Imam Al-Baqir (a) said: "Every banner that is raised before the banner of al-Qa'im will be of an oppressive taghut"
Joined March 2018
- Tweets7.2K
- Following182
- Followers377
- Likes12.8K
Pinned Tweet
✨Eid Al-Ghadeer Mubarak✨
To everyone who truly loves the prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Ali (alayhi alsalam).
🧵What is Eid Al-Ghadeer?
📚Eid Al-Ghadeer is the only occasion which identifies who truly loved Ahlulbayt ع (the members of his household) and who were their enemies...
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗹𝗶 (𝗮) 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝘆'𝗮𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗯𝘂 𝗕𝗮𝗸𝗿? — 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗹, 𝗖𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝘆'𝗮𝗵
بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
Before appealing to an alleged handshake as proof that "Imam Ali (a) accepted Abu Bakr's legitimacy," and drowning into historical reports, let's first establish what actually happened. A forced outward action DOES NOT automatically equal inward approval.
What exactly does a forced bay'ah prove? The Quran establishes an important principle: compulsion and genuine conviction are not the same thing.
Allah says:
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
“𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻.” [𝟮:𝟮𝟱𝟲]
And even more explicitly, when describing someone who is forced into an outward statement contrary to what he actually believes, Allah says:
“𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵…” [𝟭𝟲:𝟭𝟬𝟲]
An outward act performed under compulsion does not automatically prove inward approval. So the Sunni argument of “Ali did X, therefore Ali approved of X” is not even a valid Quranic principle and neither does the conclusion follow.
• First prove that the alleged bay'ah was voluntary in the first place.
• Then prove that it represented recognition and approval.
A bay'ah obtained through coercion, threats or force cannot simply be presented as voluntary recognition. A man's hand can be forced; his conviction cannot be manufactured by force.
And what exactly makes a bay'ah meaningful in the first place? Allah says regarding those who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (s):
“𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗵.” [𝟰𝟴:𝟭𝟬]
The Quran therefore does not present bay'ah as some meaningless physical gesture or political handshake. The significance of the pledge comes from the authority of the person to whom the pledge is being made. The believers' allegiance to the Prophet (s) had religious significance because he was the Messenger of Allah (s), possessing authority established by Allah.
So if sunnis want to argue: “Ali's alleged bay'ah proves Abu Bakr was the legitimate successor.” Then the burden is on them to establish why Abu Bakr possessed that legitimate authority in the first place.
Otherwise the argument becomes circular:
“Abu Bakr was legitimate because Ali gave him bay'ah,”
𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻,
“Ali's bay'ah proves Abu Bakr was legitimate.”
That proves nothing.
If a person's hand is physically forced, if he is threatened, seized, dragged, or otherwise compelled, then the physical occurrence of a hand touching another person's hand does not magically transform coercion into genuine political endorsement.
Even inerrant Bukhari records that Imam Ali (a) did not give Abu Bakr the oath of allegiance during the six months following the Prophet's (s) death.
Bukhari's report states that after Sayyida Fatima (a) "died," Imam Ali (a), after all the threat and oppression, suddenly woke up one day and allegedly sought "reconciliation" with Abu Bakr and gave the oath, which explicitly describes the preceding period as one in which Imam Ali (a) had not given the oath.
The same report states that Fatima (a) remained angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him until her death, and when she died, Imam Ali (a) buried her at night in secret, did not inform Abu Bakr of her death, and performed her funeral prayer himself as per her will.
sunnah.com/bukhari:3092
sunnah.com/bukhari:4240
sunnah.com/muslim:1759a
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1609
sunnah.com/ahmad:25
sunnah.com/ahmad:55
sunnah.com/bukhari:6725
So Sunnis should stop pretending that their sources describe some immediate, enthusiastic acceptance of Abu Bakr's caliphate. They DON'T.
Cont.
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗹𝗶 (𝗮) 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝘁 (𝘀) – 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻, 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱
Please note: This is a comprehensive consolidation of the discussion, bringing together material covered across multiple articles and parts. Consider this an archive of the complete series and save it for future reference.
I urge and request readers not to skip any section, as reading the entire piece will provide the complete picture and context of the argument.
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Why did Imam Ali (a) remain patient after the Prophet (s)?
Was it weakness? Lack of courage? Lack of supporters? Or was there something far more deliberate behind his restraint?
