In Search of Orthodox Islam 6/11

A'udhu billahi min ash-Shaytan ar-rajim, Bismillah, ar-Rahman, ar-Raheem. Al-hamdu li-Llahi Rabbi 'l-Alameen, bari' al-khala'iqi ajma'een. Wa as-salat wa as-salam 'ala asharafi al-Anbiya'i wa 'l-mursalin, Sayyidina wa Nabiyyina wa Habibi qulubina wa Tabibi nufusina, wa shafi'i dhunubina Abi 'l-Qasimi Muhammad. [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa 'aali Muhammad]. Thumma as-salatu wa as-salam 'ala Aali Baytihi at-Tayyibin at-Taharin al-Madhlumeen. Wa la'anat Ullahi 'ala a'da'ihim ajma'een min yawmi 'adaawatihim ila Yawm id-Deen. Amma ba'd, faqad qal Allahu Tabaraka wa Ta'la fi kitabih, wa Huwa asdaq ul-Qa'ileen. Bismillahi, al-rahman, al-Rahim. "Wa a'tasimu bi habl Illahi jami'an wa la taffaraqu wa adhkuroo ni'amata Allahi alaykum idh kuntum aa'daan faallafa bayna quloobikum fa asbahtum bi ni'amatihi ikhwaana, wa kuntum ala shafa'a hufratin min an-naar fa anqadhakum minha, kadhalika yubaynu Allahi lakum aayatihi la'allakum tahtadoon" (3:103). Salawat ala Muhammad [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa 'aali Muhammad].

Tonight we begin discussing the concept of Al-'Adalah (Justice) and Al-Imama (The Imamate) in the madhab [legal school] of Tasha'yyu in the Ja'fari madhab; and time permitting, we will also attempt to show the role and importance of the Ahl Al-Bayt in in in in in Islam with evidence from Qur'an. We will attempt to prove that the Ahl Al-Bayt 'alayhum as-salam, were not merely learned, noble individuals that Muslims were meant to respect and love and seek spiritual advice from, but were meant to be the rightful heirs to the Prophet and the possessors of the knowledge of the Qur'an and the Prophet and to be the leaders of this Ummah. And that the suffering of the Ummah today is largely the result of having lost their importance in Islam.

I should also mention that from tonight onwards, I will be attempting to condense two lectures in one so you will see me referring to notes, and this is only to help us cover as much ground as possible in the interest of time. All Muslims agree that the first and foremost principle of their belief is Tawhid - that there is no god but One: Allah, Subhana wa Ta'ala, 'azza wa jal, wahdahu la shareek la na'budu illa Iyya. Thereafter, all Muslims agree that just as Allah sustains those that he creates and meets their physical needs, He also would not hold them to account unless He sustained their spiritual need. It would not be merciful and wise or just for Allah to call us to account for our deeds if He did not provide the necessary means for our guidance.

And therefore, from the day He created humans on this earth, just as He provided air and food and drink for them, He provided Hidaya or guidance, and He sent Prophets and successors to these Prophets one after another. And when you read the opening verses of Surat al Baqarah where He talks about the creation of Adam, He tells Adam and Hawwa when He sends them to the Earth, that "Guidance shall come to you from Me. And whoever follows this guidance, they shall neither fear nor shall they grieve" (2:38).

So this is a promise from Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala and all Muslims agree as a second principle of Islam, that all the Prophets and messengers came one after the other until Allah sent his final Messenger, Muhammad Al-Mustafa, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad]. Thereafter all Muslims agree on a third principle, which is the principle of Ma'ad or Yawm al-Qiyamah, that death is not the end and that there is a life after death and that all humans, without exception, will be resurrected and called to account for their deeds and thereafter placed in an abode of eternal bliss or punishment.

Now we the Shi'a do the same with our children. We teach them Tawhid, Nubuwwah and Ma'ad, but thereafter we add two other principles in our Usul ad-Deen: al-'Adalah and al-Imamah. Al-'Adalah is not an independent Usul or 'Asl. It is a branch or a subcategory of Tawhid. And al-Imamah is not a separate idea in Islam, but it is a subcategory of Nubuwwah, to demonstrate continued divine leadership as per the promise of Allah, that He will continuously send guidance.

Now, the reasons the Shi'a felt the need for this is because they found that the majority of the Muslims, even though they believed in the justice of God, their understanding of 'Adalah was very different from that of the Ahl al-Bayt 'alayhum as-salam. And likewise, as I shall demonstrate, the Muslims believe in Imamah as well. Yes, Sunni Muslims believe in Imamah as well. But the concept of Imamah was different from that of what the Ahl al-Bayt 'alayhum as-salam, insisted on and therefore to highlight this difference - because these were fundamental differences - the Shi'a added them and said our Usul ad-Deen are five. And so now we teach our children Tawhid, 'Adalah, Nubuwwah, Imamah, and Ma'ad.

Now, we need to go back to a bit of history to understand how theological schools in Islam and 'aqidahs formed. The initial Muslims who lived at the time of the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, for the most part, were illiterate. There were very few individuals in that time who could read and write, and most of them had converted from idol worship. But their thinking had not yet developed to a point where it would arouse curiosity and that they would engage the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. in rational or theological or philosophical debates. For the most part, it was mere faith and taking everything at face value. By the time Muslims woke up and began this journey of knowledge and curiosity, the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. had gone. And Muslims now broke into three groups: those who claimed to follow the Ahl al-Bayt 'alayhum as-salam, they began taking their questions to the household of the Prophet, and asking them for what they could or would have asked the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. and those who were not attached to the house of the Prophet, they broke into two groups.

Some of them had to now fend for themselves and look for answers, either from the Qur'an and Hadith and - failing which - from other sources outside Islam. And some of them rejected the idea of taking anything outside Qur'an and Hadith as blasphemous and therefore insisted on a literal interpretation of Qur'an and began insisting that if you do not know the answer to something in Islam, then God does not want you to know it, and therefore you should remain silent on it because investigating this will only harm your faith. A clear example of this, is a case when a man came to Imam Malik, the founder of the Maliki school, and he asked him about a verse of Qur'an from chapter 20, verse 5, he said Allah says: "Ar-Rahman 'ala al-Arsh istawa" (20:5), the Merciful Lord sat on the throne; established Himself - istawa 'ala al-Arsh. He asked Imam Malik, "How does Allah sit on the throne?" Now, the response - and I've seen two different versions - one was that Imam Malik said "amma astawa fa ma'loom" - as for "sitting," we know what its meaning was. But amma kayfa istawa - as for how He sat - we don't know, "fa su'al bid'ah", so the question is an innovation.

Imam Bayhaqi in his book "Al-Asma wa as-Sifat" and Ibn Hajar in his "Fath al-Bari" have a more graphic description. They say when the man asked Imam Malik this question, he broke into a sweat before he said "Sitting is known, but how is unknown." And then he quickly added, "You are an evil man and a man of bid'ah for asking such a question. Then he began shouting and saying, "Take him out of here." And the questioner was held by the hand and taken out of the mosque.

Now, the understanding here was that - the problem here was - that if Allah was revealing something, was His intention in revealing that to say "I am going to reveal things in the Qur'an that I don't want you to understand." Allah created humans with the curiosity for knowledge, and He knew human nature that if I say something to them, they will want to understand it to the nth degree. They will keep asking until they understand. And therefore, this is exactly what happened in the history of Muslims. The idea that su'al of this sort is bid'ah did not work. Even the illiterate began asking out of curiosity, and it was impossible to pacify this curiosity.

And therefore there came a time when those scholars who represented this theological school that interpreted things literally and discouraged questioning and Kalam in philosophy, which was the theological school for the majority of the Muslims and was known as the Ash'ari school, they now were forced to engage in debate and find answers to the question. It was only for so long that they could push back and not answer these questions.

Now, let's go back a little further and take history even before the formation of the Ash'aris. As I discuss how these theological schools came to be, I want you to observe that Muslims, when they left the Ahl al-Bayt alayhum as-salam, and they had to find answers for themselves. As I speak, observe: Are they drawing answers to their questions only from Qur'an and Hadith?

