Monthly Archives: June 2013

Mukhtar Thaqafi killed the sons of Ali & Ammār ibn Yāsser

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Shame on the Shias for venerating him.

Mukhtar killed Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasir because of his refusal to fabricate a hadith and attribute it to his father:

 وقتل المختار محمد بن عمار بن ياسر ظلما لأنه سأله أن يحدث عن أبيه بحديث كذب فلم يفعل فقتله

– al-Isaba Vol. 6, p. 276

وممن قتله المختار حبيب بن صهبان الأسدي، ومحمد بن عمار بن ياسر بالكوفة

– Tarikh Islam by Dhahabi Vol. 5, p. 57

also mentioned in:
– al-Thiqat by ibn Habban Vol. 5, p. 357
– Tarikh al-Kabir Vol. 1, p. 185

The son of Ali (ra), Ubaidullah ibn Ali was also killed by Mukhtar:

وعبيد الله قتله المختار، وأبو بكر قتل مع الحسين أمهما ليلى بنت معوذ ابن خالد النهشلي وهي التي تزوجها عبد الله بن جعفر خلف عليها بعد عمه

– al-tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 19
– Dhakhair ul Uqba, p. 117

By Kalaam
Posted by 13S2010
Check our other post about Mokhtar Thaqafi and his lies on Ahlulbayt:

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History

Bani Sa’idah

Alsalam alaykum,

Who are Bani Sa’idah?

They are the children of Sa’idah bin Ka’ab bin Al-Khazraj. The Khazraj, as everyone is aware, was the biggest tribe in Al-Madinah.

Who is Sa’ad bin Ubada?

He is Sa’ad bin Ubada bin Dulaim bin Haritha bin Abi Khuzaimah bin Tha’alaba bin Tareef bin Al-Khazraj bin Sa’idah bin Ka’ab bin Al-Khazraj. In other words, he is of the children of Sa’adah, and he is the leader of Bani Sa’idah, and he is the leader of Al-Khazraj.

Subhanallah. One day, a man from Taim, entered a gathering that was held by the biggest tribe in Madinah, to choose a successor for the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam), and in a split second, they all chose to leave their leader, and elect him instead.

How is it possible for an Arab tribe (who are known for their hardheadedness and tribal mentality) to do this?

Written by Farid
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Rebuttals, Revealing Shia sect

How many daughters did the Prophet (saw) have?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Many Shia, who due to their hatred for other daughters of the Prophet (saw) and because two of the daughters of the Prophet (saw) married Amir al-Muminin Othman (ra), totally deny their existence and claim the Prophet (saw) had only one daughter, Fatima (ra).

For full refutation and evidence from Quran and authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and from Shia sources that Prophet (saw) had four daughters and two of them married Othman (ra) read the following link:

How many daughters did the Prophet (saw) have?


Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect

Ali about Uthman: There is nothing between us except goodness

Text of Hadith:

[Juray ibn Kulayb said: I saw that `Ali was ordering something and `Uthman was prohibiting from it. So I said to `Ali : “There is something wrong between you both.” He replied : “There is nothing between us apart from good, but the better one of us is the one who is more obedient to this religion.”

In another narration the matter being prohibited is the Mut`ah, meaning of Hajj.]

Benefits that we get from this report:

Read more here.


Filed under Ahlulbait-Sahaba relations, Articles, History

Shia Scholar says no one criticized the lineage of Abu Bakr because Imams are from his progeny

Shia scholar Nimatullah Jazairi says:

“As for not criticizing him in a harmful way, as we will see in the lineage of his likes, maybe it is because the Imams (as) are from his (Abu Bakr’s) progeny.”

Contributed by Kalaam & Hani
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Ahlulbait-Sahaba relations, Articles, Revealing Shia sect

A major flaw in Imamate of Shia sect – The Ghusl of the Imam at his death

Here another fact that clearly proofs that Shiism is man-made (by people with little brain) cult, which is:

Every Imams must wash (carry out the Gusl) and PRAY over the previous Imam.

