sayyid haamid texts

7/27/2019 Sayyid Haamid TEXTS

1/5

sayyid_haamid TEXTS

The followers of the Ahlulbayt school of thought - are VERY clear to differentiate between the Sunni

school of thought - and the Umawi (Wahabi) school of thought.

There are 3 main schools of thought:- Ahlulbayt School of Thought

- Sunni School of Thought

- Bani Umayyah (Umawai/Wahabi) School of Thought

Bani Umayyah infiltrated Islam and were able to take control of the Muslim Ummah. They created

their school of thought by giving open salaries to scholars, writers, speakers etc. who fabricated

thousands and thousands of narrations which serve the interests of Bani Umayyah. And when they

fabricated false narrations, they created "authentic" chains of narrators for their narrations (they

were smart and not stupid fabricators). For example, they created the hadith on the tongue of Lady

Aisha that the Messenger did not go anywhere in the night of Mi'raj because he was sleeping in my

bed the whole night. She NEVER actually said that, but they lied through her to give their narrationsauthenticity, and this was to reduce Mi'raj to a mere dream.

They also waged open war against the family of the Prophet, and tried their best to kill everyone who

remained from this family.

One of their most important foundations in their school of thought is to go against everything in the

Ahlulbayt School of thought - EVERYTHING - even things such as the concept of Tawheed, the

concept of Prophethood, infallibility of Prophets, and down to the last detail such as how to take

wuthu.

For example, in the Ahlulbayt (and Sunni) school of thought, Allah (swt) has no limits and does not

have a physical form or a body. In the Umawi school of thought, Allah IS limited, and DOES have a

body and whoever denies it is a kafir (i.e. the EXACT OPPOSITE of the authentic Tawheed). (Inshallah

later I will show more details of this "Tawheed").

So much so that the Imam of Ahlulbayt have some narrations in which they say:

"If you are in a situation where you cannot find a narration from us about a particular matter, then

look at what the opposing school of thought does, and do the opposite."

Why? Because the Umawis took everything the Ahlulbayt said - and turned it to the exact opposite.

So it's clear that the Ahlulbayt and Bani Umayyah are the direct opposite of each other.

Now, the Sunni School of thought is somewhere in between the two.

While they are different from the Umawis, nevertheless they are also different from the Ahlulbayt.

In short, the Sunnis have been deeply influenced by the Umawis because the Umawis had

government, power and control, and manipulated the religion and through it - manipulated the

people (Sunnis). The Umawis great success in influencing the Sunnis was in keeping them far from

Ahlulbayt and their teachings.

Now don't get me wrong, even the Shia have been infiltrated and influenced by Bani Umayyah, but

the scale of infiltration is very small in comparison to the Sunnis. Also, in this day and age, the Shia

scholars have - with centuries of hard work - been able to pinpoint many of the corrupt ideas and


2/5

narrations which infiltrated their books, and were able to cure these problems by finding the correct

solutions from Ahlulbayt.

the Sunnis are not the same as Umawi, but the Umawis were able to keep them distant from

Ahlulabyt. And this is well known and Bani Umayyah and their "scholars" are openly proud of this.

For example:

Ibn Taimiyah's proud testimony that Ahle Sunnah don't follow Ali bin Abi Talib [as]

Ibn Taimiyah who is known for having a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib [as] proudly claims that none

of the Sunni jurists attained teachings from Imam Ali [as].

Quote:

None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence. Verily if

Malik's knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali's

statements. They took their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.

Shafiyee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Makka, the companions of Ibn Juraij like Saeedbin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji. Ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the

companions of Ibn Abbas, like Atta and others. Verily Ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid.

Whenever he gives fatwa, according to the Sahabas, he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar,

not Ali's. He disagreed with Ali on few things.

The Sunni Scholars also do not deny that the politics of Bani Umayyah has kept them away from

Ahlulbayt The prominent Sunni scholar Imam Mohammad Abu Zuhra says in his book Imam Jafar Al-

Sadiq (READ HIS WORDS CAREFULLY):

Quote:

No doubt that the Ahl Al-Sunnah have left Imam Ali, because Bany Umayyah used to curse him, and

used to swear at him and that was one of the reasons why we the Sunnah have left Ali, and if we

have anything from Imam Ali, then it is just a few hadeeths. As for the Fiqh of Imam Ali, the wisdom

of Imam Ali, and the lectures of Imam Ali... politics has separated us from Imam Ali.

