Skip to: Site menu | Main content


We believe that a true and comprehensive understanding of Islam would not be possible without careful recognition of the Prophetic Tradition and the Prophet's Household. And Allah is the Source of Strength.

Shia Questions For Sunnis; Answered and Commented

I believe diversity has a right to exist, if it is justified. We are born in a Muslim family and we take Islam for granted. Similarly, if my parents are Sunnis, i will consider their way to be the right way. Accepting that my parents follow a wrong path will be against my dignity as well as my conscious. But bravery is nothing but to accept the truth no matter what the consequences are. We have been killing each other over petty issues. It is time to follow the way of the Prophet (SAW). It is time we kill our own logical thirst for the truth. The following is a list of certain questions found in many websites, which invite our Sunni brothers to ponder over certain facts. There was an attempt by a Nasibi to answer them and his answers are commented by "Agha Malang".

Question 1: History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh1 . Hadhrath Abu Talib took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship2 . Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim? 

Answer 1:
Yes there is, read the history in works like Seerah Ibnu Hishaam etc. ,you will see that during the same period Aboobakr who was once a wealthy man ended up with almost no money because of his efforts to help Muslims. Omar was also very active during this period to support Islam. Refer to the records of that period in Sunni books of history. The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 1: The question was asking what support the Shaykhayn gave to Rasul (s) in Shib Abi Talib, did they give him food, financial help? Our dear Nasibi friend failed to answer that, where not interested in their alleged outside activities, what support did they give to Rasulullah (s)? Answer is NONE and this Nasibi knows it.

Question 2: Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima ? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial? 

Answer 2: No records even from Shia sources implies that people prevent Fatima's burial near his father. Also there are no records that she had requested to be buried next to his father. Aboobakr and Omar had requested to be buried next to the prophet. That easy. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 2: This question is a technique in debating, it leads one being questioned to start thinking deeper �  If you read Sahih al Bukhari you will see Sayyida Fatima left the world angry with Abu Bakr�she didn�t speak to him and was buried secretly in Jannathul Baqi. The question Should lead you to a thinking process what was Sayyida Fatima seeking to show by being buried away from Rasul (s)? 

Question 3: Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior. If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer? 

Answer 3: There are many records of the prophet praising Aboobakr and calling him his brother( see Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, virtures of Abu Bakr), of course Shia considers all of them to be fabricated!. The fact that he did not choose him as his brother when he divided the companions cannot reduce any thing from Aboobakr. He has his own rank and Ali has his own. Aboobakr was friend of the holy prophet from before his prophet hood until his passing away. This is a fact that even Shia sources confess to. It is also referred to in Quran, the verse of Qar . Also the Prophet choose him to be his fellow companion during migration and he was his partner in the cave. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 3: Notice that the Nasibi has failed to answer the question. If Abu Bakr was closest Rasulullah (s) would have chosen him he didn�t. This proves that he was NOT the closest. If AB really was referred to as the brother of Rasul (s) as Nasibi claims then he would have been selected NOT Maula �Ali .

Question 4: The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration�s far exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali , Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan and Hadhrath Hussain ? Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Ali benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals? 

Answer 4: The answer is very easy and it shows the ignorance of the designer of the question. Unlike the Shia ahadith, the vast majority of Sunni ahadith are those that the narration goes back to the prophet. It is obvious that Ayesha and Aboohorayrah were adults when they were with the prophet, while Hasanayn were kids. Ebne Omar was older than hasanayn at the time of the prophet so he had more chance as compared to them to narrate from the prophet. Apart from this, the political situations made Hasanayn engaged with many things. Ebne Omar was not like this. Also it's up to the individuals whether they like to narrate something or not. As for Ali , Omar and Aboobakr too have very low number of Ahadith. Does that mean that Bukhari didn't like them?! Also Fatimatuz Zahra passed away only about three months after the passing away of the prophet, how many ahadith does one expect to be recorded from her in these critical three months? The question actually should be directed to Shia. How many ahadith does Shia have from Hasanayn? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 4: So Hasnayn were kids! Your trying to tell us they knew very few traditions from the grandfather! Yet we have Ayesha and Abu Hurraira narrating traditions such as Miraj when she wasn�t married to Rasul (s) and Abu Hurrayra narrating the Invitiation by Rasul (s) to his family when he had not yet met Rasul (s). Let us not forget hadith narrated by Marwan who expelled from Madina as a teenager and never saw Rasulullah (S) again yet he narrates hadith in Sahih al Bukhari. Omar and Abu Bakr not narrating many hadith! Well that because they were themselves anti hadith and set out on a program to ban / burn hadith!