Now who washed the 7th Imam Al-Kadhim (who died in Baghdad, where his Shrine is today) ? Al-Ridha who was in Khorassan?! How? By Iran AIR? By Imam Baqir-Elephant AIRS?! Maybe he used Aladdin’s carpet? Everything’s possible according to Shiism but this is their explanation:

Al-Ridha (in Persia/Khorrasan) did perform the Ghusl miraculously!

COMMENT: SALAVAT! The Imam was beamed to Baghdad.

Yes, no jokes, they claim that he was beamed to Baghdad to carry out the Ghusl etc. (remember, it is a CONDITION for being an Imam to carry out the ghusl of the former Imam). This is their proof! This is their proof of the correctness of the Imamite of Al-Ridha! They simply claim that he must have been ‘miraculously’ sent from Khorassan to Baghdad. The wet-dogs (described as such by the 12ers), the Waqifis who stopped at Imam Al-Kadhim did not believe in this crap and hence became sevener Shiias.

It get’s funnier though. Al-Ridha was a proper Sunni like all the Imams of the Ahl Al-Bayt. He had a close relationship with Ma’moon the Abbasid Caliph, Ma’moon made him his Wali Al-A3hd (to-be successor!), he put his own and Al-Ridhas name on the state coins. Al-Ridha called him Chief of the Believers (Amir Al-Mu’mineen) and Ma’moon called him Ridha of Aal Mohammad. Al-Ridha even opposed the Khurooj of the Alawis against the Abbasids (there was tension between them), like the famous Imam Al-Zayd. Al-Ridha staunchly opposed him and told him doing Khurooj against the ruler (who was a Muslim without a shred of doubt) was not permissible. The Rafidah reply to all these realities with their apologetic excuse of ‘Taqiyyah’ i.e. everything Al-Ridha did was Taqiyyah! I stongly, strongly, strongly advise you to invest less than a hour of your time to watch this beautiful lecture on the life of Al-Ridha:

As I was saying before, one of the conditions for an Imam to become an Imam (according to the Rafidah) is that he must wash i.e. carry out the Ghusl of the former Imam. Now heres the another funny part:

Al-Ridha died in Toos (Mashahd) in Persia/Khorassan (today’s Iran). Now where was the Imam to succeed him?! He was in Madinah!! Mohammad Al-Jawad (Al-Taqi) was living in Madinah and at the death of Al-Ridha he was five years old (Rafidism is like the Dalai Lama cult where a child can become an Imam). Guess who performed the Ghusl of Al-Ridha? It was Al-Ma’moon the Abbasid Caliph! This is a historical fact and even mentioned in Uyun al-Akhbar Al-Ridha.

Here is the downfall (as usual) and stupidity of Shiism:

In the case of Al-Khadhim (7th Imam) Shias could convince themselves (by fairy-tales) that the 8th Imam (who lived in Khorassan!) somehow beamed himself to Baghdad (where the 7th Imam Al-Kadhim died). He beamed himself miraculously and Voilà! Ghusl done, thanks. This flaw and gap in their theoriy of flaws called Imamah made them force to fabricate narrations only a Zindeeq and mad-man can believe in. As for Jawad (the kid Imam who was supposed to wash Al-Ridha the 8th Imam to become the next Imam i.e the 9th Imam), then there are no narrations about him being miraculously beamed from Madinah (where he lived) to Toos/Khorassan (where Al-Ridha died)!

And the charlatanism goes on (the Imamate game):

When the 9th Imam (Al-Jawad/Al-Taqi who became an Imam as a kid) died, Ali Al-Hadi (Al-Naqi, the 10th Imam) was also STILL A KID! And there are neither proofs that he carried out the Ghusl for the 9th Imam nor that the 12th Imam performed the ghusl of the 11th Imam. Shia scholars came up with the lamest excuses.

As you can see it’s a whole mess, this cult, and how many have been mislead in the name of “Madhab of Ahl Al-Bayt” and other nonsense.

