Misbah-uz-Zulam, Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

This book discusses the causes of the tragedy of Karbala’ and it will also throw light on numerous other matters, which are yet unknown to the vast majority of Muslims.

Miscellaneous information:

Misbah-uz-Zulam Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy 
 Author: Sayyid Imdad Imam
 Translated by: Sayyid Athar Husayn S. H. Rizvi
 Publisher: Ansariyan Publications
 First Edition: 1388 – 1430 – 2009
 ISBN: 978-964-219-103-1

Dedication

In The Name of Allah The Beneficent, The Merciful

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the worlds. And benedictions upon His beloved, Muhammad and his purified Progeny

I humbly state that this book, Misbah-uz-Zulam, is written with the sole intention of research and it is not intended to hurt anyone’s feeling. Through its perusal, unprejudiced people will easily understand the causes of the tragedy of Karbala’ and it will also throw light on numerous other matters, which are yet unknown to the vast majority of Muslims.

I rely on Allah and He is sufficient for me, the best of the masters and the best protector.

The Author

Arab Civilization on the Eve of the Prophet’s Arrival

When the Holy Prophet (S) arrived, a part of the Arab land was under Iran’s rule and a part under the Byzantine government. The remaining areas were ruled by tribal Chiefs (Shaykhs). Mecca and Medina were similarly under the rule of their respective Shaykhs. The Sheikhdom of Mecca was in the family of the Holy Prophet (S), who were called Bani Hashim; but their other relatives, Bani Umayyah, were having more power and wealth. There was no love lost between Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashim. Yet there had been no major bloodshed either before or after the arrival of the Holy Prophet (S).

The ways of life of these two tribes were not similar. Normally the Bani Hashim were faithful, brave, kind, generous and sincere, whereas the Bani Umayyah were remote from all these attributes. Though both belonged to Quraish tribe, their behavior was very different from one another. If a comparison between to people each from the said two clans is made, the difference will be quite obvious. For this purpose let’s take up the case of Abdul Muttalib from Bani Hashim and Abu Sufyan from Bani Umayyah. All knew about the courage, faithfulness, kindness, truthfulness, foresight, generosity and thoughtfulness of Abdul Muttalib.

On the other hand, Abu Sufyan had nothing to do with these virtues. He was a selfish, evil, greedy, a malicious drunkard and a mischievous fellow. Besides many other virtues, the generosity of Abdul Muttalib was so great that he was prepared to fulfill the need of the needy before the latter could even describe it fully. It had also happened that this chief of Bani Hashim was once about to leave for Syria with trade goods, when at the last moment a needy fellow came to his door and asked for a big amount in charity. Abdul Muttalib at once complied with his request and could not undertake his trade journey due to lack of funds.

Even the greatest enemy of Abdul Muttalib is unable to show that he had on any occasion grabbed anyone’s wealth or had ever fled from the battlefield or behaved badly and unjustly with anyone or wished evil of anybody or drank wine or committed adultery etc. Undoubtedly, such evil deeds can never be committed by a man from whose loins, the two divine radiances, viz. the radiance of Muhammad (S) and the radiance of Ali (a.s.) were to be transferred to the loins of Abdullah and Abu Talib (r.a.). Doubtlessly, Abu Sufyan did not posses these graces.

Obviously, this book is not aimed to abuse anyone, otherwise, many sour affairs would have to be recalled; then if Abu Sufyan is to be compared with Abdul Muttalib it will be asked: Can a dead lamp be compared with the bright sun?

Similarly, if a comparison is made between Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with the son of Muawiyah, the distance between the behaviors of Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah will become all the more obvious, even to the unaware. Lastly, if a comparison is made between Marwan bin Hakam, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik, Sulaiman bin Abdul Malik, Hisham bin Abdul Malik and Walid bin Yazeed bin Abdul Malik and people like Imam Zainul Aabideen, Imam Muhammad Baqir, Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and other members of the holy family of the Prophet, the difference between good and evil will become crystal clear.

In Bani Umayyah tribe, a man named Marwan looks like the head of all mischief- makers of the world. Then Hakam bin Aas, Walid bin Uqbah etc. were also outstanding examples of the character of Bani Umayyah. The truth is that almost all the people in this tribe, with the sole exception of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, are such that to call them humans is like killing humanity.

Religion of Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammad

Three religions were prevalent in Arabia at the time of the arrival of the Holy Prophet (S). One was the religion of polytheistic Arabs, who worshipped idols in the worst way. Another was the religion of Christianity, which was in a very bad condition as it had ceased to be a divine religion and the third was the religion of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) (i.e. religion of the Jews) which had also deteriorated like Christianity. In short, the entire land of Arabia had gone completely astray. In these circumstances, it was a demand of Divine Mercy that the Holy Prophet (S) should be appointed by Allah.

But the religion of Muhammad (S) could not spread and grow easily and many calamities befell the Holy Prophet (S) in Mecca. Bani Umayyah people were bent on opposing God. They could not kill the Holy Prophet (S) so long as Abu Talib (r.a.) was alive. But after the death of this kind and caring uncle, the idol-worshippers made all preparations to kill the Holy Prophet (S). Among the apostates of Mecca, the greatest enemies of the Prophet were these very Bani Umayyah.

At last, after suffering many troubles, he left Mecca and migrated to Medina. The people of Medina gave him a warm welcome and accepted the Divine religion in large numbers. Against all hopes, Islam gained roots and flourished in Medina and the people of the native Mecca remained deprived of this blessing. Strange are the affairs of Allah! How strange that a deadly enemy like Abu Jahl was from the native place of Mecca! The Holy Prophet (S) did get refuge and peace in Medina and many Medinites also became Muslims with a sincere heart, but this flourishing of Islam became extremely intolerable for Bani Umayyah and other unbelievers of Mecca.

So Bani Umayyah did everything to harm both the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah. Abu Sufyan advanced to Medina many times, accompanied with an army, and also fought the Muslims of Medina in several battles, but always failed. Almighty Allah did not allow His religion to be destroyed.

Finally, Abu Sufyan and other apostates of Mecca became tired and sat put at home. The Battle of Hunayn shook the Bani Umayyah severely and made the devil powerless. We should remember that it took ten years for the Prophet to weaken Bani Umayyah and it was only his military acumen and intelligence, which controlled such a rebellious tribe. But alas and again alas! After a little while, Bani Umayyah not only regained their lost strength but also gradually became the rulers of all the territories of Islam and it was as a result this, that one of their rulers caused the massacre, which is now remembered as the Tragedy of Karbala’.1

It is recorded in history, how Bani Umayyah became powerful once again and I have recounted those events in my book Kashful Haqaiq Vol. 12 and will again mention them wherever necessary in this book. But before I narrate the events of Karbala’, it is necessary to explain the religious conditions of the Muslims of those days so that the events of Karbala’ may also be understood easily. This is essential, because without knowing this, no one can understand the truth about Karbala’.

For instance, one could ask in astonishment: “My God! What is this? When Husayn (a.s.) was the grandson of the Holy Prophet (S), how and why did the Muslims killed him so mercilessly?” But when this questioner knows the facts, his bewilderment will go away and the Karbala’ incident will appear to him natural according to the law of cause and effect. This is a world where every happening must have a cause.

- 1. Refer to books of History

- 2. This book is now out of stock and perhaps not available anywhere.

Worship And Dealings during the Prophet’s Time

Verily, during the days of the Holy Prophet (S), the rituals and dealings of the followers of Islam must have been like that of the Prophet. For example, if he prayed with folded hands, all Muslims must also be doing likewise. The rituals of Hajj and Zakat etc. also should be on this line, because in those days, the Prophet himself must have led them in these matters. Likewise, in the matter of social interaction, Muslims must have been doing as they saw the Prophet do. No doubt, this continued till the end of the life of the Prophet. But when he fell on the deathbed, two great differences arose between him and his followers.

One is called “The story of the paper” (Qissa Qirtas) and another “Opposition to join Usamah’s army” (Takhalluf Jaish Usamah). What happened in the first, according to the author of Sharh Mawaqif,1 was when the moment of departure neared, the Holy Prophet (S) asked those around him: “Bring to me paper, so that I may write down some such things whereby you may not go astray after my passing away.”2

Umar was not pleased with this. So he said: “This man is overpowered by illness. We have the Book of Allah, and it is sufficient for us.” And in Sahih Bukhari, it is written: Due to this dispute, voices rose high, which made the Prophet very unhappy. So he said: “Get up and go away from me. This quarrelling is not good before me.”

In short, the Holy Prophet (S) could not leave any written order after him. A thoughtful look at this story makes it clear that at that moment the Prophet was in perfect senses and wanted to write something. It was never so that due to illness he had begun to utter senseless things.

No, at that time also, he was so conscious and alert that he knew that he was a prophet and was of the opinion that because of his rank, it was not becoming for his followers to raise their voices in his presence. It is not known what he wanted to write. But it must have been something related to religion and was also very serious and important.

The very words of the Prophet indicate that he wanted to do something to save his followers (Ummah) from misguidance. Shias say that he wanted to issue a written order appointing Ali (a.s.) as his successor while Sunnis say he wanted to make Abu Bakr his successor.

But alas! When nothing could be put in writing, there was no other way except to make guesses. If the guess of Ahlul Sunnat is correct, Umar did very much against not only Abu Bakr but also against the entire Ummah, because, had Abu Bakr been appointed as the Caliph in writing, no Muslim could have ever disputed it and there would not have been any tussle about Caliphate in the Muslim world and all the Muslims would have followed one and the same way.

Shias say that the Prophet intended to appoint Ali (a.s.) as his successor in writing and it was so because, only a few months earlier, the Holy Prophet (S) had orally made Ali (a.s.) his successor at a place called Ghadeer Khumm.3 The author intends to give details of Ghadeer Khumm in the following pages, which will show that the claim of Shias does not appear baseless.

Anyway, whatever the fact may be, it does not appear that Umar did anything against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. If Umar was certain that the Prophet was about to make Abu Bakr his Caliph in writing, he would have, instead of preventing the Prophet from such a writing, all the more tried for the conclusion of such a written document, because such writing would surely have resulted in what had happened at the gathering of Saqifah Bani Saada with the support of Umar. But as a matter of fact, Umar too was certain that the Prophet wanted to make Ali his successor in writing.

Ahmad bin Abi Tahir has, in Tarikh Baghdad, quoted a narration of Ibn Abbas that Umar himself had said that the Prophet wanted to mention the name of Ali clearly during his last illness, but that “I prevented it.” That is why he objected. It will be seen henceforth that Umar had always tried to keep His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) away from Caliphate. All know that Umar kept Ali away from Caliphate during his (Umar’s) lifetime very successfully and even after his death, Umar, with his unparalleled political diplomacy, did not allow Ali to succeed as a Caliph. There is no doubt that non-realization of the Prophet’s intention was a great misfortune for the Muslim Ummah, sorrow for Islam and followers of Islam.

“Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.” 4

Had that writing come into effect, Islam would have remained safe from thousands of mischief-makers and would not have suffered any of the calamities, which it is facing?

- 1. He is one of the great Sunni scholars.

- 2. Ref. Sahih Muslim, Kitabul Wasaya and Sahih Bukhari, Chapter I of Kitabul Ilm (Pg. 18)
and Mishkat after Babul Karamaat.

- 3. Refer to books of History.

- 4. Surah Baqarah, 2:185.

Violation of Orders about Usamah’s Army

Another event, which occurred at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) and due to which the Prophet’s intention remained unfulfilled is the problem with Usamah’s army. The Prophet wanted to send an army against the apostates under Usamah’s command, insisting for this so much, that he said: “Anyone who fails to join Usamah’s army, will be cursed.”1

No doubt, had the Holy Prophet (S) lived for a few more days, the said army of Usamah would have confronted the enemies of Islam. But some great companions and so also other Muslims of the time opposed the order totally and therefore the army could not proceed to the apostates and the Prophet did not succeed in his plan. How astonishing that those Muslims preferred to be cursed and sit at home!

What kind of faith is it that the Holy Prophet (S) orders something, but he is disobeyed? Doubtlessly, this disobedience had some special reasons. Apparently, it so appears that had Usamah proceeded with the Islamic army, the gathering, which was held at Saqifah Bani Saada, could not have been held and the matter of Caliphate would have taken and different shape.

In short, only these two events, which occurred near the time of the Prophet’s death, project a picture of serious difference between the intention of the Prophet and the attitude of his followers. No other event of difference seems to have happened at that time, but after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), a very serious disunity came up among Muslims as is even now apparent from the differences in the matter of prayers and social dealings etc.

The first difference to rise among Muslims after the Holy Prophet’s departure was about Caliphate. Dispute arose between the Emigrants (Muhajir) of Mecca and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The Helpers said: “Appoint a chief from among you and one from us.” But Abu Bakr told the Helpers: Did you not hear the words of the Holy Prophet (S)? He had said: “My successor will be a man of Quraish.” This silenced the Helpers.

Then Umar intended to make Abu Bakr the Caliph, but Abu Bakr said Umar should be the Caliph. Umar did not agree to it and hastened to hold the hand of Abu Bakr and announced his allegiance to him.2Along with this, all those who were present in Saqifah began to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Thus, the affair of Caliphate had been decided at Saqifah. But Bani Hashim were not there at all. So the Saqifah people were in serious apprehension regarding Bani Hashim. But as Ali (a.s.) did not appear to intend any serious act [the reason of it seems to be that the Holy Prophet (S) had, in his last moments, asked Ali not to rise against his opponents, so that Islam which was then in its initial stage might not be harmed] Bani Hashim too, like Ali (a.s.) remained calm.

Despite this, the people of Saqifah thought it essential to obtain allegiance from Ali (a.s.). So Umar went to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and took the latter to Abu Bakr. There, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said to Abu Bakr: “You obtained the right from Helpers telling them that, as per the Holy Prophet’s words, the Caliph should be a man of Quraish. Now I demand from you what you obtained from the Helpers, because besides being a Quraishi, I am also a Hashimi and a brother as well as the son-in-law of the Holy Prophet (S) etc.”3 What could the people of Caliphate reply?

Anyhow, when Ali (a.s.) was asked to pay allegiance, he did not comply. Ahlul Sunnat say that Ali (a.s.) paid the allegiance after the death of Lady Fatima (s.a.)4 but Shias deny this claim totally. After looking into all the aspects of Ali (a.s.); moral, monetary and social etc. it appears to me that even after the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) Ali (a.s.) did not pay any kind of allegiance to Abu Bakr, because Ali was very truthful and sincere. Had he paid any kind of allegiance he would not have, in his sermon of Shiqshiqya5, shown so much disgust against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and thereafter, nor would he have shown so much grief.

It is obvious that had Muawiyah, after paying allegiance to anybody, made such a speech against that fellow, it would not have been considered contrary to his nature, because he was quite able and ready to do anything when needed. In a way though Muawiyah was fully trained by the first Caliph yet, when necessary, he would deliver two thousand orations against his teacher very easily in self-interest.

Similar seems to be the attitude of Talha and Zubair, as they themselves have actually shown. That is to say they paid allegiance to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and then broke it and rose against the Caliph. But the nature of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was never of this type. It was never possible for him to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and then getting opportunity, condemn his Caliphate so bitterly as seen in the said sermon. Whoever has looked carefully at the character of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) can very well say that he was very straight-forward and that he could never give allegiance to Abu Bakr and then on another occasion, oppose him in bitter words.

Hence deep thought over this matter shows that even after the demise of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima (s.a.), Ali did not give allegiance to Abu Bakr. Here, I am not concerned with the question of whether the Caliphate was enacted rightly or not. What is intended here is to see what was the effect of this Caliphate on the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)? The immediate effect was that rulership was taken away from Bani Hashim as a result of which, the status which the holy progeny enjoyed during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) remained no more.

In my view, the active beginning of the apparent downfall of the status of the holy progeny commenced from this point. We will be able to show gradually that this disrespect to the holy progeny increased so much that after the insults at Karbala’, the ladies of the holy family were paraded with utter disrespect in the bazaars of Damascus very mercilessly.

Thereafter too, the holy blood continued to be shed and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) descendants (Sadaats) were readily killed. Here, I don’t want to inquire whether or not the Sadaats deserved such treatment. But there is no doubt that the worst behavior was meted out to the holy progeny as can be seen in books of biography and history.

- 1. Refer Milal Wan Nihal by Allamah Shahristani. Also see the last part of Sharhe Mawaqif, Chapter Tanzeelal Kitab (Pg. 746) printed at Naval Kishor Press, Lucknow.

- 2. Ref. Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Muharibeen and Fathul Bari etc.

- 3. Ref. Rauzatul Ahbab, Vol. II, Pg. 33-34

- 4. Ref. Sahih Muslim, Pg. 125.

- 5. Sermon no. 3 of Nahjul Balagha.

A Look at The Phrase: “We Have The Book Of Allah With Us”

It should be remembered that though the insulting of the holy progeny began from the Caliphate affair, it preceded in action with the words of “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) of Umar. It was because the effect of these words created problems, which were never even imagined before and which confronted Islam thereafter.

Of course, the Holy Prophet (S) had already said before his demise that, “I am leaving behind me two weighty things; if you cling to them, you will never deviate from the right path and these two are the Quran and my household.” Yet strangely, these words could not create even one-tenth of effect of what Umar’s words of, “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) did.

No doubt, these words of the Prophet, which are authentic, both in the view of Shias and Sunnis viz. “I leave among you…(Innee Taarikun…)1 are the words of the one about whom Allah Himself says:

“Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed.”2

So all his words were in accordance with divine revelation. Knowledgeable people very well know that it is about this tradition that Shah Abdul Aziz, in his Tohfa, writes: “Verily, the command of the Holy Prophet (S) indeed was such that the nation (Ummah) of Muhammad must cling to these two things viz. Quran and Ahlul Bayt.”3 But the author will now show to what extent did the Ummah do so.

Here, I don’t want to examine whether the words were proper or not, but theaim of this book is to look at the effect of these words of Umar. Apparently, it seems that had the clinging to the holy Ahlul Bayt also been considered as absolutely necessary along with the clinging to the holy book, the history of Islam would certainly have taken a very different turn from both, the religious and political angle. But these three or four words of Umar created a new Islamic world, which still exists in full form.

Though the words of the Prophet give a stern warning, Umar’s words did not allow the Prophet’s words to be acted upon and its scope remained limited to oration (without being acted upon). Had the words of the Prophet been acted upon, neither the event of Saqifah would have taken place nor Bani Hashim would have had to suffer various oppressions, nor would have its respect decreased among the Ummah nor any sects against the beliefs of Bani Hashim would have appeared. So also no events would have ever taken place, which concluded in the martyrdoms of Ali, Hasan, Husayn (a.s.) and many other family members and friends of the Holy Prophet (S).

Apparently, it seems the words of, “We have the book of Allah with us” (Hasbona Kitabullah) freed the common Sunni Muslims from clinging to the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S) and even though, the tradition of Two Heavy Things is, according to the words of the author of Tohfa, a popular tradition among both Sunnis and Shias; Sunnis did not act upon it either in the past nor are they doing so today. This tradition has remained almost like a dead letter in books and nothing more than that. So it is known to all the knowledgeable people that none, except the Bani Hashim and their friends ever cling to Muhammad’s Progeny. If for Sunnis, Muhammad’s Progeny means Lady Fatima, Imam Ali, Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.), I could not find from any book what Sunni do about clinging to these four persons.

The Holy Prophet (S) was not yet buried when Saqifah was held with a great hue and cry. No right-thinking person can call it ‘clinging to the Progeny’. Rather, this event appears to be a direct consequence of Umar’s words. Immediately thereafter, was the hue and cry about taking allegiance from Ali (a.s.), rushing of people to the house of Lady Fatima to burn it down, ugly actions regarding the Fadak property and disrespectful addresses to Ali and Fatima (s.a.) etc. They are all such barbarous deeds, which to a truthful man, look very far from ‘clinging to the holy progeny’!

Similarly, all actions taken during the Caliphates of the three Caliphs (according to followers of the three Caliphs) have nothing to do with the clinging to the Ahlul Bayt. What clinging to Ali was done at the time of the collection of Quran by the first Caliph? How did the second Caliph cling to Progeny in his personal exertions (Ijtihaadaat)? How did the third Caliph follow the Progeny? How did Muslims cling to Imam Hasan’s Imamate? What kind of clinging was observed in the affairs of Muawiyah, when he was the Caliph of the time? How did his successor, Yazeed follow the said tradition? Likewise, what was the manner of following of this tradition upto the time of Imam Askari (a.s.) in obedience of the command of the Holy Prophet (S)? What is apparent is that no one ever cared even to remember the subject of clinging to the holy family.

All the actions after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) have nothing to do with the command of the Holy Prophet (S) at all. What was done was that the members of the holy family were unjustly imprisoned and their blood was mercilessly shed in different periods. In spite of the Ahlul Bayt’s being fully knowledgeable and wise, the non-Imamiyah scholars remained aloof from the orders of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt and are still doing so, details of which will come up hereafter.

O lovers of truth! Can these deeds be called ‘clinging to Progeny’? The fact is that the subject of clinging (Tamassuk) has been only a dead letter in the eyes of non-Imamiyah Muslims. Books show that the non-Imamiyah Muslim have, ever since the first Caliphate until today, clung to the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” This is the phrase, which has left no stone unturned to destroy the holy Ahlul Bayt. It also founded, after disassociating with the Ahlul Bayt, a particular sect which involves all non-Imamiyah and these non- Imamiyah have many different groups which are separately named by Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen.

This phrase has created a big difference in belief between the Imamiyah and the non-Imamiyah regarding Imamate. It is a part of main belief in the view of Imamiyah, while it is secondary in the opinion of non-Imamiyah. The cause for this difference in belief, it seems, is that being the followers of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), the Imamiyah are of the opinion that Imamate is a divine command, on the basis of an argument that when the Holy Prophet (S) passed away from this world, in view of the said tradition, his progeny’s succession is also from Allah and it cannot be otherwise.

The fact of the matter too appears to be so that when his Progeny is included in Thaqalayn there can be no dispute about their being assigned by Allah. In accordance with this tradition (Thaqalayn) the Holy Prophet’s Progeny is either at par with Quran or only a little lower than it. Even if it is lower in rank than the Holy Quran, it certainly is one of the two great things. Despite this lower rank, the holy Progeny is surely not worth total abandonment and so may not be clung to along with the Holy Quran.

The truth is that the Holy Quran and the holy Ahlul Bayt can never be separated from one another. In my opinion, Progeny is higher than Quran because Quran is the argument of Quran whereas Progeny is talking Quran (Quran Natiq). That Ali (a.s.) has said that he is Quran Natiq is a profound evidence for a faithful man to appreciate Progeny as very graceful. Only one who is an opponent or enemy of Ali (a.s.) can deny this.

In short, the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) shows that Imamate is a divine affair. The reason why non-Imamiyah consider it a branch of belief (secondary) seems to be that by the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) the subject of Imamate, which is based on the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn) has been removed altogether. So no wonder if Imamate (which is from Allah) is considered as a dead issue because of the said phrase.

Obviously, when Imamate is not regarded to be from Allah, according to the belief of non-Imamiyah sect, there remains no superiority of rank for the twelve Imams over the four Sunni Imams. Rather, the value of the four is greater than that of the twelve, because all the jurisprudential needs of non-Imamiyah are solely related to those four Imams and they have neither a basic nor a secondary relationship with the twelve Imams. So in their view, the Imamates of twelve Imams cannot be considered higher than the Imamates of Ghazzali and Fakhruddin Razi.

Briefly speaking, the Imamate based on the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) can only be an Imamate, which is from people (as it is in Sunni circles). No doubt, these words of Umar bin Khattab succeeded in their aim and this phrase has virtually negated the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) in practice.

Therefore, the claim of non-Imamiyah, if at all, about clinging to Ahlul Bayt, by the Muslims of the time of Umar or thereafter, or even today is only on lips. This is not astonishing because when the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona…) makes it essential to cling only to Quran, it would naturally result in aloofness from Ahlul Bayt.

Quite opposite is the state of those Muslims in whose belief, clinging to Ahlul Bayt is as binding as clinging to Quran. Obviously, they cannot give up the holy family. Such Muslims, till today, cling to Ahlul Bayt in every matter and they are ever eager to obey the commands of the Holy Prophet (S) fully. But the number of such Muslims was small in the beginning and it is not large even today.

- 1. Ref. Tohfa Ithna Ashariyah, by Shah Abdul Aziz, Vol. IV, Pg. 201.

- 2. Surah Najm 53:3-4

- 3. Ref. Tohfa, Pg. 201.

Beginning Of Imamiyah and Non-Imamiyah Ways and a Brief Description Of Both

In the opinion of the writer, the root cause of sectarian difference among Muslims is this phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). If these words had not been uttered by Umar after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), Muslims would have equally clung to the Holy Quran and the holy Progeny as per the Prophet’s command, but these words took a large number of Muslims away from the holy Progeny and very few Muslims acted according to the Prophet’s tradition. They mainly belonged to Bani Hashim and their friends.

History books show that such Muslims, who had acted according to the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) kept themselves aloof from Umar’s phrase. They not only did not dissociate with Umar’s supporters but also kept a distance from them in every religious affair. Accordingly, when during the time of the first Caliph, they began to collect Quran as per his order, believers in the leadership of Ahlul Bayt remained aloof from them.

Similarly, during the days of Umar’s Caliphate, when personal exertions (Ijtihaad) were being made, they did not join the committees. In short, having clung to the words of the Prophet, these people followed in every affair, only the holy Progeny. Accordingly, they followed the religious commands given by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)

The above events clearly show that the rift created by Umar’s words became wider with the passage of time and gradually two different ways of life (sects) came into being among the followers of Holy Prophet (S), one initiated with the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) and the other with the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). The first is the Imamiyah path, because the natural consequence of following the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) is that one should not follow any leader or Imam of any other community or sect or family but the Imams belonging to the family of the Prophet.

Likewise, the path founded by the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) made it compulsory for its followers to be ruled by non- Ahlul Bayt leaders or rulers; and to be led by the verdicts of non-Ahlul Bayt jurisprudents in religious matters. So, as seen from the books of both the sects, this latter is the sect which, in the second century of Hijra, came to be known as the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and which has not the least connection with the Imams from the family of the Prophet as will be explained in more detail afterwards.

Here it should be understood that when differences began after the demise of the Prophet and non-Bani Hashim people went away from the Prophet’s Progeny and started deriving meanings freely, and religious verdicts (Fatwas) began to be issued accordingly, a path different from the path of the Ahlul Bayt was established.

This school came into being due to a committee of personal exertions (Ijtihaad) founded by Umar, but at that time, it was not given any specific title; similarly, it remained nameless during the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate also. But after him, in the beginning of the second century of the Hijri era, the followers of this path named it People of the Year and Congregation (Ahlus Sunnat Wal Jamaat). The reason of this naming is that Muawiyah had named the year (sanah) in which he had taken away Caliphate from Imam Hasan, as the year of the people (Aamul Jamaat) and the name of the year in which he had initiated cursing Ali (a.s.) in sermons as year of tradition (Aamus Sunnat).

Consequently, the opponents of the Progeny, like the Kharijis, Nawasib and Motazela sects, who had deep differences with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), began to call themselves Ahlus Sunnat Wal Jamaat since the second century Hijri with an intention that the treaty enacted between Muawiyah and Imam Hasan and the tradition of cursing His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), which was initiated thereafter, may not be forgotten.1

It is not unexpected from today’s illiterate Ahlul Sunnat to become furious on learning this, but what is mentioned above is the truth. So an Ahlul Sunnat scholar, Ibn Abde Rabb writes in Kitab Al Uqd: “When Muawiyah entered into a treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.), he named that year (Sana) Jamaat.” Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tarikhul Khulafa:2 “Muawiyah became Caliph from the month of Rabius Thani or Jamadiul Oolaa and he named that year (Sana) Jamaat because now the Ummah had agreed on one Caliph.” Similarly, research about “Aamus Sunnat” shows and Yahya Ibnul Hasan Qarshi, in his Minhaj Ut Tahqeeq, writes:

“When Muawiyah began cursing of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), he named that year Sunnat, which thereafter became Ahlul Sunnat.” Similarly, Hasan Suhail also has repeated this statement in Anwarul Badaayah and Shaykh Askari also writes in Kitabur Rivaaj: “Muawiyah named that year Sunnat.”

In short, the term Sunnat Wal Jamaat is made up of two names of years given by Muawiyah. But thousands and thousands of poor Ahlul Sunnat people today are totally unaware of the cause of the naming of their sect.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol. 1, Pg. 212.

- 2. Pg. 136

Quranic Affairs

It should be noted that the Holy Prophet (S) had very emphatically called upon all Muslims, through the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), that they must cling to both Quran and Ahlul Bayt, but Umar considered it sufficient to cling only to Quran. Now let the Muslims see how the ‘clingers’ to Quran behaved with the Quran. During the time of Abu Bakr, copies of Quran were collected. For this task the first Caliph had appointed Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy bin Kaab etc. So they collected. That collected Quran continued to be read during the days of the first two Caliphs.

But when the turn of Uthman came, he began fresh correction and compilation such a manner that the God-given leadership or Imamate of Ali, the chief of Ahlul Bayt, became a matter of dispute. Generally, Sunnis say that no member of Ahlul Bayt is mentioned in the Quran by name, then how can the leadership or Imamate of Ali or anyone from Ahlul Bayt can ever be proved from Quran?

No doubt, such discarding has also decreased the formal beauty of the Holy Quran.1 Rational thinking never considers this Uthmani arrangement as perfect. It should be remembered that this rearrangement of the Quran was ordered by Uthman with an intention of removing whatever differences etc. were found in the copies arranged by Abu Bakr through this new rearrangement and correction. But Ali (a.s.) and Muhammad’s Progeny were put to a big loss by this work.

For this correction and compilation, Zaid bin Thabit, Abdur Rahman bin Zubair, Saeed bin Aas and Abdullah bin Harith bin Hisham were employed and Ali (a.s.) had an apparent enmity with these persons. On the ground of differences in pronunciation, these gentlemen removed words in favor of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny, which were in the Holy Quran.

Doubtlessly, this deed too, like the word of Umar, proved to be the remover of the effect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), because, when the divinely appointed status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny did not remain, why one would thereafter, cling to these members of the holy family? Therefore, Muawiyah and his son, and all others of the same thought never turned to Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.). It is noteworthy that, as a consequence of the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), one of the two great things, viz, turning to Ahlul Bayt had already been suspended, now the other great thing, that is, Quran too was curtailed in such a manner that the God-given leadership or Imamate of Ali, the chief of Ahlul Bayt, became a matter of dispute. Generally, Sunnis say that no member of Ahlul Bayt is mentioned in the Quran by name, then how can the leadership or Imamate of Ali or anyone from Ahlul Bayt can ever be proved from Quran?

Now, I want to show that during the Caliphate of Uthman, changes were made in Quran, which resulted in making the God-given Imamate to Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.) a matter of dispute. It should be kept in mind that the verse 67 of Chapter 5 was being recited as:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, that Ali is the Master of believers 2 ….

This phrase, “that Ali is the Master of believers” has been removed from the present Quran. Everything about this discarding is known from commentaries of Quran. Refer to Durre Manthur of Suyuti and Miftahun Najah by Mirza M. K. Badakhshani. Similarly, commentators have written that in the recitation of Ibn Masood, there was also a phrase: “Bi Ali Ibn Talib.”

Moreover Thalabi, in his Tafseer, quotes his teacher Abi Waail, that “We have read the copy of Quran of Abdullah bin Masood and have found that in the verse:

“Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.” 3

After “the descendants of Imran”, the phrase, “Muhammad’s Progeny” was also there by way of explanation. This goes to show that till the time of the existence of Ibn Masood’s copy, the words of “Muhammad’s Progeny” were there in Quran and that the reciters used to recite so. But how strange that Uthman and his trusted fellows considered them unauthentic and removed them from Quran. Was the correction of Quran dependent on the removal of the words Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny? People of justice should decide!

I need not write more than this. But extremely sorrowful indeed is the black day, which Ibn Masood had to see in connection with this story of Quran. When this great companion refused to part with his own copy of Quran to the effect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn), because, Uthman, he was severely beaten.4 Poor Ibn Masood! He lost that Quran and when the divinely appointed status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny did not remain, why one would thereafter, cling to these members of the holy family?

Therefore, Muawiyah and his son, and all others of the same thought never turned to Imam Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.). It is noteworthy that, as a consequence of the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), one of the two great things, viz, turning to Ahlul Bayt had already been suspended, now the other great thing, that is, Quran too was curtailed in also got severely beaten.

How could Ibn Masood reply to this merciless behavior? He just kept quiet. But when a similar attitude was shown to the copy of ‘A’ysha’s father, she became furious and the writer need not repeat what she said to the Caliph. But what was the benefit of such verbal anger? By the order of the Caliph, the copy of her father was also destroyed along with the copies of Ibn Masood and others.

Allamah Qaushiji, in his Sharhe Tajreed, has narrated the event of Ibn Masood in detail and there is no doubt about its factuality. It is noteworthy that what was done in the name of removal of differences was done only to remove the names of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny.

This clearly shows that the aim behind all the performances of Uthman was to remove the God-given status of Ali and Muhammad’s Progeny so that the Imamate of the leader of Bani Hashim, that is Ali (a.s.) and his progeny, may never be established after the Prophet. These things can be termed by the just observer as despicable. In order to remove blame from Uthman, commentary- related words like “rare recitation” and “abrogated recitation” were coined. In the eyes of just persons, such excuses are worse than the crime.

But alas, aforesaid words were removed from the Quran. Had Uthman kept those words which were found in the Holy Quran right from the days of the Holy Prophet (S) at their places, the problem of Imamate would never have become a matter of dispute and the followers of Islam would have been protected from a very serious misguidance. So the consequence of the removal of the said words in this world, which the just people see now with their own eyes, are indeed very sorrowful.

It is obvious that the removal of the said words was a strategy of the opponents. I do not know whether this plan of self-interest was found by Uthman himself or somebody else had shown him the way. But my guess is that it was shown to him. There were some cunning people with him who were staunch enemies of the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S). No wonder if people like Marwan had shown this intrigue.

Anyway, whatever be the case, this deed shows the foresight of the three Caliphs combined. Doubtlessly, these tricks appear to be intended to complete the effect of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). Umar had, through these words shown the way of keeping away from the Holy Family, but the mention of the Ahlul Bayt was there in the Quran.