Question 5: If Hadhrath Ali had no differences with the three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir's is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath unsheath his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan? 

Answer 5: Many Sahabah remained in the city for other purposes, as they were perceived as unique sources of knowledge, do you have any evidence that they all gone except Ali? So would you say that they were all against Omar?! There is in the history that Hassan was participating in the attack on Tabarestan. Also we know that Salman (one of the best followers of Ali according to Shia) got the authority from Omar to rule Fars. In what basis would you say that giving consultancy and advice to Omar while being against him is fine (as Ali did) but participating in fighting with Koffar and Moshrekin (which Ali endorses in Nahjul Balagha) is not fine for Ali? Read Najhul Balagha and you see that Ali endorses the war. Refer to the 146th ceremony of Nahjul balagha (or one before or after, depending on the edition). It's a pity that we try to attribute our own hostility and hatred to Ali to prove our points. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 5: Again no answer! This Nasibi should know that there�s a world of difference between advising and providing physical support. If Imam �Ali or Salman offered advisory roles / positions to Umar that in no way means that they believed his rule to be right. Imam �Ali and Salman gave advice for the betterment of Islam for Umar�s rulings were often error-prone that had Imam �Ali not intervened Islam would have been turned into a mockery. Advice was for the betterment of the Ummah, Nasibi should know that Nabi Yusuf was adviser to Pharoah that doesn�t mean he belived Pahroah�s rule to be right. 

Question 6: If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing  Imam Hussain then why did the majority Ahl'ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time? 

Answer 6: Look at the situation just now. We all know about Palestine yet we waste our time over the net. Same for that time. This is while at that time there were no media to let people know what is going on. One cannot cover the grave sin of those so called Shia people who betrayed Hussain, by asking about why others didn't defend Hussain. Did any Shia defend Zayd ibn Ali when he was left alone against Bani Omayyeh? Of course I agree that it is a disaster and disappointment that the grand son of the holy prophet is being killed this easy and people are remained silent. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 6: Fact is the leading lights of Sahaba and tabieen had given bayya to Yazeed, and your Ulema have deemed Yazeed to be the rightful Khailfa. Majority didn�t support the Imam because they believed that Khilafath was Yazeed�s right exemplified by Abdullah Ibn Umar. As for claim Shi�a betrayed the Imam there are many articles on many websites which answer the allegation. This is not the point of discussion and will take us off topic so i will not touch it over here.

Question 7: If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? 

Answer 7: No one accused the prophet of speaking nonsense. �They were saying that the pain of death has overcome the prophet

COMMENT 7: we suggest this Nasibi reads Saahih al Bukhari that says that Rasulullah (s) was accused of speaking yahjur that means NONSENSE. Its always good to quote all that the Sahaba said in the tradition not the part that you just like.

Question 8: Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s companions follow this approach? 

Answer 8: Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn't stay without a leader. Also the situation is very different. It's very stupid to ask for evidence like this. Each prophet has passed away in different situations and there were no unique attitude of their followers among them. The question is: Is there any evidence that there were chain of non-prophet successors from a prophet, all being infallible, all being in the same generation? With no mention of their names in their holy books? Is there any evidence that one of them goes to occultation for centuries while still being in this world? The question and any replies to it has nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 8: Again the question hasn�t been answered, its funny that the Nasibi had said �Because they were told numerous time by the prophet himself that they shouldn't stay without a leader� and yet the same Prophet (s) fails to select a Leader and leaves the matter up in the air, no Sahaba ever bothers to ask him the process to select the Leader! If you consult the Qur�an we see that Allah (swt) appoints the Khalifa, why change now, in favour for the clown antics of Saqifa?