And perhaps most importantly, did Imam Ali (a) simply "do nothing," or did he actually respond, seek support, and then restrain himself for a greater reason?
The answer unfolds across the following parts:
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜 — The Quranic Definition of Patience
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜 — Patience as a Prophetic Precedent in the Quran
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜𝗜 — “O Ali, the Ummah Will Betray You After Me” — The Prophetic Command to Remain Patient Through the Fitna
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗩 — “If You Find Supporters, Fight; If You Do Not, Be Patient” — The Criterion of Support & Imam Ali's (a) Plea for Forty Loyal Supporters
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩 — Did Imam Ali (a) Seek Support? The Forty Loyal Men He Needed to Fight & Imam Ali's (a) Plea for Forty Loyal Supporters
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜 — Divine Authority Is Bound to Act Upon the Apparent: Why Imam Ali (a) Was Patient and Imam Husayn (a) Confronted Yazid (la)
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜 — Did Imam Ali (a) React During the Assault? — He Did, Then He Restrained Himself
• The Sword Was the Easy Option
• Did Imam Ali (a) "Forget" the Prophet's (s) Covenant?
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜𝗜 —
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 — Sunni Hadith: “Even If Your Back Is Flogged and Your Wealth Is Snatched, You Should Listen and Obey the Ruler”
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗜 — The Sunni Double Standard: Imam Ali (a) Is Condemned for Restraint, While Imam al-Husayn (a) Is Condemned for Rising
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗜𝗜 — The Prophet (s) Himself Warned That His Companions Would Be Driven Away From the Hawd And Will Be Taken Towards Hellfire Due to Their Apostasy & Betrayal After Him
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗫 — Another Dimension of Divine Wisdom: Allah Allows Hypocrisy to Expose Itself
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫 — If Imam Ali (a) Had Retaliated and Killed Them, History Would Have Been Written Against Him
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜 — Imam Ali (a) Himself Explains His Patience: “I Feared the Muslims Would Return to Apostasy”
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗜 — Another Divine Consideration: The Preservation of His Shia
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗜𝗜 — The Prophetic Precedent: Imam Ali (a) Himself Explains Why He Did Not Fight
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗩 — Answering Common Objections
Read the series from the beginning. The answer is not found in one part, it emerges when all the pieces are placed together.
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
The Messenger of Allah (s) said:
‘Indeed, Ali and I were one light. Our will has always been one and it remains one. I desire nothing except what he desires and he desires nothing except what I desire. What pleases him pleases me and what pains him pains me.’
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗠𝘂𝘁'𝗮𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺 – 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗵𝗶𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
For centuries, the Shia have been ridiculed, condemned, and accused of "innovating" the practice of Mut'ah (temporary marriage). It is often portrayed as proof of deviation, a source of mockery, and a defining difference between the two schools of Islam. Yet there is a striking irony: many of those who level these accusations are either unaware of, or choose to ignore the fact that their own most authoritative sources affirm that Mut'ah was legislated by Allah, practiced during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (s), and acknowledged by numerous companions, Tabi'un, and classical Sunni scholars.
This study does not ask anyone to accept the Shia position merely because "it is the Shia position." Rather, it presents the evidence from the very sources that are routinely invoked against it: the Noble Qur'an, the authentic Prophetic Sunnah, the narrations of the Ahlulbayt (a), the testimony of the Companions and tabi'un, the works of classical Sunni scholars, and the historical record. If these sources establish that Mut'ah was divinely legislated, practiced by the Messenger of Allah (s), and affirmed by the earliest generations of Muslims, then dismissing it as a "Shia innovation" is not a refutation of the evidence but a rejection of the historical record.
Along the way, we will explore the Qur'anic basis of the ruling, its practice during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (s), the statements of the Ahlulbayt (a), the testimony preserved by the companions and Tabi'un, the position of classical Sunni scholarship, the wisdom behind this legislation, the historical events surrounding its prohibition, and the most common objections raised against it.
