Chapter Twelve: Nasibi objection at the false claimants of Imamate


Some Nawasib attack the Shi’a concept of Imamate by citing the presence of false claimants to the Imamate, who challenged the authority of our Imams. We remain perplexed as to how such a level of argument destroys the concept of Imamate. Even naïve Sunnies couldn’t escape from the Nasibi propaganda on this topic and they have also advanced baseless questions and objections. In order to refute all the junk about this topic, we have chosen to pick the work of one of the filthiest Nasibi this earth has seen, i.e. Maulana Azam Tariq, the cursed leader of the terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) previously known as ‘Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahabah’ (ASS), who in his book Khutbaat-e-Jail presented all the filth of his mind to attack the Shi’a concept of Imamate by citing the presence of other Imamate claimants.

Disagreement over the Imamate between Imam Zayn’ul Abideen (as) and Muhammad Hanafiya (ra)

In order to paint a fictitious story of ‘civil war amongst each other’ on the issue Imamate, the Nasibi mullah Azam Tariq in his book ‘Khutbaat Jail, page 140’ presents a chapter entitled “The disagreement between the son of Ali (ra); Muhammad Hanafiya and the son of Hysaun (ra), Zayn’ul Abideen for the purpose of Imamate”:

“After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Husayn (ra), when there came the era of the Imamate of Imam Zayn’ul Abideen, then Muhammad Hanafiya the son of Hadhrat Ali (ra) and uncle of Zayn’ul Abideen, claimed Imamate for himself and did not accept Imamate of his uncle, saying ‘my relationship is closer than yours, I am older, you are young, and I am your uncle’, but Imam Zayn’ul Abideen did not accept any of these points saying ‘Look don’t create controversy on my Imamate, otherwise your age will lessen’. Means there happened lots of tensions between the uncle and the nephew and at last Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen defeated the uncle with the help of the miracle from Hajr al-Aswad”
[Khubaat e Jail, pages 140-141]

The Nasibi author goes on to cite lengthy traditions from Usool al-Kafi and Ihtijaj al-Tabrisi page 213 which took six pages of his book wherein he uses maximum efforts to prove the Imamate of Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen was weak, but all he did was to further blacken his cursed face in the process.


Since there never happened any physical violence or killing between the family members of the Prophet (s) on matter of Imamate then how can the Nasibi seek to sensationalise the issue by using the words of ‘Civil War’? This type of baseless sensationalism is exactly the same method used by journalists writing for tabloid newspaper. Those who follow the Banu Ummayad and Abbaside kings, indulging themselves in dirty politics and bloodshed to remain in power have no right to hurl false allegations against the family of the Prophet (s).

Even if we for arguments sake accept that Muhammad Hanafeeya (ra) rejected the Imamate of Zayn’ul Abideen (as) claiming Imamate for himself, this does not in any way damage the concept of Imamate, or that of Imam Zayn`ul Abideen (as). Did fake Prophets not oppose the true Prophets of Allah (swt)? Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the liar not claim Prophethood for himself? We wish to make it clear that not every member of the family of the Prophet (s) was infallible, only the divinely appointed Imam is infallible, and their number was limited to twelve, starting with Imam ‘Ali (as) and the remaining eleven running through the Prophet (s)’s daughter Fatima al-Zahra (sa). Their appointment is in accordance with texts, Shah Abdul Aziz comments on this concept as follows:

“Imamate refers to the fact that it remains in the family of ‘Ali al Murtadha (ra), and one appointed the other as his Wasi”
Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 339

Shah Waliyullah in his will, writing about the Imamate of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and their appointing one another with ‘Nas’, states:

This faqeer [referring to himself] has come to know that from all the other relations, the 12 Imams (ra) have the relation of central pole leadership (Qutb). And the way of Tassawuf (Sufism) had taken birth during their lifetime. But all the orders of Aqaed and Shariah are limited to the ahadeeth of the Prophet (saww). And they have the order (Amr) of inner (Batin) leadership (Qutbiyat), which is free from the problems of Shariah. And in regards to the very leadership (Qutbiyat), each of them had an indication and ‘Nas’ for the next one to come, and the affairs of imamate which they said, actually referred to this kind of central pole leadership (Qutbiyat).”
Maqalaat al Waziyah fi Naseehat al-Wasiyah, page 7 (Lucknow)

Every Imam would produce some evidence to prove the correctness of his Imamate this was a mechanism for summoning people to the right way unfortunately some greedy, power hungry individuals or on some occasions individuals lead astray Fitna makers claimed imamate for themselves, yet their claims along with that of their supporters were refuted by their own weaknesses in their claims.