And was that principle of Hasbuna kitab Allah [Sufficient for us is the Book of Allah] working for Islam, or are they looking outside Islam and finding answers that would justify, to the questions that they are being asked? And then I want you to observe how the political authorities of the times used these theological concepts from the scholars to their political advantage. We are told that in the early days of the Sahaba, there wasn't so much of this idea of pursuing theological questions and asking philosophical questions.

After the battle of the Siffin, when a group broke out from Amir al-Mu'minin 'alayhi as-salam, and came to be known as the Khawarij. The Khawarij were not simply people who were hateful to Imam Ali. They evolved into a theological school where they had certain ideas and principles of Islamic theology. For example, one of their principle was if you commit a sin, you cease to be a Muslim, and you must read your shahada again to be a Muslim and that no one has the right to rule and have authority except Allah, la hukma ila li-Llah, and so on and so forth. But still, it wasn't as developed. After the battle of Karbala during the time of the 4th Imam, alayhi as-salam, and so on, as Muslims were now realizing that the Sahaba were dying and that knowledge of the Prophet was being lost. And the second caliph, as we shall discuss tomorrow night, time permitting, had put a ban on recording of Hadith. There was now a scramble to save whatever could be saved from the knowledge of the Prophet. And because of that long lapse when Hadith was prohibited, a lot of fabrications came in, and Muslims had to work hard to sift these and find what is authentic and what is not.

Those in the community who were well read in Hadith naturally gravitated and became the 'ulama of that community. Amongst them was a man known as Hasan al-Basri. Hasan al-Basri was a Sufi - or is held in high regard by the Sufi - but he was also a theologian and a lot of Muslims looked up to him for an understanding of Islamic theology. Over time, one of his students broke away. His name was Wasil Ibn 'Ata, and he formed a new school in which he defined very clear principles of Islamic theology. And it is said that Hasan al-Basri, when he found out, he said, 'iatazilla 'anna Wasil, "Wasil has separated himself from us." Now because he used the word "'iatazilla" from that came the word Mu'tazila. And therefore, that school came to be known as the Mu'tazilites.

Now, I don't have the time to go through all their principles, but the primary idea amongst the Mu'tazilites that is of concern to us in our series of discussion was the idea that humans have absolute free will. They are not held under any compulsion. And the idea that reason is supreme. Unfortunately, they took their idea too far to a point where they made reason even more supreme than scripture, than Qur'an. And as a result of this, there was a backlash. The backlash resulted in the formation of the 'Ash'ari school. Now, there's a very interesting story here that I'll tell you very quickly.

This school of the Mu'tazilites had one great teacher who was known as al-Jubba'i. Al-Jubba'i had a student called Abu 'l-Hasan Al-Ash'ari, who ended up starting the 'Ash'ari school, which became the theological school for the majority Muslims that we call Sunni Muslims. One day, Abu 'l-Hasan al 'Ash'ari asked his teacher, al-Jubba'i, "Tell me what happens to three boys - or three brothers - one grows up to become an adult and leads a righteous life, one grows up to be an adult and leads a sinful life, and one dies as a baby in infancy. Al-Jubba'i told him, "The one who grows up and leads a righteous life will go to Paradise. The one who led a sinful life will go to the Fire of Hell." He said, "What happens to the baby?" Al-Jubba'i said, "The baby will also be in a safe place." He said to his teacher, "Will the baby have an opportunity on the Day of Judgment to ask Allah to be elevated in rank like his brother, who was righteous?"

And al-Jubba'i said "No." He said, "Then the baby will complain to Allah that "O Allah, if you would have left me to live and I would have grown up, then I could have had the same status as my brother in Paradise." To which al-Jubba'i replied that Allah will say to him, "The reason I took you away is a baby is because I knew that if you grew up, you would be sinful and you would not make it to paradise. So what you have is better than the fire of hell." To which Abu 'l-Hasan al-'Ash'ari said "Then the brother who went to hell will say to Allah, 'Then why did not kill me in my infancy?'" Now, when the teacher could not reply this question, Abu 'l-Hasan Al-'Ash'ari said, "I wash my hands from this, this whole business of reasoning, rationalizing, philosophizing, this is all garbage."

The truth of the matter is we don't know. Allah knows and we should just take things literally and we have no control. Now, they went to the other side and said there is absolute predestination. Everything you do is from Allah, good and bad, the good you do - it is Allah who does it; and the sin you do is also that Allah that does it - in a sense, you are mere puppets that are acting out something. Now, the Qur'an being multifaceted and I'll explain this idea of predestination and how they justified in a bit - it allowed and supported both the Mutazilites and 'Ash'arites to argue their case. Now, let me give you a quick example.

In Surat ul-Baqarah, just after the Ayat al Kursi, there is a verse that says: "Allahu waliyu alladheena amanu, yukhrijuhum min adh-dhulimati ila an-Noor" (2:257). Allah is the Guardian of the faithful. He takes them out of darkness into light. The 'Ash'ari said, "This is your proof. Allah is the One Who takes you out of darkness into light. It is not your doing. It is Allah's doing. The Mu'tazilites said, "Well, Allah does not take you out forcefully. He takes you out of darkness into light with proofs, by sending Prophets - by sending guidance". Firstly.

Secondly, the verse continues, "wa alladheena kafaru" (2:257), "As for those who are faithless," "awliyauhuma at-taghut" (2:257), "their patrons are the rebels - are the shayateen"[Satans]. "Yukhrijunahum min an-Noori ila adhh-dhulamaat" (2:257), and these shayateen take them out of Light into darkness. Now if Allah was doing everything, then Allah should also have been taking them out of Light into darkness. Why are the shayateen taking them out of darkness into - out of light into darkness. So they would argue like this back and forth. The Mu'tazilites will say that "Look, Allah says: wa ma Allahu yuridu dhulman li 'l-Alameen", Allah does not intend to do dhulm [wrongdoing] on people in the world.

The 'Ash'arites said, "Wait, hold on. When Allah says he does not intend dhulm for 'Alamin [the worlds], it means He does not intend for creatures to do dhulm on creatures. He is not talking about Himself. Why? Because you cannot attribute human attributes to God. God is not human. So when Allah says Allah does not want dhulm for the world, it is not talking about Him. He is saying He doesn't want you creatures to dhulm on other creatures or you to do dhulm on yourself. So the Mu'tazilites came back and said, "Well, if you're saying no human attribute can be referring to Allah, then Allah says: "la takhuduhu sinatu wa na'wum" (2:255) "Neither does He sleep, nor does He slumber". And He also says: "wa Huwa yut'imu wa la yut'am" (6:14), "And He feeds but is not fed." These are human attributes. What does Allah mean when He says this?

He means that humans should try and understand that Allah is not like them, but in the sense that humans understand what being sleepy or drowsy or eating means. So in that same manner, when God says He does not do dhulm, it is in the sense that humans would understand what dhulm is, because it is difficult to accept the idea that God can do as He pleases and we should see it as injustice, but say "We cannot judge!" We will judge as humans because we have a certain idea of what is justice and what is injustice.

The Mu'tazilites went on and argued and said, look, there are so many places in the Qur'an. Allah says: "Kayfa takfuruna bil-Lah?"(2:28). How can you disbelieve in Allah? . Elsewhere He says: "Wa la tamutunna illa wa antum Muslimun?" (3:102). And don't die except as Muslims. Elsewhere, He says: "Inna Allaha la yuhibbu al-mu'atadeen" (2:190). Allah does not love the transgressors. None of these would make sense if He was forcing everything. How does it make sense that Allah tells me, "How can you disbelieve in Me", when you are making me disbelieve? And how can you tell me "Don't die except [as] Muslims" when I don't have a choice? You're going to decide if I die as a Muslim or don't.