To examine the subject systematically, this study is divided into the following sections:
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜 – Qur'an [4:24] – The Explicit Legislation of Mut'ah
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜 – The Understanding of Qur'an [4:24]
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 – Qur'an [4:24] According to the Companions
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗜 – Qur'an [4:24] – The Testimony of The Tabi'un
• 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗜𝗜 – Qur'an [4:24] According to Classical Sunni Exegetes
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜𝗜 – The Prophet (s) Linked Mut'ah to Qur'an [5:87]
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗩 – The Qur'an Never Abrogated Mut'ah – Examining Every Alleged Abrogating Verse
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩 – The Prophetic Sunnah Established Mut'ah & the Companions Continued to Practice It
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜 – Did the Prophet (s) Really Prohibit Mut'ah? Examining the Contradictory Sunni Narrations
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜 – Umar's Own Admission: “There Were Two Mut'ahs During the Lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (s), and I Prohibit Them Both.”
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜𝗜 – Legislative Authority in Islam – Could Umar Prohibit What Allah Had Permitted?
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗫 – The Testimony of the Senior Companions: “We Continued to Practice Mut'ah Until Umar Prohibited It.”
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫 – Sunni Scholarship Explicitly Affirms That Umar Was the First to Prohibit Mut'ah
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜 – Imam Ali (a), Ibn Abbas, and the Companions on Umar's Prohibition: “Had Umar Not Prohibited Mut'ah, No One Would Have Committed Adultery Except the Wretched.”
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗜 – Mut'ah in the Teachings of the Ahlulbayt (a)
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗜𝗜 – The Wisdom Behind Mut'ah – A Divine Mercy, Not a Social Evil
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗜𝗩 – Answering the Most Common Objections to Mut'ah
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗫𝗩 – Frequently Raised Questions Regarding the Shia Position
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
They killed the Prophet, then his daughter, then Ali, then Hasan and each time the killers remained hidden. They intended to do the same with Hussain, but God turned Karbala into the greatest exposure in history. Hussain’s martyrdom tore off every mask and exposed every killer.
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗧𝗮𝗾𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺 – 𝗤𝘂𝗿'𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶 𝗛𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵, 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗵𝗹𝘂𝗹𝗯𝗮𝘆𝘁 (𝗮)
(𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦-𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵)
بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
Few Islamic doctrines have been as misunderstood, misrepresented, distorted and selectively portrayed as taqiyyah. It is frequently reduced to the simplistic claim that it means "lying," while its Qur'anic foundations, prophetic precedents, historical application, legal framework, and ethical limitations are often ignored. As a result, many Muslims, and even non-Muslims, encounter a caricature of the doctrine rather than its authentic presentation in the primary Islamic sources.
The evidence presented shows that taqiyyah is neither an "innovation" nor a "uniquely Shia doctrine." Its roots are firmly established in the Qur'an, practiced by Allah's Prophets and righteous servants, affirmed in authentic Sunni narrations and by classical Sunni scholars, and extensively taught by the Ahlulbayt (a). It also clarifies the conditions, objectives and legal limits governing its application.
For clarity and ease of reference, this work is divided into the following parts:
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜 – The Qur'anic Foundations of Taqiyyah – Verses, Exegesis, and Legal Proofs
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜 – Taqiyyah in the Qur'an – The Practice of the Prophets and the Righteous
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜𝗜 – Taqiyyah in the Prophetic Sunnah – Authentic Sunni Narrations of the Prophet (s) and His Companions
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗩 – The Legitimacy of Taqiyyah According to Classical Sunni Scholars and Qur'anic Exegetes
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩 – Taqiyyah in the Narrations of the Ahlulbayt (a) – Its Virtues, Wisdom, Legal Status, and Application
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜 – The Conditions, Limits, and Legal Boundaries of Taqiyyah
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜 – The Historical Necessity of Taqiyyah Under Tyrannical Rule
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗩𝗜𝗜𝗜 – Answering Common Objections
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗹𝗶 (𝗮) 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗦𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗯𝘂 𝗕𝗮𝗸𝗿, 𝗨𝗺𝗮𝗿 & 𝗨𝘁𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗻? 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯, 𝘐 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘚𝘩𝘪𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢 10-𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐'𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦, 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘚𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘩𝘪𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘈𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗧𝘄𝗼 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀.
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜 examines and refutes the Sunni claim using Sunni sources, logic, and historical evidence.
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝗜 presents the Shia perspective and explains the narrations within their proper historical context.
(Replies are disabled to prevent derailment. If you believe you have a genuine rebuttal after reading the entire article, feel free to quote tweet with your evidence)
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗜
بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗹𝗶 (𝗮) 𝗛𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝗟𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻.