Moreover Imam Zayn’ul Abideen proved his textual right [Nas] to be Imamate with signs as proof before his Uncle Muhammad bin al-Hanafiya in the very tradition cited by the filthy Mullah:

“O my uncle, in fact my father (as) appointed me as the executor of his will before his leaving for Iraq. He made such covenant with me just an hour before his becoming a martyr. This is the Armament of the Messenger of Allah with me. You then should not dislocate them. I am afraid for you of a shorter life and quandary of conditions. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, has placed al-Wasiyya, and Imamate in the descendants of al-Husayn (as)”
Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 81 Hadith 5


The Tesimony of Hajar al-Aswad

Later on in the same tradition it is stated that Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) took Muhammad bin al-Hanafiya with him to Hajar al-Aswad and asked him to seek evidence of his Imamate from the sacred stone, but on the supplication of Muhammad bin Hanafiya there came no response from it. Then Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) supplicated that the stone disclose who the Imam and Wasi after Imam Hussayn (as) was to which the Blackstone began to shake so much that it almost came out of its place. Allah (swt) then made it to speak in clear Arabic language stating:

“O Lord, al-Wasiyya and Imamat after al-Husayn (as) ibn Ali is for Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali aibn abu Talib and ibn Fatima (as) daughter of the the Messenger of Allah.” The narrator has said that Muhammad Ali (ra) returned back and he acknowledged Ali ibn al-Husayn (as) to be his Wali”
Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 81 Hadith 5

Then the Nasibi author makes this hypothetical conclusion as to why Muhammad bin al-Hanafia claimed the Imamate:

“Imamate was a secret kept with God, which is why He (swt) made it reach the one eligible for it. It must have reached Muhammad bin Hanafiya as well, (if not) then why did he make a claim to the Imamate”

It shows that the stupid author didn’t know that such big decisions cannot be taken on the basis of suspicions and uncertainty. When Hajar al-Aswad testified to the Imamate of Zayn’ul Abideen (as) right in front of Muhamad bin Hanafiya (ra), did this not in itself prove the erroneous claim of Muhammad Hanafeeya? We suggest that these Nasibies take a look at the story of Prophet Yaqub (as) his son Yusuf (as) and Yusuf’s brothers in the Qur’an and Tafseers and then apply this situation to those faced confronted the descendants of Imam ‘Ali (as). If these Nasibis were endowed with brain cells, they would never advance such pathetic questions and objections.

Then the filthy creature stated:


“One cannot be inclined towards the inference from the last words of the tradition”


The notion of the pathetic Mullah is not only baseless but in fact absurd. We once again remind our readers the last words of the decision which caused indigestion to the Nasibi since it nullify all his attempts to attack at the Imamate of Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as):

Muhammad Ali (ra) returned back and he acknowledged Ali ibn al-Husayn (as) to be his Wali”

The sons of Yaqub (as) subjected their Prophet father to humiliation, appalling treatment and utmost disrespect, to the point that they said to their Prophet father:

[Yusufali 12:8]…really our father is obviously wandering (in his mind)!

The Arabic word which they used for their father is “dalalin mubeenin” which the deviated nation of Noah (as) used for him (7:60) which later on came under the wrath of Allah (swt) also Allah (swt) Himself used these words for those whose hearts are hard against His (swt) remembrance (39:22). Clearly these disrespectful words to a Prophet are almost tantamount to kufr. That is exactly what the Imam of Deobandies Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi records:

“The brothers of Yusuf (as) committed a diabolical act and became the perpetrators of the greater sin (Gunah Kabeerah) besides that scholars differ about their prophethood”
 Imdaad al-Mushtaq, pages 56-57 by Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Book corner, Main Bazar, Jehlum. Pakistan) 

Despite these blasphemous words, we see that those people were later on forgiven:

They said: “By Allâh! Indeed Allâh has preferred you above us, and we certainly have been sinners.” Surah Yusuf verse 91

Prophet Yusuf (as) while replying to his brothers stated:

“No reproach on you this day, may Allâh forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy! Surah Yusuf verse 92

In his commentary of this verse Allamah Shabeer Ahmad Uthmani stated as follows:

[10]. “Yusuf (as) did not even want to hear that much from his brothers, he said: ‘Don’t talk about it, I am not issuing any allegation against you today, I have forgiven all of your wrongs. The words that I have used is to show the result of Allah (swt)’s favour and the level of patience and piety. From today onwards, the crime you have committed will even not be mentioned, I supplicate to God that whatever wrongs that you have committed before Allah (swt) be forgiven as well’.”
Tafseer Uthmani, part 11 page 326

If these Nasibis had bothered to open and read the Holy Quran and assess the treatment of Yusuf (as) at the hands of his brother they would never seek to attack the great personalities from the family of the Prophet (s). Some people even believe that the brothers of Yususf were also appointed as Prophets, an inference also drawn by Shabeer Uthmani in his tafsir, this being the case we ask these Nasibis did Allah (swt) not forgive the evil acts perpetrated by the sons of a Prophet (as) and brother of a Prophet (as)? Does failure to reject such an act of forgiveness mentioned in Quran not constitute casting a doubt on the words of Allah (swt)?