The Quran was, unequivocally, commanding us to turn to Ahlul Bayt, so until these words were removed it was not easy to act on “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah). But when these words were removed, Umar’s words got total upliftment, that is, this Quranic affair conveniently separated the Ahlul Bayt from the mainstream of Muslims. Of course, it is a fact that since the Progeny and the Quran are closely related, it was never possible to make Umar’s phrase effective without separating Ahlul Bayt from Quran.

In short, it was in Uthman’s Caliphate that the aim of Umar’s words was fully attained. Now those who are just may decide whether through this process, the status of Ahlul Bayt has been lowered or not? In my opinion, not only this process lowered the status of Ahlul Bayt but also it was the reason of all the calamities, which befell Ahlul Bayt after the demise of the Prophet and all this got support through Uthman’s action.

Doubtlessly, such verbal and practical deeds removed the matter of the leadership (Imamate) of Ali and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from the minds of common Muslims. So when Imamate no more remained a divinely ordained thing, it cannot be considered astonishing if the Muslims of the time behaved harshly, mercilessly and insultingly with the Imams of the holy family of the Holy Prophet (S). After the subject of clinging to Ahlul Bayt being eaten away by a quadruped and after the removal of the mention of Ali and Ahlul Bayt from the Holy Quran, every kind of bad behavior by Muslims with the holy family was not unexpected as it so happened on different occasions.

It won’t be an exaggeration to say that had there been two thousand Husains, Muslims could have enacted two thousand Karbala’s due to the aforesaid teachings. But since there was only one Husayn, Karbala’ was also enacted only once. Had it been considered compulsory to cling to Ahlul Bayt as desired through the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) and had the God-given status of Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) not been lowered systematically, what was done to these holy persons, by Muslims of the time would never have been done. All that the holy personalities had to suffer was only due to the fact that these faultless people were not considered divinely appointed for leadership of the Ummah.

Due to the aforesaid faulty teaching, the Muslims of those days as well as of the following days considered Ahlul Bayt as almost lifeless and hence not worth obeying. This will be explained henceforth. Had all Muslims considered them so, as they were indeed worth obeying, Muawiyah would not have fought with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), nor would he have made Hasan (a.s.) to abdicate Caliphate, nor Muawiyah’s son, Yazeed would have dared to ask for allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Doubtlessly, due to this phrase, what Uthman had done to Quran and the status of Ahlul Bayt had been lowered so much that Ahlul Sunnat scholars began to consider Ahlul Bayt as “who could make mistakes”(Jaiz-ul-khata) as Ibn Taymiyyah writes about Ali (a.s.) that the latter erred seventeen times. Maulavi Abdul Ali says that Lady Fatima (s.a.) had erred.

Ghazzali says that the mention and narration of Karbala’ Tragedy and martyrdom of Husayn (a.s.) and his companions is prohibited. On Pg. 117 of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi, Abu Shakoor Salami writes in the margin of Lam Yuqtal that it was compulsory for Imam Husayn to give allegiance to Yazeed. These are his actual words! His argument is that the Caliphate of Yazeed was by way of Muawiyah’s appointment, and the companions and non-companions had obeyed Yazeed.

It should be noted that in the view of non-Imamiyah, appointment is one of the conditions of Caliphate and it was due to this important condition that Umar was considered as the successor of Abu Bakr. What consequence could ever result because of the distancing from Ahlul Bayt and following of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah), except that scholars like Abdush Shakoor should say that Imam Husayn should have given allegiance to Yazeed? How is it that the sky does not split and fall on the discarders of Ahlul Bayt?

But, yes, oppressors are always given a long respite and a day will come to stand before Allah Almighty for giving account, when it will be known whether following Husayn was compulsory or following Yazeed. One may say whatever one likes against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but the Greatest Revenger has not disappeared and the day is not very far when each and every one of us all will get the recompense of our deeds. Allah is the Greatest!

These are the holy Ahlul Bayt, who, because of their inclusion in the Holy Quran are holding a God-given status and about whom the Holy Prophet (S) has said that they are one of the two heavy things (Thaqalayn) and also added in this very tradition that these two, viz Quran and Ahlul Bayt will not separate from one another till they arrive at Kauthar in Paradise. The meaning of these prophetic words is that Quran and Ahlul Bayt are two great things, which will never get away from one another either in this world or in the Hereafter. But how this tradition was followed was that they (Ahlul Bayt) were totally isolated and clinging only to Quran was considered sufficient. Thereafter, it also was considered strategic to remove the names of Muhammad’s Progeny and Ali (a.s.) from the Holy Quran. What an excellent obedience of the Prophet’s command!

Now see where did the clinging to Quran reach? The knowledgeable do know that, after the burning down of copies of Quran, Muawiyah raised hundreds of its copies on the points of spears and after him, Walid also shot arrows at the Quran.

We should know that Abdullah bin Umar is also of the opinion that Quran has been tempered with as he says that much of the Quran has gone out of hand. So this is the story of Quran! Neither the Quran could remain safe from the hands of the enemies or the holy Ahlul Bayt.5 But what can be done? Both Shias and Sunnis have clung to whatever is now before us in the form of Holy Quran. I also consider this Quran as my guide. But had the copy compiled by Ali (a.s.) been available or even if that which was with Ibn Masood, I would have to give up the present Quran. My research shows that nothing at all has been added in the original Quran. The Quran, now in our hands is all in all the Divine script and Allah’s Word, not the word of man. But it is also doubtless that Allah’s word has been rendered incomplete as shown above.

As regards those who say that Allah is the protector of Quran, it is doubtlessly true that Allah is Quran’s protector but it does not necessarily mean that Allah must also be the protector of the writing. Had Allah been the protector of even the written copies not a single copy of the holy book could have been burnt during the time of Uthman nor could have been harmed in any way even thereafter. But it is not so!

Recently a disbeliever entered a mosque and burnt a copy of the holy book! Had the divine protection meant so, that wretched man would never have been able to do that. So it should be understood that though Allah is the protector of His holy Book, but it is not in a sense that even paper books, copies of it cannot be harmed. Quran is the Word of Allah and is indeed preserved in the Divine Knowledge and no one or thing can harm it in this sense whereby Quran can become defective.

Finally, it would not be out of place if I ask how weighty the phrase of “We have the Book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) was. Allaahu Akbar! How many different changes did this phrase create in Arab history! The truth is that had this phrase not come to the lips of Umar bin Khattab, not only the history of Arab civilization, but also the culture would have appeared in a different color. What a cunning fellow cannot do in the world! The fact is that the political ability of Umar was indeed extraordinary.

Though Muawiyah, son of Abu Sufyan, also was a clever troublemaker, he cannot come to the level of the political brain of Umar, son of Khattab. It was the ability of only Umar that, with the power of few words, he rendered the Holy Prophet’s tradition of Two Heavy Things (Hadith Thaqalayn) ineffective, as a result of which Bani Hashim, who had considerable respect in those days, were easily driven away from power and could never gain it thereafter.

- 1.

- 2. By way of explanation

- 3. Surah Aale Imran 3:33

- 4. 3 Ref. Nihyatal Uqool by Fakhruddin Razi and Najatul Mo-mineen by Mulla Hasan
Kashmiri and also Maarife Ibn Qutaibah.

- 5. Both Quran and Ahlul Bayt were torn into pieces – Publisher.

Fadak Affair

Only a few days after the establishment of Caliphate, Lady Fatima had to approach the court (Daarul Qaza) in the case related to Fadak. It should be understood that Fadak is a region in the Hijaz province, situated at a distance of three-days’ travel from Medina. The author of Saraah says that Fadak is a village of Khaybar. It should be remembered that Khaybar is in Hijaz and so it is correct to say that Fadak is a village of Hijaz. Previously this village was a property of the disbelievers of Khaybar, but after a treaty with them, it came in possession of the Prophet and became his personal property.

A look at Pg. 292 of Sharh Abil Hadid (Vol. 2) shows that Abu Bakr did not believe that Fadak was the property of the Prophet. But all commentators agree that it belonged to the Holy Prophet (S) and it was indeed so. There must have been something, which made the commentators to become unanimous in this matter. Otherwise, how would have they have agreed on this point? Anyway, Fadak was a well-populated and fertile village with a number of orchards and springs. It used to give a considerable income to the Holy Prophet (S). It is well known that the Prophet was not living a luxurious life. Yet Fadak’s income was of a considerable help to the poor and needy. In his lifetime, the Prophet had, in accordance with the divine verse:

“And give to the near of kin his due…” 1

…given away this village to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and thus it was in her practical possession.

A look at Tafseer Durre Manthur of Suyuti shows that when, in accordance to a treaty, the village of Fadak came in the possession of the Prophet, Jibraeel descended with this verse and requested the Holy Prophet (S) to give away Fadak to his near and dear ones. The Prophet inquired who was that near and dear relative. Jibraeel (a.s.) said: “Lady Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.).” The Prophet complied with the divine command and gave Fadak in writing to Lady Fatima (s.a.),2 but when Abu Bakr became the Caliph, he confiscated it. A look at the above-mentioned books shows that at the time of the said confiscation, Fadak was in possession of Lady Fatima. Words of Jawaahirul Aqdain also make it clear that Fadak was taken away from Lady Fatima (s.a.).

Anyway, when in the court, Lady Fatima, gave a statement that: “My father had gifted this area to me,” Abu Bakr said softly: “I had imagined that you have claimed it as a share of your inheritance, whereas the words of the Holy Prophet (S) are: There is no inheritance among we, prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity. But when your late father had gifted this area to you during his lifetime it’s being in your control cannot be called illegal.” Saying this, Abu Bakr was about to issue a written order to restore Fadak to Lady Fatima when Umar came forward to prevent the Caliph from issuing such an order and said: “Fatima is no more than a woman and she is like all other women. Ask for a witness from her.”

In response, Lady Fatima produced His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Umme Aiman (r.a.), and Asma binte Umais (r.a.), whereafter the Caliph wrote an order returning Fadak. But Umar snatched the order from the Caliph and tore it down3 saying: “Fatima is wife of Ali. How can his testimony be accepted? Whatever Ali says will be in his own interest and as for the testimony of the other two ladies, it is unreliable.” Upon this, Lady Fatima said:

“O gentlemen! You have heard the Prophet say that ‘these two ladies are among the people of Paradise and hence they cannot lie’.”

But this reply of Lady Fatima was not considered cognizable and Fadak was taken away from her. Then Fatima raised a complaint: “O my father! O Muhammad” and returned to her house. A few days thereafter, she fell ill due to a feeling of disappointment and tiredness and left this world with a deep disgust towards the people in power.

It is written in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5 and Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3 that after this affair of Fadak, Lady Fatima became very much displeased with Abu Bakr and broke off relations with the Caliphate totally and never talked with him till she breathed her last and when she died, Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.), as per her will, buried her in the darkness of the night and did not even inform Abu Bakr and Umar.

- 1. Surah Bani Israel 17:26

- 2. Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Chapter 40, Pg. 221; Habibus Sayr; Rauzatus Safa, Pg. 135, Vol. 2.

A Discussion About the Phrase of ‘She Frowned’ (Ghadhibat)

It should be noted that the words of ‘she frowned’ are found in a tradition of Sahih Bukhari, which means ‘she became angry’ or ‘she frowned’. Doubtlessly, it was an occasion which called for frowning or anger, because, in her opinion, Fadak was her property which was confiscated by the first Caliph, but it is extremely shameless that Qadi Sanaullaah, in his Saiful Malool, translated it as, “she felt ashamed”!

Is this an occasion for feeling ashamed? Lady Fatima was considering Fadak her own property and had approached the court for the return of a property, which she claimed as hers. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and other witnesses too had, seeing her claim as genuine, testified in her favor.

Thereafter also, the members of the holy family considered Fadak as the property of Fatima and that is why this property had been, on a number of times, returned to Ahlul Bayt by the Umayyad Caliph, Umar bin Abdul Aziz as well as other Caliphs of Bani Abbas. In short, it nowhere appears that either Fatima or anyone else from Ahlul Bayt had ever thought that confiscation of Fadak was an act of justice or fairplay. In such circumstances, if Lady Fatima became displeased and angry with Abu Bakr, it was not out of place, because whenever someone is angry with anybody he or she expresses his or her anger and does not become ashamed! The tradition of Bukhari shows that Lady Fatima stopped talking to Abu Bakr.

Similarly, it is seen from Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid1 that Lady Fatima had desired in her will that Abu Bakr should not even attend her funeral prayer. These narrations show that Lady Fatima had become very angry with Abu Bakr and do not show that ‘she was ashamed’. The reason why Qadi Sanaullaah had to create such unrelated meaning appears to be that he was aware of the Prophet’s words:

“One who hurts Fatima, hurts Allah and His Messenger.”

Hence he felt the need, because of his love for Abu Bakr, of translating ‘she frowned’ (Ghazabat) as ‘she felt ashamed’ (Nadimat). O Allah! Please save us from those who misinterpret the words of the Prophet! Justice-loving people should ponder how Ghazabat here can mean Nadimat. The truth is that the Qadi had, by creating such extraordinary meaning, wanted to help Ahlul Sunnat people in a big way. It is obvious that if Ghazabat is to mean Nadimat then it will prove that Lady Fatima had made a false claim and that she failed in her case and so felt ashamed.

But falsehood can never flourish. Every just and truth-loving person knows that Fatima (s.a.) had distanced herself from Abu Bakr with anger and that till her death, she was extremely displeased with the Caliph so much that she also passed away with a disappointed heart and met her departed father within six months of the latter’s demise. It is very sorrowful that those scholars who know ‘darning’ (making desired mending in Quranic verses), very often close their eyes at any insult to Ahlul Bayt.

See what a serious insult Qadi Sanaullaah has hurled at Lady Fatima by translating Ghazabat as Nadimat. Thereby he intended to allege that the sinless lady was one who did not know the truth, who made a false claim because of greed etc. The truth, however, is that there is no dearth of such untruthful translators among Muslim scholars. They, very easily, twist the meaning of Quranic verses and the Messenger’s words without caring for insult to Ahlul Bayt, only to support the Caliphate of the triad. We will come across a number of such examples henceforth.

- 1. Vol. 2, Pg. 292

Lady Fatima’s Sorrow and the Author

It may be remembered that Lady Fatima’s grief and sorrow may not be of any concern to her opponent but the writer considers it such a serious and terrible thing, which is impossible for him to put in writing. I regard the sinless lady’s grief or displeasure as a grief and displeasure of Allah and His Prophet, rather, more severe than that, because Lady Fatima is a beloved of both Allah and His Messenger.

Allah forbid, what havoc can be caused by such a sinless lady’s grief in the Hereafter? Everyone can guess it! Qadi Sanaullaah also was not unaware of the consequence of this grief, and therefore he gave the meaning of “ashamed” to “frowning.” Thanks to the Lord that the writer was not living during the time of Lady Fatima (s.a.). He cannot imagine in what way he would have erred. It is indeed his good luck that despite being full of errors and sins, he is saved from observing the grief of the Lady of Paradise. He cannot be more fortunate than this.

What Does Umar’s Behavior Show?

The abrupt and rude manner in which Umar tore down the command of the Caliph shows some things; first, there was no respect or honor of the Caliph in the heart and mind of Umar. Tearing off of the decree of the Caliph of the time and that too in his presence, makes it obvious that the one who made such an extraordinary gesture did not accord any importance to the position of the ruler. The reason of this is also not secret. Umar knew that Abu Bakr was a Caliph made by him (Umar) and that without his (Umar’s) help, his Caliphate would not run. Undoubtedly, this kind of thinking on the part of Umar was not untrue.

In such circumstances, how can the respect of the Caliph get room in the heart of Umar? This is not mere guessing. Umar definitely was pressurizing Abu Bakr to such an extent that on one occasion the latter had to complain saying: “If it is to be like this, what was the use of making me a Caliph?” Not only this, once it had so happened that Abu Bakr held Umar’s beard, crying: “May your mother weep over you (may you die).” Obviously, it is difficult to believe that a patient man like Abu Bakr will do so to anybody. But when someone crosses limits, even a patient man loses his patience. Those who have knowledge know that all these events are recorded in history. Readers may refer at least to the history of Abdul Fida, Tarikh al Mukhtasar fee Ahwaalil Bashar.

Second, the tearing off of the Caliph’s order shows that the court of justice was a court of justice only in name. Though Abu Bakr did hear cases and give decisions but their enactment or repealing was in the hands of Umar. All this goes to prove that Umar had made Abu Bakr as a strategic Caliph, while practically it was Umar himself who was the Caliph. After two years, this concealment no longer remained necessary.

Third, the aforesaid gesture of Umar also shows that Abu Bakr’s court of justice was not bound by any rules. Apparently, Umar nor anybody else had any such legal right to annul the Caliph’s order in this way. We don’t know what was the official post of Umar at the time of the first Caliphate. If he was a government pleader, then certainly a government pleader has no such right to tear off the Caliph’s decree in such a humiliating manner. And if he was holding a post higher than that of the Caliph of the time in the court of justice, even then this type of interruption in the dealing of a subordinate court does not appear appropriate and legal. Fourth, such deeds of Umar make his enmity to Lady Fatima and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) quite obvious.

It looks quite clear that from the very beginning, Umar was trying to assure that Fadak is not restored to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and this enmity of Umar to Fatima is no secret. Only those who close their eyes cannot observe this malice and enmity. Fifth, a very ugly kind of harshness becomes apparent from all these deeds of Umar. Taking this into consideration, the commentator of Nahjul Balagha writes: “Even if law or right was not in favor of Lady Fatima, the Caliphate ought to have taken it into account that Fatima was a grief stricken woman claimant, her parents had passed away and the demise of her father had made her extremely gloomy.”

I say that at the time of writing about such sympathetic words, the commentator forgot that even before the case of Fadak and after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) the condolence given to the Lady of Paradise by the Caliphate was that Umar was sent by Abu Bakr to burn down the house of this lady1 or he had proceeded of his own. When such a harsh treatment was given soon after the Prophet’s demise, any sympathetic or mild attitude could not have at all been expected at the time of Fadak proceedings in the court of law, which was after quite a long period of time. Why look only at this matter of Fadak?

A look at history shows that the Ummah of the Prophet imagined that it was unlawful to behave nicely with the holy progeny of Prophet! Even today, this behavior is no less visible. Only those descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaats) who had left the path of Bani Hashim and entered the path of Sunni, expect less enmity from the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S). Otherwise, those who stayed on the path of their elders are even today fearing the same bad attitude from the Prophet’s Ummah, which had begun right from the moment of the demise of the Messenger.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

Legal Viewpoint in the Fadak Affair

It should be remembered that this event of Fadak, like that of the ‘incident of paper’, is an issue of major difference between Shias and Sunnis. The men of intelligence may opine in their own manner, but I could not yet understand as to what kind of Prophet’s word were, “There is no inheritance among us prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity,” which goes against both Torah and Quran. The Holy Quran clearly talks about Prophet Sulaiman’s being an heir of Prophet Dawood (a.s.). The subject in Taurat is also similar.

For obvious reasons, these words cannot be the words of the Prophet. It could have been another thing had the Prophet said so in his own case. His so saying regarding all other messengers appears totally out of place. Imamiyah scholars say that these words “we do not leave inheritance” are both against Arab literary usage as well as tradition. So this cannot be a phrase uttered by the Prophet, because he was one of the best speakers of Arabic language.

Qadi Shazan seems to be silent in the face of this objection. What else could he have ever done when he had no reply at all? It was a fake phrase, because from Sahih Bukhari1 it appears that the Prophet had left ‘his white mule on which he used to ride, his weapons, and the estate of Fadak’ as his inheritance. Likewise, his leaving behind of some other things is also known from books like, Isafur Raghebeen etc.2, and all this does not fall in the jurisdiction of the said phrase, making them non-inheritable because the Prophet’s other things like headwear etc. were with Imam Husayn (at the time of Karbala’) by way of inheritance, not as charity (Sadaqah).

Anyway, because of this Fadak event, a jurisprudential difference arose between Sunnis and Shias and it is that in the matter of testimony, the witness of a husband in favor of his wife and/or a father’s testimony in favor of his son/daughter is not acceptable.3 Contrary to this, Shias have accepted such testimony as admissible in law.

Apparently, in this matter, the legal progress of time seems to be in favor of Shias. Wisdom also says that it is not necessary that a husband or a father will always lie because of the relationship and a non- related fellow too, just like a related one, can give false evidence. How can such persons be declared as unreliable in law merely because of their relations? The judge should look at the person’s character. To declare a witness inadmissible merely because of relationship is to kill justice.

In case of Fadak, the court ought to have seen what kind of a witness Ali (a.s.) was. Could Ali (a.s.) give a false testimony? Or was it impossible? To declare him unfit for testimony merely because of relationship is a matter, which shows only a lack of legal courage. The court should have admitted the testimony of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) because the whole world of that time was aware of his personality. Everyone knew about the superiority of knowledge and wisdom of Ali (a.s.) and also knew that Ali would not lie even if two thousand Fadaks were at stake.

The fact is that both Abu Bakr and Umar were aware of the truthfulness of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) but Umar did not want that Fadak should be restored to Lady Fatima. It is natural that one does not have friendship with one’s enemy or opponent. Umar had an old enmity with Lady Fatima. In such circumstances, it was not unexpected of Umar to say that Ali’s testimony did not carry weight. The description of this enmity will be given in the event of the marriage of Umme Kulthum. Therefore it is not mentioned here.

- 1. Vol. 5, Pg. 159.

- 2. Pg. 10

- 3. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Naval Kishor Press, Maqsad Raabe az marsad Raabe, Pg. 735

Helpers Of Judgment On Fadak

Those who had helped to get the aforesaid decision in the matter of Fadak say that “if Fadak was confiscated illegally from Lady Fatima, why was it not returned to her during the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? This only shows that Fatima’s claim was unfair.” The reply to this question is that if the research of Fakhruddin Razi is correct, during the days of Imam Ali (a.s.) Caliphate, Fadak was in the possession of Ali (a.s.). What was then he to take back?

The said Imam (Razi) writes: “The first Caliph despite the testimony of Umme Aiman, did not give Fadak to Lady Fatima and that Umar gave it to Ali (a.s.) and so it was in the possession of Ali at the time of the latter’s Caliphate.” This does provide a sort of answer to the one who raised the question. But in my view, this statement of Fakhruddin Razi is far from circumstantial evidence. Why would Umar do like that? Fadak was continuously out of the hands of Muhammad’s Progeny. It was returned to them for the first time by Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Anyway, the writer replies to the questioner that had Lady Fatima been alive during the days of Ali’s Caliphate he would certainly have given Fadak to her, because he was certain that the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted the property to Fatima. Had he not been aware of this fact, he would not have been produced as a witness by Lady Fatima but when Fatima was no more, Ali (a.s.) did not pay any attention to the matter of Fadak. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) was terribly grieved by the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) and his heart was never inclined to renew all the unpleasant events afresh.

Those who know the conditions of human heart can read more in my statement. But how can stonehearted, harsh-natured and selfish people know what sentiments are and what they demand? Moreover, immediately after his becoming a Caliph, people had started harassing him too much. Muawiyah misled ‘A’ysha and instigated her to fight against Ali (a.s.), Zubair and Talha broke allegiance and joined ‘A’ysha. This led to the Battle of Camel.

Then from Muawiyah’s side, there was a severe uproar and anarchy till the time of Ali (a.s.) martyrdom. How could he pay any attention to Fadak, being engaged in all these troubles? The fact is that during the period of Caliphate, which was a national and a religious affair, he had no time at all to look at his personal problems in those four years and five months. Due to these reasons, Fadak, which had gone out of hands of Ahlul Bayt, remained out of their possession during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) also.

The Rest of the Fadak Tragedy

What happened to Fadak thereafter, was that Umar bin Abdul Aziz gave Fadak to Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.). It should be noted that among the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, this is the only one who can be said to have humane qualities. The rest of the Caliphs’ rule was nightmare, or they were the ones whom humanness had not even touched. When this Caliph, Umar the second, restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt, people told him: “You have taunted the first two Shaykhs (Caliphs).”1 In response the Caliph said: “The two Shaykhs had, by confiscating Fadak, opened a door of taunts for themselves.”

It should be remembered that Umar bin Abdul Aziz was among the last Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and it is a fact that he was very justice-loving among Bani Umayyah and it was because of his good and truth-loving nature that he restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt. But in response to his just nature his community poisoned him. Truthfulness in the matter of Ahlul Bayt is not an easy thing. Such truth-telling involved a sure risk to life during the Caliphates of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. But now since the British are ruling2, a risk to life is not more felt. Yet various harms are not totally ruled out.

Anyway, when the Caliphate went out of the hands of Bani Umayyah those Caliphs of Bani Abbas, who cared for the rights of Ahlul Bayt, like Mamoon, Motasim and Wathiq, had returned Fadak to the progeny of Lady Fatima. But then Mutawakkil, the Ahlul Bayt-hater (Nasibi) again snatched it from Ahlul Bayt and gave it to his barber. But Mutazz once again restored it to Fatima’s progeny. Then Motaqifa returned it to Ahlul Bayt but Muktafi again snatched it.

It is written in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid on Pg. 493 that, “When Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the Caliph, he returned Fadak to the progeny of Hasan and according to another narration to the progeny of Zainul Aabideen and thus Fadak continuously remained in the hands of Bani Fatima but in his time, Yazeed Aatikaa snatched it.

Thereafter, it remained in the hands of the progeny of Marwan. Thereafter, Saffah, the Abbasid returned it to Abdullah bin Hasan, but Abu Ja’far Mansoor again snatched it. Then Mahdi Abbasi returned it to Bani Fatima. Then Moosa bin Mahdi and his brother Haroon Rashid confiscated it and it remained in the hands of Abbasids thereafter. Then Haroon Rashid returned it to Bani Fatima.

- 1. Ref. the narration of Abul Qadam in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, Pg. 306

- 2. Refers to the period this book was compiled.

Opponents Make Light of the Fadak Affair

With a view to lessen the importance of the Fadak affair, the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.) say that the matter of Fadak was never significant, that it was only an orchard with some date trees etc. and hence its income was not considerable. One of the recent claimants of omniscience goes further to assert that the orchard comprised of sixteen or seventeen date trees and a spring of water and and that its annual income never exceeded fourteen annas1 (very less amount).

Such statements are issued, so that those who have no knowledge may imagine that the matter of Fadak was insignificant, about which the people in favor of Fatima (s.a.) are raising so much hue and cry quite unnecessarily. But those who undertake a deep research, know that Fadak was a hamlet, which was very fertile and well populated that there were several orchards and springs in it.

The writings of the author of Rauzatul Safa show that its annual income was four thousand gold coins. One dirham equals ten rupees. From this account, its income in those days was about forty thousand rupees per year. This is what history says. Anyway, it was a considerable amount and was in no way insignificant. The claim that it was worth only fourteen annas (less than a rupee) cannot be accepted as authentic for the following reasons:

Had the annual income of Fadak been only equal to fourteen annas (sixteen annas made a rupee till the last century AD), its dealing would not have been as described above, that is how was it that some of the Caliphs were snatching it away from Muhammad’s Progeny and some were restoring it to them? All this only goes to show that in the eyes of the Caliphs of the time, Fadak did have some importance and value!

Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to Muhammad’s Progeny. Had the matter been so insignificant, as claimed by the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.), it would not have been necessary for a justice-loving Caliph to attend to it after about a hundred years of confiscation by the first Caliph. The very words uttered by this truth-loving Caliph: “Abu Bakr and Umar had themselves opened floodgates of taunts for them by snatching Fadak” show that Fadak had a significant value and importance.

As a matter of fact, had the value of Fadak been so insignificant as claimed, then neither the people of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s time would have told him: “You have taunted Abu Bakr and Umar” nor the Caliph would have replied to them as above. The nature of this dialogue shows that the significance was such that both the Caliph and the people had paid attention to it. Doubtlessly, the above events show that even after the passing of a hundred years, the affair called for attention. That is why a Caliph of the time had to attend to it and the people also were alerted by it. It would never have been so, had Fadak been an insignificant thing.

If Fadak was not a province and if it was merely a small garden having some trees, then according to nature, such a little garden would not have lasted from the time of Abu Bakr till the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, especially when no one knows since when had that garden existed! The opponents of the Leader of the women of both the worlds (Fatima) should think that if a garden cannot last for such a long time what was that thing which Caliph Umar, the second, returned to the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)?

This only shows that Fadak was not merely a garden but was a village, having several fruit trees and also some springs which was returned by the wise Caliph to Muhammad’s Progeny. It is also known that after the time of this just Caliph, some Caliphs used to confiscate it and some used to restore. So the existence of this thing for such a long time and its confiscation and restoring also proves that it was not a mere little garden but that it was a province.

Fadak, which was given by Mutawakkil the Nasibi to his barber, was surely a province of Fadak. Reason does not allow us to believe that a Caliph had gifted a garden having only an income of less than a rupee per annum to his barber of choice. Gifting such a trifling thing to a man of Caliph’s trust is incomprehensible, especially when that area was at a distance of about three months’ journey from the capital, Baghdad. It would have been like not giving at all.

Knowledgeable people know that the Caliphs of Bani Abbas were among the richest kings of the time, who gave away millions to their well-wishers. So it is unbelievable that such a Caliph could have confiscated such a cheap garden at a far off place from the capital from Ahlul Bayt to gift it to his man of choice. Surely that place was valuable and so the Caliph gifted it to his man of trust.

It may be noted that the misunderstanding of those who believe that the garden claimed by Lady Fatima was a garden of only a few trees seems to be based on an imagination that Fadak was a group of those trees which were planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself in the province of Fadak and their number was not more than ten or eleven. Allamah Ibn Mitham Bahraini writes on Pg. 20 of Sharh Nahjul Balagha that in Fadak, there were eleven trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself and those trees were in the possession of the progeny of Fatima (s.a.) and the Ahlul Bayt were giving the fruits of these trees to Hajj pilgrims, who used to recite benedictions on the Prophet (Durood) on receiving these fruits. But then some gentlemen ordered to cut off those trees and so it was done. This writer says:

“May my soul be sacrificed for the trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) and may thousands of trees of Paradise be sacrificed for those trees.”

In short, it should be understood that Fadak was a fertile land and never a bunch of fruit trees, as some foolish people have believed. Ibn Abbas writes in his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute the produce of Fadak among Bani Abdul Muttalib. This proves that Fadak was yielding much produce. Similarly, narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also show that Fadak was an area near Khaybar and reliable commentators have written that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute Fadak grain between his near and dear relatives. How astonishing on the part of those unwise people who have understood that Fadak was a bunch of merely eleven trees which were planted in Fadak!

- 1. Indian currency

Causes Of Aale Muhammad’s Dishonor

Causes of Aale Muhammad’s 1 Dishonor

It should be clear that here the writer has no argument whether Fatima (s.a.) was on the right in the matter of Fadak or not. Here, we only need to see the effects of deprivation of Fadak from Muhammad’s Progeny. It is well known that Muhammad’s Progeny used to receive a considerable income from the orchards of Fadak and they used to spend a major portion of it on the poor and destitute. Thus, its deprivation caused a decrease in their worldly status. There is no doubt that just as the loss of rulership caused public dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, In the same way, the loss of Fadak caused a private loss.

Doubtlessly, the deprivation of Fadak is seen as the second rung of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny. With these two a third fear struck Muhammad’s Progeny and that was the rise of Bani Umayyah who were suppressed by the Holy Prophet (S) but had now became the rulers of Syria (Shaam). Their rapid rise to power in Shaam had no parallel in case of any other tribe. Those who are conversant with history know that the progress of Bani Umayyah was at the cost of Muhammad’s Progeny. The Bani Umayyah continued to take revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny as is obvious from the statement of Muawiyah’s son. Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah says:

“Where are the slain ones of Badr? They should see how we have taken revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny.”

It was after the carnage of Karbala’ when Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was presented in the court of Damascus and the singer sang Yazeed’s poetic composition. The poem also had the following couplet:

The Bani Hashim had played a game with the people. Neither glad tidings arrived, nor any revelation descended.

This shows that the frustrated Bani Umayyah considered the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be a play and they were actually ignorant of its truth. Anyway, there is no doubt that the rise of Bani Umayyah put an end to the worldly status of Muhammad’s Progeny. The material wealth of Bani Umayyah was such that when Abu Bakr was made the Caliph, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to Ali (a.s.) and said in a concerned way: “O Ali! The matter of Caliphate has been decided but you made no effort to obtain it? If you desire I can fill the desert of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy that Caliphate in a moment.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “Abu Sufyan! You were creating mischief in the days of ignorance (Jahiliya) too. And now that you have proffered Islam, your machinations are still intact.”

Ali (a.s.) replied to Abu Sufyan in that manner because Abu Sufyan was from the Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had even cursed this tribe. In such circumstances, Ali (a.s.) could not tolerate any kind of pact with Abu Sufyan. Ali (a.s.) followed the Prophet in every matter. His aloofness from Abu Sufyan was justified. If he had shown any inclination to Abu Sufyan’s offer, it would have been absolutely against the desire of the Prophet. It is well known that the Bani Umayyah were dead opposed to both, the religion of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had put this tribe in its place in ten years. Now this tribe had no satanic power remaining.

Thus, if Ali (a.s.) sought the co-operation of Abu Sufyan, he would have been the cause of Bani Umayyah’s revival just as the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) were. That is, Abu Sufyan was made partner in rulership in order to save the seat of Caliphate. The result was that Bani Umayyah regained its lost strength and in no time, it became the supreme ruler of the Islamic lands.

It is indeed astonishing that this act, committed by the first Caliphate was clearly opposed to the aims of the Messenger of Allah (S). The consequences of this single mistake are not hidden from the people who know. And what to say of the mischiefs created in Islam itself? Words cannot describe the havoc wreaked upon the family of the Prophet. Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had agreed to Abu Sufyan’s offer, the blame of all the disasters and the carnage of Karbala’ would have come on Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after getting this reply from Ali (a.s.), Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said: “At last you have achieved your aim, but we have no share in your success. I shall destroy your Caliphate in no time.” The two were much worried at this threat of Abu Sufyan. They knew that to destroy the Caliphate was not difficult for Abu Sufyan. With all helplessness, they told Abu Sufyan: “You too become a partner in our success, what is the need to destroy the Caliphate?”

Thus, it was agreed that Abu Sufyan would send his son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan to rule Syria. This son ruled Syria for four years and after his death, his younger brother inherited the rulership of Syria during Umar’s Caliphate. His late brother was not at all learned and thus his death was a boon to Bani Umayyah. As soon as Muawiyah took over the reins of government, the wealth of Bani Umayyah began to increase rapidly till finally, Muawiyah became the ruler of all the Islamic lands.