But the 'Ash'arites said, "No, wait, Allah says: "Wa ma tasqutun min waraqatin illa ya'lamuha, wa la habbatin fi dhulumati, wa la rabtin wa la yabisin" (6:59). There is not a leaf that falls from a tree except that He knows it. There is not a grain except that He knows it. There is nothing dry or wet but [that] He has already recorded it. Now, if Allah knows everything, then He knows if I am going to do good or evil. And if He knows I am going to do good or evil, then do I really have a choice in doing something that is against what Allah already knows I will do? I am trying to demonstrate to you that the Qur'an is not resolving the theological problems of the Muslims, they need another source to solve the problem.

Now, the 'Ash'arites feared that human knowledge is limited and it is constantly evolving, and if it starts questioning what is divine, it will draw the wrong conclusions. And human knowledge is fallible, so it cannot be used to explain scripture, which is perfect and infallible. And to give importance to reason is a form of arrogance because it contends the idea that humans have the ability to rationalize God's words and God's knowledge.

How can you, a human, understand what God is saying? But then the question that it begs is, then, why does God reveal something that is impossible for me to understand? Unless He knows my capacity and he is revealing it intentionally to - knowing how I will understand it and how I will interpret it.

They also argued that if you delve too much on philosophical issues, then you will now start introducing ideas from outside Islam, from the Greeks and from others, and this will pollute the original Orthodox Islam. And it will weaken your faith. You will stop believing in the miracle that the Qur'an describes, you will start relying on science, and therefore it is not a good idea to ask too many questions, but rather be faithful and accept the Qur'an at its face value. This was the idea that was being pushed.

So one of the problems with the 'Ash'ari school, which represented the majority of the Muslims, was this literal interpretation of everything. "If Allah says in the Qur'an he is got eyes, or hands, or anything like that, or his face, and there's lots of such references, we don't know in what way He has a face or hands or eyes, but we should stop there and say He says He has eyes. He is got eyes. We don't know how. But don't ask questions because you will go astray." The other problem that the 'Ash'ari school caused was this idea of predestination.

They had to explain how do you convince me that Allah is going to force me to commit a sin and then he is going to put me in the fire of hell? How is that fair? So they struggled with this for a while, and then they had a very popular scholar called Imam 'Ali Ghazali. Imam Ghazali wrote a book to oppose philosophy, "Tahafat ul-Falasifah" [The Incoherence of Philosophers], but he was a brilliant man, he was very well versed with theology. And he studied philosophy thoroughly to oppose philosophy. And he is said to be the man who broke the back of philosophy in Islam, and brought people back to this traditional scripture - you know, belief in Islam.

He came up with this idea of "Kasb". He used a verse of Qur'an - the last verse of Qur'an - that says: "La yukallifu Allahu nafsan illa wusa'aha. Laha ma kasabat wa 'alayh maktasabat" (2:286). "Allah does not impose on a soul anything above its capacity for it is what it earns and against it shall be what it acquires". Now from this "laha ma kasabah" and 'iktasabah', he came with this idea of 'Kasb'. 'Kasb' is "to acquire."

What he said is that everything that happens happens with the 'irada of Allah. So Allah wills something and then He inspires you with that will and it comes to you like a thought. And then you do Kasb of the thought - you acquire it and make it your own, and then you act it out. And because you have acquired that thought and acted it out, now it is yours, and therefore you can be punished for it. But the original inspiration and will comes from Allah, Subhana wa Ta'ala.

And I know you are not convinced. Now, some of you are not convinced because you are comparing it to what you are getting from the Ahl al-Bayt alayhum as-salam. Some of you are just thinking from it logical, but Ghazali is not done. He has another argument to further his proof, so we have to allow that. He argued that only God creates. And man does not have even the power to produce any effects on his actions, so God also creates the power in you, the Kudra, and He creates the choice, the "Ikhtiar". All you do is you act it out.

Now, here is an example. A man writes on a paper with a pen. Allah creates in the man's mind the will to write, and He gives him the power, the Kudra, to write. And then this brings about an apparent action of writing which the man acquires as his own action. Man's freedom is therefore only a consciousness of freedom in himself, just so that he can be held responsible for his actions that God accomplishes in him, because man now claims it to be his own. He says, I did this, I wrote this letter, but in fact, it is original that he doesn't realize came from Allah.

Now philosophers, they like to stir the pot. So they began raising problems. They said, "OK, if that's your theory, that's good. Now we have a question. What happens if my action is involuntary? If I slap an orphan, wa al-yadu bil-Lah [I take refuge in Allah from that] Allah inspired me with the idea and give me the ability, then I acquired it and begin thinking it is my own. And then with that idea and intention that it is my own, I intentionally slapped him. So now I deserve to be punished. But what happens if I am walking besides an orphan in my hand moves in by accident, I slap him. Now, there was no thought, there was no idea, there was no intention. How did I acquire this?

Let me give you another example. If I am going down a flight of stairs and I intend to go down, Allah inspired me to go down the stairs and gave me the ability to go down the stairs. And then there was Kasb where I acquired that idea, and then I thought, it is my own, and I went down the stairs. But supposing I am standing at the edge and - again, wa al-yadu bil-Lah [I take refuge in Allah from that], I fall down the stairs. Then how did the Kasb happen? Because Allah may have inspired me, but it never really got to me, and before that, I fell down.

So, the problem was that the 'Ash'arites said, "If you say man has free will, then he will commit evil, because now he is not held. And if he commits evil, then the question is, does Allah have the ability to stop him or does He not have the ability to stop him? If He has the ability to stop him, then that's.. He is stopping him. So that predestination, if He doesn't have the ability to stop him and He leaves him, then Allah is now allowing evil to spread. And that points a finger at Allah's omnipotence, you are taking away Allah's ability and power and saying this man can now do as he pleases.

The Mu'tazilites and the Shi'ites argued that in the process of trying to say that Allah cannot be held back and that Allah can do as He pleases and Allah cannot be questioned for His justice in trying to save the omnipotence, and Allah's will and ability to do as He pleases, His Kudra, you are ascribing dhulm to Him. So it became now this or the other.

Now, over time, there were other schools that formed that resembled 'Ash'ari but resolved some of these issues. One of the schools that formed was called Al-Maturidi. It was founded by a man called Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi. Al-Maturidi was a much better version, a new and improved version of the 'Ash'ari school because it followed the 'Ash'ari school of giving scripture more importance than reason, but it also believed in free will.

But most of the Muslims did not adopt the school of Maturidi. Why? Because Maturidi resided in Samarqand, which was away from the centers of intellectual activity. It was only after the Turks came into Central Asia and they converted and became Hanafis, that they adopted the Maturidi school and it started propagating in Islam, but it never really caught on. Today, when you say "Ahl us-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah," their 'aqidah is a mix of three - there are some who are 'Ash'ari, there are some who are Maturidi, and there are some who are there are some who have a third that is called the Athari school.

Besides the 'Ash'ari and Mu'tazali and Khawarij and Maturidi and Athari there were other schools that were formed in Islam. There was the Qadriyya, there was the Jabariyya, there was the Zahariyya, there was the Jahamiyya, there was the Murjahiyya, there was the Wahadiyya, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And every one of these schools argued and fought on very fine, or sometimes major philosophical issues. Some argued man is free, some argued man is not free.

Some argued the Qur'an is eternal because the Qur'an is the speech of Allah. Therefore, you cannot say it is created because it is as eternal as Allah is. Others argued that, no, if you say the Qur'an is eternal, that means Allah has been saying the Qur'an for all eternity. So even the historic events in the Qur'an, even before He created the world, He has been saying it and He is still saying it now. Now, it would imply that even now Allah is saying: "Tabbat yadah Abi Lahab" (111:1), but He was also saying "Tabbat yadah Abi Lahab" (111:1) before he created Adam.

They argued about whether committing a sin takes you in Islam or out of Islam. They argued about anthropomorphism. Is God a physical entity or is He not a physical entity? What I am trying to show to you and explain to you is, do you see how a lot of these schools formed not with some divine guidance, but through social political circumstances? For example, the Maturidi school would never have formed had it not been for the Turks coming to Central Asia and converting to the Hanafi Maturidi school. Those who are learned in the society presented ideas, they challenged each other. They thought this way and that way, they brought their proofs and different schools and began forming. And now we shall see that for political reasons, some of them survived, and some of them got squashed and became extinct.