Allamah Majlisi too in his commentary of the words “acknowledged him to be his Wali” states:

“Hadhrat Muhammad Hanafiya accepted the Imamate of Zayn’ul Abideen (as)”
Mirat al-Aqul, Volume 1 page 255, Old Edition, printed in Tehran

The great scholar Khaleel Qazwini [rh] in his commentary of these words has also stated:

“Later on Muhammad Hanafeeya came back, and he accepted Ali bin Husayn (as) as his Imam.
As Safi, Sharh Kafi Volume 3 page 429, printed in Luknow


Mukhthar Thaqafi and the problem of Muhammad Hanafiya’s Imamate


Azam Tariq stated:

“Mukhtar Thaqafi believed in the Imamate of Muhammad Hanafiyah, but he is also respected among Shi’as.”
In Rijal al-Kashi, the most authentic book on the Ilm al-Rijal among the Shi’as, it is narrated (page 127):

“And Mukhtar is the person who invited people to the Imamate of the Muhammad bin Ali bin Abu Talib Ibn al-Hanfiyah and his party is know as ‘Kaysaniya’ and “Mukhtariya”. Keysan was his own title and if he would hear about any enemy of the Imam Hussain (as), that whether they are in such and such house or at such and such place, he would instantly get there, destroy the whole house and kill every living being in the house. All the deserted houses that are found in Kufa are because of Mukhtar.”


After writing two more traditions from Rijal Kashi, the Nasibi author states:


“The justice and intelligence of the Imamiyah people and their love for Ahllubayt can be known by the fact that the person with whom the infallible Imam Hassan signs a peace treaty and on the hands of whom both the infallible Imams Hasnayn gave allegiance i.e. Ameer Muawiyah (ra) is “Lanatullah Aleh” [cursed one] in their eyes. While a cursed person, who claimed his prophethood, and attributed lies towards the Ahl’ul bayt i.e. Mukhtar Kadhab, is considered “Rahamullah Aleh” and is considered among those who are famous in the way of God.
[Khutbaat Jail, pages 146-149]



Let us first of all clarify the standing of the actual source of the Nasibi author which according to him is “the most authentic book”. About Muhammad bin Umar bin Abdul Aziz al-Kashi Abu Umro, the Ulema state that:

“He was Thiqa and a great scholar…he has taken traditions from weak narrations in a huge number… he has one book namely al-Rijal which contains a lot of knowledge but this book contains a great deal of mistakes”
1. Rijal Najashi, page 263
2. Naqad Rijal, page 325

Learned researcher Shaykh Abdullah Maqani [rh] writes about this book:

“This is known among prominent Shi’a scholars that the cited book by Kashi on Rijal contained information about Sunni and Shi’a narrators and some have been mixed up with some”
Tanqeh al-Maqal, Volume 3 page 135 (Murtazvia, Najaf)

There are only two traditions in Rijal Kashi wherein there exist bad remarks about Mukhtar bin Abi Ubaidah Thaqafi [rh] the other traditions are in his favor and merits and these two traditions were probably based on Taqayiah because Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) didn’t deem it appropriate to openly come out advocating revenge against the killers of Imam Hussayn (as). There might have been some political and social reasoning to that. The stance of Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) was in accordance with divine instructions. What we know is that he (as) liked the act of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi and in fact commended it. That is the reason he (as) supplicated for him.

When the Holy Prophet (s) sought to take revenge from Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, he (as) upon the wishes of Muhammad bin Maslama authorized him to utter words that outwardly brought him outside the pale of Islam. Despite this, in order to implement a successful plot, he was authorized outwardly to act or make statements that contravened the Shari’ah. This is how the event is recorded in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369.

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!”….”

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes under the commentary of this tradition:

His saying: (allow me to say (false thing) the prophet said you may say it).
As he asked for a permission to cheat, then the author titled it under the book of “lies in war”.

Online Fathul Bari, Kitab al-Maghazi, Hadith 3731

Allamah Badurddin al-Aini in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari stated:

Allow me to say (false thing), the prophet said you may say it. That involved allowing lies directly or indirectly.
Umadatul Qari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 14 page 276

Moreover we read the following hadith in Sahih al-Tirmidhi which has also been termed ‘Sahih’ by Salafie’s favorite scholar al-Baani:

Asma bint Yazed narrated:
“The messenger of Allah said lie is not allowed except in three conditions, a man telling his wife (false things) to please her, lie during the war, lie to make peace between the people.”

Exactly the same transpired in the case of Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) and Mukhtar al-Thaqafi. If Mukhtar made some false statements, then he was authorized to do so by the principle of ‘Lies in War’ (Al-Kadab fil Harb). Although Imam Zayn`ul Abdeen (as) was outwardly aloof from that plot, it is highly likely that he endorsed its implementation through Mukhtar who did it through Keysan the slave freed by Maula Ali (as).

As for the notion of Azam Tariq al-Nasibi about the father (Uncle to be precise) of Nasibies i.e. Muawiyah, various people like Maula Ali (as), His progeny and all pious companions and Tabayeen have adopted Tabarra and disassociation from him and have cursed him regularly. Like what has been stated by Abu Bakar Jasas Radi in his esteemed work ‘Ahkaam al-Quran’ about oppressor. ‘Father Nasibi’ bore hatred towards Ahulbayt (as) and fought against them, instituted the Kufr and hypocritical practice of cursing Ahl’ul bayt (as) from the pulpits of mosque, severely tortured and punished the true Shi’as of Ahl’ul bayt (as), he tormented them to the extent that every reader and listener will uncontrollably say: ‘Curse be on the oppressors’ while Mukhtar killed the enemies of Ahllubayt (as) therefore his act is praiseworthy, hence the accolades showered on him by the Imams of Ahl’ul bayt (as).

