Did the mother of the believers ‘Aisha prevent Hasan ibn Ali from being buried next to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?

The Mother of the Believers, Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), not allowing Hasan ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to be buried next to the Prophet (ﷺ) is a fabrication, not a reliable report. Shias rely on these lies to fuel their hatred for the wives and companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).

The beacon of knowledge and Ahlus-Sunnah of Iraq, Imam al-Alusi al-Husayni al-Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him said regarding this Rafidi slander and lie:

قال الألوسي رحمه الله في تفسيره عن هذه الخرافة الرافضيَّة: “ولهم في هذا الباب أكاذيبُ لا يُعوَّل عليها ولا يَلتفت أريبٌ إليها؛ منها: أن عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها أذِنَت للحسن رضي الله تعالى عنه حين أاستأذنَها في الدفن في الحجرة المباركة، ثم ندمت بعد وفاته رضي الله تعالى عنه وركبَت على بغلة لها وأتت المسجد ومنعَت الدفن، ورمت السهام على جنازته الشريفة الطاهرة، وادَّعت الميراث، وأنشأ ابن عباس رضي الله تعالى عنهما يقول:

تجمَّلَت تبغَّلَتوإن عشَت تفيَّلَتلكِ التسع من الثُّمُنفكيف الكلَّ ملَكَت

‘In this regards, they have lies that are Inconsiderable, and the keen one does not turn to them. From these lies are: That ‘Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, [initially] gave her permission to Hasan, may Allah be pleased with him, when he asked her to be buried in the blessed room. After his death, may Allah be pleased with him, she regretted [he decision] and rode on her mule and came to the [Prophet’s] mosque and prevented the burial [of Hasan] and shot arrows at his pure honorable funeral, claimed the inheritance, and Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, recited (poetry):

You rode a camel, you rode a mule and had you lived longer, you would have ridden an elephant. You have a ninth of eighth and you took everything.

Al-Alusi continues commenting on this beloved Rafidi fabrication:

‘The feeble nature of this poem begs for it being a lie attributed to that Habr (scholar par excellence, the title of Ibn Abbas).’

This is how the esteemed scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah have dealt with the pathetic Rafidi arguments.

Al-Aloosi spoke the truth when he reminded the reader of the lousy quality of the fabricated poetry (attributed to Ibn Abbas) that some heretic (zindiq) invented and the Shia today parrot.

These two couplets attempt to portray Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, as one who abhorred and detested Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, and is incongruous with the attitude of Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, as reported in sahih narrations. It is further contradicted by the praise he mentioned in her favour at her demise. He said to her during her final illness:

‘You (‘Aisha) are upon goodness, in sha Allah; [you are] the wife of Rasulullah , he never married a virgin besides you, and your innocence was revealed from the sky.’ [Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4753]

‘O Mother of the Believers! Indeed Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has saved you from Hell. You are the first woman whose innocence was revealed from the sky.’ [Fada’il al Sahabah of Ahmed vol. 2 pg. 872]

‘O Mother of the Believers! You are approaching a promising precedent of honour, Rasulullah and Abu Bakr.’ [Sahih al Bukhari Hadith: 3771. Al-‘Ayni says, “Its conformity with the heading is that Ibn ‘Abbas a unequivocally determined Aisha’s entry into Jannat and this cannot be determined without tawqif (categorical evidence). Hence, this is a great accolade.” (‘Umdat al Qari vol. 16 pg. 251)]

During his debate with the Khawarij whom Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him fought, he protested against them saying:

‘With regards to your statement, “He fought them and did not take captives nor took booty;” will you imprison your mother, Aisha? Will you regard her as lawful just like you regard other women as lawful, whereas she is your mother? If you say: we regard her as lawful just like we regard others as lawful; then you have committed kufr. And if you say: she is not our mother; then you have committed kufr because Allah declares:

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ

The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are [in the position of] their mothers. [Quran, Surah al-Ahzab: 6]

As a result, you have two deviances. So make a way out of them. Are you leaving this?”

They replied in the affirmative.’ [ Al Sunan al Kubra vol. 5 pg. 165 Hadith: 8575; al-Tabarani vol. 10 pg. 257 Hadith: 10598; al-Mustadrak vol. 2 pg. 164; Sunan al-Bayhaqi vol. 8 pg. 179 Hadith: 17186. Ibn Taymiyyah has declared its isnad as sahih in Minhaj al-Sunnah vol. 8 pg. 530. Al Haythami says in Majma’ al Zawa’id vol. 6 pg. 242, “His narrators are the narrators of al-Sahih.” Al Wadi’i has declared it Hassan in al -ahih al Musnad Hadith: 711]

These narrations alone are proof that the Rafidah are worse than the heretical renegades, the Khawarij (Takfiris), the Rafidah are worse than them in extremism and Takfir as even the Khawarij stopped their Takfir on ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), and they were refuted by non-other than a Hashimite (Abdullah Ibn Abbas), an actual Hashimite, not the black turban wearing devils of Qom, Najaf, and Karbala`.


Shia: But in your book though, check my list of Sunni sources…

Sunni: You need to learn the basics, we have primary sources Sahih sources, and secondary sources, none of them mention that incident, you can only find it in books of history that include all sorts of narrations (authentic, weak, fabrications, etc.). You can’t just quote whatever you prefer from history books to make a point.

Shias: But we should be lenient (tasahul) with historical accounts and should not apply strict hadith grading rules on them.

Sunni: That’s a general principle some scholars hold, like when it comes to trivial things like an exact date of events, the exact number of an army, the colour of flags etc. This doesn’t apply to everything, and it certainly doesn’t apply when you quote narrators who have been accused of being liars (like al-Waqidi who has reported the lie you try to shove down our throats).

Shias: Ya Ali madad, it’s in your books though, we want it to be sahih so it must be sahih and we will shove it down your throats and vilify Aisha (R) with anything we get our hands on, including fabrications and flimsy historical reports. Who cares, it’s also in our books, wanna see?

Sunni: As for your Rafidi sources, then it is like reading Aladdin & the Genie lamp. Full of fantasy and falsehood. End of discussion.

I’m pretty sure, anybody who has ever debated Shias in one way or the other has experienced such an unacademical and biased approach by them. What is worse is that even their learned folks argue like that: The dajjal al-Tijani also mentioned this lie (Aisha prevented Hasan from being buried…) in his pathetic book ‘Then I was guided’ (misguided really, this book got thoroughly dismantled by our brothers here>>>).

The slander of the Companions and Wives of the Messenger of Allah () by the Rafidah and their deceitful quotation of lies and fabrications.
Their Turbanheads and speakers mention such fabrications without any shame and care for authenticity. They know that for their gullible followers any reference is a good reference, especially if they can add ‘Sunni references’ to their claims. The Rafidah are the most lying of all groups, as the scholars say.

And this is how the cycle of Sahabah and Mother of the Believers hatred never stops, the devils of Karbala, Najaf, and Qom make sure that the Shia laypeople are fed with such lies.

The actual account:

More reliable historical accounts (with no LIARS in the chain) Shias somehow seem to be allergic to, show a completely different scenario:














وقال ابن عساكر: ((“أإن حسنَ بن علي بن أبي طالب أصابه بطن، فلما عرَف بنفسه الموت أرسل إلى عائشةَ زوجِ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تأذنَ له أن يُدفن مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتها، فقالت: نعم، بقي موضع قبر واحد قد كنتُ أحب أن اأُدفن فيه، وأنا أؤثرك به، فلما سمعت بنو أمية ذلك لبسوا السلاح، فاستلأموا بها، وكان الذي قام بذلك مروانُ بن الحكم، فقال: والله لا يدفن عثمان بن عفان بالبقيع، ويدفن حسنٌ مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولبسَت بنو هاشم السلاح وهمُّوا بالقتال، وبلغ ذلك الحسن بنَ علي، فأرسل إلى بني هاشم، فقال لهم رسوله: يقول لكم الحسن: إذا بلغ الأمر هذا فلا حاجة لي به، ادفنوني إلى جنب أمِّي فاطمة بالبقيع، فدُفن إلى جنب فاطمة ابنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم”) – تاريخ دمشق (13/ 289)

Imam Ibn ‘Asakir:

‘Indeed, Hasan b. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib became sick in the stomach. So when he knew death was near he sent someone to A’isha the wife of the Prophet to seek permission to be buried in her house alongside the Prophet so she said “Yes, there is one spot left for a grave, I would love it for myself to be buried there but I’ll choose you to have it.”

So when the tribe of Umayyah heard they grabbed their weapons and complained and Marwan b. al-Hakam was the one organising that so he said “By Allah, if ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan was not buried in Baqi’ then will Hasan be buried with the Messenger of Allah.” Therefore the tribe of Hashim grabbed weapons and desired to fight and this news reached Hasan b. ‘Ali so he sent someone to the tribe of Hashim and his envoy told them that Hasan says: “If you will end up with this affair (fighting) then I am in no need of it. Bury me beside the grave of my mother Fatimah in Baqi.” Therefore he was buried beside Fatimah the daughter of the Messenger of Allah.’