Question 9: Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions? 

Answer 9: This is again a complete ignorance. You can read in Osoole Kafi the hadith were it says that prophets do not leave any heritage. Imam Khomeini in one of his books of Fiqh endorses the correctness of this hadith. As for the wives of the prophet, you need to read the history to see how the prophet made each one of them a house of her own, it wasn't a heriatge or a gift. Comparing Fadak (a land captured by Muslims) to the houses of the wives of the prophet is very funny.

COMMEN 9: Fadak was also bequeathed to Sayyida Fatima during Rasulullah�s lifetime, so if the wives could have a claim on their homes why not Sayyida Fatima.

Question 10: We read in the Qur'an "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?

Answer 10: It all depends on their intention. Al'Aamalo Bennyat. If their intention was to bring Fitnah among Muslims or to get their own personal benefit then they have done a sin (no matter if they were in Ali's army or Muawiyah's army). As for their position in the hereafter, we are not God to judge about it. Read letter 58 (or one before or after depending on the edition) of Najhul Balagha to see what does Imam Ali think about people of Siffin. Of course I do agree that the right was with Ali and not Ayesha or Moawiah. I do agree that Ali was oppressed in these incidents but I cannot judge about the intentions of every individual who was involved. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 10: Maybe its my stupiditiy but if I enter into battle with a sword am I not INTENDING on killing my opponents? These people had created Fitnah by rebelling against the rightful Imam, and their acts were a violation of the Qur�an and Sunnah � so the excuse of Niyah is a very feeble one.

Question 11: Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an "And of the people of Medina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After his (saaws)'s death where did they go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe  the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah. 

Answer 11: This is very deceiving question. To say that the hypocrites were not among those 4 has nothing to prove against the Sahabah. Read Shia Tafasir to see what were the features of these hypocrites. Even the Shia tafasirs do not consider them among the popular sahabeh of the prophet. The Hypocrites mentioned in the Quran were Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his henchmen. Ibn Ubayy died during the lifetime of the Prophet and with that the hypocrites too eroded. Their features certainly are not of the features of great Sahabah like Omar ,Aboobakr , Talha and Zobayr. Read your own sources like Al-mizan and you will see. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 11: Again the question Has NOT been answered. This verse Surah Tauba descended in 10 Hijri, one of the LAST VERSES and even at that pt Allah (swt) was declaring the presence of munafiq in Madina. To suggest that the detailed verse referes to ONE who incidentally died during the life of Rasulullah (s) is laughable. If hypocrites really finished with his death, then perhaps the Nasibi could explain WHY Abu Dharr Ghaffari stated �After the death of Rasul (s) we would recognise the munafiq due to their hatred of �Ali� (Tarrekh ul Khulafa page 173).

Question 12: Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these principles applied? 

Answer 12: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself. 

COMMENT 12: This was a very funny answer. �What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself�. So he told the Sahaba to leave his funeral arrangements meet at a secret rendezvous involving three Muhajireen and the Ansar then shout fight, swear and brow meet each other, and then select a Leader. Nasibi should know that the the first source of Law is the Qur�an and when you have the answer (namely that Allah (swt) appoints the khalifa then you have no right to adopt comical social experiments such as Saqifa! If this really was legitimate Umar wouldn't have called it a sudden thing, Allah protected us from its evil. And if consultation is what the Prophet (SAW) taught, then what do you say about the nomination of Umar and Uthman which were made even without the minor "consultation".

Question 13: If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa? 

Answer 13: I don't believe that rejecting a Khalifa is tantamount apostasy, however as Ali says in Najhul Balagha, letter 6, the rejecter has gone astray from the way of Muslims. Not all people who fought Ali actually rejected his Caliphate, many started the fight because they wanted to arrest the killers of Uthman (again refer to 58th letter in Nahjul Balagha or one before or after depending on the edition), The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 13: Wrong those people that fought Imam �Ali DID reject his Khilafath they refused to give him bayya / or revoked it so they did reject it. This question is directed to Sippah-e-Sahaba Pakistan who are seeking to pass legislation namely rejecting the khilafath of the Shaykhayn makes you a kaafir.