As far as the author’s notion about his Uncle Muawiyah’s bayah is concerned, they should know that whilst Imam Hasan (as) in order to save the honor and blood of Muslims and protect real Islam handed over the government to Muawiyah, the Sunni Ulema accept that Imam Hassan (as) was the only person eligible and rightful for Imamate and rulership. Imam Hasan (as) advanced his views about Muawiyah at the time he (as) began to leave Kufa for Madina:

ثم خرج الحسن يريد المدينة، فوجه إليه معاوية وقد تجاوز في طريقه يسأله أن يكون المتولي لمحاربتهم، فقال الحسن: والله لقد كففت عنك لحقن دماء المسلمين، ولا أحسب ذلك يسعني، أفأقاتل عنك قوماً أنت والله أولى بالقتال منهم

Then al-Hassan proceeded on a journey to Madina, so Muawiya sent someone to him asking him to fight the khawarij, al-Hassan replied: “I swear by God that I abandoned (fighting) you in order to save Muslim bloodshed, I don’t think that I am able (to fight khawarij). Should I fight people rather than you, when you are more deserving to be fought against?”.
1. ‘Al-Kamil fil Lughat al-Adab’ by al-Muberad
The book can be downloaded from the following Salafi Library:
2. Al-Iqd al-Farid, Volume 1


Did Zayd Shaheed really claim Imamate for himself?


Azam Tariq stated:

“The brother of Imam Baqir claimed his Imamate and denounced the Imamate of Imam Baqir”

He also wrote:

“After the death of Imam Zayn al-Abdeen when the era of the Imamate of Imam Baqir began, his brother Hadhrat Zayd Shaheed denounced his Imamate and claimed it for himself and not only did he denounce the Imamate of his brother, he also rejected the Imamate of his nephew Jafar Sadiq. The Shi’a authors have narrated the incident of Hadhrat Zayd Shaheed in a colourful manner”


Then the Nasibi author cited some text from Usool al-Kafi which we are presenting in a summary form:

“Hadhrat Zayd bin Ali was against the Umawi tyrants and happened to meet Ahwal (a companion of the Imam) and requested his help to rise up against the rulers but he replied that it was illegitimate to rise up without the consent and instruction of the Imam of the time while he is present. If Hujutallah (Imam) is not present, then one can adhere to the opinion of someone. Hadhrat Zayd said to him: ‘My father had been very kind to me, he even used to feed me chunky morsels and cool off for me the hot ones so that I may remain protected from its intensity but you think that he did not inform me about religion so that I may remain protected from the fire of Hell yet he informed you about it?’. Ahwal replied: ‘The reason your father did not inform you is because he feared that you may enter Hell by rejecting it but there was no such fear about me’
[Summary from ‘Khutbaat-e-Jail’ pages 149-153]



All that this disgraceful Nasibi author has done by advancing this alleged evidence has been to prove his stupidity. The tradition that he has relied upon is from Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 1 Hadith 5, but by using his usual dishonesty, he has deliberately deleted the last and yet significant part of the tradition which nullifies the rationale of the Nasibi author. The last part of the tradition contains the arguments given by Ahwal which then made Zayd speechless and mute. The arguments were: [Ahwal narrates]:

Then I told him, May Allah make my soul of service to you, are you of a higher degree of excellence or the prophets?” He said, “It is the prophets.” I said, “Consider that Ya‘qub has said to Yusuf, ‘My son do not tell your dream to your brothers, they may plot against you. Why he did not inform the brothers so that they would not plot against Yusuf? He hid it from them such the way your father has done because he was afraid about you.” Then Zayd said, “When you say that, I swear to Allah that your friend (Imam Baqir (as)) told me in Madina that I will be killed and crucified in al-Kunnasa and that he has a book with him that lists the people killed and crucified.”
I then went for Hajj and reported the story of Zayd to abu ‘Abdallah (as) and what I said to Zayd. The Imam (as) said, “You surrounded him from his front, back, left, right, above and below and did not leave for any way out.

Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 1 Hadith 5

O idiot followers of stupid Azam Tariq and their Nasibi ilk! Tell us as to why Prophet Yaqub (as) asked Prophet Yusuf (as) not to reveal the dream to his brothers? It is clear that no one can avoid Taqdeer but Taqdeer are of two kinds, inevitable [Mubaram] and dependable [Mulaq]. Bada` takes place in the Mulaq kind of Taqdeer. Had Prophet Yaqub (as) not asked Prophet Yusuf (as) to conceal the dream about the prediction of his prophethood from his brothers as a precautionary measure, there would have been a strong likelihood of his bothers murdering him, on the grounds of jealousy. Wisdom dictated that the matter be concealed so as to protect the life of Yusuf (as) whilst at the same time his misguided sons could remain aloof from the deviation and destruction of extreme order. Ultimately, the methodology of Prophet Yaqub (as) proved successful. Allah (swt) makes the implementation of His plots through his chosen people in the very manner. Unfortunately the stupid author like his brainless and illegitimate ancestry was incapable of understanding such a matter.