I stronly advice everyone who understands Arabic (if you don’t it’s really time to learn it) to watch this video, everything I learned is from Shaykh Al-Wesabi the Yemenite, may Allah preserve him, the nukes Rafidism based on their own contradicting Hadith and beliefs and the Aql:

By Ebn Hussein 
Posted by13S2010


Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect

Shi’ite encyclopedia says great Grandson of the Prophet [saw] fabricated a Hadith

We read in the infamous ‘Shia encyclopedia’:

The single report which has the additional phrase (that his father’s name is the same as that of the Prophet’s father) has been probably fabricated by Abdullah Ibn al-Hasan (Muthanna — the second) Ibn (Imam) al-Hasan (AS). Abdullah (d. 145/762) had a son named Muhammad who called him “Nafs al-Zakiyyah” and the Mahdi. (See Ibn Taqtuqa, al-Fikr fi al-Adab al- Sultaniyyah, pp 165-166).


By Kalaam
Posted by 13S2010


Filed under Exposing, Revealing Shia sect

Taqqiyah forbidden for Prophets

Bismillah wal-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

I will quote three of the biggest Shia scholars and then ask a valuable question.

الطبرسي كتاب تفسير مجمع البيان 7/97

” فقد دلت الأدلة العقلية التي لاتحتمل التأويل على أن الانبياء لايجوز عليهم الكذب وان لم يقصدوا به غروراً ولاضرراً كما لايجوز عليهم التعمية في الاخبار ولا التقيّة لأن ذلك يؤدي الى التشكيك في أخبارهم ”
al-Tabrasi in Tafseer Majma’a al-Bayan 7/97:
“Intellectual evidence that cannot be mis-interpreted shows us that it is not allowed for prophets to lie even if they do not mean any harm by it, also it is not allowed for them to speak in a coded (unclear) language nor is Taqqiyah allowed because it would cast doubt on their sayings.”

الطوسي كتابه التبيان 7/ 259 و260

“وعلى كل حال فلا يجوز على الانبياء القبائح ولايجوز ايضاً عليهم التعمية في الاخبار ولا التقية في اخبارهم لأنه يؤدي الى التشكيك في اخبارهم فلا يجوز ذلك عليهم على وجه”

al-Tusi in al-Tibyan 7/259-260: “In any case it is not permissible for prophets to commit ugly acts, nor is it allowed for them to speak in a coded (unclear) way nor to use Taqqiyah because it would lead some to question their sayings, so it’s not allowed in any way.”

المجلسي بحار الانوار ج28 ص400

(فأما الرسول (صلى الله عليه وآله) فانما لم تجز التقية عليه لان الشريعة لا تعرف إلا من جهته ولا يوصل إليها إلا بقوله )

al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar 28/400:
“As for rassul-Allah SAWS, Taqqiyah is not permissible for him because the religious laws can only be known from him and cannot be reached except through his sayings.”

– end –

Anyone with intellect must have realised this big gap in the Shia religion by now, Taqqiyah is not allowed for the prophet SAWS who faced more hardships and dangers than all of the Shia Imams put together, because he is the source of the religion and the source of knowledge, if he were to lie and speak in secret vague or unclear language (like the Shia Imams) then all the people would cast doubt on his reliability and would question his sayings (just like they do with Shia Imams), there is no other means of acquiring the correct religion except through him.

We ask the Shia: can the correct religion and knowledge be acquired from other than Ahlul-bayt?

Salam ‘Aleykum,

By Hani
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect, Shia doctrine of Taqiyya

In defence of Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Answering the Shia

Written by Farid

Bismillah wa salatu wal salam ala rasool Allah wa aalihi wa sahbihi wa man itaba’a hudaah

The shubha of tahreef in Sunan Al-Tirmithi isn’t all that new to the online world. I’ve run across an Arabic forum a while ago in which members were having trouble dealing with it, so I’ve decided that it should be taken care of as soon as possible to clear all the doubts.

The author of the article included the following as a synopsis:


The well-known and reliable hadith of the Prophet – “I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate” is not present in the current editions of the Sahih (alternatively called Jami` or Sunan) of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH). This book is one of the Sihah Sittah or Six Authentic hadith books for the Ahl al-Sunnah.

This case study will investigate the allegation that this hadith was included by al-Tirmidhi and used to be in his Sahih till it mysteriously disappeared at some stage in history.