Source: History Of Damascus by Ibn ‘Asakir

And here in Al-Istiya’ab fi Ma’rifah al-As-hab, by Imam ibn Abdul-Barr Abu ‘Umar al-Maliki:

وفي الاستيعاب [جزء 1 – صفحة 115] (وقد كانت أباحت له عائشة أن يدفن مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتها وكان سألها ذلك في مرضه وقد كنت طلبت إلى عائشة إذا مت أن تأذن لي فأدفن في بيتها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت نعم وإني لا أدري لعلها كان ذلك منها حياء فإذا أنا مت فاطلب ذلك إليها فإن طابت نفسها فادفني في بيتها… فلما مات الحسن أتى الحسين عائشة فطلب ذلك إليها فقالت نعم وكرامة)

‘And ‘Aisha gave him (Hasan ibn ‘Ali) the permission to be buried with the Messenger of Allah () in her house and he asked her about that during his illness: “I (Hasan) asked ‘Aisha to grant me permission to be buried in her house with the Messenger of Allah (s) after my demise and she said “yes” and I am not sure if she said what she said out modesty. When I die, please ask her for that (permission), and if she is happy, then bury me in her house.’

When al-Hasan died, al-Husayn entered upon ‘Aisha and asked her for permission, and she replied with: “Yes, it is an honour!” [Al-Istiya’ab fi Ma’rifah al-As-hab, vol 1, pg. 115]

In the same book we can read how Abu Hurayrah (so-called Nasibi and enemy of Ahlul-Bayt, according to the Rafidah) defended al-Hasan:

وفي الاستيعاب [جزء 1 – صفحة 116] ((بلغ ذلك أبا هريرة فقال والله ما هو إلا ظلم يمنع الحسن أن يدفن مع أبيه والله إنه لابن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم انطلق إلى الحسين فكلمه وناشده الله وقال له أليس قد قال أخوك إن خفت أن يكون قتال فردوني إلى مقبرة المسلمين فلم يزل به حتى فعل وحمله إلى البقيع فلم يشهده يومئذ من بني أمية إلا سعيد بن العاص)).

‘Abu Hurayrah was informed about it (i.e. Marwan ibn al-Hakam preventing the burial of al-Hasan next to the Prophet) and said: “By Allah, this is nothing but injustice! They prevent al-Hasan from being buried next to his grandfather. By Allah he is the son (i.e. grandson) of the Messenger of Allah ().

Then he went to Hussein, and he spoke to him and appealed to God and said to him: “Didn’t your brother say that if an fight breaks out, he should be buried in the cemetry of the Muslims (al-Baqi’)?”

He (Abu Hurayrah) did not go until he (al-Husayn) carried his brother to [the cemetry] of al-Baqi’ and no one of the Umayyads saw him that day except Saeed bin Al-Aas.’ [Al-Istiya’ab fi Ma’rifah al-As-hab, vol 1, pg. 116]

Finally: The biggest irony is that even in Rafidi book, the vicious portrayal of Umm al-Mu`mineen, Aisha, cannot be proven with authentic reports. Their comical fabrications that would only be accepted by a die-hard heretic or someone who is deprived of any intelligence, have all weak chains and even unknown narrators according to their own standards.

This is how Allah has humiliated the Rafidah and honoured the Mother of the Believers.

PS: Contrary to popular belief, the Zaydi (semi-Rafidah) have filled their books with fabrications and anti-Sahabah narrations, less than the ultra-heretical Twelvers, nonetheless.

The deviant Zaydi scholar Abul-Faraj al-Isfahani is often quoted by Twelvers (without revealing that he is a Zaydi Mubtadi’). He too narrates that ‘Aisha prevented al-Hasan’s burial next to the Prophet (ﷺ), of course, his baseless reports are nothing but fabrications, just like the reports by his Shia brothers, the Rafidah Twelver Imamite Shia.

4 thoughts on “Did the mother of the believers ‘Aisha prevent Hasan ibn Ali from being buried next to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?”

  1. This is a response to Dhulfikar Mashriqi’s article called: Slay of Dhulfikar upon ignorance of Son of Shimr about burial of Hasan ibn Ali (as)

    Your entire article doesn’t prove anything, as you have not provided a SINGLE sahih report that ‘Aisha (r) prevented al-Hasan (r) from being buried next to his grandfather, Rasul Allah (s), yet this is what your gullible co-religionists and your evil Ayatullats and preacher parrot (‘it is in your Sunni books’).

    Having said that, let me dissect your jahl once again:

    1. It is Usul (or Usool) al-Hadith (or Hadeeth) not ‘Usūl e Hadeeth’, but what can we expect from Qommites, I mean everybody makes mistakes, but you get like almost every single mustalah wrong.

    2. You absolute jahil, I have clarified many times that what I mean with Tasawwuf (and it being a springboard to Shi’ism); what I and all tullaab and scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah mean when criticising Tasawwuf is the GHULATI BATINI (like Rafidism) version of it. As for AUTHENTIC AND CLASSICAL Tawassuf as in Zuhd, Tazkiyyah al-Nafs, etc. then it is an integral part of the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah.

    3. As for Imam Al-Aaloosi: there is no scholar on earth who has not been criticised, as long as they have no bid’ah kufriyyah they are Muslims and we make tarahhum on them, even on Zaydis. I also respect major Asha’ri scholars (like all Sunnis do) for their services to Islam. You are just a jahil as you (in your ignorance) equate condemning Ghulu with rejecting everything a scholar has ever said.

    As for your clip by Shaykh al-Fawzan: where did he say that all hadith gradings of al-Aaloosi are to be rejected or that Al-Aaloosi should be rejected as a source? He spoke about his tafsir, and he is right, in many Tafasir there are weak reports, some more some less. Besides, I did not quote al-Aaloosi alone.

    4. Unlike you I speak and write Arabic and Persian, I don’t need to copy/paste anything, however, I gratefully use translations that are already provided by https://mahajjah.com/ (that has buried Imamism), why shouldn’t I, may Allah reward them.

    5. In your ignorance you made a disastrous comparison when you wrote:

    “On one hand we have Waqidi who is Abandoned in Narrations but an Imam of Knowledge of Wars and Biographies and on another hand we have Hafs bin Sulieman who was also Abandoned in Narrations but an Imam of Recitation.

    If this Son Shimr is unbiased in his research. He must stop reciting the Quran via the famous recitation and deem all the Copies of Quran invalid which are based upon this recitation.

    We will be waiting for his reply !!!!!”

    Response: he is not an agreed-upon narrator of knowledge of wars and biographies, you have not cited the scholars who reject him, besides, even those who accepted him did not take everything from him at face value, except if you in your foolishness believe that the likes of al-Dhahabi believed that Aisha (r) hated al-Hasan.

    In your ignorance (you clearly don’t know Arabic and even the English translations you don’t ponder over) you didn’t get what you posted yourself:

    وقال في موضع آخر: “الواقدي جمع فأوعى، وخلط الغث بالسمين والخرز بالدر الثمين فاطرحوه لذلك، ومع هذا فلا يستغنى عنه في المغازي وأيام الصحابة وأخبارهم . ” [ ينظر: سير أعلام النبلاء ( 9/454 )

    “He (al-Waqidi) gathered, contained and mixed the WEAK with strong, and the STONES with the gems, so they ignored him for this reason but despite this, he can’t be ruled out from the reports of wars [Maghazi] and the lives of the Sahaba, etc”.

    Where did al-Dhahabi say that we can take EVERYTHING from him with regards to Maghazi? Look how you have refuted and humiliated yourself at your own hands, this is how Allah always humiliates you Rawafid. The only thing al-Dhahabi said is that al-Waqidi can’t be ruled out and I agree, however, we certainly don’t take everything from him, rightfully so, let me educate you and the readers on the liar al-Waqidi (on which you Rafidi liars base your lies on):

    قال يحيى بن معين: نظرنا في حديث الواقدي فوجدنا حديثه عن المدنيين عن شيوخ مجهولين احاديث مناكير, فقلنا: يحتمل ان تكون تلك الاحاديث المناكير منه ويحتمل ان تكون منهم، ثم نظرنا إلى حديثه عن ابن ابى ذئب ومعمر فانه يُضبط حديثهم – فوجدناه قد حدث عنهما بالمناكير، فعلمنا انه منه فتركنا حديثه.

    Yahya ibn Mu’een says that al-Waqidi narrates from majhooleen and manakeer. He played around with narrations i.e. falsely attributing him to certain narrators.

    حدثنا عبد الرحمن نا أحمد بن سلمة النيسابوري نا إسحاق بن منصور قال قال أحمد بن حنبل: كان الواقدي يقلب الاحاديث يلقى حديث ابن اخى الزهري على معمر ونحو هذا، قال اسحاق ابن راهويه كما وصف وأشد لانه عندي ممن يضع الحديث.

    Imam Ahmad says that al-Waqidi used to falsely attribute narrations to others, Ibn Rahaway says that al-Waqidi fabricated narrations.

    Al-Waqidi is not to be relied upon blindly, he never has been, scholars differed, one can categorise him as a sadooq but weak narrator, some like Imam Shafii said that al-Waqidi’s is books are nothing but lies:

    أنا أبو محمد، قال: حدثني ابن عبد الحكم، قال: قال الشافعي: كتب الواقدي كذب

    ^You won’t show such delicate quotes, do you?

    Al-Waqidi’s case is similar to Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi’s case, you Rafidis don’t want us to use him (as he mentions that Rafidism was started by a Jews, fortunately, others than him narrated it too) as he was deemed weak in hadith, yet scholars accepted his historical account, however, NOT blindly, both, Sayf ibn Umar and al-Waqidi’s narrations are not blindly accepted, you read it here:


    So you can quote those who praised Al-Waqidi day and night (although most did mention that he is problematic), if you knew jack about hadith science you knew the usool (get someone to translate it for you, but not from Qom) that says:

    الجرح المفصل مقدم على التعديل والجرح يكفي من عالم واحد ثقة

    The irony is that you (kid who doesn’t know Arabic) called me a ‘Haatib al-Layl’, yet, it is al-Waqidi that is called a ‘Haatib al-Layl’ by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Athar, and your entire argument of your co-religionists relies on such a dubious individual.