We should know that as the Bani Umayyah gained wealth and strength, the Bani Hashim became further away from power and rulership. Due to the above reasons, the Bani Hashim were out of the common populace and their apparent status was no more. Then even though they got rulership during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) they could not regain their lost position. Even after gaining the Caliphate, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not dethrone Muawiyah. Ali (a.s.) continued to confront the Bani Umayyah but even after all the turmoil, Muawiyah continued to remain in power. The limited and temporary status of Bani Hashim ended with the martyrdom of Ali (a.s.).

Though Imam Hasan (a.s.) was the successor of his respected father, within a period of six months he had to forgo rulership due to Muawiyah’s onslaught. Here we do not debate whether Ali (a.s.) was on the right or Muawiyah or whether the forced abdication of Imam Hasan (a.s.) by Muawiyah was justified or not. Our aim in presenting these historical facts is only to show the terrible calamities that befell Muhammad’s Progeny after the passing away of the Prophet, due to which their status fell in the view of public, day by day and this finally culminated into the incident known as the tragedy of Karbala’.

Anyway, after the abdication of Caliphate, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah. This was by no means a great insult of Muhammad’s Progeny. At that time, all the Islamic lands were under the domination of Bani Umayyah. Muawiyah was not the chief of Bani Umayyah and ruler of Shaam alone. Being the Caliph of the time, his power extended to even Mecca and Medina.

However, there lived in Medina, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Bani Hashim. But none of the Bani Hashim had any kind of rulership. The command and the monetary wealth of the government were all in the hands of Muawiyah. In spite of this, Muawiyah was not satisfied. At last, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) pleased the heart of the Caliph.2 But that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was yet alive was not a lesser worry to Muawiyah.

Muawiyah knew that Imam Husayn (a.s.) had inherited the valor of his father. So to remain careless of him would be against reason. Therefore, he used to tell his son: “Do not consider your throne safe. Imam Husayn (a.s.) is still alive.” Even though Muawiyah was anticipating danger from Imam Husayn (a.s.), the condition of Bani Hashim had deteriorated and day by day their economic conditions worsened. Gradually, the people did not consider the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be worthy of being followed.

An example of this loss of position is that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) came out to confront Bani Umayyah, he had no more than 150 people with him. Seeing this condition of the Muslims, he returned to the city. It is obvious that as they had lost rulership, they could not bank on the support of the general Arab populace.

Only the Bani Hashim, who could never forsake them, offered their support. It was so, because they had true devotion to the Messenger of Allah (S) due to which they considered honoring Bani Hashim an obligatory duty upon themselves. Other people professed support to Bani Umayyah. And why should they not? When all the dominions of Islam were transferred into the hands of Bani Umayyah?

Another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny is that at the time of his passing away, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had made a bequest that he should be buried next to the Holy Prophet (S) and this bequest was natural. Also, Imam Hasan (a.s.) considered himself worthy of it. But its result was that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved with the bier of Imam Hasan (a.s.) towards the burial place of the Prophet, the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny showered arrows on the bier.

We don’t know how many arrows were shot, but we can estimate from the fact that 60 arrows hit the bier of the Infallible Imam. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was enraged at this lack of support of the Muslims and unsheathed his sword. However, the matter did not reach the stage of bloodshed. Keeping in mind the kind of nature of Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) forsook confrontation and took the last remains of his brother to Jannatul Baqi for burial.

This incident shows that till that time there was a considerable decrease in the status of Bani Hashim. They were not even capable to fulfill the last wish of their departed leader in opposition to the people’s desire. We consider the bequest of Imam Hasan (a.s.) justified because it fulfilled all the conditions of natural emotions. In the view of the just people who was more deserving to be buried next to his grandfather than Imam Hasan (a.s.)? But what is the reply of injustice of the people? O Allah! O Allah!

Now we present another example of the dishonor of Bani Hashim, which was also caused by Bani Umayyah. It is that in Damascus, curses were recited on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) after every prayer, especially after the Friday Prayer. And as the writer has mentioned above, the initiator of this was Muawiyah. This custom continued for a long time till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph, discontinued it.

The discussion of cursing will follow soon. In any case, if Shias had not adopted this type of cursing, they would have gained the sympathy of many of their opponents and this would have been a very effective instrument for the expansion of Shiaism. After this, we shall mention another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, which would show how the honor of Muhammad’s Progeny had decreased after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S).

The incident is that Imam Hasan (a.s.) wrote a letter to Ziyad regarding some matter. Ziyad being of illegitimate birth was called by the name of Ibn Sumayyah. Imam Hasan (a.s.) also addressed Ziyad by this name and he had no intention to insult Ziyad, but this enemy of Allah replied to the letter of Imam Hasan (a.s.) addressing him as Hasan Ibn Fatima (s.a.). Imam Hasan (a.s.) was an absolutely good-natured person and he replied with utmost forbearance that:

“Everyone knows my father well, I am the son of Ali.” This shows to what extent Muhammad’s Progeny had fallen in the estimation of public that an illegitimate born disregarded the honor of even a leader like Imam Hasan (a.s.). Ziyad, the one whose hereafter was destroyed, insulted the daughter of the Prophet and the people of that time did not object? What type of Muslims are these who glorify the age of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and the tears of the Muslims of this time are unabated.

Regarding the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to know something about people like Ziyad. He is the same whose son, Ibn Ziyad was Yazeed’s commander and who had come from Basra to fight Imam Husayn (a.s.). Ziyad himself was actually of doubtful paternity, but he was such a resourceful person that Muawiyah felt the need to make him his brother. Indeed, he was most useful for the Caliph. He created brotherhood by announcing publicly that Ziyad is the biological son of Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb. But to confirm this, a witness was not found, except a person who testified that:

“One day Abu Sufyan had come to my tavern which is at a distance of 20 km from Mecca. At that time, Abu Sufyan was on a journey. Reaching my tavern he asked for wine. When I served, he consumed it and became intoxicated. After being intoxicated he asked for a woman. There was no woman except for a slave girl of mine and I presented it to her. On hearing this, Abu Sufyan said that she was not nice as her belly was large. But later when he became more intoxicated he asked me to get her. The woman was brought to him.”

Whatever the tavern-keeper said after this does not deserve to be mentioned here.

Those who desire to know the details may refer to Abul Fida’s Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. Anyway, on hearing this testimony, the Caliph was enraged and said to the tavern keeper: “You have come here to testify or to heap abuses?” In any case, this testimony of the tavern-keeper proved the brotherhood of Ziyad to the Caliph. And from that time, Ziyad became a man with family. Congratulations to Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan for such a brother and to all the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny.

- 1. Progeny of Muhammad

- 2. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

Atrocities on Muhammad’s Progeny and how they Bore Them Patiently

O people of justice! Just see what atrocities Muhammad’s Progeny had to bear after the passing away of Muhammad Mustafa (S). Indeed, the progeny of no other person has borne such problems as the progeny of the Arabian Prophet, and that too at the hands of his own nation. This is not a new opinion presented by this writer, even the companions of the Prophet, who followed Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to see those injustices and say: “We have not seen anyone inflicted with such atrocities as the household of the Prophet after his passing away.” Allaahu Akbar (God is the Greatest)!1

Apparently, there is no limit to the atrocities and there were different types of atrocities, but Muhammad’s Progeny continued to bear them. Indeed, the patience of Ayyub (a.s.) is nothing in comparison to the patience of Muhammad’s Progeny. The patience of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in face of the handiwork of Amir Muawiyah, the patience of the elder brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.) even after he was poisoned, shows the caliber of their patience. In the same way, steadfastness of Imam Husayn, his patience and obedience is seen defeating human aspiration!

It is worth noting that the age of Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was four years at the time of the tragedy of Karbala’. He accompanied the prisoners to Damascus and upon the orders of Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the prisoners were exhibited in the bazaars of Damascus, when a Syrian woman following the custom of that country tried to offer him a loaf of bread, which she had made the expiation of her son. It was an ancient custom according to which people used to offer bread loaves to the prisoners after expiating them over their children.

Even though Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was only four and he was also hungry, yet he refused to accept the bread and said: “We are Muhammad’s Progeny and alms (Sadaqah) is prohibited for us.” O those who value infallibility of Muhammad’s Progeny, such a differentiation of the prohibited or lawful is only possible by one who is born an infallible. This incident clearly shows the difference between true and false Imams. Reason says that only such an Imam can be the true successor of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible.

O Allah, bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Reason can never accept that the successor of an infallible could be a fallible person. Those who have considered it possible have, without any argument, been irrational.

- 1. Refer to Murujuz Zahab of Masudi, Pg. 166, and Tarikh Kamil of Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5

A Glance at the Religious Leadership of Muhammad’s Progeny

Respected readers! Please note that the humble writer has mentioned the points that show the worldly loss of honor of Muhammad’s Progeny. Now we shall mention the religious aspects that caused decrease in the respect of Muhammad’s Progeny, as a result of which, a major part of the Islamic world remained deprived of their leadership.

There is doubt that worldly dishonor and loss of religious positions did not in any way cause personal harm to Muhammad’s Progeny. But surprising are those who were the causes of these misdemeanors towards Muhammad’s Progeny and still continue to be so. Today, neither the Bani Umayyah remains not the Bani Abbas and there remains no hope of any benefit from their past kingdoms, but thousands are still devoted to them, just like when they were in power. Even today, such people are inimical to the name of Muhammad’s Progeny as their enemies were in the bygone days. Even though Husayn (a.s.) is not present, there is no dearth of Shimrs and Ibn Ziyads.

The condition is such that an Ahlul Sunnat scholar wrote an article in an Urdu newspaper based on some virtues and merits of Ali (a.s.). This article caused a lot of consternation among the enemies of Ali (a.s.) and people wrote letters criticizing this article and wanted to know since when the writer has adopted Shia religion. They asked him what was the need to pen such an article? The poor scholar had no reply and he remained quiet. Anyway, the next issue of that paper carried an extensive article in praise of Muawiyah. It is a pity that it is no more the reign of Muawiyah, otherwise, the writer would have received a handsome reward from the wealth of Shaam (Syria).

This is the extent of malice to Muhammad’s Progeny today; so you can imagine what it would have been when Bani Umayyah were in power! Now I request the just people to study the factors that caused decrease in the religious position of Muhammad’s Progeny. They are as follows:

Compilation of Quran and Its Harmful Effect On The Religious Leadership Of Bani Hashim

It seems that the Quran was compiled and collected during the time of Holy Prophet (S) and its compiler was Ali (a.s.) as apparent from the traditions of Bukhari, Suyuti and Damiri. He had collected the Quran in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) and according to the report of Bukhari, he used to announce that he had the Quran systematically arranged by the Prophet. However, the matter of Caliphate was decided; as a result of which the Bani Hashim were distanced from rulership.

Thus, after sometime, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) was busy in collecting the Quran. Learning of this, Abu Bakr appointed Zaid bin Thabit and Ubayy Ibn Kaab to collect the Quran. These people did as ordered by the Caliph.

There is no doubt that Ali (a.s.) had collected the Quran during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet (S) had himself given the name and the sequence of the verses of each chapter of the Quran. But what happened to the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.)? There was no sign of it. But it is learnt that a copy of the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.) existed upto the time of Saffah, the Abbasid ruler.1 When it survived till the reign of Saffah, there can be no doubt about its existence during the time of Abu Bakr, when its collector, Ali (a.s.) was himself present.

It is surprising that Abu Bakr did not ask for the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.). What was the use of appointing Zaid bin Thabit? Books of both the sects show that Abu Bakr did not involve Ali (a.s.) in this matter at all. He neither asked Ali (a.s.) to collect the Quran, nor did he take any advice from him. This disregard by the Caliph doubtlessly created an aspect of decrease in Ali’s status in the people’s view. People are aware that from the aspect of tradition of the two heavy things, Ali (a.s.) could not be considered separate from Quran. Even today, those who believe in the veracity of the Holy Prophet (S) consider Ali (a.s.) to be with the Quran on the basis of the prophetic tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

Thus, the action of the Caliph to have the Quran collected by people other than Ali (a.s.) was a one-sided matter and any matter concerning the Quran had no one more deserving than Ali (a.s.). In addition to be the subject of the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.”

He was also the gate of knowledge according to the Holy Prophet (S). But when the Quran collected by him was not give currency, naturally people began to consider him less important from that aspect of religious leadership. Indeed, if the Quran collected by him had become popular, he would have earned great credit and respect among the populace. Apparently, the matter of gathering the Quran seems to be a secret affair. But it was one of the strongest causes for the dishonor of Bani Hashim.

In view of this writer, this incident was the second after the incident of “we have the Book of Allah”, which brought worldly loss of status for Bani Hashim. We all know that the matter of collecting the Quran affected the people of all ages and even today its effects are obvious. For example, as in past, in this age also, programs of Quranic recitation are held. The memorizers recite the Quranic verses and the scholars explain the meaning, quoting the relevant traditions of the Holy Prophet (S). But not once do they refer to the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

But if this Quran had been the one collected by Ali (a.s.), they would have been compelled to recite the above tradition also. In that case, the remembrance of the ‘Silent Quran’ would have been accompanied with the remembrance of ‘Speaking Quran’. The ‘Speaking Quran’ denotes His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). He has referred to himself as the ‘Speaking Quran’.2 Anyway, if this omission from Quran recitations programs does not show disrespect of Bani Hashim, what else does? Only those considered worthy of remembrance are remembered. Who remembers those unworthy of remembrance?

It would not be out of place to mention a belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Allah is so angry with Shias that they are not able to memorize the Quran! Apparently, this implies that Shias never make efforts to memorize the Quran. I have seen two or three memorizers of Quran. One of them being the son of Mir Mahdi Husayn Sahab, who recites the Quran every year in the holy month of Ramadhan at Lodi Qada. The witness of this is Hafiz Abdul Majeed Khan Sahab who presently resides at Natwal.

There are even some Shia memorizers of Quran (Hafiz) in the principalities of Rampur, Amroha and Lucknow. Maulana Hafiz Kifayat Husayn Sahab is ever ready to travel anywhere and recite the Quran for anyone who so desires. And there were numerous people from Shias who learnt the Quran by heart.

For example, Asim, Amash, Ibn Abbas, Abul Aswad etc. Even Ahlul Sunnat consider them excellent Huffaz (pl. of Hafiz = one who knows the Quran by heart). In short, we can say that it is a stupid notion that Shias cannot memorize the Quran. Leave alone Shias, Christians, Jews and atheists could become Hafiz if they strive for it. Indeed, bigotry is something that makes one blind to truth, and it is the greatest impediment to research.

- 1. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 260

- 2. Refer Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 72

Second Cause Of The Decrease Of Religious Significance Of Bani Hashim

The second cause for the decrease of religious significance of Bani Hashim arose during the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Khattab. During this time, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) has started practicing religious jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). Ali (a.s.) began to derive the solution of religious problems as the circumstances demanded and the Bani Hashim began to follow his decrees (did Taqlid). And why shouldn’t they, when they knew that Ali (a.s.) was the gate of knowledge, the expert of Quran and the flesh, blood, self and soul of the Holy Prophet (S)? And that his creation and the creation of the Messenger of Allah (S) was from a single luminosity (Noor).

But when that Caliph learnt of this, he appointed some other people to derive the laws of Shariah, chief among them were Ibn Masood, Abu Moosa Ashari and the same Zaid Ibn Thabit. Upon receiving orders from the Caliph, these gentlemen began to formulate religious decrees and their rulings came out to be different from those of Ali (a.s.). People other than Bani Hashim began to follow their decrees, but the Bani Hashim continued to follow the rulings of their religious and tribal chief, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).

From that time, two distinct sects developed among the Muslims. One was the Alawite sect and another, Farooqi sect. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself formulated his religious decrees but Umar Ibn Khattab accomplished this task with the help of his appointed assistants. Apparently, this did not auger well for Islam. This division bestowed no benefit on the Islamic religion. Even today we witness disturbances in the Muslim world due to this division and this shall continue forever. Anyway, Ali (a.s.) was always busy in solving the problems of Shariah.

However, since he did not have the support of the ruling party, his followers were limited to the family of the Prophet, i.e. the Bani Hashim. Doubtlessly, temporal power has a great role in the spread of religion. The lack of the spread of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was not unexpected. On the other hand, the Farooqi religion made great strides and even today this is the religion of the majority of Muslims. There is no doubt that the Farooqi religion had received a great impetus.

It began during the time of Umar and during his lifetime itself, it spread to all the Islamic territories. Bani Umayyah adopted this religion due to their natural inclination towards it and also due to the exigencies of that time. And after them, most of the Bani Abbas also adopted this faith. If some persons of Bani Abbas followed the religion of Ali (a.s.) they are very few and hardly taken into consideration. Then the great kingdoms followed the religion of Farooq. So much so that even the last Muslim dynasty of India, i.e. the Mughal Dynasty was following this religion.

In any case, this controversy with regard to personal exertion (Ijtihaad) harmed the religious leadership of Ali (a.s.). Because this completely overshadowed the fact that he was the gate of knowledge. Being distanced from rulership, he had already become a common member of the populace. Now these matters decreased his religious significance too. In my opinion, this was more harmful than the matter of collecting the Quran. Now we shall present some facts about the Farooqi religion and the faith of Ali (a.s.), so that uninformed people may gain some understanding.

A Discussion About Sunni and Imamiyah Faith

We should know that according to Ahlul Sunnat people, from the three Caliphs, only Umar Ibn Khattab had the status of a jurisprudent (Mujtahid). Abu Bakr and Uthman never performed any derivation of Islamic law. However, each of them are known as the collectors of Quran, because the Quran was ‘collected’ in the Caliphate of the first Caliph and rearranged in the Caliphate of the third Caliph. As we have mentioned before, the religious laws derived by Ali (a.s.) were different from those formulated by Umar. It was on the basis of this very contradiction that two sects came into being. One was Farooqi sect and the other Alawite.

Although the beginning of religious differences was initially seen during the tenure of the Caliphate of Umar, as the days passed, the differences became more pronounced. Finally, it assumed the form of the Farooqi religion, which is also known by the name of the religion of Ahlul Sunnat wal Jamaat whose cause of being named thus has already been mentioned before. In the same way, the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) resulted in the formation of the religion known as the religion of the practice (Sunnat) of Ali (a.s.) or the Imamiyah faith.

The completion of the religion of Ali (a.s.) was in the way that as there came Imams from the family of the Prophet, they continued the jurisprudence of this school of thought and remained on that religion. This religion became famous as the Imamite religion. It should be clear that due to the jurisprudence (Ijtihaad) of the Imams of the family of the Prophet, the followers of Farooqi religion always remained aloof and depending upon their need, continued to derive the solution of their religious problems.

Thus, day-by-day their differences increased in the principles and articles of faith. These differences became so pronounced that today the two sects are completely unrelated to each other. It is only the ignorance of the common people, who think that the only point of difference between Sunni and Shia is the matter of Caliphate. It is definitely not so. There is no sort of similarity between these two, whether in principles of faith or practical laws.

So much so that the God of Ahlul Sunnat seems to be different from that of Shia God. In the same way, all principles of religion of these two religions are quite dissimilar and their practical laws should also be derived from them. It should be clear that in the beginning, the Farooqi faith was simple and straightforward. That is, it was dissociated from wisdom and philosophy, but at last it began to form its distinct philosophy.

The first scholars of Ahlul Sunnat were Motazalite. This religion began to assume a distinct form from the time of Hasan Basri and in its time, the Motazalite religion was thought to be the true one.

Then Abul Hasan Ashari opposed his teacher, who was a Motazalite and began to formulate the Ashari faith in 365 A.H. From this time, the Motazalite faith began to decline and people began to be attracted towards the new concocted faith. Even those, whose teachers were Motazalite, opposed their teachers and left the Motazalite faith.

Thus, the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafei and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal became aloof from the Motazalite faith and formed their own distinct religions. Then the religion of Matrudiya was established. We should know that the principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat have been derived by the jurisprudence of Abul Hasan Ashari and Abul Mansoor Matrudi.

In the same way, the practical law was formed by the decrees of the four Imams. These four gentlemen ignored the jurisprudence of Ali (a.s.) and took the decrees of Ibn Masood and Zaid bin Thabit as the basis for framing their laws.

This is clearly explained in detail by Shah Waliullah in his book, Izalatul Khifa. They were clearly divorced from the opinion of Ali (a.s.) in all matters. Thus, when we see every class of people of Ahlul Sunnat, we find that they have raised their structure of religion on the Farooqi foundations and never sought the assistance of any of the Imams of the family of the Prophet.

If we examine carefully Sunni and Shia faith, we shall realize that there is no sort of compatibility and similarity between the religion of Ali (a.s.) and the Farooqi faith; both are unrelated to each other. There has always been absolute dissociation between the scholars and Imams of the two religions. All the past Ahlul Sunnat scholars avoided any sort of association with the Imams of the family of the Prophet and with the scholars of this school.

A study of Ahlul Sunnat books shows that Abu Hanifah did not follow any of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Although Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) from the family of the Prophet was present, Abu Hanifah continued his own jurisprudence. Actually the fact is that Abu Hanifah and Malik Ibn Anas had no sort of relation with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

This is another misconception that these two gentlemen had the license from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) to practice Islamic jurisprudence. Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was himself an Imam, then how can he entrust jurisprudence to people of other faiths? Neither Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) had any sort of shortcoming, nor was there any compulsion on him to do so.

It was the common practice of the jurisprudents of both faiths that as much as possible, they used to be dissociated and be aloof from scholars and Imams of rival faiths. It is illogical to assume that Abu Hanifah and Malik used to practice jurisprudence on the lines of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). Numerous proofs of this type of dissociation are mentioned below.

Examples Of Dissociation Of The Two Sects

Readers should note that Sahih Bukhari is the great authentic book of Ahlul Sunnat. The compiler of this book has not even forgetfully related a tradition of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while thousands of traditions have been recorded from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) elsewhere and hundreds of scholars have quoted traditions from this praised Imam (a.s.). Also, Hafiz Shamsuddin has included Imam Sadiq (a.s.) among the weak and unreliable narrators in his book al-Mughni. He writes that Bukhari has not related any tradition from him.

Bukhari’s teacher, Yahya Ibn Saeed Al Qattan also says: “I am also suspicious of Ja’far as-Sadiq. Even Malik never related any tradition from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) till he did not have another narrator of the same tradition.” The Arabic text of the book Mizanul Etedal is translated to mean the same. The same behavior was shown to Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) and his respected forefathers.

Asqalani, an influential Sunni scholar, includes Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) among the weak narrators and says that the traditions of Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) are unsafe. Regarding Imam Reza (a.s.), Abu Tahir says: “Imam Reza (a.s.) has narrated weird things from his father; and he used to doubt and err.”

The same attitude of Ahlul Sunnat scholars continued with Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Thus, Ibn Jauzi and Suyuti in their books of traditions, Ali bin Muhammad Iraqi in his book, Tanzeelatul Shariah and Shaykh Rehmatulla in Mukhtasar Tanzeelatul Shariah has written that Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) was [Allah forbid] nothing! (Laisa Beshayyin).

In short, the above research confirms that Ahlul Sunnat scholars were absolutely aloof from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The truth is that the Imamite and Sunni religion are two streams that flow in the opposite directions and till the Judgment Day, instead of coming closer they are moving farther from each other.

Imams of the Prophet’s Family

Here it would not be inappropriate to state that although the Imams of the Prophet’s family were understood by the above method to be undeserving of being followed, the truth is that they had no equal, not only in the nation of the Holy Prophet (S) but also in the people of all the past prophets from the aspect of their knowledge, superiority, piety, religiousness, truthfulness, modesty, justice, magnanimity, charity, bravery, worship, forbearance and obedience etc.

These Imams carried the blood of the Prophet (S) in their veins, they were the life and heart of the Messenger. They are the close confidants and self of the Prophet. They are his flesh and soul. They were (Allah forbid) not illiterate and uneducated; each of them was a leader of faith. Each of them was a capable jurisprudent, and each was a true leader and guide. They all acted on the knowledge they possessed. Individually, each of them was a sum of knowledge and action.

They are the Imams (a.s.) that find mention in the Torah. Even today you can open the Torah and see. The Almighty has given the good news that twelve princes shall come from the progeny of Ismail (a.s.). These are the twelve Imams. Indeed, who can be greater princes than they were? These personalities are the beloveds of the chief of the Prophets. Allah forbid, if anyone considers them ‘weak’ and ‘Nothing’, it is their whim and fancy. And they are the Imams that the Almighty and the Prophet know. Apparently, they were helpless and so oppressed that from Imam Ali (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) each were easily martyred but internally all of them were the brave lions of the religion of Allah.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Important Warning

In the discussion presented above and in other places in this book it is mentioned that the jurisprudence of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was different from the jurisprudence of scholars of other faiths. Our readers should know that we had written in this way to follow the convention and usual manner of writing. The Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were much higher in status than jurisprudence.

The knowledge of the Imams (a.s.), like the knowledge of the Holy Prophet (S) is beyond the scope of human understanding. Jurisprudence to seek solution of religious problems is not allowed for Imams and Prophets. Rather, it is a sort of insult to say that the Prophet had practiced jurisprudence. The sciences of the Prophet were religious and revealed and he was bestowed with divine knowledge. The Almighty had opened wide, the doors of knowledge for him.

These gentlemen are the cities and doors of knowledge. Neither do they have to resort to rational arguments nor do they have to make derivations or take help from analogy. It is sufficient for them to just refer to the Knowing and the Knowledgeable God. All the religious problems are solved in no time. He is the Knower of the Unseen and the divine luminescence.

Jurisprudence is for those who are deprived of the service and presence of the Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) and the paths of knowledge and certainty are closed for them. Then even for this there are conditions and aspects. If those derivations are taken from the Holy Quran and traditions, they are reliable, but if they are mere conjectures and analogies, they shall be very far from guidance. Then what can be said of those in their company? They used to gain benefits of knowledge and religion from them. Even they had no need to perform jurisprudence. And why should they need to resort to it when the door of research was open. They are only needed to ask for the solution of any problem and the answer was ready.

The moment they posed a question, they got an immediate response. It would have been an insult to the Holy Imams (a.s.) that while they are present, people should undertake personal exertions, and not take advantage of their revealed and divine knowledge. In brief, we can say that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were not at all concerned with jurisprudence. We have called it jurisprudence because the people of that time, due to their lack of understanding considered the utterances of Holy Prophet (S) also as jurisprudence; therefore, we have also used the same terminology. Otherwise, wherever these words are used in this book, they denote their divinely bestowed knowledge and the jurisprudence of religious problems mean the explanation of rules of religion.

Examples of Religious Differences Between The Two Sects

Here the writer desires to mention some examples that show that the method of the Imams of the family of the Messenger (S) was distinct from the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat. It is common knowledge among the literate public that Abu Hanifah, Malik and other scholars used analogy (Qiyas) in deriving the rules of Shariah, while Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to prohibit it. It is apparent that even if in the beginning a faith observes these principles, it will eventually be filled with contradictions.

Thus, what we see is that the religion of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is very much opposed to the religion of the leaders of Ahlul Sunnat. The writer of the Sharh (Explanation) of Minhaj writes that the denial of analogy (Qiyas) is the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) just as acting on analogy is the religion of Abu Hanifah and other Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, the statement of this writer clearly shows that the faith of Ahlul Sunnat and Shias is different from the aspect of analogy.

The second difference is that Mulla Jalal Dawwafi, the writer of Sharh Aqaid Uzdiya says that the best of the sects is the ‘Successful sect’, that is the Ashari sect, because this sect acts upon those traditions of the Messenger of Allah (S) that are related by his companions and unlike the Motazalite, this sect does not temper traditions by rationality. And neither does it quote persons other than the companions as Shias have done, who, due to the belief in their superiority, quote their Imams. Here the notable point is that the Motazela sect is mentioned to be different from the Ashaira.

However, both these relate traditions from the companions, unlike Shia sect which related traditions from non-companions, that is the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The writer presents five examples of controversies from the aspect of actions. One is that Ali (a.s.) mostly considers legal the selling of slave-girls who have children while the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat consider it prohibited. Allamah Taftazani writes in Sharh Mukhtasar Usoole Azudi:

“The companions have differed in the matter of the selling of slave girls who have borne children. Ali (a.s.) considers it permissible and it is the religion of Shias and Shias know well the religion of Ali (a.s.).” Secondly, Thalabi has related that Ali (a.s.) considers the wiping over the shoes prohibited while Abu Hanifah allows it, as is also mentioned in the Sharh Waqaya.

Thirdly, Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not allow inheritance to the woman whose husband had died with the consummation of marriage unlike Ali (a.s.). Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, the believer of Sunni faith in his Sharh Mishkat differs with the religion of Ali (a.s.) and says: “That is the religion of Ali (a.s.) and his Shias and this is the religion of Ibn Masood, that is why we follow the statement of Ibn Masood.” It should be clear that the above two examples illustrate that Ahlul Sunnat differ from the religion of Ali (a.s.).

Ignorant people from Ahlul Sunnat think that their religion is same as that of Ali (a.s.); it is certainly not so. There is no similarity between the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and the faith of Ali (a.s.).

Fourthly, rabbit meat is unlawful in the religion of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while Abu Hanifah permitted it. Mulla Jami has mentioned this in his book Tafhaat. Here it is worth saying that rabbit is prohibited by Allah in Taurat. Thus, the impermissibility of rabbit is mentioned with the prohibition of pork. That the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had prohibited it does not seem to be without reason. It seems that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) has taken into consideration the prohibition of the Almighty and decreed rabbit unlawful.

Fifthly, fishes without scales are prohibited in Imamiyah faith and Ahlul Sunnat consider them lawful. Please note that this type of fish is also prohibited in Taurat. It is included in the list that mentions pork and rabbit meat. Thus, we see that Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used their broad knowledge fully while practicing jurisprudence. The title of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) as a “judge who judges by the four scrolls” is very much appropriate. All his successors also are seen to be fully qualified for this title. And why shouldn’t it be so?

Need Of Unity Among Muslims

It is regretful that within a short time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) a lot of controversies arose among the Muslims regarding principles of faith and practical laws. Now the situation is such that any sort of agreement between the sects is impossible.

Two such powerful sects have come into being that it is impossible for anyone of them to disappear. Now, if only Allah removes the differences from the Muslims can there be a fresh unity among them. Presently the conditions of Muslims require reconciliation, but no one has any idea how this could be achieved.

Till the time Muslims themselves do not strive to patch up, there is every possibility that they would never unite. This cannot be achieved by debates and argumentations. The truth cannot be unraveled without forgoing bias. However, to get rid of bias, itself requires good sense given by Allah, which is a great bounty bestowed by Allah on whomsoever He wishes.

The Religion of Imamites is The Religion of Ahlul Bayt

It is a fact that the religion of the Imamites is same as the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), and it is absolutely different from the religion of Ahlul Sunnat. As mentioned by Sharif Zurjani in Sharh Mawaqif: Initially the Imamites followed the religion of their Imams, but after a long time controversies developed among them.

The descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat) were indeed initially on the religion of their Imams, but the passage of time changed their faiths. Today they follow every type of religion, some are Shias and some Tafzeeliya, some Sunni, some Wahabi, Khariji, Nasibi, Christian and some are even atheists. We should know that society and government has a great influence on religion.

Some Sadaats in India are seen following a religion of other than the Imamites. This is so, because India mostly had non-Shia rulers. Economic and monetary factors forced the Sadaat of India to start following the religion of the rulers and this deprived their families of the religion of their forefathers. Now these poor people do not even know what religion their forefathers had followed, or whether their present religion is new or ancient. The statement of the writer of Al Milal wan Nihal also proves that the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had a distinct religion. And their followers were called Imamites as they also followed the same faith.

Ibn Kathir, a great Sunni scholar, writes the following in connection with the Imamite faith in his book Jame al-Usool: “Now we describe the well known faiths of the Muslims that were followed by the people in different areas of the world. That is the Shafei, the Hanafite, the Maliki, the Hanbali and the Imamiyah.” After this, the respected scholar has named and introduced the founders of each of these faiths. Regarding the founders of Imamiyah faith, he writes:

“The leader of the Imamiyah in the second century was Ali Ibn Moosa ar-Reza and in the third century, it was Muhammad Ibn Yaqoob al-Kulaini and in the fourth century it was Sayyid Murtada Alamul Huda. The religion of all the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was same. Thus, whatever was the religion of Ali Ibn Moosa ar- Reza, it was the same religion of all the Imams.”

The Desired Success Of Ahlul Sunnat Faith

It should be clear that the success and popularity achieved by Ahlul Sunnat faith till this time shows a great transformation. No decrease or increase is seen in the principles of its faith and the practical laws. Doubtlessly, the Imams and scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have given it great embellishments and decorations.

This religion is furnished with Quran, tradition, heritage, reports and jurisprudence, laws etc. Presently, no sort of deficiency is seen in the religion. However, if there is any shortage and deficiency, it is the support to the family of the Prophet and the similarity with their views through their words and deeds, as shown by the writer in the foregoing pages and as shall be further explained in the following pages.

However, this matter cannot be open to objection in any way, because if the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat had shown the same support and similar views with the family of the Prophet as Shias scholars did, Ahlul Sunnat faith would not have separated from Shia faith and achieved such great success. Then in reality both the religions would have been one and the same. In that case Ahlul Sunnat faith would have become extinct. The aloofness of Ahlul Sunnat scholars from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was necessary for the popularity of Ahlul Sunnat faith.

Differences Of The Principles With Regard To The Tragedy Of Karbala’

Before we relate the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to mention some more points of differences between the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat. It is not possible to mention all the points of differences in this book. Even then we feel it is necessary to mention the following basic differences with regard to the incident of Karbala’.

Without this, it would be impossible to describe the incident of Karbala’. Rather, the reality of the incident will remain veiled for the people unfamiliar with it. Below, we shall describe in brief, the matter of Caliphate, because the incident of Karbala’ has a definite connection with the matter of Caliphate and some basic principles are related to this problem.

Beliefs Of Ahlul Sunnat And Imamiyah With Regard To Caliphate

Although both the Imamiyah and Ahlul Sunnat consider the matter of Caliphate to be a valid affair, there is wide difference in their beliefs. Also, both the sects believe in twelve Caliphs.

Today the position is such that both the sects consider the tradition of twelve Caliphs correct. But the difference is as to the names of the twelve Caliphs. Jabir Ibn Samra says that one day he went with his father to the Messenger of Allah (S). He heard the Messenger of Allah (S) say: “This affair shall not be complete till there are twelve Caliphs.” Jabir says that after this, the Prophet said something, which he could not understand. So Jabir asked his father what the Messenger of Allah (S) had said. The father told him that the Prophet said: All of them (Caliphs) shall be from Quraish.