The first misconception that needs to be addressed is the false impression sunnis come up with that Imam Ali (a) had only a few children and somehow "had no choice" but to name them after the first three self-proclaimed illegitimate caliphs. The narrations differ slightly regarding the exact number, but many historical and genealogical works state that Imam Ali (a) had up to 28 children, born from multiple noble wives belonging to different respected Arab tribes and regions.
Among them were approximately 12 sons.
People of that era did not live in a world of copyrighted or trademarked baby names. Arabic names like umar, uthman, and abu bakr were not sacred property invented by three individuals; they were common tribal names long before Islam, used by righteous believers, hypocrites, idol-worshippers, and ordinary arabs alike.
Here's a Sunni source documenting several well-known Arabs who were known by the kunya "Abu Bakr."
Tadhkirat al-Khawas, under the Chapter “Dhikr Abu Bakr” who provides a complete list of those individuals that were called Abu Bakr along with the tribe that they belonged to:
1. Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman Mukhdhoomi
2. Abu Bakr bin Hamam al Hamiri
3. Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Muslim Qurshi
4. Abu Bakr bin Abi Maleeka al Timimi
5. Abu Bakr bin Sireen
Abu Bakr bin Marwan ibn Muhammad al Thathri
6.Abu Bakr Younis bin Bakeer al Shaybani
7. Abu Bakr al Bahili
8. Abu Bakr al Sakhthayanai
(Link)
Another sunni source, Kitab al-Isti'ab fi marifat al-as'hab, Volume four “Dhikr ‘Abu Bakr” Ibn barr states:
“The first was Abu Bakr bin Quhafa, the second Abu Bakr bin Shuab Laisy and the third was Abu Bakr Nafee bin al Harith Saqfi.”
archive.org/details/dli.mini…
Likewise, with the names Umar and Uthman, Sunni sources themselves mention that numerous individuals bore these names both during the lifetime of the Prophet (s) and even before Islam.
Sunni book, Asadul Ghaybah Volume 4 under the letter “Ayn” that provides a list of men from those tribes that had the name Umar:
1. Umar al Aslama
2. Umar al Jamai
3. Umar bin Hakim Salma
4. Umar bin Salim Khuzami
5. Umar bin Suraqa Qurshi
6. Umar bin Sa’d al Numari
7. Umar bin Sa’d Salma
Due to the character limit, I'll simply provide the links below.
Scroll through them and you'll find:
– 𝟮𝟮 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗨𝗺𝗮𝗿
&
– 𝟭𝟵 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗨𝘁𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗻.
shamela.ws/book/1110/2018
Asadul Ghaybah Volume 3 under the letter Ayn that provides a list of 19 people with tribal ancestry that were called Uthman:
shamela.ws/book/1110/1826
(Cntd)
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗞𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮, 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:
‘Over 1,300 years ago, in the deserts of Iraq, a small group of brave souls stood against tyranny. At the heart of this stand was Imam al-Husayn, son of Imam Ali (peace be upon them), the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), a man known for his kindness, wisdom, and unwavering sense of justice.
The ruler of the time, Yazid (May Allah curse him), was a notoriously corrupt and oppressive leader. He openly violated Islamic teachings through his conduct and sought to legitimize his rule by forcing the grandson of the Prophet (pbuh) to pledge allegiance to him. Had Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) accepted, it would have given religious legitimacy to a regime that normalized injustice, oppression, and the public violation of Islamic values. Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) refused to legitimize such injustice. He chose principle over comfort, even though he knew it could cost him everything.
With his family and a small group of supporters, including women and children, Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) traveled to Karbala. There, an army reported to number around 30,000 soldiers (with some historical reports mentioning even far larger numbers) surrounded them. Even a single drop of water was barred from them for three days under the scorching sun. Yet he did not surrender. He stood firm, not to conquer land, but to awaken hearts.
On the 10th day of Muharram, known as Ashura, Imam al-Husayn (pbuh), along with his 72 companions, many of whom were his own family members, were martyred. No one was spared, not even his six-month-old baby, who was killed while in his father's arms. One by one, every companion fell until Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) was left completely alone on the battlefield, standing against thousands.
In his final moments, hundreds of soldiers attacked him from every direction. Spears pierced him, arrows rained upon him, swords struck him repeatedly, and those who had no weapons hurled stones at him. Despite the relentless assault and his body being covered in wounds, Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) remained steadfast. Even in his final moments, he fell into prostration (sujood) before Allah, expressing gratitude and complete submission to His decree. It is said that the wounds and arrows found on his blessed body were all from the front, for he never turned his back to the enemy.