Question 14: It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right? 

Answer 14: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portions of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah's army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali's army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah's act of fighting Ali. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam. 

COMMENT 14: What can we say to this type of comical answer? Common sense dictates that you're either right or wrong not both! Now in Jamal and Sifeen Imam �Ali was in the right, Rasulullah (s) said �Ali is with the truth and the truth is with �Ali � so his opponents are automatically on falsehood. 

Question 15: During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that following his slaying she chose to rebel against Imam Ali on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise oppostion from Basrah. Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali ? 

Answer 15: The narration that Ayesha was a severe critic of Uthman to such an extent that she stated: "Kill this Nathal because he became a Kaffir" is reported in Sunni works by a person called "Nasr ibn Muhazim"..This person was an extermist Shii and the scholars of rijaal have considered this person to be a liar and a fabricator. So this narration is simply inauthentic. Can you honestly claim that you know the motivation of your best friend that you have known and see all the time in your life when he/she wants to do anything? How can we talk about the motivation of a woman who was living 1400 years ago with all these conflicting pieces of records from history? Instead of casting doubt about her motivations, is it not closer to Taqwa if we respect her as the beloved wife of the prophet and as our mother (if we consider ourselves Momin). Is it not closer to cautious if we observe the verse in Sura of Noor who warns people of thinking ill about Ayesha. Is it not closer to Taqwa to observe the verse that says "avoid uncertain accusations, as most of them are sin"? 

COMMENT 15: Notice how this Nasibi attributed this saying to Nasr bin Muhzahim without any reference of the book. Fact is it is through different narrators and so true that many of your great Salaf recorded these memorable words, such as Ibn Atheer and Ibn Mansur.

Question 16: It is commonly conveyed that the Sahaba were brave, generous, knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's did the prominent Sahaba Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no friends and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of he relationship to the  Ummayah clan - against the obligation placed on him by a direct command of the Holy Prophet. 

Answer 16: How many did Salman or AbuDhar kill? How many did Miqdad or Ibn Abbas kill? Daft question! 

COMMENT 16: So Nasibi fails to answer the question. It asked how many kaafir Umar killed. He had no answer so he counters it with the question. How many did Salman kill! Thus confirming Umar didn�t even get a nosebleed in battle. You want us to answer how many Salman killed, well we don�t believe Salman was the great noble ferocious warrior, whilst you believe Umar was. So the onus is on you to back up your claim with sources showing Umar�s talent in Jihad that you have spectacularly failed to answer!

Question 17: The Saha Sittah have traditions in which the Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa's after him . Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlulbayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out Hanafi aqeedah states that the 6th khalifa was Yazid ibn Mu'awiya? Was the Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states `He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya' then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are. 

Answer 17: The hadith is Hadithe wahid (narrated only by one man), and the narrator was a kid when he was hearing it. No one can base all his religion in a hadithe wahed. Apart from this, the hadith does not put any obligation on Muslims. It is not ordering anything, it is reporting something. Also the hadith refers to these people as Amirs (few versions refer to them as Khalifs), non of the Shia Imams (except Ali and partially Hassan) became an Amir of Khalif. Moreover Imam Zainul Abideen refused to accept the post of Caliphate when the situation was very favourable. Even Bani Ummayah and the Syrians were ready to give him Baiaah but he simply refused. Likewise Imam Jaffar as Sadiq refused Caliphate in a scenario when the Alwis and Banu Abbas had uprooted Banu Ummayah and a large number of people were willing to give him Baiaah. Also it is only the Ithna Ashari who believe in the existence of the 12th Imam. According to other Muslims he never existed. Also there are many other ahadith that give different prophecies about the future of Muslims. One should look at them all and examine the narrators to be able to get a better picture. The hadith does not say that these Amirs themselves are very good Muslims, it says that in their time Islam has power and respect so I can see how Mulla Ali Qari looks at it. As for the other hadith, you should read the ahadith of the same category to see the whole picture. The hadith as it is written above has not been considered as authentic by Sunnis, However there are ahadith that says who ever get apart from the community of Muslims (to the degree that he even does not know the leader of the society) will be dead like people of ignorant. This is nothing but the indication of importance of being socially & politically aware and active in Islam. This is very much in line with the 6th letter of Ali to Muawiyah in Najhul Balagha. It in no way indicates that there should always be a qualified Imam of time. It is clear that if there are no qualified Imams then the hadith will not be relevant to the situation any more. It says that if Muslims have a leader, you as an individual must recognize him; this is your political and social responsibility as a Muslim. So please see the correct version of hadith in its context to help yourself understanding it. 