On the basis of this tradition, Ahlul Sunnat have enumerated their Caliphs as follows: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan and seven Caliphs from Abdul Malik to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. Some Ahlul Sunnat scholars consider Yazeed after Muawiyah and the Umayyad Caliphs in an unbroken chain among the twelve Caliphs. Even the teacher of this writer, Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi considered valid the Caliphate of Yazeed and the author also had the same belief during his student life. We should know that Ahlul Sunnat sect, which has excluded Yazeed from the list of twelve Caliphs has done so due to the reason that Yazeed was a transgressor and sinful man. But the sect that considers Yazeed a rightful Caliph does so with the justification that infallibility is not a necessary condition of Caliphate.

From the aspect of principle, to be a rightful Caliph one has to fulfill at least one of the necessary conditions of Caliphate, while Yazeed fulfilled many of these conditions. Yazeed had the support of the consensus (Ijma) of Abu Bakr. Only two people are sufficient for consensus while Yazeed had the consensus of hundreds of thousands of people. Apart from this, Yazeed had the condition of the nomination of Umar, the consultation (Shura) of Uthman and the military superiority of Muawiyah. In such a case, the validity of Yazeed’s Caliphate is not against the principles of Caliphate. From this aspect, we must count all the twelve Caliphs and not make exclusions like some sects of Ahlul Sunnat do by excluding Yazeed from the luminaries of twelve Caliphs. This is not an aimless discourse.

Doubtlessly, no follower of the principles of Caliphate could exclude Yazeed from the twelve Caliphs. Thus, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi in his book, Izalatul Khifa mentions in serial order the names of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat and Yazeed is also included in the list. Now, this was about the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat. Let us see the list of the twelve Caliphs of the Imamiyah Sect. There is no difference among the twelver Shias regarding the twelve Caliphs.

The Caliphs of Shias are as follows: Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.), Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.), Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), Imam Muhammad at-Taqi (a.s.), Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) and Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi (a.j.) (Peace be upon them all).

It should be clear that Shias consider Caliphate to be a divine affair on the basis of Quran and the tradition of the two heavy things (Thaqalayn). They also all believe in the infallibility of the Caliphs. According to the Imamiyah sect, it is necessary for the Caliph to be infallible. The Imamiyah say that the Prophet was infallible, therefore his successors should also be infallible. The successor of an infallible cannot be a non-infallible.

Ahlul Sunnat people have contrary belief with regard to the matter of Caliphate and they do not consider it to be a divine affair. The writer has shown that the statement of “We have the book of Allah…” (Hasbona Kitabullah) had created an atmosphere, which was not conducive to make the affair of Caliphate a divine affair.

Thus, they consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr valid on the basis of a single consensus (Ijma). And according to principles, they do not successfully present any Quranic or traditional proof to justify their stand. Some proofs of nomination, that are presented by some Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not conform to their own principles of Caliphate. Because, if the nominative proofs are considered correct, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs will become an affair from Allah, which is the very belief of the Imamiyah sect and which is vehemently opposed by Sunni sect.

We shall study these nominative proofs later. Here, we do not desire to dwell further on this topic. In the same way, the belief in the infallibility of the Caliphs is a belief very far from Ahlul Sunnat. They do not consider anyone infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S). Rather, there is a Sunni sect which considers Holy Prophet (S) infallible only at the time of divine revelation and for other times they do not even consider him infallible.

One of their sects even believes that before Prophethood, (Allah forbid!) the Messenger of Allah (S) was a disbeliever and his respected father was also a disbeliever. It is apparent, that on the basis of the lack of infallibility, Ahlul Sunnat cannot have the belief of the fourteen infallibles, because according to them, after the Holy Prophet (S), there was no infallible and there shall never be in the future. Unlike Ahlul Sunnat, Shias have the belief of the fourteen Infallibles (a.s.) and this belief is special only to Shias.

Doubtlessly, some Ahlul Sunnat people have unprincipally taken this belief from Shias. It is obvious that when according to the majority of Ahlul Sunnat, when no one from the Muslim Ummah could be infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S), then from where did we get these thirteen Infallibles? Ahlul Sunnat do not consider anyone infallible except the Holy Prophet (S).

In these circumstances, if one of them agrees to the infallibility of any member of Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs would become invalid. Obviously, then after this confession what remains to give preference to the three Caliphs over His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? Preferring a non-infallible to an infallible is indeed an irrational thing!

Doubtlessly, it is a brilliant decision of Ahlul Sunnat to consider Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) non-infallible like the other common Muslims. Apart from this, if the Muslims of that time had believed in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), the matter of Fadak would have been decided in a different manner. Indeed, due to the confession of infallibility, the dark deeds of the house of justice towards Lady Fatima (s.a.) would have come about in a different manner.

Knowledgeable people are aware that Fatima (s.a.) was treated as an ordinary woman in the litigation of Fadak. Thus, Umar being an opposite party in the case said that Fatima is nothing more than a woman! In brief, it is the very belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) can commit mistakes.

The statement of Maulavi Abdul Ala regarding Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in Bahrul Uloom clearly shows that according to Ahlul Sunnat the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) also sometimes commit mistakes like the common people and they are even prone to deviation. And this was due to the sin they committed without intention. Like the sin committed by Lady Fatima that she should accuse the Caliph of the Prophet to be a liar and that she should become aloof from him when he had confiscated Fadak.

Apparently, it seems that Fatima (s.a.) did not consider Abu Bakr a Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S), that she should accuse him of such misdemeanor in the words of Abdul Ala. The above circumstances also show that all Bani Hashim did not consider Abu Bakr to be Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S).

And Ali (a.s.) also had similar view, as we shall show in the following pages. In any case, the denial to believe in the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) definitely decreased their greatness and importance. It should be clear that gradually these acts of dishonor towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) culminated in the incident, which is known as the Tragedy of Karbala’. The incident of Karbala’ is nothing but a result of these acts and it is not even unnatural.

Here we shall mention some examples of insulting behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that culminated in the Tragedy of Karbala’. One of this is the burning of the door of Fatima (s.a.). This event is mentioned in the Tarikh of Abul Fida. Tarikh Tabari, Tarikh Waqidi, Al-Murtadha’, Saqifah of Abu Bakr by Jauhari, Al Imamah was Siyasah etc. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi also agrees to it as mentioned by him in his book, Tohfa Ithna Ashar. Apart from this, Asian books, like Gaban, Aaseeran and Aurang also include this incident. Indeed, this incident has a historical base and it is not fiction.

Till this point, writer had not seen this incident mentioned in these books, he did not believe it to be a true incident. But after the student days, when he studied the books of history and Scholastic Theology (Ilmul Kalam), he became disenchanted with the well-known Islam. Now the condition is such that he is ashamed to call himself a Muslim.

Regrettably, even the Tohfa (gift) of Shah Abdul Aziz could not provide any succor. Rather, the replies of the Shah seem to justify sins and encourage sinful deeds. Actually, this book has distanced the writer further from popular Islam. Anyway, whether I became a denier or whatever, at least I am safe from not recognizing the Holy Prophet (S), praise be to Allah. If Allah wills, I shall not be ashamed to face the Holy Prophet (S) in front of Lady Fatima (s.a.) after I die. Let us now read the terrible and tragic incident as recorded in Al Imamah was Siyasah.

The Arson

When Abu Bakr learnt that the people opposing allegiance were with Ali (a.s.), he sent Umar to them. Thus, Umar called them while they were in the house of Ali (a.s.), but they refused to come out, so Umar got firewood piled at Ali’s door and said: “By the One in Whose hands is the life of Umar, we shall definitely bring them out, or we shall burn all of them to death.” Someone said: “O Hafasa’s father, Fatima (s.a.) is also in the house.” Upon this, Umar said: “Let her be!”

All the people came out and paid allegiance, except Ali (a.s.) who did not come out. Umar thought that Ali (a.s.) had vowed that he will not leave his house till he has collected the Quran, and he would not even put his mantle on his shoulders till he had collected the Quran. After this, Fatima came near the door and said:

“You left the bier of the Messenger of Allah (S) and became busy in your activities and now you have come to trouble us? You have no regard for our rights!”

After this, Umar came to Abu Bakr and said: “Will you not take allegiance from that opponent (Ali)?” Abu Bakr sent his slave, Qunfuz to summon Ali (a.s.) and Qunfuz went to Ali (a.s.) who asked him the purpose of his visit; Qunfuz said:

“The Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S) has summoned you.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “How you people attribute falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S)?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who continued to weep for a long time. Umar again asked him if he wouldn’t take allegiance from the opponent of allegiance.

Abu Bakr told his slave to go once more and say that the chief of the believers (Amirul Mo-mineen) has called him. So Qunfuz went and told as he was bidden. Ali (a.s.) became visibly angry and said: “Glory be to Allah, what claim is it, that he (Abu Bakr) has no right to it?” The slave returned to Abu Bakr who again began to weep.

Then Umar got up and a group of people went with him. They reached the door of Fatima (s.a.) and knocked. When Lady Fatima (s.a.) heard them, she began to wail and scream aloud: “O Father! O Messenger of Allah (S) help your daughter! See what we are made to suffer after you at the hands of Ibn Khattab (Umar) and Ibn Abi Qahafa (Abu Bakr).”

When the people heard the mournful voice of Fatima (s.a.), they turned away while their hearts were painful and shattered. But Umar remained there and with the help of some people brought Ali (a.s.) out of the house and took him to Abu Bakr. The incident of arson so far is related to the house of Fatima (s.a.) and the writer cannot comment further. But does this incident at the house Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) not insult the respectable household? The next insulting behavior towards the Purified Household (a.s.) came about when Ali (a.s.) was brought before Abu Bakr.

After The Arson

Again we quote from the book Al Imamah was Siyasah. When Umar brought His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to Abu Bakr, Ali (a.s.) said: “What if I don’t give allegiance?” Umar said: “By the One except whom there is no god, in such a case we shall behead you.”

Ali (a.s.) asked: “Will you kill a slave of Allah and the brother of Holy Prophet (S)?” Umar said: “Slave of Allah is right, but not the brother of Holy Prophet (S).” At that time Abu Bakr was silent and he did not utter a single word. Umar asked Abu Bakr why he did not tell Ali what he wanted? Abu Bakr said that till Fatima (s.a.) was at the side of Ali (a.s.), he (Abu Bakr) could not force him for anything. After this, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) came to the grave of the Messenger of Allah (S). He wailed and entreated:

“O son of my uncle! Help me! The people have weakened me too much and are prepared to slay me.”

The people of justice should understand what effect this statement of Umar had on the Muslims. All these actions against the Chief of Bani Hashim, that is Ali (a.s.), the forcible arrest and an open threat to kill him! All this did not enhance the respect of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Here no one objects to this type of action of Umar. The most shocking of all is the refusal of Umar to acknowledge that Ali (a.s.) was the brother of Holy Prophet (S). While every person of that time was aware that Ali (a.s.) was the cousin of the Messenger of Allah (S).

In addition to this, the Holy Prophet (S) had compared him to Prophet Haroon (a.s.) and also bestowed him the status of brother in the world and in the hereafter. However, the way Umar dealt with Ali (a.s.) must have influenced the people to think Ali (a.s.) must be so unrespectable that Umar cannot bear to call him the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, this denial cannot in any way enhance the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever the intellectuals may think.

Decrease in the Respect Of Ahlul Bayt From The Aspect Of The Rule Of Consensus

Here are present other example that prove decrease in the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). It is the stand of Ahlul Sunnat scholars that two people of other than Ahlul Bayt (S) are sufficient for quorum of consensus. But the consensus of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is not acceptable whether of two people or two hundred

Fourthly, this jurisprudence removed the belief of the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from the common people and this indirectly benefited the non-Ahlul Bayt people. Without any doubt, this type of jurisprudence showered untold honors on the non-Ahlul Bayt people and went to great lengths to decrease the respectability of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Thus, there is no doubt that Karbala’ was the culmination of the intrigue against Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that was initiated just after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). This continued till Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Rather, it exists even after that and will remain till there remains enmity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Inappropriate Titles That Decreased The Respect Of Muhammad’s Progeny

The fourth example of decrease in the respectability of Muhammad’s Progeny is given below: It should be clear that in the view of this writer, one of the causes of insult to Muhammad’s Progeny is the transferring of the titles of thousand. Farooq Aazam,1 Siddiq Akbar2 and Saifullah3 which were exclusive for Ali (a.s.). And the majority of Muslims do not once remember His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) with these titles. Rather, only one or two from a hundred thousand Muslims may be aware that these titles belong specially to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

The same is the case with the title of Siddiqa4, which was exclusive for Lady Fatima (s.a.). But the majority Muslims have separated this title from her. The following matter also tells us of the insult to Muhammad’s Progeny that the majority Muslims have turned the title of Imam into such a common appendage that people like Fakhruddin Razi and Ghazzali are decorated with it, whereas this title is exclusive for the Imams from the family of the Prophet. If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

If the majority Muslims had valued Muhammad’s Progeny, they would not have transferred their titles to ordinary people. But since the majority Muslims are bent on disrespecting Muhammad’s Progeny, what else would they have done?

- 1. The great discriminator

- 2. The great truthful one.

- 3. Sword of Allah.

- 4. Truthful lady

A Glance At The Title Of Siddiq Akbar

We should know that the title of Siddiq Akbar is especially for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it cannot be applied to anyone else. Salman Farsi and Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari say that the Holy Prophet (S) held the hand of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said:

“Indeed, this is the person who was the first to bring faith in me. And he is the discriminator of right and wrong in this nation and he is the chief of believers. And he is the one who shall meet me first on Judgment Day, and he is the Siddiq Akbar.”1

The second saying of the Prophet is: Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari narrates that the Holy Prophet (S) told Ali (a.s.): “You were the first to believe in me and you are the Siddiq Akbar.”

The third saying of the Prophet is: Ibn Abbas and Abu Laila say that according to the Holy Prophet (S), Siddiq Akbar are three: “Habib Najjar, the companion of Prophet Isa (a.s.), who had brought faith in Isa (a.s.) and said: O people of my nation, follow the Prophets. The second was Hizqeel, from the group of Firon. But he believed in Allah and he was the one who said: O people of my nation, would you slay one who says that the Almighty is his Lord? The third is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.); and he is superior to both of them.”2

This tradition tells us that except for these three persons, there is no other Siddiq Akbar. Although one can call anyone as Siddiq Akbar.

The fourth prophetic tradition is as follows: Regarding the following verse of the Holy Quran:

“And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors.” 3

Ibn Abbas says that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked the Messenger of Allah (S): “Would we be able to see the Prophet in Paradise also?” Holy Prophet (S) replied that there had been a close confidant of every prophet who had brought faith in him first of all. Then this verse was revealed that they are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed the bounties. That is with the prophets, the truthfuls, the martyrs and the righteous ones. And they shall be their good companions. After this, the Holy Prophet (S) called His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Ali! The Almighty Allah has revealed the reply to your question and made you my confidant, because you brought faith in me before others did and you are the Siddiq Akbar.”4

The fifth tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) is related by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself wherein the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “This Siddiq Akbar is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).” The writer has refrained from quoting this tradition in full, although it is absolutely authentic and its reporter is Abu Ja’far al-Aqeeli.

The gist of this narration is that Holy Prophet (S) told His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that on Judgment Day except for the four of us, no one would be astride a mount. A person from the Helpers (Ansar) got up and beseeched the Prophet to inform them who these four were. The Prophet replied:

“One of these is myself. I shall be astride the Buraaq. And my brother Salih, the prophet shall be on the she-camel whose legs were severed. And my Uncle Hamza shall be stride the she-camel, Ghazba. And my brother, Ali (a.s.) shall be on a she-camel of Paradise and the standard (Liwaul Hamd) shall be in his hand, and he would be calling out: ‘There is no god, except Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S).’ All the people would be saying that he is a proximate angel or a Messenger sent by Allah or a bearer of the throne (Arsh). An angel from inside the Arsh would reply: ‘O People! This is neither a proximate angel, nor a Messenger sent or a bearer of the throne, this is Siddiq Akbar, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.).’”

So far, we have mentioned the saying of the Holy Prophet (S). Now, one should also know that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) has called himself by the title of Siddiq Akbar as apparent from the following traditions.

First Tradition: Maaza Adwiya reports that he heard Ali (a.s.) saying from the pulpit of Basra that he was the Siddiq Akbar.5 In the same way, in Sharh Tajrid of Allamah Qaushiji, on page 389, we see that Ali (a.s.) said to a huge crowd: “I am the Siddiq Akbar. I brought faith before Abu Bakr did.” It should be clear that Ali (a.s.) has not attributed something new to himself; it was exactly what Holy Prophet (S) had declared about him.

Second Tradition: Ibaad Ibn Abdullah says that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “I am the slave of Allah and the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S). I am Siddiq Akbar. Except me, one who calls himself Siddiq Akbar, is a blatant liar. I have prayed seven years prior to everybody else.”6 It should be clear that this statement of Ali (a.s.) is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Thus, except for Ali (a.s.), no one has the right to call himself Siddiq Akbar.

Third Tradition: Maaza Adwiya says that he heard Ali (a.s.) saying from the pulpit of Basra that he was the Siddiq Akbar and that he had brought faith before Abu Bakr and had accepted Islam before Abu Bakr. From the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S) and Ali (a.s.) it becomes clear that for one to be Siddiq Akbar it is necessary that he should have precedence in faith and in Islam.

Now the people of justice mat decide whether Ali (a.s.) is eligible for the title of Siddiq Akbar or someone else. But it is extremely regrettable that justice has disappeared from the world. Common Muslims don’t even know that it is the special appellation of Imam Ali (a.s.) and according to the statement of the Prophet no one has even a share in it. The same is the case with the title of Farooq Aazam (the great discriminator) as will be proved from the traditions mentioned below.

- 1. Riyazun Nazarah

- 2. Refer Sahih Bukhari

- 3. Surah Nisa 4:69

- 4. Tafseer Ibn Jaham

- 5. Refer to Riaz of Mohib Tabari

- 6. Khasais of Nasai; Mustadrak of Hakim; Hafiz Abu Naeem in Hilaya etc.

A Glance At The Title Of Farooq Aazam

First Tradition: Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari says that he heard the Messenger of Allah (S) say to Ali (a.s.): O Ali, you are the Siddiq Akbar and such a Farooq Aazam1 that you will discriminate between good and evil.

Second Tradition: It is narrated from Salman Farsi that the Messenger of Allah (S) told with regard to Ali (a.s.) that he was the first to bring faith in the Holy Prophet (S) and that he would be the first to meet the Prophet on Judgment Day. He is the Siddiq Akbar and Farooq Aazam who discriminates between good and evil. He is the chief of the believers, whereas material world is the chief of the hypocrites. This tradition shows that precedence in faith is necessary for one to be Farooq Aazam. Thus this title cannot be allowed for anyone, except Ali (a.s.).

Third Tradition: Abu Laila relates that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Very soon there will be turmoil in my nation when it is so, you should serve Ali (a.s.). Indeed, he is the one to discriminate between truth and falsehood.”2

This tradition proves that Ali (a.s.) is discriminator (Farooq) and other important points are also derived from this tradition. The article ‘soon’ shows that the Holy Prophet (S) knew that there would be controversies among the Muslims in the near future. It was something that was related to Muslims and in the situation Ali (a.s.) would also be present and it was supposed to be an affair against the Bani Hashim. It cannot be anything except the ‘consensus’ of Saqifah Bani Sadah.

It was turmoil or mischief, which has till now put the Islamic world in controversy. The opponents of Bani Hashim might not consider it so, but in the view of Muhammad’s Progeny and common Bani Hashim, the matter of Saqifah was a mischief. The immediate effect of this incident was that many insulting and dishonorable actions against Ali and Fatima became apparent. And after this, such actions against Bani Hashim took place that is not hidden from the people of awareness. If this affair of Saqifah is not a mistake, what is it?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) knew by unseen knowledge of his Prophethood that very soon, mischief was about to be created. On the basis of this, he said that when such turmoil happens, and there is not much delay in this turmoil, O Muslim, you must support Ali (a.s.) in this turmoil. But what a pity, that, except for a few, no one supported Ali (a.s.) and did not act on the command of the Prophet.

Those who supported Ali (a.s.) were Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Salman Farsi, Miqdad and Malik al-Ashtar. Another result of the incident of Saqifah is that thousands of Muslims (even in this time) if not openly, they harbor suspicions in their heart with regard to Muhammad’s Progeny. Though I can mention many examples of this aloofness, here I present only two examples.

Three years ago, Maulana Shibli Nomani was in Calcutta and I was also present in the house where he stayed. One day Mirza Hairat Dehalvi was mentioned in the conversation. People of India are aware of the animosity of Mirza Hairat to Muhammad’s Progeny and especially to Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.). For some moments, the opposition of Mirza Hairat to Ali (a.s.) was discussed. It is not hidden from people of awareness that the Mirza has not left anything unsaid against Ali (a.s.). Although, this is something which any common person would oppose.

So I was not surprised when Shibli Nomani said that many scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have supported the views of Mirza Hairat. However, I was surprised when the Maulana went on to relate what those scholars have said in this regard. “They said that we cannot say anything about the elders of Shias but they criticize our Caliphs without any restraint. At least now there is a person who speaks bad of the elders of Shia and takes revenge on our behalf for the bad they say about our elders.” This, at least shows that many people of Ahlul Sunnat, though they themselves may not curse Ali (a.s.), they are pleased at the cursing of Ali (a.s.). How can such people support Ali (a.s.) in a time of turmoil that was prophesied by Holy Prophet (S)?

Second Example: There was person of Pathan (Afghan) origin in a family of Delhi. He used to visit me daily and remain in my company for a long time. I knew he was a Sunni and a staunch one at that. So I never mentioned the family of the Prophet before him. By chance, I involuntarily uttered a couplet of Saadi in praise of Ali (a.s.). Although my face was turned away from him the Khan became very angry. He wanted to say something severe to me but his anger was so intense that he was at a loss of words. At last, when he regained control, he said: “This is a religious matter and in this, swords can also be used.”

It is worth noting that the Khan was under obligation to us, and I had not said anything related to cursing. In spite of this, he was so angry that if he had a sword he would have killed me like Ibn Muljim. In any case, I apologized to him and till the time he was alive, I did not severe contacts with him. These two examples say a lot about the devotion of the majority of Muslims to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Thousands of Mirza Hairats are present in the world. Because Mirza Hairat has earned popularity due to his animosity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), the people of India know him as an opponent of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Otherwise, there are many people of his kind who are inwardly same, but they will never be exposed. Now, I will show how the title of Saifullah (sword of Allah) belongs to Ali (a.s.). To prove this, I mention the following tradition:

- 1. The great discriminator

- 2. Ref. Al-Istiab of Ibn Abde Barr

A Glance At The Title Of Saifullah

Ibn Abbas relates that Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the unsheathed sword of Allah1 for the enemies of Allah.”2 This title is also exclusive for Ali (a.s.), but the truth is that this cannot be applied to anyone. It is only for the one who is the victor of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hunayn and Khaybar.

- 1. Sword of Allah

- 2. Ref. Sharafin Nubuwwah

Siddiqa, An Exclusive Title Of Lady Fatima

In the end, I mention about the title of Siddiqa1. It is the exclusive title of the chief of the ladies of Paradise (Fatima), but this also, like the above-mentioned titles did not remain with her exclusively. The tradition, on the basis of which she is the owner of this title is as follows: Abu Humrah relates that the Prophet said:

“O Ali! You are bestowed three bounties that no one, even myself, has not received. You have got a father-in-law like me that even I haven’t got. You have got in marriage Siddiqa, my daughter that I haven’t got. You have got Hasan and Husayn from your loins but I have no sons like you. The truth is that you are from me and I am from you.”2

This tradition shows that no wife of Holy Prophet (S), even Khadija (s.a.), was equal to Fatima Zahra (s.a.). In this way, no woman in the world has the right to be addressed by the title of Siddiqa. Though it is rational, even the Almighty has no reply for bigotry. Ahlul Sunnat people consider ‘A’ysha most superior to all women and consider Fatima equal to her or less than her. (Peace and blessings be upon Fatima and her respected father). But they give preference to ‘A’ysha as obvious from the writing of Pir Dastagir (Abdul Qadir Jilani). He writes in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen:3

“Indeed, ‘A’ysha is the most superior of all the women of the world. This is proved from the fact that Almighty Allah cleared her of the blame of unchastity, such that it shall be recited till Judgment Day. In the same way, Fatima the daughter of the Prophet, is the most superior of all the women of the world.”

The above statement clearly expresses the status granted by him to ‘A’ysha. Indeed, no one has any opinion contradictory to this. When she is the mother of the faithful, her status is indeed respectful. But that she is the best of all women, because the Almighty cleared her of a baseless allegation, is just wishful thinking. How can that be a proof that she was the best of women? This only proves that those who heaped false allegations against her are being worthy of punishment by Allah. ‘A’ysha was definitely free of unchastity.

It is clear that the divine words in the concerned verses have the connotation of complete aloofness from such people. It has no connection with anyone’s superiority or infallibility. Although the saying of the prophet in the above tradition: “O Ali! You have received (a wife) like Siddiqa, my daughter, such that even I have not.”

It is a statement that clearly shows that neither Khadija, ‘A’ysha or any other wife of Holy Prophet (S) could be considered equal to Fatima. It is only due to the love of Abu Bakr that Ahlul Sunnat consider ‘A’ysha superior to Fatima (s.a.). Actually the daughter of the Prophet is superior to all the Muslim ladies and higher than all the ladies of the world and the chief of all women. Peace be upon Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

The writer has no intention to cast aspersion on the honor and status of ‘A’ysha; whatever is her grade, is clear in the view of Allah. But it is not proper to consider her higher in status to Fatima Zahra (s.a.). When the verse of purification descended, establishing the purification of Ahlul Bayt, ‘A’ysha asked the Messenger of Allah (S) what was the command about her. He told her: “You are in your own class.” And indeed she is in a class of her own.

Being the wife of the Prophet is not a small thing; it is a great status. But those who exceed in according more respect due to blind love for her cannot be but blamed to be ignorant friends. The fifth example of the decrease in the respect of Amirul Mo-mineen is mentioned below.

- 1. Truthful Lady

- 2. Dailami

- 3. Pg. 192

Decrease in the Respect Of Amirul Mo-Mineen In Relation To The Marriage Of Umme Kulthum

Here I would like to discuss something that is a matter of shame for myself and every respectable person. Though it exceeds the limits of decency, I shall mention it due to necessity. Anyway, Umme Kulthum was the daughter of Ali (a.s.) born of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Ahlul Sunnat scholars and some Shia scholars write surprising things about this chaste lady. This writer differs from the research of both these sects.

It is written in Isafur Raghebeen that Umar asked for the hand of Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima (s.a.) and Ali (a.s.) refused, stating her young age as an excuse for the refusal. Ali (a.s.) intended to marry her to the son of Ja’far at-Tayyar. But Umar pleaded with him and went to the pulpit and said that he had this wish because Hellfire is not for those who are related to the Prophet by blood or become the son-in-law of the Prophet. Thus, Ali (a.s.) decorated Umme Kulthum as a bride and sent her to Umar. When the Caliph saw this innocent girl, he lifted her up and placed her in his lap and kissed her. When she got up, he caught her by the thigh and said: “Tell your father, I am ready to marry you.” And when the child told all this to her father, Ali (a.s.) had her marriage performed. From this innocent girl was born Zaid Ibn Umar.

Ibn Hajar says that the kissing and embracing was by way of respect and it was because she was a child and had not attained puberty.

Ibn Sabbagh says that this incident is of 17 A.H. and Umar married her in the month of Zilqad that year. The dower was fixed at 40000 dirhams. Abul Fida, the historian and the writer of Seeratul Muhammadiya has also recorded this marriage of Umar. In this way, some Shia people also agree that this was true. Rather, they have included this strange incident in their books. As mentioned on Page 86 of Hadiqatush Shia of Shaykh Ahmad Ardbeli. The same is stated in Majalisul Mo-mineen of Qadi Nurullah Shushtari quoting the book Istigasa.

Here I will be content to relate the tradition of Hadiqatush Shia. The writer of this book says: Umar sent Abbas to Ali (a.s.) to ask for the hand of Umme Kulthum. Ali (a.s.) refused. Umar told Abbas that Ali (a.s.) had reservations from him. “By Allah! I will kill him.” Umar sent this information to Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) said that being killed is something and giving the hand of the daughter is something else. “I will never give him the hand of my daughter.”

Umar told Abbas to be present in the mosque on Friday so that he can be a witness of whatever happens. Abbas was present in the mosque on Friday. He heard Umar say during the sermon: “O people! There is a person from the companions of the Prophet who has committed fornication. But there is no eyewitness to this act. What is your opinion about this person?” All the people said that the chief of the believers does not need a witness. If you order, we shall kill this person.

After this, Umar descended from the pulpit and said to Abbas: “If Ali does not give me the hand of his daughter, I will do as I have said.” Abbas heard this, came to Ali (a.s.) and told him everything. Ali (a.s.) told Abbas that he was aware of this before Abbas told him but he would never give the hand of his daughter to Umar. Abbas said that Umar was a shameless and vicious person. “If you don’t give the hand of your daughter to Umar, we shall do that to avoid enmity; and we would just think as if this daughter was never born.”

Thus, Abbas told Umar that though Ali (a.s.) refuses to give the daughter, we have no objection. After this, Umar collected the people and said: “Abbas is the uncle of Ali (a.s.). Being more senior in the family, he gives the daughter of Ali (a.s.) to me.”

This is a narration of Shia sect. Commonly, we do not take the reference of traditions from a Shia book. The readers may read whatever they desire in this tradition. Here, I do not invite the opinion of anyone in this regard, but in the knowledge of this writer, the marriage of Umar with Umme Kulthum never took place. Because, according to Ibn Sabbagh this union took place in 17 A.H. At that time, she was definitely of young age. If she had not been so, the Caliph would not have kissed her.

The same Ibn Sabbagh says that Umar married her in the month of Zilqad that year. Doubtlessly, copulation with a girl of this young age is irrational behavior. Apparently, the writer considers this incident baseless.

The research of this writer shows that Umar had actually married Umme Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr. The mother of this Umme Kulthum had later married Ali (a.s.) and from this aspect she was Rabia, the daughter of Ali (a.s.). The writer’s derivation is that scholars have related this matter to Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima with some special aim in mind. Ahlul Sunnat scholars have established that on the basis of this marriage, Umar became the son-in-law of the Prophet and therefore was destined to Paradise. Imamiyah scholars have agreed in the authenticity of this incident, because it proves the despotic and evil nature of Umar, which can never make one eligible for Paradise. Anyway, we shall investigate this incident based on the writings of Ahlul Sunnat scholars.

If the research of Ahlul Sunnat is correct, this marriage has many repulsive aspects. What a nice way to make oneself eligible for Paradise? By marrying a young girl while one is 60 years of age and against the wishes of her father; and even when she is betrothed to someone else? Age is also a consideration in the matter of matrimonial match. Just to become eligible for Paradise, a person is bent on making a living being burn in hellfire of this world. That is what must have been the life of Umme Kulthum. Doubtlessly, such behavior cannot be expected from a human being. Such a vicious act requires a great degree of hard heartedness.

The way Umar threatened Ali (a.s.) and he relented by sending her as a bride to Umar is mentioned in Isafur Raghebeen. Umar must have indeed behaved very badly that he threatened to allege fornication to Ali (a.s.). But it is not expected of Ali (a.s.) that he would have sent his daughter to him. He had to maintain silence against his will.

Thus, if the above incident is true, the Bani Hashim had become so weak that a person could obtain the hand of the daughter of the chief of Bani Hashim so easily. I have to show in this book, how different types of insults were heaped on Amirul Mo-mineen. So much so, that at last the incident of Karbala’ happened and after this, the various atrocities that were committed on descendants of the Prophet and descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat).

This incident of the marriage of Umme Kulthum related by Ahlul Sunnat scholars is a very tragic incident indeed. It tells of the pathetic level of the honor of Amirul Mo-mineen. What can one say about the tragic and horrific nature of this incident? Although Mohsinul Mulk has greatly defended the behavior of Umar, but as the Nawab (Mohsinul Mulk) was himself childless, it was not possible for him to put himself in the position of the bride’s father and see what a painful matter it was.

O cruel people of the world! Whether you are Jew or Hindu or Muslims! I ask you, how you would feel when a four or five year daughter of yours, whom you intended to marry to a suitable match, is snatched away forcibly by a sixty year old demon? And when the girl goes to that person before the marriage that beast makes her sit in his lap and kisses her and when she is to return home, he catches hold of her thigh! O parents of young girls! Can you bear such behavior with your daughters? Indeed, your modesty and conscience will scream out, “Never! Never!”

Though Ibn Hajar has justified the kissing of Umar that it was by way of respect, but he has presented no justification for the holding of thigh – May be in the tribe of Ibn Hajar it was a permissible matter for women to have their thighs held by stranger men, that he did not think it required any explanation. In brief, this incident of Umar seems to be an act to hurt Bani Hashim and it can’t be for the love of Paradise. No religion considers forcible marriage to a young girl, a means to obtain Paradise.

According to the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, Umar was one of the ten people who had been guaranteed Paradise according to the Prophetic tradition of Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten)1 Therefore, what was the need for him to insist on marriage to Umme Kulthum? Except that it was a way to further oppress and hurt Bani Hashim. If the people of justice do not call it severe injustice, what else would they say?

Leave alone Shia narrators, the narration in Sunni book itself is sufficient to prove the cruelty and viciousness of the main protagonist. The truth is that if Ahlul Sunnat narration is correct, this girl was forcibly taken from Bani Hashim. The marriage of Umme Kulthum to Ali (a.s.) never took place by the consent of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) was extremely hateful to Umar (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) knew that Umar was the enemy of his life and property, as it is not hidden from the researchers. It is beyond reason to assume that Ali (a.s.) could have willingly given his daughter’s hand to Umar. The proof is that the Holy Prophet (S) did not give the hand of his daughter to Umar though he had asked for it.

Thus, Ali (a.s.) who followed in the footsteps of Prophet (S), could not go against the practice of Prophet (S) and give his daughter to Umar. It is well known that the refusal of Prophet resulted in Umar becoming hateful to Ali (a.s.) and Fatima and this enmity continued to the end of his life. It is a great misconception among Muslims that Umar and Ali (a.s.) were close friends. In that situation, when there was absolute enmity between them, it is highly improbable that such an affair could have occurred.