What is more plausible to you, my dear brothers, Shi'a and Sunni? Is it more plausible to believe that the right theology and Aqidah is one that formed by accident through social political circumstances? Or is it that Aqeedah that says that there are divinely appointed heirs to the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam? You see, when you speak of Imams appointed by Allah, some laugh at it, and see it being an incredulous idea. Where is the proof of this in the Qur'an?

But the arguments that the Shi'a bring is this. If Allah's intention was that He would not be sending any other Prophets after the last Prophet, and He will not be revealing any other Books, then He must make some arrangement to ensure that the Message of this last Book and this last Prophet is not lost and that knowledge of that remains, otherwise, it is unfair and unjust. Why would Allah continuously send guides and Prophets from Adam to the final Prophet, to Khatam, and then suddenly go offline and disappear from human race, and leave people to their own devices to figure out who should succeed the Prophet? Whom should we follow? What is the answer to all these philosophical questions? What should we do when we can interpret the Qur'an? What is Sahih, what is not?

You figure it out. And then on the Day of Judgment, what are the chances, statistically, that most of us would have found the right path and known the right interpretation of what Allah had intended to be the final Religion, from the final Prophet? There has to be some arrangement that Allah should have made for guides who would continue and be the true heirs of this knowledge and to answer the questions that Muslims and Islam would have.

If science evolves through circumstantial reasons, that is okay, because science is constantly evolving, science can say this today and then change its mind and say that tomorrow. If the famous scientists and philosophers who come to rise came about only because of certain circumstances being in the right place at the right time, that is also okay, because it is a human science.

But religion speaks of the salvation of the soul for all eternity. It does not sound reasonable and common sense to believe that you will stumble on the right doctrines and follow the right path, either through accident and through just things happening by someone being at the right place at the right time, but not being divinely appointed. Are you with me? All right, if you can recite a salawat 'ala Muhammad wa aali Muhammad [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad].

Now somebody might argue and say that these schools that form did not form in a vacuum, they were formed on the basis of Qur'an and Hadith. Our argument is that may be the case, but the majority of the Muslims are Ash'aris. But the other schools were also based on Qur'an and Hadith. The Qadiriyya also used Qur'an and hadith to prove their point. The Mu'tazilites also used Qur'an. The Jahimiyya also used the Qur'an. So now how, do you determine who is using Qur'an and Hadith correctly and who is not using Qur'an and Hadith correctly?

A simple example. What the Shi'a said was that there is a house that is the house of the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. This is the house that Allah has elevated in the Qur'an. And this is the house of Wahy, where the revelation comes. And that is your one stop to all the answers and wars of the Muslims.

A simple example. There is a story told that imam Abu Hanifah once went to see Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq, salawat Allahi wa as-salamu alayh [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad]. And once you, when he got there, there was a line of people waiting to see the Imam. So he had to sit outside and wait for his turn to have the audience with the Imam.

Now, while he was sitting outside, he saw a young boy playing with a goat or just talking to a goat, a pet goat. And the boy was saying to the goat "usjud li Rabbik", "Prostrate before your Lord." Now, Imam Abu Hanifah was very touched by this, that a boy so young is so concerned about sajda and he his telling this creature "usjud li Rabbik", so he said, let me pass my time and see, sometimes you ask a question to a child and they tell you something that is profound, right?

So he asks this child the question that he had for Imam Al-Sadiq. He says, tell me, when we commit a sin, who is causing the sin to be committed? The boy said to him: O Abu Hanifa, there are only three possibilities, either God is causing the sin to be committed and the man is merely the puppet. Or God and the man together are committing, so he is referring to the principle of Kasb; God is inspiring him, and then he is taking Kasb and acquiring it and then he is acting it out. So they are partners in committing the sin. Or the man is committing it himself. If God is committing it, then that is dhulm (wrongdoing). He is committing the sin, but He is punishing the man. If they are partners, God is inspiring him, but he is acquiring it, then the more powerful partner is punishing the weaker partner, which is also unfair.

So the only answer is: the man is free. And this just blew him [Abu Hanifa] away. He said, who are you, my child? He said, I am Musa Ibn Ja'far [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad]. So to which we are told Abu Hanifa stood up and said, "I do not need to see Ja'far Al-Sadiq, I have got my answer" [Subhana Allah].

A principle like Kasb that is holding this whole fort, an Imam from the Ahl Al-Bayt as a child, answers it like that, because this is the House of Wahyy (revelation) - Knowledge, comes to them from a source that is "ladunni" ['Ilm al-ladunni], it is huduri [by presence] not usuli. Now, let me explain for my Sunni brothers and sisters, what is the Shi'a Aqeedah (creed)? The most salient feature of the Shi'as has always been that Allah has not abandoned His creation. If a message is to remain relevant, there must always be a proof. We have a Hadith in our books that says: "lawla al-Hujjah la sakhat al-ardh". If at any point in time the world is without a proof of Allah, the earth will collapse. It cannot be without a proof of Allah. And this Hujjah inherits the knowledge of the Prophet and the Qur'an and preserves the Message and guides mankind.

And these proofs are the Imams from the Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam. Now, the Shi'as believe that because this House is the House of Knowledge, every science for which you want knowledge, you will get it from this one House. If you look at the Non-Shi'a school, you will find that in every science, the experts are different. If you want to theology, you will have to go to Abu 'l-Hasan Al-Ash'ari or you'll have to go to Al-Maturudi. If you want Fiqh, you will have to go to Abu Hanifa or Ahmad Ibn Hanbal or Imam Shafi' or Imam Maliki. If you want tafsir [quranic explanatory annotation], you will have to go to Zamakhshari or Razi or someone else. If you want mysticism, you will have to go to Junaid al-Baghdadi or you will have to go to Hasan al-Basri, or Ibn Arabi. Right.

Any science you want, you will have to go to different people. But in the Shi'a faith, if you want Aqeedah [creed], you go to Ahl Al-Bayt. If you want Fiqh [jurisprudence] you go to Ahl Al-Bayt. If you want tafsir, you go to Ahl Al-Bayt. If you want mantiq [science of classical logic]... Anything you want, you go to Ahl Al-Bayt. Anything you want, they will answer your question. So for the Shi'as it is simple, but it is beautiful, that this is one place. Not only in terms of dogma, and belief, and theology, and jurisprudence, but even politically, the principles and governances of all these Imams is the same.

You look at the governing style of Imam 'Ali, you look at the uprising of Imam al-Husayn, you look at the mission of the Mahdi, alayh as-salam, when he returns, you will find that in all the Imams, the principles are the same to establish justice, to establish 'amr bi 'l-Ma'roof [encouragement of Good], tpo establish nahy an il-munkar [prohibition of Evil], it is the same.

Furthermore, the Shi'a say that the Imams not only play a role in this world, but they also play a role in the lives of their followers in the Hereafter. They guide them in the Hereafter as well. They intercede for them. They are their Wasila, they do their shafa'a [intervention on the Day of Resurrection]. And the Shi'a are therefore always encouraged to keep that connection with their Imams, by going for pilgrimage, and visiting their graves even whilst in this world.

The other point that the Shi'as emphasise is that the 12 Imams, along with the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, and his daughter, Sayyida Fatimah, alayha as-salam, these 14, they call them Infallibles, Ma'sumin, alayhum as-salam [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad]. You will find no contradiction in any of them [Subhana Allah], which is something you will not find in any other school of Islam. Any school of Islam, there are differences, there are contradictions. You study Fiqh, for example, of imam Abu Hanifa, imam Shafi', imam Maliki, imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, there is differences. But it is not possible that Allah revealed for Shari'ah's.

But you take the Fiqh of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib, you take the Fiqh of Zayn Al-'Abidin, you take the Fiqh of al-Baqir and As-Sadiq, you take the Fiqh of ar-Ridha', it is the same [Subhana Allah]. There is absolutely no contradiction to the point that in our books of Hadith we are told by our Imams that if you have a Hadith from one of us and you are certain this is authentic, but you don't remember which one of us said it, you can quote any one of us [Subhana Allah]. Look at the level that it isin.

