness of Allah, death, the Day of Judgement, Paradise, Hell, the bridge over it named Sira, none of which he has seen. When he says he learns by heart what is uncreated, this refers to the Holy Qur'an; when he says that he recites salutations without ablution, this refers to reciting salutations on the Prophet of Allah, which is permissible without ablution; when he says he has for himself on earth what is not for Allah in the sky, this refers to his wife, as He has no wife or children.' Umar then said, 'Umar would have been lost had Ali not arrived.'" Ganji Shafi'i says that Umar's statement is verified according to reports of most of the narrators of hadith. The author of Manaqib says that Caliph Umar repeatedly said: "O Abu'l-Hasan! (Ali). I would not be a part of a community without you." He also said: "Women are unable to give birth to a child like Ali."

Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 14, narrating from Tirmidhi, record a detailed report from Ibn Abbas at the end of which he says: "The companions of the Prophet used to seek religious judgments from Ali, and they accepted his decisions. Thus, Umar Bin Khattab said on various occasions, 'If it were not for Ali, Umar would have been ruined."

In religious matters and learned discussions Umar showed no vehemence. On the contrary, he admitted his own inability and acknowledged Ali as his refuge. Even Ibn Hajar Makki in Chapter III of Sawa'iq Muhriqa, reporting from Ibn Sa'd, quotes Umar as saying, "I seek Allah's help in deciding those difficult problems for which Abu-l-Hasan (Ali) is not available."

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/13....

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/3.ht...

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/5.ht...