I say, Sunan Al-Tirmithi is not an authentic book, and the author of the article is apparently going out of his way to misguide his audience.

The author indicates that the hadith mysteriously disappeared at some stage in history. This is an important point since this refutation will examine when this hadith supposedly disappeared.

Important: The purpose of this discussion is not to prove the reliability of the hadith. That has already been shown in several detailed works. For example, see the three volumes 10, 11 and 12 of Nafahat al-Azhar fi Khulasat ‘Abaqat al-Anwar dedicated to this hadith that show its tawatur. Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, adverse comments on the strength of the hadith by some of the scholars below will be ignored.

Alhamdulillah, the written refutations against this by the brothers online are known to all Sunnis that have delved deeply in this field.

He continues:

Al-Tirmidhi lived between the years 209 AH and 279 AH. Several authors of books of hadith, sirah, history and kalam who came after him acknowledged that he has quoted this hadith – in the exact wording stated above – in his Sahih. However, the current editions of the Sahih only have the hadith ‘I am the house of wisdom and ‘Ali is its door’.

Indeed, the current editions include the hadith but by referring to it as the “house of wisdom” instead of “city of knowledge.”

The author then quotes evidences of late scholars mentioning the hadith of the “city of knowledge” and attributing it to Sunan Al-Tirmithi.

However, before we go into that, one needs to realize that the hadith of the “city of knowledge” is mainly narrated through two companions, Ibn Abbas, and Jabir bin Abdullah. While, the hadith of the “house of wisdom” can only be found attributed to Ali.

Those who say al-Tirmidhi had quoted the ‘city of knowledge’ hadith

Please note that the following list is only some of those sources of the Ahl al-Sunnah that quote the “city of knowledge” hadith mentioning al-Tirmidhi as one of its narrators. It does not include the multitude of other sources that narrate this hadith without mentioning al-Tirmidhi’s name.

Ta’rikh al-Khulafa’, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), p. 170

“… al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim has quoted on the authority of ‘Ali who said: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate’…”

This hadith is indeed present with the exact stated wording in al-Hakim’s Mustadrak `ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 3, pp. 126-7.

In the above we find Al-Suyuti referring to both hadiths with a single line of text. He attributes the same hadith to both Ali and Ibn Abbas. This will become more clear in the next piece of “evidence”.

Al-Durar al-muntatharah fi al-ahadith al-mushtahirah, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), p. 23 

The complete text is the following. However, the author of the article didn’t include it since it would hurt his case:

حديث أنا مدينة العلم وعلي بابها.

الترمذي من حديث علي، وقال: منكر. وأنكره البخاري أيضا، والحاكم في مسدتركه من حديث ابن عباس وقال: صحيح، قال الذهبي: بل هو موضوع. وقال أبو زرعة: كم خلق افتضحوا فيه.

Notice, we find find Al-Suyuti attributing the hadith to Ali and says that it can be found in Al-Tirmithi. He then says, that Al-Hakim narrated it through Ibn Abbas. In this case, he is talking about two similar hadiths, and he differentiates them by mentioning that the companion narrating each hadith is different.

This specific quote is especially important for a couple of reasons. The author of the article is quoting this from Al-Suyuti to imply the following:

1- That this hadith existed within Sunan Al-Tirmithi at one time.

2- That Al-Suyuti has a version of the Sunan that we don’t today.

However, upon quoting Al-Tirmithi’s comment of the hadith “munkar” we come to the conclusion that Al-Suyuti is referring to the same hadith that exists with us in current versions of Sunan Al-Tirmithi. We are led to this conclusion since Al-Tirmithi comments on the hadith of “house of wisdom” as a munkar hadith as well.

Furthermore, if the “original” Sunan Al-Tirmithi had a “city of knowledge” hadith that was classified as munkar by Al-Tirmithi, then what is the motive for Sunnis to remove the hadith? Why get rid of one munkar hadith and leave the other be?