    7. Hafs ibn Sulayman (not ‘Sulieman’, ya jahil) was a Muslim and a master of his field (qur’an) and weak in the science of hadith! He wasn’t accused of lying or fabricating. Waqidi on the other hand is an actual haatib al-Layl, yes, he’s not completely rejected, but we don’t take from him in delicate matters that have external more authentic pieces of evidence that refute his narrative.

    8. You said:

    “Then the son of Shimr began to prove that Aisha binte Abi Bakr in contrast allowed Hasan ibn Ali (as) to be buried near the grave of Prophet (pbuh) by quoting from Tarikh Al Dimishiq by Ibn Asakir (with only cover page scan of the book and hiding the chain while quoting the arabic text).”

    I didn’t hide nothing, the chains are not always mentioned. Point is, it is a report stronger than al-Waqidi’s and thus will be given precedence.

    9. Then you added:

    “We say that the said narrations is also found in Tarikh Al Madina by Ibn Shubah via his own chain from Ebadal Ubaydullah bin Ali bin Abi Raf’e who said : Someone from his family informed about the death said”

    Why do you quote tarikh al-Madinah, I did not quote it, so you can’t hold it against me. Even the narration of Tarikh al-madinah is more acceptable and proves my point as it’s chain does NOT include a LIAR like al-Waqidi.

    10. Then you said:

    “Shimr then tried to defend Abu Hurairah (About whom Shi’a Imamiyyah accused nothing in this event) by quoting that he was in favour of burial of Hasan ibn Ali (as) near Prophet (pbuh) without any chain from Al Iste’āb fi Marefa’h Sahabah by Ibn Abdul Bir.

    We say the full account of this event is narrated by Imam Baladhuri via his own chain from Urwah bin Zubair with the statement from Aisha binte Abi Bakr after what Abu Hurairah said. It says”

    It is al-Barr not ‘Bir’, ya jahil! It’s bint not ‘binte’ *facepalm*…. furthermore, the narration says that she did so after she FEARED that a war could break out between Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah.

    فلما رأت عائشة السلاح والرجال, وخافت أن يعطم الشر بينهم وتسفك الدماء قالت
    البيت بيتي ولا آذن أن يدفن فيه أحد

    Translation: ‘When ‘Aisha saw the WEAPONS and MEN she FEARED that there will be discord between them and bloodshed (i.e. Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah), so she said: This house is mine and I will not allow anyone to be buried inside it”.

    This obviously does not prove that hateful Rafidi narrative i.e. that she had a grudge for al-Hasan (r) and that she rode a donkey and other foolish nonsense that is mentioned in your books (and in the fabrication of al-Waqidi), on the contrary, she prevented bloodshed as per this narration

    Having said that, who said this narration is authentic? We have many narrations (that you Rawafid will never show) stating that she allowed him to be buried, and none of them have been narrated by a liar like al-Waqidi:

    فقد أورد ابن الأثير في خبر وفاة الحسن بن عليّ رضي الله عنهما أن (( الحسن استأذن عائشة أي في دفن أخيه فأذنت له ))(55)، وفي الاستيعاب (( فلما مات الحسن أتى الحسين عائشة فطلب ذلك إليها فقالت: نعم وكرامة ))(56)!

    وفي البداية (( أن الحسن بعث يستأذن عائشة في ذلك فأذنت له ))(57)

    As for the account in your book (that is so clearly fabricated and exaggerated): so you hujjah is ‘abdu-Ahlulbayt blog? Wow, what a hujjah. Keep believing in fairy-tales.

    Finally: May Allah be pleased with the mother of the believers Aisha, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our master Muhammad.


  2. The Rafidi Dhulfikar (the jahil means Dhul-Fiqar) has responded and has digged an even deeper hole for himself. Let’s respond to his points and humiliate even more. He replied to me in his comment section:

    Most of your reports of Tafsir and Maghazi are weak. So, what are you talking about? Your predecessors even rejected mass transmitted narrations and you have the audacity to ask for a single sahih one? The only parrot here is you who copies and pastes articles and does not do any critical investigation for himself, in checking for and identifying the existence of corroborating evidence. Simply put, your ‘work’ that you credit to yourself is plagued with plagiarism. Sahih narrations are not the only benchmark of establishing if an event took place. But what can we expect of people of whom literalism is a mark for identification.

    EH: Again, look who is speaking, an individual who doesn’t know Arabic (how can you do proper research without Arabic other than being spoon fed information) and has committed so many blunders (read how he doesn’t even bother to address them in his shame) that even his own people are laughing at him.

    1. Nobody claimed that qara`in don’t count as evidence, however, ya jahil, we don’t take as qara`in narrations from a liar, especially not if they oppose more authentic narrations (that I posted).
    2. You know well that unlike you I speak, read and write in Arabic and have tons of articles that have completely destroyed your religion, I have not plagiarised anything, you absolute fool, even Mahajja’s article (many parts of them) are translations from Arabic articles, these are mainly translations of narrations and this saves time, how does the dishonesty of you Rawafid i.e. going for the most weak accounts (Aisha prevented the burial) whilst overlooking the more reliable accounts (Aisha being fine with al-Hasan being buried)?

    DHULFIKAR: The same individual who claims Shimran is originally an Arab tribe is trying to mock Qum. We noticed you deleted that post and have it backed up. It is your ancestors who were Majoosi, Shimaris, fire worshippers dancing around flames and continue to celebrate Nawroz. You suffer from an identity disorder. You have an inferiority complex. Embarrassed of your own heritage and try your hardest to pass yourself of as an Arab in some way. Deal with the actual argument instead of trying to correct people’s grammar and making personal attacks. You have made several spelling and grammatical mistakes in your articles.

    EH: Ya Salam! Your ignorance is unbelievable, you can post what I posted, it is true. Shimmar or Shimr IS an Arab tribe you absolute buffoon, hence many Arabs are known as Shamrani, Shemrani, Shimrani (or even Shammari). However, many Iranians are known as Shemrani or Shemiran because they happen to hail from a town called Shemiran, my birthplace! I have always made it clear that I am NOT from the Shammar Arab tribe (I am Abbasi, ya jahil) and I even wrote an entire article about the PERSIAN Shia Shemiran town that gave me birth: https://ebnhussein.com/2020/12/02/shemran-the-shia-town-that-gave-me-birth/

    My family claims Abbasid ancestry, but that is not important to my, I have always introduced myself as an Iranian who was born in a Persian Shia town, but in your ignorance you mixed everything up.

    As for the accursed mushrik city of Qom that has produced nothing but Ghuluww, Khurafat and Zandaqat in the name of Ahlul-Bayt: Don’t worry, we have prepared an entire documentary about it, or shall I say the Shia clergy, and how humiliated they are in their own fortress Iran (where they are hated like the plague). As for my ancestors: Yes, my ancestors were Mushriks and fire worshippers and most of my, including parents, are non-Muslims, so? I can’t forced them to believe, you miskeen, rejecting kufr and zandaqah in the name of Ahlul-Bayt and despising the disgusting Majoosi tajwid of your TOP Ayatullats is not “identity disorder” or “inferiority complex”, only a foolish zindeeq would say such a thing, that’s like saying that the Prophet (s) and his Sahaba had an identity disorder for rejecting the kufr of their nation (pagan Arabs) or that Punjabi Pakistanis hate their own because they hate Ghulam Kafir Ahmad. The truth is that we love for the sake of Allah, we reject the kufr of our own family, father and mother for the sake of truth, I don’t have an issue with my country or language, I have written tons of articles in praise of Islamic (Sunni) Iran and the contributions of Persian (Sunnis of course, Safavid Persia has contributed with kufr and self-flagellation and brought it to you in Kashmir and India), you are so shallow minded, you don’t even understand that my problem are the lies, ghuluww and kufr that are ascribed to the Ahlul-Bayt by your mushrik Twelver sect.

    As for Nowrooz: I don’t celebrate it nor does any CONSCIOUS, KNOWLEDGABLE and religious Sunni, on the other hand your Judaic-Majoosi Twelver religion has attributed pagan Nowrooz to the Ahlul-Bayt, the irony is that you are ought to perform RELIGIOUS RITUALS on that day, I have schooled you lot on this shocking reality: https://sonsofsunnah.com/?s=nowrooz

    DHULFIKAR: This is amusing as you labelled us as ‘Jahil’ but you have simultaneously exposed yourself, as an absolute jahil by declaring Tasawwuf of two kinds while the majority of Athari scholars have declared Sufis to be deviated on Batil Aqeedah without any distinction between them, just like you do with the Rafidah.

