http://books.google.com/books?id=3uJzjatjTL4C&pg=PR21#v=onepage&q

You have said.

Listen! All of those who are considering Zia ul Haq as main Culprit..Why u ppl are silent about Yahya ans Iskindar Mirza..Both were Shia and responsible for disintegration of Pakistan.

This is classic example and clear evidence of Shias Hypocracy..

Though i disagree the Zia Ul haq took over in his Coup de tate,i am agaisnt Dictatorship.But i dont like when Shias blame his fault cause he was SUNNI and forget what the Tyrant Iskindar miraza and Yahya Khan were????Actually the dont forget but deliberatly ignore.They say they were dictators but no problem cause they were SHIAS….LOL..SHIAS BIG TIME HYPOCRATES.

As Hazrat Jafar Sadiq[r.a] Shias claim to be their 6th infallible Imam have said that [ No verse in Quran have reaveled about Hypocrates except only for those who claims to be SHIAS](Rajal Kasi)This hadis has been declared Saheeh by Majlisi in his Martul Uqal and by Shaykh Mufid in Kitab Al-Irshad,one of the two Grand Shias Scholars.

You have said.
Wahabis are true Mulims unlike you bralvis who bow before graves..gussshhh!!

I say..
May Allah Guide us all and eliminate any innovations if we have in Muslim Ummah.Unity of Muslim Ummah is very very Important and need of the Hour.
May Allah Keep us on the way of Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] His Family and Compionions and his Rightly Guided Chaliphas and all those who have followed them.Amin

I say.
May Allah curse be upon liers.

Readers look at lies of this Hypocrate Syed Shah

Dr Tahir ul Qadri about the Imamat of Abu Bakr Saqid[RA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz91C5WoPrA

Dr Tahir ul Qadri about Umer Farooq[r.a]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWF3pLXBKNU&feature=related

Dr Tahir ul Qadri dismissing Shias claim

DID THE PROPHET (PBUH) CHOSE SOMEONE TO BE CALIPH?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUJcvZ4ZuTg&feature=related

Zikr In Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani[r.a] Mosque – Baghdad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYpIjA8Xgww

Last knel in Yours Claim Cofen.

How Dr Tahir ul Qadri works for Sunniyat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4d9Pk_gMjk

Friday Sermon, Abd Al-Kadr al-Kilani Mosque, Baghdad, Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBNPStCb6Uo&feature=related

Qadiyanis are far better then Shias in this regard
Listen to Mirza Tahir ahemed,Supreme leader of Qadiyanis.lolololol

Alleged Appointment of Hadhrat Ali as the First Khalifa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I41tn6WJtmM&feature=related

You have said….
but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

Yours forefathers must be great saints????
End of the day they have Millions SUNNIS MOREED…ISNT THIS WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?

Like me the READERS must want to know yours Forefathers Name and Pedegree……..ANY REFENCE Please quote that they[yours forefathers] misguiding the Muslims.Millions SUNNIS MOREED………..lol

Is not the Shia anger over the word “delirious” a bit pretentious when we find that Ali’s own progeny, one of the Ahlel Bayt, says that their first Infallible Imam “has lost his senses?” It is clear from this narration that the meaning behind these words was that Abdullah had thought that his father had gone crazy; Abdullah thought that Ali was making an absurd and nonsensical request.

The Shia believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib was infallible just as the Prophet was; as such, should they not create an outcry over one of Ali’s own sons asking if he had lost his senses? Why do the Shia excuse Ali’s son, Abdullah, but then they spit their venom at Umar ibn al-Khattab for supposedly saying something similar? In fact, the words “is he delirious” are much less offensive than “he has lost his senses.” It should be remembered that the Shia have a very high opinion of Abdullah who is the son of their Infallible Imam; therefore, whatever excuse they come up for Abdullah for what he said, then surely the same excuse can be applied to the man who wondered if the Prophet was delirious.

The perceptive Readers should note that the Sunnis never bring up this Shia Hadith to malign Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him). It is not in the nature of the Ahlus Sunnah to backbite and slander, especially not the great heroes of Islam. And yet if this same narration was in reference to Umar instead of Abdullah, then we would find the Shia using it as some sort of “proof” against Umar! We would find the Shia propagandists poking at us with sticks and asking quizzically: “What did Umar mean by saying that ‘he lost his senses?’” Such is the double-standard of the Shia. This is the two-faced nature of the disingenuous Shia, a people who specialize in being partisan and biased.

The Shia propagandists claim that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper so that he could write his will in which he would supposedly appoint Ali as his successor. They accuse Umar of preventing the Prophet from doing that.

If the Prophet was really going to write a will appointing Ali as his successor, then why didn’t the Prophet do that before his death? The event of the pen and paper happened on a Thursday, whereas the Prophet died on a Monday. The Prophet had more than three days to write such a will, and yet he did no such thing; no Sunni or Shia source indicates that the Prophet wrote this will in the three days after the event of Thursday. The Shia claim that Umar prevented the Prophet from writing about Ali in his will, so we wish to ask: was Umar ibn al-Khattab with the Prophet 24/7 for three days straight? Of course not. We know that this is not the case, and even Shia narratives tell about how Ali and a few close family members were with the Prophet alone in his final days. And yet, the Prophet did not write any such document in his last three days.