For me personally, I would say, if you wanted to know where the Sunnis are in the spectrum between

Ahlulbayt (true Islam) and Bani Umayyah (Islam of hypocrisy), then try to see how far they are from

Ahlulbayt - their Ship of Salvation. The further they are from Ahlulbayt (ship of salvation), the closer

they are to Bani Umayyah.

And not all Sunnis are equal. For example, the closest of the Sunnis to the Ahlulbayt are the Sufis and

this is very clear and evident in how much respect and love they have for them.

But all of this aside, we cannot but admit that most people are ignorant of the truth, and are not

purposely distancing themselves from their Ship of Salvation. And there are also fears of being

labelled and so forth which I don't want to bother talking about right now.

But lets take a practical example. Every year in Ashura, the Shia have gatherings to mourn the

murder of Imam Hussain to save his grandfathers religion. Now the Sunnis... some laugh at the Shia

for doing this, some call it innovation, and some like brother/sister "lunatic" here (or whatever their

name is) say the Shia killed him themselves and hold Yazid innocent etc etc etc. While other Sunnis

go to these gatherings and mourn for Ahlulbayt, or they make their own gatherings to remember

Imam Hussain, and consider it obligatory on themselves to pay their respect to the Prophets


3/5

household. And others are either afraid of being labelled as Shia, or they are ignorant of the whole

issue of Imam Hussain, or they ignore the matter entirely. You can tell how close each one of them is

to the Ahlulbayt.

But you do not find Sunnis saying that Yazid was right to kill Imam Hussain, or that if they were alive

at that time, they would fight against Imam Hussain. Only an Umawi would every say that.

And what is even more unbelievable, is that just 50 years after the demise of the Holy Messenger

(pbuhaf), Yazid son of Mu'awiyah - the "successor of Rasulollah" murders the last remaining

grandson of Rasulollah: Imam Hussain (pbuhaf). Nothing could be stronger evidence than this to

prove that a MAJOR conspiracy has befallen Islam ONLY 50 YEARS after the demise of the Messenger.

In the Harra collision, the whole warriors of Badr were killed. Seven hundred men of Quraish and the

Ansar were killed. From ordinary people, about ten thousand souls were killed in that collision.

Nothing intercepted those commanders from killing the children. This crime was perpetrated by

BishrbnArta'a when he killed the babies of UbeidullahbnAbbas.

Nobody talks about this though do they?

After murdering Imam Hussain, in the Harra event, Yazids army attacked Medinah, and killed and

killed and raped and raped...

The remaining warriors of Badr were all killed.

700 Sahabi were killed.

10'000 Tabi'eeen were killed.

Women and children were killed.

One year after the incident, 1000 women gave birth to children conceived from rape.

After this event, the army attacked Mecca and catapulted the Ka'bah.

This man - Yazid - is the same one who the Umawi (Wahabi) school of thought defends vehemently.So much so that Ibn Taymiyyah considers him one of the 12 Imams of the Ummah, and he says that

glad tidings of them were given in the Torah and Bible. But he does include Imam Hasan and Imam

Hussain in these 12? NO WAY! What about Mu'awiyah? Is he included? OF COURSE!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They made up the illogical lie that "ALL sahaba are good and in heaven".

What happened to all those hypocrites which are mentioned in the Qur'an?

A whole Sura about hypocrites: "And Allah bears witness that they are liars"

Did all of them just disappear into thin air after the demise of Rasulollah (pbuhaf)?

Where did they all go?

They defined Sahabi as anyone who saw the Messenger - so all these hypocrites went under theumbrella of "sahabi" and all of them will enter paradise!!!

And NOBODY has the right to criticise ANY of them - even though they cursed one another, and

waged war against one another, and fought each other and killed each other!! ALL of them in

heaven!

Do you know what they say about the Sahabi Hijr Ibn Ady?

"Sayyiduna (our master) Hijr Ibn Aady, who was killed by sayyiduna Mu'awiya, because he refused to

curse sayyiduna Ali Ibn Abi Talib".

But all of them are "sayyiduna" and all are in paradise! What a mockery. Do these people know what

an insult they are making to Allah (swt) Al-Aadil - The Just?


4/5

From Sahih Bukhari:

"On doomsday, when I will be at the water pond delivering water to those who will be thirsty among

my followers, a group of my followers will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and

take them to Hell! And I'll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not

know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy ... Thus, only smallnumber of my companions will escape like deserted camels in the desert." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VII,

Page 206).

So this claim that "ALL" Sahabah are good people and in paradise contradicts this hadith (and many

more like it), and contradicts the Qur'an, and contradicts Allah's justice, and contradicts all forms of

logic.

It was made up to protect the hypocrites, and give them immunity from any criticism.

Ibn Taymiyyah goes as far as to say that anyone who makes ANY criticism of ANY sahabi, even if you

were to say "he is too short" or "too tall" or anything negative about ANY sahabi, then you are kafirand OUT of Islam!

But how does he himself speak of the best and closest Sahabah - the Ahlulbayt? How does he speak

about Fatima and accuse her of hypocricy!? How does he raise doubts about whether Imam Ali's

Islam is valid or invalid? How does he accuse Imam Ali of marrying Lady Fatima only to hurt her and

to hurt her father? How does he accuse Imam Ali of hypocrisy and entering Islam only to for self-

benefit?? How does he accuse Imam Hussain of causing corruption!?

According to his own verdict that whoever criticises a Sahabi is kafir - WHAT IS HE????

So then, it is clear that this protection from criticism ONLY applies to those who the Umawi school of

thought wish to protect (i.e. the hypocrites). And ANYONE who opposes them - even if he was

another sahabi - even if he was Ahlulbayt - is WRONG and is fair game for criticism and even being

labelled a hypocrite.

There was no conspiracy huh???

A few points I want to add to my previous post.

First - Sunnis and Shia use a term called "Nasibi" to refer to those who have any hatred towards

Ahlulbayt and choose Mu'awiyahs side in the confrontation between him and Imam Ali. They bothagree that Nasibis are out of the fold of Islam, and this tells you how different Sunnis are from Bani

Umayyah in terms of hatred to Ahlulbayt. The Sunnis do not hate Ahlulbayt, and not only that, they

regard the haters of Ahlulbayt as non-Muslim. however, most Sunnis are not very close to Ahlulbayt

either. They have respect for them, but not much else.

Second - The Shia - while they agree with the Sunnis that Nasibis are not Muslim - but the Shia DO

NOT regard the Sunnis to be Nasibi, rather they see them as believers. For example, Imam Sadiq

(pbuhaf) says regarding this verse:

"And Indeed I am forgiving to him who repents, and believes and does good deeds, then is guided."

Imam Sadiq (pbuhaf) said: "Then is guided to our wilayah the Ahlulbayt".


5/5

So you can see clearly that in the eyes of Imam Sadiq (pbuhaf) and his followers, the typical Sunni is

one who repents, believes and does good deeds. Only thing missing is the fellowship of Ahlulbayt.

And you know as well as I that to love someone is very different than to FOLLOW them. As Imam Ali

(pbuhaf) says: "Do not be like the one who... and he loves the pious, but he is not one of them, and

he dislikes the corrupt, and he is one of them."

The third point is that most Nasibis, and most followers of the Umawi School of thought are not as

outspoken as Ibn Taymiyyah, and do not dare to say that they hate Ahlulbayt. They say they love

Ahlulbayt and respect Ahlulbayt, but when it comes to Mu'awiyah VS Imam Ali and Imam Hasan, and

Yazid VS Imam Hussain, they choose the side of Bani Umayyah. They do not accept any criticism of

Mu'awiyah and Yazid, and give them full authority and respect. And that's how you differentiate a

Nasibi from a non-Nasibi. Look at which side they are on, the Ahlulbayt's side or Bani Umayyahs side.

Sahih Muslim: Imam Ali: It is the oath of the Prophet to me than nobody loves me except he is a

believer and nobody hates me except he is a hypocrite.

sayyid haamid texts

Documents