    EH: You know jack about what the scholars say, you jahil, you don’t even know that Sufis are categorised? You don’t know that Sunni Tasawwuf as in ZUHD is from Islam? In that sense I AM A SUNNI (as I mentioned many times on facebook). Scholars speak in general terms, Sufis in general are Batini Qubooris (like you msuhriks), they have been influenced by Rafidism (hence most converts to Rafidism and I have witnessed it myself are either from a jahil or Sufi backround, as they are already Qubooris who pray to saints and hold many Khurafi beliefs),however, the likes of Abdel-Qadir al-Jilani, Junayd etc. are known for SHAR’I Tasawwuf. No Sunni rejects SHAR’I Tawassuf (as in Zuhd, Ihsan, etc. the term is a later term and most reject it). These are basics that you jahil don’t know and you keep embarrassing yourself. Let me (as usual) school you and your jahil (99% non-Arabic) readers by quoting Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid’s website who makes clear that TAWASSUF is not completely rejected (what is rejected is the batini quboori form):


    “It is important for us to understand, firstly, that the words “Tasawwuf” and “Sufism” are modern terms which refer to something that is not automatically approved of in sharee’ah as the words eemaan (faith), Islam and ihsaan are. Neither is it automatically condemned like the words kufr, fusooq (immorality) and ‘asyaan (disobedience, sin).

    In such cases, we need to find out more about what is meant by such words before we can pass comment. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The words al-faqr and al-tasawwuf (i.e., Sufism) may include some things that are LOVED by Allaah and His Messenger, and these are things that are enjoined even if they are called faqr or tasawwuf, because the Qur’aan and Sunnah indicate that they are mustahabb and that is not altered if they called by other names. That also includes actions of the heart such as repentance and patience. And it may include things that are hated by Allaah and His Messenger, such as some kinds of belief in incarnation and pantheism, or monasticism that has been innovated in Islam, or things that go against sharee’ah and have been innovated, and so on. These things are forbidden no matter what names they are given… And it may include limiting oneself to a certain style of clothing or certain customs, ways of speaking and behaving, in such a way that anyone who goes beyond it is regarded as an outsider, although this is not something that has been stipulated in the Qur’aan or Sunnah; rather it may be something that is permissible or it may be something that is makrooh, and this is a bid’ah that is forbidden. This is not the way of the friends of Allaah (awliya’ Allaah); such things are innovations and misguidance that exists among those who claim to follow the Sufi path. Similarly, among those who claim to be servants of knowledge there are innovations that involve beliefs and words that go against the Qur’aan and Sunnah, using phrases and terminology that have no basis in sharee’ah. Many such things happen among those people.”

    Now please, go and learn before you speak.

    Let’s continue with your Rafidi calamities and shenanigans. You said:

    DHULFIKAR: Here is one prime example, ‘as long as’. See how much of an idiot you are? Don’t throw stones if you live in glass houses, dear. Tasawwuf is related to creed or Aqeedah as you have said. Sufis make Taweel (interpretation for the purpose of reconciliation within their doctrine) of the traits of Allah (swt) unlike most of the Athari scholars who take them to be literal. Who are you trying to fool? Athari scholars have even rejected this Tafsir claiming the entire book is a fabrication. Since when have Atharis depended on this Tafsir even from a history perspective?

    EH: *facepalm* Tawassuf in general is sulook and is related to matter of tazkiyyah al-Nafs. Of course a scholar can come to wrong conclusions. Al-Aaloosi is regarded as a full-blown Ash’ari by some (some say he was heavily influenced), in either case, of course we don’t take his tafisr blindly, we might as well not take any of his tafsir, so? Who told you that Shaykh al-Fawzan is my marja’ that I follow blindly? You jahil, you object why I quoted al-Aaloosi for hammering you zanadiqah for your disgusting lies, let me tell you this: even if any other Ash’ari said this I would quote him, the religion was not just transmitted by infallible (especially not yours), all scholars have mistakes, and al-Aaloosi has never been categorically rejected, especially not if he spoke the truth (no matter in what field).

    You said (and wallahi you are turning yourself into a laughing stock):

    DHULFIKAR: Essentially you have used the statement of a Scholar, who is considered an innovator according to your own creed. You have no methodology. You pick and choose and reject parts of your belief to avoid all the Kuffar and Shirk and shape-shift more than the T-1000 in Terminator

    Ya Jahil! Your books are filled with narrators who are kuffar (waqifis, Zaydis, even some Nasibis!), our books have many Ahlul-Bid’ah narrators, don’t you even know that taking from Ahlul-Bid’ah (as long as they don’t narrate in support of their bid’ah) is a basic principle of this religion and hadith science? There are numerous Shia, and even Khariji and some Nasibi narrators in the six books of hadith, so what? It’s not me not having any methodology, it is you, you little kid, who doesn’t know his basics and I am realising I am wasting my time. Ahlus-Sunnah have benefited from many scholars who fell in bid’ah, you jahil, it is not haram to take from a scholar who fell in bid’ah, as the asl is his Islam (Shaykh al-Fawzan himself teacher books of grammar and hadith etc. that were written by Ash’aris or those who were heavily influenced by them).

    DHULFIKAR: You asked where Sheikh Fawzan negated Alusi’s grading of narrations… O fool! Alusi was not an expert of Usool (spell it the way you want in case you wish to make a refutation on that in order to distract from the ACTUAL POINT) of Hadith. His main contribution is his Tafsir, which Fawzan and Albani criticized calling it a Sufi Tafsir. What else do you want him to say?

    You jahil! Fawzan is not my infallible Imam. Fawzan never claimed that there is no truth is the tafsir of Aaloosi (although I agree, there are better ones), so do you idiot think Fawzan would disagree with Aaloosi DEFENDING the Sahabah and hammering you Rawafid? Commenting on the vicious nature of the Rafidah is not a Sufi statement, I and every Sunni would agree on that and thus I posted it, here you absolute moron, one of the biggest Salafi websites in the world that is run by Shuyookh and Tullab al-‘Ilm quoted it:


    Now what? Have you no shame? See how you argue for the sake of it, you know that your mushrik Imamite religion is upon falsehood, you know that the anti-Sahaba nature of Rafidism is a mental disease, yet you argue for the sake of it. La hadaakallah, ya zindeeq.

    DHULFIKAR: Who cares what language you speak? You go around throwing challenges to people who according to you cannot even speak the Language.

    EH: I challenge people to debate in English, like your Syed Ali Imam the coward who is running away ever since.

    What does it say about you? Arabic did not save the mass apostasy of Sahabah.

    EH: That shubha has been debunked, parroting it doesn’t make it true:


    Nor will it help you that your dull Syed Ali Imam debated some freshy (‘Shaykh’) on this issue.

    DHULFIKAR: We have 100s of mistakes you have made in some of the most basic Arabic words even in your most recent interview in which you spent most of the time trying to mock the Persian accent in Arabic.

    So? I said at the beginning of the interview that Arabic is NOT my mother tongue and I apologised for my mistakes, I probably made more than 100 mistakes, so what? At least I speak the language. If you are man enough go on a live show and speak to an Egyptian over an hour, of course most of your heretics don’t know ANY Arabic. As for mocking the Persian accent: Get it in your thick head, Persian is BEAUTIFUL, I love it, but whoever would claim it yet after decades he speaks it with an Russian accent then that person is actually making a mockery of the language. Same with Arabic, your laughing stocks i.e. Ayatullats (some of them residing in Najaf for decades) speak Arabic with a Persian accent, broken one, way worse than mine (and I am not an Ayatullat), that is what I mock, not the language itself. I hope you enjoyed it.

    DHULFIKAR: “Dhahabi said that he collected Gems and Stones in narrations that is why he said after this:

    So, they ignored him for this reason but despite this. Despite this he can’t RULED OUT from the reports of Wars and lives of Companions.

    It is for this very reason they ignored him. However, he cannot be ruled out regarding reports on wars and lives of the companions. After all he was one of your Imams in this field and praised and even depended upon by the likes of Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Ibn Jawzi , Ibn Rajab Hanbali etc who he used his information pertaining to biography of the Sahabah.”

    EH: Moot point. Where did I say that al-Waqidi is CATEGORICALLY rejected? Nowhere! In fact I reaffirmed that he can’t be ruled out, however, giants of hadith have accused him of fabrications and lies, did I quote al-Shafi’i? Here again:

    أنا أبو محمد، قال: حدثني ابن عبد الحكم، قال: قال الشافعي: كتب الواقدي كذب

    So why would I (or any sane and just person) take a report of al-Waqidi over more (even if with some weakness) authentic narrations that happen to pulverise your religion and entire attempt of refuting me? I am not biased, I don’t even outright reject him (you do without realising, but wait, the big humiliation is on its way), however, people bigger than al-Dhahabi have accused him of fabrications, not my words but the words of the teacher of Imam Bukhari:

    حدثنا عبد الرحمن نا أحمد بن سلمة النيسابوري نا إسحاق بن منصور قال قال أحمد بن حنبل: كان الواقدي يقلب الاحاديث يلقى حديث ابن اخى الزهري على معمر ونحو هذا، قال اسحاق ابن راهويه كما وصف وأشد لانه عندي ممن يضع الحديث.

    so if al-Waqidi reports trivial things like colour of flags etc. that are beneficial but not significant, of course he is not rejected, but if he narrates some vicious Rafidi story that is refuted by OTHER more authentic stories than no real bahith/researcher would go for al-Waqidi, except of course a biased Rafidi.

    DHULFIKAR: Who is a Jahil? Hafs bin Sulieman has also be declared as a liar by Ibn Maeem and Ibn Kharash. In Al Mizzi’s Tahdheeb ul Kamal it is said about him.

    وقال أبو أحمد بن عدي ، عن الساجي ، عن أحمد بن محمد البغدادي ، عن يحيى بن معين : كان حفص بن سليمان ، وأبو بكر بن عياش من أعلم الناس بقراءة عاصم ، وكان حفص اقرأ من أبي بكر ، وكان كذابا ، وكان أبو بكر صدوقا.”