What prevented the Prophet from writing this will to Ali during those three days after the event of Thursday? What is interesting–and a point that negates the Shia claims completely–is that Ali himself never claimed that the Prophet was writing a will for him. No reliable Sunni or Shia account exists in which Ali ever mentions the “event of Thursday” as a proof for his Caliphate. Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr as well as the Caliphate of Uthman, and in both instances he and his advocates brought forth certain proofs as to why he (Ali) should be the Caliph over them (i.e. Abu Bakr and Uthman). And yet, never did Ali mention the incident of the pen and paper; surely if it is as the Shia claim it was, then Ali and his party would have mentioned that day of Thursday as a strong proof for Ali’s claim to the Caliphate, and yet the Hadith and historical literature is devoid of any such references in the lifetime of Ali.

The truth of the matter is that the Prophet did not say what it was that he wished to write on that day, and nobody knows what it was, so why and how do the Shia claim that they know what it was? The matter is part of al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knowledge of which is denied to humanity, so whoever claims to know with certainty what that information was can only be a liar and/or fool. Today, we see how the Shia claim that the matter was the appointment of Ali, and yet how can they know what the matter was when the Prophet never mentioned it, nor did Ali, Abbas, Ibn Abbas, Hasan, or Hussain ever claim to know what it was.

If Ali knew that the Prophet wrote a will in his favor, then why did he not use this as a proof for his Caliphate? When Ali contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman, he (Ali) brought forth many proofs to bolster his claims against the two, and yet never did he mention any will to be written in his name. We find that the Shia narrative is based on pure guesswork: what basis do they have to claim that it was the appointment of Ali? Why couldn’t we claim that that the Prophet wanted to write down something else such as the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power) or even the appointment of Abu Bakr? If the Shia insist that the Prophet was going to write his will in favor of Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that in actuality it was for Abu Bakr? There is no proof either way. If the Shia bring up proofs, then we too have our proofs, such as the nomination of Imam Abu Bakr as Imam of the prayers!

Readers Please read this………

What prevented Ali from giving the Prophet a pen and paper in the last three days of his life? The Prophet had the entire rest of Thursday to write that will, as well as the next day (Friday), the next day after that (Saturday), and the day after that (Sunday). And yet, where is that mysterious will? Why didn’t the Prophet write it? Let us assume that the Prophet wished to write a will in favor of Ali so that the people would never be misguided about that. Then wouldn’t the Prophet be misguiding the people by not writing that will? A written will in favor of Ali would have ended all debate on the issue of Caliphate and served as a strong proof for Ali’s Imamah, and yet we find that no such will was ever written, so who should the Shia blame other than the Prophet for not writing that will? If the duty was placed on the Prophet’s shoulders to will the leadership to Ali, then it was the Prophet who failed to do that, and it was Ali who failed to beseech the Prophet to write that will in the last three days of his life. Indeed, the Prophet gave much advice in those three days, and he advised many things on those three days–even up until his last breath–yet the Prophet never returned to talk about the matter of Thursday. Why not?

Why Didn’t the Prophet Write the Document?

The idea that the Prophet didn’t write the document because the Sahabah prevented him is false; nobody could prevent the Prophet from delivering his Message. Instead, the reason the Prophet did not write the document was that the people were bickering amongst themselves and because of that, Allah removed the Baraqah (blessing) from that. This is similar to what happened when the Prophet was about to inform the people about the date of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power). We read:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 32, Number 240:

Narrated Ubada bin As-Samit:

The Prophet came out to inform us about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but two Muslims were quarreling with each other. So, the Prophet said, “I came out to inform you about the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) but such-and-such persons were quarreling, so the news about it had been taken away; yet that might be for your own good, so search for it on the 29th, 27th and 25th (of Ramadan).”

It should be remembered that the date of Laylat al-Qadr is considered something that would have led Muslims into Paradise, and the knowledge of that would have saved many people from Hell-Fire. Imam Malik said:

Allah’s Messenger looked back at the previous communities and saw that his community lived for a much shorter period in comparison to them. He was concerned about how his community would be able to gain as many rewards as those of the previous communities. So when Allah the Exalted saw the concerns in the heart of His Beloved, then he (the Messenger) was given Laylat al-Qadr, which is more virtuous than a thousand months.”

(Muwatta of Imam Malik)

An entire chapter of the Quran is entitled “Al-Qadr”, in which Allah says:

“We have indeed revealed this (Message) on the Night of Power. And what will explain to you what the Night of Power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.”

(Quran, 97:1-3)

The Prophet said:

“Whoever stood in prayer on Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Power), in faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, he will have all of his previous sins forgiven.”

(Narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

The Prophet said:

“In it (the holy month) is a night better than a thousand months; whoever loses the benefits of it has lost something irreplaceable.”

(Narrated by Imam Ahmad and An-Nasaa’i)

So we see that this matter is very similar to the issue that the Prophet wished to write down on the event of Thursday. The words “whoever loses the benefits of it has lost something irreplaceable” are similar to the words “after which you will never go astray.” And yet, in both instances, Allah withdrew the knowledge from the people. When the Prophet saw two people bickering, Allah withdrew the knowledge of Laylat al-Qadr because by that time, the Baraqah (blessing) in that knowledge had passed. Similarly, during the incident of the pen and paper, the time for that knowledge had passed and the Baraqah (blessing) had been removed from it. Because of that, the Prophet did not write for them the document.

It should be noted that–like the date of Laylat al-Qadr–the denial of this knowledge “might be for your own good”, and this is based on our understanding that Allah does all things for the betterment of humanity. When Prophet Adam violated Allah’s Command by nearing the tree, Allah banished him and his wife from Paradise. The Christians argue that this was a punishment from God, and yet this is not an Islamic belief; Muslims believe that Allah forgave Prophet Adam and his wife, and that the banishment from Paradise was not a punishment but a necessary chain of events through which Allah wished to enact His Divine Plan. In the longterm, the banishment of Prophet Adam from Paradise was a mercy upon him and was for his own betterment.

Ibn Kathir says:

Some people believe that the reason why mankind does not dwell in Paradise is that Adam was disobedient and that if it had not been for this sin, we could have been there all along. These are naive fictions because when Allah wanted to create Adam, He said to the angels, “I shall make a vicegerent on the earth.” He did not say, “I shall make a vicegerent in Paradise.”

Adam’s descent on earth, then, was not due to degradation but rather it was dignified descent. Allah knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree and descend to earth. He knew that Satan would rape their innocence. That experience was essential for their life on earth; it was a cornerstone of their vicegerency. It was meant to teach Adam, Eve, and their progeny that it was Satan who had caused them to be expelled from Paradise and that the road to Paradise can only be reached by obedience to Allah and enmity to Satan.

(Qisas al-Ambiya, Ibn Kathir)

Playing the Shia Game

On what basis do the Shia say that the Prophet wished to write about Ali in his will? If the Shia were to claim that, then we Sunnis could easily claim that it was actually Abu Bakr that the Prophet wished to appoint on that day. How easy is that! In fact, Imam Nawawi states in his Sharh that Sufyan ibn Uyana said that some of the people of knowledge stated that the Prophet intended to appoint Abu Bakr as the Caliph. And then Imam Nawawi states that the Prophet chose to withdrew this knowledge because Allah’s decree would be fulfilled in a better way. If the Prophet had appointed Abu Bakr as Caliph over the Muslims, then the masses would have felt that this was an act of tyranny, as the Arabs of that time were used to nominating their own leader through mutual consultation and popular sovereignty. Therefore, argued some scholars, the withdrawal of the knowledge of Abu Bakr’s appointment was for the benefit of the people, so that they would nominate their own leader themselves as is more just.

If the Shia claim that the document was about Ali, then what prevents us from claiming that it was for Abu Bakr? And we have greater proof, because after this incident, it was Abu Bakr–not Ali–who was nominated by the Prophet as Imam of the prayers. And we know that it was Umar who began to lead the prayers, when the Prophet stopped him from that, in order that he (the Prophet) could nominate Abu Bakr alone to do that. So if the Shia would like to paint the fictitious story that Umar was preventing the nomination of Ali, then why couldn’t another person claim that Umar was preventing the nomination of Abu Bakr? The truth of the matter is that one can claim just about anything. We read in Imam Nawawi’s Sharh:

Qadhi Iyad said: Bakr, the nephew of Abdul Wahid, differed and claimed that he (the Prophet) specified Abu Bakr, and Ibn Al-Rawandi said that he specified Abbas, Shia and Rafidhis said he specified Ali; and these are (all) false claims! (These claims are) impudent forger[ies], and (to say such things is) an audacious obstinacy against the senses…Neither Ali, nor Abbas, nor Abu Bakr claimed that there was a will (i.e from the Prophet regarding one of them being a successor) at any point in time. Ali and Abbas have agreed upon all of this (i.e. that there was no will) without any obstacle preventing them from mentioning the will had it existed…Had it happened (i.e. any of the Sahabah claiming a will), it (such a thing) would have been reported, for it is one of the important matters.

(Sharh of Imam Nawawi)

Ali Himself Did Not Know

Tabari writes what happened after the incident of the pen and paper:

Ali ibn Abi Talib went out from the Messenger of Allah during his illness in which he died. The people asked him: “O Abu Hasan, how did the Messenger of Allah wake up?”

“By the Grace of Allah he woke up [and he had] recovered [from his illness]”, he replied.

