Nevertheless, if the Shia assert that they bear enmity for the first three khalifas because of what the Imams have said about them, we have shattered the premise of this excuse as well. Yet we know that the Shia will not abandon the prejudice which spurs them on hating the Sahaba in a misconstrued sense of love for the Ahlul bayt. Thus, it will not be surprising for them to proclaim:
What weight does the words of the Imams carry? After all, they spent their entire lives in taqiyyah (dissimulation), referring to truth as falsehood and falsehood as the truth. When Amir al Muʼminin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, despite being the lion of Allah and called by the title Wali Allah, feared the first three khalifas to such an extent that let alone during their lifetime even during his own caliphate he could not announce the truth. If this was his state then what need be said of others? We will never accept these narrations; either disprove the belief of taqiyyah or present some other narration wherein they did not practice taqiyyah.
As a result, this unworthy one is forced to expose the reality of taqiyyah as well. This is the ultimate result of prejudice, look to what extent such bias has led them. One is left utterly astonished at that religion which would dare to conjure up concepts such as badaʼ and taqiyyah.
When the Ahlus Sunnah present a proof from the Qur’an then the excuse of badaʼ was presented and when the words of the Imams quoted then they are accused of taqiyyah. In essence, whoever invented this religion of Shi’asm was extremely cunning or perhaps a complete dunce, who could not differentiate between a coin and a seed. How sad indeed that such people have been ensnared by these concepts. They could not understand that these whimsical notions have no relation to the din of Allah and are but murmurings of those intellectually deprived. If only they did then ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and his disciples would not have succeeded and the principles of Shi’asm would not have been recorded. Nonetheless, we will reply to this trick of the Shia as well, perhaps Allah might guide someone through it.
Firstly, the excuse of taqiyyah cannot be presented for the narrations quoted previously, especially the first two as Imam Sajjad Zayn al ’Abidin rahimahu Llah praised these Sahaba while imploring and supplicating to Allah. What reason is there to observe taqiyyah with Allah? If one was addressing a human then there would be a possibility of the addressee being biased towards the Sahaba and the need to appease him with such sentiments would be understood. However, if Allah Ta’ala is accused of such bias then this proves the point of the Ahlus Sunnah as this proves that Allah himself favours the Sahaba and the Shia should ponder over their own state. Furthermore, it will prove the Sahaba to have been on the din of truth as Allah is with them and the Qur’an is filled with verses such as:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ یُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِیْنَ
Allah is with the pious.
In addition, there is no possibility of Allah also fearing the first three khalifas, Allah forbid. If the Shia believe such things then it will come as no surprise to us, as they believe the taqiyyah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be no less, since he was the lion of Allah after all.
Then too, death was in his control. al Kulayni has proven that death is in the control of the Imams. In fact, it is not only al Kulayni but all the scholars of the Imamiyyah are unanimous that the Imams have knowledge of the past, present and future, to the extent that they knew the precise moment and at whose hand they would be martyred. Yet they still chose to endure such ‘disgrace’ and ‘difficulty’ with the knowledge that all their enemies would be unable to harm them or even steal a cent from them. Aside from this infinite knowledge, they were also blessed with such valour that they could fight an entire army and such miraculous feats that they could lift the entire fortress door of Khaybar; what then is the reality of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma before them?
Why then should they fear Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma? Is there any difference then in accusing them of taqiyyah and accusing Allah of taqiyyah? Moreover, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were not even present at that time, having passed away many years prior to this, and it is obvious that even a jackal is not afraid of the deceased; so how then is it possible for the lion of Allah to be afraid? To what extent will we continue arguing this preposterous notion, my intention was to point out that adopting taqiyyah while supplicating, which is a time when one converses with his Rabb, is the same as the munafiqin performing salah or even worse. The munafiqin intended to fool people with their actions and according to the Shia paradigm, Imam al Sajjad rahimahu Llah intended to fool Allah (Allah forbid). We know this for sure and the Shia do as well, regardless of how foolish they may be; the ibadah of Imam al Sajjad rahimahu Llah was free from any possibility of Riya (insincerity), thus there is no question of him trying to please any khalifa or member of the Ahlus Sunnah in his ibadah. The only excuse left (for the Shia) is to say that he supplicated in this manner on account of the ‘favouritism’ Allah showed to the khalifas, so that Allah would not become angry on account of his disregard for them. We seek Allah’s protection from such blasphemy; assuming that he practiced taqiyyah in such matters destroys the foundations of din from whichever angle you look at it. If one were to assume that taqiyyah was practiced here as well, it would result in one harbouring misgivings towards Allah, (Allah is far greater and pure from such matters) or towards the Imams (we beseech Allah’s protection from such beliefs). Nevertheless, these enemies of the Ahlul bayt will ascribe anything to the Imams under the pretence of taqiyyah.
Imam al Sajjad rahimahu Llah aside, after all he was ‘oppressed’ by his enemies and did not have the same valour as Amir al Muʼminin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, neither did he possess the miraculous powers which he had; so if someone were to attribute taqiyyah to him perhaps the foolish may believe it. However, the great calamity is that the practice of taqiyyah is ascribed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well, despite his courage, valour, knowledge, and miraculous powers from the era of the first three khalifas and throughout his own. It is assumed that he took false oaths upon ten such qualities that if the sky were to fall on account of it or the earth split open, it would not be surprising. Let alone these qualities being the exact qualities possessed by the prophets’ and let alone that it was mentioned for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who according to the Shia is worse than shaitan himself (such that they regard cursing him not only as meritorious but absolving oneself from him as obligatory). If they regard it as greater than this then too it would be no surprise as Allah says:
Whoever performs one good deed will receive ten reward in return.
Thus, they may regard this obligatory act of theirs to be the greatest deed in the world.
Furthermore, the cursing of the first two khalifas has become so commonplace that it is recorded in their books that to curse the first two khalifas in the morning is equal to seventy good deeds. Adding to the insult is that they regard cursing shaitan, Namrud, Shaddad, Fir’oun, Abu Jahal, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and Abu Lahab, as well as the other enemies of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as having no virtue at all. Nevertheless, to now praise those who are even worse than Namrud, Fir’oun, Abu Jahal, etc, and take an oath upon them possessing ten such meritorious qualities, then too by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu whose qualities we have mentioned above, can only make sense if the meaning of kafir is: “One who is completely obedient to Allah and submissive to him”. If this is the meaning of kufr then how are they cursed or rejected? The Shia can curse all they like but they will have to accept this reality.
I am referring to you and very pleased am I, may Allah be pleased with you as well; you have said the correct thing
Allah Ta’ala is indeed pure, look to what extent they have destroyed the ‘infallibility’ and even saintliness of the Imams. We are aware that the Khawarij might be two steps ahead of the Shia but by only that much that the Shia selectively ascribe faults whereas the Khawarij like a man in a frenzy slaps out at all.
Ultimately the excuse that the Imams praised the first three khalifas and the muhajirin and ansar under the pretence of taqiyyah, aside from being illogical, is utterly refuted by the fables reported by the Shia in their most relied upon hadith compilations. It is impossible to quote all of these narrations in this treatise but as an example we will quote a few, which will indicate the manner that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu always announced the truth and himself remained distant from falsehood. Once this is established and the condition of the leader of the Imams becomes known then the condition of the other Imams will also become known.
The following statement of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu has been reported in Nahj al Balaghah, which is considered to be an authentic book by the Shia, and is a clear proof for the refutation of taqiyyah:
علامة الايمان ايثارك الصدق حيث يضرك على الكذب حيث ينفعك
The sign of iman is giving preference to speaking the truth, when it could harm you, over falsehood which could benefit you.
This narration implies that whoever performs taqiyyah is void of iman because the sign of iman is that one still speak the truth even if harm may befall his person or wealth.
The second narration is also from Nahj al Balaghah:
قال امير المؤمنين انى و الله لو لقيتهم واحدا و هم طلاع الارض كلها ما با ليت و لا استوحشت و انى من ضلالتهم التى هم فيها و الهدى الذى انا عليه لعلى بصيرة من نفسى و يقين من ربى و انى الى لقاء الله و لحسن ثوابه لمنتظر راج
‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said: “If I had to confront them on my own and their numbers filled the entire earth, I still would not care nor would I fear. I have clear vision of the deviance they are upon and the guidance I am on and have complete conviction upon it from my Rabb. I hope to meet Allah and His gracious reward.