    EH: Copy/pasting cheapt shubuhat, huh? This shubhah is also repeated by Arabic speaking Christians and other enemies of the Islam and the Qur’an, Rafidah and other kuffar have always been bed fellows and your beloved Allatyari also believes in the distortion of the Qur’an. Anyway, Abdullah and Farid did a vid on this responding to these shubuhat (Ibn Ma’een sometimes used harsh words, there is no doubt that Sulaiman is thiqah by the ijma’ of the Ummah, he wasn’t accused of forging chains like Waqidi is accused of forging reports, BIG difference): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C613oIJj-nE&feature=youtu.be watch it and learn something you mentally deranged malangs, it’s better than self-flagellation (mental disorder). See, these manakir are your proofs, subhanallah who is exposing you at your own fingers whenever you type.

    DHULFIKAR:“Sulieman ad you said was a Muslim…So Waqidi must be a Kafir LOL?” As you said Sulieman was master of this field, the same way Waqidi was master of his own.

    EH: Sulayman was not just a Muslim but he is accepted as a THIQAH/RELIABLE and MASTER in the Qira’at, it’s science, teaching and transmission. Al-Waqidi (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him) on the other hand, although being praised by a group of scholars, yet he has been accused of MASS-NARRATING LIES AND FABRICATIONS! Big difference, please, don’t commit such blunders anymore, leave these false comparisons, they won’t save you and your story teller. It actually proves your disrespect for the Qur’an and the idiocy of the Bayat al Ghadeer group who thought this is a strong point, lol.

    DHULFIKAR: The Jarah is Mufasir and Tadeel, So, this principle of Usool e Hadith can’t work here.

    It’s called Jarh, not Jarah, lol. I make mistakes SPEAKING Arabic to native Arabs on TV, you sit in front of the PC and get the most basic Arabic terminologies wrong, again and again. You are truly a Qommite, produce of Qom and Ayatullats. And what are you on about anyway? Do you even understand what this principle means? Again, go look it up kid:

    الجرح المفصل مقدم على التعديل والجرح يكفي من عالم واحد ثقة

    This means that criticism of ANY narrator outweighs the praise for him. Of course that doesn’t mean that the narrator is always completely abandoned, however, the case of al-Waqidi is clear: he has narrated a lot of falsehood and manakir, so if we find a pro-Rafidi narration that clashes with more authentic narrations that refute that (your beloved narrative), of course we will abendon him. I know that you understand this well, it is a dead end for you but your bias makes you not accept the truth.

    DHULFIKAR: If it was stronger then why did you skip the chain? And Masha’Allah, such a strong narration, that you don’t know the name of the first person who narrated this event.

    EH: Yes, it doesn’t include anyone that is a liar, that is more than enough, but here, to make you happy:

    خبرنا أبو سعد بن البغدادي أنا أبو المظفر محمود بن جعفر بن محمد بن احمد بن جعفر المعدل ( 1 ) أنا عم أبي أبو عبد الله الحسين بن احمد بن جعفر الكوسج أنا إبراهيم بن السندي بن علي أنا الزبير بن بكار بن عبد الله الزبيري حدثني يحيى بن مقداد عنه عمه موسى بن يعقوب بن عبد الله بن وهب بن زمعة حدثني فائد مولى عبادل ( 2 ) أن عبيد الله بن علي ابن ( 3 ) أبي رافع اخبره هو ( 4 ) وغيره من مشيختهم أن حسن بن علي بن أبي طالب أصابه بطن فلما عرف بنفسه الموت أرسل إلى عائشة زوج النبي ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) أن تأذن له أن يدفن مع النبي ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) في بيتها فقالت نعم بقي موضع قبر واحد قد كنت احب أن ادفن فيه وأنا اؤثرك به فلما سمعت بنو أمية ذلك لبسوا السلاح فاستلأموا بها وكان الذي قام بذلك مروان بن الحكم فقال والله لا يدفن عثمان بن عفان بالبقيع ويدفن حسن مع رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) ولبست بنو هاشم السلاح وهموا بالقتال وبلغ ذلك الحسن بن علي فأرسل إلى بني هاشم فقال لهم رسوله يقول لكم الحسن إذا بلغ الأمر هذا فلا حاجة لي به ادفنوني إلى جنب أمي فاطمة بالبقيع فدفن إلى جنب فاطمة ابنة رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) اخبرنا أبو الحسن بن أبي يعلي وأبو غالب وأبو عبد الله ابنا البنا قالوا أنا أبو جعفر بن المسلمة أنا محمد بن عبد الرحمن أنا احمد بن سليمان نا الزبير بن بكار قال وحدثني محمد بن حسن عن محمد بن إسماعيل قال فائد مولى عبادل أن عبيد الله بن علي اخبره وغيره ممن مضى من أهل بيته أن حسن بن علي بن أبي طالب أصابه بطن فلما اعز وعرف بنفسه الموت أرسل إلى عائشة أن تأذن له أن يدفن مع رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) فقالت نعم ما كان بقي إلا موضع قبر واحد فلما سمعت بذلك بنو أمية استلأموا السلاح هم وبنو هاشم للقتال وقالت بنو أمية والله لا يدفن فيه أبدا فبلغ الحسن بن علي ذلك فأرسل إلى أهله أما إذا كان هذا فلا حاجة لي به ادفنوني في
    ( 1 ) انظر ترجمته في سير الاعلام 18 / 449
    ( 2 ) بالاصل ” عباد ” والصواب ما أثبت انظر ترجمة فائد في تهذيب التهذيب 4 / 479
    ( 3 ) بالاصل ” مولى ” والصواب ما أثبت وانظر ترجمته في تهذيب التهذيب ويعرف بعبادل 4 / 27
    ( 4 ) ما بين معكوفتين زيادة عن الترجمة المطبوعة واللفظة مستدركة فيها بين معكوفتين
    وهي مثبتة في الرواية التالية

    Here the narrators:

    1. Abu Saeed al-Baghdadi: Thiqah (al-Siyar by al-Dhahabi)
    2. Ibrahim ibn al-Sindi: Thiqah
    3. Zubayr ibn Bakar ibn Abdullah al-Zubayri (Thiqah)
    4. Yahya ibn Miqdad (tawtheeq by Ibn Hibban alone)
    5. Musa ibn Ya’qoob in Abdullah (Sadooq but sayyi` al-Hifdh)
    6. Fa`il mawla of ‘Abbadil: Imam Ahmad said: La ba`sa bihi
    7. ‘Ubaydullah Abi Rafi’ (Thiqah, from the narrators of Bukhari) who narrates from his mashaikh.

    If anything you have strenghtened my article as I was a bit lazy and did no takhreej, thanks.

    Yes, it is not hadith sahih, heck, of course not, it is not a Prophetic report, and I never claimed that the report of Tarikh Dimashq is flawless (Ibn Miqdad is argubaely majhool), however, for Allah’s sake have a bit of sincerity, this is a relatively strong TAREEKHI report, most tarikh reports come with some flaws and gaps, but we compare, so a gap is better than a liar (I haven’t even checked the OTHER discrepancies in the al-Waqidi report!), so of course this narration is rightfully preferred over the Waqidi one that is pushed by Rawafid who are hell-bent on feeding their Sahaba/Aisha hatred.

    DHULFIKAR: The narration proves she made Banu Ummayah succeed in what they wanted to achieve when she said “it is my house and I will not allow anyone to be buried inside.” Banu Ummayah were not awaiting to bury anyone from their side, but they were blocking the burial of Hasan ibn Ali (a.s). So, her statement made only Banu Ummayah rejoice, that they finally blocked Hasan’s burial. Who did it benefit here?

    EH: The narration does not prove anything as it is rejected and disproving by more authentic versions.

    DHULFIKAR: “Waqidi was not liar in historical narrations but despite that you are still trying to give preference to narrations, which say she allowed the Hasan (as) to be buried from unknown people who we don’t know anything about.”

    EH: Waqidi is not completely rejected but he was declared of forgery and lies by MORE than one giant of that field and I have quoted them (Shafi’i, Ibn Rahaway). And the biggest irony is that you yourself in one of your articles have rejected him, little do you zanadiqah know that I am always miles ahead of you. You said in your article (where you refuted the QUBOORI Sufi and mental case Tahir Qadri):

    Refuting Tahir ul Qadri about his lies that Abu Bakr led the funeral Prayer of Fatima binte Muhammad (pbuh):

    “This Narration is a Fabrication because the Teacher from whom Ibn Saad got this Narration is very Weak infact a Liar.

    Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani says :

    Muhammad bin Umar bin Waqd AlAslami AlWaqidi….. He is abandoned [by Scholars] …”

    Allahu Akbar! So here you admitted (due to your secterian bias) that al-Qawidi is not just weak but a LIAR! And don’t come up with new excuses, you rejected a report (Waqidi is known to have reported many pro-Sahaba narrations, but I personally don’t care nor do Ahlus-Sunnah need them), a historical account based on it being narrated by al-Waqidi, the LIAR yet you accused me of ignorance for accusing him exactly of that (you idiot did not know the harsh criticism he received, after all you know zero Arabic and can’t to research, but when it came to rejecting something in praise in Sahabah some of your foolish friends probably fed you with the correct statement that he has been accused of fabrications).

    Don’t worry, I screenshot it:

    dhulhimar idiot

    That’s a real game over for you kiddo, have some self-respect and keep hiding, you are lucky that you hide your face behind that effeminate mushrik french mask, you have enjoyed enough of my attention, but it should serve you a lesson.