Al-Abbas held him by his hand and said: “Don’t you see that in three days you will be an ‘abd al-’asa [i.e. a lowly despicable person]? It seems to me that the Messenger of Allah will die from this sickness of his, for I know how the faces of Abdul Muttalib’s sons look at the time of death. So return to the Messenger of Allah, and ask him who will get this authority (i.e. the Caliphate). If it is to be with us, we shall come to know that (from him); if it is to be with others, he will command accordingly and entrust (that person) with us.”

Ali replied: “By Allah, if we asked the Messenger of Allah and he denied it to us, the people will never give it to us. By Allah, I will never ask the Messenger of Allah.”

(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.175-176)

The Shia narrative is that the Prophet appointed Ali at Ghadir Khumm, so therefore if we accept this, then there should be no doubt at all in the minds of Ali or Abbas as to who the Caliphate would be entrusted to. It is perplexing then that three days before the Prophet’s death, Ali and Abbas are not sure who the Prophet will appoint. Perhaps the Shia will not accept the narration from Tabari as a proof, but this same incident–of Abbas asking the Prophet who will get the Caliphate–is narrated by Shaykh Mufid in Kitab Al-Irshad:

“If this matter [of leadership] is to be given to us after you, then tell us,” Al-Abbas asked him. “If you (O Prophet) know that we are to be overcome, then give us the decision.”

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131)

You have said……….
By the way, you will be surprised to hear that Qadri and Geelani’s are 100% shia but…but..
the reason I am saying this because our family is not only Qadri but also we have millions of sunni
MOREEDS, who come to our forefathers tomb and pray……………………

I say,
Who the hell you can say that Qadri Geelani are 100% Shias………..Bulshit……….

Sheikh Abdul Qadr Geelani[r.a] has given Historic Fatwa in his famous book [Ghaniba Taybian]
he has said[No doubt SHIAS[RAFADIS] are out of the fold of Islam]
So you must be in truma about this Comments or Fatwa on you…………You say shia.

He was a Imam Ahemed bin Hambal[r.a] fallower,Qaderia Salsala strated from himmmmmmmmmm.
Sheikh ul Islam Tahir Ul Qadiri is Shia?lololololol
Qadria,Chestia,Naqashbandia,Sarwardia are all Sunni Taraqat…..Jealousy Chimpenzeee
You ignorant misguided Rafadi,who proudly,cleverly under the Taqiya you are talking about unity and on other side you blaming Muslims[Imams] to be disobdient,Munafiq,shias…………You are just using Islam Name,You are not Muslim…………
As the 8 Infallaible Imam,Imam Reza[r.a] have said about you[shias] that In matter of fact who claims to be our shias are APOSTATES.[Rajal Kashi] Many more Fatwas on you[SHIAS] from yours own Imams,read my early coments above.

You have Said..
I have never seen any shia calling any other muslim “Kafir” but I have seen sunni calling shia “kafir” brailvi calling deobandi “kafir” etc.etc…

I say Lanutullah Kazabian.

Syed Shah how long you will deceive yourself and others?????????

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Islam, what I am going to show you is the truth about what the Shi’ites think of us Sunni Muslims. The Shi’ites may tell you that we are the same and that they love us but beware because the Shi’ites also believe that it is okay and that they will get lots of reward for lying to Sunni Muslims about what they beleive in….Below is the truth that the Shi’ites tried to hide from us for so long, it exposes the pure hatred that they hold against the Sunni Muslims. (the Shi’ites practise Taqayyah which means to conceal or lie about their beleifs)

Mohammad bin Al-hassan Toosi reports on the authority of Ishhaq bin Ammar, that Abu Abdullah said “The wealth, the property and everything which belongs to a Sunni is actually yours (is legal for you)” (Tahzib-ul Ahkam, Vol. 2 Kitabul Makasib, p. 116, published in Iran) above in this Shi’ites book it states that all Shi’ites can steal from any Sunni Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with that.

Moallah Khonas reported that Abdullah said “snatch the possessions of a Sunni whereever you find it and hand over my share (ie. One fifth) to me” (Tahzib ul Ahkam). Brothers and Sisters in Islam these Shi’ites think that they can steal our possessions and who knows what else they would like to do to us Sunni Muslims!

The Shi’ites say this regarding Sunni Muslims “Although Allah, the Exalted, has not created a creature worse than a dog, yet a Nasbi (ie. A Sunni) is worse than even a dog.” (Haqqul Yakeen (Persian) Vol 2, P. 516) Here the Shi’ites have said that Sunni Muslims are worse than Dogs!

The Shi’ites say that we will never go to Paradise! “It is contained in several sources of information that they, (the assumed Imams of Shias) said: ‘Should every angel that Allah, the Exalted and Gracious, has created, every prophet that Allah has appointed, every truthfull martyr, (collectively) pray to Allah, the Exalted and Gracious, to release a Nasbi (a Sunni) from the Hell, Allah would never release him.” (Haqqul-Yaqeen, (Arabic), Vol. 2 P. 192) This is what the Shi’ites realy think about us!!! They say that if anyone who is a Sunni Muslim will go to Hell!!! Don’t these Shi’ites know what they are saying??