The same happened in the case of Hadhrat Zayd. He himself had accepted that Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) had already told him his consequences through His (as) special knowledge and had told him therefore the rise up then was no longer legitimate but Zayd persisted.

There is a difference between not having Marfat about the Imamate and bearing a grudge against the Ahl’ul bayt (as). We will elaborate on this later with the help of a tradition but here we just want to state that that from the traditions of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) and other Imams of Ahl’ul bayt (as) we ca see that those that bear a grudge against Ahulblayt (as) have been divided into three categories namely:

  1. illegitimate; born out of fornication
  2. hypocrites
  3. conceived whilst the mother was menstruating.

It is not necessary that whoever holds a grudge against Ahllybayt (as) to be illegitimate, he might merely be a hypocrite. Such categories have been mentioned only for the enemies amongst Nawasib and Khawarij. While those who do not possess the recognition of the Imam due to their lack of knowledge have been referred to as one’s that can attain forgiveness, the door of repentance of such people are always open but of course their rank cannot be equal to those Mumins who possess the correct recongition of the Imam.

The pathetic Nasibi author’s final thoughts on this matter, should be applied to the wisdom of Prophet Yaqub (as) cited above. The Nasibi author wrote that:

Azam Tariq stated:

“From this incident we came to know that the infallible Imams did not use to give teachings about Imamate to the ones whom they loved”

This is not any hard and fast rule, rather being kind to one’s son and being a well-wisher for his nation are two different things. Both of these things have same foundation and are based a clear strategy. The incident of Prophet Noah (as) is before us. Moreover one could recall the episode of Khidr (as). He (as) killed a child on the instructions of Allah (swt) for he would kill his parents when he grew up and because of that child there were chances of his parents going astray. Therefore, Allah (swt) allowed him to be killed in his infancy. There cannot be any sane person in this world who would not love an infant let alone a prophet whose basic task is to love, help and guide people yet we read that instead of guiding or helping the child to get correct beliefs, Khider (as) killed the one who would be loved by anyone. Allamah Shabeer Ahmad Uthmani has made some elaborations on column No. 8 of the pertinent verses:

[Shakir 18:80-81] And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them: So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.

After reading the commentary recorded by Allamah Shabeer Ahmad Uthmani for this verse, any sane person would be able to easily understand the stance of Imam (as) towards his son Zayd which has been mocked by Nawasib:

“By nature every child born is Muslim. But later on, due to the external influences bad foundation is laid down to some people right in their childhood and its complete and confirmed knowledge is possessed by Allah only but those who have an insight begin seeing some of those influences.

Allah had told Khidr (as) regarding the boy that a bad foundation had been laid for him, he would be noxious and deviated if he grew up and would also lead his parents astray. They would have become infidels due to their love for their son. Thus, the killing of the son became the reason for mercy and a source of safety for his parents. Allah wanted his parents to remain on faith. His (swt) wisdom made caused the pending danger to be averted from their way. Khidr (as) was instructed to kill the boy. He (as) completed the task after getting revelation from Allah.

Now asking questions like ‘the boy should not have been born’ or ‘if he was to be born then he should have been prevented from such extreme deviation’ or ‘since there are millions of infidels in this world, his parents should have likewise been left infidel’ or ‘those children that get such foundation, at least they should have been killed by providing a list of such children to the prophets’. The cursory reply to these questions is: ‘He cannot be questioned concerning what He does and they shall be questioned.’ (Surah Ambiyah, 23). And for a detailed reply, a strong discussion about ‘the creation of good and bad’ is required which cannot be made within these brief benefits. But yes, atleast it should be remembered that anyone in this world who deem Allah to be creator of everything, Muzzim and wise, then thousands of questions can be asked about universe the answer of those are not held by anyone besides the acceptance of humility and fault. Here an example of the very point was shown through Khidr (as) that nobody can grasp the wisdom and logic of Takiwniyah of Allah. Sometimes, the situation of the incident apparently seems to be incorrect, inglorious or inappropriate with respect to time but the one who has the knowledge of gravity of the incident, he knows that much of wisdom is hidden in it.
Tafseer Uthmani, page 403


Discussion between Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) and Zayd Shaheed (ra)

Writer has recorded a summary of an incident from Usool al-Kafi, page 224 with the title ‘The debate of Zayd Shaheed with Imam Baqir’. He has also used cited Arabic words which state:

Azam Tariq stated:

“The Imam from us is not the one who would sit in his home, draw the curtain around him and lag from struggle (jihad). The Imam from us is the one who safeguards his dominion, fights for the cause of Allah a real fight, defends those who hold high regards for him and his rights.”


The Nasibi author then suggests that Zayd’s comments were so compelling that it left out Imam speechless. Had he bothered to read the complete tradition from Usool al-Kafi, he would have never advanced such the same claim produced by his dishonest ancestors.