And we have books of Hadith that were recorded at different times in our history. You can go read our books and the Ahadith that we say are authentic, you will not find contradictions, particularly in Aqida. The ideas of anthropomorphism, predestination, free will and all these things, you will not see a contradiction, 'Ismah and so on.

There was a very famous companion called Aban Ibn Taghlib, at the time of the fourth, fifth, and sixth Imam. Aban Ibn Taghlib summarized the most beautiful definition of who a Shi'a is. He said, 'The Shi'as are those who follow only the Sunnah of Rasul Allah, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. But when the Muslims disagree on the Sunnah of the Prophet, then they refer to 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib - Subhana Allah. And when the Muslims dispute and differ on what 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib said, then they refer to Ja'far As-Sadiq'.

This is the definition of a Shi'a. It is the most perfect example, and as I mentioned previously, that the Imams are merely conveying the knowledge of the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam.

A common opinion found amongst the imams of the Shi'as is that moderation and middle course in all matters is the answer to all things. So, for example, when Muslims who are fighting are humans free or are humans under predestination, when the imams like Imam As-Sadiq was asked, 'What is your opinion? Are humans free or are humans held under compulsion?' He said, 'La jabr wa la tafweet, bali 'l-amr bayna al-amrayn' - The matter is between two matters - and this became a Shi'a principle. Al-Amr bayna al-Amrain.

Humans are neither completely free nor completely held. The man said, 'I don't understand'. The Imam said, 'Stand up!' He stood up. He said, 'Lift a foot.' He lifted a foot. He said, 'Now lift your second foot.' So, he said, 'I can't.' He said, lifting your first foot is your free will, not being able to lift your second foot. That is where you are held by Allah. In other words, there are things that you do not control: where you are born. You can you have the free will to go out and work but, whether you will earn a living or not is not in your control. You have the free will to exercise and eat healthy, but how long you will live is not in your hands.

So, whereas the Mutazila spoke of absolute free will and here the spoke of absolute compulsion, the Ahl Al-Bayt offered a middle course. When they spoke of God's speech, the Imam said that the Qur'an is created but, Allah's speech is not like human speech; when Allah wants to express something, his will, He expresses His will by creating speech in anything He wants. So, when He wants to create speech for Musa, He created through a burning bush. When He wants to speak to His final Prophet, He speaks through a curtain of light during the Miraj. So, He creates speech in any form He wants.

The Imam said that one who sins does not come out of Islam but faith alone is not enough for salvation because, some of the schools said what is important is faith, actions have no bearing. They said your actions will help you to attain salvation and faith is primary, but actions are the fuel that cause faith. And they used the Qur'an to argue the point: 'Ilaihi yas'adu al-kalimut tayyib, wa al-'amalu as-salih, yarfa'uhu' (35:10). To Him ascends the good word and your actions lift it up.

The Imams also said that God keeps his promise, you see, the argument from the Ash'ari was, you cannot say that God will have to put all the good in Paradise and have to put all the evil in Hell, because if you say He has to, you are compelling Him and Allah cannot be compelled: 'La yus'alu 'amma yaf'alu wa hum yus'aloon' (21:23). He is not questioned about what He does. The Imams of the Ahl Al-Bayt said, 'Yes, it doesn't mean he is compelled, but, 'kataba ala an-nafsi ar-rahma', He has imposed it on Himself that He will act with justice and mercy. And therefore, He will keep His promise because He says in the Qur'an: 'inna Allaha laa yukhlifu al-mi'ad' (3:9).

The other school, said that even if Allah says he is going to keep His promise, He doesn't have to keep it. Do you see the beauty of the school of the Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam?! The Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam, argued that if Allah does not intend to keep His promise, and if keeping His promise is not important to Him, then on the Day of Judgment, why would He have judgment, and accounting, and witnesses, and all this whole court session? He could say in my 'ilm ul-ghaib, I know who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. But the reason He holds a court session, and He holds accounting, and He has proofs and witnesses, is because humans judge themselves in that manner, with a lawyer, and a witness, and a court, and a judge. So, He wants every human to be comfortable that Allah has not been unfair to me [Subhana Allah]. It does not mean He is compelled by that.

Now, these sort of perspectives were only found from the Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam. So, they always chose this middle ground, on the argument of reason versus revelation. They said revelation is primary but revelation will never contradict reason. Because Allah made 'aql [intellect] as well, that He will guide you through your 'aql as well. And the Ahl Al-Bayt taught us that nothing is bida'a or blasphemous to ask. You can ask any question you want [Subhana Allah!] 'Sa'luni, sa'luni, qablan tafqiduni!' - Ask me, ask me, for I know the ways of the heavens even better than I know the ways of the Earth.

This is who? This is Amir al-Mu'minin. He used to go out in the dark night to where the wells were. And he used to cry. And he used to talk to the well and water would froth. And he would tell Kumayl 'Inna ahuna 'ilmun jama'! O Kumayl, there is tremendous knowledge here. If only I would find people to whom I could share and give this knowledge [Subhana Allah!] . The second Khalif used to refer to Amir al-Mu'minin and he used to say, 'Lau la 'Ali, la halaka Umar', but there is no record of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib asking anyone a question or information. So, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam, were not meant to simply be people of nobility to be loved, but were meant to be guides and the answers to the questions that the Ummah had.

Now, there were other points that I was going to discuss that I am going to have to leave because my time is out. One was just to give you more examples of Ghazali and the arguments he had with philosophers, and how the philosophers would argue, for example, that the earth or the world was eternal or, how God does not know the particulars or, denying corporal resurrection and, why the arguments of the philosophers were compelling. And, you know, what was the opinion of the Ahl Al-Bayt on these matters?

And I was also going to explain on this issue of 'Kasb' that, when Ghazali wanted, even though he was opposed to philosophy, when he couldn't find a reasonable explanation of how Allah inspires you with something and then causes you to sin, he found an idea from the philosophers that was called Atomism. And those of you who are interested can go search for Atomism. It is actually a Greek idea that the Mu'tazilites brought into Islam. And Ghazali was opposed to philosophy. He was opposed to the Greeks bringing ideas and polluting Islam. But this idea of Atomism was perfect for him. He could use it for Kasb because, at a very high level, it suggested that everything is made up of atoms, and the atoms are constantly pulsating into existence and nonexistence. And he developed this idea to say that the whole world is coming into existence and then vanishing out of existence every moment.

And therefore, Allah is recreating the whole world and the universe every second and every moment, every split second, you are disappearing and coming back into existence. But Allah has this sunnah or practice or a'da that when He brings things back into existence, He brings it exactly where it left off from. And because He is recreating everything, therefore, He is the creator of every action. And at every moment as He recreates these actions, some of these actions come to you as inspirations and you therefore acquire them as Kasb. And then there is obviously answers to this.

I also have a lengthy list of how different scholars and the non-Shi'as opposed science, opposed philosophy, opposed rationality. Let me just quote a few examples. Some of these are a little humorous. One of the scholars, we know, for example, that during the time of Ma'mun, he promoted the Mu'tazilites, and he had an inquisition called 'mihna' and he punished anyone who would refuse the Mu'tazilite school. One of those who objected to the Mu'tazilites was Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and Ma'mun had him flogged and imprisoned. After Ma'mun, when Mutawakkil came, he reversed it and he established the Ash'ari school and he did the opposite and he punished those who rejected the Ash'ari ideas. Anybody who said the Qur'an was created and not eternal like God, he put them to death. And there is a whole history of why these rulers wanted these schools and how it benefited them politically.