This is what the Shi’ites say will happen when their so-called Imams will return “When Qaem alaihissalam appears, he will start slaughtering Sunnis and their Ulema before slaughtering the infidels (kuffar).” (By the term “Quem” the Shi’ites mean Imam Mahdi, their twelveth Imam) So here the Shi’ites state that we are not Muslims, and that we are worse than the infidels (kuffar)

So dear Brothers and Sisters, how can the Shi’ites expect us to be friends with them when they Insult us and call us Kauffar behind our backs. So when a Shi’ite Insults a Sunni he is also Insulting all the Scholars and all of those pious people in Islam, can’t these Shi’ites see what is wrong with their own beleifs???
May Allah Guide the Shi’ites to the True Islam, and May Allah show us what the Shi’ites really are, Ameen.

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_sunni.htm

What is this???????i leave on you and Readers.

You must be 12rs?What do you call Zaidias shias?Ismailies?Alvis?Nuasaries?Boharas?Kohjas?Tafazlia?mukhtaria?Hussiania?Druze?Ghalis Shias?Guberia?Nazeris?Aghakhanis?
Come with striaght answer otherwise i know what Rafadies say about them ok?
This is the Ijma of 12rs Ulema that beside themselves no one is Muslim.[AL Itajjaj,Tabaris.V3 pp34]Bahar ul Anwar v41 Pp181]

Syed Shah
Though there is Faqi [Jurisprudence differances] between Baralvi and Deobandi,some of the extermist call annovator and likewise,but not kafar.
For yours information there is no such Ijma of the Ulema among Deobandis or Baralvis as you have.
Both are Hanafi Muslims fallowers of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa[r.a]…..got it……….?

You said …
Hazrat umar, yelling on Mohammad(s.a.w) and also another 2nd hadith
he was saying(ma az Allah)Mohammad(s.a.w)is saying b.s. Yes! it is clearly mentioned in Bokhari, \muslim, and Tirmzi.

I say.
that this is Shias old crude question on Sunnis even you know the answer,it was all out of love for Prophet Mohammad[s.a.w] but you try to misguide Muslims now listen

The Shia propagandists make a big fuss over the so-called “incident of the pen and paper” or what they ominously refer to as “Black Thursday”. The Shia exaggerate about the Hadiths on this topic, and use them as some sort of proof against Umar ibn al-Khattab. However, the truth of the matter is that these claims are nothing but the melodramatic antics of the Ghullat gossipers who seek to make a mountain out of an anthill.

The Prophet’s last illness before his final departure from this world lasted around two weeks. During this time, the Prophet’s condition gradually deteriorated and he became bedridden. He experienced a high grade fever, severe headaches, and even fainting spells, slipping into and out of consciousness. The so-called “incident of the pen and paper” occurred four days before the Prophet’s death, on a Thursday.

The Prophet asked for a pen and paper in order to write down some religious advice for the Muslims. However, immediately after asking for the pen and paper, the Prophet fainted and became unconscious. While the Prophet lay unconscious, a man got up to get the pen and paper, but Umar ibn al-Khattab called him away from doing that. Umar felt that they should not bother the Prophet by asking him to write down religious advice, but rather they should allow the Prophet to regain consciousness, get some rest, and recuperate. Therefore, Umar said to the other Muslims: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”

Umar ibn al-Khattab thought–and rightfully so–that the request for a pen and paper no longer applied now that the Prophet had fainted. Instead of getting the pen and paper, Umar felt that they should allow the Prophet to rest.

It is amazing how much drama the Shia propagandists can create, and how easily they can misguide people. The explanation to this event is so simple and straightforward that it is very strange that the Shia do not understand this! All that we must do is ask the Shia to correlate the event to their own lives, which more often than not makes impotent their arguments. Ask a Shia for example if he would tolerate a man cursing his wife, and he would say no; then we wonder why they themselves curse the wife of the Prophet! Likewise, when it comes to the incident of the pen and paper, we ask them to correlate the event to their own lives.

Let us consider the following scenario: a teacher is giving a lesson to his student, and he asks his student to bring a piece of chalk to write with on the chalkboard. But then the teacher faints and collapses. Now tell us: is the student going to walk outside the room to find the piece of chalk? Would any sane person do that? Instead, the student would quickly rush to the teacher’s side, try to resuscitate him, bring him a pillow, raise his legs, etc. Now, when the teacher regains consciousness, would the student immediately thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand and say “teach us!” Surely not! Instead, the school nurse would be rushed into the room, the teacher would be transported to the medical unit, and the teacher would be given a medical leave for the day in order to rest. Even if the teacher insisted that he was feeling better and that he could resume the lesson, the others would convince the teacher that he should take the day off and rest instead.

Now then, let us say that one of the students in the classroom is worried about his exam the next day, so he tries to thrust the chalk into the teacher’s hand as soon as the teacher is regaining consciousness. What would the other students say to such a student, other than get angry at him and tell him to stop worrying about his own self but rather worry about the condition of the teacher? The students would tell him not to worry about the lesson and that “the textbook would be sufficient for us to study from for the exam.”

