Saturday, November 17, 2018
Home
Re: The Secret of Shiite Sect...A Rejoinder to Sharifudeen Ibrahim Muhammad PDF Print E-mail
Written by freezak   
Thursday, 28 June 2018 12:59

Mahfuz Mundadu
The write up authored by Sharifudeen Ibrahim Muhammad ordinarily deserves no reaction from anyone that really values his time and energy. Yet the tissues of lies, half truths and baseless allegations therein, if left unchallenged may be construed as a loud plead of guilt.

Sharifudeen started with a statement to the effect that the pitiless incindiary that took place between December 15-17, 2015 at Zaria is a victory to the Muslims.
How on earth could rampant and indiscriminate killings of innocent souls including elderly, babies, nursing mothers and pregnant women be a victory to any human being talk less of Muslims. The Glorious Quran clearly states: “...whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (AlMã’ida:32).
Killing a soul for a soul according to Islamic rulings and even secular legal system is not an easy task that can be left to the whims and caprices of any Dracula. That is why in every civilised society devolution of power and delegation of authority and responsibilities is very well entrenched.
Take the case of Zaria and for argument sake, let’s assume that the Shiite indeed blocked passages and attempted to kill the Chief of Army Staff, Tukur Yusuf Burutai.
Under such circumstances what the constitution dictates is that the person that is threatened (in this case Tukur Yusuf Buritai) should report the incidence to the police. Alternatively he can effect arrest and handover the accused to the police. The police will then lunch investigation with the intention of establishing whether a crime has been committed and by who. The accused is to be charged to court. The defendant and the plaintiff should argue their case before the judge. Such a case may start from a magistrate court stretching all through to the supreme court before the accused can finally be pronounced guilty. Where a death penalty is handed to the accused, it is neither the “victim” of the crime (Tukur Yusuf Burutai) nor the Police nor even the Judge is the one to administer the punishment. It is the responsibility of an entirely different institution i. e. Nigeria Prison Services. Even that not without the consent of the State Governor where there execution will be taking place.
Yet in the case of Zaria massacre Tukur Yusuf Burutai became all in one. A stand that is both unconstitutional and unIslamic. Yet here is Sharifudeen Ibrahim Muhammad whom assumed the position of a Spokesperson to “Most of the Muslims” describing this brigandage as a victory to the muslims. How? It is virtually impossible to imagine a religion santioned by the Most Gracious, Most Merciful turning around and glorify barbarism. The verse of the Glorious Qur’an quoted above is explicit and not in any way in support of Sharifudeen Ibrahim Muhammad‘s stance.
Sharifudeen Ibrahim Muhammad quoted AbdusSamad Umar Jibia’s “letter” to President Muhammad Buhari. Here him: “as a Muslim you don’t need someone to tell you about Shia...” Yet he went ahead and told him a lot (of lies) about Shia. For AbdusSamad to equate being a Muslim to being an Islamic scholar says a lot about his definition and understanding of Islamic Scholarship. Little wonder why AbdusSamad being an associate professor in Mechatronics/Electrical Engineering thinks that being a scholar in secular subjects qualifies him to be an Islamic Scholar to the extent of being a Mufti that issues a verdict of death penalty against anyone and everyone that has a different understanding on an issue. Foul number two is for Sharifudeen to erroneously thinks that he can hoodwink the unsuspecting souls in to swallowing his venomous vituperation against the Shiites. AbdusSamad is neither an Islamic scholar nor even a student of Islamic studies worth the name. He is, as far as Islamic Scholarly discuss is concerned, simply a compound ignorant being tormented by Wahhabi venom. AbdusSamad is not and cannot be an authority worth referencing when it comes to the religion of Islam. Having the knowledge of Ohm’s law does not make one an authority in Allah’s law. To accept otherwise is to willingly accept being counted as a fraud, a fake, a quack and a quasi-Mullah.
For Sharifudeen to claim that the origin of Shia is through a fictitious person called Abdullahi Ibn Sabaa, is to engage in treasonable fellony against Islamic History. Foul number three.
The origin of Shia is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, Muhammad the son of Abdullahi.