Now, I am just struggling as to how I will make the time for this, because I didn't want to continue with this subject tomorrow. But as an example, Ahmad Ibn Thawwaba, who was an orthodox jurist, he said, 'O, Allah, I seek refuge with You from geometry, protect me from its evils'! Ghazali said, Ghazali said in his book, Fatihat Al-'Ulum, he rejected mathematics and he said, 'Fuqaha [jurists, legal scholars] should only learn arithmetic so they can calculate the collection of religious taxes of zakat'. So, you should only learn arithmetic, but not mathematics. OK, and a hadith was created that said, ',There is no benefit in the science of medicine and there is no truth in the science of geometry and the science of logic, and natural sciences are heretical, and those who practice them are heathens'. Now, then, there is a whole history.

Our concern with all this discussion is that this idea of predestination, this idea that God does everything, was used by the Ummayads to say that, look, if we rule over you, it is not that we chose to rule over you: It is Allah predestined us to be your rulers [Subhana Allah]. If Yazid killed Husayn, it is not that Yazid wanted to kill Husayn but, Allah inspired him with the idea and he had no choice, he had to do it. So, these sort of ideas were used to justify their actions.

Now, they forged a lot of hadith to justify that, if someone oppressive rules over you, then it is forbidden on you to rise against him because this is God's will and all you are doing is dividing the Ummah.

I want to come to an end very quickly, but listen to this hadith, it is from sahih Muslim. Sahih Muslim reports that the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, said: 'After me will come imams who will not guide like me and who will not practice my Sunnah. And there will be people whose hearts will be like devils in the form of human beings". And the Rawhi asks the Prophet, 'What should we do if I see that, what should I do? If I see these rulers who don't guide according to your Sunnah and who are devils in human form? What should I do? And Rasul Allah said to him, 'Isma'a wa atee li 'l-Amir', listen and obey your Amir, your commander, even if he whips you and usurps your possessions, continue obeying him''.And Sahih Muslim has an entire chapter called 'The Importance of Staying with the Majority'.

So, our entire discussion is based on this one issue, to say that orthodox Islam, originally, did not allow for such a meaning for justice and leadership. And that this is unnatural.

There's an author called Nigel Tillman, he has a book called 'History of Islamic Theology'. He says the reason Islam was able to thrive is because the Prophet of Islam preached a religion that called for communal salvation-seeking as opposed to individual salvation-seeking. He say:' if the Prophet would have thought Islam is something that you follow as an individual, then eventually this individualism God-seeking would have run dry and would have held an appeal to only a few people. But there the reason Islam spread so fast and became a global religion is because Islam was based on this idea that you seek salvation as a community'.

He then goes on to say: 'if this is true, then those who held power after the Prophet realized this, either consciously or subliminally, that if they are going to hold an empire over the Muslims, over different cultures, different tribes, different nationalities, different ethnicities across Arabia, Africa, all over the world, the only way they can hold this authority is by presenting a religious authority over all of them and making it about a religious thing, not just a temporal or worldly reign'. Now, he says: 'the early Khalifs, it was not difficult for them because they were Sahaba, and they knew religion, but the later rulers from the Ummayads and Abbasids, they did not have the religious knowledge to present themselves as religious authorities. So, this was difficult for them.

So now what they needed was, one: they needed a theological school that had ideas that they could manipulate and use to their advantage. The second thing they needed was jurists and scholars and clerics who will defend their stand, and they also used people who forged traditions that would help their cause. They had read in the Qur'an that the Qur'an says: "Man yuti'i ar-Rasul faqad ata'a Allah" (4:80) - Whoever obeys the Prophet, he obeys Allah. And therefore they decided we will not call ourselves kings. We will call ourselves 'Khalifat Ar-Rasul', initially but later on they called themselves 'Khalifat Allah', we are the Caliphs [Khalifa] of God, meaning, we are chosen by God and our rule is a religious rule. The oppression and tyranny you see is the will of God. And it is a crime for you to rise against us and oppose us. The Prophet condemned and said stay with the majority because if you dispute you will be destroyed like those before you.

Now, Nigel Tillman gives an example of one theological school that was called the Qadariyyah. He says the Qadariyyah opposed Ash'ari school. They argued for free will. And they also said that the rulers don't have to be from the Quraysh because, the Muslims were saying that the Prophet said after me, there will be 12 imams and all of them will be from Quraysh. And the Banu Ummaya and Banu 'Abbas were arguing that we are from the Quraysh. The Qadariyyah were arguing that the rulers don't have to be from Quraysh and humans have free will. There is no predestination. Now, this put the Ummayads on the defensive. When they put them on the defensive, they tried to discredit the Qadariyyah. What the Qadariyyah did was they started bringing proofs from the Qur'an to show that they were right. So, now, what the Ummayads did was, they said the Qur'an is sealed off, we can't interpolate and change it. The only room we have is to forge Hadith. And they had clerics, what in Urdu we loosely use as Dabari, Mullah, Dabari, whatever, who would forge things for them and propagate these ideas that served their purpose. So, hadith was definitely forged.

Someone messaged me today, and I apologize for taking more time. He said to me that there is a Hadith, this is a Shi'a brother who is having a discussion with a Sunni brother right now as we are having these lectures in these nights of Muharram, which is very refreshing to know that the discussions are continuing offline. And it is not even in Canada, it is in the land very, very far away. And he says in having these discussions, the Sunni brothers said to him that the Prophet, salla Allah alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, said, help your Muslim brother, whether he is oppressed or he is an oppressor. And so the Sahaba said Ya Rasul Allah, we understand how we should help our Muslim brother who is oppressed, but how should we help our Muslim brother who is an oppressor? And the Prophet said help him by hindering him from oppression, by stopping him from oppression.

Now, the Sunni brother is asking, is, is arguing and saying that, look, if the Sahaba would not have asked for this clarification, if they would not have said, Ya Rasul Allah, how should we help the oppressor, and if the Hadith had only said help your Muslim brother, whether he is an oppressed or an oppressor, then the meaning would have been very different. But we now have the context of what the Prophet was trying to say because of the question of the Sahaba. And therefore, if we see a Hadith, that does not make sense, let's not say the Hadith does not make sense and is false, that the Prophet said obey the commanders even if they are unjust, because maybe there is an explanation for it and a context for it that we don't understand.

The only way we should tell if Hadith is authentic or not is through the chain of transmitters. And as we said the other day of what, you know, the Imam in the US said, if you knock out Bukhari, you knock out the Shari'ah, the Sunni brothers said the same thing. He said, if we start saying this hadith doesn't make sense, that hadith doesn't make sense, then the Shari'ah will collapse.

Now, my response to this is this: Number one, the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, would never leave something ambiguous. If the Sahaba would not have asked this question. I believe the Prophet himself would have clarified it. He would have said to them, do you understand what I mean when I say help the oppressor, because he is not supporting oppression.

Secondly, if there is only one hadith, we can put it aside and say maybe there was a context we don't understand. But what happens if there is entire chapters in the Sihah that are encouraging obeying a ruler who is unjust? How do we explain them?Thirdly, if there is a way to explain them, then what is that explanation? Give it to us. We are willing to listen. Fourthly, what if someone forges a Hadith that is false but uses a chain of transmitter that is authentic? Is that not possible? Anyone who is an expert at forging will have the common sense to make sure that his chain of transmission is ironclad and solid so that you can't poke holes at it. And fifthly, did the dynasties in Islam take advantage of these traditions that don't make sense to us, or did they not take this?

Now, I want to wrap this up and say. I am asking this question very, very sincerely to my Sunni brothers and sisters, and I really would appreciate an answer just for my knowledge and increase.

Let us suppose that we accept that Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are absolutely authentic, and the hadith that says that, if an oppressor rules over you, then rising against him is a crime, it is absolutely authentic. Now, let us suppose a Salafi comes to you because the Salafis, when you talk to them about Imam Al-Husayn, they either tell you it was a fight between two princes or they tell you Husayn was wrong in rising against Yazid.

Now, you are a Sunni Muslim. You are opposed to the Wahhabis. The Salafi Wahhabi comes to you. He tells you, brother, Husayn was wrong in rising against Yazid, it was his fault even if he was the grandson of the Prophet. You say, that is not true, Husayn rose for justice. He rose against oppression. Yazid was a vile man. Yazid uttered words of kufr, Yazid was a wine drinker, a womanizer, a gambler. It is not possible. Now he gives you this hadith. It tells you, the grandfather of Husayn said it is a sin to rise against the ruler even if he is a sinful man and unjust oppressor. How are you resolving this issue in your mind? This is the question I have and I am not asking to be presumptuous. I am asking sincerely because, my understanding is that such traditions do not cause a problem for us and we can ignore them all our lives.