Ponder for a moment, a person who does not fear taking on the entire world, not worried by it in the least, and instead desires Jannat and the reward of Allah, what does their practice of taqiyyah mean? If such people have also become afraid (and resorted to taqiyyah) then Qiyamah has indeed arrived. Furthermore, taqiyyah cannot be done except under fear and then too fear for one’s life, which the Imams do not experience as control of their life is in their hands. Al Kulayni has established this and all Shia are in agreement upon it. So who should he fear and why should he be afraid? In addition, the Imams have knowledge of the past, present and future, they know how and when they are going to die and that they will not die before that.
If there is indeed fear for one’s wealth and honour then it is the duty of the prophets’ and the Imams to bear this difficulty, to be patient and tolerant and not be bothered by the snubs or strength of the enemy. This is the reason why Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam did not hide from Namrud and accepted instead to be thrown into the fire. Nabi Musa ’alayh al-Salam did not fear Fir’oun and was eventually forced to leave Egypt. Nabi Nuh ’alayh al-Salam endured difficulty for nine hundred years, which the Shia must have also heard of. The story of how Nabi Yahya ’alayh al-Salam and Nabi Zakariyya ’alayh al-Salam were murdered is known to all and sundry. We ask the Shia to be just and tell us; were they not killed only because they announced the truth? Honour aside, here they sacrificed their lives. Amir al Muʼminin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu (according to Shia belief) even if you say was not better than the prophets’, you most certainly regard him to be equal to them, why then did he shy away from their practice?
Even the son of Amir al Muʼminin, the leader of the martyrs, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, sacrificed his life in the path of Allah; if taqiyyah was the sunnah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the compulsory decree of Allah then in which circumstance would it be more incumbent to practice taqiyyah then when you and your family are surrounded by thirty thousand blood thirsty soldiers? No water to drink, no place to take shelter and all they seek is for you to accept the pledge of allegiance to Yazid. Their lives were lost and their wealth taken, the horrors of that day is known to all, but sadly they failed to practice upon the fard (compulsory) decree upon the Ahlul bayt, earning for themselves the mark of sin and drawing upon himself the blood of all those who lost their lives with him. If this is taqiyyah then we are certain that absolving oneself from it is better than having to believe that Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu destroyed his world and akhirah, Allah forbid. I swear by Allah, uttering such words (even if hypothetical) sends a shiver down my spine but Allah Ta’ala is the Knower of the Unseen, He knows that whatever I said was not because of taqiyyah but only to refute the deviant sect called the Shia and that this unworthy one is a servant of the Ahlul bayt and regards them as the leaders of the saints, the most truthful and sincere, the best of those who do good, the pinnacles of piety and my beloveds, nothing like the empty and false claims of the Shia.
The third narration is of al Rawandi, who is a Shia religious leader and commentator on Nahj al Balaghah, he reports from Salman al Farsi radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Jara’ih al Jawa’ih:
ان على بلغه عن عمر انه ذكر شيعته فاستقبله فى بعض طرقات البساتين المدينة فى يد على قوس فقال يا عمر بلغنى عنك ذكرك لشيعتى فقال اربع على صلعتك فقال على انك لههنا ثم رمى بالقوس على الارض فاذا هى ثعبان كالبعيرفاغرا فاه و قد اقبل نحو عمر لتبلعه فقال عمر الله الله يا ابا الحسن لاعدت بعدها فى شىء و جعل يتفرع اليه فضرب يده الى الثعبان فعادت القوس كما كانت فمضى عمر الى بيته…الخ
This narration is extremely lengthy and to what extent should I report it, when the intended purpose is achieved by this portion. I will now explain the meaning of it. Salman al Farsi radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrates that news reached ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was speaking ill of his Shia. It just so happened that they crossed paths in one of the pathways of the gardens of Madina. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said: “‘Umar it has reached me that you speak ill of my Shia?” ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied: “Take mercy upon yourself and stop.” ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu answered: “This is the level you have reached?” He then threw his bow to the ground and it turned into a huge serpent, the size of a camel with its mouth open. It proceeded forward, intending to strike ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu cried out: “O Abu al Hassan! For Allah’s sake (Stop!), for Allah’s sake (Stop!), in future I will never say such things.” He then began trembling. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu stretched his hand towards the serpent and it once again turned into a bow. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu then returned to his home.
This was the translation of the above and after reading it, the entire backbone of taqiyyah is broken. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an awe-inspiring personality from amongst the khalifas and the Sahaba and the Ahlus Sunnah often mention this with great pride yet he is subdued with one simple magic trick.
This makes it clear that the silence of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu upon the actions of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, even when witnessing Fadak being ‘stolen’, wedding his daughter to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, pledging his allegiance to them, performing salah behind them, etc were all because he regarded them to be worthy of this honour and not because of taqiyyah. Since he was a person so brave, so strong, and capable of such miraculous feats; no one would dare to cross paths with him. Furthermore, if any person was blessed with such strength and such extraordinary powers, he would never allow his daughter to be forcefully taken from him. In India, not even the plumber or clothes washer will allow his daughter to be taken from him in such a manner as ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu allowed his daughter to be taken from him by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In addition when one looks at the sons of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; one was such that he took on an entire army of thirty thousand men in his old age whereas in the prime of his youth, his sister was snatched from him and he did nothing. On the other hand in the narrations of the incident of Karbala, it has been narrated that when the enemy advanced with the intention of taking the honour of the women of the Ahlul bayt, he rose in anger. The Shia are well-acquainted with the incidents of Karbala and there is no need to mention it at this juncture.
In essence, the narrations of the Shia themselves uproot the possibility of practicing taqiyyah, and it is not only the Ahlus Sunnah. There remains no need for any further discussion as this is sufficient for the fair-minded intellectual. However, in order to complete the proof and to elaborate further, it is only appropriate to weigh the practice of taqiyyah in terms of logical reasoning and common practice of society, so that the eyes of the Shia may open. If we were to examine taqiyyah logically then the practice of taqiyyah by the prophets’ and Imams is the equivalent of appointing a teacher to tutor your children and instead of teaching them the subject matter, acts the same as them; playing, hopping, skipping and jumping. Allah Ta’ala making taqiyyah incumbent upon the prophets’ and Imams is the same as the administration of an Islamic institution instructing the educators to teach the children but not utter a word, to teach them etiquette and manners but not object to their actions, warn them but not rebuke them, in fact do not say anything to them; if they play then you play along with them.
We ask the fair-minded if this is in any way logical and if there is any difference between this and the practice of taqiyyah by the prophets’ and Imams? Furthermore, to practice taqiyyah to such an extent that the entire din has been destroyed, the entire ummah led astray; in such a scenario it would befit one to rise up and announce the truth openly, even if your honour and your wealth were to be destroyed, and not play with your words. Despite this, the Shia still firmly believe that the din of the Shia is in complete accordance with logic and it is incumbent to follow logic. One can only marvel at the appreciation the Shia have for Allah Ta’ala, when this is their attitude towards Allah Ta’ala who has the right to complain? Firstly, they made Allah the obedient and absolved themselves from Him being “The wisest of those who pass judgement”, which He mentions in the Qur’an. Secondly, they ascribe the order of such a practice to Him, which according to their logic necessitates Allah becoming a sinner. Allah Ta’ala is indeed pure from such slander.
If one were to ask what is the status of taqiyyah in light of the Qur’an, then there are hundreds of verses which denigrate such taqiyyah (which the Shia practice and ascribe to the Imams). In fact, Allah Ta’ala has expressed the exact opposite, mentioning praise for not practicing taqiyyah, such that even when one’s life is in danger, it is more praiseworthy not to practice taqiyyah. If the Shia on account of them being unable to remember the Qur’an were to accuse me of giving false references then check for yourself whether the following verse is present in Surah al Baqarah:
اَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ اَنْ تَدْخُلُوا الْجَنّةَ وَ لَمَّا یَاْتِكُمْ مَّثَلُ الَّذِیْنَ خَلَوْا مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْؕ مَسَّتْهُمُ الْبَاْسَا ءُ وَالضَّرَّاءُ وَ زُلْزِلُوْا حَتّٰی یَقُوْلَ الرَّسُوْلُ وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا مَعه مَتٰی نَصْرُ اللّٰهِؕ اَلَاۤ اِنَّ نَصْرَ اللّٰهِ قَرِیْبٌ 214
Do you think that you will enter Jannat when there has not yet come to you the like of (those hardships such as poverty, famine, illness and fear which came to) the people before you? Suffering and hardship affected them and they were shaken until the Rasul and those with him who had iman said: “When will the help of Allah come?” Surely, the help of Allah is near.”