In his Quranic commentary under the Surat Albayyinat: Verse 7: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ؅ - Indeed, they who have believed and done righteous deeds - those are the best of creatures, Jalãluddeen Suyutiy quoted a Hadith in which the Prophet defined خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ (the best of creature) as Ali and his Shia! Anyone interested may wish to consult “Durrul Manthur Fiy Tafsiyri Kitãbil Lahi Bil Mà’athur”. In another Hadith from Ibn Abbas the Prophet says to Ali “Huwa anta wa Shiy’atu ka yaumul qiyãmati rãdiyna mardiyyin”... You (Ali) and your Shia are the TRUSTING and TRUSTED! So Shia has been in existence since the time of the Holy Prophet. With this your claim about Shia is baseless and unfounded.
If Shia was embraced by Persians so was it embraced by some of the most highly respected Sahabas of the Holy Prophet like Bilal, Miqdad, Abuzarr to name but a few.
If Iranians were worshipping fire before the advent of Islam, so where the arabs worshipping idols before Islam. If the Muslims of Iran could not be considered muslims because they worshipped fire in the past, then applying same logic, we have a reason not to consider arabs muslim, being truly muslims because in the past they were worshipping idols. The Hausas before Islam where Maguzawas. So can we use the same logic to say that all hausas even though muslim are of invalid faith because of their “maguzistic” ancestry? “What is [wrong] with you? How do you make (such kind of) judgement?” (Saffat:154).
Sharifedeen claimed that with the dawn of the Islamic Revolution Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky was contracted to spread Shia in Nigeria. On this I challenge Sharifedeen to come forward with his proof. In Surat Hujuraat verse 6 Allah says: “O you who have believed, if a punk comes to you with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.”
In Al-Qasas verse 75 Allah says: “Produce your proof”. So I dare say to Sharifudeen “Produce your proof”. And if Sheikh Zakzaky was contracted to spread Shia in Nigeria by the Islamic Republic of Iran then, who was contracted to spread Shia in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia, countries that have some sizeable Shia community even before the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Who then was contracted to spread Shia in Madina during the life time of the Prophet? The problem with Sharifedeen is that because he thinks his conscience is for sale so he thought of others. He finds it difficult to imagine anyone being a practicing Muslim unless he is being paid. Just the way Prince Muhammad Bin Salaman makes announcement to the effect that it was Saudi America that paid Nigerian government to crackdown on Shia community. Up to this moment the Federal government is yet to deny Bin Salaman’s claim. So silent is a consent. Put differently the federal government will ever remain guilty of being a hired assassin. To think that a “small boy” like Bin Salamn can make Buhari, Elrufai and Burutai to do his dirty bidding is most sad and unfortunate. Yet Buhari wants us to believe that “he belongs to nobody and belongs to everybody”. Little did we know that his conscience is for sale.
Sharifedeen shamelessly lied about those responsible for the murder of the third Caliph. For the author of this article to accuse Shia of killing Othman is for Sharifedeen to shamelessly celebrate his ignorance or display his nature of being a pathological liar. True Islam neither need the services of an ignoramus nor that of a pathological liar for it to shine.
According to a Sunni reference i. e. History of Al-Tabari, English version volume 15 page 184 “...those influential people who were the key element in agitation against Uthman include Talha, Zubair, Aisha (the mother of believers, as a wife of the Holy Prophet), Abdurrahman Ibn Ouf, and Amr Ibn al-Aas (the army commander of Muawiyah)...” This is what authoritative Islamic History sources recorded. If Sharifedeen must cast aspersions against the killers of the third Caliph, Usman bin Affan then, he should know that these are some of the personalities involved. Even though all of them were Prophet’s Companions but none was a Shia. If History went further to record that when the third Caliph was under siege, of all the Prophet’s Companions residing in Madina then, only Imam Ali made serious attempt to defend Usman by sending Imams Hasan and Husain to guard the entrance of Usman’s residence. Those Shia you hate with passion where the ones that came to the defence of Usman at his very hour of need. I would live you to investigate further on how Usman was buried after he was killed. You should equally enquire on why besides Imam Ali and his two sons none of the numerous companions of the Prophet came to the defence of Usman.