But there could be times in our lives where we face a trial. And at that point in time, we will be confused or waver. If we don't have the answer. Let us imagine that we lived in the time of Imam Al-Husayn. And let us suppose in the time of Imam Al-Husayn Bukhari and Muslim existed. And Imam Al-Husayn rose and went to Karbala. If I was a Muslim who believed Bukhari and Muslim to be absolutely sahih and these traditions to be sahih, what would I have done? Would I have followed the words of the grandfather of Husayn believing them to be true? Or would I followed Husayn if he tells me this Hadith is not true?

So it becomes a dilemma. And this is why I am saying that these sort of beliefs on Adalah, on justice, on leadership are the single cause of the downfall and suffering of Muslims in the past. And it is the single idea and cause of all the negative image and the pitiful state that Muslims are in today. Because as I showed you, the Qur'an is being misinterpreted to justify wrongdoings. But it is difficult to argue against them because the Qur'an opened itself to multiple interpretations.

And this is what I have been saying all this nights in saying that the Shi'as have a concept of Adalah and Imamah that can help insulate the Ummah from any attempts by our enemies to radicalize us and prey on our, the minds of our young. I haven't been trying to say that the Sunnis are prone to terrorism or that there is something in them that makes them radical. I am trying to say that in the Shi'a understanding, there is this very clear cut, that you never support an unjust ruler and any such hadith is immediately rejected. Injustice, is rejected by Sunni Muslims as well. But the Shi'a emphasize it uniquely and with greater emphasis in their right and from the Imams, alayhum as-salam.

So I want to end by saying that in Nahj Al-Balagha we have some short sayings of Amir Al-Mu'minin, alaihi salam, where he talks about, the importance of the Ahl Al-Bayt himself. One of the sayings is, he says that, even though you see the world turning away from us and you see different groups rising with different ideas in Nahj Al-Balagha, he says this world will turn back to us, the Ahl Al-Bayt, after having turned away from us just like a young camel, turns back to its mother for milk.

And we have in Hadith, as well, that after every government and every rule and every ideology and every school of thought has come and gone, then our school, the School of the Ahl Al-Bayt, shall be the last and it shall show itself as being the original Islam.

There is another beautiful and final Hadith Imam Ali, alayhi as-salam. He says, we, the Ahl Al-Bayt, are the people in the middle. If you have anything in your understanding of Islam that is more extreme and goes beyond us, then come back. And if you are falling behind, then catch up with us. Because we are the people in the middle. So I am going to leave it at this idea of we are the people in the middle because in the Qur'an, Allah says, in one place: "Kuntum khaira ummatin ukhrijat li 'n-nas" (3:110) and another place, He says: "Wa ja'alnaakum ummatan wasata" (2:143), 'And we have made you the middle Ummah'.

Now, Muslims argue that when Allah says you are the best nation that has ever been brought forth, it is a reference to all the Muslims. And when Allah says that We have made you a middle nation so that you may be a witness over all mankind and the Prophet may be a witness over you, this is the Muslims.

I shall continue this tomorrow night, and demonstrate that these verses actually refer to the Ahl Al-Bayt, alayhum as-salam, because, I want to present an argument to show that is this idea of imams, from father to son, the same as nepotism and dynastic monarchies and what is hereditary? I am not sure how I will condense everything, but in sha' Allah, we will continue from where we left off tomorrow night, in sha' Allah. If you can recite salawat 'ala Muhammad [Allahumma salli 'ala Muhammad wa Aali Muhammad].

Salla Allahu wa sallama alayka ya Aba Abdillah. Ruhi wa arwahu al-'alameena laka al-fida'. Ya laytana kunna ma'akum Sayyidi, fa nafuzu fawzan adheema.

Tonight is the sixth night of Muharram. And up until last night, we have been offering our condolences to the Household of the Prophet Salah Allahu alayhi wa sallam, regarding the As-hab and Ansar of Husayn, 'alayhi as-salam, and we shall talk about the As-hab and Ansar again on the night of Ashura, in sha' Allah. But tonight, we begin paying our respects to the family of Husayn and the Banu Hashim. And as we said, amongst the shuhada in Karbala, there were 18 members from the Household of the Prophet from the Banu Hashim.

The one difference between the As-hab and Ansar and the Family of the Prophet is the As-hab and Ansar were all grown up men with experience in battle. The Family of the Prophet, many of them were children. Which begins to tell us why the As-hab and Ansar went first, besides the fact that those who went after suffered greater thirst and the loss of their loved ones of the As-hab and Ansar. And tonight, we want to talk about the two sons of Umm ul- Musaihib, Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, 'Awn and Muhammad.

Before we talk about 'Awn and Muhammad, I want to say a few words about Umm al-Masa'ib, Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam. I heard a respectable scholar saying that, the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam had taught his family to always love the children of other members in their family as opposed to their own children.

And he went on to say that Allah had blessed the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam with a son who was called Qasim. And on one occasion, the Prophet was seated and on his lap, on one hand, he had his son, Qasim, and on the other hand, he had Husayn. And Jibra'il came to him and said, ya Rasul Allah, Allah will take away one of these two boys but, He has given you a choice that you can choose if he should take Qasim or he should take Husayn.

And the Prophet of Allah said to Jibra'il. If one of them has to die, then I give up my son, Qasim, but not my Husayn. Now, the rawi [narrator] says that Jibra'il asked the Prophet and said, "Ya Rasul Allah, why are you giving up your son, Qasim, but not your grandson, Husayn?" He said, "Because Husayn is Fatimah's son and it will hurt Fatimah immensely if Husayn dies."

He says, this set a precedent and a practice in the Ahl Al-Bayt, that you always love the children of others in your family more than you love your own. And he says for this reason, you will find that Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, loved 'Aliyun Al-Akbar more than she loved her own sons. And on that premise, you can be rest assured that 'Awn and Muhammad were very dear to Husayn, because these were the children of Zaynab.

Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, was very precious to her father as well, and that is why she was given such a beautiful name, because it is made up of two words, Zain and Ab. Zain is adornment, beauty and Ab is father. She is the adornment of Amir Al-Mu'minin, and she radiates that character in every sense, even when she speaks in the court of Kufa, people think Amir al-Mu'minin is speaking!

But the books of riwayat [narrations] tell us that from the time Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, was born, she was very, very close to Imam Al-Husayn. She was inseparable from her brother. She was close to her brother, Hasan. But there was this bond between this brother and sister, that no one could understand. Some of the Arbab of Aza' say that when Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, was a baby, if she would get restless and cry and no one could calm her down, they would give her to Husayn. And the moment Imam Al-Husayn would hold his sister, she would calm down.

When Imam Ali, 'alayhi as-salam, gave his daughter Zaynab to Abdullah Ibn Ja'far, one of the conditions he set with Abdullah Ibn Ja'far was, I give you my daughter in marriage on the condition that you will never separate her from Husayn, and that if Husayn ever has a journey and leaves Madinah, you will allow her to go with Husayn. Because, Amir al-Mu'minin can look into the future.

And so we are told that, when this qafilah [caravan] left, Madina and Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, went with her brother, Husayn, according to some reports that initially 'Awn and Muhammad were not with them, they were in Medina. And when Imam Al-Husayn was in Makkah, Abdullah Ibn Ja'far sent these two boys because he fell ill. He had intended to come to Imam Al-Husayn, but he sent the boys with someone, with a note to Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, to say, I am not able to come and join this qafilah, but keep these two sons with you because they may come of help to Husayn, 'alayhi as-salam. And so these children journeyed with Husayn, 'alayhi as-salam from Makkah towards Kufa until the day of Ashura.