Also read the verse in Surah Al Imran:
وَکَاَیِّنْ مِّنْ نَّبِیٍّ قٰتَلَۙ مَعَه رِبِّیُّوْنَ کَثِیْرٌۚ فَمَا وَهَنُوْا لِمَاۤ اَصَابَهُمْ فِیْ سَبِیْلِ اللّٰهِ وَمَا ضَعُفُوْا وَمَا اسْتَکَانُوْاؕ وَاللّٰهُ یُحِبُّ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ146
Many were the Prophets with whom large numbers of righteous men fought. They never lost courage with all (the hardship and difficulties) that afflicted them in the path of Allah (even though they were hurt, faced enormous difficulties and their prophets were killed), neither did they weaken or become helpless. Allah loves the steadfast ones.
Read these verses fairly without prejudice and gauge for yourself which course of action earns the pleasure of Allah. When this is the instruction of Allah to the ordinary muʼmin it applies more to the prophets’ and Imams. In light of the first verse, the practice of taqiyyah deprives one of even the hope of Jannat, why then will any person resort to taqiyyah? As for the fear of befalling harm from the Ahlus Sunnah, this has been addressed by Allah Ta’ala as well:
Surely, the help of Allah is near.
In the second verse, taqiyyah aside, losing courage and becoming fearful of the kuffar has been prohibited. Dislike for taqiyyah was hinted to in the portion:
(nor did they) become helpless.
because this means that these people did not give in to the kuffar – which in essence is what taqiyyah is – despite the hardships they had to endure. Yet in all this adversity they did not weaken their resolve nor did they become helpless and remained distant from taqiyyah, never becoming ensnared by it. How great is the planning of Allah but sadly the Shia in their stubbornness are still not satisfied.
What I have said of this verse prohibiting the practice of taqiyyah requires no explanation and is apparent to those who possess knowledge, but for the sake of the Shia some explanation is required. The preceding and following verses make it apparent that one should not practice taqiyyah, if one is in doubt then read it for yourself. Allah Ta’ala is relating the incidents of the previous ummah to this ummah, more specifically to the Sahaba, warning them not to become weak or helpless and thus resort to taqiyyah. We now ask the fair-minded, if a person refuses to accept these warnings (and still resorts to taqiyyah) is he from the unsuccessful ones or of the elite deserving greatest reward; as those who practice taqiyyah claim?
The truth of the matter is that taqiyyah is deserving of reproach and not reward, which is evident from these verses. It is impossible for a person to retain the mantle of nubuwwah and imamah while still performing taqiyyah, especially when in the manner that the Shia assume Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams used to do with the Sahaba. Moreso when the Shia consider the Sahaba to be even lesser than shaitan, as has been alluded to previously, such that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam always agreed with and conceded to what the Sahaba desired. Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’an:
وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ اَهْوَآءَهُمْ بَعْدَ مَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِۙ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللّٰهِ مِنْ وَّلِیٍّ وَّلَا وَاقٍ 37
Surely if you follow their wishes after knowledge has come to you then you shall have no helper nor saviour.
It is not possible that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would follow their wishes after this verse was revealed and give precedence to their wishes over the wish and desire of Allah.
In essence Allah Ta’ala has prohibited even the general masses from performing taqiyyah, yet the Shia consider the elite (i.e. the prophets’) to have perpetrated it and then too perpetually, whereas the sign of those entrusted with the duty of imparting the message of Allah Ta’ala (which according to the Shia includes both the prophets’ and Imams) has been described to be that they fear none but Allah and display no short-coming in imparting the message of Allah. The following verse is mentioned in Surah al Ahzab:
الَّذِیْنَ یُبَلِّغُوْنَ رِسٰلٰتِ اللّٰهِ وَ یَخْشَوْنَه وَلَا یَخْشَوْنَ اَحَدًا اِلَّا اللّٰهَ
Those who propagate Allah’s messages, who fear Him and do not fear anyone but Allah.
This verse clearly negates any possibility of fear from the prophets’ when imparting the message of Allah, yet you will find a Shia saying that taqiyyah means to conceal one’s religion whether it be out of fear or for some other reason. They themselves know how illogical this is but still you will find people making such statements. However, Allah Ta’ala is the Knower of the Unseen and was well-aware of the stubbornness of the Shia from before time began, which is why He began this verse saying:
Those who propagate Allah’s messages…
Furthermore, the prophets’ were specifically instructed, especially the seal of the prophets’, Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, in order to place greater emphasis on the need for propagation and to ensure that no short-coming is perpetrated. It is mentioned Surah al Hijr:
فَاصْدَعْ بِمَا تُؤْمَرُ وَاَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْمُشْرِکِیْنَ 94
Clearly announce what you have been commanded with and ignore the Mushrikin.
Thereafter repeated emphasis has been laid upon propagation stressing that there should be no deficiency in imparting the message. If you do not believe me then read it for yourself.
In addition, we have been ordered in Surah al Ahzab:
لَقَدْ کَانَ لَكُمْ فِیْ رَسُوْلِ اللّٰهِ اُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَنْ کَانَ یَرْجُوا اللّٰهَ وَالْیَوْمَ الْاٰخِرَ
There is definitely an excellent example in Allah’s Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for the one who fears Allah and the Last Day.
This verse has made it incumbent upon the entire ummah that just as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam does not shy away from the truth and propagating din, you too should not. Even more so for the Imams, as they have been sent specifically for the probation of din and announcement of the truth, and according to the Shia are no less than the prophets’, if not even superior. So when they were specifically instructed then they should be more mindful of this than others.
In addition, Allah Ta’ala says:
وَ مَا نُرْسِلُ الْمُرْسَلِیْنَ اِلَّا مُبَشِّرِیْنَ وَمُنْذِرِیْنَ
We sent the messengers only as carriers of glad-tidings and as warners.
“Messengers” in accordance with the terminology of the Qur’an does not only refer to the prophets’ but to all those who impart the message of Allah, whether they be prophets’ or not. The verse mentioned in Surah Yasin:
اِنَّاۤ اِلَیْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُوْنَ
We are messengers unto you.
Refers to the deputies of Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al-Salam, who were not prophets’ but rather only deputies, which is the actual meaning of imam according to the Shia; deputy of the Nabi. If a person were to object that the messengers of Nabi ‘Isa ’alayh al-Salam are not referred to in this verse as the verse mentions:
اِذْ اَرْسَلْنَاۤ اِلَیْهِمُ اثْنَیْنِ
When We sent two (messengers) to them.
Which indicates that these messengers were sent by Allah and not Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al-Salam, then the reply to this would be that Allah Ta’ala attributed the sending of these messengers by Nabi ‘Isa ’alayh al-Salam to Himself, saying that We sent them and not that Nabi ‘Isa ’alayh al-Salam sent them. When the deputy of Nabi ‘Isa ’alayh al-Salam was acknowledged as the deputy of Allah then why should the deputy of our Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not be recognised as the deputy of Allah as well? When they too have been sent by Allah then their duties will be in the same and in accordance with the verse:
وَ مَا نُرْسِلُ الْمُرْسَلِیْنَ اِلَّا مُبَشِّرِیْنَ وَمُنْذِرِیْنَ
We sent the messengers only as carriers of glad tidings and as warners.
We now ask, where is taqiyyah in all of this? We will never blacken our faces and envisage that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the pure Imams could have ever been deficient in acting upon the order of Allah Ta’ala. They spent their day and night propagating din and why should they not? The verse is self-explanatory that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not deficient in propagating the message, so why should his deputies conceal the message? If this is the case then they are not his true deputies but the opposite.