The battle was brutal, but their resistance became eternal. Imam al-Husayn's (pbuh) last stand wasn't a military victory, but was a moral one.
Even after his martyrdom, the cruelty did not end. The bodies of Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) and his companions were left unburied and were trampled beneath the hooves of horses on the orders of the commanders, mutilating their blessed bodies.
After the massacre, the women and children of his household were taken captive, their tents were looted and burned, and they were paraded from Karbala to Kufa and then to Damascus. Yet even in captivity, they continued Imam al-Husayn's (pbuh) mission by exposing the tyranny of Yazid and preserving the truth of what had happened.
Karbala is not merely a muslim tragedy but a universal story. It is the story of standing against oppression, of sacrificing comfort for truth, of choosing dignity over silence. Imam al-Husayn (pbuh) didn't die for power; he died so that future generations would know how to live with honor.
To this day, millions around the world remember Karbala with tears for its martyrs, admiration for its courage, and a promise to never side with injustice.
That is the legacy of Imam al-Husayn (pbuh).’
So let's summarize the muslim community this ashura'
Shias: Mourning the death of imam Hussayn(a), grandson of the prophet(s), with whatever means to express it.
Sunnis: Jew fasting, mourning not thing
Is this not an attempt to distract you from the elephant of the room for
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
Muʿāwiyah Bribing Ṣaḥābah a 100,000 Dīnārs in Exchange for Bayʿah with Ṣaḥīḥ Chain of Transmission.
“The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) cursed the one who bribes and the one who takes a bribe.”
— Sunan Abī Dawūd : 3580; Ṣaḥīḥ.
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀:
(𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬) 𝘈𝘭-𝘒𝘢𝘧𝘪 – 𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘑𝘢'𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘢, 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥:
‘I asked Imam Al-Ridha (a) about fasting on Ashura (10th Muharram) and what the people are saying regarding it.
He (a) said: 'It is the fast of Ibn Marjanah that you are asking me about. That is a day the pretenders from the progeny of Ziyad fasted in, due to the killing of Al-Husayn (a). It is a day which the progeny of Muhammad (s) see as an evil omen (a grievous day), and the people of Islam see it as an evil omen.'
'A day which the people of Islam see as an evil omen can neither be fasted nor regarded as a blessed day. Monday is also an inauspicious day. Allah caused His Prophet (s) to pass away on it, and the progeny of Muhammad (s) were not afflicted by any calamity except on a Monday.'
'Thus, we see it as an evil omen, while our enemies regard it as a blessed and rewarding day. On the day of Ashura, Al-Husayn (a) was killed, Ibn Marjanah was pleased by it, and the progeny of Muhammad (s) regard it as a day of tragedy.'
'Therefore, the one who fasts on it, or considers it a blessed day, will meet Allah, Blessed and Exalted, with a transformed heart, and his resurrection will be with those who established the practice of fasting it and sought blessings through it.'
[𝗕𝗶𝗵𝗮𝗿 𝗔𝗹 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗮𝗿 – 𝗩 45, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 – 𝗔𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻 (𝗮), 𝗖𝗵 37 𝗛 39]
𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘶𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥,
‘I asked Abi Abdillah (a) about the Fast of ‘Tasua’ (9th Muharram), and Ashura (10th Muharram) from the month of Muharram.
So he (a) said: ‘Tasua is a day in which Al-Husayn (a) and his companions, may Allah be Pleased with them, were surrounded in Karbala, and the cavalries of the people of Syria were gathered against him (a), and inflicted injuries upon him (a); and Ibn Marjana (LA) and Umar Bin Sa’ad (LA) were joyful due to the large numbers of the cavalries and its abundance, and Al-Husayn (a) and his companions, may Allah be Pleased with them, were weakened during it, and they were convinced that no helper would be coming to Al-Husayn (a) nor would the people of Al-Iraq support him (a). By my father (a), the oppressed, the alienated.