  3. You still writing, have you no shame? Ok, another round of humiliation for you:

    You said:

    “Yes you don’t take Qara’in from a liar in History but it is okay to take in recitations of Qur’an. When we have other more authentic recitations, why does the majority of the Ummah still stick to that of Hafs from Asim? Let’s look at the criteria for an authentic Qira’at according to Sunnis”


    Because the experts of the field agree on the uprightness and thiqah of all those who narrated Hafs ‘an Asim, simple. Interesting how you doubt the Qur’an, but not surprising coming from a Rafidi.

    Again, we don’t take anything from liars, we are not Rawafid.

    You said:

    “Reply: Blah Blah Blah… I speak Arabic… If speaking in Arabic is something which makes someone an Academic expert in Islam then there are more eligible experts than you like all those Sahabah who apostate. Awful argument, if we can even call it an argument.”

    Well, tell me Rafidi-Zoro, how can you do tahqiq and bahth without Arabic, you jahil clearly don’t even know basic Makharij al-Huruf like your embarrassing friend Syed Ali Imam and that other fool Raza. Of course this is an important point I raise and it hurts you because it is true.

    You said:

    “Reply: It is Mahajjah’s not Mahajja’s “Face Palm” you can’t even get the name of site correct, that you copy and pasted from. At least the people on Mahajjah translate the whole text they quote in Arabic? while you only translate that parts which are easy and what suits you. Poor soul.”

    It is ‘Mahajjah’s not Mahajja’s’? Huh? Where is the mistake? The letter ‘h’? Lol, you clown and your team don’t even know the BASICS of Tajwid that is why you are scared to debate me face to face so is your cringy friend Syed Imam Ali.

    You said:

    “Reply: Now you are an Abbasi … LoL .. What happened to that post you decide to delete about Shemrani having Arab ancestry? All of a sudden you retracted it thinking nobody would notice then wrote a post saying the opposite. I guess you can never even prove this from an expert in lineages (Ansaab). Even if you were actually Abbasi it would not come as a surprise since your hate towards Ahlulbayt (a.s) and their followers is apparent. Poor soul.”

    I’ve always been Abbasi you idiot, that’s my family. And what did I delete? Did I? In either case, I STILL SAY Shammari/Shamranis ARE Arabs from Arabia, of course, they have Arab ancestries. However, I and my family never claimed to be from the SHAMRAN/SHAMMAR tribe, I never claimed that you liar. I am SHEMRANI you fool, Shemranis are from a majority Persian Shia town, and we are Abbasids. You dimwit you are confusing two different things, like your friends, here, I explained it here for people like you:


    And don’t talk about Ansab when every second self-flagellating semi-Hindu in the subcontinent claims to the a ‘Syed’.

    You said:

    “Reply : So Qum is accursed Mushrik city which has produced only Ghulat, Khurafat and Zanadiqah. Let us teach you something from your own books. City of Qom has also produced Muhaditheen who belong to your own school. This is an oops moment.

    Yaqoob bin Abdullah Al Qummi: Imam, Muhadith and Mufasir as declared by Al Dhahabi.


    Asha’t bin Ishaaq bin Saad Al Qummi.


    There are many other scholars from the city of Qom. I guess they were also Ghulaat and Zindeeq, Mushriks etc. Who cares about the recent show you appeared on? You are dying for publicity and trying to make a name from others who have one. Keep begging for attention. That’s why majority of people ignore you. You claim you can debate everybody, what would you do, copy and paste them to death?! Poor soul.”


    Kid, I translated stuff like this a decade ago, I am always a step ahead of you. So what does this prove? Isfahan ONCE UPON A TIME was a fortress of Sunnah/Atharism, so what? It is now a majority dumpster of Shirk and Rafidi Khurafat and Qom is WORSE, even Shias in Iran curse Qom, it is hated widely in Iran. Qom was a Rafidi fortress even during the Sunni era of Iran, it was conquered by the Sahabah but the Zanadaqah entered it soon and 99% of it’s history is zandaqah and tajsim:


    You foolish kid, of course it is a cursed city, even if you can quote 1000 Sunnis who once upon a time lived their. Kufa and Basra where FOUNDED by Umar (r.a.), today they are cesspools of shirk and pagan self-flagellation. You get the idea, you shallow thinking miskeen?

    And you say ‘Copy and paste to death’? I would bury your Majoosi Mushrik Twelver religion 6 feet under the earth with clear-cut Quranic verses and the Sunnah, I would prove that your sect is based on shaky arguments, I would prove that no sane person can believe that your sect as a Hujjah against mankind. Yes, I would quote these strong sources, what would you do? You don’t even know basic Arabic, nor the clown Syed Ali? You can’t even read from a text right in front of your eyes, lol, of course, you are scared to debate me, besides you are a coward who is hiding, unlike me.

    You said:

    ‘Alhamdulillah… You are the same person who claims to be from a religious/secular Shia family now all of a sudden your ancestors and parents are Non Muslims. In your earlier comment you said “We don’t declare any Muslim being in Nasibi or Rafidhi to be Non Muslim”. So this also debunks your claim that you are are an Ex Shia. What a imbecile you are lol. This is called a major backfire. Poor soul.’

    This is not called major backfire, this is you being a Rafidi i.e. brainless and cursed. My family went through many phases, like most Iranians (thanks to your pagan religion and hated clergy) most of them became totally irreligious. Besides, I explained in detail in many interviews that I accepted Shiism at a time where my parents didn’t care about Shiism, I wrote down all of my story and journey from Rafidism to Islam here much to the regret of Mushriks like you:


    You said:

    ‘Reply: We do not know about them, nor have we a fixation about any particular ethnicity, but you definitely have a inferiority complex, you always try to increase your minimal link to being an Arab. Waaaah i speak Arabic, waaaah my wife is arab, waaah I teach Arabic, waaaah my kids are taught Arabic, waaaah and so and so on. When in reality fire worship runs deep in your blood. It would not surprise me if you secretly celebrate Mushrik/non Muslim festivals with your family (something you admitted earlier) and put this religious show on for others. We all know you are a hypocrite and your hatred towards the Shia community is only because you can not vent that frustration to those close to you. So you channel your rage towards your parents to the wider shia community. LOL.’

    Lol, are you stalking me? What are you on about you lunatic? ‘Minimal link’? I NEVER claimed to be an Arab you fool, I am proud of my homeland (minus the Shirk), I have dedicated entire projects in tribute to the achievements of Islamic Iran and the service of Persian Muslims to Islam and the world. I have only stated my backround in detail, that’s it. Lol, you seem to be jeleous, ya Majoosi self-flagellator. You are now obsessed with my family? I barely talk about them except for clarification or when someone asked. And yes, I am proud that my kids are taught Arabic AND Persian, so they don’t end up like your Majoosi Ayatullats that can’t even read a Fatihah with semi-correct tajwid, just like your dull Syed Ali Imam and Raza can’t. Miskeen :)

    You said:

    “Reply: Lol.. We don’t all celebrate Nawroz but numerous Sunnis do and according to some of your scholars, Muawiyah was the first to do it. Oops.”

    Mu’awiyah is not my infallible Imam ya crypto-Majoosi. Even the Sunnis in Iran don’t celebrate Nowrooz, in Afghanistan only the Shia (no surprise) and secularist ‘Sunnis’ celebrate it, same with Kurds, only the secular ones celebrate it. It is not part of Sunnism, yet your cursed Majoosi scholars from the past till today, Majlisi and others, all attributed Nowrooz to your pagan sect:

    1. Ayatollah: Nowrooz is an Islamic ‘Eid! —> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvNxXADStok

    2. 🔥 Majoosi (distorted Zoroastrianism) influenced Shi’ism PART 1/2 🔥 —-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WrPWW9_0Ds

    3. 🔥 Majoosi (distorted Zoroastrianism) influenced Shi’ism PART 2/2 🔥 —-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzjYfsQwcM8&t=10s

    And I’ve wrote numerous articles proving the shocking fact that your cursed sect and Ayatullats attributed the pagan day of Nowruz to the Ahlul-bayt.

    It’s happy Nowrooz for the Crypto-Majoos —-> https://sonsofsunnah.com/2012/03/20/its-happy-nowrooz-for-the-crypto-majoos-rafidi-shiism/

    You are ignorant of your own sect, according to your fuqaha taking ghusl is mustahabb on that day! LOL, you vile Mushriks, don’t forget to take a ghusl soon, it’s soon Nowruz, and don’t forget to hang on one of thsoe Persianised womanish/tranny looking idols of your imams in your room and temples, you textbook Mushriks.

    You said:

    “Reply: Here you go another distraction, we already discussed Tasawwuf because Shaykh Fawzan, Shaykh Albani, and many other Athari scholars have criticised al Alusi for his Sufi content in Tafsir (again still have not responded to these points) . ”

    I did. Criticism doesn’t equate to outright rejection. Even Iblis can say the truth, much more a scholar like Al-Aloosi who had Sufi tendencies but was not a hardcore Quburi. No Salafi scholar has ever rejected him outright.

    You said:

    ‘But then you tried to deviate by saying there is also good Sufism as it contain Zuhd etc. However, Alusi has been criticised for his Tafsir because of his deviation from Athari creed. So, in no way you can escape from the criticism except by saying Albani and Fawzan aren’t my scholars. And the calamity is that you keep on quoting Ibn Taymiyyah about Tasawwuf which again is not the subject of our discussion. Have you even looked Albani’s criticism of your Prophet (According to Bin Baaz there is proof of this) Ibn Taymiyyah?”