Secondly, Allah Ta’ala mentions the purpose of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam risalat to be the propagation and transmission of din. It is mentioned in Surah al Fath, Surah al Saff and Surah al Taubah:
هُوَ الَّذِیْۤ اَرْسَلَ رَسُوْلَه بِالْهُدٰى وَ دِیْنِ الْحَقِّ لِیُظْهِرَه عَلَی الدِّیْنِ كُلِّه
It is Allah Who has sent His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with guidance and with the true din so that he may make it apparent over all other religions.
The dominance or becoming apparent over all religions mentioned in this verse, if attributed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then the meaning is obvious but if the implication is that Allah Ta’ala has taken the responsibility of making din apparent by sending His Rasul then whatever success will be attained by His Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will be the doing of Allah. The example of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this case will be like that of a tool used by a labourer to complete his task, which makes it clear and in fact clearer than daylight, that when the intention of Allah is to make din apparent, who can ever conceal it? This verse is in fact a clear proof for the veracity of the Ahlus Sunnah because whichever Shia will embrace the Sunni faith under the guise of taqiyyah, he will conceal his beliefs of Shi’asm and make apparent the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah. In this way he has acknowledged that the mazhab (school) of the Ahlus Sunnah is the true faith because the dhamir (personal pronoun) of the word “ليظهره” (make it apparent) refers to the din of truth, and the faith of the Shia will then be included in “All other religions”, and it is obvious that all other religions are false. This verse also indicates that the propagation of din required by this verse should occur before the emergence of Imam al Mahdi. The reason being that for dominance, two things are required: a dominator and the dominated. Similarly when something becomes apparent over another than it requires that the latter still remain. So the dominance and becoming apparent over mentioned in this verse, and alluded to by the words “ليظهره”, indicate that this din will become apparent over other religions and not that the other religions will no longer exist. The Shia should now inform us whether other religions will remain in the time of Imam al Mahdi radiya Llahu ‘anhu or not? In addition the word “ليظهره” (to make it apparent) is affixed to “ارسل” (sent his Rasul) which would necessitate that it become apparent at the same time that the Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent. This cannot refer to any other din except that of the Ahlus Sunnah, the Shia should inform me whether I am true or false? After this there remains no necessity to even discuss whether taqiyyah has any relevance in din or not.
In order to clarify my point even further, whenever any nabi is sent then at first he alone is a believer; so now if he were to remain silent and conceal din then the duty of imparting the message will remain unfulfilled, and it is an accepted fact that propagation of the message is incumbent upon the prophets’ and ‘ulama. The incumbency of propagating the message upon our Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam becomes apparent from the following verse:
یٰاَیُّهَا الرَّسُوْلُ بَلِّغْ مَاۤ اُنْزِلَ اِلَیْكَ مِنْ رَّبِّكَؕ وَ اِنْ لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُۚ
O Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam! Propagate what has been revealed to you from your Rabb. If you do not do so, then you have not conveyed Allah’s message.
Similarly Allah Ta’ala says addressing the ummah:
وَلْتَكُنْ مِّنْكُمْ اُمّةٌ یَّدْعُوْنَ اِلَی الْخَیْرِ وَیَاْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَیَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْکَرِ
There should be a group from you who invite towards good, command what is right and forbid evil.
It is obvious that those who know what is good and what is evil are the ‘ulama and the more knowledge one possesses the more incumbent it is upon him to propagate din. Who then is it most incumbent upon to propagate din if not the Imams? If the prophets’ remained silent and never uttered a word about din then they would be sinners. However, if they propagated din then it is obvious that the message would not appeal to the inner self, which would result in some accepting and others rejecting. When something does not appeal to the inner self than you will only find one in every hundred thousand capable of being the same as Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, accepting the truth immediately, while the majority will provide hundreds of excuses for rejecting and at times even become your enemy. If in such a time a nabi were to fear the reaction of people then what is the difference between a nabi and the lovers of worldly pursuit? If he were to shy away from his mission because of the objections of people then he will be dubbed a liar and even his supporters will distance themselves from him.
However, if he remains firm and endures the attacks of people on his name, person and wealth then ease will soon follow. It is the promise of Allah that after difficulty and strife, ease always follows:
اَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ اَنْ تَدْخُلُوا الْجَنّةَ وَ لَمَّا یَاْتِكُمْ مَّثَلُ الَّذِیْنَ خَلَوْا مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْؕ مَسَّتْهُمُ الْبَاْسَا ءُ وَالضَّرَّاءُ وَ زُلْزِلُوْا حَتّٰی یَقُوْلَ الرَّسُوْلُ وَالَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا مَعه مَتٰی نَصْرُ اللّٰهِؕ اَلَاۤ اِنَّ نَصْرَ اللّٰهِ قَرِیْبٌ 214
Do you think that you will enter Jannat when there has not yet come to you the like of what came to the people before you? Suffering and hardship affected them and they were shaken until the Rasul and those with him who had Imaan said, “When will the help of Allah come?” Surely, the help of Allah is near.
When ease has come and the help of Allah descended then for what disease is taqiyyah a cure for? In essence there is no circumstance in which taqiyyah can be deemed permissible for the prophets’ and since the Imams are the deputies of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and a deputy has the same task with which he has been deputised, the propagation of din is incumbent upon them also. In fact, it is not specifically incumbent upon them only but incumbent upon the entire ummah as well, as has just been mentioned above. However, they have been specifically appointed for this task and then too the Imams are “infallible”; they cannot sin in any way, so it is impossible for them to practice taqiyyah just as it is impossible for the prophets’.
It is through the grace of Allah Ta’ala that after studying the lives of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the other prophets’, we learn that none of them ever shied away from speaking the truth and instead for the sake of the truth, were prepared to sacrifice their honour, standing, wealth and lives. The life of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is well-known, every Muslim must have heard of the courageous sacrifices he made for Islam. The persecution against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had reached such a level that he was boycotted, forced to live outside Makkah, with the kuffar making a pact with each other not to have any financial or social relations with him and the Muslims. This also failed to silence Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and finally they resolved to kill him, and he left secretly and migrated to Madina. If taqiyyah was permissible, leave alone compulsory, then why did he endure such difficulty? Why then did he leave the sacred city of Makkah, wherein the blessed Ka’bah lies? Why were Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab his enemies? It is obvious that nothing besides his continuous zeal to announce the truth was what turned them against him. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had not snatched authority from their hands nor did he usurp their wealth. The same argument can be made in favour of Nabi Ibrahim ‘alayh al-Salam, why was he thrown into the fire, why was he forced to leave his home and migrate? Their only crime was adherence to the truth and continually calling towards it. It is clear as daylight; the prophets’ never practised taqiyyah nor was it permissible for them to do so.
Likewise, their deputies too never practiced taqiyyah nor could they ever do so. The horrific event of Hussayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the terrible suffering he had to endure is well-known to all. The chief cause of this entire incident was his unflinching honesty and announcement of the truth. If it were any other way then he would have sworn himself to Yazid whereby not only would his life have been spared but he would have been handsomely rewarded as well. The battle that ensued between Amir al Muʼminin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is known by all. Aside from this, the conditions of each of the Imams must have been heard, how they were all assassinated or imprisoned by various emperors. If they had been practicing taqiyyah then why did they undergo all this suffering and torture?
In favour of an ordinary Muslim; it might be permissible if one has a legitimate excuse, but it will never be compulsory. For example, a young boy, woman, the blind, paralysed, a prisoner or any other person faced with no other alternative but to give in to the kuffar, may do so but on condition that there is fear of him losing a limb or loved one (perhaps the life of his son, mother, wife, etc is being threatened) but if there is only fear of a little pain which he is able to endure then it will not be permissible for him to concede to their demands.
All the same, true reward lies in not practicing taqiyyah because the numerous praises and virtues the Qur’an mentions for those who adopt patience are for those who do so in adversity. If this praise were not for those patient in adversity then what adversity is there in taqiyyah that would warrant one to be patient. Taqiyyah does not lead to adversity, it brings comfort and fortune. This is the reason why the Qur’an stresses most on adopting patience and no other quality has been emphasised in the same manner. Allah Ta’ala says:
وَالْعَصْر 1 اِنَّ الْاْنْسَانَ لَفِیْ خُسْرٍ 2 اِلَّا الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ وَ تَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَ تَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ 3
By the oath of time! Verily man is at a loss except those who have iman, who do good deeds, who encourage each other towards the truth and who encourage each other to exercise patience.