Also there was a wide difference between the nature and upbringing of Umar and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Anyway, even if we assume it to be true, as Ahlul Sunnat believe, it is sufficient to say that Umar had great resolve. Because if he failed to obtain the hand of Fatima (s.a.) from the Prophet, he at last succeeded in gaining the hand of such a young daughter of Fatima (s.a.) after all these years. The strength of resolve is a great thing! At last, on the basis of that power, now Umar made himself eligible for Paradise. How great it is to be the master of ones resolve and intention!

- 1. Ten persons who received the glad tidings of Paradise.

Belief in The Holy Five is The Exclusive Belief Of Shias

Now the writer shall discuss the difference between the sects regarding the five holy personages (Panjetan Paak). We should know that the belief of the Purified five is the belief of only Shias and Ahlul Sunnat are not in anyway connected with it. It is so, because Ahlul Sunnat do not consider the verse of Purification to be restricted to Holy Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Neither do they consider that the verse of Malediction (Quran 3:16) to be related to Ali and Fatima (s.a.) specially. They include ‘A’ysha, Zubair and Talha also in the verse of Purification (Quran 33:33). This makes them more than five. It is apparent that due to this the belief of five pure ones does not remain valid.

Some Ahlul Sunnat who seem to be following the belief of Panjetan Paak are actually unprincipled. That which is not in their religion is followed by them only on the basis of their ignorance. Who has prevented such Sunnis from becoming Shias? What is the meaning of having a Shia belief when one is a Sunni?

It is just like some Sunnis cultivate the belief in 14 infallibles, while actually the religion of Ahlul Sunnat has no relation to the belief of 14 infallibles and in the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, there is no place for the Imams except Ali (a.s.) and Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Since Ali (a.s.) is the fourth Caliph of Sunnis he is included in the rightly guided Caliphs.

There are other Imams of Sunnis and according to their belief, Imam Mahdi will appear just before Judgment Day and reform the world, that is why he is mentioned in Sunni belief. Otherwise, the other Imams of Muhammad’s Progeny have neither a place in the list of the twelve Caliphs of Sunnis nor do they have any place in the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

They do not even consider the rulings of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt valid for their legal problems and also do not accept their views in jurisprudence. On the other hand, Shias believe that the Imams from Ali (a.s.) to Imam Mahdi (a.j.) are successors of the Prophet and they do not consider Caliphate to be divorced from Imamate.

Caliphate Cannot Be Divorced From Imamate

Scholars of Ahlul Sunnat, according to Allamah Damiri, do not separate Caliphate from Imamate and it is a fact that Caliphate cannot be divorced from Imamate. It is meaningless to think that Caliphs may be different from Imams. It is necessary that whoever is the Caliph must also be the Imam. Abdul Qadir Jilani also in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen, on page 196, mentions the Caliphs with the title of ‘Imams’. Which clearly proves that apart from being Caliphs, these people also held the position of Imams. Thus, when Ahlul Sunnat do not consider the Imams of the family of the Prophet from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) as the Caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (S), then they cannot even consider them as Imams whose obedience is compulsory.

The truth is that Ahlul Sunnat have no religious connection with the Imams from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Whatever religious relationship Ahlul Sunnat have, it is with Abu Hanifah, Shafei, Malik and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. That is why from among Ahlul Sunnat, except for some Sufi people, there would be hardly one or two people from ten thousand who can recite the names of the 12 Imams of Ahlul Bayt in a serial order.

It is clear that when these Imams have no connection with religion what is the use of remembering their names? When they have no religious standing in the view of non-Imamiyah people it is but natural that the non-Imamiyah people have nothing to do with them. On the other hand is the matter of the Imamiyah sect. Here, even the young children know by heart the names of the twelve Imams (a.s.).

Doubtlessly, it is the need of religion that the names of the Imams are so faithfully recited by the Imamites. If Ahlul Sunnat had a religious connection with the Imams of the family of the Prophet they would have remembered their names in proper order, like the Imamites. Now, before the writer invites the attention of the readers to the tragedy of Karbala’ it seems appropriate to explain the conditions of Amirul Mo-mineen Ali (a.s.).

Writings Based On The Superiority Of Ali And The Proof Of His Caliphate

His name is Ali (a.s.) and agnomen, Abul Hasan and Abu Turab while his respected father’s name was Imran and agnomen, Abu Talib (a.s.); that is why he is called Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). Abu Talib was the paternal uncle of the virtues and excellences are mentioned in brief below, with the intention of gaining divine rewards.

(1) He was the ward of the Messenger of Allah (S), because when the Holy Prophet (S) was an orphan, Abu Talib (Ali’s father) brought him up and did not allow the sorrow of being orphan to enter his heart. As long as he was alive, he continued to help the Holy Prophet (S) with his life and property and continued to defend him from the attack of the Meccan infidels.1 Till the time he was alive, he did not allow any harm to the Messenger of Allah (S). O respected readers! This caretaking of Ali (a.s.) is not a secret matter. Though bigotry may prevent some to disregard it, the people with insight see it clearly.

(2) He was equal to the Holy Prophet (S) from the aspect of lineage. His blood relationship does not require explanation.

(3) The Holy Prophet (S) used to consider him his life and body, as is the statement of Holy Prophet (S):

“Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, your self is myself, and your soul is my soul.”

This is a prophetic tradition and to mention the name of Ali without reciting benediction (Salawat) is bad etiquette.

(4) According to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S): “Ali and I are from the same Radiance (Noor).”

This tradition is quoted in writings of great scholars, all of whom consider it to be correct. A large group of scholars consider it correct. But Shah Abul Aziz has taken it as a topic of discussion in his book of Tohfa. What is to be said of this tradition, the whole book of Abdul Aziz looks like a copy of Mulla Kabli. If Mulla Kabli had not there, Tohfa may not have been compiled. This Mulla was a severe opponent of Ahlul Bayt.

Thus, even the Shah has no recourse to his views and by great interpolation, Mulla Kabli has selected this tradition for discussion. But the Moon cannot be hidden by casting mud on it. Those who want to research the authenticity of this tradition, may refer to Nadir Husayn’s Ittehaaful Islam. Indeed, the foundation of Sunnism is opposition of Ahlul Bayt. They cannot see a single merit of Ahlul Bayt. To select this tradition for investigation was the job of Mulla Kabli and Shah Abdul Aziz.

(5) He was the son-in-law of the Prophet and such a son-in-law that he was the husband of the pride of womenfolk, Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

(6) He is one of the folks of the cloak (Kisa). That is, those who had entered the blanket of the Holy Prophet (S) by his permission and the Holy Prophet (S) had recited the verse of Purification after taking him in the blanket.2

(7) He is from the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. Allah the Almighty has addressed him, his wife and his sons by the title of Ahlul Bayt, as mentioned in the above verse and also apparent from traditions of the Holy Prophet (S).

(8) He is one of the Holy Five (Panjetan Paak). They include the Holy Prophet (S), Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). That they are pure, is proved from the verse of Purification3 and also from the verse of Malediction.4

(9) He is one of the Fourteen Infallibles. The Fourteen Infallibles consist of the Holy Prophet (S), Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and the Twelve Imams. Ibn Abbas relates the following tradition with regard to the Twelve Imams. A Jew named Nathal, came to the Messenger of Allah (S) and said: “O Muhammad! I question you because I have straitness in my chest. If you can reply my questions, I will accept Islam at your hands. Thus, tell me who your legatee is? Our Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had appointed Yusha Ibn Noon as his legatee.” The Holy Prophet (S) said:

“My legatee and my successor after me, is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and after him his sons, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and after that nine descendants from the loins of Husayn (a.s.) shall be the righteous Imams.” The Jews asked him to state their names. The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “After Husayn, shall be Ali, son of Husayn, then Muhammad Baqir, then Ja’far as-Sadiq, then Moosa Kazim, then Ali ar-Reza, then Muhammad al-Jawad, then Ali al-Hadi, then Hasan Askari and then Hujjatullah al-Mahdi (Peace be upon them forever). Thus, these are the twelve Imams, like the twelve tribes of Bani Israel.”

The Jew asked him where they would reside? Holy Prophet (S) said that they shall be in Paradise in his grade. Then this Jew began to recite the formula of faith: “There is no god except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S)”, and said that these are the right successors. “It is the same that I have found in the book of Moosa (a.s.). That the Prophet of the last age will be born and his name shall be Ahmad. And after him there shall be no prophethood and after him shall be Twelve Pure Imams.”

This tradition is recorded by Shobi and Kashful Ghumma and other scholars like Khwarizmi, Hamuyi, Juwaini, Ibn Najjar and Abdullah bin Ahmad continued to include it in their writings. It should be clear that it was with regard to those who are purified of all small and greater sins. Thus, just like Holy Prophet (S) is infallible, In the same way, are Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and other Twelve Imams. It is the belief of this writer that the fourteen are purified of all small and great sins. But the non-Imamiyah do not consider anyone infallible, except the Holy Prophet (S) an d rather, there is a sect of Ahlul Sunnat that does not consider even Holy Prophet (S) as infallible except at the time of getting divine revelation. We seek Allah’s refuge from such infa my!

(10) He is the first of the twelve Imams of the family of Holy Prophet (S). It should be clear that the Twelve Imams are as follows:

The first Imam is Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.), second, Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba, third, Imam Husayn, the Martyr of Karbala’, fourth, the chief of those who prostrate, the ornament of the worshipper, Imam Sajjad (a.s.), fifth, Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), sixth, Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), seventh, Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.), eighth, Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), ninth, Imam Muhammad Taqi (a.s.), tenth, Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), eleventh, Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.), twelfth, Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, the Master of the Age and the time. Peace be upon them till Judgment Day.

These infallible Imams are the successors of the Holy Prophet (S) and they were the guardians of religion after him. All the descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaat) are related to these personages. And according to Ibn Qutaibah there was a time when all the Sadaat followed the religion of these Imams. The excellence of these beloved ones of the Prophet is beyond computation. The followers of the family of the Prophet may invoke blessings upon them.

(11) He, Ali (a.s.) is also from Ahlul Bayt according to the verse of Malediction.5 Muslim relates from Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas that when this verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet (S) called Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and said: “O Allah! These are my Ahlul Bayt.”

(12) Ali (a.s.) was the favorite and most beloved to the Holy Prophet (S) than other people. As proved from the tradition of the Roasted Bird, which Tirmidhi and Hakim have recorded. The tradition is as follows: “One day the Holy Prophet (S) was presented with a roasted bird and he prayed to Allah to send to him one who was the most beloved to Allah from His creatures, so that he could accompany the Prophet in partaking of the bird.”

Anas bin Malik the narrator of this tradition says that he used to pray that such a person should be from his people, that is the Helpers (Ansar). But after sometime Ali Ibn Abi Talib came and shared the bird with the Prophet.

(13) Ali (a.s.) was the brother of the Prophet in religion and the world, as the Prophet said: “You are my brother in the world and in the Hereafter.”

(14) Ali (a.s.) was to the Prophet like Haroon was to Moosa (a.s.) as the tradition says: “You are to me in position as Haroon was to Moosa (a.s.).”6

(15) Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, is bestowed with the same position, as the Prophet has said: “Indeed, Ali (a.s.) is to me and I am from him and he is the guardian of all the believers.” This tradition is recorded by Tirmidhi from Imran bin Husayn. Apart from this, the tradition of Radiance (Noor) and the tradition of “your flesh is my flesh...” also prove his oneness with the Prophet.

It seems that Umar was not aware of these traditions; otherwise, he would not have behaved so rudely with Ali (a.s.). Like the statements of Umar: “I will strike your neck,” and “You are not the brother of the Prophet,” etc.

(16) Ali (a.s.) is the Guardian and Master (Maula) of all the believers as proved from the above tradition and the tradition of Ghadeer: “Of whomsoever, I am the Master, this Ali is also his master.” Those who have construed Maula to mean friend and beloved have ignored the position of Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S), because the position of Ali (a.s.) with regard to the Holy Prophet (S) informs us that he was the confidant of the Holy Prophet (S) and nothing else. This implies that the position of the Holy Prophet (S) with regard to the believers is the same that Ali (a.s.) had with them.

In the words of Shah Hasanali, a Sunni scholar from Rae Bareily, the tradition of Ghadeer shows the Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S) to the believers. Traditions do not have the scope to limit the Mastership of the Holy Prophet (S) to the believers and that Ali (a.s.) is only a friend! That with regard to the Holy Prophet (S) the word Maula is taken as master but with regard to Ali (a.s.) its meaning is taken to be as a helper and friend! The words of these traditions are neither ambiguous nor difficult to understand by a common man, neither is it against reason, however, if one creates needless controversies in it, it is another matter.

Indeed, the love of Ali (a.s.) is an affair decreed by Allah; He bestows it on whomsoever He wishes. The attributing of special connotations to the verses of Quran and traditions of the Prophet shows the animosity of Ahlul Sunnat to Ahlul Bayt. Though they might not admit it, all their interpretations and derivations clearly show that the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is based on the enmity of Ahlul Bayt.

(17) Ali (a.s.) was fully qualified to fulfill the rights of the Holy Prophet (S) according to the tradition: “Ali is from me and I am from Ali and no one is qualified to fulfill my right except Ali (a.s.) and I.” The narrator of this tradition is Jash bin Junada and this tradition is related to the annulment of the treaty with the polytheists.

Initially, Abu Bakr was sent with the verses of Surah Baraat to announce them to the people of Mecca, but revelation descended on the Prophet that he should either deliver the verses himself or someone of his caliber must do it. The Prophet dispatched Ali (a.s.) to take the verses from Abu Bakr and announce them himself to the Meccans. Thus, this happened and Abu Bakr returned to Medina. This shows that either Ali (a.s.) has the right to explain the meaning of revelation or the Prophet himself. This is the fact, but opponents of Ali (a.s.) hide his excellences. We seek refuge in Allah!

(18) Ali (a.s.) was born in the Kaaba and martyred in the Kufa Mosque. He began his worldly life in the Holy House and ended it in the house of Allah. Whatever he achieved, it was from the house of the Almighty. This was the special excellence exclusive to Ali (a.s.) but to undermine it, in the 3rd century A.H. a tradition was concocted that Ibn Hazm was also born in the Holy Kaaba, while this tradition has no firm basis and it is only a product of Sunni imagination. The birth of Ali (a.s.) in the Kaaba is mentioned in the books of Tarikh Khamis, and Tazkeratul Khawas of Sibt Ibn Jauzi etc.

(19) Ali (a.s.), according to apparent causes, was the first to accept Islam. Thus he says: “I preceded you all in the acceptance of Islam.” This shows that he was the first to accept Islam through apparent causes, but the reality is that when he and Holy Prophet (S) are from the same Radiance (Noor), they cannot be associated with polytheism and disbelief in any way.

(20) He was the owner of great knowledge and wisdom as apparent from the tradition: “I am the abode of wisdom and Ali is its door.” The narrator of this tradition is Tirmidhi. This tradition is also famous with the words. “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.” His sermons, letters and sayings tell us that he had great intellectual accomplishment.

(21) He was a great scholar of Quran as an Imam should be.

(22) The Holy Prophet (S) has mentioned Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Quran together as seen in the tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.” This tradition is included by Tibrani in Al-Awasaat.7

(23) Ali (a.s.) was the ‘Speaking Quran’ as apparent from his own words; and only one who is strayed forever will consider him untruthful.

(24) Ali (a.s.) is included in the progeny of the Holy Prophet (S) and therefore is of the same caliber as the Book of Allah. Holy Prophet (S) says:

“O people! I leave among you two things. If you attach yourselves to both of them, you shall never go astray. They are the book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).”

Progeny and Ahlul Bayt mean the same. It denotes Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). It is surprising of some people to think that it denotes only the descendants. What is the meaning of such aloofness from the progeny and Ahlul Bayt of Mustafa (S)? It is apparent that the religion of non-Imamiyah is based on the opposition of Ahlul Bayt. Everywhere, the non-Imamiyah have created innovative excuses with regard to the position of Ahlul Bayt. What a good way of obeying the command of Allah and His Prophet (S)!

(25) Ali (a.s.) had an astounding and admirable ability to adjudicate, as the Holy Prophet (S) had said: “Seek your judgments from Ali (a.s.).” Indeed, his legal judgments were such that the people of that time used to see them with astonishment and after him people used to say that legal cases are there, but Abul Hasan is not there to judge them.

(26) He was absolutely kind, forbearing, modest, forgiving, brave and courageous, pure, contented and truthful. He was pious, and the most knowledgeable. He was the giver of knowledge, patient and thanks-giver. He was a striver, the one who was constant in his efforts. He was best in mannerism, attributes and views and always spoke the truth. He was content with less, understanding, purified, obedient and a seer. His excellences cannot be all be expressed in words. The writer has mentioned these qualities only to derive divine rewards, otherwise, there is no intention to convey that he had only the above excellences.

Mr. Carlyle writes about Ali (a.s.): “This young man was such that he would be liked all. In such a young age, he promised to help the Prophet. This and other qualities of this young man show that he was of a fine creation and accomplished in many fields. Before the fire of whose valor nothing could survive. His nature had a strange kind of valor.” After quoting these words the writer of Ittihaful Islam says: “Here it would not be out of place to say that a High court Judge of Bombay had mentioned in his judgment: ‘Everyone liked Ali and he deserved it too.’”

It was in the time when the brave ones of the Arab were spread in the horizon (in large numbers). His title was the Victorious Lion of Allah. And people used to call him the ‘bravest of the Arabs? Bravery, valor, wisdom, charity and piety, all were perfected in him. He has very few equals in history. The writer of Ittihaaf further writes that when the sister of Amr Ibn Wudd came to the dead body of her brother and saw that his corpse had not been stripped of clothes, she said: “Indeed! Your slayer was honorable and kind.

If it had not been so, I would have cried for a brave lion like you forever. But now I will not mourn you.” Saying this she recited some couplets: “If the killer of Amr had been someone else, I would have wept for him the whole life. But his killer is such as not having any kind of defect. He is such a person and the title of the father of this person is known to the world as the refuge of the city.”

(27) Love of Ali (a.s.) is incumbent on believers. His opponent cannot be a believer. Holy Prophet (S) says: “The hypocrite will never love Ali and the believer shall never hate Ali (a.s.).” Tirmidhi has related this tradition from Umme Salma. We should know that love of Ali is belief, but the interpretation of this tradition has been greatly distorted.

(28) There are a large number of Quranic verses that speak of his excellences. Here we shall mention some of them:

(a) “Only Allah is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.”8

This verse is related to the incident when Ali (a.s.) gave his ring in charity, while he was bowing down in prayers.

(b) “O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones.”9

In this verse the ‘true ones’ implies Ali (a.s.):10

(c) “And (as for) those who believe in Allah and His apostles, those it is that are the truthful...”11

This verse was revealed for Ali (a.s.), Ja’far at-Tayyar and Hamza Ibn Abdul Muttalib. In this verse, the Almighty has referred to these persons as truthful and witnesses:12

(d) “and a witness from Him recites it.”13

This verse is revealed for Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.). All the scholars are unanimous about the circumstances of revelation of this verse:

(e) “and (there is) a guide for every people.”14

Hafiz Abu Naeem, Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Thalabi have all associated this verse with Ali (a.s.). In addition to these verses, the following are also with regard to Ali (a.s.):

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.” 15

“This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.” 16

“They fulfill vows...” 17

(29) Ali (a.s.) never allowed his self to interfere in the limits demarcated by Allah. Whenever he feared selfishness to enter in this area he performed such astounding acts so as to leave no scope of selfish desires. Thus one day it so happened that Ali (a.s.) faced a strong infidel in the battlefield and after much efforts, he succeeded in throwing him down. When he lifted his sword to kill him, the infidel spat at the holy face of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.), at once clambered down from his chest.

This strange behavior of Ali (a.s.) made the infidel ask: “O Ali! You subdued me with such difficulty but when the time came to slay me, you went away from me?” Ali (a.s.) said that he had intended to kill the infidel according to the command of Allah and not for his selfish desires. “But when you spat on me, my slaying you would have been contaminated by selfish motives. That is why I moved away from you and did not kill you.” The infidel heard his effective speech and became a Muslim.

(30) Ali (a.s.) attained the status of martyrdom, also, which in itself is a great honor. His martyrdom occurred in Kufa. Abdur Rahman Ibn Muljim, the paramour of Qatama was his killer. Ali (a.s.) was an embodiment of mercy and forgiveness and he did not deprive even his killer from his mercy.

(31) Ali (a.s.) used to labor with the intention of earning lawful sustenance. For example, he used to draw water from wells on payment.

(32) The staple diet of Ali (a.s.) was meager, and merely barley bread and that was too with the aim of survival. His dress was similarly simple and bereft of embellishments.

(33) Ali (a.s.) used to give preference to the needs of others over his own needs. He never used to spurn beggars. Once he kept three fasts of vow with his wife and son and their maid. In order to break their fasts, he borrowed some barley from Shamoon, the Jew. Those who fasted, grinded the barley and baked bread loaves out of them. In the evening, when Ali (a.s.) sat down to break the fast with his family members, a beggar arrived at their door and begged for food. Ali (a.s.) gave him the victuals that he had arranged for the breaking of the fast. Ali (a.s.) and his family members broke their fast with water and went to bed.

The same thing happened on the second and third day also. God is the greatest! What generosity, that was not to be seen anywhere in the world. This was only the achievement of Ali (a.s.) and his family members. Without divine help, it is not possible for man to perform such feats. The same incident is alluded to in the Holy Quran in the verse:

“And fulfill their vows.”

(34) He was the owner of a perfect recognition of Allah. He had such a belief in the Almighty that anything more than this is impossible. As he himself has said: “Even if all the curtains were removed, it will not result in any increase in my belief.” Of what grade was his belief in Allah? Can anyone define it?

(35) Ali (a.s.) used to consider this world worthless as was apparent from every act and statement of his. He had no worldly possessions. He used to eat barley bread and wear coarse clothes. He often sat on the ground, busy in the remembrance of Allah. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) and the people of his time referred to him by the title of Abu Turab. We should know that his piety and humility was of a unique hue. His statements exhibited a disdain of worldly things. One of his statements is often quoted that shows us the grade of his insight. One day he was sitting in the Medina Mosque and he was fasting. A traveler came to him at the time of breaking the fast. Ali (a.s.) gave him half the barley bread.

This person realized that half the bread would not satiate his hunger so he went to the place where Imam Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) were distributing food to the poor. The brothers gave him a share sufficient for one person. He took it and then asked for one more share. The Imams (a.s.) asked him why he alone wanted two shares.

He said that there was a needy person at the mosque who had nothing to eat. “And that he had one loaf of bread out of which he gave me half.” I want to take a share for him. The Imams (a.s.) told him to describe this person. When he did so, the young Imams said that he was not a needy person, he was their respected father. What a great act of piety was seen in the manners of Ali (a.s.)!

(36) He is a Sayyid (chief) in his own right just as the Messenger of Allah (S) is. That is why, his children, even though not by the womb of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) are also Sayyid. The Sadaat who are not from the progeny of Fatima are called Alawite Sadaat. It should be clear that Allah bestows to the Holy Five, piety and chieftainship. Fatima Zahra is not a chief lady (Sayyida) only because she was the daughter of the Prophet, but she is so due to her own right.

In the same way, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) are chiefs (Sayyids) in their own right. We should know that being a Sayyid is a great bounty and there is no bounty greater than that. The Sayyids of today are obliged to value this bounty and remain on the practice of their forefathers. They should follow their ancestors in perfection; that is the Holy Imams (a.s.). They must see that their names are protected from being sullied. They must not corrupt their pure generations by falling into worldly passions.

(37) Ali (a.s.) was very hospitable and hospitability was personified in him. Even today the trait of hospitability is seen among those Sadaat who follow the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

(38) Both his killer and those who were killed by him are from the inmates of Hell. Recently a mischievous writer had written in a newsletter that Ali (a.s.) was the killer of Uthman. The other followers of Muawiyah and Yazeed had also heaped this allegation. Thus, a person of this same mentality asked Maulana Shamsuddin Fakhuzi, about his view regarding Ali (a.s.), whether he was the killer of Uthman? The respected Maulana replied: “Uthman would have been doomed to perdition if Ali (a.s.) had killed him.”

(39) One who makes war to him wages a war against Holy Prophet (S). The Messenger of Allah (S) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.):

“I am at war with one who wages a war against them and I am at peace with one who is at peace with them.”

(40) The Prophet was very much attached to Ali (a.s.) as mentioned in the tradition of Atiyyah related by his companion. It says: “The Holy Prophet (S) sent a contingent of army in which Ali (a.s.) was also present. Then we heard the Holy Prophet (S) pray with his hands raised:

‘O Allah! Do not make me die, till You have shown Ali to me once more.’”

This is related by Tirmidhi. Indeed, the beloved one is different from others.

(41) Just as Ali (a.s.) received the daughter of the Prophet in marriage, he was bestowed Zulfiqar (the sword) by the Almighty. In the words of Mulla Kashi (a.s.): “Ali (a.s.) had got from Allah and Mustafa, the sword and the daughter respectively.”

(42) On the night of migration (Hijrat), he risked his life and slept on the Prophet’s bed. There is no equal of this valor anywhere. Even the prophets experienced fear to their lives. Moosa (a.s.) himself was fearful on seeing his staff turn into a serpent, but Ali, the son of Abi Talib slept in that place all night long. Jibraeel (a.s.) who was with him the whole night by the command of Allah used to say: “Congratulation to you, O son of Abi Talib, who can be equal to you? And the angels of the Almighty send greetings to you.” After this, the Almighty revealed the following verse in praise of Ali (a.s.):

“And among man is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is Affectionate to the servants. 18 ” 19

(43) Ali (a.s.) was nurtured since infancy by the Holy Prophet (S). He sucked at the tongue of the Messenger of Allah (S) after birth and was washed by him first of all. He was the first to pray with Holy Prophet (S).

(44) Ali (a.s.) climbed on the shoulders of the Messenger of Allah (S) to break the idols and this position was not bestowed to anyone else.

(45) Ali (a.s.) was like Adam (a.s.) vis-à-vis his knowledge. He possessed the status of Allah’s friendship, like Ibrahim (a.s.), his awe was like that of Moosa (a.s.) and worship, like that of Isa (a.s.).

(46) Ali (a.s.) was the executor of the last rites of Holy Prophet (S). He himself was bathed and shrouded by the angels. It is apparent that if he had left the body of the Prophet unbathed and unshrouded, the angels would not have performed his funeral bath or shrouding.

(47) Ali (a.s.) had the permission to enter the Prophet’s Mosque even in the state of ritual impurity by the leave of the Holy Prophet (S). This permission was granted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and no one else. This shows that he and all the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), on the basis of the verse of purification, are ritually pure in every condition. God is the greatest! What a high position is it of the holy Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Anyone other than Ahlul Bayt are not even remotely having these qualities.

(48) Ali and the Imams (a.s.) of his progeny are mentioned in heavenly books: “like the people of knowledge have nothing to fear.”20

(49) He judged according to the verdict of four scriptures, In the same way, the other Imams (a.s.) also had the ability to judge by the divine books.

(50) Ali (a.s.) never usurped the right of anyone. This is not an insignificant quality.

(51) Ali (a.s.) never spilt a drop of blood without justifiable cause. He never oppressed those who were subdued by him in war. He never abused the prisoners of war. Neither did he kill any of the prisoners of war nor advised the Holy Prophet (S) to do so. He always avoided all types of mischief. Time and again he advised the third Caliph to act in a manner that would have been beneficial for him. But he did not heed the advice of Ali (a.s.) and instead sought the counsel of Marwan etc. And finally the consequences were same, as there had to be by keeping bad company.

(52) He was very sharp and solved legal problems on the spur of the moment. The writer cannot quote examples of this type, as it would lengthen the discussion. Otherwise, there are many such examples.

(53) Islam was victorious by the help of his strength and steadfastness. It was the sword of Ali (a.s.) and none else that made Islam a powerful force in Medina and subjected Mecca to Medina and subdued all the bad wishers of Mecca. Without any doubt, the Islam of the time owed ninety percent of its success to Ali (a.s.). No one can deny this. There was no one more helpful to Islam during the lifetime of Holy Prophet (S) than Ali (a.s.). And from the aspect of courage and bravery there is none equal to Ali (a.s.). Without any doubt, Ali (a.s.) was the hero of Islam. In addition to this heroism, he possessed other praiseworthy qualities that are specific to prophets and saints of Allah.

But it is surprising that no Ahlul Sunnat scholar of this age has penned the biography of Ali (a.s). Even if one has done it, it is in a way that every point mentioned therein leads one to conclude that Ali (a.s.) was inferior to the first three Caliphs. The writer would not have complained if the research scholars had not been busy in biographical works. What a pity that no one writes about Ali (a.s.) and a drunkard, wanton Caliph of Bani Abbas is included among the heroes of Islam and pages are written in his false praise. But even a two-page biography of Ali (a.s.) is not written.

O Muslims! Is it just, that a person to whom the Islam of the Prophet’s age was indebted, should not even be included among the heroes of Islam? And even two lines are not published to describe him? If this is the judgment of Muslim scholars then Islam can never gain any benefit from such writers. Destruction of truth is a bad thing, especially the loss of the rights of Ahlul Bayt. This harmed Islam and shall continue to harm in the future.

Even now these people are busy in concealing the virtues of Ahlul Bayt. Otherwise, all their efforts to serve Islam will be in vain. The divinity of Allah continues due to justice. It is not possible for a building of success to be constructed on the foundation of injustice. May Allah give Muslims the ability to discern right from wrong.

Anyway, now the writer shall present the details of how the courage and martial prowess of Ali defended Islam and kept it safe from subjugation. The truth is that Islam would not have survived without the sword of Ali (a.s.). This is not a conjecture, it is based on reality and actual events.

It is a pity that very few people of the Muslim world are aware of this information. The reason for this lack of knowledge is that very few people are attracted to the study of history. Also, the concealment of truth and usurpation of rights have been made a part and parcel of the Muslim faith. The concealment of truth and usurpation of rights is seen on a large scale. The benefactor of Islam, Ali (a.s.), was not accepted as the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and people like Abu Bakr and Umar, who had no power to defend Islam during the Prophet’s lifetime, became Caliphs and successors of the Prophet. The discussion presented below will clarify to the people of discrimination, the difference between the Caliphs and Ali (a.s.).

The truth is that no relationship of anyone, other that Ali (a.s.), is seen with the defense of Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s.). Bigotry and partiality are different and there is no equal standard to allow us to compare Ali (a.s.) with these people. History and traditions clearly show that the three Caliphs have not even a simple achievement to their credit in the Prophet’s lifetime. Below, we mention the accounts of the battles that saved Islam from destruction.

After a study of these battles, the people of justice have no recourse except to confess that it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) alone that protected the religion of Muhammad (S) from becoming extinct. These battles do not show any contribution of the three Caliphs.

It should be clear that when the Holy Prophet (S) was forced to flee Mecca, he took refuge in Medina and the people of Medina accepted Islam. Due to the acceptance of Islam by its people, Medina became an Islamic town. When the infidels of Mecca saw that the Prophet has reached Medina and established himself and Islam successfully there, they were filled with malice and jealousy and they began to plot an attack on Medina to destroy the nascent faith.

With this intention, the Meccan chiefs mobilized an army and marched to Medina. The first battle of the Muslims with infidels occurred at the spring of Badr. If Muslims had been defeated there, the extinction of the religion of the Prophet would have been certain.

- 1. Refer to books of History

- 2. Quran 33:33

- 3. Quran 33:33

- 4. Quran 3:61

- 5. Quran 3:61

- 6. Refer Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

- 7. Refer Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 1212

- 8. Surah Maidah 5:55

- 9. Surah Taubah 9:119

- 10. Refer Tafseer Thalabi etc.

- 11. Surah Hadid 57:19

- 12. Ref. Musnad Hanbal; Tafseer of Thalabi.

- 13. Surah Hud 11:17

- 14. Surah Raad 13:7

- 15. Surah Maidah 5:67

- 16. Surah Maidah 5:3

- 17. Surah Insan 76:7

- 18. Surah Baqarah 2:207

- 19. Refer Tarikh Khamis, Tafseer Kabeer, Rauzatul Ahbab, Matalibus Sooul, Tafseer Thalabi, Ihya-ul-uloom of Ghazzali, Tadkeratul Khawas of Sibte Ibn Jawzi, Maarijun Nubuwwah and Madarijun Nubuwwah etc.

- 20. Ref. the Taurat of Moosa (a.s.).

The Greater Battle Of Badr

It is well known that the Battle of Badr is equal to the Battle of Bridge of the time of Constantine.

This battle was fought within 100 years after Christ between the Christians and their enemies. If Constantine had been defeated, the success of Christianity would not have been possible. In the same way, if the Battle of Badr had ended in the defeat of Muslims, Islam could have been finished. We should know that no religion could be established without struggle and war. Establishment and popularity of a religion is only possible by armed struggle and war.

Although Jesus Christ himself did not wage any war, it is well known that his religion spread in the world on the strength of the sword. Millions have perished in the wars that led to the dominance of Christianity. It is also well known that the Prophet undertook all military expeditions as the last resort. The conditions were such that there was no course open, except to undertake a war.

In this very Battle of Badr, we see that the infidels of Mecca were the first to mobilize an army. Do you suppose the Holy Prophet (S) could have allowed the infidels to enter Medina and destroy Islam? So if he had not confronted them, what else could he have done? This battle was the natural response. If such a situation arises even today, everyone will advocate that facing the enemies in battle is a necessary thing.

The infidels of Mecca were inimical to the Holy Prophet (S) to such an extent that while he was in Mecca, they tortured him and even when he fled to Medina, they left no option to pursue and destroy him. They attacked again and again. Still the enemies of Islam blame Islam in this regard. They blame the Prophet for having taken recourse to war and causing bloodshed!

Now readers are requested to study the Battle of Badr carefully and decide for themselves the true causes; also how the Battle of Badr was fought and what feats the sword of Ali (a.s.) performed in this battle? History mentions that when the Meccan army arrayed itself against the Muslims, three warriors emerged from within the ranks of Meccans and challenged the Muslims.

There was no response from the Muslim side except Ali, Hamza and Abu Ubaidah bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib, who were all Hashemites. These three people first praised the Bani Hashim and performed great feats of bravery. With them, the other Helpers (Ansar) and other people of the Muslim army also participated in the battle and performed great feats of valor. Seventy infidels were killed and seventy taken captives and of the seventy killed, thirty-six were killed by Ali (a.s.) alone. Most of the others were sent to Hell by the sword of Hamza. The name of each of the slained ones is recorded in books of history.