Can anyone imagine a teacher fainting, then regaining consciousness, and immediately writing on the chalkboard with a piece of chalk? Tullaab al-ilm (students of knowledge) do not even approach their Shuyookh (scholars) when they (the Shuyookh) are tired or sleepy, as this is considered rude to pester them at such a time. Even if the Shaykh insists on teaching, the student will say out of courtesy that “you should rest, Shaykh, and we can do the lesson tomorrow.” This is common etiquette; now imagine the situation when a Shaykh would be lying on the bed unconscious; would any student ask him to give a religious lesson in such a condition?

After the Prophet asked for the pen and paper, he immediately fainted and it is then that Umar told the people not to get those things as the Prophet was in great pain. It would be, in Umar’s opinion , criminal to pester the Prophet in such a situation. The people were exhorting the Prophet for advice even as he was in between fainting spells. Any doctor alive today would say that if a patient is in and out of consciousness, then such a patient should be stabilized first and under no circumstances should the patient be making speeches, straining himself, or taking stress of any kind; such a patient should rest.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s final illness lasted eleven days during which he was hospitalized. His Shia followers emptied out his hospital room and did not trouble him with the concerns of the state. No man was allowed to disturb him or pester him, even though the political situation at the time very much required the input of the country’s leader. How is it then that the Shia would like their Ayatollah Khomeini to be treated with more courtesy than the Prophet of Allah? Surely the Prophet is superior to any Prophet leave aside Ayatollah, and if the Ayatollah should not be disturbed during his final illness, then surely we are even more cautious with the Prophet of Allah.

To give a simple everyday example, if a man asks his son to give him the T.V. remote, but has a heart attack immediately after saying that, then the son would think that the heart attack takes precedence over and cancels the request for the remote. Instead of giving the remote, the son would rush to his father’s side. Common sense dictates that the Prophet’s request for the pen and paper does not apply any more, as the fact that he fainted takes precedence over that request. If the Prophet was in good health, and asked for a pen and paper but the people refused him, then that situation would be different. But here, the Prophet fainted after his request and that changed the situation altogether.

This is such a straightforward matter that it sometimes boggles the mind how the Shia can create so much outcry over this so-called “incident” of the pen and paper. Anyone who was in Umar ibn al-Khattab’s shoes would have said the same thing as he did, evidenced by the many everyday examples i have cited above.

Umar ibn al-Khattab was the Prophet’s father-in-law, and as such, he too was very worried about the Prophet’s health and wellbeing, more so than the Prophet was worried about himself. In his final few days, the Prophet was having a difficult time talking, for it caused a great deal of pain to do that. We read:

When the Apostle’s illness became severe, he (i.e. a Sahabi) and the men came down to Medinah and he went into the Apostle(’s house) who was unable to speak. He (the Prophet) began to lift his hand towards heaven and then bring it down upon him, from which he (the Sahabi) knew that he (the Prophet) was blessing him (the Sahabi).

(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.680)

The perceptive reader should consider that on Thursday the Prophet was in more intense pain than ever before, and it is likely that the Prophet asked for a pen and paper because he was having a hard time speaking loudly and instead he wished to softly dictate what to write to the people closest to him so that they could convey the written message to the others. We see that it was at this point in time that the Prophet was having unbearable pain and could not talk without unbearable discomfort; it was for this reason that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished that the Prophet would not talk as it would cause him unnecessary pain. This was a sign of love and affection, not of rebellion or opposition.

The Prophet Fainted According to Shia Sources

The point that most Shia propagandists never wish to mention is the fact that the Prophet fainted immediately after making his request. Perhaps some of them would try to deny this, but we find that it is written in their own books. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:

He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow which possessed him.

He remained unconscious for a short time while the Muslims wept and his wives and the women and the children of the Muslims and all of those present raised great cries of lamentation. The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”

Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.

“Go back,” Umar ordered him.

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)

Syed Shah u must be shocked to know that?????

Umar Did Not Dispute With the Prophet But Ali did.

When the Prophet asked Ali (may Allah be well-pleased with him) to erase something during the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, Ali refused to do so and disputed with the Prophet about that.But we beleive Ali did it out of his love for Prophet.[s.a.w] On the other hand, Umar did not dispute with the Prophet: when Umar said what he said, the Prophet was actually unconscious. It was the other Sahabah that Umar was addressing when he said: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Quran; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.”

