Done translating the third part of the documentary

A question is displayed on the screen " Is it true that the Syiah accused the companions of the Prophet of being Kafirs? " 

Abdullah Hassan (Malaysian Syiah): “We do not consider the companions of the Prophet as Kafir in sense that all the companions were bad/disgraced/shamed. Even though some would say that according to the narration, only four of the companions were nice or good.

But the meaning here is that to turn back [reverted] doesn’t mean someone became kafirs. But it could mean something else like turning back against the commandment of the Holy Prophet. It doesn’t mean that everyone became apostate and only four people remained. “

The video is now showing the reporter sitting in front of Abdullah Hassan while looking at his notes.

The narrator started “Nevertheless his (Abdullah Hassan) statement is contradictory to what you are about to see”

The next clip is showing some Syiahs performing salat. 

[I am not surprised that they are using Yassir Habib in their propaganda material]. Based on the subtitle, this clip is taken from Youtube and the quality of the visual may not be to your satisfaction.

Yasir Habib was seen reciting a dua. You can see the translation of what is being recited.

‘Meaning: O Allah, send la’nat on your enemies, especially on Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha’

Video is now showing one of the Sunni Ulama from Malaysia. [His name is Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin. He was interviewed in the beginning of the documentary. 

This is the same person who kept on repeating thrice that the differences between the Sunni and Shia is about aqeedah]

The Sunni Ulama: “He (referring to Abdullah Hassan) may be denying privately but their [Syiah] books consider the companions as apostates. They [books] call Abu Bakr and Umar as Saname-Quraish or the two idols of the Quraish.”

“If they [Syiah] don’t consider the companions as apostates then why do they send la’nat on Abu Bakr and Umar? And this can be found in their books. In fact if you look in the book Raudah al-Kafi, they are stating clearly that all companions apostate except a few of them who didn’t apostate such as Bilal, Miqdad, Abu Dhar, Ammar. Others are outside of the religion (apostate), people like Abu Bakr, Umar al-Khattab, Uthman al-Affan and the other companions. Huge names among the people of the Sunnah Wal Jamaah unlikely..how do you equate”

[He appeared to be visibly upset and incredulous that people of huge caliber among the Sunnah wal Jamah are not respected enough or highly rated by the Shias.

I can understand and perhaps share his sentiment. Like him, I also don’t understand why Sunnism have not show any respect towards the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. Almost unbelievable]

The video continued showing the night scene. The reporter is speaking now; his first sentence is too vague to be translated accurately. He is implying that Islam is a religion that control human thoughts especially when it deals on Fiqh. That sounds too wrong to be translated.

He continued by saying that “Fiqh are matters which are considered as Furu or branches in the religion, as long as it is based on the two main sources; the Quran and the Sunnah”

“But Islam has a strict policy when the it touches on the question of Aqeedah. Let’s witness the next segment”

[Here they are implying that no matter how contradictory the four Sunni Fiqh Schools are with each other, this is not a big deal because as long as you can brag about following the Quran and supposedly the contradictory Sunnah of the Prophet then you are fine. But being a Shia is not okay because we [Sunni] only allow contradiction to exist within our own schools and that is acceptable because we can justify it in anyway we like]

The video is now showing the reporter looking at his paper while talking to the elderly Shia Man who is holding a book. They are standing behind a nice bookcase filled to the brim with interesting religious book.

The narrator started with “If you are following, the history of this madhab [Syiah] is very long. It started since the time of the companions of the Prophet. Chronologically, it is based on a number of important incidents/events in the history of Islam after the death of the Holy Prophet.”

The narrator said, “Among the events according to the chronology are”  We are presented with a bullet list of items “The killing of the third caliph, Uthman al-Affan. Ali ibn Abi Talib became the caliph. The Jamal/Camel war. The Siffin War, the killing of Hussein”

[The other interesting events that are sometimes glossed over in the Islamic history are the event of saqifa, Umar inheriting the caliphate, the six men shura, the corruption in Uthman government, death of Hassan ibn Ali and the rise of the Ummayad dynasty.]

[Let’s continue. The propaganda is getting  interesting.]

The narrator again ”Among a number of scholars of Islamic history, you’ll find some who links the existence of Shia with Ibn Saba who is consider the founder of Shia, who was a Jewish Hypocrite, who was responsible for killing the third caliph. He is the main person who is responsible for the armed rebellion against Uthman and built the Shia movement”

[I understand that this is a propaganda documentary, but why don’t they investigate further the role Ayesha, Talha and Zubair played in the killing of Uthman. Why hide all the sordid details behind Ibn Saba, the fall guy?]

A question is displayed on the screen “To what extent is the truthfulness of this foundation (assertion)”

Video showing Abdullah Hassan speaking now. [I am deeply fascinated by how they are labeling this man – The Shia Practitioner]. 

He started explaining “About Ibn Saba, many books are written by the Shia Scholars stating that Ibn Saba is someone who didn’t exist. Even if you look in the writing of Sunni scholars, for example Shaykh Mahmud Abu Ra’yah, important scholar from Egypt. Also Shaykh Abdul Halim Mahmud, Shaykh of Al-Azhar. They are stating that Ibn Saba never existed in the history of Islam.”

Now, the reporters can be seen standing in front of the bookcase, opening and peering into books.

The narrator is now saying “Nevertheless, a few of the Shia books claim that Ibn Saba does exist”

[Who do you think would be best person to speak about some very rare and obscure narrations about Ibn Saba?

Enter the emotional Sunni Ulama who can’t stand the thought of anyone disliking the major companions of Sunnism.]

Sunni Ulama, Mohd Asri: “The character of Abdullah Ibn Saba exists. If they [Syiah] believe in Tarikh Tabari, this book contains a collection of a mix of narrations, some Shias, some non-Shias, and some mix. The book also mentioned Ibn Saba. One of the Shia book, Rijal al-Kashi, also mentioned about the arrival of Ibn Saba, a Shia book mention about Ibn Saba and his role.”

Now the video is showing mourners dressed in black hitting their chest in a mourning ceremony.

The narrator “Apart from this, one of the major issue frequently cited by the Syiah is about Sayyidna Ali ibn Abi Talib who should have become the first caliph of Muslim after the death of the Holy Prophet.”

The video is back in the propaganda mode; showing scenes of very bloody matam. Blood can be seen trickling down from the head. I guess they don’t have anything scarier that this. These scenes are not from Malaysia. The subtitle states that these clips are taken from youtube.

We are again presented with items in bullet list. The narrator started reading one-by-one items from the list

“The Shia rejects the caliphate of the companions such as, the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar al Khattab, Uthman al-Affan”

[One thing you can notice from the list is that even Sunnis themselves have rejected two other deserving persons who should be on this list; Hassan ibn Ali and Hussein ibn Ali.

So, it is a bit hypocritically to be asking the [Syiahs] on why we [Syiahs] don’t acknowledges the first three caliphs when the Sunnis themselves can’t explain why they have rejected the two men (Hassan and Hussein) who deserve to be recognized by them before their three caliphs]

to be continued...