In brief, the Battle of Badr is that on which depended the future of Islam. If Islam had been defeated, it would have been destroyed completely. Then neither had there been Islam after this nor had there been Caliphs of the Holy Prophet (S). Umar and Abu Bakr were present in this battle but no historical statement proves any of their contribution. As for Abu Bakr, Suyuti writes that he was in the company of the Prophet, defending him. The fact is that Abu Bakr was not a man of battlefields.

As for Umar, he also did not play any active role because in that case he would have to confront his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl. In such a situation, it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) and none else that strengthened the roots of Islam during the time of the Prophet and continued to do so in the future too. Finally, Islam became such a strong tree that even the Choesroe and Caesar of Rome could not subdue it.

Battle Of Uhud

When the Quraish of Mecca suffered a terrible defeat and their leaders, like Abu Jahl were killed, there arose among them a passion for revenge. Thus, the very next year of Badr, the infidels of Quraish marched to Medina in a state of great preparedness. From here, the Holy Prophet (S) took with himself the Emigrants (Muhajireen) and Helpers (Ansar) from Medina and came out to confront them. The armies of Islam and the Quraish faced each other besides Mount Uhud. Abu Sufyan was the leader of infidel army, because his sons and relatives were put to sword by Ali (a.s.) in the Battle of Badr; that is why he arranged the battalions painstakingly.

The Quraish women also accompanied their army, playing instruments of war music and singing war songs to instigate the Quraish army and to encourage it to take the revenge of those slain in Badr. The chief of these female Satans was Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan about whom Hakim Sinai had written a Persian couplet. When the battle began, the Islamic army had the upper hand but they soon busied themselves in collecting war booty.1

The Muslims had forgotten the instructions of the Holy Prophet (S). That is, he had instructed fifty archers to remain at the mouth of the valley, but when the booty was being gathered, they left their positions and jumped into the field to collect their share of booty fearing that they would be deprived of it. Quraish saw these changed circumstances and they collected their remaining men and launched a fresh attack on the Islamic army. The army of Muslims was taken by surprise and most of them fled the battlefield including Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, such that there was no sign of them. (We shall discuss in detail the flight of these three later in this book).

Only the Emigrants of Bani Hashim, who were the relatives of the Prophet, remained firm on the battlefield. In the same way, the Helpers also remained rooted there and continued to encourage each other. The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah, Shaykh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi, writes: “When the Muslims suffered defeat, they left the Prophet alone and fled from the battlefield. (What a faith these people had!). At that moment, the Prophet became angry and perspiration flowed from his forehead. When he looked besides him, he saw Ali (a.s.) firm at his position. He asked Ali (a.s.) why he had not fled with his brothers? Ali (a.s.) replied: “There cannot be disbelief after belief. Indeed, I am having the power with you.”2

This shows that in the view of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), deserting Holy Prophet (S) in the battlefield was equal to disbelief. According to the writer, it seems appropriate to ask how can those who flee from the Holy Prophet (S) in such circumstances be considered believers? To call them of perfect faith is to degrade faith itself. Anyway, at that time, a group of infidels attacked the Holy Prophet (S). The Prophet asked Ali (a.s.) to defend him from the attackers, and serve him as it was wont to serve.

Since it was the time to serve as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S), Ali (a.s.) turned to the attackers and dispersed them in a swift manner sending an infidel to Hell. After this, the praised traditionalist says that when Ali (a.s.) performed this feat, the Holy Prophet (S) said regarding Ali (a.s.): “Indeed, he is from me and I am from him.” And Jibraeel (a.s.) said: “I am from both of you.”3 The writer further says that an unseen voice was heard: ‘Laa Fatha illa Ali, Laa Sayf illa Zulfiqar’ (There is no victor except Ali (a.s.) and there is no sword except Zulfiqar).4

He also writes that the following supplication: Naade A’liyyan Maz’harul Ajaaibi Tajidho Aunallaka Finnawaaibi Kulli Hammin wa Ghammin Sayanjali. Bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin, bi A’liyyin.5 [Call Ali, the one who shows extraordinary wonders of God. You shall find him a helper in every difficulty and calamity. By Ali! By Ali! By Ali!] was revealed in the Battle of Uhud. The statement of the traditionist shows that these four sentences are revealed words and they were not the words of a human being, they are the words of Allah, which were revealed for Ali (a.s.).

Glory be to Allah, what a pure personality Ali (a.s.) had, and how he was the true helper of Islam and one who risked his life for the Holy Prophet (S). How he saved Islam from destruction in Badr and became the savior of Prophet’s life in Uhud. He routed the enemies of the Holy Prophet (S). O people who like the truth. Is there any other person who has such an achievement to his credit in the service of the Prophet? Is it just to consider at par a person who did not care for his life in defending the Prophet to those who were accustomed to flee from the battlefield? Shall we not consider this person fit for the successorship of the Prophet?

How can such a person be considered inferior and the one who fled be considered superior? If you consider this with justice, you would definitely agree that cowards who flee the battlefield cannot be true successors of the Messenger of Allah (S). Even though people may have accepted them as Caliphs, such people cannot be Caliphs of Prophet or be Imams.

Every just person will agree that deserting a friend in times of peril is indeed an act of cowardice. Whatever people may call such cowards is appropriate. But what could be said regarding those who left the Prophet in such circumstances? Or tried to avoid risking their lives in defense of the Messenger of Allah (S). Without doubt, these people do not deserve to be called the people of perfect faith. Over and above, Ali (a.s.) is considered inferior to these people and the distinguishing qualities and unsurpassable feats are ignored.

Books of history and biography state that 65 to 70 people from the Muslim army were martyred, out of which 61 were from the Helpers (Ansar). Only 3 or 4 Emigrants (Muhajireen) were killed and they were from the relatives of the Prophet. None of the ordinary Emigrants (Muhajireen) were injured or killed. We should understand the faith and loyalty of Emigrants (Muhajireen) from this. Leave alone common people, who can be more distinguished than the trio of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. But these too followed the laymen of Emigrants and fled the battlefield.

Apparently, it seems that except for Holy Prophet (S), the Bani Hashim and the Helpers, none of the Emigrants participated in battles. This was an account of Badr and Uhud; the same condition is seen in the later wars also. The most tragic event of this battle is the martyrdom of Mir Hamza. His martyrdom was a great tragedy for the Holy Prophet (S). He was a great supporter and helper of the army of Allah and he sacrificed his life in utmost bravery for Islam; Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.

A terrible incident is recorded in history in connection with this battle. It is that after Hamza fell, Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, cut out his liver and chewed upon it. She dismembered his ears and nose and made a garland of them and wore them around her unclean neck. This evil deed of Hind shows what type of a woman she was.

Also it shows the level of degradation of the tribe of which she was a member. This woman was from Bani Umayyah and Bani Umayyah was a tribe of Quraish notorious for cheating, murder, killing, drinking and adultery. The Holy Prophet (S) despised this clan greatly and his hatred of them continued till he passed away.

Thus, Imran Ibn Husayn has related that the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away hating three tribes: Saqif, Bani Hanifah and Bani Umayyah. Shah writes in his Sharh that the Messenger of Allah (S) had a dream in which he saw monkeys jumping on his pulpit and he explained his dream that the monkeys denoted Bani Umayyah. This indeed became a reality after he passed away from the world. Bani Umayyah became powerful by their machinations and intrigue. Shaam (Syria) came under their control and later they controlled all the Islamic lands. They continued to rule from the Prophet’s pulpit in a blatant way.

What a pity that a tribe which the Messenger of Allah (S) had weakened and routed in his lifetime, regained its strength and also became much more powerful after his death. If only this tribe had been prevented from gaining power. If this tribe had been left in its degraded state, neither Ali (a.s.) had been troubled nor the Bani Hashim subjected to mental and physical torture and neither Miqdad and other supporters of Ali (a.s.) suffered insults, nor Talha and Zubair had gone back from their allegiance, or ‘A’ysha had fought the Battle of Jamal, or ‘A’ysha had been killed by being thrown into a well, or Imam Hasan had been poisoned, nor Imam Husayn had been martyred in the desert of Karbala’, nor the sons of Imam (a.s.) had been killed in a cruel manner. Or the inmates of harem had been taken out as prisoners through the streets of Kufa and Shaam. Doubtlessly, the empowerment of Bani Umayyah was very harmful to Muslims. Bani Hashim were made to pay for the Battle of Badr and Uhud.

Here the writer wishes to ask as to who it was who injected a new life into Bani Umayyah? The reply to this question is obviously that Abu Bakr and Umar were foremost in this regard. It is also confirmed beyond any doubt that Ali (a.s.) did not let Bani Umayyah near him. Apparently, Ali (a.s.) could not have any truck with a clan that the Messenger of Allah (S) had disliked all his life. If Ali (a.s.) had done so, the blame of the tragedy of Karbala’ would have been upon Ali (a.s.), because this tragedy was the consequence of promoting Bani Umayyah.

In this battle, only thirty infidels were killed, nine of whom were their standard bearers, who fell to the sword of Zulfiqar one by one. Twelve more were slain by the Lion of Allah. As for the remaining nine, some of them were dispatched to Hell by Hamza and rest were slain by the Helpers (Ansar). The Emigrants (Muhajireen) other than Bani Hashim are not known to have killed anyone in this battle. It is obvious that when they had no interest in an armed struggle, how could they be expected to kill the infidels? They were often seen fleeing from the battlefield. Flight from the battlefield was not cowardice according to them! There is no strength and power except by Allah.

It seems that these Emigrants (Muhajireen) were having a great foresight. They neither killed nor were killed. But we should know that valor is the best quality and all the good deeds are rooted in it. It is such a quality that bestows honor upon the one who possesses it; as a companion of the Holy Prophet (S) had recited a couplet in this battle. Cowardice has degradation and there is greatness in facing the enemy, and the coward cannot survive fate by his cowardice.

It is clear for all that those who fled from the battle escaped with their lives but the steadfastness of Ali (a.s.) remained intact till the end. Ali (a.s.) says that even though he had received sixteen wounds in that battle and was feeling dizzy, “Someone used to catch hold of my hand and make me stand up again and I continued to fight in this way.”

The Holy Prophet (S) hearing this, said that it was Jibraeel who helped him thus,6 this battle was won by Ali (a.s.) and it was this same steadfastness of his regarding which the Almighty Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.” 7

The Holy Prophet (S) has also said similarly by which one can perceive the limits of greatness and high position of Ali (a.s.). Holy Prophet (S) addressed Ali (a.s.) and said:

“O Abul Hasan! If all the good deeds of creation and their beliefs are kept on one side of the balance and your deeds in other, yours shall be heavier. Indeed, Allah has praised your deeds. This day all angels of the sky and the curtains of the heavens were lifted and Paradise itself used to look at you with interest. And the Lord of the world was pleased by your deed. He shall reward you in such a way that even the prophets and the martyrs shall vie it.”8

People of justice should see that this one tradition has bestowed such a great status to Ali (a.s.) in comparison to all the creation of Allah. Holy Prophet (S) has said thus, but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) consider him inferior to the three Caliphs. First of all, one who flees has no right to claim preference over those who do not run away, and that also in comparison to such a valiant warrior about whom the Holy Prophet (S) has said that his deeds are heavier than deeds of all creatures together.

Those who do not pay attention to such sayings of the Holy Prophet (S) are indeed a strange kind of Muslims. Such people have regarded only the love of three Caliphs to be faith, and in this blind devotion, neither can they see the merits of Ali (a.s.) nor are they capable to take note of the sayings of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S).

Such bigots say that the Almighty Allah has condemned in Quran those who fled from the Battle of Uhud. There is no doubt that Divine Mercy had been instrumental in this regard, but the discussion here is how this condemnation enables the fleeing people to gain a meritorious position? How could this be considered an achievement, while all that is obvious from this verse is unlimited Mercy of Allah? How can it show a praiseworthy quality of people who ran way from the battlefield? It is beyond human understanding. An absconder is an absconder forever, even though Allah has overlooked his act of escapism.

If we read this verse carefully, we shall realize that this forgiveness was for this life alone. That Allah did not make them pigs and monkeys when they deserted the Messenger of Allah (S). It certainly does not imply forgiveness of the Hereafter because the verse has ended on ‘Forgiving, Forbearing’ (Ghafoorun Haleemun). If it had denoted forgiveness of the Hereafter, Allah would have said ‘Forgiving, Merciful’ (Ghafoorun Raheemun).

Many other battles and military engagements took place after the Battle of Uhud but they are not too famous. Books of military expeditions and history indicate that even in those engagements, the sword of Ali (a.s.) was not inactive. The brave one did not fall short in helping the Holy Prophet (S) and in assisting Islam. Thus, in the Battle of Bani Nuzayr, a not so well known battle, Ali (a.s.) slew a great brave infidel. He was such a strong warrior that non-Bani Hashim Emigrants could not have faced him.

We do not know what was the use of these non-Bani Hashim Emigrants. When they did not have the capacity to fight, why they undertook the trouble of migrating to Medina? Wherever you see, you find them bolting from the battlefield. Or even if they remained afield, they did so as accompanying jesters etc. It is indeed surprising that these gentlemen could not exhibit a single act of valor in all the battles of the Prophet. On top of this, some people are not ashamed to give them preference over the Lion of Allah, Ali (a.s.).

Anyway, the Bani Nuzayr had planned to attack the Messenger of Allah (S) in the dead of the night and they had departed from their fort with this aim. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) understood their evil intentions and went towards them without waiting for the Prophet’s command. The villain had left his high abode and was coming on to slay the Messenger of Allah (S) when Ali (a.s.) intercepted him midway and dispatched him to Hellfire within a few moments.

This incident shows that Ali (a.s.) used to help the Prophet and support Islam even without the Messenger of Allah (S) commanding him. This was the condition of his Jihad in the way of Allah. We request the people of justice to compare this with the behavior of the absconders of Uhud when the Prophet was calling out to them not to flee, but they paid no heed to his pleas.

Allamah Waqidi writes in connection with these gentlemen that on the day of Uhud, these people were fleeing to the heights of Uhud and Holy Prophet (S) was calling them: “Come here so and so, come here so and so, I am the Messenger of Allah (S).” But none of them paid any heed.9 This is also mentioned in Surah Aale Imran:

“When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, and the Apostle was calling you from your rear.”10

How beautifully Umar has described his flight to the heights of Uhud. He says: “We were jumping on the mountain like mountain goats.” It is obvious that in this jumping and prancing, how he could have heard the call of the Prophet? In any case, this clearly shows the difference between the courage and steadfastness of Ali (a.s.) and the cowardice of these people. On one side, Ali (a.s.) did not even wait for the Prophet to order him to help him and on the

But in any case, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, Khalid bin Amr bin Abde Wudd, Akrama bin Abu Jahl, and Abdullah bin Mughaira crossed the ditch by spurring their horses.1 The infidels came to the edge of the ditch to watch. Amr Ibn Abde Wudd came to the Medinan side and challenged the forces of Islam. Since none of the Muslim soldiers accepted the challenge, they all remained quiet. Only Ali (a.s.) came out in defense of Islam. However, the Holy Prophet (S) stopped him and asked the Muslim army, if there was anyone who could accept the challenge of this infidel, but no one volunteered.

Seeing this, the Holy Prophet (S) asked what the problem was. On hearing this, Umar said: “Amr Ibn Wudd and I were together in a caravan that was going to Shaam. All of the sudden, the caravan was surrounded by a thousand bandits who began to loot the caravan. On seeing this, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd took out his sword and slew all the bandits in a few moments.” That is the
other side, Abu Bakr and Umar did not listen to the Prophet even when he called them to help him.

Glory be to Allah! What a valor of the ‘Prince of Men’ and what a tremendous strength of faith! Indeed, if the Almighty had not created Ali (a.s.), He would have had to create some other means of strengthening Islam. Apparently, it seems that much of the power that Islam achieved was to the credit of Ali (a.s.). Anyway, after these minor wars, the Battle of the Ditch (Khandaq) took place. It is also referred to as the Battle of the Clans (Ahzab). It is also as famous as the Battle of Badr and the Battle of Uhud.

- 1. Refer to Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1394, Part III; Sirah Ibn Hisham, Part II Pg. 83; Rauzatul Ahbab; Madarijun Nubuwwah, etc.

- 2. Refer Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 52; Rauzatul Ahbab, Pg. 77; Rauzatul Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 51; Marijiun Nubuwwah.

- 3. Refer Tarikh Tabari, Vol. I, Part III, Pg. 402; Kamil of Ibn Athir Vol. 2, Pg 63;
Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 53.

- 4. Refer Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 402; Sirah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 2, Pg. 92; Matalibus Suool, Pg. 131.

- 5. Ref. Fawate Mibandi, Pg. 412

- 6. Refer Rauzatul Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 92; Madarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 53.

- 7. Surah Saff 61:4

- 8. Refer to Yanabiul Mawaddah, 2nd Edition, Pg. 64

- 9. Refer Maghazi of Waqidi, Pg. 234

- 10. Surah Aale Imran 3:153

Battle Of The Ditch

This battle occurred during the 5th year of Hijrah when the infidels of Mecca in cooperation with some other tribes and Jews marched to Medina under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, father of Muawiyah, grandfather of Yazeed. They laid siege to Medina for some days. In order to defend Medina from their attack, a ditch was dug up under advice of Salman the Persian and that is why this battle is called the Battle of the Ditch. The infidel attackers tried to launch many attacks, but they failed to gain entry into Medina. This time the infidel army was 10000 strong1 and the enemies of Islam had made elaborate arrangements of warfare. On the side of Muslims, the ditch was dug up with great efforts.2

But in any case, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, Khalid bin Amr bin Abde Wudd, Akrama bin Abu Jahl, and Abdullah bin Mughaira crossed the ditch by spurring their horses.3 The infidels came to the edge of the ditch to watch. Amr Ibn Abde Wudd came to the Medinan side and challenged the forces of Islam. Since none of the Muslim soldiers accepted the challenge, they all remained quiet. Only Ali (a.s.) came out in defense of Islam. However, the Holy Prophet (S) stopped him and asked the Muslim army, if there was anyone who could accept the challenge of this infidel, but no one volunteered.

Seeing this, the Holy Prophet (S) asked what the problem was. On hearing this, Umar said: “Amr Ibn Wudd and I were together in a caravan that was going to Shaam. All of the sudden, the caravan was surrounded by a thousand bandits who began to loot the caravan. On seeing this, Amr Ibn Abde Wudd took out his sword and slew all the bandits in a few moments.” That is the reason why no one was prepared to accept his challenge.4

Then the Holy Prophet (S) gave Ali (a.s.) the permission to fight. Ali (a.s.) was eager for this leave and he was prepared to fight even before the Prophet had given him the permission. He at once rushed to confront the infidel. The infidel was huge, strong, ferocious and awesome. He continued to fight Ali (a.s.) for a long time but was finally killed at his hands. After his extermination, the Prince of Men sent some other leaders of the army of infidels to Hell.

When Umar saw that Ali (a.s.) had instilled fear in the breasts of infidels and none had any courage to face the Muslims, he came to the field and at once pursued Zarar bin Khattab who had already started running from Ali (a.s.). When Umar ran after him, he turned to Umar and gave him a small spear and went on his way. This happened somehow, otherwise, Umar never risked taking part in any sort of fighting. Anyway, in this battle also, like the battles of Badr and Uhud, none of the non-Bani Hashim was killed and neither did they kill anyone. Leave alone getting killed, none of them, except Umar, as mentioned in the above incident, even got a bruise.

Only six persons of the Ansar were martyred. From the infidels too, three people were killed. Doubtlessly, this victory fell to the Muslims without any fighting and bloodshed. The cause was that the slaying of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd instilled a great terror in the hearts of the infidels after which the deniers of Islam fled and they could not gather the strength to face Muslims.

We should know that the sword of Ali (a.s.) provided the same sort of service that it had provided in the previous battles. If the Prince of Men had not subdued Amr Ibn Abde Wudd, the infidels of Mecca would have attacked and destroyed all Muslims, and Islam would have perished in its infancy. But the slaying of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd strengthened the arms of Islam and shattered the backbone of infidelity.

As soon as Amr was killed, the infidel forces were demoralized and there developed cracks of disunity among the confederates. All of them took to their heels. We should know that on this juncture, the Holy Prophet (S) said regarding Ali (a.s.):

“Each strike of Ali on the day of Khandaq is superior to all the good deeds of my nation put together, till Judgment Day.”

This tradition is available in Madarijun Nubuwwah, Maarijul Nubuwwah, Kashful Ghumma, Nazalul Abrar, Insaanil Uyoon, Seeratul Ameen - Mamoon, Rauzatul Ahbab and other books of Ahlul Sunnat. No one denies the correctness of this tradition. Was the contribution of Ali (a.s.) to the religion of Allah any less than what it was on the day of Uhud? What can be said about the unsuccessful.

Thus, the people of justice may themselves conclude, if there is anyone more superior to Ali (a.s.). Does he deserve to be included among the four Caliphs? What is the meaning of considering him at par with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman?

The truth is that comparing Ali (a.s.) to other Caliphs or saints of Allah is a useless act. It is indeed pitiful that in this battle also, Abu Bakr could not present any feat worthy of mention. Rather, it was not even clear where Abu Bakr was and in what condition during the Battle of Khandaq. In spite of his achievements, would Ali (a.s.) still remain in the category of the Caliphs? What type of justice is it? Whatever Allah and the Prophet may say, these people continue to harp upon their old tune.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Pg. 290; Kamil of Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 23.

- 2. Ref. Tarikh Rusul wal Muluk

- 3. Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Ibid Pg. 290 – 293; Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1475.

- 4. Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Pg. 58; Rauzatus Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 101.

Battle of Khaybar

The Battle of Khaybar took place in the 7th year of Hijrah. The opponents in this battle were the Jews of Khaybar. This battle came about because the Jews had amassed an army of 10000 and were ready to attack Medina. Among these 10000 were included some tribes of Jews who had taken part in hostilities against the Muslims in cooperation with the Quraish infidels. The less numbered Muslims decided to confront the large numbered Jews and the Muslims moved to Khaybar. The chief of the Fort of Khaybar was Marhab; and his brother Harith was a well-known warrior like Marhab.

Thus, these two brothers were well-known brave warriors and apparently had no equal. During this engagement, the Holy Prophet (S) was having a migraine and was therefore in his tent, but the Muslim army launched attacks for three days yet returned defeated. This continued for three days and whichever Muslim fighter went to confront the Jews, was killed by Harith. When two people used to be killed, no one from the Muslim army had the guts to go further companions for cowardice while his companions used to hold him responsible.

The Muslim army suffered this degradation for three days. Everyday, it had become a routine for the Muslim army to go to the battlefield, attack and suffer defeat and then return to their camps dejected. One day Abu Bakr took a contingent and attacked Khaybar but he returned defeated. In the same way, Umar launched an attack twice but both the times returned completely unsuccessful.1 Marhab and Harith pursued the Muslim army and chased them upto their camps and quite often the Holy Prophet (S) who was in the tent nearby learnt of these developments. It seems that Marhab and Harith were great warriors of their time because Umar could not bear to face them even for a short while.2 Shah Abdul Aziz writes that Umar used to return every time and blame his companions for cowardice while his companions used to hold him responsible.3

Thus, the army of Islam was involved in terrible difficulties in this way and they did not know what to do. The cause of their problems was that till now, the Holy Prophet (S) had not been able to accompany them in the battle. Ali (a.s.) had remained behind in Medina due to sore eyes. That is why he was apparently not fit to participate in the war, but he came to the army of Allah to contribute to the help of the Prophet.

Doubtlessly, this is true faith and assistance of Islam! Glory be to Allah, he could not bear separation from the Prophet, even during an illness and he was so eager to offer his services that he came from Medina to the Muslim camps at Khaybar, but due to the severity of the discomfort, he could not fight for three days. When the army of Islam was defeated for the third consecutive day, the Holy Prophet (S) said:

“Tomorrow, I will hand over the flag of the Islamic army to a person who is brave and who does not flee from the battlefield. That is one who is absolutely courageous and never bolts from the field. One who loves Allah and the Messenger and Allah and the Messenger love him. He will not return till Allah does not grant victory at his hands.”

This is what happened. And that prophetic tradition is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Khasais Nasai and Tabari.4 But the Holy Prophet (S) gave the standard to a person who had already been tested in the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq and one who had till date, continued to save the religion of Allah from destruction.

Anyway, the next morning the Holy Prophet (S) applied his saliva to the sore eyes of Ali (a.s.), which cured him completely. He then handed him the standard and gave permission to initiate the battle. After this, the Holy Prophet (S) recited the famous words of supplication: “Call Ali, the one who shows extraordinary wonders of God…” (Naade A’liyyan maz’haral ajaaibi…)

The valiant warrior rushed to the battlefield, engaged his opponents in combat and soon dispatched Marhab and Harith to Hellfire, then he uprooted the gate of Khaybar and conquered the fort. The followers of Ali (a.s.) should know that such unimaginable feats are not possible without divine help. Without any doubt, Ali (a.s.) was helped by Allah. If it had not been so, it would have been impossible for him to perform such feats. How can a person who lived on barley bread and fasted often, rout the enemies of Islam time and again? How can he subdue a warrior like Amr bin Abde Wudd? How can he slay people like Marhab and Harith? And in addition to that, he uproots the gate weighing 700 mounds, and then used this gate as a shield to deflect the strikes of the foes.

O people of justice! Do you think such feats are possible without divine help? It is well known to people who know that the uprooting of the gate of Khaybar is a historical fact and it is not a work of fiction. It is recorded in history. Even the historians who are among the opponents of Islam have recorded this incident in their books.

Washington Irving has recorded this incident in his book on Islamic history. Thus, it is surprising that people of later generations have started to consider it fictional and tend to ignore this achievement of Ali (a.s.). In view of the writer, only such people can deny such incidents, who have not brought faith in the Messenger of Allah (S), because when the Holy Prophet (S) had called Ali (a.s.) as, “one who shows extraordinary wonders” (Mazharul Ajaaib) on the basis of divine revelation, one who does not accept it to be true, cannot be considered a Muslim.

In short, in this battle also, Ali (a.s.) offered such incomparable services to Islam that were not offered by anyone else. Yet, the opponents of Ali (a.s.) refrain from confessing to the bravery of Ali (a.s.). While they are bent to make Abu Bakr and Umar the bravest ones of the companions and the most brave ones of men, as apparent from the writings of Suyuti. O God! There is indeed something like justice!

Abu Bakr and Umar had no connection with valor and bravery. In such a condition, neither Abu Bakr nor Umar could be called the bravest ones. They did not perform any feat during the lifetime of the Prophet, which can make them eligible to be called the bravest ones. Leave alone being the bravest ones, how can a person like Ali (a.s.), who never fled from the battlefield and continued to often rout the enemies of Islam, should be considered inferior to those who always bolted from battles and did not even scratch the enemy of Islam. Now the readers are invited to study the account of the Battle of Hunayn.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

- 2. Ref. Izalatul Khifa

- 3. Ref. Tarikh Tabari Pg. 579; Mustadrakul Hakim

- 4. Pg. 1579

Battle Of Hunayn

This was the last battle fought between the Muslim army and the infidel Quraish. After the conquest of Mecca, most Arab tribes had accepted the domination of the Holy Prophet (S), except the tribe of Saqifah and Hawazin, who confronted the Muslims at Hunayn in large numbers. The Muslim army was also very large. Because the enemies attacked by deceit, all of a sudden, the Emigrants and Helpers, both left the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battle.

Only four people remained on the battlefield according to historical accounts. They were Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Abbas, Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib and Abdullah Ibn Masood. The names of these four are also mentioned in other narrations, which shows that there were nine people who remained steadfast in this battle. In order to stop the people from fleeing the battlefield, the Prophet called them by titles of ‘People of Samara’ or ‘People of Tree’. Hearing this, around 100 people from the Helpers returned and rejoined fighting.

The reason for addressing the people who fled, by these titles is that most of them were among those who had pledged allegiance to the Holy Prophet (S) at the tree of Rizwan. The allegiance of Rizwan was performed when the Messenger of Allah (S) had proceeded to Mecca with the intention of performing Hajj, but he had to accede to the treaty with the Meccans.

The allegiance was that the people will support and help the Prophet in all circumstances and will not desert him, come what may. They will never turn back from Jihad and shall always be busy in the service of the Prophet. Since the allegiance of Rizwan occurred under a tree, it is also known as the allegiance given under the tree. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) called them by the title of the ‘People of Tree’ so that they shall be ashamed. It seems that the tree under which allegiance was given was the tree of Samara.

Thus, when some absconders returned, the fighting restarted. A person by name of Abu Huroor came out from the ranks of infidels singing a war song and challenged the Muslims. No one from the Muslim army offered to confront him. They were awestruck by his courage and strength. But the Zulfiqar of one who was unconquered, swiftly sent him to the place where previously Amr bin Abde Wudd, Marhab and Harith had been sent. The infidels suffered a clear defeat and seventy of them were killed. Forty of them were alone sent to hellfire by the sword of Ali (a.s.). The rest were killed by Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar).

The killing of a single infidel by a non-Bani Hashim Emigrant is not proved from any of the books of history. It is indeed a pity that even in this battle, the three Caliphs were unable to exhibit any remarkable feat. Their absconding from the battlefield was nothing unusual. The account of their flight is mentioned in the tradition of Sahih Bukhari related from Abu Qatadah: Qatadah says that the Muslims fled and he also fled.

Qatadah says: “I saw Umar among the absconders and asked him the condition of the people?” Umar replied: “It is as Allah willed.” After this, people went to the Messenger of Allah (S). People of justice, please let us know if any man of perfect faith could flee from the battlefield? Then how can they be given preference over Ali (a.s.) who was always steadfast in every battle and in spite of being injured seriously, he continued to serve the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah? All this proves that he possessed a perfect faith. The repeated absconding of the three Caliphs cannot qualify them to be successors of the Messenger of Allah (S) after his passing away.

The Messenger of Allah (S) was very brave and valiant person and he did not recede an inch in any of the battles, because flight from the battlefield is a dirty thing. The successor of such a brave prophet should be someone as valiant as Ali (a.s.) and not less.

What was it that qualified Abu Bakr to be appointed the successor of the Prophet? It is an absolutely surprising thing. None of the three Caliphs had the right of vicegerency of the Messenger of Allah (S). These gentlemen never did anything to save Islam from its enemies. They were ever thoughtful of saving their own skins. The fact is that if Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would have disappeared a long time ago. Thus, what is the matter that after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) is made to obey and submit, and a person like Abu Bakr who had no connection with any sort of bravery, should be made the ruler, even though he had no right to be the successor of the Messenger of Allah (S)?

Please note that in this battle, even the Helpers fled against their normal practice. Those who participated in the battle were the same who were put to shame by the Holy Prophet (S). The absconding of non-Bani Hashim was a regular feature, what is surprising however is the presence of Abu Sufyan in the battlefield.

The Banu Umayyah who had recently converted to Islam were present in the battlefield. But they were not fighting. They stood aside and watched the fighting and laughed at the difficulties suffered by the Muslims. In this battle, the chief of Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan was present. But they did not help the Messenger of Allah (S) even in a small measure. He continued to watch the spectacle, laughing in merriment. These were the new Muslims and it was their first test of having accepted slam. The fact was that this person had become a Muslim under duress since the conquest of Mecca. He had accepted Islam only when he had realized that Islam had become powerful and there was no other way.

If this person had been a true Muslim, he would not have remained a spectator, laughing at the combat. He would have accompanied the holy warriors and helped the religion of Allah if he had been a sincere believer. His behavior shows that inwardly he desired the defeat of Muslims. If the situation had turned against the Muslims and they had been routed, he would surely have rushed to the tribes of Saqifah and Hawazin to congratulate them for their victory.

Indeed, to refer to Bani Umayyah as Muslims is a one-sided affair. The fact is that Abu Sufyan and his men were hypocrites. They had apparently become Muslims because they were subjugated. This tribe seems despicable from all aspects. If this tribe had not been there, the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq had not occurred. The religion of Islam had spread in peace and the lives of so many innocent people had not perished. Abu Sufyan and his people had left no stone unturned to harm Islam. If the Almighty had not appointed Ali (a.s.) as the defender of Islam, there would have been no way to protect this faith.

Apart from this, the Bani Umayyah were notorious for their moral decadence and famous for their evil deeds. It is but natural for every righteous person to despise this tribe. Thus, it was not without cause that the Holy Prophet (S) had hated this tribe. Ali (a.s.) was aware of the Prophet’s dislike of this tribe, and since he obeyed and followed the Messenger of Allah (S) to perfection, after the passing away of the Prophet, he never let the Bani Umayyah near him.

Thus, after the Holy Prophet (S) passed away and the matter of Caliphate was decided, Abu Sufyan came to Ali (a.s.) with a special intention and said: “O Ali (a.s.)! You remained silent and the affair of Caliphate is decided? If you want, I can fill the land of Medina with soldiers of Mecca and overturn the Caliphate.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “You used to create mischief during the days of Ignorance and now even after becoming a Muslim, you have not given up your habit.”

Getting this reply Abu Sufyan went on his way, and in whichever direction he saw gains he went that way. The readers should note how this reply of Ali (a.s.) informs us of his foresight and hidden wisdom, because it is well known that Abu Sufyan was the chief of Bani Umayyah. This tribe had continuously faced failures during the lifetime of the Prophet and it had also suffered much discomfiture by the sword of Ali (a.s.), himself, as apparent from the accounts of the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq etc.

In such a condition, neither this tribe could be loyal to the Holy Prophet (S) or to the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (S). If this tribe had any love for the Holy Prophet (S) would they have remained mere spectators, laughing at the scene in the Battle of Hunayn?

Thus, Abu Sufyan’s offer to Ali (a.s.) to overthrow the Caliphate was not based on good intentions. Ali (a.s.) understood that this person wanted personal gain and benefit his tribe through Ali (a.s.). He had no sincere intention to benefit Islam or Bani Hashim. Thus, Ali (a.s.) replied to him the way he did. This reply of Ali (a.s.) shows that Abu Sufyan was a transgressor and a mischief monger.

Hence, neither Ali (a.s.) could accept his advice nor take his help. So what else could he have replied?

Also, Ali (a.s.) knew well that the Messenger of Allah (S) despised Bani Umayyah. Thus, how could he openly cultivate relationship with them? If Ali (a.s.) had gained proximity and cooperation of Abu Sufyan, it would have been against the practice and policy of the Holy Prophet (S). The policy of the Prophet was indeed the best policy, that the evil-doing tribe of Bani Umayyah should always remain subjugated. This tribe was subjugated after much struggle and after a long time.