Where can truthfulness be found in the Shia faith? Instead they encourage the concealment of the truth. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu concealed one matter regarding Fadak (according to the Shia paradigm) and he is cursed for eternity, so how cursed are those who conceal the entire truth, the entire din of Islam, how many thousand curses are upon them?
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ
Verily Allah is with those who are patient.
وَاللّٰهُ یُحِبُّ الصّٰبِرِیْنَ
Allah loves those who are patient.
The Noble Qur’an is filled with verses such as these; encouraging patience. If there were such a thing as taqiyyah then there would be no such thing as patience. In fact, the practice of taqiyyah has not been ordered anywhere in the Qur’an. If it is allowed then it is only allowed for the common Muslims and then too for the weak amongst them, when their life is in danger, and it is not a blanket permissibility. In the same breath it should be stated that in such circumstances it is only permissible and not compulsory; in fact not practicing it would be more meritorious.
If one is truly faced with conditions under which taqiyyah is permissible then he should contemplate upon migrating and that too as soon as he is able to do so. He should migrate to such a place wherein nothing will prevent him from announcing the truth. The Qur’an also has numerous verses emphasising the importance of migration:
اِنَّ اَرْضِیْ وَاسِعَةٌ فَاِیَّایَ فَاعْبُدُوْنِ 56
Verily my earth is vast so worship Me only.
In another verse, Allah says:
اِنَّ الَّذِیْنَ تَوَفّٰهُمُ الْمَلٰٓئِکَةُ ظَالِمِیْۤ اَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوْا فِیْمَ كُنْتُمْؕ قَالُوْا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِیْنَ فِی الْاَرْضِؕ قَالُوْۤا اَلَمْ تَكُنْ اَرْضُ اللّٰهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوْا فِیْهَاؕ فَاُولٰٓئِكَ مَاْوٰىهُمْ جَهَنَّمُؕ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِیْرًا 97
Indeed those whose lives the angels seize while they oppress themselves, they say to them: “What was your condition?” They reply: “We were oppressed on earth.” The angels will say: “Was Allah’s land not vast enough for you to make hijrah in?” The abode of such folk is Jahannam, and it is the worst of destinations.
Aside from the above, there are even more verses containing the instruction to perform hijrah and the underlying reason for it, is that one is unable to propagate the laws of shari’ah. In summary, taqiyyah under these conditions will be permissible, not compulsory, and it is incumbent upon them to then migrate to a land wherein they will be able to propagate the truth.
It is mentioned in the Qur’an:
لَا یَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ الْکٰفِرِیْنَ اَوْلِیَآءَ مِنْ دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَۚ وَمَنْ یَّفْعَلْ ذٰلِكَ فَلَیْسَ مِنَ اللّٰهِ فِیْ شَیْءٍ اِلَّاۤ اَنْ تَتَّقُوْا مِنْهُمْ تُقٰىةً وَ یُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللّٰهُ نَفْسَهؕ وَ اِلَی اللّٰهِ الْمَصِیْرُ 28
The muʼminin should not take the disbelievers as close friends instead of the believers. Whoever does so has no connection with Allah; unless you need to safeguard yourselves from them. Allah warns you of Himself and to Allah is the return.
This verse only permits one to save himself, in no way does it permit one to conform entirely to the kuffar and keep them as one’s dear friends. One is also able to save himself by migrating from that place.
Allah Ta’ala has stressed on the point that one should fear Him as it is to Him that you are to return. What do you fear the kuffar for, you should conform to them entirely only if your final return were to them. It is a different matter if a person is captured by them, imprisoned or suffers from some disability or the other, or is a woman or child and the kuffar force him to conform to their beliefs. This too only if he is threatened with such a torture which he will be unable to bear; he may be killed or a limb severed, in this case he has the choice to concede to their demands. However, reward will still be in him adhering to his beliefs and not conceding to the demands of the kuffar. The clause in the verse:
اِلَّا مَنْ اُكْرِهَ وَ قَلْبُه مُطْمَئِنٌّۢ بِالْاِیْمَانِ
Except for the person who is forced (to make statements of kufr for fear of losing his life) but his heart is content with iman.
Informs us that one is only permitted to outwardly conform to their demands under duress. However, those verses which enumerate the virtues of those who are slain in the path of Allah inform us that true reward lies in proclaiming the truth, even if one’s life may be threatened.
If any person were to then mention the ‘untruths’ told by Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam in support of his claim for the permissibility of taqiyyah then this will be a grave injustice. It might have appeared to be untrue but in reality it was not, which will become apparent from his story.
When Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam began calling towards tauhid and preventing his people from idol worship then amongst the first people to oppose him was his own father, who even threatened him. Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam was contemplating over how he could somehow destroy their idols when it just so happened that their day of ‘Id arrived and they came to invite Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam also to join in the festivities. He then looked towards the heavens and said: “I am going to be ill.” The kuffar thought that just as they believed in the stars so too did Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam believe in them and that if he participated in the festivities, he would fall ill. It should be noted that all he said was that, I am going to be ill or the signs of illness are setting in and he never said: “I have studied the stars and have discovered that I am going to be ill.”, which would have been a lie. It was the kuffar who assumed that he determined this by studying the stars.
Once they had left, he proceeded to destroy all of their idols, leaving only the biggest of them untouched. When the kuffar saw what had happened to their idols, they had him brought forward, since he was the only one they knew who had denounced idol worship before. When asked if he had did it, he mockingly replied: “This big idol was the one who did it.” This is the second lie he is accused of. No sane person will consider this to be a lie but in our vernacular it will be considered to be a truth. How are these two ‘lies’ equal to concealing the truth. In fact, the greatest proof that these statements are the opposite and rather proclaiming the truth is that he was thrown into the fire on account of them and more so on account of him saying: “The big one did it.” This is definitely no lie but rather it exposes the truth more than concealing it. Everybody knows that this was not said with the intention of lying but was the plan of Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam to make them see the error of their ways, because then why did they become angry at him? Concealing the truth is indeed far-fetched. Furthermore, the answers that he gave to the king thereafter; there are very few who can do so in such a circumstance.
His claim of being ill that was first made, he did not make out of fear for his life nor was it out of fear for his wealth or honour but to fulfil a deep desire in his heart. It was only said so that they would leave and he could destroy their idols, which in itself would endanger his life. It can also be that he wished to save himself from participating in the customs, practices and worship of the kuffar. So in reality these statements were made in the spirit of sacrifice and only that person will claim that spirit of sacrifice and taqiyyah are one and the same, who cannot distinguish between a tail and a nose.
As for the third ‘untruth’, Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam was migrating with his wife, Sarah radiya Llahu ‘anha, when they passed a city which was ruled by a tyrannical and immoral king. A solider of the army had informed the king of the immense beauty of Sarah radiya Llahu ‘anha and as a result he summoned them to his court. Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam understood that he must have heard about Sarah radiya Llahu ‘anha and in his lust, if he were to hear that I am her husband, he will surely kill me. As a result he instructed Sarah radiya Llahu ‘anha that if the king asks about their relationship then she should inform him that she is his sister since they are brother and sister in din and Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam and Sarah radiya Llahu ‘anha were indeed cousins, she being the daughter of his maternal uncle. Thus in reality this was no lie and even if we were to hypothetically accept that it was then too this was not concealing din in anyway. If anything was concealed then it was their relationship of marriage and then too only to protect that life meant for the propagation of truth from being taken for such a trivial matter. In summary, the purpose of saving his own life was so that he could propagate the truth tomorrow and not sacrifice his life for something so trivial. In conclusion, to substantiate the legitimacy of taqiyyah from the life of Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam is a sign of poor understanding and perception.
In the precise manner, the hijrah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, taking refuge in the Cave of Thowr, etc were all for the purpose of proclaiming the truth since there was nothing to prevent Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from conceding to the demands of the kuffar and the need for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to practice taqiyyah at that juncture was definitely greater. Also under the categories of such taqiyyah will be warding off a blow from an enemy sword with your shield and if defending yourself is defined as taqiyyah then most definitely this will be on account of announcing the truth (and not concealing it), since one will only be required to defend himself when another intends to harm you.