On the day of Ashura, the night of Ashura, we are told that after Imam Al-Husayn, 'alayhi as-salam, had spoken to all his As-hab and Ansar, and they began worshipping Allah, and there was a hum in the camp of Husayn, tasbih, and tahleel and the dhikr of Allah, Imam Al-Husayn, 'alayhi as-salam, decided to take a walk and move around the camp.

And as he began walking around, we are told he came to one tent where he saw Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, sitting in the khayam [tent] and in front of her were her two little sons. 'Awn was 11 years old. Muhammad was only 9 years old. And she was talking to them and encouraging them and motivating them and saying, "Look, my sons, 'Awn and Muhammad, tomorrow, there shall be a battle. My sons, you are the grandsons of Ja'far At-Tayyar on one side, and you are the grandsons of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib on the other. I want you to show the shuja'ah [courage] of Ja'far and 'Ali tomorrow. My son's, when everyone goes for jihad, make sure you don't hold back!"

And Imam Al-Husayn was weeping as he saw how excited these two boys were. And they were saying to their mother, "Mother, just get us permission from our Uncle Husayn. By Allah! We shall make you proud and you shall see the kind of jihad we do!"

Now, these are boys who have not been trained in battle. When the sun rose on the day of Ashura and the As-hab and Ansar had gone and now it was time for the Aqraba'a [relatives], the first one to go was Husayn's son, 'Aliyun Al-Akbar, and in age they kept going down until only 'Abbas was left. We are told that every time 'Awn and Muhammad saw Imam Al-Husayn alone, they wanted to ask permission. And every time they came to Husayn, he intentionally turned his face away. He purposely ignored them so that they don't have the opportunity to ask their uncle, can we go for jihad?

There came a time when Husayn called out after the body of Qasim had been trampled, he called out to the children and said, "Come help me lift the body, of Qasim," then, Zaynab asked her sons, "My son's! Qasim has become Shaheed. Why are you still waiting?" They said, "Amma [Urdu: mother], we keep going to our Uncle Husayn. He does not give us an audience."

Now look at what Zaynab, 'alayha as-salam, does. She puts on some new clothes on 'Awn and Muhammad. Then she puts kohl on their eyes. This is a mother dressing her sons for death. Then she ties swords on the boys. And as they walk, the swords are dragging on the sands of Karbala. Then she holds her two sons and says, "Come with me." Ajrukum 'ala Allah [May Allah reward you].

When Husayn saw Zaynab coming with the two boys, he knew why Zaynab had come. He began to protest and say, "My sister, Zaynab, you will need these boys after me." She said, "No! O Husayn! No one will harm you as long as my sons are alive." [H]e said, "O Zaynab! Abdullah may not be pleased with this." She said, "No! O Husayn. Abdullah sent them for this Day." When she insisted and Husayn had no choice, we are told he began hugging his 'Awn and Muhammad and he wept profusely. Then he said to 'Abbas, "Abbas, these boys have no experience in battle. Help them prepare for battle."

Now the sun of Karbala witnessed once more, 'Abbas is teaching 'Awn and Muhammad how to fight. He begins telling them, "Look, Awn, when the enemy comes from the right. This is how you fight. Look, when the enemy comes from my yasaar [left], this is how you strike your sword. Look, when they come from my manna [right] this is how you fight. The boys were given some training from Abu Abbas.

It was now time to leave for the battlefield. But they were so young; they could not mount the horse themselves. So, Husayn lifted one child and put him on the horse and 'Abbas lifted the other onto the horse. The boys did widaa' [farewell] to Zaynab. They bent down their heads to their mother. And the books of Aza' said, 'Zaynab kissed the forehead of her sons. She said, "Al-widaa'" Then she said, "My sons 'Awn and Muhammad! Look, when you are fighting in the battlefield, don't go close to Furat [River Euphrates]." Ajrukum 'ala Allah. Then she said, "Look, 'Awn and Muhammad. If while fighting you end up going towards Furaat, then don't forget Sakina and Asghar are still thirsty. My sons, do not shame me before Zahra'! Do not drink a sip of water!"'

'Awn and Muhammad, ajruku 'ala Allah, they go out to the battlefield. Husayn is watching their jihad. Young as they are, in them rages the blood of Ja'far At-Tayyar and 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib. The enemies are fighting them but the boys continue to fight. We are told, they begin to fight together in unison. If an enemy comes towards Muhammad, 'Awn warns him and says, "O Muhammad! Look behind you." If an enemy come towards 'Awn, Muhammad warns him, "My brother 'Awn, look behind you!".

There came a time, though, a shakik came and struck Muhammad, and Muhammad began falling. When he fell, Muhammad called out to his brother 'Awn and said, "'Awn! Come to my aid!" Now, the books of Aza say, 'Awn began calling. He said, "Ya Muhammad! La taj'al. O, Muhammad! Do not die! O Muhammad! Wait for me!" 'Awn began fighting. When 'Awn began to fall, he began calling out to Husayn, "Ya Amma! Adrikni!".

But the books of Aza' say the colour on Husayn's face changed. Husayn lost strength on his feet. Husayn and 'Abbas stood up. They ran out to the maidan [Persian, Urdu: battlefield]. They brought the lash [Urdu: corpses] of two young boys back to the khiyam. Shaykh 'Abbas Qummi, in his 'Nafas ul-Mahmum' says, 'When 'Aliyun Al-Akbar's lash [Urdu: corpse] came, the women came out doing ma'tam, Zaynab was in front of them. She was crying, "Wa walada! Wa qillat an-nasira!". When Qasim's body came, the women came out doing ma'tam. Zaynab was in front again calling, "Wa walada! Wa qillat an-nasira!"'.

Shaykh 'Abbas Qummi says, 'but when 'Awn and Muhammad came, the women came out doing ma'tam, Zaynab was nowhere to be seen'. Zaynab is in the khiyam in sujood. Zaynab does not want Husayn to feel ashamed. She is calling out, "Rabbana taqqabal minna! Adha al-qurban!"

The Day of Ashura came to an end. Sham-E-Ghariban [Persian, Urdu: Night of Sorrows]. Rabab was crying for 'Aliyun Al-Asghar. Farwa was crying for Qasim her for I was crying for Qasim. Zaynab did not cry for 'Awn and Muhammad. Zaynab was crying, "Wa Akha! Wa Husayna!". The sun rose the next day. Umar Ibn Sa'd said, "Take the women through the battlefield, let them see their loved ones on the hot sands". Farwa threw herself on Qasim. Umm Kulthum threw herself on 'Abbas. Zaynab did not throw herself on 'Awn and Muhammad.

Zaynab fell on the body of Husayn. "Wa Akha! Wa Husayna!". Zaynab went to Kufa. She cried for Husayn. Zaynab went to Sham. She cried for Husayn. The Ahl Al-Bayt were released from the prison of Sham. The heads of the Shuhada came, every lady from Ahl Al-Bayt took the head of her child. The women of Sham began to ask, "Is the mother of these two heads not alive?" Zaynab was holding the head of Husayn. "Wa Husayna!".

Zaynab went back to Madina. Now she went to the qabr [grave] of Rasul. Yes, she cried, "Jadda! [Grandfather] I have returned, but without Husayn." But she did not say, "Ya Rasul Allah. I lost my 'Awn and Muhammad." Zaynab went to the qabr of Fatimah. She cried at the qabr of Fatimah, "Amma! if there were no mahram, I would show you the marks of ropes on my head. Amma! I would show you the lashes of Shimr on my back!" But Zaynab did not say, "Amma! I lost my 'Awn and Muhammad."

But there came a time when Zaynab had to go home. Abdullah Ibn Ja'far saw an old lady standing outside. Her back was bent. He came out and said, "Ya Amat Allah! Hal laka hajah min aja? (O servant of Allah! Is there anything I can do for you)?" Zaynab removed her niqab, "Abdullah! My condolences for your sons, 'Awn and Muhammad." Zaynab went into the house. I do not know how Zaynab saw the room of 'Awn and Muhammad. It is at that point that Zaynab may have sat between the their beds and cried, "Wa walada! Wa 'Awna! Wa Muhammada!