The author of this piece also picked offence with Shia for addressing each other as Brother. Well in Surat Al-Tauba, verse 71 Allah (SWT) says: “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another.” To be an ally is to be a friend, a helper, a brother etc. More so, in a book of Hadith called “Riyadhus Salihiyn” under a Chapter “Taaziymi Hurmatul Muslimuyn...” there is a Hadith that says “a Muslim is a Brother to his fellow Muslim”. Such are our reasons from the Holy Quran and Hadith for addressing ourselves as brothers and sisters. Indeed Shia are the real Ahlus Sunnah.
So why should Sharifedeen has problem with Shia Muslims calling one another Brother? This guy wants us to believe that Shia are not Muslims to the extent that even when and where they practice the teachings of Islam for him, that is an additional proof of them not being Muslims. Well there is a saying in Hausa: “idan aka qiy ka, idan ka fada ruwa sai a ce ka tayar da quura”.
Sharifedeen claimed that Sheikh in the 80s “told everyone that he is not Shia”. I challenge him to bring a written or oral document to this effect. You can’t because there was and still there isn’t any. “Indeed, those who [falsely] accuse chaste, unaware and believing (men and) women are cursed in this world and the Hereafter; and they will have a great punishment” (Suratun Nur: verse 23).
Issues of tariqa and mazhab is never a problem to Sheikh Zakzaky. His major occupation is Islam and nothing but Islam. If what you see Sheikh Zakzaky doing looks like Shiism, to Sheikh Zakzaky he does so because it is Islam. Period! It is those that wear the spectacle of division that sees every thing and all things from Shia-Sunna prism. Whatever we are convinced is Islam we strive to practice it whether it looks Shia or Sunna or whatever to the onlooker. That is the onlookers’ problem. Not ours. And he who ask for proof we give many to the extent that he is left with no option but to be convinced or reject our proofs not with a superior argument but with the garb of prejudice and blind followership.
Sharifedeen claimed that one of the ways being used to attract people to Shia is by “legalising temporary marriage”. Indeed when hatred is mixed with prejudice and compound ignorance the end product can’t be anything but balderdash. Temporary marriage is not legalised by Sheikh Zakzaky or any Shia personality. It is legal according the Holy Quran and Hadith of the Prophet.
Jabir Ibn Abdullah and Salama Ibn al-Akwa’ narrated: There came to us the proclaimer of Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) and said: "Allah’s Messenger has granted you to benefit yourself (Istamta’u), i.e., to contract temporary marriage with women."
‎إنَّ رسول الله قد أذِنَ لكم أن تستمتعوا. يعني متعة النساء.
Sunni references:
• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3246
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Published in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1022, Tradition #13, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut’a"
Moreover al-Bukhari narrated from another companion of the Prophet (S) the following tradition:
Narrated ‘Imran bin Husayn:
"The Verse of Mut’a was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we did it at the time of Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."
(Note: For the above Hadith, the Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari (Muhammad Muhsin Khan) has changed the word "Mut’a”to "Hajj-at-Tamatu". This is while in the Arabic text of the Hadith of al-Bukhari which is beside the English text, the word "Mut’a”has been used alone:)
‎نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله
Sunni references:
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v6, Hadith #43
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v2, p375, v6, p34
• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p436 on the authority of ‘Imran Ibn al-Qasir.
Sharifideen should know that believing in the “halalbility” of something does not necessarily suggest engaging in it. All Muslims believed polygamy is halal, but not all Muslims practice polygamy.
In his desperate attempt to “deregister” Shia from Islam he made reference to Quran 48:29 as a proof that Shia, even if they are muslim must have seized to be, because they do insult the Companions of the Prophet. The English translation of the verses are: “Muĥammad, the Messenger of Allaah, and those with him are stern and unyielding against the (belligerent) disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating (in worship), seeking bounty from Allaah and His pleasure. Their distinguishing mark is on their faces, because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like crop that brings out its shoot, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stalk, delighting the farmers, so that He may enrage the disbelievers on account of them. Allaah has promised those among them who believe and perform righteous deeds forgiveness and an immense reward.”
I left the reader to find out how this verse issued a verdict to effect that whoever insult a Companions of the Holy Prophet is Kafir. This does not mean we encourage insulting anyone much less the Companions of the Prophet.