All must have understood by now the difference between defending yourself and taqiyyah but I wish to elaborate on this further. According to the Shia, taqiyyah is employed to remove the intention to cause you harm from the heart of the enemy which is achieved by distancing yourself from (i.e. concealing) your true beliefs and promoting the beliefs of the enemy. Thus, when one outwardly adopts the beliefs of the enemy (practices taqiyyah) the enemy no longer remains the enemy and in fact becomes a friend.
However, in the case of defending yourself, the enmity only increases and the fear of harm becomes even greater because it is the rule of man that as long as one has his enemy under his control and able to harm him whenever he desires, then he does not fear him. He remains unconcerned about him as he can harm or disgrace him whenever he pleases. However, when a person defends himself then the fear of retaliation arises, which increases the enmity. In such an event the enemy will pull out all the stops in defending itself and this is when those closest to Allah have to endure the greatest difficulty. Keep this difference in mind, it will prove beneficial later.
When this has been established, then those who have any sense of impartiality should compare the circumstances which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam faced in Makkah and on his journey of hijrah with the situation ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu faced after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Assuming that the Sahaba reneged, then in tracing the footsteps of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ought to have dealt with them in the same manner that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam dealt with Abu Jahal, Umayyah bin Khalaf and the rest of the kuffar. If he were to have done so then sooner or later he would have faced the tribulations which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam experienced, thereby compelling him to undertake the only alternative of hijrah, which was the course Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Nabi Ibrahim ’alayh al-Salam and Nabi Musa ’alayh al-Salam ultimately took.
However, it is rather strange that he never once expressed to the Sahaba that he alone was upon truth and they were upon falsehood. Assuming that he had expressed this, there could have been one of two outcomes. The Sahaba would have attested to the veracity of his claim, in which case there would remain no need for taqiyyah and there would be no objection against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, this would have been exactly what ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have desired, or they would have rejected his claim. If this were a possibility then why is it that they did not harm such an enemy or persecute him thereafter?
If it is said that despite opposing them, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu remained unharmed on account of his valour and courage or due to the divine aid of Allah then this is absurd because it implies that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is lesser than ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Why then was Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not spared from the persecution of his enemies?
It is thus established that the claim of taqiyyah against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is indeed false. If he were to have resorted to taqiyyah, then he should have resorted to it in Makkah Mukarramah. If not there then it was more appropriate to exercise taqiyyah with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If he had resorted to taqiyyah with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu then the worst that could have happened was that the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have been executed. After all, they held no position of importance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which justifies the great dissension the ummah was subjected to on account of not handing them over.
In contrast to this, whilst ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ‘spared’ the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu sacrificed his own life and that of his innocent family members. His mission apparently seemed to be futile and more of a suicide operation, considering his insignificant, ill-equipped band of followers against a formidable army of thirty-thousand men.
If ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had handed over the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, his caliphate and authority would have been established indisputably, a ‘rebel’ and ‘mischief-monger’ would have been subdued and din would have flourished. In addition to this, handing over the killers would have been totally justified as they were villains, not innocent victims like the companions of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
The reality is that it is the Shia who have actually levelled the accusation of concealing the truth against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and it is they who have labelled him as a coward.
سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم
You are indeed pure, this is but greave slander.
The absurdity of the Shia doctrine of taqiyyah does not end here. Consequently, Sharif al Murtada, who is one of their acclaimed scholars, maintains that taqiyyah was incumbent upon ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu even whilst he held the highest position of authority as the khalifa. Will this confounded taqiyyah ever leave ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in peace?
If we were to ask, why then did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu dismiss Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu if taqiyyah was incumbent on him, especially when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu considered him a potential threat and even expressed that his plotting was destructive. In addition to this, he was advised by Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Mughirah ibn Shu’bah radiya Llahu ‘anhu to postpone the dismissal until his authority was established. However, he did not heed their advice and this led to such repercussions, the details of which are documented in Shia sources as well.
Now reflect on the argument and evidence of Sharif al Murtada. He says that ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu position as the khalifa was fictitious since Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was constantly at loggerheads with him. Similarly, his army and most of his close associates were the offspring of the Sahaba, who were actually his staunch enemies, and all of his men attested to the merit and legitimacy of the reign of the first and second khalifas. If ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were to have expressed the truth under such overwhelming circumstances, he would have suffered an irretrievable loss and he would lose the loyalty of his entire force. It is for this reason that proclaiming the truth was prohibited and it was incumbent upon him to resort to taqiyyah even whilst holding the position of khalifa.
For the record it must be stated that Sharif al Murtada has differed with the view of the mainstream Shia, who maintain that taqiyyah was only incumbent upon him before assuming the position of khalifa and it was prohibited thereafter. However, Sharif al Murtada thought that his stance was more prudent and effective, but his plot has worked against him.
Sharif al Murtada pre-empted the possibility of some Sunni analysing the sermons and discourses of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which he delivered during his caliphate and perhaps stumble upon his glowing tribute to the Sahaba in general and the first two khalifas specifically. Or that a Sunni may question why ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu failed to promote the Shia creed during his reign, just as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma “concealed” the original teachings and promoted their “fabricated religion” in their appointed terms. Similarly, his position as the fourth khalifa was more opportune for him to promote the correct din as opposed to the sequence of caliphate being reversed. Notwithstanding this, why is it that the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah prevailed?
The only logical answer to this would be that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu favoured the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah. It is because of these damning possibilities that Sharif al Murtada took the stance that he took on taqiyyah.
If ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu position as the khalifa was superficial; did it not occur to him that caliphate or wilaya refers to nothing more than holding authority to pass decrees in the land under one’s governance, being able to collect taxes and revenue and having the force with which to deal with criminals and bandits. With the exception of Syria, in which other domain of Muslim lands did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not enjoy such authority? There can be no two opinions about his consolidated authority over Hijaz, Oman, Makkah, Madina, Bahrain, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Persia and Khurasan. Is this not sufficient authority and influence in contrast to the hold of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Syria? ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was surely in a position to pass any decree.
Bear in mind that the tiny Arabian Peninsula which Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu assumed authority over after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was afflicted with multiple challenges; whilst Musaylamah and the Banu Yamamah rebelled on one front, Sajah claimed nubuwwah and with the support of the entire Banu Tamim, which was the largest of the Arab tribes. The rejecters of zakat and the multitudes of renegades were a separate challenge along with the Banu Usfan and other tribes who disputed the political authority of Madina. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was left with a small group of loyal Muslims only in Makkah and Madina, but they did not surrender in the least nor did they compromise. They certainly could have appeased all their foes as easily as they could have appeased those who refused to submit zakat.
Despite the lack of resources and the comparative ‘lack of bravery’, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not alarmed by the overwhelming threat, despite most of his opponents being skilled at warfare and some of them even ruling over little kingdoms as well. Notwithstanding the fact that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu lacked the attributes which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed (‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is characterised to have unparalleled bravery, the ability to display unique miraculous feats, the one legitimately entitled as the wali and the khalifa, etc), Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu still achieved what he achieved, why is it that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was unable to accomplish his mission and proclaim the truth? If Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had these attributes of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu then there would have been no chance of any non-believer ever surviving in the world. We make this claim and we would take full responsibility for it, if he would achieve anything less than that.
As for saying that the majority of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu army consisted of the offspring of Sahaba, this is a statement that would have sounded better if uttered by a Sunni. What grounds does Sharif al Murtada have for making such a statement? Has he not heard the statement of Qadhi Nur Allah, who said that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu could not prevail because he only had the support of five individuals from the Quraysh, whilst the rest of the thirteen tribes stood with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu?
In addition to this, the Shia claim that the companions of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were actually the die-hard Kufis. However, if his army only comprised of the offspring of the Sahaba, then just as they believed in the merit and legitimacy of the first two khalifas and approved of their caliphate, they were also fully acquainted with the teachings of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which was transmitted to them by their parents.