One more thing to make note of is that Al-Bukhari classified the hadith as munkar as well according to Al-Suyuti. Keep in mind, he is referring to the hadith of Ali, not the hadith of Ibn Abbas. Then, we find this hadith in Al-Ilal Al-Kabeer by Al-Tirmithi (p.402) in which he asks Al-Bukhari about the hadith of the “house of wisdom”.

This too implies that Al-Suyuti is referring to both texts as one.

And similarly:

Jawahir al-`Iqdayn, Nur al-Din ‘Ali al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), manuscript

Al-Tirmidhi has narrated from ‘Ali with a raised chain of narration: ‘I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate’.

The author of the article leaves out the following:

وقال الترمذي عقيب هذا: إنه منكر، وكذا قال شيخه البخاري.

Rough translation: Al-Tirmithi said after this: It is munkar. And, his sheikh, Al-Bukhari said the same.

Note, I’m not necessarily trying to weaken the narration, since this has been already achieved. But rather, I’m trying to make it more clear that these statements are the same statements that can be found after the hadith of the “house of wisdom”, which implies that we are indeed dealing with the same hadith.

Al-La’ali al-Masnu`ah, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), vol. 1, p. 332

This reference actually lends more support to the argument that scholars refer to both texts as one hadith. We find on page 331, the following:

حديث علي أخرجه الترمذي وحديث ابن عباس أخرجه الحاكم في المستدرك

Rough translation: The hadith of Ali has been narrated by Al-Tirmithi, and the hadith of Ibn Abbas was narrated by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak.

Al-Suyuti then quotes the hadith of Al-Hakim, or rather the hadith of Ibn Abbas, yes, the hadith of the “city of knowledge”. He then spends about a page and a half discussing the strengths and weaknesses of this specific version. Finally on page 333, he quotes the hadith of Ali, from Al-Tirmithi, with the text of “house of wisdom”, and then says that both hadiths strengthen each other.

These actions by Al-Suyuti imply that he didn’t have access to a copy of Sunan Al-Tirmithi with “city of knowledge” in the text.

Although Ibn Taymiyyah does not consider the hadith reliable – and his view is thoroughly refuted in Nafahat al-‘Azhar (vol. 12, p. 132) – he is still aware that al-Tirmidhi has narrated it in the words of “city of knowledge”. If he believed that this hadith was absent from the Sahih then he would not have lost the opportunity to say so to strengthen the position of his argument.

Ironically, this led me to dig through Minhaj Al-Sunnah to find the reason as to why Ibn Taymiyah referred to this hadith as such.

Right after the quote, I find the following:

وذكره ابن الجوزي وبين أن سائر طرقه موضوعة

Rough translation: And Ibn Al-Jawzi mentioned this and how all the chains are fabricated.

Which led me to Al-Mawdoo’aat by Ibn Al-Jawzi, in which I found him titling the chapter:

الحديث العاشر في ذكر مدينة العلم

Rough translation: Hadith Number Ten: The City of Knowledge

Ibn Al-Jawzi spends the next few pages weakening each of the chains of the hadith, and among them a few hadiths with the text “house of wisdom” and “house of fiqh”. This implies that scholars used to refer to all these hadiths are the hadith of “city of knowledge”.

Ibn al-‘Athir can also be seen ascribing the ‘city of knowledge’ version to al-Tirmidhi:

Jami` al-‘usul fi ahaditrh al-Rasul, Ibn al-‘Athir (d. 606 AH), vol. 9, p.473

As in the case of Subul al-Huda above, the modern editor of Ibn al-‘Athir’s book, `Abd al-Qadir al-‘Arna’ut, in a footnote to this entry says that the wording of this hadith according to al-Tirmidhi was “I am the house of wisdom (dar al-hikmah) and ‘Ali is its door.”

This implies that a leading scholar such as Ibn al-‘Athir either considered the two ahadith to be identical, or mistakenly attributed the wrong version to al-Tirmidhi. It could also mean that al-Tirmidhi quoted this hadith in some other work of his, other than his Sahih (also called Jami`).

A more likely possibility is that Ibn al-‘Athir knew the “city of knowledge” version to be in al-Tirmidhi’s Sahih but al-‘Arna’ut had to offer the explanation because he could not locate the hadith in it.