Umar felt–and we agree with him on this–that the Prophet’s request was no longer applicable due to the fact that the Prophet fell unconscious. This is not a matter of disobedience but rather it is simply Umar’s Ijtihad that the request was no longer applicable in this new situation (i.e. the Prophet was now unconscious). Furthermore, Umar’s position was based out of his deep love for the Prophet, as Umar hated to see him in pain and distress.
Omer said that He[s.a.w] is delirious” that the Shia propagandist will use against the Ahlus Sunnah. Before we decide who said those words, let us be clear what was meant by the words “is he delirious?” Some of the Shia get overly emotional over the word “delirious”; in actuality, the meaning of the word “delirium” is simply “disturbance of consciousness”
In fact, delirium does not have a psychiatric etiology, but rather it is classified as an “organic” or “physiological” condition. One of the commonest causes of such a disturbance of consciousness is a high grade fever. Patients who suffer from high grade fevers will oftentimes have clouding of consciousness, and this is what is known as delirium, irrespective of any other associations that may or may not be present. In other words, the one who is in a state of delirium is not considered a lunatic or a psychiatric nut, but rather a patient suffering from a severe medical condition of a biological–not psychiatric–origin.

If we look at the definition of the word used in the Hadith, we find:

hajara; yahjuru; hajran; hijranan; ahjara :- To desert, forsake, leave, renounce, abandon

tahajara; ihtajara :- To depart from one another, separate, or forsake one another; become alienated

(source: Wortabet’s Arabic – English Dictionary)

In other words, the man who asked “is the Prophet delirious” did not mean that the Prophet was talking nonsense or that he had gone crazy. Instead, the man was simply asking if the Prophet was conscious or not, and we know from Shaykh Mufid’s description of the event that the Prophet was unconscious.

The words “is he delirious” appear in Sahih Bukhari, as follows:

…The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, “Fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him (to understand his state).”

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716)

In the above narration, someone asked “is he delirious?” By this, he meant “is he in a state of altered consciousness?” In Sahih Muslim, we read:

The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on Thursday), and he said: “Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that you may not go astray after me.” They (the Companions around him) disputed, and it is not right to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: “How is (Allah’s Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point).”

(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4014)

And once again:

…He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: “Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and ink pot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray.” They said: “Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness.”

(Sahih Muslim, Book 013, Number 4015)

The man who asked this question was simply wondering if the Prophet was conscious or not. He did not mean to imply any disrespect. And that is why the man said “ask him (to understand his state of consciousness)” and “try to learn from him (this point)”. This is a clear proof that the man did not mean that the Prophet was talking nonsense, because if that were the case, then there would be no point in asking the Prophet that. Medical practitioners and psychiatrists say that those who suffer from psychosis (i.e. a break from reality, hallucinations, etc.) do not have “insight” into their illness: they themselves will not admit that they are “crazy”. This is common sense: one does not ask a person who is talking nonsense if they are talking nonsense.

The man said “ask him” and “try to learn from him” which means that he wished for them to see if the Prophet was conscious. In the medical world, doctors routinely use the “Glasgow Coma Scale” (GCS exam) in order to test for the patient’s level of consciousness. The GCS exam is done by asking the patient various questions to see if he responds, and his responses confirm his level of consciousness. In plain English that means that to check if a man is conscious or not, the best thing to do is to ask him if he is OK. In fact, this is the first step of CPR: in order to check if the patient is conscious or not, the first thing that is done is that the person is asked “are you OK?” If he responds, all is well; if not, CPR maneuvers are begun.

To conclude the matter, the Shia should not get overly emotional over the word “delirious”, because all that was meant by this is “consciousness” or lack thereof. And it was Shaykh Mufid himself who said that the Prophet was unconscious during this time. He wrote in his book (emphasis is ours):

He (the Prophet) fainted from the fatigue which had come upon him and the sorrow which possessed him. He remained unconscious for a short time…The Apostle of Allah recovered consciousness and looked at them. Then he said: “Bring me ink and parchment so that I may write for you, after which you will never go astray.”

Again he fainted and one of those present rose to look for ink and parchment.

“Go back,” Umar ordered him. “He is delirious.”

The man went back. Those present regretted the dilatoriness (they had shown) in bringing ink and parchment and rebuked each other. They used to say: “We belong to God and to Him we will return, but we have become anxious about disobedience to the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family.”

When he (the Prophet), peace be on him, recovered consciousness…

(Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.130)

This narration found in one of the Shia’s most reliable books is the end of the debate altogether. Based on this narration above, we find that the order of events was:

1) The Prophet asked for a pen and paper.
2) Next, the Prophet fainted.
3) After that, a man got up to get the pen and paper.
4) Umar ordered him not to. (This Shia book attributes the word “delirious” to Umar but we know this part to be incorrect, as it was someone else who said that.)
5) The statement “he is delirious” is said.
6) The people bickered.
7) Only then did the Prophet recover consciousness.

From this account it becomes clear that the words “is he delirious” were said when the Prophet was unconscious (i.e. before he recovered consciousness)! Does an unconscious person talk? Surely not! This is the coup de grâce to the Shia argument, and so whenever a Shia creates a ruckus about the words “is he delirious”, then we direct him here. If the words “is he delirious” were said while the Prophet was unconscious, then there is no issue of “nonsense talk” as an unconscious person cannot talk let alone talk nonsense. On the other hand, understanding the word “delirium” to be be a disorder in consciousness makes total sense; a man who is slipping into unconsciousness is said to be “departing” (hajara) from the people and this world.