Then he (a) said: ‘And as for the day of Ashura, so it is a day in which Al-Husayn (a) was injured to bits between his companions, and his companions were injured to bits around him (a), stripped. So, can a Fast happen to be during that day? Never! By the Lord of the Sacred House, it is not a day of Fasting, and it is not except for a day of grief, and the difficulties enter upon the inhabitants of the sky and the inhabitants of the earth, and the entirety of the Believers.
And, it is a day of happiness and joy for Ibn Marjana (LA) and the progeny of Ziyad (LA), and the people of Syria. May Allah be Wrathful upon them and upon their offspring. And, that is a day in which the entirety of the spots of the earth wailed upon him (a) except for the spot of Syria. So the one who Fasts, or (believes to be) fortunate by it, Allah would Resurrect him with the progeny of Ziyad (LA), morphed of the heart, Angered upon; and the one who hoards provisions in his house, Allah the Exalted would Cause his end result for hypocrisy to be in his heart up to the day he meets Him, and Snatch away the Blessings from him, and from the people of his household, and his children, and the Satan would be his participant in the entirety of that’.
[𝗔𝗹 𝗞𝗮𝗳𝗶 – 𝗩 4 – 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗵 61 𝗛 7]
(Continued)
"𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 ‘𝗔𝘀𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗮."
"The narrations about the virtues of fasting on the day of ‘Ashura and beautifying oneself on that day are all innovations fabricated by those who killed al-Husayn ibn Ali (a)"
Sunni Sources: Fayd al-Qadir; Al-Tawdhih (scans attached)
Fasting On Ashura Rejected After The Month of Ramadan:
sunnah.com/bukhari:4504
sunnah.com/bukhari:4503
sunnah.com/bukhari:4502
sunnah.com/bukhari:4501
sunnah.com/abudawud:2443
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:753
sunnah.com/muslim:1128
sunnah.com/muslim:1127d
sunnah.com/muslim:1127b
sunnah.com/muslim:1127a
sunnah.com/muslim:1125c
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
sunnah.com/bukhari:2002
sunnah.com/urn/506670
sunnah.com/abudawud:2442
sunnah.com/muslim:1125a
sunnah.com/shamail:308
sunnah.com/muslim:1126a
Fasting On Ashura Was From Mushrikeen:
sunnah.com/bukhari:4504
sunnah.com/bukhari:4501
sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1737
sunnah.com/muslim:1126c
sunnah.com/muslim:1126a
sunnah.com/muslim:1125e
sunnah.com/muslim:1125a
sunnah.com/urn/506670
sunnah.com/bukhari:2002
sunnah.com/abudawud:2442
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:753
sunnah.com/shamail:308
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
sunnah.com/urn/6117150
sunnah.com/urn/6117160
sunnah.com/muslim:1126d
sunnah.com/muslim:1126f
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
Fast On The 9th Not 10th Of Ashura:
sunnah.com/muslim:1134a
sunnah.com/abudawud:2445
sunnah.com/muslim:1134b
sunnah.com/mishkat:2041
sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1736
Ya Hujjatallah Ali retweeted
"𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 ‘𝗔𝘀𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗮."
"The narrations about the virtues of fasting on the day of ‘Ashura and beautifying oneself on that day are all innovations fabricated by those who killed al-Husayn ibn Ali (a)"
Sunni Sources: Fayd al-Qadir; Al-Tawdhih (scans attached)
Fasting On Ashura Rejected After The Month of Ramadan:
sunnah.com/bukhari:4504
sunnah.com/bukhari:4503
sunnah.com/bukhari:4502
sunnah.com/bukhari:4501
sunnah.com/abudawud:2443
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:753
sunnah.com/muslim:1128
sunnah.com/muslim:1127d
sunnah.com/muslim:1127b
sunnah.com/muslim:1127a
sunnah.com/muslim:1125c
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
sunnah.com/bukhari:2002
sunnah.com/urn/506670
sunnah.com/abudawud:2442
sunnah.com/muslim:1125a
sunnah.com/shamail:308
sunnah.com/muslim:1126a
Fasting On Ashura Was From Mushrikeen:
sunnah.com/bukhari:4504
sunnah.com/bukhari:4501
sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1737
sunnah.com/muslim:1126c
sunnah.com/muslim:1126a
sunnah.com/muslim:1125e
sunnah.com/muslim:1125a
sunnah.com/urn/506670
sunnah.com/bukhari:2002
sunnah.com/abudawud:2442
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:753
sunnah.com/shamail:308
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
sunnah.com/urn/6117150
sunnah.com/urn/6117160
sunnah.com/muslim:1126d
sunnah.com/muslim:1126f
sunnah.com/bukhari:3831
Fast On The 9th Not 10th Of Ashura:
sunnah.com/muslim:1134a
sunnah.com/abudawud:2445
sunnah.com/muslim:1134b
sunnah.com/mishkat:2041
sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1736
This quoted post is unavailable.