Also assuming that they would have forsaken ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu if he were to have proclaimed the truth, his cause would not have suffered any setbacks at all. After all, there are such temptations within the ‘Din of ‘Ali’ which would make just about every sceptic succumb. If the supporters of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have heard of the legitimacy of muta (temporary marriage) they would have surely abandoned him. In fact, any person who devoutly subscribed to any religion would have been lured by the temptation of muta; which legalises promiscuity in this world and secures the ultimate ranks of the hereafter. No matter how staunch anyone may have been upon his religion, the call to muta was sure to make them deflect and unite under the standard of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Furthermore, the concession of not washing one’s feet in wudu and being relieved of tarawih salah add to the temptation. Such a religion and such faith could only be the fortune of very lucky people. If ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would have proclaimed the truth then the entire Arab and non-Arab populace would have responded.
Allah is pure! Such a flimsy premise and yet they have the audacity to challenge the Ahlus Sunnah? They should have at least realised that from beginning to end, the loyal supporters of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were those who were either brothers, relatives or children of people who were his sworn enemies, consider Khalid bin Walid radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Ikramah bin Abi Jahal radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was also the nephew of Abu Jahal and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the son of Abu Quhafah. As for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he was the close relative of Abu Sufyan, and this was the case for the majority of the Sahaba.
When these ties of kinship did not pose a deterrent for them standing up to the truth, nothing else could possibly have deterred them from supporting the truth or defending it.
Let us conclude this discussion on taqiyyah by citing two verses of the Noble Qur’an, which proves that the chosen servants of Allah have always suffered persecution at the hands of the enemies of Allah. Let it be known thereby that Allah loves steadfastness and endurance for the sake of din, not complacency and compromise. Allah Ta’ala says:
اِنَّ الَّذِیْنَ یَكْفُرُوْنَ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰهِ وَیَقْتُلُوْنَ النَّبِیّنَ بِغَیْرِ حَقٍّۙ وَّیَقْتُلُوْنَ الَّذِیْنَ یَاْمُرُوْنَ بِالْقِسْطِ مِنَ النَّاسِۙ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ اَلِیْمٍ 21
Surely those who disbelieve in the ayat of Allah and who unjustly slay the prophets’ and slay those from mankind who command justice, give them the good news of a most painful punishment.
Allah warns those who took the lives of the prophets’ and the lives of those who proclaimed the truth of a painful torment. This verse establishes that the prophets’ of Allah and the righteous ones never resort to taqiyyah.
Ponder over the following verse as well:
یٰاَیُّهَا الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا مَنْ یَّرْتَدَّ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِیْنِه فَسَوْفَ یَاْتِی اللّٰهُ بِقَوْمٍ یُّحِبُّهُمْ وَیُحِبُّوْنَهۤ ۙ اَذِلَّةٍ عَلَی الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ اَعِزَّةٍ عَلَی الْکٰفِرِیْنَ۫ یُجَاهِدُوْنَ فِیْ سَبِیْلِ اللّٰهِ وَلَا یَخَافُوْنَ لَوْمَةَ لَآئِمٍؕ ذٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللّٰهِ یُؤْتِیْهِ مَنْ یَّشَآءُؕ وَاللّٰهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِیْمٌ 54
O you who have iman! Whoever among you turns away from his religion, then Allah can soon bring another nation whom He loves and who love Him; who will be kind towards the muʼminin, stern towards the kuffar and who will strive in Allah’s way (to uplift Islam) without fearing the criticism of those who criticise. This is the grace of Allah that He grants to whoever He desires. Allah is All Surrounding, All Knowing.
This verse establishes that the beloved ones, who truly love Allah, are never suppressed by the disbelievers nor do they behave complacently towards them. Instead they confront them, oppose them and fear no rebuke. Is taqiyyah not the exact opposite of this? If so, then taqiyyah certainly is not the hallmark of the chosen ones of Allah. Rather, it is the trait of the enemies of Allah and His messenger.
The discussion thus far exposed the fallacy of taqiyyah in the light of sound reasoning and narration. It would now be appropriate to test its merit by social norms and standards so that its absurdity may be fully exposed.
Society has always acknowledged and lauded resoluteness and steadfastness and people look upon double-standards and hypocrisy with scorn and disdain, especially in matters pertaining to religion. If the prophets’ of Allah and those charged with the responsibility of proclaiming the truth were to have expressed the truth once only and thereafter compromised with the disbelievers for fear of losing their lives or dignity, then everyone would accuse them of having some worldly motive. As a result, the object of displaying miracles would be defeated, and those who had any inclination to the truth would be disheartened, those upon guidance would lose faith after concluding that the ultimate objective of these prophets’ was but a quest for name and fame.
It is a well-known fact that the effectiveness of any person’s admonition and advice depends on his practical conformance to it. If taqiyyah is valid then there is no question of being a practical example of what one is preaching. The doors to guidance would be sealed.
Therefore, the fallacy of taqiyyah is established through logic, narration and even social standards. Yet you will find those, whose vision is distorted, failing to see the truth no matter how clear it may be. Furthermore, it is reported in a hadith that “Love for something makes one blind and deaf.” If they were to distance the love of the Shia faith from their hearts for just a moment and thereafter analyse the discussions for and against taqiyyah, then (Allah willing) even ‘Ammar ‘Ali will be compelled to repent and forget all about converting Nadir ‘Ali to Shi’asm.
Whilst there is no need for further elaboration on taqiyyah let us pose the following question to the Shia scholars thereby completing the argument against them. Let us assume, despite it being impossible, that taqiyyah is valid, then when the majority of Sihah scholars maintain that taqiyyah was prohibited during the reign of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, how can ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu praise of the Sahaba still be classified as taqiyyah?
If we were to accept the view of those who maintain that taqiyyah was incumbent upon ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu even during his reign as the khalifa, then despite this being preposterous and baseless by all standards, we would ask why did Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah praise Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, when the Shia maintain that Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah was prohibited by Allah from resorting to taqiyyah? This prohibition of taqiyyah for Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah is recorded by ‘Ali ibn Isa and by al Ardabili in his book Kashf al Ghummah ‘an Ma’rifah al A’immah. The text is as follows:
سئل الإمام أبو جعفر عن حلية السيف ، هل يجوز؟ فقال : نعم ، قد حلى أبو بكر الصديق سيفه. فقال الراوي ، القول هكذا؟ فوثب الإمام عن مكانه فقال : نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق – فمن لم يقل له الصديق فلا صدق الله قوله في الدنيا والآخرة
Imam Abu Jafar (Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah) was asked about the permissibility of decorating the handle of the sword with gold or silver. He replied that it was permissible and as proof cited that the sword of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu was embellished with silver. The person who posed the question then asked him if he referred to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as “Al Siddiq”, whereupon he became angry, rose from his place and stated three times that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu certainly is “Al Siddiq”, and whoever disputes this then may Allah never let his word be true in this world or in the hereafter.
Let it be known that the Shia are unanimous about the scholarship and credibility of ‘Ali ibn Isa and al Ardabili and that their transmissions are beyond any doubt.
If one were to ask why Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah was not permitted to resort to taqiyyah then the following narration of al Kulayni should clarify the issue:
عن معاذ بن كثير عن ابي عبد الله قال : إن الله عز وجلّ أنزل على نبيه كتابا فقال : يا محمد ؛ هذه وصيتك إلى النجباء ، فقال : ومن النجباء يا جبريل؟ فقال : علي بن أبي طالب وولده. كان على الكتاب خواتيم من ذهب ، فدفعه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى علي وأمره أن يفكّ خاتما منه فيعمل بما فيه. ثم دفعه إلى الحسن ففكّ عنه خاتماً فعمل بما فيه ، ثم دفعه إلى الحسين ففكّ خاتما ، فوجد فيه : أخرج بقوم إلى الشهادة فلا شهادة لهم إلا معك واشتر نفسك لله ، ففعل. ثم دفعه إلى علي بن الحسين ففكّ خاتما فوجد فيه: أن أطرق واصمت وألزم منزلك واعبد ربك حتي يأتيك اليقين ، ففعل. ثم دفعه إلى إبنه محمد بن علي بن الحسين عليه السلام ، ففكّ خاتما فوجد فيه : حدّث الناس وأفتهم وانشر علوم أهل بيتك وصدّق آباءك الصالحين ، ولا تخافنّ أحداً إلا الله ، فإنه لا سبيل لأحد عليك. ثم دفعه إلى جعفر الصادق ففكّ خاتما ، فوجد فيه : حدّث الناس وأفتهم وانشر علوم أهل بيتك وصدّق آباءك الصالحين ، فإنك في حرز وأمان. ففعل. ثم دفعه إلى إبنه موسى عليه السلام وهكذا إلى قيام المهدي – ورواه من طريق آخر عن معاذ بن كثير أيضاً عن أبي عبد الله وفيه : في الخاتم الخامس : وقل الحق في الأمن والخوف ولا تخش إلا الله ؛ إهـ
The summary of this narration is as follows:
Al Kulayni transmits from Mu’adh ibn Kathir, who reports from Imam Muhammad al Baqir that Allah Ta’ala revealed a document to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and told him that this document contained his wasiyyah (bequest) to the “Nujaba”. When he asked Jibril ’alayh al-Salam who was referred to by “Nujaba”, he replied that it referred to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his offspring. This document had many golden seals. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam thus handed the document to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and instructed him to break one seal and act upon the directive contained therein. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu then handed the document to Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He also broke a seal and acted upon the directive. He then gave the document to Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He broke a seal and found the following directive:
Set forth towards martyrdom with a group of people who will not attain martyrdom except with you. Sell yourself to Allah.