    So? Of course, Al-Aloosi was criticised for whatever deviation he has, but why do you act more stupid than you already are, Al-Aloosi’s rightful words about the Rafidah has never been criticised. If a Christian says in his book that Rafidah are pagan self-flagellating deviants according to Islam then we agree with him, even if his name is John or Iblis, because he said the truth. Al-Aaloosi is an Iraqi scholar with mistakes who was much aware of Rafidis just like many Iraqi and Iranian Sunni scholars, of course, nobody rejects his words about Rafidism. Are you dumb?

    Yes miskeen, I know of Shaykh al-Albani’s criticism of Al-Albani AND his criticism of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdel-Wahhab, and I agree often with him, so what? What now?

    You said:

    “Reply: Yes, the exact same sort of logic can be applied on yourself by using terms like Sayed, Abbasi, Shimrani etc which are nowhere mentioned in Quran and Sunnah. You even went as far in claiming that a Qari teacher thought you were from Shemran Rofl! Oops.”

    *facepalm” Seyed is my actual first name, it’s my name, not my Majoosi Syed/Sayed title. Abbasi is my actual name, it is a nisbah, very common in Iran. Shemrani is also common, none of that I made up, it perfectly describes me, you semi-Hindi-Majoosi freak. Are you gay? I am now worried about your obsession. Yes, a teacher though I am from Bani Shammar because Arabs don’t know that there is a PERSIAN town called SHEMRAN, so? That literally proves that I stand to my roots and disproves all your other nonsense about me. Thanks for humiliating yourself as usual.

    You said:

    “Reply: You don’t take his Tafsir blindly, yet it is okay to quote him against Shias blindly.”

    Not blindly, only if we humiliates you well and refutes you. He did, so we take it. Ya Ahmaq, Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani the SUFI wrote an ENTIRE book HUMILIATING your Mushrik religion and refuting Imamah, I got that book, of course I take from him, why not? Me disagreeing with MUSLIMS on certain matters does not mean that all their works are rejected, you fool don’t understand anything about Usul, how could you, you don’t know ANY Arabic so you need to beg people to translate for you and then you have the audacity to call me a copy/paste person? Shameless grave-crawler and mud-bathing freak you are.

    You said:

    Marja’ in arabic means to whom you refer to in deen. Every Muslim deems Quran, Sunnah and then their Scholars as their Maraj’a in deen. If you don’t consider Fawzan or Albani as your scholar you are free to dissociate yourself from them. We will quote then Ibn Munjid as you have quoted him above. And SubhanAllah you accept Alusi as Marja’ atleast on this issue.”

    It’s al-Munajjid who complete moron. And even al-Munajjid is not infallible, and me not taking certain fatawa from Fawzan, Albani or ANYBODY for that matter doesn’t mean that they are categorically rejected! What kind of logic is that? Are you retarded?

    You said:

    ‘That is the entire point you have no methodology. You would even quote the Torah and the Christians to prove your belief on Tawheed that Allah (swt) is in the heavens like your Prophet Ibn Taymiyyah done. Majority of the matters of creed are not even discussed by Sahabah such as attributes like Qadar, etc which is why they are disputed matters within your own school. Your claim is that you follow religion from the collective first three generations (which theoretically includes companions), they are practically not used in this issue since many Sahabah disagreed with each other on matters of creed to the point of Takfir (excommunication). Salafis take their religion from later Salaf starting from Abdullah Bin Ahmad (his book Al Sunnah is disputed itself), to Al Barbahari Sharh Al Sunnah (again disputed here bro Hajjis videos.’

    Don’t open numerous cans of worms for yourself. It is a prophetic manhaj you idiot, not blindly following anybody is the perfect manhaj. Your Rabbis have confessed that the ikhtilafat of your sect are MORE than those in ALL four madhahib combined. On top of that Usulis fought Akhbaris and today even Usulis fight Usulis on matters of CREED. But don’t worry, all of that will be released in due time.

    You said:

    ‘Yes we take narrations from all Muslim factions who have been declared reliable. But your Usool is inconsistent as on one hand you call Rafidah as heretics and liars and you also take your Deen from them. Being a Muslim is a prerequisite for Adalah (Trustworthiness) but then again you accept the Qur’an from people you deem as liars but ask us why we turn to it as well and have the same position about the Sahabah (even though the Qur’an was never mass transmitted from all of them).’

    LOL, Nasibis are the WORST kind of Kuffar, Waqifis have been cursed by your imams as wet najis kuffar, your retarded sect is the only sect that takes from Kuffar (as per their own standards), Rafidism is a joke and you know that.

    You said:

    ‘This Usool of rejecting from innovators in favour of their religion was invented by Jawzajani who was himself a Nasibi. At least check Shaykh Mulami Yammani’s book Tanqeeel in refutation to Kawthari. Link to our article can be read here but you are probably not ever aware of that since you’re limited to the amount of refutations you read against the Shias which in most cases is very selective and pitiful.’

    I have access to original sources, I can study and read them in Arabic, you can’t, so don’t act hard and big. His name is al-Mu’alami not ‘Mulami’ you complete moron don’t even know his actual name! Are you not ashamed by now? And there is kalam about this principle, even Shaykh al-Albani talked about it. Kid, you didn’t discover anything new. Anyway, I abide by that principle as it is sound and you can’t change it nor one of your cherry-picked scholars.

    You said:

    Reply: Yes of course that is why we have said Waqidi is accepted in biographies and wars while he is rejected in Islamic Laws (Ahkam despite the fact you use him to support the view that milk was poured into a cup in your adult suckling filth). You can take benefit from Asharis in Grammar, History etc but in Creed you differ with them. How can you take their opinions here? This is really shameful and embarrassing no wonder why you have even fallen out with the Sunnis around you. Even they consider you an extremist Wahabi, Jihadi type. You’re such a Jahil you have even denied many Shafi scholars were Ashari in creed, have you forgotten about that? You are a complete mockery of someone wanting to be recognised as knowledgeable. the joke is on you. Poor soul.

    ‘Vahhabi, Wahhabi’ Lol, ‘fallen out’, what are you on about? I can assure you I am still best buddies with my buddies, you creep of a Rafidi. And Jihadis make takfir on me you fool, lol, I have exposed their plastic state in Iraq (Daesh) and the Taliban-Iran alliance.

    You said:

    ‘You had to quote a Ashari Sufi Tafsir to try to prove a point. You are extremely desperate I am surprised you did not resort to a Barelwi Tafsir of Ahmad Raza Khan lol. Ibn Fawzan commented on Alusi’s methodology and said it should not be depended upon because ‘It is a Sufi Tafsir’.’

    So? Asha’ris are Sunnis in all matter they agree with Ahlus-Sunnah, this is the position of Al-Albani and Ibn Taymiyyah and the one I follow, what’s wrong with that? Al-Aloosi’s words are beautiful, even if it was said by a Zaydi I would take it, we all do, it’s about the truth you moron, don’t you know that it is authentically reported that Ali (ra) said:

    لا تنظر إلى من قال و لكن انظر إلى ما قيل

    But hey, i forgot you don’t know Arabic so I need to translate it for you, lol.

    You said:

    ‘Just because some random unknown website quotes it doesn’t give it validity. Tell me which Salafi scholars have trusted and accepted this Tafsir?’

    That’s irrelevant, red herring. No Tafsir has ever been declared as completely Sahih. But ALL Tafasir include many truth, even Sayed Qutb was praised at times for some of his statements by Salafi scholars like Al-Albani. You are such a jahil, you don’t even know that the truth can be taken from books of scholars who held mistakes in creed? Go learn basics first.

    You said:

    ‘Our Imamite religion, ALHAMDULILLAH, does not teach us to go worship a Sky God who sits cross legged, comes down every night and appears as a young beardless man in peoples dreams and shows his legs and has buttocks or sits on the back of a Whale all while there are snakes under his throne. Astagfirullah. The only Mushrik here is you and believing in 1,2 3 or not is not representative of the entirety of the Sahabah. You can not argue, let alone debate, look how you have hopped from one matter to the next and couldn’t even address the original topic of discussion.’

    ‘Sky God’, lol, ya mushrik, your religion has literally DEIFIED your Imams, you have made actual idols of them in the most despicable way on top of it. They are depicted like womanish looking Persian trannies, they hang in your places in worship from Kufa to India, heck, your sect even innovated places of worship called Hussainia/Imam bargah i.e. where Imams are invoked besides Allah, you are textbook mushriks and your ‘sky God’ and tajsim distraction tactics will fool NOBODY, this is your religion, your pagan Imamism:

    You said:

    ‘Reply: He has actually debated people unlike you who is dying for fame. Why do you not debate him on the fact you don’t support terrorists? Afterwards you can debate about the Sky God and any other relevant subject matter.’

    The clown debated people who have zero clue about Imamism, he’s a snake, he should feel honoured that I entertain him. And why would I debate him on that? Why not debating if he’s a homosexual or not? I want to make that accusation, why not? Two can play these silly games. ALL of you are scared to debate Imamah as it is a myth and can never be proven with CLEAR-CUT verses and sahih Sunnah, heck even Ayatullat Haydari just recently confessed to that. And you, you are the biggest coward, Syed semi-Hindi Majoosi Ali Imam at least shows his face, yes, he’s a dull fool who can’t say a SINGLE Islamic terminology correctly, not even the salam or the name of his scholars, but at least he shows his face. What about you, you male niqabi? You are hiding and slandering me, because you are scared to face me, if not, man up, bring it on and let’s debate Imamah.