To conclude the matter, the man who asked the question “is he delirious” meant to ask about the Prophet’s level of consciousness, and nothing more. He did not say it in a sarcastic or demeaning tone, but rather he was asking a sincere question. This man cannot be blamed for that any more than the Shia’s own Shaykh Mufid can be, for both of them were indicating that the Prophet had slipped into a state of unconsciousness.

Ali Had Lost His Senses According to the Shia?

The Shia create a very big outcry over the words “is he delirious.” Let us analyze whether or not their indignation is over those words or rather simply over who said them. In the famous Sharh Nahjul Balagha, we read a Shia narration in which Ali ibn Abi Talib was wounded and bleeding; Ali ordered his son, Abdullah, to rub his cheek on the ground (i.e. in order to stop the bleeding). According to the Shia, when Abdullah heard this request, he thought that his father had lost his senses and he refused the request. We read the following Shia narration:

When the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) was wounded, people turned aside from him. He (Ali) was spattered all over with blood and he had not offered his morning prayers (yet). He was told: “Prayer, O Amir al-Mu’mineen!”

He (Ali) raised his head and said: “A person who missed his prayer has no share in Islam!” Then he stood up with a jerk and blood gushed out of the wound. He said: “Give me a piece of cloth.” He wrapped it around the wound, offered his prayer and remembered Allah; then he spoke to his son Abdullah: “O Abdullah, rub my cheek on the ground.”

Abdullah says:

“I did not do it. I thought he had lost his senses! He (Ali) repeated the same thing: ‘My son, rub my cheek on the ground.’ I did not do it again. He (Ali) repeated himself the third time, (saying): ‘Why don’t you rub my cheek on the ground?’ Now I could see that he was in his senses. He himself could not do it out of pain and weakness. I touched his cheek to the ground. I saw the outer hairs of his beard; they were clogged with dust. He cried until the dust gummed onto his eyes.”

(Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn abi al-Hadid)

2)Abu Bakr and Umar are Kaafirs.Haqqul Yaqeen – P552.

3)What did the Zuleikha of Makkah, Bibi Ayesha have, that the 50 year old Nabi (may Peace Be Upon Him) got moved to her.Haqeeat Fiqh Hanafi P64 /Ghulaam Hussain Naqui.

How can be Shias claim to be Muslim while calling the People who are Chief of the Believers and Mother of the Believers Kafar?
No doubt Shias are Compeletly Misguided Shian Dajjal Not Shian Ali[k.u.w]

Lets see what did ALLAH says in Quran about Sahaba.[r.a]
“You are the best of peoples[Compionions of Prophet [s.a.w] ever raised for mankind, you enjoin good and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah.” [3:110]

“And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (the Emigrants from Makkah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madeenah who helped the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [9:100]

Readers know who were the Mahajiroon and Ansar that is Compioninos of Allah Beloved Prophet[s.a.w].

And again Allah AL Mighty say about Sahaba…

“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave their pledge to you (O Muhammad) under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and He sent down calmness and tranquility upon them…” [48:18]

Dear Readers Abu Bakr Sadique[r.a] and Umer Farroq[r.a] were among the shaba who took pledge at hand of Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] and more interestingly that this pledge was taken by
Hazrat Mohammad[s.a.w] TO TAKE REVENGE OF Hazrat USMAN GHANI[r.a]

Allah, The Exalted, most appropriately describes them:

“Muhammad[s.a.] is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him (the Companions) are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their faith) is on their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their) prostration (during prayers).” [48:29]

What a filthy Shias are and their religion,

Readers Shias deliberately,Intentionally ignore and violate Quran.

Lets Reader & Syed Shah see what ALI[R.A] says about Sahaba……In Nahj ULBAGHA….Syed Shah dont be shocked……….

And after Ali scolds his Shia, he brings up an example so they use it as a role model. He did not find any examples but those of the Sahaba (who are apostates in the opinion of Shia)

“I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them (!!!). They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind.” (Those are the one’s whom Kalini claims are Kuffar in Al-Kafi, the most authentic Shia books!) Sermon 34 and some version sermon number mau varies.You may consult about Sermon with yours Ayatullah,Hope Aytullah wont say that Ali was under Taqiya,definately they gonna say that,i say Curse be upon the person and group of person who put lies upon Ali[k.u.w],To Muslims HE was Hyaider and Asad ullah Galib…………………

My Compionions are like stars,whoever you fallow,you will get the salvation[Ayon UL Akhbar,V23,Pp245] it is Shia book You must know it cause you have many MOREEDS including Sunnis.LOL

Actually these Genral Shias and Sunnis doest know the realty about Shiaism otherwise they wont be yours morreds instead they would call you MURTAAD.Walahi……….

You
I have never seen any shia calling any other muslim “Kafir” but I have seen sunni calling shia “kafir” brailvi calling deobandi “kafir” etc.etc…