COMMENT 17: First of all Nasibi should know that this hadith is Sahih, had it been weak then it would appear in crucial books of Sunni aqeedah such as Sharh Fiqh Akbar. Secondly you need to understand that you don�t have to be sit on a throne to be khailfa! Khalifa means �to follow� like in the Qur�an the moon is called the khalifa of the moon. We deem the twelve Imams to be the khalifas of Rasulullah (s) in that they followed the foosteps of Rasulullah (s) and were the true inheritors of the Qur�an and Sunnah. We have thus interpreted the hadith in this way, now if you feel that this refers to great figures such as Yazeed so be it, but some how I don�t really believe that Rasulullah (s) would refer to Yazeed as the protector of religion, but with these Nasibi anything is possible.

Question 18: Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3 Talaq's in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute  Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own? 

Answer 18: Imam Khomeini said in one of his speeches that walye faqih can even order muslims to stop reading prayer if he finds that reading the prayers could harm islam. It is amusing to see his followers are now accusing Omar. As for Omar, he never initiated Tarawih. It was started at the time of the prophet and the prophet let muslims doing it for 3 nights. The only reason that he put a halt in it was (according to the same ahadith that shia uses) that he worried it might become an obligatory task and become difficult for muslims. At the time of Omar, Islam was well established and the prophet was gone so there was no danger of it becoming obligatory and people liked to read it in Jammaat. The whole reason of forbidding the act had gone and Muslims knew (according to the hadith) that the act by itself had no problem (otherwise the prophet would mention it. He never said why are you doing innovation). You can see the significance of what Omar did these days when all Muslims do tarawih in Macceh, you can even see the effect on Shia people who desperately and interestedly look at it from their TV or live. The other issues are the issues of Fiqh and ijtehad. Ali for the first time assigned zakat for donkey in his time because he found that at those days people use to have donkeys (refer to Forooe Kafi, the section on zakat), so is this changing the law or what? . To me, Omar's understanding of Islam was much better than Khomeini's. Despite clear evidences from Sunnah, Khomeini declared chess to be halal, same for music. In what basis do you give a right of ijtehad to Khomeini who never lived with a prophet and refuse to give the same right to Omar who lived with the best of the prophets? By the way, Shia is the pioneer of changing the laws of God and bringing innovation to religion. Which one is more innovation? What is referred to in the question or the act of Qame Zani (biting your head with sword) in Ashoora, adding another shahadat to Azan, making golden thumbs for your Imams and making pilgrimages to them, etc. 
And Allah knows best. 

COMMENT 18: Taraweeh is Bidah because Umar described in his own words that this was bidah (Sahih al Bukhari) not a reinstitution of the Sunnah as Nasibi claims. On the exercise of ijtihad to absolve Umar, what Nasibi should know is you can ONLY exercise if when NO answer appears in the Qur�an/ Sunnah. Now the Qur�an stipulates that Talaq spans THREE mensrual cycles, and Sahih al Bukhari confims that the verse on Muta has NOT been abrogated, hence Umar�s ijtihad is Batil since he sought to pass Fatwas that over rule the Qur'an!

Feel free to email your comments/replies to this article at or post a message at our Forum, no registration Required.
To view comments/suggestions for this article, visit Here.