The questions which Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) asked from Zayd Shaeed about his claims and his supporting evidence for them as well as his own replies to his doubts actually are spread over most of the page in this very tradition. Here we present some of sentences from that:

Abu Ja’far (as) then said, “O brother, do you really find any of the things that you mentioned about yourself? If so, then can you produce supporting proof from the Book of Allah or and evidence from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah or give a similar example”
Usool al-Kafi, Volume 1, Kitab al-Hujjah, Chapter 81 Hadith 16

We read in the Quran:

“…and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction…”(2:195)

It is only the Imam who takes the correct decision after taking into account the different requirements of the Shari’ah and surrounding circumstances. The ancestors and adherents of this stupid Mullah have through their hands contributed towards their own destruction. We should also point out that this tradition has not reached to the status of Sahih as Allamah Majlisi has stated that this tradition is Majhul. Allamah Majlisi under the very tradition had given a very sound reply for the doubts of the enemies of Alhlubyat (as). He states:

“The summary is that good opinion shall be written about him and nothing should be said to remonstrate him. We should remain aloof from throwing an edict of Kufr and do Tabbarra at such kind of people from the progeny of the Imams, such as Jaffar Kadhab and other people of the same nature. This is because Rawandi has narrated in Kharaij from Hasan bin Rashid that he mentioned Zayd bin Ali before Abu Abdullah (as) and did his humilation. He (as) prohibited him from doing this and said: “May Allah have mercy on my uncle. He had come to my father and had cited his intention to rise up against this Taghiya to which He (as) had stated: ‘Do not rise up. I fear that you will get crucified in Kufa. O Zayd! You are unaware that whoever from Banu Fatima shall rise up against these kings before the rise up of Sufiyani will get murdered’. Then Abu Abdullah (as) said: ‘O Hasan! Fatima has kept her self therefore Allah (swt) made her progeny Haram for hell. This verse has been revealed for the very people: ‘Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by Allah’s leave, foremost in good deeds’. Those who wrong their own soul are the ones who do not posses cognition (ma’rfat) of their Imam. The one who follow a middle course is he who possesses the cognition of his Imam, the one that is foremost in good deeds is the Imam. O Hasan! No one amongst us Ahl’ul bayt departs unless he affirmed the honor of the one who possesses it’”.
Mirat al-Aqul, Volume 1 page 260 (Iran)


The dispute of over the ‘Imamate’ of Muhammd Nafs Zakiya

The author has further established a topic while copying from his filthy ancestry ‘Against Imam Jafar Sadiq, his uncle and brothers also accepted the imamate of Hadhrat Muhammad Nafs Zakiya and Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik also supported them’.

Azam Tariq stated:

Hadhrat Abdullah Mahaz repeatedly went to Imam Jafar Sadiq and told him to give allegiance of his son but Imam Jafar Sadiq didn’t agree and ultimately Abdullah got furious and said: ‘Imam Hasan didn’t give Imamate to his son rather he gave it to his brother Hussain then what right did Hussain have to transfer the Imamate towards his son’. This whole incident is recorded in Usool al-Kafi published by Nawlashkur Press Lucknow. All the progeny of Imam Hassan (ra) were in agreement with Hadhrat Abdullah Mahaz while on the other side Imam Jafar Sadiq was alone. All the progeny of Imam Hussain (ra) were not with him even his uncle and brother were also against him…. Shi’a abundantly claim to be the lovers of Ahllubayt but the obedience they demonstrated at those times is accepted by everyone. Just above we have mentioned the discussion of Ahwal and Zayd Shaheed but the act of obedience and sacrifice that has always been exhibited by the Ahl’ul Sunnah wal Jamaah at such situations will always shine forth on the pages of history, we have the esteemed imams Abu Hanifa Malik, both of those esteemed Imams were with Hadhrat Muhammad Taqab ba Nafs Zakiya and for this very support both of those esteemed Imams bore several hardships’.
[Khutbaat-e-Jail, pages 154-155]


There isn’t any need to discuss and argue in detail about this since several facts have been elucidated from the topic of Hadhrat Zayd Shaheed (ra). The matter of Abdullah bin Mahaz and Nafs Zakiya are not that much more different and there are quite many similarities between those incidents and facts. The way the sons of Yaqub (as) and brothers of Yusuf (as) went astray despite their being sons of a Prophet, grandsons of Prophets and brothers of a Prophet is no different from the fact that some members from the family of Prophet (s) were mere human beings, some of them also had similar deviations, all of them were not the infallible Imams, however on the basis of those disagreements which they had amongst them, they never committed anything against morality rather they did Jihad against the heads, founders and the tyrants of the Nasibi madhab.

