Instruction: What is “muta”? How can you justify such temporary marriages?

Context:
What is Muta?
Muta, or temporary marriage, is a controversial subject in any community and, some might say, rightly
so. This publication does not promote muta; muta is something which is permissible in Islam; again, only
under certain, specific, strict and extreme circumstances.
Permanent marriage, not temporary marriage, is the norm in Shia Islam, recommended and encouraged
in the Holy Qur’an and in the traditions of the Prophet (S) and his Ahlul Bayt.
Temporary marriage is the exception to the rule and is supposed to be used as a last resort whenever
permanent marriage cannot be afforded or things become extremely difficult to bear (for one who cannot
get married). In certain circumstances it is allowed and avoids committing adultery, which is a major sin.
What is ironic is that while disagreeing on the matter of temporary marriage, the scholars of some other
Islamic schools of thought agree that if a man intends to marry a lady for a short period of time without
telling her that he will be divorcing her after a period of time and hides his intentions then the marriage is
still valid. In such a case, temporary marriage might, to some, seem more logical and just since the
couple can actually agree on the terms and conditions beforehand with full honesty and transparency.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands
possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that
ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek
content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you
in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower,
Wise.” (4: 24) [Surah Nisa]
Al-Tabari, in his Tafsir, says this verse and the reference to “mutual agreement” is a reference to muta.
The only real debate is whether the Holy Prophet (S) abolished it during his lifetime or whether it was
Umar, the second caliph, who abolished it much later on? Some Ahlul Sunnah scholars say Umar only
reinforced what the Prophet had done. But the fact is that temporary marriage existed during the time of
the Prophet and, at the very minimum, it was allowed by the Prophet for a time.
The key point about muta is not its theological basis, because it is exception to the rule, rather than the
rule, but the fact that so few Shias actually engage in it.
Sadly, muta is used as a battering ram, as something to attack the Shias with, yet it is no less
unappealing, no less odd, than the idea of four wives, which is also an exception to the rule, an
exception to the norm, which is one wife.


Instruction: Why do Shias pay khums in addition to zakat?

Context:
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
Khums is one of the pillars of Islam which was ordained by Allah (SwT) and practiced during the life of
the Prophet (S). Khums means “one-fifth” and indicates that one- fifth of a person’s excess income has
to be dedicated, according to the Holy Qur’an, for the following:
“And know that whatever profit you make, verily, one-fifth of it is assigned to Allah and to the
Messenger and to his family and also the orphans, the destitute, and the wayfarer, if you have
believed in Allah, and in that which We sent down to our servant Muhammad.” (8:41) [Surah
Anfaal].
Khums, in brief, means paying one-fifth of the surplus of one’s income, after taking away the expenses
of the person and his dependents. It consists of two equal parts: one being the share of the Imam,
meaning that this part goes towards constructing mosques, Islamic seminaries, Islamic schools, libraries,
hospitals or clinics, orphanages, the printing of the Holy Qur’an, hadith books, Islamic books and
lectures and others things which might benefit, defend, or propagate Islam. The second part is the
portion for the poor sayyids (descendants of the Prophet), since they are banned from receiving zakat
(charity).
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
Many historical references from different schools of thought mention that khums existed during the time
of the Prophet (S) and was banned during the time of the first and second caliphs – see reference books
like the Sunan of Bayhaqi, the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Tafsir of Tabari.
The interpretation by the Ahlul Bayt of the word “ghanimtum” in the Holy Qur’an, Ch.8: V 41 is
“Everything you gained” - whether from war, work, trade, or other sources, since history testifies that the
Prophet (S) took out one-fifth from the war booty, and also from assets other than the war booty during
peacetime. Again, see, among other books, the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, one of the leading
Sunni scholars of fiqh.
The importance given by the Prophet (S) to the issue of khums can also be seen in his advice to the
delegation of Bani Abdul Qays. It seems that Bani Abdul Qays (which was a branch of Rabiah) was not
a very strong tribe.
In order to travel to Madinah, they had to cross an area inhabited by the Muzar tribe, which was opposed
to Islam and the Muslims. Consequently, the Bani Abdul Qays could not travel safely to Madinah except
during the months in which warfare was forbidden, according to the Arab custom.
Here’s the relevant hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 10, No. 501: Ibn Abbas narrates: “The
delegates of the tribe of Abdul Qays came and said: `O Allah’s Apostle! We are from the tribe of Rabia
and between us and you stand the infidels of the tribe of Mudar, so we cannot come to you except in the
Haram Months. So please order us some instructions that we may apply it to ourselves and also invite
our people left behind us to observe as well. ‘The Prophet (S) said: “I order you to believe in Allah, that
is, to testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah (the Prophet pointed with his hand); to
offer prayers perfectly, to pay Zakat, to fast the month of Ramadhan, and to pay the Khums.”


Instruction: What is this “taqlid”? Why do Shias follow “marjas” and “mujtahids”?

Context:
What is taqlid?
Taqlid literally means “to follow (someone)”, “to imitate”. In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a
“marja at-taqlid”, literally a “source of emulation”, a source of imitation, when it comes to religious laws
and rulings. A marja is the senior-most mujtahid and a mujtahid is a person who is an expert on Islamic
jurisprudence (fiqh); he is also called a faqih.
The orthodox Shia position is that a person should either be a mujtahid or a muqallid – a follower of a
mujtahid.
It should be noted that taqlid pertains only to the realm of the shariah and the furu ud-deen; there can
be no taqlid whatsoever in the matters of core belief (or usul ud-deen). The Holy Qur’an condemns such
un-Islamic types of taqlid.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
The Holy Qur’an says in Surah Al Anbiya in relation to taqlid and ijtihad and mujtahids:
“Question the people of remembrance if you do not know.” (21:7)
It also says, very clearly in Surah Tawba:
“But why should not a party from every section of them (the believers) go forth to become
learned in the religion, and to warn their people when they return to them, that they may
beware?” (9:124).
This is about creating groups of scholars, aalims; not priests or clerics. Mujtahids are not priests – there
are no Catholic-style priests or priesthood in Islam – they are scholars, engaged in much-needed ijtihad
(literally: intellectual struggle).
In Shia Islam, the gate to ijtihad is not closed – whereas in the Ahlul Sunnah, the gate to ijtihad was
largely closed a thousand or so years ago, with the formalisation of the four schools of fiqh, Hanafi,
Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali.
Common sense
One of the problems plaguing modern Sunni Islam, which many Sunni intellectuals have identified, is the
crisis of intellectual and theological leadership. Among the Ahlul Sunnah, it is now possible for any
person to issue a fatwa on this or that aspect of Islamic law or morality. Self- proclaimed shaykhs have
proliferated! This problem does not exist in Shia Islam, where the ulema have to have studied for
decades and won the respect of their peers before they can start issuing fatwas.
We seek expert guidance in every aspect of our lives – from accountants when we’re doing our taxes, to
doctors when we have health problems, to dentists when we have toothache, to engineers when we
want to build something, to economists and financiers and stockbrokers when we want to make money -
and yet when it comes to religion, our faith, our holy texts, the most important thing in our life, then we’re
told we should say, “No, I don’t need any expert guidance, I’ll work it out for myself ”.
If you’ve read and understood all the 6,000-odd verses of the Holy Qur’an, if you’ve read and
understand all of the hundreds of Muslim and non-Muslim, Shia and Sunni, commentaries on the Holy
Qur’an; if you’ve been through the hundreds and thousands of books of tradition, and the hundreds of
thousands of ahadith from the Prophet, from the 12 Imams, from their companions and followers and
students; if you’ve studied the biographies and the backgrounds of all the narrators of ahadith to work
out who is reliable and who is unreliable; if you’ve studied, in full and in depth, Islamic law, theology,
philosophy, history, ethics, then fine, go for it, do everything on your own, decide everything on your
own. But if not, then why not take advantage of the fact, the blessing, that there is a group of people who
have done all of those things and are offering us their services and their wisdom and their knowledge in
the form of taqlid.
Chapter 4: The Holy Qur’an and Prayers (Salah)


Instruction: Do the Shias have another, different Holy Qur’an? Do you believe the Holy Qur’an is incomplete?

Context:
The answer to both the above is a definitive “No”! But this is a question that Shias have been asked for
centuries, despite the fact that Shias use, and believe in, the same Holy Qur’an as the Ahlul Sunnah.
Whether you are Shia or Sunni, there is only one Holy Qur’an and no other.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
The Ahlul Sunnah believe that the Holy Qur’an was first compiled by Uthman ibn Affan, the third caliph.
But the Shias believe that the Holy Qur’an was gathered and compiled by the Holy Prophet Muhammad
(S) during his lifetime. The proof is in the tradition of Ghadeer Khumm: “I leave you the book…” How can
the Prophet (S) refer to a “book” if it was not yet in existence?
The Holy Qur’an is protected from change or human interference or tampering, as the following verse of
the Holy Qur’an itself confirms:
“Certainly, we revealed the Reminder and certainly we shall preserve it.” (15:9) [Surah Al Hijr].
This is a guarantee from Allah (SwT) that the book is preserved. Unlike any other holy book, one of the
miracles of the Holy Qur’an is that there are no changes to it wherever you go in the world.
Now, unfortunately, there have been some Shia narrations suggesting “tahrif ”, (changes to the text of
the verses) may have occurred, but they are not considered authentic by the Shia scholars (ulema) and
should be disregarded and ignored.
In fact, as the sixth Shia Imam, Jafar as Sadiq (as), declared in a hadith narrated in Usul al-Kafi: “Test
the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject
it.”
Other Shia scholars’ verdicts
The completeness of the Holy Qur’an is so indisputable among the Shias that the greatest Shia scholar
of Hadith, the 10th century aalim, Shaykh Saduq, wrote: “Our belief is that the Holy Qur’an which Allah
(SwT) revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (S) is (the same as) the one between the two covers
(daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that.
The number of surahs as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we
say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”
Sayyid al-Murtadha, another prominent and classical Shia scholar states: “... our certainty of the
completeness of the Holy Qur’an is like our certainty of the existence of countries or major events that
are self-evident.”
Ayatullah al-Udhma Abul-Qassim al-Khoei, one of the most influential Shia scholars of the 20th century,
teacher to the great contemporary marja Ayatullah al-Udhma Sistani, writes in his Tafsir al-Bayan that
to hold a belief in: “...tahrif (corruption of the Holy Qura’nic text in any form) is nothing more than a
delusion and an imagination, maintained by those with weak reasoning.”
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
It seems strange that the Ahlul Sunnah attack the Shias for supposedly believing in tahrif, in changes to
the Holy Qur’an, while ignoring the fact that their own books of ahadith include traditions (wrongly)
suggesting that tahrif has occurred.
For example, according to Umar and Aisha, there were once verses in the Holy Qur’an that were called
the “verse of stoning” and the “verse of suckling” that were subsequently lost from the Holy Qur’an after
the death of the Prophet (S).
According to Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Suckling, Hadith No. 2020, Aisha said: “When the verse of
stoning and verse of suckling descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my
pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper whilst we were
mourning.” A goat?
Hafiz Jalalludin as Suyuti narrates a similar tradition from Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph, saying
the verse of stoning was lost after the death of the Prophet (S).
Then there are the Sunni traditions suggesting the Holy Qur’an was once longer than it now is. For
example, Suyuti narrates from Aisha, in his book, al-Durr al-Mansur: “Aisha narrated that during the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet 200 verses were recited in Surah Ahzab but when Uthman collected the [text
of the Holy Qur’an], he only succeeded in locating the present number of verses (which is 78).”
So where do the Sunni ulema believe the other 122 verses went? Such traditions, of course, are
nonsense. The Holy Qur’an is the same Qur’an that the Prophet (S) left behind, and that Allah (SwT)
says He will protect and preserve; any traditions which suggest otherwise – be they Shia or Sunni –
should be rejected as false, as per the afore- mentioned hadith of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (as).


Instruction: Why don’t Shias wash their feet in wudhu, as the Ahlul Sunnah do?

Context:
Shias wipe their feet in the wudhu while the Ahlul Sunnah tend to wash their feet.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
According to Shias, the Qur’anic mandate for wudhu comes in the sixth verse of Chapter 5, Surah
Maidah. The English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali – a famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar and translator
states:
“O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to
the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of
ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you
cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then
take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not
wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye
may be grateful.” (5:16) [Surah Maidah]
Those who practice the washing of their feet during wudhu argue that “your feet” in the Holy Qur’an is
linked to washing the face, whereas the followers of the Ahlul Bayt argue that “your feet” is linked to
rubbing the head; therefore, it should be wiped or rubbed, rather than washed.
Allah (SwT) did not repeat the verb for “feet”, and joined “heads” and “feet” together under one verb
“rub”. This is exactly what he did for “faces” and “hands” that came under one verb “wash”.
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
In support of the latter view, Abdullah ibn Abbas narrates from the Prophet (S), in a hadith included in
the book of al-Shahrastani, a famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar and philosopher of the 12th century, that,
the companions used to rub their feet during the time of the Holy Prophet (S).
The fact is that all of the Muslims during the time of the Prophet (S) would have performed the wudhu in
the same way. No disagreements would have occurred between them then since the Messenger of Allah
was present among them to clarify the correct procedure.
The same situation existed during the time of the first caliph, Abu Bakr and no disagreements over the
performance of wudhu have been reported from that time period either. This was also the case during
the period of the second caliph, Umar ibn Khattab except for the fact, that he allowed wiping of the socks
rather than the bare feet as the Holy Qur’an directs.
However, the disagreement regarding the performance of the wudhu began during the time of the third
caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, after he began to wash his feet instead of wiping them.
The Sunni scholar Muttaqi al-Hindi, in his book Kanz al- Ummal mentions how the third caliph was the
first to differ in performing the wudhu. According to Allama Muttaqi al- Hindi, more than twenty
narrations - all narrated by the third caliph - are about his new manner of performing wudhu. These
traditions indicate his responsibility for establishing the new method of washing, rather than wiping.
Now, some Muslims might argue that the washing of the feet leads to better cleanliness and hygiene
than merely wiping the feet. However, Allah (SwT) is more aware of the advantages and disadvantages
of washing versus wiping. It has been narrated that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) once said, “If religion
was according to human opinion, the bottom of the foot would be more worthy of wiping than the top. But
I saw the Messenger of Allah (S) wiping the top of his feet.”
Common sense
It is irrational, and incredible, that the same Ahlul Sunnah scholars who say you must wash your feet,
and not wipe your bare feet, also say that it is permissible to do wudhu by wiping wet hands over your
socks or even over your shoes. How does this make sense? How is this consistent or logical?


Instruction: Why do Shias combine their prayers into three sittings?

Context:
The Shias allow for the combination of the 5 daily prayers (salah) into three times - whereas the majority
of Ahlul Sunnah scholars say that this is only permissible during journeys or in state of danger or war.
Some Hanafi scholars don’t accept the combination of prayers even in the aforementioned situations.
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
The combining of the prayer is based on the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S), as narrated in leading
Sunni books of hadith.
Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith Number 1523: “Abdullah ibn Shaqiq reported: Ibn Abbas one day
addressed us in the afternoon (after the afternoon prayer) till the sun disappeared and the stars
appeared, and the people began to say: Prayer, prayer. A person from Banu Tamim came there. He
neither slackened nor turned away, but (continued crying): Prayer, prayer. Ibn Abbas said: May you be
deprived of your mother, do you teach me Sunnah? And then he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (S)
combining the noon and afternoon prayers and the sunset and Isha prayers.”
Sahih Muslim Book 4, Hadith Number 1520: “Ibn Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah (SW)
combined the noon prayer with the afternoon prayer and the sunset prayer with the Isha prayer in
Madinah without being in a state of danger or rainfall.” And in the hadith transmitted by Waki the words
are: “I said to Ibn Abbas: What prompted him to do that? He said: So that his ummah should not be put
to (unnecessary) hardship.”
These ahadith appear in a chapter called, appropriately: “Permissibility of combining two prayers on a
journey”.
Others include this one from Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith Number 1515: “Ibn Abbas reported: The
Messenger of Allah (S) observed the noon and afternoon prayers together, and the sunset and Isha
prayers together without being in a state of fear or in a state of journey.”
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
All Muslims observe the five daily prayers, but Shias believe these five prayers can be prayed at three
(rather than five) different times - as stated in the Holy Qur’an:
“Establish regular prayers at the sun’s decline till the darkness of the night, and the recital of the
Qur’an in the morning prayer; for the recital of the dawn is most witnessed.” (17:78) [Surah BaniIsrael]
How many prayer times are mentioned in this verse? Yes, three, not five: “Sun’s Decline, Darkness of
the Night, and the Morning Prayer.”


Instruction: Why do Shias include “Aliyun Waliyullah” in the kalima and adhan?

Context:
Not compulsory (wajib)
The first point to remember is that this line of the adhan is not wajib. It is not considered to be a
compulsory part of the adhan, iqamah or kalima and most Shia scholars state that it should not be
recited with the niyyat (intention) of it being wajib. Most of them believe that it is something which is only
mustahab, (recommended).
For example, the world’s leading Shia aalim, Ayatullah al-Udhma Sistani says on his website,
www.sistani.org: [7] “Ash hadu anna Amiral Mo’mineena Aliyyan Waliyyullah (I testify that the
Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (as) is the vicegerent of Allah (SwT))” is not a part of either adhan
or iqamah. But it is preferable that it is pronounced after “Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah (S)”
with the niyyat of Qurbat (nearness to Allah).”
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
However, the vast majority of scholars view the proclamation as a non-essential, non-mandatory, nonwajib, yet recommended part of the adhan. The logic is, among other things, that we have many
narrations instructing us to proclaim the divine appointment of Imam Ali (as) every time we proclaim the
oneness of God and the prophethood of the Messenger.
The Sunni scholars Allama Tabari in his Tafsir and Shaykh Suleman ibn Ibrahim al-Hanafi al-Qandozi in
his Yanabi al-Mawaddah both narrate that Abu Hurayrah, of
all people, says that the Holy Prophet (S) told him: “It is written on the Divine Arsh [throne] that ‘There is
no god but Allah, the One Who has no associate; and Muhammad is my servant and Prophet, whom I
helped through Ali ibn Abu Talib.’”
Hafiz Jalalladin as Suyuti, in his al-Durr al-Mansur, narrates how Anas ibn Malik said the Prophet told
him that he had seen, on the Me’raj, written on the Arsh: “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the
Prophet of Allah; I have given him support through Ali.”
Hence according to Ahlul Sunnah scholars, the coupling together of Muhammad (S) and Ali’s (as)
names has not been done by Shia Muslims but by Allah (SwT) Himself in the highest of the Heavens!
Prophet’s lifetime
Did this line appear during the lifetime of the Prophet? That of course is the crucial, historical question,
and it has been narrated that it did.
The author of Kitab al-Salafa fi Amr al-Khilafa, Shaykh Abdullah al-Maraghi al-Misri, a leading Ahlul
Sunnah scholar, says that during the time of the Prophet (S), Salman al-Farsi attested to the imamat
and wilayat of Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) in the adhan and iqamah, straight after attesting to the prophethood
of Muhammad (S). He did so after the coronation of Imam Ali (as) by the Prophet (S) at Ghadeer
Khumm.
In his book, Shaykh Abdullah narrates how a man came to see the Messenger of Allah (S) and said: “O
Prophet of God, I have heard a thing which I have not heard before.”
He [the Prophet] said: “And what is this?” The man replied: “After the shahadah to the risalah, Salman
bore witness in his adhan a shahadah to the wilayah of Ali.” The Prophet said: “You have heard a good
thing.”
Umar’s innovation
Shias are attacked for supposedly adding a man-made line to the adhan and iqamah, relating to Ali ibn
Abu Talib (as). Yet the Ahlul Sunnah ulema gloss over the fact that Umar ibn Khattab confessed to
adding his own line, his own innovation to the adhan and iqamah.
The Sunni scholar, Imam Malik ibn Anas, reports in his Muwatta: “Yahya related to me from Malik that
he had heard that the muadhin came to Umar ibn Khattab to call him to the morning (fajr) prayer and
found him sleeping, so he said, “Prayer is better than sleep,” and Umar ordered him to put that in the
adhan for morning prayer (fajr).”
So let’s be clear: the Ahlul Sunnah are willing to say this line at fajr time, which was added to the adhan
by Umar ibn Khattab but are unwilling to say a line about Ali (as) which is written on the arsh of Allah
(SwT) and which was approved by His Messenger? Does this make any sense?


Instruction: Why don’t Shias cross their arms during the prayers?

Context:
Is it not sad and depressing that the Muslims cannot even agree whether the Prophet crossed his arms
or not in prayers? The Holy Prophet (S) prayed at least 40,000 compulsory (wajib) prayers in front of his
sahabah over the 22 years of his prophethood, yet Muslims cannot agree what he did with his hands
while he was praying.
Ahlul Sunnah internal divisions
It is important to note that the issue of arms is is not just a Shia-Sunni conflict; it is an intra-Ahlul
Sunnah conflict too. The Malikis, one of the four Ahlul Sunnah schools of fiqh agree with the Shias in
rejecting what they call “qabd” (or “grasping” - holding the left hand with the right), and opting for “sadl”
(letting your hands drop at your side).
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
Allama Ibn Rushd, the famous 12th century Sunni scholar of Muslim Spain, writes in his famous legal
manual, Bidayat al-Mujtahid: “The reason behind their differing is that there are some ahadith narrating
the way the Prophet prayed which did not mention him placing his right hand over his left, and on the
other hand, it was reported that the people were ordered to do that.”
As for the traditions that Ibn Rushd is referring to, one of the most commonly cited is the hadith of Abu
Humaid al-Sa’idi, narrated by Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawud and Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 12,
Hadith Number 791:
“Narrated by Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Ata’: “I was sitting with some of the companions of Allah’s
Apostle and we were discussing about the way of praying of the Prophet. Abu Humaid as-Saidi said, “I
remember the prayer of Allah’s Apostle better than any one of you. I saw him raising both his hands up
to the level of the shoulders on saying the Takbir; and on bowing he placed his hands on both knees and
bent his back straight, then he stood up straight from bowing till all the vertebrate took their normal
positions.”
The statement “he stood up straight from bowing till all the vertebrate took their normal positions” is
considered to be proof that the Holy Prophet (S) did not place his right hand over his left, for this is not
the natural position at which the bones and limbs rest, rather, this is what is known as sadl - hands and
arms at your side! If the Prophet placed his right hand over his left in the prayer, then (at least) one of
the sahabah present would have objected to Abu Humaid’s failure to report that in his narration. But
none of them did so!
In another tradition, the Sunni scholar Allama Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes that “…when the Prophet would
stand for salat, he would raise both hands to his ears, and after saying Takbeer would then drop his
hands.”
Drop, not cross, his hands! Sunni scholar Allama Ibn Abd al-Barr, in his book al-Tamheed, narrates:
“Abdullah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kabah with Said ibn al-Jubayr [a leading
member of the second generation of companions, the Tabi’een]. Once, Said saw a man placing one
hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.’”
So, to sum up, the Shia practice of leaving one’s arms at one’s side matches those of the sahabah and
the children of the sahabah from the period straight after the Holy Prophet.
One final and important point to remember: not only do the Maliki Sunnis agree with the Shias on the
uncrossing of the arms but even amongst the Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shafi’is there is no consensus on
where exactly on the abdomen one’s hands should be held, or how exactly both men and women should
hold their hands during the salah (prayer).


Instruction: Why do Shias pray on a stone, on a piece of earth (a “sajdagaar” or “turbah”)?

Context:
Prostrating on the earth (turbah) or nature made material does not in any way imply worshipping the
earth or stone which one is prostrating upon. You are prostrating to Allah (SwT) and Him alone but
remember: the prostration itself is a gesture of humiliation and insignificance before the Creator and if it
is done on the dirt, on earth, then it will have more of an effect than prostrating on a man-made carpet.
This is the philosophy behind the turbah, the sajdagaar.
Prophet’s Sunnah
It is important to note that as with the uncrossing of the arms during the daily prayers, the use of a
turbah is a practice associated with salah which has a firm foundation in the tradition, in the sunnah, of
the Holy Prophet (S).
The Shias, after all, never forget that they are followers of the Prophet’s Sunnah.
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
So how did the Prophet prostrate? According to Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Book 8, Number 378: “Maimuna (a
wife of the Prophet) narrated, “Allah’s Apostle used to pray on a ‘khumra’.”
The “khumra” is a small, palm-leaf mat, only big enough to place your face on during the sajdah.
Then there is Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Book 12, Number 798: “Abu Said al-Khudri says: “I saw Allah’s
Apostle prostrating in mud and water and saw the mark of mud on his forehead.”
There are numerous such ahadith in Sahih Bukhari, the pre-eminent book of traditions for the Ahlul
Sunnah.
Al-Bayhaqi, Ahlul Sunnah scholar of ahadith, in his Sunan, goes even further than Bukhari; he says the
famous companion of the Prophet, Anas ibn Malik once narrated: “We used to pray with the Messenger
of Allah during the enormous heat, and one of us would take pebbles in our hands and once they were
cool, put them down and prostrate on them.”
On pebbles!
Karbala turbah
Now, of course, the majority of Shias pray on a “stone” which, on inspection, turns out to be baked piece
of soil from the desert of Karbala, in Iraq. It is not considered compulsory or wajib to pray only on the soil
of Karbala but Shia Muslims prefer to use such turbahs because the soil of Karbala is the holiest of all
soils. It is the soil that the Holy Prophet (S) held in his hand as he wept and prophesied the death of his
youngest grandson. It is the soil under which the third holy Imam Husayn (as) is buried; it is the soil that
represents the very principles of Islam. So what better soil to worship on and prostrate on than the soil of
Karbala?
It is worth noting here: Shias are sometime smeared by some members of the Ahlul Sunnah as “stone
worshippers” for praying on a turbah. Yet, according to this logic, should Sunni Muslims then be referred
to as “carpet worshippers” for prostrating on prayer rugs?


Instruction: Why do Shias say “Allahu Akbar” three times at the end of the prayer?

Context:
This issue is another point of contention between the Shi’a and the Ahlul Sunnah. According to the
Sunnah of Prophet that has reached us through Imams of Ahlul Bayt, a Muslim should commence the
salah by loudly reciting “takbeer” (Allahu Akbar”) and finish it by admitting the greatness and supremacy
of Allah (SwT), by reciting “takbeer” thrice after the “tashahud” (the final kneeling prayer of the salah).
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
During the days of the Holy Prophet (S), the daily prayers were ended with the recitation of takbeer, and
not with the turning of head from side to side.
In Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 12, Hadith Number 803 states: “Abdulla ibn Abbas narrated: ‘I used to
recognize the completion of the prayer of the Prophet by hearing takbeer.’”
Similarly, it is stated in Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith Number 1209: “Abdulla ibn Abbas said: ‘We used
to know that Allah’s Messenger had finished his prayer when we heard the takbeer (Allahu Akbar).’”
In Ahlul Sunnah tradition, the imam of the prayers turns right and left and prays the “salam” in a loud
voice so it can be heard by those in the back rows. In Shia tradition, the imam of the prayers recites the
salam in tashhahud and then loudly recites takbeer thrice and the congregation understands that the
salah has finished.
Why don’t the Shia turn their heads from side to side while reciting the “salam”?
To support this Shia stance there is a tradition from the Sunan of Abu Dawud, one of the six authentic
Sunni books of ahadith, in which Holy Prophet holds Abdullah ibn Masud’s hands and teaches him the
recitation of tashahud.
In Sunan Abu Dawud, in the Chapter of Prayer (Kitab al-Salat): Hadith Number 965 states:
“Abdullah ibn Mas’ud narrated: ‘…the Apostle of Allah (S) caught hold of his (Ibn Mas’ud’s) hand and
taught him the tashahud during prayer.’”
He then narrated the tradition of tashahhud. This version adds: “When you say this or finish this, then
you have completed your prayer. If you want to stand up, then stand, and if you want to remain sitting,
then remain sitting.”
There is no mention of the turning of the head!


Instruction: Why don’t Shias offer “tarawih” prayers in the month of Ramadhan?

Context:
Shias, do not pray “tarawih”, which refers to the extra congregational prayers performed by a number of
Sunni Muslims at night in the holy month of Ramadhan.
Why not? Because Shias believe that there is no reliable, historical evidence that the Holy Prophet (S)
ever performed such prayers.
The truth is that it is “bid’at”, an “innovation”, the word that the more extreme Wahhabi members of the
Ahlul Sunnah often use to smear the Shias. This is the opinion not of the Shia ulema but of Umar ibn
Khattab, the second caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah, who proudly introduced this particular bid’at of tarawih
prayers.
Sahih Bukhari, vol 3, book 32, hadith number 227: Narrated Abu Hurayrah: ibn Shihab (a sub-narrator)
said, “Allah’s Apostle died and the people continued observing that (i.e. nawafil offered individually, not
in congregation), and it remained as it was during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of
Umar’s caliphate.” Abdur Rahman ibn Abdul Qari said, “I went out in the company of Umar ibn Khattab
one night in Ramadhan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying
alone, or a man praying with a little group behind him.
So, Umar said, ‘in my opinion it would better to collect these (people) under the leadership of one Qari
(reciter) (i.e. let them pray in congregation!)’. So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind Ubai
ibn Ka’b. Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their
reciter. On that, Umar remarked, ‘what an excellent bid’at (i.e. innovation in religion) this is; but the
prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.’ He meant
the prayer in the last part of the night, “the tahhajud”.
The Shias prefer to pray Tahhajud, which Umar refers to here, at the end of this tradition, and which
Umar admits is “better” than the tarawih that the Sunni Muslims recite in congregation during
Ramadhan.
With due respect to our Ahlul Sunnah brethren, Shias do not perform tarawih in Ramadhan. It is, like the
line Umar added to the adhan for fajr, an innovation of the second caliph; it is not the sunnah of the Holy
Prophet (S).


Instruction: How do Shias justify praying at graves?

Context:
Bid’at and Shirk
The Wahhabis and Salafis of the Ahlul Sunnah are obsessed with graves. Praying at graves, they say, is
banned and forbidden. Even touching the grave of the Holy Prophet (S) is considered to be prohibited.
Consider how Shias are treated in Madinah, during Hajj and Umra, especially at Jannatul Baqi.
Ahlul Sunnah rely on an alleged tradition of the Prophet: “May Allah’s curse be upon the Jews and
Christians for taking the graves of their Prophets as places of worship.”
It is a nonsensical hadith. Jews and Christians have every right to respond to a Muslim who mentions
this hadith: You hypocrites: you yourselves combine your Prophet’s mosque with your Prophet’s grave in
Madinah!”
On a related note, if the Holy Prophet’s grave is so unimportant, so unholy, if going to visit the Prophet in
Madinah has no value, as some Wahhabis claim, then why did the first two caliphs of the Ahlul Sunnah
insist on being buried next to the Prophet’s grave? And why did Aisha, the widow of the Prophet, refuse
to allow the Prophet’s eldest grandson Imam Hasan (as) to be buried next to him?
Then there is the House of Allah (SwT), the Kabah, in Makkah, the holiest site in Islam, under which are
buried the Prophet Ismail and his mother, Lady Hajira. Is it now shirk to visit the Kabah?
The Ahlul Sunnah scholars have misunderstood the nature of prostrations, or sajdah, near graves – the
issue is one of intention, niyyah. If the intention of the sajdah is to pray to the person buried in the grave,
then this is of course forbidden and haram and an act of “shirk” (ascribing power to those other than
Allah). But if the intention is to pray to Allah in the presence of a holy personality, then how is this wrong
or shirk? Intention matters!
Remember: the Shias’ prostrations during salah are always intended for Allah (SwT) and for Him alone.
There are other prostrations which are unrelated to worship, and which are more symbolic and respectful
but these are not forbidden either.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
The Holy Qur’an refers to prostrations which were carried out by or to our prophets, but which were not
considered to be acts of shirk. For example:
“And when we told the angels, “prostrate yourselves before Adam!” - they all prostrated
themselves, save Iblis, who refused and gloried in his arrogance: and thus he became one of
those who deny the truth.” ( 2:34) [Surah Al Baqarah].
And:
“Behold! Joseph said to his father: “O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon:
I saw them prostrate themselves to me!” ( 12:4) [Surah Yusuf].
Were the angels committing shirk by prostrating themselves before Prophet Adam? Was Prophet Yusuf
(Joseph) committing a sin by having this dream?


Instruction: What about intercession? Why do Shias pray to the Prophet and the Imams, and not to Allah?

Context:
What is intercession?
Intercession refers to the act of praying to Allah (SwT) on behalf of another - that is, the use of
intermediaries to approach Allah (SwT), who pray to Him on our behalf by virtue of their higher status in
the eyes of Allah (SwT).
The Sunni critics of intercession point to:
“Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.” (1:5) [Surah Fateha].
However, intercession doesn’t go against this verse of Surah Fateha; those of us who engage in
intercession are still worshipping Allah (SwT) “alone” and asking only Allah (SwT) for help, but we are
making this request through an intermediary. The prayer, ultimately, is still directed towards Allah (SwT),
not towards the chosen inercessor or intermediary.
Common sense tells us that we ask others for help all the time in everyday life but we still recognize
Allah (SwT) is sovereign over the entire universe. For example, when we are ill we go to doctors and
take the medicine that they prescribe for us. Do Sunni critics of intercession like Wahhabis and Salafis
practise what they preach? Do they deny themselves medicine and pray only to Allah (SwT) when they
are ill? If not, why not? A doctor is, technically, an intercessor – the healing still, ultimately, comes from
Allah (SwT).
To ask for help from someone else, whether medical or spiritual, is not an attack on the sovereignty of
Allah (SwT); it is not an act of shirk.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
The Holy Qur’an addresses this issue in three manners. First, there are the verses which seem to
negate intercession, such as:
“O you who believe! spend out of what we have given you before the day comes in which there is
no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers - they are the unjust.”
(2:254) [Surah Al Baqarah].
Then there are those verses that say that intercession is exclusively the domain of Allah (SwT), not
humans - that is, that He and only He has the ability to intercede, such as:
“Say: “To Allah belongs exclusively (the right to grant) intercession: to Him belongs the dominion
of the heavens and the earth: In the End, it is to Him that ye shall be brought back.” (39:44)
[Surah Al Zumar].
Finally, there are those verses which contextualize and explain the first two categories and give the
complete and final verdict about the validity and efficacy of intercession in Islam. They state that
intercession is only the right of Allah (SwT), but He will, whenever He wishes, extend it to certain people
in His creation. So, for example:
“...no intercessor can plead with Him except after His permission.” (10:3) [Surah Yunus].
And Surah Maidah makes it even clearer:
“O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah (SwT) and seek means of nearness to Him,
seek a means of approaching Him, and strive hard in His way that you may be successful.” (5:35)
[Surah Maidah].
This intermediary, this “wasilah”, to use the terminology of the Holy Qur’an, can only be people like the
Prophets and the Imams:
“We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had
only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and
the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oftreturning, Most Merciful.”(4:64) [Surah Al Nisa].
Here is the best definition of intercession, or “tawassul” or “shifa’a”, which justifies why the Shias go to
see the Holy Prophet (S) in Madinah and try and pray near his grave: to ask the Prophet to ask Allah
(SwT) for forgiveness, as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, Ch4:V64. Shias are not praying to the Prophet
or the Imams, but through them - to Allah (SwT)!
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
Tirmidhi, in his Sunan, relates, through his chain of narrators from Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man
came to the Holy Prophet (S) and said, “I’ve been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for
me.” The Prophet (S) said: “Go make ablution (wudhu), perform two rak’as of prayer, and then say: “Oh
Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad
(Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another
version: “for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me”].”
The Prophet (S) added, “And if there is some need, do the same.”
In his discussion of the above sahih hadith, Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, the famous Sunni Sufi scholar
and theologian, states: “The hadith explicitly proves the validity of supplicating Allah (SwT) (tawassul)
through a living intermediary, as the Prophet (S) was alive at the time.
The author of the article holds that the hadith implicitly shows the validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul)
through a deceased intermediary as well, since the Prophet told the blind man to go perform ablution
(wudhu) pray two rak’as, and then make the supplication containing the words, “O Muhammad, I seek
your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight,” which is a call upon somebody physically
absent, a state of which the living and the dead are alike.
Supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a living or deceased intermediary is, in the author’s words, “not
tawassul through a physical body, or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning
attached to the person in both life and death, for the body is but the vehicle that carries that
significance.”
And perhaps the most telling reason, though the author does not mention it, is that everything the
Prophet (SwT) ordered to be done during his lifetime was “legislation” “valid for all generations until the
end of time unless proven otherwise by a subsequent indication from the Prophet himself. . .”
Shaykh Keller adds, in relation to the authencitiy of this important tradition: “This hadith was recorded by
Bukhari in his “al-Tarikh al-Kabir”, by Ibn Majah in his “Sunan”, where he said it was rigorously
authenticated (Sahih), by Nasa’i in “Amal al-yawm wa al-layla”, by Abu Nu’aym in “Ma’rifa al-Sahaba”,
by Baihaqi in “Dala’il al-Nubuwwa”, by Mundhiri in “al-Targhib wa al-Tahrib”, by Haythami in “Majma’
al-Zawa’id wa manba’ al-Fawa’id”, by Tabarani in “al-Mu’jam al-Kabir”, by Ibn Khuzayma in his
“Sahih”, and by others. Nearly 15 hadith masters (“huffadh”, hadith authorities with more than 100,000
hadiths and their chains of transmission by memory) have explicitly stated that this hadith is rigorously
authenticated (sahih).
Common sense
As mentioned above, it has come with a chain of transmission meeting the standards of Bukhari and
Muslim, so there is nothing left for a critic to attack or slanderer to disparage concerning the authenticity
of the hadith. Consequently, as for the permissibility of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through either a
living or dead person, it follows by human reason, scholarship, and sentiment, that there is flexibility in
the matter. Whoever wants to can either take tawassul or leave it, without causing trouble or making
accusations, since it has been this thoroughly checked [“Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a”, 79-83].”
Chapter 5 Karbala and Majalis


Instruction: Why do Shias wear black in Muharram?

Context:
Muharram is the first month of the Islamic calendar. It is the month in which Shia Muslims remember,
commemorate and mourn the death of Imam Husayn (as), the third Shia Imam and youngest grandson
of the Holy Prophet (S).
Karbala
Imam Husayn (as) and 17 members of his family, including his six-month-old baby boy and another 92
companions (a total of 110) were killed in Karbala, Iraq), on the 10th day of Muharram - or “Ashura” - in
the year 680 ad, by the army of Yazid ibn Muawiya, the self-proclaimed caliph of the time.
It was a tragic and barbaric incident, involving one of the most important personalities in the history of
Islam and the innocent young members of his family.
Now, all over the world the wearing of black clothes is recognised as a sign of mourning. In funerals,
whether of Muslims or non–Muslims, people of different faiths and religions wear black as a sign of
mourning. Yet when Shias wear black to commemorate the deaths of members of the Prophet’s
household, his Ahlul Bayt, to grieve over Imam Husayn (as), they are criticized. How is this fair?
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
Some members of the Ahlul Sunnah claim that Shias look strange, odd, and fanatical for wearing black
clothes in Muharram. One particularly provocative Sunni writer in Pakistan, Qadhi Mazhar Husayn,
writes in his book: “Hum matam kyoon nahee kartey”, claims that black clothes are the clothes of the
people of hell and the clothes of “Firawn” (the Pharoah).
However, a number of other leading Ahlul Sunah books confirm that the wearing of black is acceptable
and a part of the sunnah. For example, the Sunni historian, Allama Tabari, in his “Tarikh”, narrates from
Aisha bint Abu Bakr that the Holy Prophet (S) himself, during his last days on earth, wore a black cloak.
The Tarikh Baghdad by Khateeb Baghdadi says that Jibraeel, the archangel, used to come to see the
Prophet wearing a black cloak and a black turban.
And Tarikh Tabari says that Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of the Ahlul Sunnah and considered by
them to be one of the leading companions, was often sighted wearing black clothes – even on the
hottest of summer days! Will they now compare Umar to the Pharaoh? Or to the people of Hell?
It is worth bearing in mind that the Shias wear black clothes not just because black is the universal
colour of sorrow and mourning, but because Lady Zainab (as), the granddaughter of the Prophet (S),
wore black to mourn for her brother Imam Husayn (as).

Response:
commemorate and mourn the death of Imam Husayn (as), the third Shia Imam and youngest grandson
of the Holy Prophet (S).
Karbala
Imam Husayn (as) and 17 members of his family, including his six-month-old baby boy and another 92
companions (a total of 110) were killed in Karbala, Iraq), on the 10th day of Muharram - or “Ashura” - in
the year 680 ad, by the army of Yazid ibn Muawiya, the self-proclaimed caliph of the time.
It was a tragic and barbaric incident, involving one of the most important personalities in the history of
Islam and the innocent young members of his family.
Now, all over the world the wearing of black clothes is recognised as a sign of mourning.


Instruction: Why do Shias cry so much in Muharram?

Context:
Some Muslims claim that crying, and especially excessive crying, is wrong, uncalled-for and un-Islamic.
Yet crying is part and parcel of human nature and Islam. It was encouraged by the Holy Prophet (S) and
in one famous hadith he states: “May you weep more and laugh less if you understand what is coming.”
The Holy Qur’an has many verses which refer to the importance and validity of shedding tears:
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes
overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! We
believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).” (5:83) [Surah Maidah]
Then there is Surah Yusuf, and the reference to Yacub (Jacob):
“And he turned away from them, and said: O my sorrow for Joseph! And his eyes were filled (with
tears) on account of the grief, then he repressed (grief).(12:84)
In fact, the fourth Shia Imam, Zainul Abidin (as), referred to this particular verse of the 12th surah when
he was asked by a companion why he cried so much for his late father and brothers.
Shaykh Suleman ibn Ibrahim al-Hanafi al-Qandozi states in his book, Yanabi al-Mawaddah: “The grief
of Imam Husayn (as) is the grief on which not only humans, but even jinns, angels, animals, birds, the
sky and trees, all lament and weep. It is written that the sky wept for forty days after the martyrdom of
Imam Husayn (as)”.

Response:
Some Muslims claim that crying, and especially excessive crying, is wrong, uncalled-for and un-Islamic. Shaykh Suleman ibn Ibrahim al-Hanafi al-Qandozi states in his book, Yanabi al-Mawaddah: “The grief
of Imam Husayn (as) is the grief on which not only humans, but even jinns, angels, animals, birds, the
sky and trees, all lament and weep. It is written that the sky wept for forty days after the martyrdom of
Imam Husayn (as)”.


Instruction: Why do Shias do “maatum” in Muharram?

Context:
“Maatum” is the symbolic beating of one’s own chest or head as a physical sign of grief and sorrow.
The critics of the Shias claim it is an unIslamic and extremist practice, a symbol of the pre-Islamic period
of “jahiliyyah” (ignorance) that was banned by the Holy Prophet (S).
But the truth is that maatum has Islamic origins and justifications.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
Turning again to the Holy Qur’an, we find in Ch.51:V29, in reference to Lady Sarah, wife of Prophet
Ibrahim (Abraham), being told she was having a baby:
“Then came forward his wife in grief, she hit her face and said (what! I) an old barren
woman?”(51:29)[Surah Dhariat].
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
There are many references to maatum-like behaviour during and after the time of the Prophet in the
books of the Ahlul Sunnah.
Ahlul Sunnah scholars, for instance, narrate how Owais al-Qarni, a companion of the Holy Prophet (S)
who was in Yemen during the battle of Ohud, broke his own teeth when he heard that the Prophet (S)
had been hurt in battle and had lost some of his teeth. The Prophet (S) did not criticise or denounce
Owais for doing so.
Then there is the aftermath of the Battle of Ohud, in which the Holy Prophet (S) established a period of
mourning, including maatum, for his uncle Hamza who had been killed in the fighting. Shibli Numani
narrates: “The Prophet ordered the folk of Madinah to go to Hamza’s house and to cry and grieve over
him.”
Then there is the example of Aisha bint Abu Bakr; the classical Sunni scholar Allama ibn Kathir narrates
from Aisha that when the Holy Prophet (S) passed away she said, “I got up beating my chest and
slapping my face along with other women.”
Allama Muttaqi al-Hindi, the Sunni scholar, narrates: “When Hazrat Umar heard of Nu’man ibn Muqrin’s
death he beat his head and screamed, “O what a pity that Nu’man died”.
Umar could do maatum for Nu’man, who was one of his military commanders and died in battle, but
when Shias do the same for Imam Husayn (as), the beloved grandson of the Holy Prophet (S), it is
frowned upon and termed as an innovation (or “bid’at”). Does this make any sense?

Response:
“Maatum” is the symbolic beating of one’s own chest or head as a physical sign of grief and sorrow.
frowned upon and termed as an innovation (or “bid’at”). Does this make any sense?


Instruction: Isn’t the display of an “alam” prohibited and a form of shirk?

Context:
Religious symbols
“Alam” means a “flag”, a “standard” or “sign” in Arabic. It is a symbol and, let us be clear, Shias do not
worship these standards.
All religions, of course, have symbols. Without symbols or rituals there is no religion. Look at the world’s
leading religions – the Christians, Jews, Hindus – all are full of different religious symbols.
The alam is of spiritual significance for the Shia Muslims. Although all Shias, including those of Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Syria carry some form of alam or
another in their Ashura processions, remembering Imam Husayn (as), those in the Indian subcontinent
are of a different kind and are given a more deeper, spiritual significance.
Historically, the Prophet’s family had a unique flag (alam) that specifically represented the Bani Hashim
clan. One honorable member of the family would always be chosen to carry this on a journey or in battle.
Originally, it was green in colour and given to the first Shia Imam, Ali ibn Abu Talib (as), by the Prophet
(S) himself. Imam Ali (as) gave this alam to his sons Imam Hasan (as) and then to Imam Husayn (as)
who passed it to His half-brother Abbas ibn Ali (as), who held this alam till his last breath in the Battle of
Karbala.
Remember: every country and group has a symbol or flag, not just the Shias. The alam is simply a sign,
a symbol, of the Prophet’s holy household, his Ahlul Bayt.
Some people do not like the way the alams are made. But each community should be left to their own;
nobody has the right to force these rituals on others or force others to abandon such rituals. They are
part and parcel of an ever-evolving remembrance of the tragedy of Karbala and Imam Husayn (as).
They are not compulsory or wajib. Unfortunately, some individuals get very defensive and get caught up
in these new and petty divisions. It is important to understand the reason and history behind these
rituals.
Evidence from the Holy Qur’an
Once again, we can refer to the Holy Qur’an to understand the values of symbols in Islam, and their
power. In Surah Yusuf, the Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) said:
“Go with this my shirt, and cast it over the face of my father: he will come to see (clearly). Then
come ye (here) to me together with all your family.” (12:93) [Surah Yusuf].
Unfortunately, a number of Muslims from Ahlul Sunnah schools – for instance, the Wahhabis of Saudi
Arabia - treat symbols as if they are prohibited and haram and without any reference to the teachings of
the Holy Qur’an or the Holy Prophet (S). This creates unnecessary misunderstanding and has damaging
effects on Islamic culture and history. A number of very important and historic sites have been
demolished in places like Makkah and Madinah because of the incorrect belief that symbols are
prohibited and evidence of shirk.


Instruction: Weren’t Shias responsible for killing Imam Husayn (as)?

Context:
This is a very serious allegation made against Shia Muslims by some ill-informed or ill-intentioned
individuals.
Invitation to Kufa
The claim is that it was Shias in Kufa who wrote letters to Imam Husayn (as) inviting him to Kufa and it
was they who then betrayed him. Imam Husayn (as) had sent his cousin, Muslim ibn Aqeel to go and
assess the situation in Kufa, where the people of Kufa promptly gave allegiance (bay’at) to him before
turning against him once the army of Yazid arrived.
The Kufans failed to join the army of Husayn (as) or go out to protect him from his enemy and now, 14
centuries later, some Muslim and non-Muslim commentators claim that Shias do maatum out of “guilt”
for having failed and betrayed their Imam, Husayn (as), on the day of Ashura. This, however, is a
historical nonsense which is designed to try and shift the blame away from those really responsible for
the murder of Imam Husayn (as) and his family in Karbala.
Historical facts
Kufa, contrary to conventional wisdom, was not a “Shia city”. According to the famous Sunni scholar and
biographer, Shibli Numani, Kufa was a city in Iraq that had been founded by Umar ibn Khattab, during
his caliphate, as a military fort for his soldiers and supporters.
Imam Ali (as) then moved there during his caliphate, in order to keep an eye on the rebellious antics of
Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan in neighbouring Syria. After his death, according to Sunni historian Allama
Tabari, the Shias of Kufa, who had accompanied Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) to that city, were rounded up,
tortured and killed by Ziyad, one of the appointees of Muawiya (and the father of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad,
who was governor of Kufa during the Karbala tragedy).
Abdullah ibn Abbas, the respected companion and cousin of the Prophet, even warned Imam Husayn
(as) when he was leaving Madinah that the people of Kufa were “deceitful people” who could not be
trusted.
Then there is the key historical fact that the army of Yazid which first starved and then killed Imam
Husayn (as) and his followers was from Syria, not Kufa. It is narrated by Shah Abdul Aziz, the Sunni
scholar: “The Syrian forces upon orders of Yazid and the efforts of Chief of hatred and fitnah - Ibn Ziyad
martyred Imam Husayn in Karbala.”
The history of Karbala has been recorded in a number of Ahlul Sunnah books, and it is very clear from
this history who was and wasn’t responsible for the killing of Imam Husayn (as). Today, those Muslims
who pretend Yazid ibn Muawiya was not responsible for it are like those neo-Nazis who deny that Hitler
was responsible for the Holocaust.


Instruction: Isn’t Ashura a day of fasting, not mourning?

Context:
Some members of the Ahlul Sunnah sadly seem to want to devalue the theological and spiritual
significance of Ashura and to distract Muslims from the historical events of Ashura. So they claim, for
instance, that it is a day of fasting, not a day of mourning.
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
An (unreliable) tradition in the Sunni books claims that when the Holy Prophet (S) came to Madinah in
622 ad, he found the Jews of the city were fasting. He enquired what the fast was for and was told that it
was a “blessed day”: the day that Prophet Musa (Moses) had left Egypt. The Holy Prophet of Islam (S)
apparently told the Jews that we are “closer to Musa than you”, and then commanded Muslims to also
fast on this day” – according to Sahih Bukhari.
It is also claimed, in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, that the Prophet (S) said to his
companions: “Observe fasting on the day of Ashura, but differ from the Jews and fast one day before it
and one day after it.”
The Shias do not believe that these traditions are authentic or worth following because:
 • the authenticity of hadith is questionable: the three narrators of it are Muawiya ibn Sufayan, who
became a Muslim just before Prophet’s(S) death and wasn’t present when the Prophet (S) arrived in
Madinah (and, of course, was an opponent of the children of Ali ibn Abu Talib (as)); Abu Hurayrah, who
became a Muslim in 629 ad and, again, wasn’t present in Madinah when the Prophet (S) arrived and
allegedly witnessed the Jews fasting on Ashura (and whose testimony, as discussed earlier, is
unreliable); and Abdullah ibn Abbas, who was a child in 622 ad and whose alleged testimony, therefore,
can’t be relied upon on this occasion.
 • Ashura has more than one meaning. The old, pre- Karbala meaning of Ashura is “the tenth”, that
is, the tenth of any month. Just because the Prophet (S) supposedly arrived in Madinah on “the tenth”, it
doesn’t mean he arrived on the tenth of Muharram.
 • The Jewish calendar is only semi-lunar and does not therefore permanently correlate to the fully
lunar Islamic calendar so even if such a festival did exist in the Jewish calendar, it wouldn’t correspond
with the 10th of Muharram year after year.
Jewish fasts
However, above all else, the fundamental question the Shias ask, in response, is this: how do we know
such a Jewish fast even existed? The evidence suggests that there is no such fast, as described by
Bukhari, marking Prophet Musa’s departure from Egypt.
The fact is that Jews fast on the following seven days of the year:
 • The Fast of Yom Kippur
 • The Fast of Tisha B’Av
 • The Fast of Gedaliah
 • The Fast of the 10th of Tevet
 • The Fast of the 17th of Tammuz
 • The Fast of Esther
 • The Fast of the Firstborn
None of these fasts commemorate the day Prophet Musa left Egypt. The Bukhari hadith refers to a
fictitious Jewish fast in order to try and ascribe another, non-Husayn- related meaning to Ashura.
One final point worth considering here: let’s assume Bukhari and company are correct for a moment,
and that there was a Prophet Musa-inspired Jewish day of fasting which coincided with the day of
Ashura in Muharram. Even then, would such a Jewish day of fasting overshadow or trump the
importance and significance of Imam Husayn’s (as) sacrifice and death in Karbala on Ashura? How can
that be possible?


Instruction: How can Shias trust the Karbala story?

Context:
Background
A number of individuals assume that the story of Imam Husayn (as) and the Karbala tragedy is a
collection of legends and folktales. On the contrary, the fact is that there are few events in Islamic history
as documented and reliably-narrated as the event of Karbala in 680 ad.
Reliable Muslim historians have reported the key episodes with trustworthy and verified chains of
transmission from the 7th and 8th centuries, and their narrations corroborate one another.
Abu Mikhnaf, the Kufan historian, wrote the first “Maqtal al-Husayn” in 788 ad, that is, within 100 years
of the event of Karbala and much earlier than some of the histories that were written about other
prophets and religious events. The Christian Gospels, for example, were compiled more than a hundred
years after Jesus departed from this earth.
And compare for example Abu Mikhnaf’s Maqtal - which became the source for later Muslim histories
like Tabari and Baladhuri - with, say, Sahih Bukhari, which was compiled more than 200 years after the
death of the Holy Prophet (S).
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
Classical Sunni historians like Tabari and Baladhuri authenticated and incorporated Abu Mikhnaf’s work
into their own. Volume 19 of the History of Tabari, the caliphate of Yazid ibn Muawiya, gives a very
detailed account of Yazid’s role in the Karbala tragedy, as well as the battle in Karbala itself and the
various deaths. This volume also includes eyewitness statements.
Other historians
Western historians have also covered the events in Karbala: Edward Gibbon, the 18th century English
historian, writes in his “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire”: “In a distant age and climate the tragic
scene of the death of Husayn will awaken the sympathy of even the coldest reader.”
The famous 19th century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle writes: “The best lesson which we get from
the tragedy of Karbala is that Husayn and his companions were rigid believers in God. They illustrated
that the numerical superiority does not count when it comes to the truth and the falsehood. The victory of
Husayn, despite his minority, marvels me.”
There also exist a number of authentic histories by leading Shia scholars such as Shaykh Abbas Qummi
and Shaykh al-Mufid.
All of these history books - Sunni and Shia, Muslim and non-Muslim - confirm that the tragedy of
Karbala happened in the year 680 ad, that Imam Husayn (as) and his followers were killed in the desert
after being starved of food and water, and that Yazid ibn Muawiya’s army was responsible for this
heinous crime.


Instruction: Wasn’t Imam Husayn (as) wrong to revolt against the ruler of his time, Yazid ibn Muawiya?

Context:
Some contemporary Sunni figures like India’s Zakir Naik have claimed that the Karbala tragedy was a
“political war” based only on a “difference of opinion” between Yazid and Imam Husayn (as).
Some medieval Sunni scholars, like Ibn Taymiyah, the ideological forefather of the Wahhabis, argue that
Imam Husayn (as) had “political aims” and he was a “rebel”. This is as absurd as it is offensive.
Yazid was not the legitimate ruler
Muawiya, under the terms of the “peace treaty” with the second Imam, and fifth caliph, Imam Hasan
(as), had no right to make Yazid his successor, that is, the next caliph after him. According to the explicit
terms of that treaty, the caliphate of the Muslims was supposed to revert back to Imam Hasan (as) and,
if Imam Hasan (as) had passed away, to Imam Husayn (as). So if Imam Husayn (as) had indeed been
revolting against Yazid ibn Muawiya he would have been perfectly within his rights to do so. Imam
Husayn was the legitimate caliph; Yazid was a usurper.
Imam Husayn’s mission
Remember: according to the Holy Prophet’s (S) ahadith, narrated by Sunni and Shia ulema alike, Hasan
and Husayn were “Imams, whether sitting or standing” and “chiefs of the youths of Paradise”.
Imam Husayn’s (as) mission was not a military mission; he did not set out to fight Yazid or go to war with
the Ummayad tribe. He said very explicitly before leaving Madinah: “I am setting out from here to reform
the ummah (followers) of my grandfather”. Imam Husayn (as) never said he was after power or
authority. He made it clear that he wanted reform; his mission was to restore Islamic practices within the
Islamic community.
There is no record in any book of Imam Husayn (as) ever, not even once, asking for power in any
conversation with any member of Yazid’s government or army. He also refused to take his main warriors
with him to fight in Karbala. His five best and bravest warriors were: Abbas, Muslim ibn Aqeel, Abdullah
ibn Jafar, Muhammad Hanafiya and his own son, and the fourth Imam, Zain ul Abidin (as). Muawiya
used to say that these five warriors were sufficient to conquer the whole of Arabia – yet, on Ashura Day ,
only one of these five was available to Imam Husayn (as) to fight - Abbas - and even he was forbidden
from fighting. Does this sound like the behaviour of a military commander? A man bent on war and
bloodshed?
And, never forget, Imam Husayn (as) took women and children with him on his journey to Kufa, against
advice of elders like Abdullah ibn Abbas.
He wanted to show the world that he was not embarking on a military mission or expedition.
As Charles Dickens, the famous novelist and scholar of the West, has noted: “If Husayn fought to
quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied
him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam.”
It is sad that even non-Muslims like Dickens and Gibbon can readily acknowledge and accept what
Imam Husayn (as) did and what he achieved in Karbala, while many Muslims continue to ignore or
question his supreme sacrifice.


Instruction: Don’t the Shias exaggerate how bad Yazid was?

Context:
Apologists for Yazid within the Ahlul Sunnah claim that he should be exempted from criticism because
he was part of the naval expedition that conquered Constaninople and that was praised and prophesied
by the Messenger of Allah (S) himself.
This however, is a convenient and self-serving (Ummayad) myth.
References from books of Ahlul Sunnah
There is a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S), narratd in Sahih Bukhari, that the members of the first
army to invade “Caesar’s city”, Constantinople in modern- day Turkey, would go to Heaven. Yazid’s
defenders claim he was a member of this army and therefore is Heaven-bound.
However, according to the leading, classical Sunni historian and biographer, Allama ibn Hajar Asqalani,
in his Fath al-Bari, says it is a weak if not worthless hadith (about “Caesar’s city”). It has been narrated,
he notes, only by Syrians, including Sawaar bint Yazeed, an openly anti- Ali (as) individual who always
tried to promote and praise Yazid ibn Muawiya.
The truth is that Yazid was too drunk to join the expedition to Constantinople.
In volume 3 of his Tarikh Kamil, the classical Sunni scholar Allama ibn Athir states that in 50 Hijri,
Muawiya sent a huge army to Caesar’s city (Constantinople) and appointed Sufyan ibn Au’f as
commander of that army. He also ordered his son Yazid to join the army. Yazid made various excuses,
including that he was feeling ill. Muawiya, writes ibn Athir, freed his son from the obligation of
participating in the expedition. During the subsequent war with the Roman Empire, the Muslim army
suffered from illness and a shortage of supplies. When Yazid heard of this calamity, he started singing:
“I have no care for the soldiers’ hardship in the place of Farookhdana, where they are suffering with
fever and many calamities. Here I am enjoying with my wife…”
It is also recorded in Muruj al-Dhahab by the famous Sunni historian Allama Masudi: “Mu’awiya received
information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to Yazeed who said, “In this case I
shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow drinkers”.
So it is clear from his own testimony, as included in Sunni history books, that Yazid was not part of the
army which conquered Constantinople, and that the hadith which claims the members of that army were
guaranteed Heaven is, according to Sunni scholars like ibn Hajar Asqalani, weak and unreliable to begin
with.
Yazid’s crimes
Whether or not Yazid conquered Constantinople is, frankly, irrelevant given the crimes and sins he
openly committed later on in life, during his caliphate.
Some Wahhabis want to pretend there is a “difference of opinion” about Karbala but what about the
massacre in Madinah two years after the Karbala incident, and what about the burning of the Kabah by
Yazid’s forces less than three years later?
In volume 19 of Tarikh Tabari, the famous Sunni historian Allama Tabari documents how Yazid carried
out these outrageous and unforgivable abuses in Madinah and Makkah.
Allama ibn Athir, the Sunni scholar, has written how thousands of Muslims in Madinah were killed and
beheaded, thousands were made slaves, and more than a thousand women raped, by Yazid’s army.
Allama ibn Qutaybah has described how babies in Madinah were snatched from their mothers’ arms and
thrown against the walls; horses from Yazid’s army were allowed to graze and urinate inside Masjid alNabawi, the Prophet’s (S) mosque in Madinah.
The sahabah, the companions, and their descendants, were murdered en masse by the Syrian army in
this attack on Madinah – the historians note that not a single survivor of the Battle of Badr was left alive
by Yazid’s soldiers.
Then, the following year, as Tabari and others record, the army of Yazid moved onto Makkah and
attacked the Kabah from the surrounding hilltops, using fireballs which set the cloth of the Kabah on fire!
Can you imagine the reaction in the Muslim world if the US or British or Israeli airforces bombed Makkah
and Madinah and set the Kabah on fire? There would be outrage, anger, mass uprisings and antiWestern revenge attacks. Yet, a Muslim ruler, a so-called caliph, sets fire to the Kabah, rapes and loots
the people of Madinah, and the Muslims are expected to forget this episode, and not hate or curse him?


Instruction: Imam Husayn (as) lost the battle of Karbala, didn’t he?

Context:
This is based on the fact that Yazid survived and Imam Husayn (as) was killed. So some, wrongly, claim
that Yazid “won” and Imam Husayn (as) “lost”.
Imam Husayn’s (as) mission
However, this is a total and almost willful misunderstanding and under-estimation of what Imam
Husayn’s (as) mission was. It was not a political challenge or a military revolt against the Ummayad
regime; it was a mission for truth: the truth of Islam, of Allah’s existence, of the Prophet’s message the
truth of Husayn’s (as) own imamat and wilayat.
All of Imam Husayn’s (as) statements and actions in the run-up to Karbala show that he was well aware
of the fact that a victory achieved through military strength and might is always temporary and short-
lived, because another stronger power can, over the course of time, overturn it and bring it down. But a
victory achieved through suffering, through sacrificing and struggling, is everlasting and leaves a
permanent and unshakeable imprint on man’s consciousness and emotions.
In Karbala, as the Shia historian S.H.M Jafri observes in his book, “The Origins and Early Development
of Shi’a Islam”, the natural process of conflict and struggle between “action” and “reaction” was at work.
The Prophet’s Islamic teachings had succeeded in suppressing the jahilliyah (ignorance) and ultraconservatism and backwardness of the desert Arabs. But, within fifty years of his death, this Arab
jahilliyah had revitalised itself as a forceful reaction
to challenge the Holy Prophet’s teachings once again. The strength of this corrupt reaction, embodied in
the corrupt and un- Islamic personality of Yazid, was powerful enough to suppress or at least deface the
Prophet’s original message. Thus, in the mind of Imam Husayn (as), Islam was now in dire need of
reactivation, of action, against the old Arab reaction and thus it required a complete shake-up and
overhaul, a complete revolution.
Imam Husayn’s (as) mission was based on the realisation that simply by picking up weapons and
fighting, simply by using violence and combat, he could not save Islamic action and consciousness. In
his view, it needed a shaking of hearts and minds; it needed a jolt to the emotions. And this, the Imam
decided, could only be achieved through pain and self-sacrifice, through martyrdom; through a physical
and spiritual mission not seen before in human history and not seen again since.
Imam Husayn (as) did not set out to fight and win a military battle against Yazid and his cronies so the
fact that Husayn was killed, and all his companions were killed - by a far bigger, much more heavilyarmed army - is irrelevant to the debate over victory versus defeat.
After all, you measure whether someone has won or lost in a battle, in a struggle, in a fight, based on
what they said their aims were before the fight. The history of Karbala shows Yazid failed to achieve his
aim, even after killing Imam Husayn (as). In contrast, Imam Husayn (as) achieved his original aims of
standing up for truth and reform and Islam, and not bowing his head to a tyrant.
Yazid’s aim
Yazid’s aim was very explicit – to get bay’at (allegiance) from Imam Husayn (as), in order to stabalise his
own (illegitimate) caliphate.
Imam Husayn’s (as) aim was not to bow his head to tyranny, to illegitimate rulers but to stay on the true
path of Islam, of his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S). He refused to be intimidated by the threat of
death. “Death for me is a blessing,” Imam Husayn (as) famously remarked in front of the army of Yazid.
So who won? The side of Imam Husayn (as), never bowed its head and never gave allegiance to either
Yazid or his various cronies. Bay’at was not given! And history testifies that his son, the fourth Shia
Imam, Zain ul Abidin (as), never gave his allegiance to Yazid in the palaces of Kufa or Shaam (Syria),
nor was he ever asked to give allegiance by Yazid.
In fact, after the Battle of Karbala, no Shia Imam was ever again asked to give allegiance by any future
Ummayad or Abbasid caliph. What does Imam Sajjad (as) say to a man who abuses him in Damascus?
He says: “Wait for the adhan, then see, who won and who lost…”
Today, thanks to Imam Husayn’s (as) sacrifice, the adhan still contains the name of Muhammad (S);
Islam in its original form still exists.
The role of Lady Zainab and Lady Umm Kulthum
Had it not been for Lady Zainab (as) and her sister Lady Umm Kulthum (as), the two sisters of Imam
Husayn (as)
and granddaughters of the Prophet (S), Muslims would not have known the objectives of the supreme
sacrifice performed by Imam Husayn (as). They completed his mission and spread the message of
Karbala.
We would not have understood his embodiment of the eternal struggle of good against evil, truth against
falsehood, justice against injustice; his eternal symbolism for all revolutions of the oppressed against the
oppressors.
Without them spreading the word in the weeks and months after the tragedy on Ashura, his aim would
have been lost and the great tragedy of Karbala would have - God forbid – been forgotten by history or
buried under a mountain of Ummayad distortions and misinterpretations.
Muslims have to accept and acknowledge this important reality, to understand it and spread it far and
wide. Only then can we do justice to the roles of both Imam Husayn (as) and Lady Zainab (as).
Due to Lady Zainab (as), Imam Husayn (as) is respected by all Muslims - both Sunnis and Shias - as
the ‘Prince of Martyrs’. Yazid is only remembered by all Muslims,for exactly what he was: a cruel, evil,
tyrannical enemy of Islam.
The clearest sign of her own personal victory is that if you go to Damascus in Syria today, you will see
the magnificent rawdha (shrine) of Lady Zainab (as). The area near the shrine is known as Zainabiyya.
The local Syrians praise and honour her; but there is no mention of Yazid, no memorial for Yazid!
So, to reiterate and conclude, the loser was Yazid. The true victors at Karbala were Husayn (as) and the
original and authentic religion of Islam, of Prophet Muhammad (S).


Instruction: Is it permissible to eat foods prepared by Christians and Jews?

Response: Since the followers of the past revealed religions (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure, many of the problems concerning the status and permissibility of the food are resolved when we live with them. It becomes permissible for us as Muslims to eat from their food no matter whether they touched it with their wet hands or not, as long as we do not know or are not sure that it consists of what is forbidden to us, like Haram meat. Reference: sistani.org/15598 Question Answer sistani.org/15598


Instruction: Is it permissible to eat food prepared from non-Ahlul Kitãb (i.e. Those who are neither Christians, Jews, nor Zoroastrians) people?

Response: A Muslim is allowed to eat the food prepared by someone who is not from Ahlul Kitãb [for example, a Hindu or a Buddhist], provided that he does not know or is not sure that the non-Ahlulkitab touched the food with wetness; and provided that he does not know or is not sure that the food consists of what is forbidden to him like for example, Haram meat, fat and their extracts.  Reference: sistani.org/15599 Question Answer sistani.org/15599


Instruction: What is the fatwa about Ahlul Kitab? Are they ritually pure (Tahir)?

Response: The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Christians, the Jews and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (Tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. Reference: sistani.org/15600 Question Answer sistani.org/15600


Instruction: Can I eat Christians' foods that contain meat?

Response: All kinds of food with the exception of meat, fat, and their extracts are permissible for a Muslim, even if he doubts that it might contain something which is forbidden for him. Reference: sistani.org/15362 Question Answer sistani.org/15362


Instruction: Are the Sikhs considered to be among the followers of the past revealed religions like the Jews and the Christians?

Response: They are not counted among the People of the (Revealed) Books (the Ahlul Kitab). Reference: sistani.org/14971 Question Answer sistani.org/14971


Instruction: Are the Bhuddhists among the Ahlul Kitab?

Response: They are not from them. Reference: sistani.org/14972 Question Answer sistani.org/14972


Instruction: In certain cases doctors advise that the foetus is so deformed that it could be very difficult to treat the born baby and, perhaps, it (the child) would live a very short time suffering pain and agony with his parents, then dies. Is it permissible for the would be mother to abort the foetus? Also, is there any difference between the foetus with a spirit and that which the spirit has not yet entered into yet? Assuming it is permissible, should compensation [or blood money] be payable? Who should pay it?

Response: Abortion in this case is not permissible, even though the soul has not entered the foetus, [let alone a foetus with a soul] . Reference: sistani.org/15432 Question Answer sistani.org/15432


Instruction: Is a mother allowed to abort the feotus, if she does not want it while the soul has not yet entered it and there is no serious danger to the mother’s life?

Response: She is not allowed to do that, except if the continuation of the pregnancy would considerably harm her health or put her in an unbearable difficulty, then it is permissible before the soul enters the feoutus (i.e. the fourth month). Reference: sistani.org/15625 Question Answer sistani.org/15625


Instruction: Sometimes the doctors reach the following conclusion: This foetus is afflicted with a very serious disease; it is therefore preferable that it should be aborted because if that child is born, it will be deformed or will die soon after birth. Is it, therefore, permissible for the doctor to abort the foetus? Is it permissible for the mother to agree to the abortion? And who of the two will become liable for indemnity?

Response: Just the fact that the child will be deformed or that it will not live for a long time after his birth does not ever justify the termination of the pregnancy. Therefore, it is not permissible for the mother to consent to the abortion just as it is not permissible for the doctor to go ahead with the procedure. And whoever performs the abortion will become liable for the payment of indemnity. Reference: sistani.org/15626 Question Answer sistani.org/15626


Instruction: What is your ruling on aborting an “unwanted pregnancy” before 4 months into the pregnancy?

Response: It is not permissible . Reference: sistani.org/15627 Question Answer sistani.org/15627


Instruction: What is the kaffara of abortion?

Response:
In case the mother aborts the child, she must give the indemnity (blood money) to the father or other heirs. And if the father carries out the abortion, the indemnity is obligatory on him and he must give it to the mother.  If it is the doctor who carries out the abortion, it is obligatory on him to give the blood money to the mother and father, even if he may abort the fetus on the parents’ request. He must give the blood money except if the heirs (i.e. the mother and father)exempt him.

It would suffice for the blood money of the fetus into which soul has entered to give 5250 mithqals of silver. That is when the fetus is male and if it is female, half of that amount should be paid.

If the fetus is lifeless and it is in the form of a fertilized ovum (zygote), 105 mithqals of silver would suffice for the blood money. In case it is in the form of a leech-like substance, the indemnity is 210 mithqals. If it develops into a chewed-like substance, the indemnity is 315 mithqals. If the fetus has bones, 420 mithqals of silver would suffice. If it has developed into a complete human body with grown up limbs and organs, the indemnity is 525 mithqals of silver. If the fetus is soulless, there is no difference between a male fetus and a female one as an obligatory precaution. The Soul enters the body at the fourth month of pregnancy except for when it is proved otherwise through modern technology.

If the fetus is alive and it is aborted, the indemnity is 5250 mithqal of silver for a male child and 2625 mithqal for a female child.

*Every mithqal of silver is equivalent to 4.64 g of Silver.* Reference: sistani.org/25270 Question Answer sistani.org/25270


Instruction: I have a medical illness, and have become pregnant recently, under what circumstances is an abortion allowed?

Response: Abortion is not allowed after the implantation of the [fertilized] ovum [on the lining of the womb], except if the mother’s life is in danger,  and in this case, it would be permissible to abort the foetus as long as the soul has not entered into it (i.e. before the end of 4 months); after the entering of the soul, it is not permissible, as an obligatory precaution. Reference: sistani.org/15628 Question Answer sistani.org/15628


Instruction: What is the ruling on abortion for a pregnant woman who is infected with AIDS?

Response: It is not permissible, only if continuation of the pregnancy poses a considerable harm to the health mother, it is permissible for her to abort it before the entering of the soul in the feotus, but not after it. Reference: sistani.org/15629 Question Answer sistani.org/15629


Instruction: Are we allowed to adopt children and consider them as our own children?

Response:
It is permissible for a person to adopt a child and taking care of a deserving child on its own earns is a rewarding deed, but the child legally (Islamic Shariah) is not considered his son or daughter; i.e. the child remains non-mahram to him or his wife and he or she does not inherit from the ones who has adopted him or her.

Adoption in the sense to change a child's surname and register him in the official documents as the parents own child is not permissible. Reference: sistani.org/15622 Question Answer sistani.org/15622


Instruction: What is the stance of Islam in regards to adopting children and if a child is with the family from his or her early days and develops a bond, do the laws of Mahram and Non-Mahram still have to be observed?

Response:
Adoption in the sense of claiming a child as your own son or daughter and getting official legal documents for him or her in your name is not permissible.

However, there is no Ishkaal (objection) in taking care of a child, raising him or her and showing love and care, which is in itself rewarding but the child's lineage has to be preserved.

In addition, the child would remain non-Mahram once reached the age of Buloogh (puberty).

At the appropriate moment, the child should be informed about it (being adopted0 and if one cannot inform the child, he should record it somewhere or ask someone to bear witness that he/she is not his child. Reference: sistani.org/15623 Question Answer sistani.org/15623


Instruction: Whats the ruling of the various forms alcohol that causes intoxication?

Response: All forms of intoxicants are Haram (forbidden), whether they are Tahir (ritually pure ) or Najis. Reference: sistani.org/15612 Question Answer sistani.org/15612


Instruction: What about using the families of alcohol that are synthesized from petroleum and are used in perfume, medicine etc are they Najis and cannot be used during prayer?

Response:
All kinds of alcohol (whether extracted from wood or other sources) are Tahir (ritually pure),  and are not permissible to drink, except for wine which is also Najis, and Beer (Maa al-Sha'eir) which is also Najis (ritually impure) as an obligatory precaution..

So, the medicines and the perfumes containing alcohol are pure and can be used.

It is also permissible to eat such food if the amount of alcohol is very minute, e.g., 2%, except for wine. Reference: sistani.org/26118 Question Answer sistani.org/26118


Instruction: What is the ruling about using perfume containing alcohol?

Response: There is no problem in it. Reference: sistani.org/15494 Question Answer sistani.org/15494


Instruction: What is your opinion about the beer (Maa al-Sha'eir) which is sold on the market normally with a label that reads "alcohol free".

Response:
The drink that is made from barley and called "Fuqa' in Arabic is definitely forbidden and Najis (ritually impure) as an obligatory precaution. This drink is not intoxicant normally but it makes one feel tipsy; that is a state of slight drunkenness caused apparently by low percentage of alcohol in the liquid.

Therefore, if a drink is produced alcohol free in the first place and it is not called "Fuqa" (beer), there is no problem, or else, it is forbidden even if alcohol is separated from it. Reference: sistani.org/15621 Question Answer sistani.org/15621


Instruction: My question is related to selling and consumption of ice-cream containing less than 0.5% ethanol type of alcohol. I purchased an ice-cream business and now I am finding out that some of the ice-cream syrup contains less than 0.5% ethanol type of alcohol. That syrup is then used to make ice-cream.

Response: My question to you is: Can I (a Muslim) sell or eat this ice-cream made from syrup that contains less than 0.5% of ethanol type of alcohol? Reference: If it is not intoxicating, there is no objection in it; you can buy, sell and eat it. Reference: sistani.org/15566 Question Answer sistani.org/15566


Instruction: I am running a store and I have non-Muslim customers who want me to sell them alcoholic drinks. Can a Muslim buy and sell intoxicating alcohol to non-Muslims?

Response: It is not permissible to buy and sell alcohol. Reference: sistani.org/15564 Question Answer sistani.org/15564


Instruction: Is it permissible to socialize or accept invitations from Muslims that are involved in business like selling alcoholic beverages and pork?

Response: There is no problem in it. Reference: sistani.org/15613 Question Answer sistani.org/15613


Instruction: Is it permissible to consume medication that contain alcohol for ones treatment?

Response:
It is permissible to consume if the amount is very minute, e.g. 2%

If the amount of alcohol is more than 2%, then one may dilute the medication with water, so that the amount of alcohol becomes very minute, e.g. 2% or less and then consume it. Reference: sistani.org/15614 Question Answer sistani.org/15614


Instruction: I enter a restaurant with a group of friends, and we notice on our table, there is a sealed bottle of wine, which we did not order, and will not drink, is it permissible for us to continue sitting on that table and eat our meal?

Response: There is no problem in it. Reference: sistani.org/26226 Question Answer sistani.org/26226


Instruction: What is the ruling concerning the alcohol found in some dental products like mouthwash and others?

Response: It is Tahir (ritually clean), and permissible to use. Reference: sistani.org/15616 Question Answer sistani.org/15616


Instruction: What is your opinion on Muslims eating in non-Muslim or even Muslim owned and operated restaurants which serve Halal food however also serve alcoholic drinks? If the alcohol is not being consumed at our table, does this change the ruling?

Response: If alcohol is not consumed at your table, there would be no objection and you can eat in that restaurant. Yes, if going to such a restaurant is considered bad for the reputation of a Muslim, it is not permissible to eat in there. Reference: sistani.org/15617 Question Answer sistani.org/15617


Instruction: What is the ruling on a Muslim working in a restaurant in which he must serve alcoholic beverages?

Response: It is not permissible to do anything in connection with alcoholic beverages. Reference: sistani.org/15618 Question Answer sistani.org/15618


Instruction: Is it permissible to drink beer that says “alcohol free” on it?

Response: It is not permissible to drink, if “beer” means the drink made from barley that causes mild drunkenness. But if it means a drink made from barley that does not cause mild drunkenness, there is no problem in it. The drink that is made from barley and called "Fuqa' in Arabic is definitely forbidden and ritually impure as an obligatory precaution. This drink is not intoxicant normally but it makes one feel tipsy; that is a state of slight drunkenness caused apparently by low percentage of alcohol in the liquid. Therefore, if a drink is produced alcohol free in the first place and it is not called "Fuqa" (beer), there is no problem, or else, it is forbidden even if alcohol is separated from it. Reference: sistani.org/15391 Question Answer sistani.org/15391


Instruction: Is it permissible to wail and cry loudly as well as beat one’s head and face in mourning for Imam Hussein, peace be upon him?

Response: There is no problem in it . Reference: sistani.org/25191 Question Answer sistani.org/25191


Instruction: Is mourning for Imam Hussain and other Infallibles (a.s.) recommended?

Response: Yes, it is recommended and God will reward those who sincerely revive their memories and commemorate their martyrdom. Reference: sistani.org/15003 Question Answer sistani.org/15003


Instruction: I have a question about matam (Azadari) and the manner our people are holding Muharram rituals, what is our purpose of holding these events?

Response: The main purpose of mourning during 'Ashura, is to respect and revive the symbols of religion and remember the suffering of Imam Hussain (a.s.), his companions, and his uprising to defend Islam and prevent the destruction of the religion by Bani Umayyad dynasty. These rites must be done in such a way that in addition to serving that purpose, it draws the attention of others to these lofty goals. Reference: sistani.org/15004 Question Answer sistani.org/15004


Instruction: Is it permissible to jog (run at a steady gentle pace) in mourning processions which are taken out into the streets to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him?

Response: There is no problem in it per se . Reference: sistani.org/25192 Question Answer sistani.org/25192


Instruction: I would like to ask your opinion about taking off the shirts in mourning processions. Is it permissible for men to take off their shirts while beating their chests?

Response: There is no problem in it. Reference: sistani.org/25193 Question Answer sistani.org/25193


Instruction: What is the Islamic law on wearing full black during the months of Muharram and Safar? Is it recommended or abominable (makrooh)?

Response: It is good to wear black and it being abominable (Makrooh) is not proved. Reference: sistani.org/25195 Question Answer sistani.org/25195


Instruction: Is there any objection to people holding up chandeliers or flags ahead of the mourning processions?

Response: There is no objection in it. Reference: sistani.org/25196 Question Answer sistani.org/25196


Instruction: Over the past thirty years, we have been placing candles in our local mosque as a sign of grief and lamentation. Can we give lamps to the mosque instead of burning candles?

Response: There is no problem in it. Reference: sistani.org/25198 Question Answer sistani.org/25198


Instruction: What is the philosophy of Azadari (mourning and lamentation) for Imam Husain?

Response:
There is no doubt that the tragedy of Kerbala, when ascribed to the killers, is a criminal and terrible act. However when ascribed to Husain (A) himself, it represents a conscious confrontation and a courageous resistance for a sacred cause. The whole nation had failed to stand up to Yazid. They had succumbed to his will, and deviation and regression towards the pre-Islamic ways were increasing.

Passiveness by Husain (A) in this situation would have meant the end of Islam as we know it. Thus Husain (A) took upon himself the responsibility of the whole nation. The greatest tragedy was that one who stood up for the noblest of causes, the defense of Islam, was cut down in so cruel a manner.

It is for this reason that the sacrifice of Husain (A) is commemorated annually throughout the Muslim world. Our sorrow never abates as we relive the tragedy.

The commemoration of Ashura on the 10th of Muharram every year serves to remind us of the sacrifices of the family of the Prophet (S). It also makes us aware of the people, then and now, who tried to destroy Islam and the family of the Prophet (S) and all that they stood for - as well as those who watched, listened and did nothing. Reference: sistani.org/15603 Question Answer sistani.org/15603


Instruction: What is your ruling on an autopsy of a deceased Muslim?

Response: It is not permissible to perform autopsy on the body of a dead Muslim for the sake of education and other purposes. It is only permissible, if the life of another Muslim depends on it—even if it is sometime in the future. Reference: sistani.org/15601 Question Answer sistani.org/15601


Instruction: In certain cases, some governmental agencies demand that autopsy be performed on the body of the deceased to establish the cause of death. When is it permissible to agree to their demand and when is it not?

Response: No heir of a deceased Muslim is allowed to give consent for autopsy to be carried out on the body of the deceased for the purpose mentioned above and other similar purposes; and it is necessary for him to prevent the autopsy if possible. Of course, if another important factor at play that of equal or more importance than this basic rule such as securing the life of an innocent individual Muslim, it is permissible . Reference: sistani.org/15602 Question Answer sistani.org/15602


Instruction: How is puberty confirmed in a male?

Response:
Puberty in males could be confirmed if one of the four signs was present:

1. First: Completion of fifteen lunar calendar years of age (equal to about 14 years and seven months and fifteen days of the solar calendar).

2. Second: Ejaculation through sexual intercourse, or seminal discharge while awake or asleep.

3.Third: The presence of pubic hair, of the rough type.

4. Fourth: The presence of hair on the face and above the lips.

Note: The presence of under arm and chest hair and the deepening of the voice are not the signs of puberty in Islamic law.

He should begin performing his religious duties when he attains the age of puberty. Reference: sistani.org/15409 Question Answer sistani.org/15409


Instruction: When is a girl considered adult from the viewpoint of Sharia?

Response:
She is considered adult at the completion of nine lunar years (equal to about eight years and eight months and twenty days of the solar calendar).

She should begin performing her religious duties when she attains the age of nine lunar years, the age of puberty. Reference: sistani.org/15596 Question Answer sistani.org/15596


Instruction: What is the general ruling regards to artificial insemination?

Response:
There is no problem in it per se, however, since the process may involve masturbation, and implanting involves touching and seeing the private part, insemination would only be allowed when the parties involved may face difficulty in their life which is not normally bearable.

Also, regards to the matters of inheritance and Mahramiyat the parties involved need to refer to the specific Islamic Law rulings. Reference: sistani.org/15593 Question Answer sistani.org/15593