The most likely explanation is the simplest one. It is that Ibn Al-Atheer didn’t differentiate between the two, and if he did, he would’ve included both versions in Jami’ Al-Usool.

Similarly, there is another book that gathered the usool and put them in one place. Al-Mizzi (742 AH), quotes the hadith of the “house of wisdom” and attributes it to Al-Tirmithi, in Tuhfatul Ashraaf (9/333). Of course, there is no mention of the “city of knowledge” in the book at all.

One of the main reasons in which the scholars apparently referred to both hadith as one apparently started from as early as the times of Ibn Hibban. In Al-Majrooheen he says:

عمر بن عبد الله الرومي: شيخ يروى عن شريك يقلب الاخبار ويأتى عن الثقات بما ليس من أحاديثهم لا يجوز الاحتجاج به بحال. روى عن شريك عن سلمة بن كهيل عن الصنابحى عن على عليه السلام قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” أنا دار الحكمة وعلى بابها فمن أراد الحكمة فليأتها من بابها “. رواه عنه أبو مسلم الكجى. وهذا خبر لا أصل له عن النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام ولا شريك حدث به ولا سلمة بن كهيل رواه ولا الصنابحى أسنده. ولعل هذا الشيخ بلغه حديث أبى الصلت عن أبى معاوية فحفظه ثم أقلبه على شريك وحدث بهذا الاسناد.

Rough translation: Omar bin Abdullah Al-Rumi: A sheikh that narrates from Shareek, he flips narrations and he narrates from thiqaat what doesn’t look like their hadiths. It is forbidden to use him as a hujjah. He narrated from Shareek from Salama bin Kuhail from Al-Sanabihi, from Ali alaihi alsalam: The Prophet (pbuh) said: “I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its door, so who wishes for wisdom should come through the door.” Abu Muslim Al-Kijji narrated this. This hadith is a fabrication attributed to the Prophet (pbuh), Shareek didn’t narrate this, nor did Salama bin Kuhail, and nor did Al-Sanabihi. It seems as though this sheikh heard this hadith from Abi Al-Salt from Abi Mu’awiya, memorized it, then attributed it to Shareek and narrated it with this.

What Ibn Hibban means by the hadith of Abi Salt, is the “city of knowledge” hadith. This implies that the original fabrication was the “city of knowledge” hadith, which was then narrated by other liars as the “house of wisdom”. Apparently, this is why the scholars would refer to both as one, of course, that and the fact that some of them chose to summarize.

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin is evidence from a well-known contemporary scholar and his usage of the terms “city of knowledge” to refer to the hadith of Al-Tirmithi. Al-Albani, in Al-Silsila Al-Da’eefa (6/527), under the hadith of the “city of knowledge” mentions that the hadith can be found in Sunan Al-Tirmithi:

أما حديث علي، فأخرجه الترمذي واستغربه، وقد بينت علته في تخريج المشكاة (6087)

Rough translation: As for the hadith of Ali, it was extracted by Al-Tirmithi who found the hadith as strange, and I pointed out to the flaws in the takhreej of Al-Mishkaat (6087).

In conclusion, we found that the scholars of hadith would at times refer to hadiths with similar wording by referring to it in a single name. We found this to be the case with the hadith of the “city of knowledge”. The statements of Al-Suyuti indicate that there was a difference between the hadith of Ali, which is narrated by Al-Tirmithi and the hadith of Ibn Abbas, and yet, refers to both at times with one name. We also found that Al-Tirmithi and Al-Bukhari rejected the hadith of the “house of wisdom”, and according to the author, rejected the “city of knowledge” hadith as well. If that was the case, then why can we find only one hadith in Sunan Al-Tirmithi? Why aren’t both removed? Or why aren’t they both left in if the grading of both hadiths are the same?

Inshallah this is sufficient for the followers of Ahlul Sunnah and inshallah this clears the doubts surrounding this issue… and alhamdulillahi rab al-a’alameen.


Filed under Articles, Clarification about sunni hadiths, Exposing, Rebuttals