As for the claim of the author that the Ahl’ul Sunnah wal Jamaah have always demonstrated obedience and sacrifice this is doubtful. Just like today, were the Ahl’ul Sunnah wal Jamaah not in majority in that era as well? Were those rulers not the adherents and supporters of same madhab? Why were those ‘helpless’ rulers occupying the reign against the majority while the people from the family of Prophet (s) who were rising up against the being murdered? This makes it clear that the ‘majority’ had not sided with the people from the family of Prophet (s) rather they supported the kings who were the standard bearers for the religion of the state. The very salutation makes clear about the support by Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik. If those two ‘esteemed Imams’ were indeed supporters of the people from the family of Prophet (s) then why did they never come out on the field? Why didn’t did their adherents this support? If they indeed did, then why didn’t they do it wholeheartedly rather than just hand over these individuals to these tyrants and hide in their homes?

The reality is that those people who rose up or who claimed to be the Shi’a and thus supported them, includes people like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik. They were short of the Marfat [recognition] of the actual Imam of the time. They became the followers of their own opinions and thus never embraced success. Had all of those people recognized the true Imamate and the rank of Imam then no king would have had the audacity to usurp power in front of such a huge majority and destroy every hurdle from his path whiles swimming in the sea of debauchery, whether he were a Umayyad Nasibi or Abbasi Nasibi! The truth is the actual Shi’a were only those who attained the recognition of the actual Imam of the time and hence remained obedient to his instructions. Their opinions and sentiments precedent over the Imam (as). Their low numbers reduced the likelihood of success through armed rebellion. Faced with these circumstances, the Imams of Ahl’ul bayt delayed any uprising until the coming of Sufiyani, at that time inshallah the Imam of or time (as) will find a great many Ansar while the situations on international scenario will also be sound.

Another aspect of this tradition is its authenticity. Thus, Allamah Majlisi states:

“The seventeenth hadith is weak”
Mirat al-Aqul, Volume 1 page 263

Whenever the Shi’a produce evidence the Nasibi immediately bark blindly that evidence cited is unauthentic, even when such a claim has no basis. When it comes to attacking the Shi’a the these Nasibi wish to observe a different set of rules, and any evidence no matter how spurious / weak is acceptable, since the end result will be the hatred and killing of innocent Shi’a!


The time to time appearance of disagreement among the Shi’a about Imamate

Azam Tariq stated:

“The first disagreement appeared after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (ra) when the Shi’a were divided into 5 groups. The second disagreement; when the Shi’a were divided into 2 parts followed the death of Imam Zayn al-Abdeen. The third disagreement; when the Shi’a of Imam Baqir were split into 3. Fourth disagreement; when the Shi’a got divided into 6 groups after the death of Imam Jafar Sadiq. Fifth disagreement; when following the death of Imam Musa Kazim bin Jafar the Shi’a were divided into 7 groups. Sixth disagreement when the Shi’a were divided into 5 after the death of Imam Ali Raza bin Musa Kazim. Seventh disagreement; when there appeared a minor disagreement after Imam Muhammad bin Ali Raza. The eighth disagreement appeared when Shi’as got divided into 4 groups after the death of Imam Ali Hadi…”
[Khutbaat-e-Jail, pages 156-160]

After this, the pathetic author shows the disagreements among the Shi’a appeared after the death of each Imam.


We are unsure as to what the filthy author had actually been trying to prove from those disagreements. May be like other Nawasib and naïve Sunnies he also wanted to pose the questions that if Imam and Imamate was indeed from Allah (swt) and if every Imam used to make ‘Nas’ and a will for the next one to come moreover if there were clear-cut reports and will from Holy Prophet (s) about the Imamate of each and every Imam then why did disagreements after the death of each Imam appear? Why did several people make claim of Imamate? Why did several groups keep appearing?

It seems that the stupid Mullah had never bothered to ponder into the incidents of previous nations recorded in Holy Quran particularly the incidents about Bani Israel. The Holy Book has revealed the causes of the disagreement among previous nations although prophethood was descending among them continuously. The way those nations treated their prophets is also recorded in Holy Quran. Like we read in Quran that those people differed just because they had hatred of on another and were selfish:

Yusufali 2:213
….but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy…..

Pickthal 2:213
….And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another …

We also read that it was the jealousy that all of them bore against each other which caused disagreement on the commandments of Allah (swt) although there were clear sings:

Yusufali 3:19
The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them…

We further read:

Yusufali 3:105
Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty

What happened to the prophets of Bani Israel?

Shakir 2:87
What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.

When reflecting on the Book that encompasses guidance in all aspects of life, we can see that previous nations always disagreed after the death of messengers sent by Allah (swt) even though they were provided with clear-cut signs about those messengers, despite this they went astray NOT due to a lack of knowledge about those messengers since Allah (swt) has undoubtedly stated that they had already been given clear signs rather the reasons for such disagreements was hatred for one another, their jealousy, selfishness, arrogance and insurrection.Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah ash-Sha’bee comments on this fact as follows:

“No nation differed after its Prophet, except that the people of falsehood from it, gained ascendancy over its people of truth.”
[ Related by Abu Nu’aym in al-Hilyah (4/313) and adh- Dhahabi in Siyar A'laamun - Nubalaa (4/311)]

If Nawasib argue that the Muslim Ummah would be protected from such situations then we suggest they consider this tradition from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 422:

Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, “You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.” We said, “O Allah’s Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said, “Whom else?”