He thus carried out the injunction. He then handed the document over to Zayn al Abidin rahimahu Llah. He broke a seal and found the following directive:
Sit with your head lowered, remain silent and be confined to your home, worshipping Allah till you meet your end.
He did as instructed and then handed over the document to his son, Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah. He broke a seal and found the following directive:
Transmit hadith to the people and issue fatawa, propagate the knowledge of the Ahlul bayt and be faithful to your righteous ancestors. Do not fear anyone in the matter of Allah, for none will be able to harm you.
He acted upon this and then handed the document to his son, Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah. He broke a seal and found the following directive:
Transmit hadith to the people and issue fatawa, propagate the knowledge of the Ahlul bayt and be faithful to your righteous ancestors. You are certainly under divine protection.
He did as instructed and then passed the document over to his son, Musa rahimahu Llah. In this manner the document will eventually be passed over to Imam al Mahdi.
Al Kulayni transmits another version of this narration on the authority of Musa ibn Kathir. This version states that upon breaking the fifth seal (the seal of Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah) there was the following addition:
And proclaim the truth in safety and in fear, and do not fear anyone except Allah.
Ponder over the words of this narration and see the emphatic prohibition of taqiyyah for Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah. He was instructed to proclaim the truth in safety and in fear and yet he awards the highest honour to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by referring to him as al Siddiq, which is the station after nubuwwah. He then goes on to curse all those who do not accept that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu holds the title of al Siddiq.
As much as this narration establishes the highest title for Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it conclusively determines that the Ahlus Sunnah are upon the truth and the Shia are deviated. It does so in the following manner…
Firstly, this narration subjects all variants of Shia doctrine; Imamiyyah or otherwise, to the curse of the ‘infallible’ Imam whose prayers are undoubtedly accepted. Forget, the Ahlus Sunnah, even the Shia would have no reservations about the validity of this curse. Based on this, it becomes absolutely certain that their claim of love for the Ahlul bayt, or their claim of being Muslims and people of faith is false in the sight of Allah and Allah Ta’ala will reject their claims in the hereafter too.
Secondly, (since he was entrusted with directives in the document given to him) whatever ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did was in accordance with the command of Allah and the wasiyyah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and was not on the basis of taqiyyah. Therefore, since he pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, it establishes their legitimacy to the post of khalifa. Similarly, the marriage of his daughter, Ummi Kulthum to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma was no less than divine instruction just as the marriage of Fatima to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. So praise be to Allah that the truth has been established and falsehood has been exposed and the Shia are left dumbfounded. All praise belongs to Allah.
In a final attempt (and purely for the sake of argument) the Shia could turn around and say that it certainly seems that the Book of Allah and the sayings of the Imams of the Ahlul bayt are two credible testimonies proving that the Ahlus Sunnah are upon truth and that the Shia are upon falsehood. The fact that these are credible testimonies are borne out by the following hadith which is considered to be an authentic hadith according to both the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia scholars:
إنى تارِك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدى أحدهما أعظم من الآخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأَرض وعترتى أهل بيتى ولن يتفرقا
I am leaving behind two weighty things after me; you will not deviate as long as you hold on to them. One of them has greater status than the other; the Book of Allah, a continuous rope (of Allah) from the heavens unto the earth and my family members. They will never part with each other.
However, after one accepts that these are two credible testimonies then the Shia assertions, which they base upon what has been narrated to them from their ‘infallible’ Imams, entitles them to the curse of Imam al Baqir since rejection of the title of al Siddiq is unanimously agreed upon by all their leaders. Therefore, rejecting this position of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu discredits all of them as Imam al Baqir rahimahu Llah said that their speech should not be accepted if they reject the position of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu (the rejection of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu discredits all of them).
In addition to this, (if the Shia were to say that) most of our prominent leaders and credible transmitters were disbelievers and infidels and they have been classified as such by Shia standards. Consequently, the situation of some of their prominent figures has been dealt with under the discussion of the verse of Surah al Fath. As for the rest of them, it is best that their condition be left vague. As for Zurarah ibn A’yun, Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah has declared him to be an inmate of Jahannam, and this is recorded in their authentic references on the authority of Ibn Samman.
Qadhi Nur Allah says that Zurarah’s four brothers – Hamran, ‘Abd al Malik, Bukhayr and ‘Abd al Rahman – as well as his sons – Hassan and Hussain – his nephews – Hamzah, Muhammad, Khuraysh, ‘Abdullah, Jahm, ‘Abd al Majid, ‘Abd al A’la and ‘Umar; all shared the same views as Zurarah. Therefore, all of them maintained the view that Allah Ta’ala was ignorant at some point in the past, Allah forbid. As a result of this belief, they disbelieve in the following verse of the Noble Qur’an:
وَكُنَّا بِكُلِّ شَیْءٍ عٰلِمِیْنَ
We have knowledge of all things.
The verdict regarding one who rejects a single verse of the Qur’an or even less is abundantly clear.
(So if the Shia were to say that) When this is the condition of our prominent figures, what could be said about the multitude of weak narrators and those who are clouded in obscurity? Therefore, we cannot accept their transmissions (from the Imams of the Ahlul bayt at all), which leaves the Ahlus Sunnah with only one credible witness instead of the required two. This credible witness is the Noble Qur’an, which has been profusely transmitted throughout the generations by the highest standards of transmission. As for the testimony of the Ahlul bayt, it could only be accepted if it matches the transmission by which the Qur’an has been transmitted. This fundamentally requires every link in the chain to be a Muslim who is upright and credible and since all our narrators are either infidels or obscure, we have no conviction on any of their narrations. Since you have only one credible testimony we are compelled to reject the honourable status of the Sahaba, even though we had to absolve ourselves of any affiliation to our faith and expose the true identity of our scholars in the process.
There are many responses to this type of rationale but for now we would rather rest our case, as you were compelled to actually uproot the foundation of your entire faith.
Nevertheless, for our own purposes we have established through the Noble Qur’an and the testimony of the Ahlul bayt (i.e. the Thaqalayn) that the Shia faith is baseless and this is all we wanted to achieve. It now seems appropriate to refer to the letter of ‘Ammar ‘Ali and we will record it hereunder verbatim so that the reader may fully appreciate the worth of our response to it.
In part 2:
– Substantiated reply to ‘Ammar ‘Ali
– The marriage of ‘Umar to Ummi Kulthum bint ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anha
– Proof that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had four daughters
– A comprehensive discussion of the garden of Fadak
 Surah al Baqarah: 214
 Surah Al Imran: 146
 Surah al Ra’d: 37
 Surah al Ahzab: 39
 Surah al Hijr: 94
 Surah al Ahzab: 21
 Surah al Kahaf: 56
 Surah al Fath: 28
 Surah al Maʼidah: 67
 Surah Al Imran: 104
 Surah al Baqarah: 214
 Surah al ‘Asr
 Surah al Anfal: 46
 Surah Al Imran: 146
 Surah al ‘Ankabut: 56
 Surah al Nisaʼ: 97
 Surah Al Imran: 28
 Surah al Nahl:106
 Surah Al Imran: 21
 Surah al Ma’idah: 54
 Surah al Ambiya’: 81Back to top