In addition to the above, if Ali (a.s.) had accepted the offer of Abu Sufyan, he would have been under an obligation to repay this in form of some position in the Islamic government. In such circumstances, Abu Sufyan and his tribe would have gained more strength. Thus, by remaining aloof from Abu Sufyan, Ali (a.s.) saved himself from the two accusations mentioned in the previous paragraphs and also avoided the blame that he would have got from the consequences of the rulership of Bani Umayyah and the tribe which had weakened during the tenure of the Messenger of Allah (S) would have received a new lease of life. After Abu Sufyan got a rebuttal from Ali (a.s.), he busied himself in intrigue and finally obtained the governorship of Syria for his family. He also obtained the right to 25% of the booty from the conquests that Muslims made in the surrounding area of Syria.

After getting Syria, Abu Sufyan said that since he had become old and did not like to leave Mecca, his elder son, Yazeed bin Abu Sufyan should be appointed as the governor of Syria. This was effected. As soon as Bani Umayyah gained this rulership, their tribesmen who were lying in a degraded position, set out for Syria. And in a brief time, they regained their lost wealth and position and rather, exceeded it. The whole area of Syria came under the rulership of Bani Umayyah. Bani Umayyah and none else occupied every low and high governmental post of Syria while the Bani Hashim were not to be seen anywhere.

This was impossible, because even at the Islamic capital not a single Bani Hashim had even the lowest post in government. Thus, whatever reverses Bani Umayyah had suffered during the lifetime of the Prophet were soon reimbursed by the courtesy of Abu Bakr and Umar. Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan ruled Syria for four years till his death. After him, his younger brother, Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan was appointed as his successor. He was an example of his tribe and was more clever and superior to his brother in every way.

It seems to be out of context to describe the affluence and progress of Bani Umayyah during the reign of Muawiyah. He continued to rule Syria for a long time and became so powerful that when Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph and deposed him from governorship, he refused to be deposed and took to confront the Caliph of that time. Rather, the Caliph of that time was so busy with battles that he hardly had time for other activities demanded by his office.

The tenure of Imam Ali’s Caliphate was four years and some months, after which Imam Hasan (a.s.) became the Caliph. Imam Hasan (a.s.) had to abdicate within six months. After this, instead of Medina, Damascus became the seat of Caliphate. Though Bani Hashim had weakened greatly after the passing away of the Prophet, the loss of this Caliphate relegated them to the position of worldly degradation and Bani Umayyah became most powerful. How astounding that the tribe, which was despised by the Holy Prophet (S) and one which the Messenger of Allah (S) had after great efforts weakened and subjugated during his lifetime, should gain strength immediately after his death. And gradually it should have gained the rulership of Syria and finally the dominance of all the Islamic lands.

But as for the Bani Hashim, the clan of the Prophet, the tribe that every Muslim was obliged to respect, was subjugated and degraded. Thus, after becoming the Caliph, Muawiyah was always busy in strengthening his position and he also arranged so that Caliphate should remain in his family. To this end he made the nomination of his successor just as Abu Bakr had nominated Umar. And in order to achieve the oath of allegiance of his wanton son, he left no stone unturned.

The Bani Hashim had become weak, but its two chiefs, that is Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) were still alive, from whose side Muawiyah was not content. After sometime, he became content regarding Imam Hasan (a.s.). That is, he had him poisoned by intrigue. This incident also occurred in the reign of Muawiyah.

The historian, Abul Fida writes in Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar that regarding the poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.), it is said that it was Muawiyah, who had him poisoned and it is also said that the heir of Muawiyah, Yazeed had done it. Anyway, whichever is correct, the poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.) removed one chief of Bani Hashim from the way of Muawiyah.

The writer of Tarikh Khamis says that when Muawiyah received the news of poisoning of Imam Hasan (a.s.), he rejoiced. Upon this, his wife, Faqhta said: “O Muawiyah! You rejoice at the death of the Prophet’s son?” Muawiyah said: “I am not happy because of the death of the Prophet’s son, but for the contentment that my heart has achieved.”

Doubtlessly, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) had imparted great comfort to Muawiyah, but still one of the chiefs of Bani Hashim, Imam Husayn (a.s.) remained; and because he was also brave and valiant like his father, Muawiyah was fearful of him. But the murder of this Imam (a.s.) could not be carried out during Muawiyah’s lifetime. Therefore, it was effected during the reign of his son. Thus, the main cause for the killings of Bani Hashim was the fresh lease of life that Bani Umayyah had received.

If it had not been so, the family of the Prophet and Bani Hashim would not have suffered such calamities. Indeed, Ali (a.s.) had a great foresight that he paid no heed to the offer of Abu Sufyan. Otherwise, the tribulations of the Prophet’s family and Bani Hashim would have been attributed to Ali (a.s.).

It is clear that if Ali (a.s.) had accepted the help of Abu Sufyan, he would have been obliged to repay it in a substantial way. It would have become necessary to give Abu Sufyan some official position and this would have led to the empowerment of Bani Umayyah. In that case also, they would have carried out all the activities that they subsequently did. While there would have been no harm to the family of the Prophet and the Bani Hashim if Abu Sufyan and Bani Umayyah had loved them truly. But the true colors of their love for Holy Prophet (S) and the Bani Hashim had already been revealed in the Battle of Hunayn.

The fact is that Abu Sufyan and his tribesmen had been inimical to the Holy Prophet (S) since ages. The Prophet has not accepted any truck with Abu Sufyan because of his insincerity. Abu Sufyan had a personal benefit in it, which Ali (a.s.) had correctly surmised. That is why Ali (a.s.) repulsed him with an acerbic reply. This compelled Abu Sufyan to go to Abu Bakr and Umar, and he was finally successful in his machinations. The fact is that Abu Sufyan was a man of determination. He had thought that if Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s support was obtained, it would have given him much respect among the Muslims.

But Ali (a.s.) did not allow any such thing and thus continued on the practice of Holy Prophet (S). Ali (a.s.) thus remained safe from blame, which were the consequences of the fresh empowerment of Bani Umayyah, for which Abu Bakr and Umar are naturally held accountable. In the end, the writer wishes to state that the senior companions of the Holy Prophet (S) had performed such deeds that become clear subsequently. One is that the Holy Prophet (S) was a brave and steadfast Prophet, as an Ulul Azm Prophet (who brings a new Shariat) should be. He participated in all the battles and exhibited the quality of an expert military general. He never receded his steps from a battle and he never showed any cowardice. He faced many tight corners, but his steadfastness helped him in such circumstances. He proved that a true prophet (a.s.) is pure of cowardice and docility. Bravery is the best quality of Prophethood and Imamate. The Prophet and Imam must never be a coward.

Secondly, to strengthen the roots of Islam, the Almighty Allah had created Ali (a.s.). That is why his courage was incomparable. Thus, all the feats that he performed in the battles and military campaigns show that he was the recipient of divine help and an undefeated warring lion of Allah, the performer of astounding feats etc. Such achievements he had that one stroke his was more than all the good deeds of all Allah’s creatures together.

Doubtlessly, except for him no one has the right to be the Caliph of the Prophet. A Caliph must be like the Prophet, brave and helpful to the religion of Allah.

The fact is that Abu Bakr and Umar or rather, the three Caliphs had no connection with bravery. The two of them used to run away from the battles, just like the common people fled for the fear of their lives.

Flight from the battlefield was their common habit. Both of them, rather, all three of them showed such cowardice on the battlefield that every modest person would prefer not to look at their acts. It is really astounding how those gentlemen could become so brave that finally they became Caliphs.

The fact is that during the lifetime of the Prophet, none of them had a single achievement to their credit in helping or defending Islam. Every time they were busy in saving their own skins. No feat of theirs was shown in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq or Hunayn. But after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) they occupied with shamelessness, the position of the Prophet’s vicegerency, which was rightfully deserved by Ali (a.s.) due to the services he had rendered with the power of his arms. Their occupying the Caliphate and usurpation of Ali’s right is one matter.

In addition to this, Abu Bakr and Umar became instrumental in promoting and empowering a tribe that was detested by the Messenger of Allah (S) and weakened by him to a great extent on the basis of some hidden wisdom. That tribe had not a bit of right to gain any benefit from a successor of the Prophet, because it was deadly inimical to the Messenger of Allah (S) and the religion of Allah. And it had greatly harmed the Holy Prophet (S) and the divine faith.

But Abu Bakr and Umar helped this tribe, due to which it became powerful and consequently wreaked untold havoc upon the family of the Prophet. The depriving of Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate was a one-sided affair. More than this, was their empowerment of Bani Umayyah. This caused Islam to go into the hands of those who knew nothing of faith except their selfish motives.

(54) The sun returned for Ali (a.s.) just as it had stopped on the command of Yusha (a.s.). The stopping of the sun due to the prayer of Yusha (a.s.) is recorded in Taurat. In this way, the coming back of the sun is proved by correct traditions. In the book of Tahawi, Mushkilate Hadith, there is a tradition of Asma binte Umais and also in the book Muntaqa to this effect. Shah Waliullah has also included it in Izalatul Khifa.

The writer of Tarikh Khamis has also included it in his history. The denier of this tradition is only Ibn Jauzi. He was a great opponent of Ali (a.s.), so his denial cannot be regarded authentic. It is obvious that if the returning of the Sun had not been in connection with Ali (a.s.), this person would not have considered it unauthentic. But the denial of the enemies does not in any way harm the status of Ali (a.s.).

Anyway, the incident of the return of the sun is that one day, revelation was descending on the Holy Prophet (S) and his respected head was in the lap of Ali (a.s.). It was in that position for such a long time that the Sun set and the Asr (afternoon) prayer of Ali (a.s.) lapsed. When the revelation was complete, the Messenger of Allah (S) asked: “O Ali! Did you perform the Asr prayer?” He replied that he had performed it only by gestures. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Allah! Ali was in Your obedience and the obedience of Your Messenger. Thus, You send back the sun for him.”

Asma binte Umais who is the narrator of this tradition and one who had been guaranteed Paradise by the Holy Prophet (S) says: “We had indeed witnessed the setting of the sun and then saw it rising again, and its light was seen spreading on the earth and the mountains.”

O dear readers, this narration shows a great merit of Ali (a.s.). First of all, at the time of revelation, the head of the Prophet was in the lap of Ali (a.s.).

Secondly, when the Holy Prophet (S) prayed for the Sun’s return he said: “O Allah! Ali (a.s.) was in Your obedience and the obedience of Your Prophet (S).” Thirdly, the prayer of Ali (a.s.) was considered so important that the sun was made to rise again for it to be performed. Here, we remind the readers that the above tradition indicates such a great significance of Prayers.

Those who being Muslims do not give importance to Prayers, will realize what a great significance Prayer has. If it had not been so, the Holy Prophet (S) would not have prayed for the return of the sun. There are many Muslims who live among Muslims and inherit property like them, but they consider Prayer a despicable thing. They should read the above tradition. Not being steadfast in Prayer is one thing but considering it unimportant is another. Such a person can hardly be called a Muslim. He is an apostate and atheist. This is for those who call themselves Muslims and befool the people by their claim.

There is a sect, which calls itself Muslim but denies miracles. According to them, splitting of the moon, returning of the Sun and the curing of the leper are all impossible acts. They think that a supernatural occurrence is impossible. The fact is that these people are narrow-minded. They have considered only such things possible as are in the scope of their understanding. Here, the writer shall only discuss their response with regard to the miracle of the Sun’s return.

People who deny the miracles of the Prophets (S) have always said that miracle is nothing, because it is an unnatural occurrence. Thus, the affair, which is unnatural, is impossible. Apparently, this unnatural occurrence seems to be unacceptable, but this type of statement shows lack of determination. This can be considered true only if the miracles of the Prophets (a.s.) could be thought to be beyond the intellectual capacity of the Prophets (S).

Apparently, the deniers have considered them as such. Although, all the miracles recorded in books are having an aspect of possibility. None of them seem intellectually impossible. Not a single miracle has been related about the Messenger of Allah (S) about which one could find an excuse of its impossibility by reason. Rather, all the miracles are against our daily experiences of life. But they are not impossible theoretically.

For example, none of the Prophets have made a part greater than its whole. Now if the deniers deny these miracles, it is due to their lack of understanding. Now we shall explain why the miracle of the Sun’s return was not illogical. Let any denier of miracle tell us if this miracle is scientifically or logically impossible. Except that they seem incompatibility with daily occurrence. That is just as much as the denier has experience, he will consider only as much possibility of a miracle. But if the miracles had been identical to daily occurrence, why they had been called miracles?

Readers should note that the deniers have denied the miracle of the Sun’s return, because everyday we see the Sun setting in the west but we do not see it coming back. Because it is against nature that such a miracle was shown by the Prophet. It seems the deniers had not distinguished between impossible and irrational occurrences, otherwise, they would not have expressed such improper views. We should know that occurrences like rising of the Sun from the west is not an irrational thing. It is possible for the Sun to return from the west, to stop midway etc. Such occurrences are not beyond reason. Such things seem impossible to us, because we don’t know of their reality. If we tell someone, who has no knowledge of astronomy, that four thousand years ago, the North Star was not actually the North Star, and that the North Star of today was the star named Thauban, that person will not consider our statement correct on the basis of his personal experience.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of such strange facts about the Universe after which the return of the Sun or its stopping will not seem a great occurrence. Allah knows, since when this world exists but the occurrences of the last 400 years are not any lesser astounding. All these revolutions have an aspect of possibility. Only those consider them impossible, who have no rational thinking.

Thus, the deniers of the miracle of the sun are not correct in their views and do not deserve any attention. We should deduce the other miracles of the Prophet from this basis. And we should know that all the miracles performed by the Prophets (a.s.) were not beyond possibility. That is why they cannot be said to be against nature. Although, in the circle of the experience of deniers it does not seem possible, but this itself is in conformity to the requirements of a miracle. Because if there had been scope of such ordinary possibility, a miracle would not have been a miracle.

(55) Ali (a.s.) had received the titles of Yadullah (hands of Allah) and Asadullah (Lion of Allah). The reason is that on the night of Ascension (Meraj), the Holy Prophet (S), at one stage saw a lion. The Messenger of Allah (S) put his ring in the mouth of that lion. Then at the spot of Qaba Qausain (Two bows) when a hand appeared, it was wearing that same ring. When the next morning, after the night of Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) saw Ali (a.s.), he saw that he was wearing the same ring. From that day he was given the titles of ‘the Lion of Allah’ and ‘the Hands of Allah’. Those who are narrow-minded may ignore this fact, but it is the true background of those titles of Ali (a.s.).

(56) The Messenger of Allah (S) presented Ali (a.s.), as per the commands of Allah, the saintly dress of Ascension. The reason behind this was that he had the same quality of concealing defects. In recompense of this quality, he was given the dress of Ascension. Why should Allah had not given him that? Ali (a.s.) had always concealed the defects of the sinners.

(57) On the night of Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) saw the following written on the heaven: There is no god except Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S). Ali is the helper of Muhammad.

(58) Ali (a.s.) was the author of the saying: “Ask me!” Mulla Jami writes in Shawahid that Ali (a.s.) said in a sermon: “Whatever anyone desires to inquire may ask me. Except the news of the Arsh (throne). The knowledge that I have gained is from the saliva that the Messenger of Allah (S) made me suck.”

(59) Ali (a.s.) said: “I am the slave of Allah, the brother and legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S).” And also said: “I am the husband of the chief of ladies, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (S). I am the chief of the legatees of Prophets and the seal of the legatees of the Prophet. I am such, that except me, if anyone claims these virtues, the Almighty will punish him.”

(60) Ali (a.s.) caused a spring to flow from a place near a monastery. Upon this, the monk asked him if he was a prophet or an angel. Ali (a.s.) replied that he was the successor of the Prophet of the Last Age. Upon this, the monk accepted Islam and recited the formula: “I witness that there is no god except Allah. And I witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (S). And I witness that you are the legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S).”

The above is also recorded in the Shawahid of Mulla Jami.

(61) That Ali (a.s.) was the legatee of the Messenger of Allah (S) is also proved from the couplets of Imam Shafei: “Love of Ali is an armor. Distributor of Hell and Paradise. Truly he is the legatee of Mustafa. The Imam of men and Jinns.”

(62) Ali (a.s.) was the one who showed the correct path and restrained from misguidance. Hakim in Mustadrak has recorded a tradition related from Zaid bin Arqam that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “One who wishes to live like me and die like me and to stay in the Garden that Allah has promised me, should love and obey Ali (a.s.) who shall show you the correct path and never allow you to go astray.”

(63) One who befriends Ali (a.s.) shall go to Paradise and one who denies him shall go to Hell. In Hakim’s Mustadrak there is a tradition related by Ammar in which he reports that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Ali! Tuba (Congratulations) for those who love you and testify for you and Wayl (fie) is for one who angers you and falsifies you.”

(64) It was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S) that Ali (a.s.) is chief of the believers, Imam of the pious ones and the leader of those who flee from ignorance? Abdullah Ibn Abbas relates from his father that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Three things were revealed upon me regarding Ali (a.s.). (The same points, mentioned above).”

(65) Looking at the face of Ali (a.s.) is worship. Hakim records in Mustadrak from Abdullah Ibn Masood that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Casting a glance at the face of Ali (a.s.) is an act of worship.”

(66) On Judgment Day, Ali (a.s.) will be the bearer of the heavenly standard, Liwaul Hamd. Its brilliance will be visible on his head as a crown.1

(67) Abusing Ali (a.s.) is abusing the Holy Prophet (S). In the book of Mishkatul Masabih, in the Chapter of the Merits of Ali (a.s.), there is a tradition narrated by Umme Salma that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “One who abused Ali (a.s.) is as if he has abused me.”

It is not unexpected for people who are not very familiar with traditions to be terrified on reading this tradition. He would think that Ali (a.s.) was really a close confidant of the Holy Prophet (S) and deserving of respect. He was also a close relative of the Prophet so why should anyone abuse him. But the fact is that Ali (a.s.) was the target of abuses for a long time. The Holy Prophet (S) being the Prophet had known that a time would come when people will abuse Ali (a.s.). That is why he had made such a statement.

Obviously, who had the courage to abuse Ali (a.s.) during the lifetime of the Prophet? But after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), the abusing and imprecation occurred. The one who initiated the cursing of Ali (a.s.) was Muawiyah. Not only did he curse Ali (a.s.), he also instigated his followers to perform this ‘good deed’. Thus, the custom gained popularity during the reign of Muawiyah because he was considered the rightful Caliph of his time, as is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

It is not an unknown thing that Muawiyah emphasized so much on the cursing of Ali (a.s.) that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) made a treaty with him, he included the condition that cursing of Ali (a.s.) will be stopped by Bani Umayyah, but Muawiyah did not honor it. At last, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had to propose that imprecation of Ali (a.s.) shall not be done in his presence. Anyway, whatever may be the view of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, the followers of today should note that the Holy Prophet (S) considered the cursing of Ali (a.s.) to be equal to cursing the Prophet himself as mentioned in the above tradition.

(68) When Ali (a.s.) returned after breaking the idols of Saqifah and Hawazin, the Holy Prophet (S) expressed his happiness and conferred with Ali (a.s.) in seclusion for a long time. The conference was so prolonged that Umar remarked that the Messenger of Allah (S) had that day conversed with his cousin for a very long time. The Holy Prophet (S) replied that he himself had nothing to say to Ali (a.s.), but there were many divine secrets that had to be conveyed to Ali (a.s.).2

The curiosity of Umar was not baseless. In spite of being with Ali (a.s.) day and night, he was not aware of his high status. In any case, this secluded conference clearly shows that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was the custodian of the secrets of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S); and except for him none of the companions had this honor.

(69) Ali (a.s.) was always the recipient of the beneficences of the Prophet. But in the incident mentioned below, the Holy Prophet (S) made such a statement about him that it implies that he had appointed Ali (a.s.) as his successor or it showed his desire that Ali (a.s.) should be his legatee. People of justice have not but to confess to this fact, the followers of Caliphate may say whatever they like.

The First Incident: Before migration to Medina (Hijrat), the Holy Prophet (S) invited his clan for a feast. After dinner, he told them that he has been sent for all the people, but especially for them. And they had well seen his behavior with them. Now it was incumbent on them to help him like a brother, but no one volunteered to do so, except Ali (a.s.) who, in spite of his young age stood up. The Holy Prophet (S) told him to move aside. The Messenger of Allah (S) repeated this thrice and every time only Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) arose. Finally, the Holy Prophet (S) thumped Ali’s shoulders and said:

“I have appointed my cousin as my successor.” The above tradition is recorded in Khasais of Nasai and Shah Waliullah has written it in his book Izalatul Khifa with explanation and commentary.

Also, Abul Fida, the historian, has also recorded it in his book Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. This historian writes that the Holy Prophet (S) addressed his clan and asked: “Who is it that could be my brother, my legatee and my successor?” No one responded, except Ali (a.s.), who happily offered himself to become his brother, helper and Caliph. Upon this, the Prophet told Ali (a.s.): “You are my brother, my legatee and my Caliph.”

Please note that the above proves the falsity of the alleged tradition: “We, the prophets don’t leave inheritance.” And the fact is that it is unacceptable as it is against nature. The next notable point is that the time when this occurred, the age of Ali (a.s.) was eleven years only. Since that time, Ali (a.s.) showed absolute loyalty and helpfulness to the Holy Prophet (S). He always strove to please the Prophet and he did not even prefer his life over the safety of the Messenger of Allah (S).

At the time of migration, he slept fearlessly on the bed of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in every battle he exhibited such valor as was not found in anyone else. The fact is that he fulfilled the promise of his childhood steadfastly throughout his life. After the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) also, he did not accept the cooperation of Bani Umayyah. The fact is that all his life, he had fulfilled to the maximum, the saying of the Prophet when he had called him the ‘legatee and brother’.

The Second Incident: On the day of migration, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed him on his behalf to restore the trusts placed with him by Meccans, and especially made Ali (a.s.) sleep on his bed and had him covered with his covering. His selection for this position seems to be a significant matter. It was such a serious responsibility that it could be fulfilled by only the one who had the position of legatee and brother of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Evidently, this is the matter that indicates the appointment of Ali (a.s.) to be the legatee of the Holy Prophet (S). In such crucial circumstances, only such a person can take the place of the Holy Prophet (S) as one whom Allah has appointed to be the brother, legatee and the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). Obviously, such a feat cannot be accomplished without divine help. Thus, Ali (a.s.) was created to perform this astounding feat. And it was so, because he has been appointed by divine instructions, the brother, legatee and the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). This also shows that since he had been appointed as such by Allah, there was no need for him to be appointed a Caliph by the people. The Almighty Himself has praised this feat of Ali (a.s.)3

“And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah and Allah is Affectionate to the servants.”

The Third Incident: In the year when the allegiance of Rizwan occurred, some people of Quraish came to the Holy Prophet (S) to ask for the return of some slaves. The Holy Prophet (S) told them: “O people of Quraish! The Almighty will appoint on you a person whose faith He has already tested. That person will make you follow the religion strictly and kill some of you.” When the companions asked the Messenger of Allah (S) about the person he said. “It is the one repairing my sandals.”

At that time, Ali (a.s.) was stitching the sandals of the Messenger of Allah (S). The statement of the Prophet that he would make them follow the religion and kill some of them indicates that the Caliph of the Prophet is having authority in the religion as well as the secular affairs of the community. This implies that Ali (a.s.) was the true Caliph appointed by the Messenger of Allah (S). People who misconstrue meanings may interpret this statement of the Messenger of Allah (S) in any way they like.

The Fourth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S), at the time of announcing the verses of Surah Baraat under divine instructions, considering Ali (a.s.) as having position like himself, sent him on this mission and he delivered the commands of Surah Baraat to the people of Mecca. The following tradition is mentioned in the books of Elamul Wara and Habibus Sayr: “But Jibraeel descended with the command that no one will fulfill this duty except you, yourself or someone who is like you. And the fact is that Ali is from me and I am from Ali. He is my brother, my legatee, my successor and my Caliph. After me, he will fulfill my rights in my family, my people and will promote my religion. And none shall fulfill my rights except Ali (a.s.).”

Shah Waliullah has also mentioned this incident in Izalatul Khifa. This clearly proves that Ali (a.s.) was the Caliph of the Prophet and the executor of religious and secular affairs. What could be clearer than these words of the Messenger of Allah (S)? The Prophet designated Ali (a.s.) in his lifetime as his brother, his legatee and his successor and also said that Ali (a.s.) will manage his religion after him.

But after the demise of the Prophet, the nation did not allow Ali (a.s.) to be the Caliph. Umar denied that he was the brother of the Prophet. Abu Bakr attributed a saying to the Holy Prophet (S), which implied that the Messenger of Allah (S) had no inheritor. What an allegiance they had given to the Prophet! They disregarded all the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (S)!

The Fifth Incident: One day, the Holy Prophet (S) stated that Ali (a.s.) was the chief of the Arabs, thus ‘A’ysha narrates in Mustadrak and Shah Waliullah has recorded it in Izalatul Khifa. ‘A’ysha says that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Call for me the chief of the Arabs. ‘A’ysha asked him if he himself was not the chief of the Arabs? He replied that he was the chief of the Children of Adam (human beings) and Ali (a.s.) is the chief of the Arabs.”

Despite being the chief of the Arabs, the people did not allow his chieftaincy to remain established. They created the turmoil of Saqifah and did not allow him to become the apparent chief of the community. What a loyal nation it was of the Messenger of Allah (S) that it could not even act upon this command of the Holy Prophet (S)!

The Sixth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) had stated that Ali (a.s.) is the chief of the believers, Imam of the pious and the leader of the nobles? The Holy Prophet (S) used to speak very highly of Ali (a.s.), but when did the Ummah cut off his neck, and not denied that Ali (a.s.) was the brother of the Prophet. It is obvious that any believer cannot address the chief of the believers in such a rude manner.

The Seventh Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) told Ali (a.s.) that after the Messenger of Allah (S), he was the chief of every believing man and woman. But after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) Umar, Abu Bakr, Muawiyah, ‘A’ysha, Talha and Zubair did not accept him to be the chief of the believers. Anyway, this tradition is recorded in Izalatul Khifa from Abdullah Ibn Abbas. It is as follows: “O Ali! You are the Guardian (Wali) of all believers after me.” Obviously, the meaning of Wali is chief and Imam. It cannot be friend or helper etc. because the words ‘after me’ cannot imply anything else. Even then, the opponents of Ali (a.s.) do not refrain from deriving inappropriate meanings. Indeed, bigotry blinds the people.

The Eighth Incident: In a great crowd, as commanded by revelation, the Holy Prophet (S) declared that all the doors opening into the Prophet’s mosque must be closed except that of Ali (a.s.). This was put into effect and this caused many people to be jealous. This incident is mentioned in the book of Jazbul Quloob. And the tradition is seen in Sahih Bukhari.

In the same way, the Prophet told Ali (a.s.): “Except for you and me, this mosque is not allowed for anyone in the state of ritual impurity.” Then the Messenger of Allah (S) gave the example of Moosa (a.s.) that he was ordered by Allah to construct a mosque where none but he and Haroon could live. Both these virtues are such that except for Ali (a.s.), it could not be obtained by anyone else from the non-Ahlul Bayt people.

The second virtue was that Ali (a.s.), like the Holy Prophet (S), even in the state of ritual impurity could enter the mosque. This proves the infallibility of Ali (a.s.) because without infallibility, a person cannot be absolutely pure. Thus, just as the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible, in the same way, Ali (a.s.) was also infallible. In this condition, no one but Ali (a.s.) can be the successor of the Holy Prophet (S). The successor of an infallible should be infallible too. This merit also proves that immediate successorship of the Prophet belonged to Ali (a.s.).

The Ninth Incident: The Holy Prophet (S) appointed Ali (a.s.) as his representative and successor by tying a turban to the head of Ali (a.s.) and after that he made him sit on a camel and sent him to the infidels. And also said that even if one person accepts Islam at the hands of Ali (a.s.), it would be better than the entire world and whatever is in it. Side by side the Holy Prophet (S) also prayed: “O Allah! Make his tongue firm and guide his heart.” The Messenger of Allah (S) also said: “Ali is the most judicious among you!”4

Tying of turban is a sign of appointing as a successor. Till today, only the turban is tied on the head of one who is appointed as the successor. The tying of turban to Ali’s head and making him sit on a camel to depart by the Holy Prophet (S) shows that he alone deserved the position of the Prophet’s successorship. The truth is also that except for him, no one was qualified for it.

The Holy Prophet (S) knew that by tying the turban on Ali’s head and sending him to the enemies of Islam would not be useless, because Ali (a.s.) will remain steadfast in facing the enemies. He will definitely not flee from combat. People who value justice should see if the Prophet has treated anyone of the three Caliphs in this way. When it had already been proved by past experience that none of them had such ability.

The Tenth Incident: When Khalid bin Walid instigated some people to complain to the Holy Prophet (S) regarding the distribution of Yemen booty by Ali (a.s.), the Messenger of Allah (S) became infuriated.

The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah says that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Do not think bad of Ali (a.s.), because he is from me and I am from him and he is your guardian. Of whomsoever I am the master, this Ali is his master too.” The words of Wali (Guardian) and Maula (Master) clearly imply the rule that no one from the Muslims can ignore his commands. The Holy Prophet (S) implied that of whosoever he was the ruler, in the same way was Ali (a.s.). Thus, whatever is his decision regarding the war booty, ‘the same would have been my decision. You have no right to complain against it.’

The obvious meaning of Maula is as mentioned above, but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) have contrived new connotations to this words, which shows nothing but the expression of their actual feelings.

Here, it seems appropriate to mention a few things about Khalid Ibn Walid also only because it is possible that he may not be mentioned in this book again. Khalid Ibn Walid was a well-known chief of the Bani Makhzum tribe. The first time Islam encountered him was during the Battle of Uhud. He had come with Abu Sufyan to confront the army of Islam and was a brave soldier. He began his activities against the army of Allah.

The Holy Prophet (S) had posted fifty archers at the mountain pass but they left their position and indulged in collecting the booty. Khalid saw the loophole and he descended from the heights and attacked the Muslims. Due to Khalid’s attack, the Muslims were defeated after having the upper hand. This also resulted in the martyrdom of Hamza, who was killed by a javelin thrown by Wahshi, the slave of Hind. After that, Khalid accepted Islam after a period of time.

At the time of the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet (S) sent Khalid to confront the Bani Jazima. They accepted Islam and surrendered their weapons. In spite of their acceptance of Islam, Khalid treated them with cruelty and killed a number of their men. When the Holy Prophet (S) heard of this, he began to tremble by the fear of Allah and began to plead: “O my Lord! I dissociate with this misdeed of Khalid. And I seek Your refuge.” After this, the Messenger of Allah (S) immediately sent Ali (a.s.) with a lot of money and gold so that he could remove Khalid from there and reconcile the people whose kin were slain by Khalid and that they could be paid blood money.

Thus, Khalid was always inimical to Ali (a.s.) because the latter differed with him in many decisions. This had finally led Khalid to instigate people to complain against Ali (a.s.). The result was as mentioned above. Khalid remained famous as a ferocious warrior even after the passing away of the Prophet. Those who consider him equal to or braver than Ali (a.s.) should know that the bravery of Khalid was of a ferocious, wild kind. While the valor of Ali (a.s.) was never devoid of mercy and kindness. None is equal to Ali (a.s.) from the aspect of valor and forbearance. Khalid was so hot tempered that even a hot tempered person like Umar used to be dissatisfied with him. We don’t know how Khalid was conferred the title of ‘Sword of Allah’. It was definitely not gained during the lifetime of the Prophet.

The Messenger of Allah (S) was absolutely not pleased with him. It seems that during the conquests of Syria etc., the Muslims came to refer to him with this title. It is well-known that the title of ‘Sword of Allah’ is the exclusive appellation of Ali (a.s.), as the writer has shown in the foregone discussions. Apparently, it seems that Ahlul Sunnat have forcibly applied this title to Khalid. In this time also, there are people who call themselves descendants of Khalid. They are proud to say that they are the progeny of the ‘Sword of Allah’.

The Eleventh Incident: When the Holy Prophet (S) was going to Tabuk, he appointed Ali (a.s.) as his representative in Medina. This appointment was a matter of great pride for Ali (a.s.) but the hypocrites spread the calumny that the Prophet was angry with him; that is why he had left him in Medina and gone to Tabuk. So Ali (a.s.) asked the Holy Prophet (S) why he was leaving him as a Caliph on women and children while he had not been shortcoming in the five previous battles. Upon this, the Messenger of Allah (S) gave the example of Haroon and Moosa (a.s.). He said:

“You are to me as Haroon was to Moosa.”

It should be clear that the example is based on an incident when Moosa had left for the Miqat (place of meeting the Lord), he had appointed Haroon as his Caliph. The tradition regarding this incident is given below. Shaykh Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi has also quoted it from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: “You are to me as Haroon was to Moosa, except that there is no Prophet after me.”

Doubtlessly, this tradition tells us a lot of the high position of Ali (a.s.), but the opponents of Ali (a.s.) claim that there is nothing special in this tradition, because the Prophet had appointed him the Caliph on his family and not on all people of Medina. First of all, the saying of the mischievous people is itself invalid, because when the Prophet quoted the example of Haroon and Moosa, the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) over whole of Medina was proved. Secondly, when he was made the Caliph on the family of the Prophet, then what was the position of the common people of Medina? That any excuse could be sought for him being their Caliph.

It seems that these people do not consider the family and progeny of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be superior to the common people of Medina. That is why they are presenting such lame excuses from their side. Glory be to Allah, what a respect of the Prophet’s family! These people definitely degrade the Messenger’s kinsfolk by considering them at par with common people. The fact is that selfishness is a bad habit.

Sayyid Ali Hamadani writes in Mawaddatul Qurba that the Holy Prophet (S) had repeated the following tradition on ten different occasions: “You are having the same position to me as Haroon was having with Moosa (a.s.).” This does not only prove that he was a Caliph for the Prophet’s family when the Holy Prophet (S) had gone to Tabuk. Rather, it implies that he was the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S). This tradition is a great proof of the rightfulness of his Caliphate.

The writer of Ittilaaf says that most scholars have accepted this tradition except Amadi, who was expelled from Syria due to his contorted beliefs as mentioned by Zahabi in Mizanul Etedal in detail. The best tradition to prove the appointment of Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph is the Relation (Manzilah) tradition. Shah Abdul Aziz has written in Tohfa: “We, Ahlul Sunnat accept this tradition as correct. This tradition proves the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) in his own time.” After this, the Shah says: “Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) enemies (Nasibi) have denied this tradition.” We, Shias also agree to the view of Shah. But the limitation of “in his own time” is not correct.