    You said:

    ‘Sure it has what are you going to do quote Allamah Alusi’s Tafsir?’

    Why not? But actually no, not in this case.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Who cares? We love our mother tongue, and we can express ourselves better in this language. Poor soul can’t even speak English properly and hes mocking other people’s second languages. You on the other hand mock your own Persian accent due to the inferiority complex you have for not being Arab. You must really regret that Allah (ALLAOW according to you) (swt) never brought you up into a Arab country or family. But instead you have to live with the ‘majoosi’ curse for the rest of your life.’

    Umm, what’s wrong with my English, ya Apu? Come on mic and let’s hear your freshie English and then let’s compare :D

    Also, fool, I explained it many times, one more time for you: I do NOT mock the beautiful Persian language, let alone my own accent, lol. You simpleton and your likes don’t even get it, it is not about Persian per se, it is a BEAUTIFUL language and I TEACH IT! I adore it, I wrote about it: https://sonsofsunnah.com/2015/01/09/the-perso-arabic-script-a-beauty-honour-for-persia/

    What I (and many of started doing it thanks to me, I know it BOILS your blood) mock is the DISTORTION of the Qur’an/Tajwid by your Majoosi AYATULLATS who can’t be bothered to learn the BASICS i.e. ABC of Tajwid. That is why I mock, these clowns are from whom millions of your co-self-beaters take their religion from:

    This disgusting Qommite-Hawzawi ‘Arabic’ is what I mock, it has humiliated your clergy, in Persian and Arabic I made my own clips about how your TOP Ayatullats bastardise the BASICS of the Arabic language, the videos got put together millions of views, alhamdulillah, that’s what makes you furious. Die in your rage, that was my plan.

    You said:

    “Plus the type of dialect one speaks develops depending upon a persons mother tongue. Just as it is easy for Persians to talk in French etc while for Indians it is hard to talk in Persian (It is hard for them to say “Zee” instead they call it “Jee”). So you can’t criticise someone based upon his dialect, this all happens subconsciously. You can’t even speak or spell English properly yourself so I don’t know why you trying to take the moral high ground here. Poor soul.”

    Poor soul, these are pathetic excuses for pathetic Ayatullats. Pakistani, Kashimiri, Indian, Persian, etc. Sunnis somehow master tajwid with no accent but all your Ayatullats fail. This excuse does not work anymore, fool, give it a rest, thanks to videos like this one here:

    And what’s wrong with my Engish, Apu? Come on mic, let’s see who can’t speak English properly, why are you scared?

    You said:

    ‘*Reply: You say Waqidi cannot be ruled out and then you call him a liar and even try to misquote the statement of the scholars who denied that he is rejected in totality. Have some consistency. He has been ascribed to narrate fabrications in Laws (Ahkam again, yet your friend have trusted him on the point of view of Adult suckling) as those who have criticised as Imams of narrations on laws. But As far as his historical narratives are concerned, they are accepted by Majority (Jamhoor) of this field.*’

    Well, read properly, the scholars called him a liar, that’s their verdict. And some scholars (as it is not Prophetic hadith) said that some of his stuff can be useful, and of course a liar can say the truth, so there are methods like qarain, etc. but that’s all irrelevant, a heavily criticised individual like al-Waqidi is never given preference over other more reliable sources, that’s my point and it’s sound.

    “Where did you get this from? The chain you have depended upon is weaker than Waqidi.

    You said : عن يحيى بن معين : كان حفص بن سليمان ، وأبو بكر بن عياش من أعلم الناس بقراءة عاصم ، وكان حفص اقرأ من أبي بكر ، وكان كذابا ، وكان أبو بكر صدوقا.”

    Copy/pasting cheapt shubuhat, again huh?

    Reply: Even quotes of your Imams like Ibn Ma’een are Shubhahaat for you.”

    It’s shubuhaat (or shubuhat) but certainly not shubhah, and you fool got exposed by me as you REJECTED al-Waqidi in one of your previous articles. Enough damage control my friend.

    ‘Reply: Till now we had Ijmah in Usool Al Fiqh but today the famous Ex Majoosi Mushrik has coined the same in Usool e Hadith. You moron there is nothing like ‘Ijmah in Usool e Hadith’ rather majority of the Scholars have weaken him in Hadith. Ibn Ma’een and Ibn Kharash even declared him Liar!’

    Semi-Hindu Majoosi, who said anything about ijma’ (it’s not ijmah, it is اجماع ith an ‘ayn at the end, *facepalm*) in Usul al-Hadith? Ijma’ as in him being a reliable person and master of the Qur’an and Qir’at and of its transmission.

    You said:

    Reply: Why did you skip the meaning of the word “المفصل”

    It actually says that SPECIFIC Criticism overweighs general reliability while the fact is Waqidi has both SPECIFIC criticism (In Ahkam) and specific Praise (In Biographies). How could you use this Usool here? This is an expert of Arabic who either does not even know what these words mean or tries to deceive others by skipping these words.’

    You are wrong, al-Waqidi’s thiqaness was completely rejected by the a’laam, some did not reject him outright, however, the point is that no fair researchers would take any of his words over more authentic versions.

    You said:

    “Then you quoted from Tarikh Dimishq by Ibn Asakir. However this random copy paste you quoted has two narrations instead of one. In both narrations the last narrator Ubaydullah bin Ali bin Abi Raf’i who narrates from unknown teachers.”

    Listen, stop repeating copy/paste you little Hindu-Majoosi, lol your entire job is copy/paste, you can’t read Arabic so you do nothing but copy/paste and/or copying from secondary/translated sources.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: Not only is Ibn Miqdad Majhool, the teachers of Ubaydullah are also unknown. Then your emotional drama to be sincere. Rather you should be introspective in that you are negating a Imam of History, Waqidi, just because he makes arguments of Rafidah strong. Do not be Ashamed we don’t have to resort to our books to expose your Kuffari and Zindiqah Aqeedah.’

    Thanks for admitting that I am being fair, again, al-Waqidi is a liar and some reject him completely and some are very careful, we certainly don’t take anything from him that supports Rafidi narratives, especially not if they oppose other historical accounts. Nothing shocking here.

    You said:

    ‘Reply: The same is the case with Hafs bin Sulieman who has been declared a liar by more than one giant: Yahya ibn Ma’een and Abdur Rahman bin Kharash. Ibn Rahaway also said there is no authentic Hadith in praise of Muawiyah but you still try to defend him.’

    Big difference, nobody rejects or doubts that the likes who accused al-Waqidi of lies were wrong, they were experts and proved it and experts on this field can prove it to this very day. As for the harsh criticism by some against some Qurra: their criticism is rejected, has always been, they are all thiqah and the Riwayah is accepted. Well, except by you kafir Rawafid, you don’t believe in any qiraat anyway and you are continuously casting doubt on it. Very, very telling…

    ‘This is what you yourself identify as a “Ilzaami” reply for those who categorically declare him weak. Had you bothered to read it completely I have also presented the main defects in the narration which Tahir ul Qadri (maybe you might use his Tafsir in the response to this one) quoted. Here is the complete research on it:


    That defect is Amir bin Sharjeel quoted the event and he was born (20 After Hijrah) much after that event (11 After Hijrah). Meaning it is a Mursal Hadith. You skipped the main point and tried to use an “Ilzaami” reply which was actually against you, who declared him weak without any condition. Oops again. Poor soul.

    So again: Takbir!

    Note it is ‘Al Waqidi’ not al-Qawidi.’

    Yes, we know it is Waqidi, and out of dozen+ times I for whatever reason wrote something else. That will not change your Majoosi Makharij and mistakes, including your poor English. As for your ilzam exuse: Nonsense, al-Waqidi being a liar was your first and main point, also what ilzam, how do you know that your opponent rejects al-Waqidi? He quotes al-Waqidi so to him al-Waqidi has some weight, you quoting some scholars can be rejected by him just like you reject from me that al-Waqidi is a liar and that the asl is that his narrations should be accepted only with a large grain of salt.

    You said:

    “Reply: SubanAllah now a Mask has also been declared to be a Mushrik. Btw The Sahabah also included effeminates, so why do you have a problem with them? Do you prefer I wear a clown Mask instead and look like you, a circus clown, a complete laughing stock. You don’t even have full set of facial hair and tries his best to hide his stomach. Maybe you should try out a diet plan. 😉 poor soul.”

    Yes, the Sahaba also included Mukhannitheen, blind people, etc. are you one of them? Full set of facial hair? What is that?

    Anyways, you got exposed hard, people are laughing about your on various groups for a reason, you got refuted by so many brothers, I can’t even count anymore. And your pathetic ‘refutations’ like where you try to defend that dull moron Syed Ali Imam about the hadith of Allah rolling the heavens, ignoring that the fool has an issue with the MATN itself and not just the ATHARI understanding of it, and the proof is that he called the TEXT tajsimi, not knowing that it is basicaly found paraphrased in the Qur’an!

    Anyways, it is clear for everybody you the coward is. I challenge YOU, you say no. I show my FACE and I am public with my da’wah, you hide your face AND voice (probably ashamed of your Apu ‘Syed’ look and Majoosi tajwid. So who is the miskeen and poor soul here? I am not going to reply on this random website anymore, but I am not a coward like you, you can contact me ANY TIME and I will debate you or ANY of your zanadiqah on the cursed zandaqah called Shia Imamah. But I know you will come up with a dozen+ excuses, all of you do, because you are SCARED!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s