Let’s for a moment assumed that whoever insults Companions of the Prophet is a Kafir. Then what would Sharifedeen says about Muawiya son of AbuSufyan that insults Imam Ali bin AbiyTaliy and even killed those that refused to insult Imam Ali. Muhammad ibn Abubakar, the Son of the first Caliph was wrapped in camels skin and left to die in the scotching sun of the arabian desert for refusing to insult Ali ibn AbiyTãlyb. If Muawiya remains a Muslim and a companion of the Prophet in spite of him insulting another companion of the Prophet and even killing those that refused to do so, then that tells you one can not be a Kafir because he insults a Companion of the Prophet. And if Muawiya becomes a kafir for insulting Ali bin Abiytalib then in the same logic Sharifedeen is guilty of calling a companion of the Prophet, Muawiya a kafir. And I can’t think of any worst form of insult beyond calling a companion of the Prophet a kafir. Sharifedeen should please resolve this puzzled.
To an average Sunni muslim all companions are trusted and blessed. To Shia, Companions are at least of three categories as indicated by the Glorious Quran in Sura Al-Tawba, verse 100,101 and 102:
“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.” - first category
“And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment.” - second category
“And [there are] others who have acknowledged their sins. They had mixed a righteous deed with another that was bad. Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” - third category
These verses clearly indicates that the companions of the Prophet are not equal in status. There are the good ones, better ones, best ones on one hand, and there are the bad and the ugly on the other. Let Sharifideen read these three verse and still accuse us of insulting the companions of the Prophet even as Allah curse the second category in Suratul Munafiquun where he says: “They are the enemy, so beware of them. May Allah destroy them...” (Surat Munafiquun,verse4).
If Sharifedeen indeed read verse 107 of Surat Al-Tawba he quoted it is evidently clear the venom in his mind could not allow him to understand the “tanzil” and the “taawil” of the verses. That verse condemned in strongest term an act of sedition some companions of the Prophet did engaged in. So the verse is not full of praises to anybody anywhere.
To lend credence to his guilty verdict against Shia Sharifedeen quoted alot of verses from the Holy Quran out of context. Often a times he states a reference in such a manners suggestive of his crude and queer narrative is indeed what these verses mean. I wish this chap understands and appreciates the gravity of lying to the Almighty Allah or his holy Prophet simply because he is eager to deregister some muslims out of Islam. The bad news to any hunting dog of the criminal enterprise of Zionism together with Wahhabi Takfiristic ideology is this verse 32 of Surat Al-Tawba : “They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.”
In saying that most of the followers of dujjal will be Shia this clown made me laugh at his desperation. Shia remain the touch bearers and the defenders of Islam right from the time of the Holy Prophet. The first of its leader is none but Imam Ali ibn AbiyTalib. A person that was born inside Kaaba and killed at the point of sujuud in fajr prayer. A person that remained with the Holy Prophet in the battle that others flee like Usain Bolt. A noble personality that challenged Amr ibn Abdulwuud to a duel when NONE could take up the challenge at the battle of trench.
Compare Iran with its Shia identity and contrast that with Saudi America with its Wahhabi identity vis a vis the enemies of Islam and see where the real defenders of this noble religion belong. Sharifedeen should get real and have some education.
I can go on and on. But that will be at the risk of making the rejoinder unusually too long to be read at a glance; thereby defeating the primary aim of the rejoinder. I will therefore conclude by urging any sincere and truly right seeking person to extensively read books of Islamic history of his choice and then judge for himself. Additionally one may get to understand Shia better by searching and downloading these books from the internet free of charge:
0. The Right Path
0. Peshawar Nights
0. Then I was Guided
0. Ask those Who Know
0. Our Philosophy
0. Our Economy
0. Our Society
0. Man and the Universe
0. God and His Attributes
www.al-islam.org is a Shia website that answers all questions about Shiism. With the advent of AlwilayaTV and HadiTV one can only be an uninformed by choice. I do pray that Allah accepts this as “...as a reminder for those who fear [Him] -” (Surat Taha, verse3); “ a reminder so that a conscious mind would be pay attention” (Surat Al-Haaqat, verse 12); “Indeed, this is a reminder, so whoever wills may accept it as a way to salvation.” (Surat Al-Muzammil, verse 19).

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 June 2018 13:09