Not a refutation at all.
The hadith is explicit in saying the wives arent ahlulbayt, it's not used for specifying details of ahlulbayt. That is complemented using hadith al kisa' among other hadiths showing us how the prophet showed this proof to the ummah in repetition
There's massive coping going on when we see them trying to claim Ahlulbayt when it's clear as day that they don't, considering they always come in to attempt to "refute" narrations expressing the importance of following Ahlulbayt and downplay/weaken these hadiths-you name it.
Further details and evidence
teapaw.org/i/status/1947218519646…
"Infallibility of the Ahlulbayt (a) and the exclusion of the wives using the Qur'an itself"
(Don’t forget to check the replies too, the full thing continues there, especially the exclusion of the wives using the Qur'an)
Now, since the Holy Prophet (s) entrusted the Ahlulbayt (a) alongside a book that is entirely flawless, it would be unjust to the people if the Ahlulbayt (a) were fallible. This is especially evident given that the Prophet (s) explicitly stated that the Qur’an and the Ahlulbayt will never part from one another until they meet him at the Pond of Kawthar. This clarifies an unbreakable bond between the two, one that must be perfectly aligned in nature. Furthermore, the Holy Qur’an itself affirms the infallibility of the Ahlulbayt (a), leaving no room for doubt regarding their divinely appointed status:
And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the Pre- Islamic period before; and establish the Salat and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Rasool. But rather, Allah Intends to Keep the uncleanness away from you, People of the Household, and Purify you (with) a Purification [33:33]
Notice that the word "Rijs" (impurity) in this verse is preceded by the definite article "al-", which gives it a universal meaning. This means "al-Rijs" refers to every form of impurity without exception. Furthermore, at the end of the verse, Allah declares, "and purify you with a perfect purification." The emphasis on "perfect" comes from the use of "Tat’hiran", which intensifies the meaning of purification. This is the only instance in the Qur'an where Allah emphasizes absolute and complete purification in this manner.
According to this verse, Allah expresses His definitive will to purify the Ahlulbayt (a), making them entirely free from any flaw, sin, or imperfection. And since whatever Allah wills inevitably comes to pass, as affirmed throughout the Qur'an, this purification is not symbolic or conditional it is absolute and undeniable, as the Qur'an itself testifies
But rather, Our Word for a thing when We Intend it, is that We say to it: “Be!” and it comes into being [16:40]
I would like to highlight that purification has different degrees and types. If a person’s hands and face become dirty, washing them with soap and warm water will cleanse them. Similarly, in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:6), the Qur'an tells us that ablution (wudu) is a means of purification. However, if someone argues that the level of purification achieved through ablution is no different from washing with soap and water, how would you respond? You would explain that ablution is a spiritual purification, distinct from mere physical cleansing.
The same principle applies to the difference between removal of all forms of impurity and purification through ablution. For instance, if a murderer performs ablution, it does not cleanse him of his crime because the impurity caused by murder cannot be removed by wudu, despite the revelation of Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:6). Nowhere in the Qur'an does Allah state that ablution grants perfect purification.
However, in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:33), Allah explicitly declares His intention to grant the Ahlulbayt a perfect purification. The emphasis on "perfect" comes from the word "Tat’hiran", which appears only in this verse in the entire Qur'an. This unique emphasis reinforces that the purification of the Ahlulbayt (a) is unlike any other, it is absolute, flawless, and divinely ordained.
Everyone agrees that even the smallest sin, no matter how minor, is still a form of impurity. Therefore, when Allah declares a perfect purification for the Ahlulbayt (a), it means that no impurity whatsoever, not even the slightest sin, can touch them. Since Allah is All-Powerful, His intention to keep the Ahlulbayt (a) free from every kind of impurity is absolute and unquestionable. (The phrase "every kind of" is derived from the definite article "al-" in "al-Rijs," signifying universality.)
(continued below)