Like the era of all of our Imams (as) and the present age, in all previous nations there had always existed individuals who tried to be smart and capitalize on such situations since they knew they enjoyed some importance amongst naïve crowds, they had their personal motives which they tried their best to cash in on at such critical junctures. They created suspicion and divisions among the nations on the basis of their personal motives. And when there came a new prophet in order to obliterate the very dispute and disagreement and to re-implement the teachings of the last prophet, those followers of their own desires would initially reject the prophet or when they saw that the teachings of new prophets having a detrimental effect on their impure motives, they had no hesitation in killing these prophets. In the same way that these previous nations opposed the divinely appointed guide of the time, when it came to the Muslim Ummah, the Shi’a also experienced similar situations. Initially, people did not accept Imam Ali bin Abi Taib (as) as their Imam even after the explicit designation of the Holy Prophet (s), even after congratulating Ali (as) for becoming a master in the crowd of thousands of companions, rather they disputed it later on and rejected him and ultimately they slew Him (as).

Later on after the death of the other Imams, there appeared similar disagreements and disputes from the self-interested elements of the nation. But such rejection, disagreements and disputes do not in anyway affect the Imamate of the Imam like the stance of rejecting or killing the previous prophets by their respective people did not in any way affect the prophethood of those prophets while those people did wrong only to themselves by rejecting the divinely appointed leaders.


The Conclusion of the topic drawn by Maulana Azam Tariq al-Nasibi

The author then makes the conclusion of the topic with the title ‘Sumary of the discussion’:

Azam Tariq stated:

“Just put forward the 50 groups which appeared among the Shi’as alone, and at the same time also put forward the tradition attributed to Imam Jaffar Sadiq wherein it is stated that ‘All of others beside our Shi’a Atha Ashari are the children of fornicatress’. Now you can yourself estimate that how many of the sects of the Shi’as themselves have come within the range of this edict and brothers and sons of how many Imams declared to have an impure family tree according to this rule. And the thing doesn’t stop here because according to the Shi’a belief, the mothers of those people were in fact the wife or mother of either Imam. Now ponder into it while keeping this rule in mind and I also invite Shi’as to ponder into the fact that now which individual or personality among Ahl’ul bayt is spared whose mother remained safe from the range of your aforesaid edict?
[Khutbaat-e-Jail, pages 161-162]


It seems that amongst different conclusions he had drawn on Shi’as, this is the most stupid one he has arrived at.

Firstly, the Imam (as) didn’t mean that whoever is not Shi’a has to be the child of wrong-doer woman or be an illegitimate one. Those lacking sense will no doubt incorrectly conclude the true meaning of the tradition which is something that we would expect from the followers of Mu’awiya. We should point out that the Imam (as) didn’t include his own family, these comments were directed others particularly Nawasib who deem it the part of their religion to bear enmity towards Ahl’ul bayt (as).

Secondly, ‘Baghaya’ means shameless and an immodest woman that does not automatically make her a fornicator. It is inappropriate to take literal meanings and that too of their extreme every time and in every context.

Thirdly, such words are often used in condemnation of something and it doesn’t mean the literal meanings or the reality of the word cited. For example it is stated in Holy Quran about deviated people:

And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones. (7:179)

‘Sabeel al-Majaz’ has been used over the word ‘Al-An`am’ therefore here in this context, it isn’t actually referring to a four legged animal.

Someone inquired from Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (ra) as to why Muawiyah recite single Witr to which He (ra) replied:

من أين ترى أخذها الحمار

Where did the donkey take this from?
Sharh al-Ma`ani al-Aathaar, Volume 1 page 171, Chapter of al-Witr (Published in Deoband)

Can Nawasib tell us whether the word ‘Hamar’ actually means ‘donkey’ in this context? Muawiyah’s nature might have resembled a donkey’s but he was not physically one. Along the same line we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 545 an episode wherein:

Aban said to Abu Huraira, “… You, a guinea pig, descending from Qadum Dan”

So was this prolific Hadith narrator literally a talking guinea pig?

Similarly at the time of Hudaibiyah treaty, Abu Bakr said to Urwa bin Masud Thaqafi:

فقال له أبو بكر امصص بظر اللات

Abu Bakr said: “Suck the vagina of Laat”
Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al Sharut [Conditions], Book: al-Sharut fil Jihad [Conditions for Jihad], Hadith 2770

[We apologize for citing this text but since Nawasib do not understand anything unless it comes from the tongue of their Khalifas, and their most precious Sahih books we are left with no other choice]

Laat was an idol worshipped by polytheists. Abu Bakr demonstrated his diplomatic tact by telling the kaafir to perform oral sex on an idol, when in reality, neither was this possible, nor had anyone ever attempted to do this, Abu Bakr used those words as a means of insulting Urwa bin Masud. It was a tradition amongst the Arabs to use such words when they were severe condemning someone. If the filthy and ignorant followers of Azam Tariq want to literally explain the words of their ‘Sideeq al-Akbar’ we would ask that they provide us with a practical demonstration but since they belong to a party which was previously named ASS, we will not be surprised if they really go on to do it.


Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →