Hiding the fact that they curse the Sahaba (ra)

This is a topic for those who have a very good idea about how the Shia function, and they usually function in two groups both having the same goal but the second group is much more dangerous, meaning the likes of Khomeini who has the most evil of beliefs and intentions in his heart but outwardly talks about “Unity” and “Love” between Twelver Shia and Muslims. Sometimes however this “beautiful mask” that hides the vile truth of the Shia is exposed by none other than the Shia scholars themselves, and as you know Shiism in its true form can never spread among the Muslims or the non-Muslims and this is one of the main reasons for hiding it. A Shia has to deceive in order to get under people’s skin, in order to earn their trust and loyalty, then he starts spewing his poison.

The Almighty says in his glorious book:

{ [Allah praises] those who convey the messages of Allah and fear Him and do not fear anyone but Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. } [al-Ahzab : 39]

The Shia Imams usually act like they never read the above verse, this is why we find narrations of lies and Taqiyyah constantly attributed to them and by God they are Innocent from this accusation, but this religion has chosen to take the path of lies.

Some Shia scholars as you will see in the following example are too shy to disclose the “message of Allah” and would rather keep it hidden, this is because the “message of Allah” according to their religion is to curse and slander against Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra) and all of their lovers. Shia scholar and Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani was commenting on what the other Shia scholar and Muhaddith Ni`matullah al-Jazaeri wrote in his book concerning the great Shia Safavid  (Safawi) scholar `Ali bin al-Hussein al-Karaki, He(al-Bahrani) wrote:

Quote

“Mawlana al-Sayyed Ni`matullah al-Jazaeri wrote at the beginning of his book Sharh Ghawali al-Laalee … And He (al-Karaki) may Allah have mercy on him never used to ride his horse or walk the streets unless he had his servant walking  in front of him cursing the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr & `Umar) and cursing those who follow their way“

So here we see what the situation was when the Shia were in a position of power and when they had a strong state, al-Karaki used to have people walking with him for the sole purpose of cursing the companions, this is how deep the hatred runs. So al-Bahrani criticizes al-Jazaeri for uncovering the truth of their great scholar because it caused harm to many of the Shia living in Islamic countries, He said:

Quote

“I say: What he related to us from the sheikh about leaving Taqiyyah and publicly cursing the two Sheikhs as opposed to what is found in  the countless narrations from the pious Imams (as), this is a mistake from our sheikh if it is proven to be true, and the Sayyed also mentioned that the Shia scholars in Mecca wrote to the Shia scholars of Isfahan saying: { You curse and insult their Imams in Isfahan and we in Mecca and Madinah have to face their wrath. } And this is true.”

source: Lulu al-Bahrain page 153 by Yusuf al-Bahrani.

Since most of the Shia narrations that curse the first three caliphs never do this by stating their name, they instead refer to them as “The first and the second” or “Fulan and Fulan” where the word “Fulan” “فلان“, in Arabic it is like saying “so-and-so”, for Taqiyyah purposes usually their names aren’t mentioned publicly BUT anyone who is familiar with the Shia religion even the Shia laymen know exactly who is being talked about , I shall provide a sample of this:

The Iranian grand Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi who lived in the Persian Safavid state would discard Taqiyyah and state the obvious as to who “the first and the second” are.

al-Qummi wrote in his Tafseer 2/106: from al-Hassan bin ‘Ali from Salih bin Sa’ad: I heard abu ‘Abdullah (as) explain the saying of Allah: Surat al-Nur verse 40: {Or (they are) like Darknesses} means Fulan and Fulan, {within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves} meaning Na`thal, {upon which are waves} meaning Talha and Zubair, {over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others} Mu’awiyah and Yazid and the Fitnah of bani Umayyah, {When one puts out his hand} in the Darkness of their Fitnah, { he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light – for him there is no light.} meaning an Imam from the children of Fatima (as), he doesn’t have the light of an Imam which will guide him on the day of judgement.

al-Majlisi commented on the above narration by his predecessor in Bihar al-Anwar 32/306: What is meant by “Fulan and Fulan” are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and “Na`thal” is ‘Uthman , his enemies used to call him Na’athal likening him to a sheikh with long beard in Egypt who used to be an idiot, it also means a male Hyena .”

al-Kulayni narrated in al-Kafi 8/334: Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Qummi from his uncle ‘Abdullah bin al-Salt from Yunus bin ‘Abdul-Rahman from ‘Abdullah bin SInan from Hussein al-Jammal from abu ‘Abdulah (as) regardin the saying of Allah: Surat Fussilat verse 29: {Our Lord, show us those who misled us of the jinn and men [so] we may put them under our feet that they will be among the lowest} He (as) said: It is They, then He (as) said: and Fulan was a devil.

al-Majlisi said in his Bihar al-Anwar 30/270:  What is meant by “Fulan” is ‘Umar . . meaning the Jinn mentioned in the verse is ‘Umar, he used it as reference for him because he was a devil, either because he came from the devil as he was the son of an act of adultery, or because he was a trickster and a deceiver like the devil, and it is possible that “Fulan” here means Abu Bakr.

Many of the Shia scholars did not like their beliefs to be exposed in this way, Grand Ayatulla Muhammad Asif al-Muhsini criticized al-Majlisi for this, because according to him declaring their names would only harm the cause of the Shia and would make the Muslims hate them, al-Muhsini said in Mashara’at Bihar al-Anwar 1/167:

Quote

“The author (al-Majlisi) did not restrain his pen from cursing and insulting and making Takfeer and Tafseeq in his book of Bihar on the leaders of those who oppose us (sunnies), and Allah knows how much this harmed the sect in many ways, it was he who reported the narrations that state that we must hold on to Taqiyyah and that it is forbidden to reveal the secrets, but he insisted on declaring what those pronouns were referring to in the narrations, although the laymen from the believers (shia) know their meaning and so do the scholars, so what benefit can we draw from such explanations other than igniting the flames of anger and revenge? I don’t believe he has a legitimate excuse for what he did.”

– end –