Rather, it should be said that this tradition proves the immediate Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), while such a kind of tradition is not found for any of the three Caliphs. It is also stated by Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Ibn Hajar in Fathul Bari and Maqrizi etc. How beautifully the Shah has limited it to “his own time”! It is as if the Holy Prophet (S) has missed the phrase. No, the Holy Prophet (S) did not lay any condition to the acceptance of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). He did not say that after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have been Caliphs, after this Ali (a.s.) must be taken as Caliph.

It is apparent that the Shah has applied this condition only to justify his Sunni faith. The Holy Prophet (S) never implied it. What a great selfishness that the Shah is blinded by the look of three Caliphs. He says that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) enemies oppose this tradition and he himself has opposed it after a few lines. It is not a mature behavior; but selfishness blinds one in discriminating between right and wrong. At least the respected Shah who had the power to discern truth from falsehood should not have followed the bigots.

The Twelfth Incident: In 10 A.H., the Holy Prophet (S) announced that he was going for Hajj pilgrimage and whoever wanted to perform Hajj should come to Medina and accompany him. Upon hearing this news, 120000 people of the Arab tribes gathered in Medina.5 And the Holy Prophet (S) departed to Medina with the great crowd.6 Ali (a.s.) was in Yemen at that time. He also reached Mecca and joined the Holy Prophet (S). The Holy Prophet (S) fulfilled the rituals of Hajj and also delivered a brilliant and an eloquent sermon.7

He also said in the sermon that his death was near and the call of the Almighty may come anytime and he would have to respond. Thus, he was leaving among them two things: One of them being greater than the other and they shall not separate from each other till they join him at the cistern of Kauthar. If the people follow them and remain attached to them, they shall never go stray, and the two weighty things are the Quran and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)

Tirmidhi has related the following tradition from Jabir as follows: On the day of Arafat, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Indeed, I leave among you those that if you hold to them firmly you shall not go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my progeny.” The Messenger of Allah (S) was astride his she-camel, Qassa. This tradition is also related from Saad bin Abi Waqqas. In Tohfa, Shah Abdul Aziz has mentioned it as follows: “I leave among you two weighty things; if you hold to the two of them you will not go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other. The book of Allah and my progeny.”

Shah Waliullah has also quoted the same in Izalatul Khifa an Khilafatul Khulafa and this tradition is authentic and Mutawatir (related by a large number of narrators). No one has any objection to it. Anyway, when the Holy Prophet (S) completed the Hajj rituals, he headed back to Medina. On the way, he reached a spot named Ghadeer Khumm on the 18th of Zilhajj at the time for noon prayers. Jibraeel, the trustworthy, descended with the following command from the Almighty:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered this message, and Allah will protect you from the people, Surely, Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.” 8

On receiving this divine command, the Messenger of Allah (S) halted at that place and gathered all the people again. We should know that this Ghadeer Khumm was the place from where different roads diverged in different directions. When the people reached this spot with the Messenger of Allah (S) they began to go on their respective ways. The Holy Prophet (S) sent messengers to call back the people who had gone ahead and waited for those who were following behind.

When the people gathered, the Messenger of Allah (S) led the Noon Prayer and then got on a platform constructed of four camel saddles. Then he asked: “Don’t you know that I am better for the believers than they are for themselves?” All the people replied that they indeed agreed to this.

The writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah explains the meaning of the Prophet’s words as follows: “That I do not command any of the believers to perform any such act which is against their well-being and success of the world and the Hereafter. While the selves of the believers sometimes are prone to mischief and corruption.” However, the brief and clear meaning of this statement is that: “Am I not better and higher than the believers?” There can be no doubt that all the audience replied in one voice that it was true. Anyway, after this the Holy Prophet (S) said:

“I am leaving among you two important things and one of them is greater than the other. They are Quran and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). You must be careful with regard to them that how you behave with them and how you fulfill their rights. These two shall not separate from each other after me, till they meet me at the cistern of Kauthar.”

After this, the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Allah is my Master and I am the master of all believers.” Then he held the hand of Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Allah! Of whomsoever, I am the master, this Ali is his master too. O Allah! Befriend one who befriends Ali (a.s.) and be inimical to one who is inimical to Ali (a.s.). Help one who helps Ali and degrade one who disrespects Ali (a.s.) and desert one who deserts Ali (a.s.), and turn the truth to whichever direction Ali (a.s.) turns.”

After this, he commanded Ali (a.s.) to sit in a tent and accept congratulations of believers for mastership of believers. Thus, the respected wives of the Prophet went to his tent to congratulate him.9 Abu Bakr and Umar also congratulated him with fervor and said: “You have become the master of all the believing men and believing women.” Umar even said: “Congratulations! O Abal Hasan, today you have become my master and the master of all believing men and women.” All this is true, but what a pity that Abu Bakr and Umar did not recall their congratulatory statements in Saqifah. It is unlikely that they had forgotten these statements.

Rather, the fact is that they had made those statements as matter of policy without any sincere feelings. If it had been otherwise, Abu Bakr would not have disregarded Ali (a.s.) within a few days and himself became the master of believers. Apart from the congratulations, poets composed panegyrics and couplets in praise of Ali (a.s.). Thus, the most famous of these panegyrics is one composed by Hassaan bin Thabit. Below we present the translation of a few couplets of this panegyric:

“On the day of Ghadeer the Messenger of Allah (S) called the people and gathered them.

It was a voice that all those with hearing capability could hear.

The Holy Prophet (S) asked the people who their chief and master was? Everyone replied and at that moment did not show blindness.

That Allah is the master of you and us, and you are our ruler and today no one can disobey you.

The Messenger of Allah (S) made Ali (a.s.) stand up and said: Indeed, I have appointed you Imam and guide after me.

Thus, all the people should remain his true helpers like slaves.

After stating this the Messenger of Allah (S) prayed and said: O Allah love those who love Ali (a.s.) and be inimical to one who is inimical to Ali (a.s.).”

Poor Hassaan did no know that the opponents of Ali (a.s.) will distort the meaning of Maula. And after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) how they would make ineffective all the proceedings of Ghadeer Khumm. The couplets of Hassaan also indicate that the Messenger of Allah (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) as the ruler of his people and designated him as his successor. It was definitely not that the Messenger of Allah (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) only as helper and beloved. It is surprising that those who derive such absurd meanings do not feel ashamed.

There is no power and strength except by Allah.

Modesty is a part of faith. Why did they act so shamelessly? Thus, after the sermon of Ghadeer, the following verse was revealed:

“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.” 10

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imams of Ahlul Sunnat says that after this verse, the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Praise be to Allah for the perfection of religion and the completion of favor and His pleasure by my Messengership and the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ali (a.s.) after me.” We should know that the tradition of Ghadeer is narrated by a large number of companions, their followers and other traditionists.

Two hundred and fifty Shafei scholars have also recorded the tradition of Ghadeer Khumm. In addition to them, Allamah Maghribi has composed a beautiful panegyric (Qasida) in praise of Ali (a.s.) with reference to Ghadeer Khumm. The incident of Ghadeer seems to be very significant in the history of Islam and if you study its parts, you will realize an important point.

It seems that the Messenger of Allah (S) had desired to make some arrangement in his own lifetime and he definitely did not imply an insignificant matter. That Ali (a.s.) is the helper and the friend of believers, as Ibn Hajar and other scholars construe it to mean. If the Holy Prophet (S) did not mean to say that Ali (a.s.) is appointed the executor of all religious and seculars, why did the Almighty command the Messenger of Allah (S) to make such an announcement? Why should Allah say:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message; and Allah will protect you from the people...”

Here the phrase: “Allah will protect you from the people...” is also worth noting. It seems that the Messenger of Allah (S) was not feeing safe from mischief mongers and hypocrites and he was expecting trouble from them. That is why Allah promised him safety. Why, also, did the Holy Prophet (S) stop the people and made a pulpit of saddles and ask: “Whether I am not superior for you than yourself?” When they replied in affirmative, he stated the attachment of the book of Allah and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Then he said that Allah was his master and he was the master of all believers. Then he caught the hand of Ali (a.s.) and said:

“Of whomsoever I am the Master, this Ali is his master too...”

If the intention of Allah and His Messenger was merely to inform about the friendship and helpfulness of Ali (a.s.), then indeed no ruler and leader in the world has performed such a fiasco. Not only this, afterwards, people came to congratulate Ali (a.s.). Abu Bakr and Umar congratulated him too.

In the words of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Holy Prophet (S) said: “By my prophethood and by the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ali (a.s.) after me.” We should know that only one who lacks faith is prone to quote the words of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S) without any significance.

Please note that the above incident clearly indicates the immediate successorship of Ali (a.s.). Though the incident of Tabuk was also clear, the event of Ghadeer is much more clear. The opponents of Ali (a.s.) and the bigots may view it in any way they like, but the followers of Ali (a.s.) consider this, a clear proof of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.). From all the discussions presented by the writer in the foregone pages, it is proved that there was no one equal to Ali (a.s.) from the Ummah of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Rather, there was no one even from the past nations.

All the points mentioned so far are sufficient to prove that in the view of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) was the best and most superior of all the believers. Though Ali (a.s.) possessed uncountable merits, his bravery and piety was such that there was none his equal. His bravery was such that through it, Islam was established. His steadfastness in the battles and military campaigns was such that more steadfastness is impossible. To compare him with the three Caliphs, from the aspect of valor, is meaningless.

Secondly, his worship was such that in the words of the Messenger of Allah (S), the worship of all the past, present and future people cannot compete with it. In this way, to compare Ali (a.s.) with the three Caliphs or any righteous person is useless. These two qualities are sufficient to prove the superiority of Ali (a.s.), so there is no need for me to compare Ali (a.s.) to the three Caliphs from the aspect of other qualities.

These two qualities alone prove the immediate successorship of Ali (a.s.). Anyone lacking in these two qualities cannot be superior to Ali (a.s.). And while Ali (a.s.) is there, someone else could not be appointed as Caliph. Keeping in mind all the qualities of Ali (a.s.); especially these two virtues, no equitable person will accept anyone other than him as the successor of the Prophet. Bigotry and falsehood is another matter!

Readers should note that we have presented here the details about Ali (a.s.) because there is significant connection between the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) at Karbala’ with the non-appointment of Ali (a.s.) to the seat of Caliphate. That is, if he had been accepted as the Caliph, immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Sufyan and Bani Umayyah had not become strong. They would have remained in the lowly state, the Messenger of Allah (S) had left them.

The fact is that the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is a result of the usurpation of the right of Ali (a.s.). Not only did it cause the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.), it was responsible for the martyrdom of Ali, Fatima and Hasan (a.s.) and all the calamities that befell the family of the Messenger of Allah (S). It won’t be long when the opponents of the Prophet’s family (a.s.) suffer the consequences of their deeds.

- 1. Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah

- 2. Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah, Part 4, Pg. 269-270, and also Sahih Tirmidhi

- 3. Ref. the 207th verse of Surah Baqarah

- 4. Refer Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi’s Maarijun Nubuwwah, Vol. 2, Pg. 229, 230

- 5. Ref. Maarijun Nubuwwah

- 6. Tafseer Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 58.

- 7. Tauzihud Dalail of Shahabuddin Ahmad and also Marakatul Arasha, of Salamatullah

- 8. Surah Maidah 5:67

- 9. Tazkeratul Khawas of Sibte Ibn Jawzi; Seerate Rasool of Ibn Ishaq, Maarijun
Nubuwwah; Rauzatul Safa and Habibus Sayr

- 10. Surah Maidah 5:3

The Tragedy of Karbala’ Is the Natural Consequence of Some Unnatural Factors

We should know that the tragedy of Karbala’ is the natural consequence of some unnatural factors that the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had to face from the last moments of the Holy Prophet (S). The writer has already shown in brief, what the tradition of Two Heavy things (Thaqalayn) demanded and why the change in this command distanced Bani Hashim from rulership, which caused their worldly leadership to be lost and finally their religious leadership was also gone.

This reduced their honor to such an extent that they began to be included among the common people. Thus, after such factors came into action, a tragedy of the magnitude of the Tragedy of Karbala’ was not entirely unexpected.

It is a decided matter that if after the Messenger of Allah (S), Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the Caliph, the Tragedy of Karbala’ would never have occurred. Indeed, if he had become the Caliph, he would never have bestowed official positions and economic concessions to Bani Umayyah. This is what that seems apparent. Bani Umayyah would have remained in the basal position in which the Messenger of Allah (S) had left them.

Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the successor to the Holy Prophet (S), he was the one to have conformed to the style and method of the Holy Prophet (S). It was not possible that Ali (a.s.) would have deviated from the policy of the Holy Prophet (S). The first mistake was that the Muslims opposed Bani Hashim. And the second mistake committed by them was that this opposition made the Bani Umayyah very strong. Not only were Bani Hashim hurt by this, even the world of Islam had to bear untold damages, as will be shown by future discussions.

We have already described the process of the empowerment of Bani Umayyah in the first volume of our book Kashful Haqaiq. But here also, we shall mention in brief, the account of Bani Umayyah’s rise to power. We should know that immediately after the formation of Caliphate, Bani Umayyah were presented with excellent opportunities to gain power, which this tribe had never even dreamt of. From the beginning of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, the Bani Umayyah began to become powerful and within two years, the Syrian area was populated by the people of this tribe. Each and every member of this clan shifted from Mecca and Medina to Syria, and they gained their worldly desires as much as they had craved.

When rulership of Syria was gifted to Abu Sufyan, he did not opt to go there himself. His son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan took over the position gained by his father and departed to Syria. This gentleman was the governor of Syria for four years: Two years during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and two years during the Caliphate of Umar. Yazeed bin Abu Sufyan was not a very capable person, so his brother Muawiyah used to assist him in administration.

After the death of Yazeed bin Abi Sufyan, Muawiyah succeeded him as the governor of Syria. He was very cunning and crafty. Though he had no sort of religious capability, he possessed extraordinary manipulative power from the worldly aspect. As soon as he became the governor, the atmosphere of this country was transformed. In a brief time, Syria became a powerful and superior part of the Islamic kingdom.

Although Syria was considered to be under the control of Caliphate, Muawiyah had a free hand to do as he wished. In spite of this, Muawiyah never acted in a rebellious manner with the Caliphate. Rather, Muawiyah used to accord great respect and regard to Umar, the second Caliph. And why shouldn’t he had been so polite, when all that Muawiyah had achieved was due to the kindness of Umar?

The period of Umar’s Caliphate is said to be ten years but actually it was twelve because the two-year Caliphate of Abu Bakr was only in name. During this period of twelve years, Bani Umayyah became rulers and when the Caliphate of Uthman arrived, even the Caliphate became the property of Bani Umayyah, because the third Caliph was also from Bani Umayyah. At this time, the whole Islamic world seemed to be only Bani Umayyah. The pomp and show of Bani Umayyah at this time was beyond imagination. The land of Shaam (Syria) was filled with Bani Umayyah. They held all official positions in government and they were preferred for every post. This was the position of Bani Umayyah.

Now let us see the condition of Bani Hashim, which denotes the family of the Prophet. The head of this family at this time was Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and there did not remain any honor for Bani Hashim. They were completely out of power. A member of this clan did not even have a menial post in government. Bani Hashim had become distanced from public respect.

Their private economic conditions had also deteriorated due to the loss of Fadak. With the loss of their worldly position, there did not remain with them even religious leadership, as we have already explained in the foregoing pages. Apparently, there remained no sort of superiority for Bani Hashim and in the near future also there was no hope of any considerable change in their status. Yes, after the death of Uthman, somehow Ali (a.s.) was appointed to the Caliphate.

But the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), which lasted for four years, was mostly spent in wars. First of all, due to the rebellion of Muawiyah, ‘A’ysha fought His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) at Jamal with Talha and Zubair. After this, Muawiyah continuously fought with the Caliph of the age. All these machinations of Muawiyah and his rebellious activities are considered ‘errors of judgment’. The writer has not understood till today, what this ‘error of judgment’ is? And if Allah wills, it shall never ever become clear to him, because a just mind cannot accept such a thing. This is beyond the comprehension of the writer, because neither this humble one has the same mentality as Muawiyah, nor has any sort of interest with his activities.

Anyway, after becoming the Caliph, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not exalt Bani Umayyah, just as before this the Holy Prophet (S) had never allowed Bani Umayyah to gain supremacy. It could not be expected from Ali (a.s.) that he would allow Bani Umayyah to retain their undeserved power. The same Bani Umayyah, who were merely a tribe during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) had now become the Sultans of Islamic dominions.

Anyhow, the brief Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) ended with his martyrdom. Bani Hashim could not achieve any official positions during his tenure. After him, Imam Hasan (a.s.) succeeded to the post of his father. Immediately after the appointment of Imam Hasan (a.s.) as the Caliph in Kufa, Muawiyah marched to Kufa with an army 60,000 strong. Imam Hasan (a.s.) abdicated the Caliphate and Muawiyah became the de facto Caliph. Due to this achievement of Caliphate, Muawiyah became one of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, Muawiyah got the Caliphate by force and coercion and this method came to be accepted as a valid method of gaining Caliphate according to Ahlul Sunnat as is well-known among the educated people.

After abdication, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah and returned to Medina to live with his brother, Imam Husayn (a.s.) in a way that content people live. Although there remained no political value of Bani Hashim at this time, Muawiyah was not feeling safe from Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Somehow, Imam Hasan (a.s.) was removed from the scene by poison. It is well known that Muawiyah had got Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. Abul Fida, the historian says: “Some say it was Muawiyah and some think it was Yazeed who had done this.” This writer believes it was Muawiyah who had Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. His son was not capable enough to have Imam Hasan (a.s.) martyred while he himself sat in Damascus. Yazeed was a weak person having no determination.

Apart from this, due to his sensual habits, he had no intelligence and the fact is that he had inherited none of the craftiness and cunning of Muawiyah. If he had even the slightest awareness, he would not have forced Imam Husayn (a.s.) to such an extent to give the oath of allegiance.

Muawiyah would never have employed such forcible methods. He never demanded allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.). Muawiyah just needed the kingdom to rule and he was not interested in the allegiance of Imam Hasan (a.s.). If Muawiyah had insisted for allegiance, in spite of his magnanimity, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would have refused. And then Muawiyah would have needed the same forcible methods that later became necessary for his son, Yazeed, against Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Thus, when the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) reached Muawiyah, he was much relieved according to his own admission.1 But Imam Husayn (a.s.) was still alive. This was a great danger that lurked upon Muawiyah. He used to tell his son that he must not yet consider his kingdom safe. “Husayn Ibn Ali was yet living. He has the courage of his father. And till he is alive, you must not feel safe from his side.” Doubtlessly, these statements of Muawiyah show a great foresight. The son did not have any such foresight. Anyway, to strengthen the Caliphate of his son, initially Muawiyah used persuasive methods. And only after this, he began to take the oath of allegiance of Muslims in favor of his son.

Thousands of Muslims paid allegiance to Yazeed. Taking allegiance in Syria was not at all difficult. It was also taken from many people of Mecca and Medina, but the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet remained aloof from all this. If Yazeed had any sort of understanding like his father, he would not have been so severe in obtaining allegiance from Bani Hashim and would have left them on their own. But this use of force finally led to the clear refusal of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to give allegiance, and as a result of which he had to face the tragedy of Karbala’, due to which Yazeed began to be remembered as an evil Satan even by some Ahlul Sunnat.

Before we discuss the events of Karbala’, we would like to show how this incident can be viewed from different points of view. According to our research, this event has only two aspects: One of its aspects is that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was on the right and that is why he was martyred unjustly.

The second view is that (we seek Allah’s refuge) Imam Husayn (a.s.) was a traitor and his killing was a lawful act on the part of Caliphate, because the Imam was neither oppressed nor killed a martyr. The sect which considers Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and a martyr, rather, it considers this martyrdom to be a part of faith, it is necessary for the sect to consider Caliphate to be a divinely ordained office. And it should believe in the infallibility of the successor of the Prophet. To have a belief opposite to this implies that Husayn (a.s.) was a traitor and hence his killing should not be considered martyrdom. Thus, from this aspect, it is only the Imamiyah sect that believes in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

The non-Imamiyah have no right to consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) an oppressed one and a martyr. Some non-Imamiyah people in India, who are seen accepting the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and also some of them who even participate in Azadari (mourning ceremonies) are actually doing something against the basic principles of their faith, because according to their principle, Yazeed was a rightful Caliph and thus Imam Husayn (a.s.) becomes a traitor. That is why his refusal to give allegiance cannot make him a martyr.

Doubtlessly, it is only the right of Shias of the family of the Holy Prophet (S) that they consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful successor of the Prophet, and a martyr. And it befits only them to mourn the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The just people should note that when infallibility was no longer considered a condition for Caliphate, then what doubt could there be in Yazeed’s Caliphate? Didn’t Yazeed get even two people from non-Bani Hashim to fulfill the condition of consensus? The condition of consensus was most appropriate for Yazeed. Leave alone two, Yazeed had obtained Caliphate by the consensus of two hundred thousand people.

Apart from this, the condition of forcible obtaining of Caliphate also applies to Yazeed. It was that, through which Muawiyah had obtained Caliphate from Imam Hasan (a.s.). The same condition was applicable to Yazeed. In addition to this, the condition of appointment by the predecessor was also in favor of Yazeed. Muawiyah had clearly appointed Yazeed as his successor.

As we have mentioned above, Muawiyah appointed Yazeed as his successor and made utmost efforts to obtain allegiance for him. He was also successful to a large extent. The condition of consultation committee (Shura) was also in favor of Yazeed. The Caliphate of Uthman was entrusted only to six people. The whole of Syria was the Shura committee for Yazeed. Without any doubt, those who do not believe infallibility to be a necessary condition for Caliphate, consider Yazeed the rightful Caliph.

The teacher of this writer, Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Gul Sahab Jalalabadi had a firm belief in the rightfulness of Yazeed’s Caliphate and his view was most appropriate, due to which he did not consider the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to be a martyrdom. In the same way, some other scholars of the province had the same kind of belief and it is possible that they still do.

But in Afghanistan there are some Ahlul Sunnat who are very particular about this belief. In the view of the writer, such people do not deserve to be criticized, because when infallibility is not a condition of Caliphate and Yazeed had all the necessary conditions of Caliphate, then why shouldn’t he be considered a rightful Caliph? It is nothing but injustice that after having all the conditions of Caliphate, Yazeed shouldn’t be accepted as Caliph. Even when I did not believe in infallibility to be a necessary condition of Caliphate, I used to consider Yazeed a rightful Caliph, and without any doubt, I was right in having such a stand.

Every scholar that did not accept infallibility as the condition of Caliphate, considered Yazeed a rightful Caliph. In the view of the writer, such a stand is worth admiration, because these people are loyal to their own principles. It seems that Abdullah Ibn Umar also considered Yazeed a rightful Caliph. If it had not been so, he would neither have given his allegiance to Yazeed nor encouraged other people to give it. The son of such a great Caliph, and himself an intelligent man, cannot commit an evil act!

Indeed, he considered the Caliphate of Yazeed, a valid Caliphate. And why shouldn’t he have considered it so? When no excuse can be found in his Caliphate and it had all the necessary conditions. Abdullah indeed did not consider infallibility as the necessary condition of Caliphate. If he had thought so, he would have considered unlawful and false the Caliphate of the three Caliphs and Muawiyah.

However, Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) considered infallibility to be a necessary condition of Caliphate. That is why he did not accept Yazeed as the rightful Caliph and opposed him and he did not even hesitate to lay down his life.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

Yazeed’s Allegiance and the Tragedy of Karbala’

When Muawiyah died, there was no one in Syria and Hijaz who could oppose the succession of Yazeed to his father’s seat of Caliphate. Muawiyah had arranged the Caliphate of Yazeed in his own lifetime. Thus, Yazeed, at last, occupied the throne of Caliphate. Damascus, which is presently in Syria, was at that time the Capital of the Islamic Kingdom. After the Righteous Caliphs, Muawiyah had named it the seat of Government. It remained that seat of government for all Bani Umayyah rulers. All the offices from Medina were shifted to this city.

During the reign of the Abbasids, the same were transferred to Baghdad. After the rule of Bani Abbas, the Arab Kingdom itself was finished and even Baghdad became an ordinary city like Damascus and Medina from the political aspect. Anyway, Yazeed became the Caliph of the time and began to take allegiance from the masses. It was not a difficult matter in other cities of Syria. Thousands in Medina also paid allegiance at the hands of Yazeed, but he was not assured regarding Imam Husayn (a.s.), so he ordered Walid bin Uqba, the governor of Medina, to take allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.) on his behalf. Also, that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused, his head should be cut off and sent to Damascus.

Walid continued to shun this extreme step, but Marwan was always nagging him to execute Yazeed’s orders. This is the same Marwan, who was ordered by the Holy Prophet (S) to be externed from Islamic territories, he was also the son-in-law of Uthman and he belonged to Bani Umayyah. When Uthman became the Caliph, Marwan was recalled to Medina.1 The text is as follows: “Marwan Ibn Hakam was banned in Medina by the Holy Prophet (S) but Uthman recalled him and appointed him as his scribe.” The reason for his being recalled is that he was a close relative of Uthman and Uthman had called him to act on Quranic verses that exhort us to be kind to relatives and orphans.

Marwan was mischief personified and a perfect example of his clan. Now he came to Medina and became the close confidant and adviser to Uthman. But he gave such advices to the Caliph that at last he had to wash his hands off his life. When the crow is a leader of a people, it is very likely that they shall be doomed to perdition. In any case, Marwan resided in Medina during the Caliphate of Uthman and continued even after Uthman was killed. When the orders from Yazeed reached Imam Husayn (a.s.), Marwan always tried to see that the orders of the Caliph are carried out, but Walid did not like to cut off the head of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Imam Husayn (a.s.) safely departed for Mecca. The going away of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to Mecca was not detrimental to him. He had at least escaped the mischievous hands of Marwan.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) went from Medina to Mecca on Friday night, 4th Shaban in 60 A.H., taking his family and children with him and he finally reached Mecca, where the people showed a lot of support for him. The governor of Mecca, Saad bin Aas saw this and ran away to Medina. On reaching Medina, he wrote a letter to Yazid: Imam Husayn (a.s.) has come to Mecca and the people of Mecca are supporting him. This letter was sent to the Caliph in Damascus. When the Caliph learnt of this, he deposed Walid from the governorship of Medina because he had failed to deal with Imam Husayn (a.s.) and in his place appointed Ibnul Ashdaq. Although the people of Mecca had shown their support to Imam Husayn (a.s.) initially, Mecca was not beyond the control of the Caliph.

The command to take allegiance for the Caliph reached here too. In case he didn’t give allegiance, it was commanded to cut off his head. Now his opponents began to taunt and tease and were ready to attack in any way they could. It was very likely that Mecca would become the battlefield of Karbala’. In such a condition, Imam Husayn (a.s.) did not consider it suitable to complete the rites of Hajj. He changed his Hajj into Umrah (lesser pilgrimage) and left Mecca as soon as possible. During this time, many letters had arrived from the people of Kufa. So Imam (a.s.) decided to head towards Kufa. But consultations were held and it was decided that first the Imam’s cousin, Muslim Ibn Aqeel, should go to Kufa and study the situation, only after this should the Imam (a.s.) himself proceed.

Muslim reached Kufa after a lot of difficulties with his two young sons. The people of Kufa welcomed Muslim and more than forty thousand people gave oath of allegiance to him. Seeing this, Muslim wrote a detailed letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he could come to Kufa from Mecca. More than a hundred and fifty letters from the people of Kufa had already reached Imam Husayn (a.s.), so there was nothing, which should hold back Imam Husayn (a.s.) from Kufa.

Getting such a letter from Muslim, Imam Husayn (a.s.) packed the baggage for the journey and with relatives and family members left for Kufa on 9th Zilhajj, Tuesday, 60 A.H. All his family members and friends who had accompanied him in this journey were but a few people. And if there were more, they gradually left the company of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Finally, on reaching Karbala’, very few people were left with the Imam. Then, on the day of martyrdom only seventy-two remained and if at all they were more, they could not have been more than eighty-two. When on his way, he reached Ramalah, he sent a letter to the people of Kufa through his foster brother. But Ibn Ziyad already knew that Imam (a.s.) was heading for Kufa. That is why he had already arranged to waylay him. The foster brother was arrested and Ibn Ziyad martyred him.

It should be clear that after Muslim wrote the letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.), calamities began to befall him. Ibn Ziyad wreaked strange cruelties on Muslim and his sons and from one aspect he did not do any wrong because after all he was following the ‘commands’ of the ‘Caliph’ of that time!

Anyway, according to the views of Shias, after facing torture, Muslim was martyred and both his sons also achieved martyrdom at the hands of a Kufaite. Although in the beginning, the Kufaites had welcomed Muslim, but when the severity of the Caliph’s officers weighed on them they could not support Muslim and that is why the affair did not come about as was expected. The government is all-powerful and the common people cannot confront the government. In brief, Muslim did not get a chance to inform Imam Husayn (a.s.) about the changed behavior of the Kufaites and the oppression of the rulers.

Thus, Imam Husayn (a.s.) gradually moved closer to Kufa. When he reached Thalebiya, Bakr Asadi who was coming from Kufa, informed Imam Husayn (a.s.) about the real situation and the havoc that Ibn Ziyad had wreaked. He broke the tragic news of Muslim and his sons. The martyrdom of Muslim was on the day when he had started from Mecca to Kufa. When Imam Husayn (a.s.) heard this tragic news, he was shocked. The companions advised that he should return to the hometown.

Now, first of all, what left for him in the home country? It was also under the rulership of Yazeed. Secondly, the relatives of Muslim asked what was there to live for, till they do not take revenge of Muslim from the Kufaites. Keeping this in mind, Imam Husayn (a.s.) again headed for Kufa. On the way, he came across Hurr Ibn Riyahi who was send by Ibn Ziyad to stop Imam (a.s.). He intercepted Imam Husayn (a.s.) but could not bring himself to arrest him; but since he was helpless before the command of Ibn Ziyad, he led Imam Husayn (a.s.) to Kufa. Hurr had told Imam Husayn (a.s.) that when the caravan halted for the night he should go away in any direction he liked. When it was night, Imam Husayn (a.s.) quietly moved away. But at daybreak he was forced to halt at the land of Karbala’.

The Imam pitched his tents there and to defend them dug a trench around them. Soon Ibn Ziyad’s army also arrived and camped at a distance from the tents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). First there were talks of reconciliation between Imam (a.s.) and Ibn Ziyad. But without allegiance to Yazeed there was no possibility of peace and hence Imam (a.s.) prepared to lay down his life. When fighting ensued, one by one all, from the Imam’s side were martyred hungry and thirsty, except Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.). Imam Husayn (a.s.) bore every kind of atrocity but did not agree to pledge allegiance to Yazeed. Before his very eyes, his brother, Abbas, nephew, Qasim, his son, Ali Akbar, his nephews, Aun and Muhammad, Ali Asghar, his infant son, all of them were martyred. Hurr also repented and came to the side of Imam (a.s.) and finally attained martyrdom in the way of Allah.

Only Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), who was ill at that time, survived. He accompanied the women and children and they were taken as prisoners to the Caliph at Damascus. This incident tells us of the extraordinary qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.). It tells us that he had no attachment or expectation from the world and this life. There was nothing, which could equal his patience and steadfastness. Doubtlessly, he had all those qualities that are necessary in an infallible Imam and the successor of the Prophet. Let the enemies of the Progeny of Muhammad (S) say whatever they like, but the fact is that his praiseworthy qualities themselves tell us that he was a rightful successor of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Here, we call your attention to an incident with Hurr that shows the astounding perfection of the selflessness of Imam Husayn (a.s.). When Hurr stopped Imam (a.s.) from moving to Kufa, Hurr and his entourage were almost dying of thirst. Hurr requested Imam (a.s.) for water. Imam (a.s.) had sufficient stocks of water that was offered to Hurr and his entourage. After that, Imam (a.s.) said the horses of Hurr were also thirsty and they should also be watered. Some people from his group suggested they exercise restraint in using the stocks of water, because it was a scarce commodity and there might be shortage in near future. Imam (a.s.) said that it was not a right thing that human beings should drink water and animals remain thirty.

In brief, Imam (a.s.) gave plenty of water to the enemies and their beasts, and he did not deprive them in view of his future needs. O Allah! What an occasion that within a few days, the same Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers very subjected to sanction against water. Why shouldn’t it be so? He was an infallible Imam. Who other than an infallible can act in this way? The fact is that it behoved him to act in this manner and his enemies had to act in the opposing manner. The same situation had occurred with the father of Imam Husayn (a.s.), Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.). It is when Ali (a.s.) had to face Muawiyah in battle, a situation arose when the army of Ali (a.s.) had no access to water.

The Euphrates was under Muawiyah’s control. Ali (a.s.) tried to seek the permission of the enemies to draw water from Euphrates. Muawiyah who never knew to be kind to his opponent, rejected this request of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.). After this, Ali (a.s.) inflicted military defeat to Muawiyah’s army and gained the control of Euphrates. Then Muawiyah helplessly requested Ali (a.s.) for access to water. Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) at once issued the permission and said: “River is such a thing in which the beasts and birds all have the right to fulfill their needs. No one can be restrained from it.”

People of justice can very well conclude from this action of Ali (a.s.), how aloof he was from the material world. He had never confronted Muawiyah for gaining any material benefit. Doubtlessly, such an action could only be possible by an infallible person. Such situations that were encountered by Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his father do not have any equal in the world. And these are such situations that clearly present the infallibility of the Imams of the family of the Prophet.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

What a pity that Imam Husayn and Imam Ali (a.s.) acted so benevolently but an opposite stand was taken by their respective opponents, Yazeed and Muawiyah. These situations present the vast difference between an infallible and a non- infallible person. Thus, when Imam Husayn (a.s.) supplied water to the foe’s army, it is not surprising. He was following the example of his respected father. If he had not acted in this way, what else could he have done? Indeed, how can Bani Umayyah or other people compare with the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet? They are exact opposites.

The Ahlul Bayt of Prophet performed such feats at every step, pondering on which we could realize that Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) are very much different from others. The difference between an infallible and fallible is at once obvious. In order to realize this difference, we need a clear heart. But those whose hearts are filled with animosity of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) could not discern this.

At this time, there are thousands of defective people whose eyes cannot perceive the merits of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Each one to his own fortune. O Allah! What Providence! Hurr was also from this same group of oppressors. But when he realized the truth, he gave up all the material wealth and position and walked the path to martyrdom and salvation.

Yet Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Saad, Khuli and Hurmala continued to be blind to this reality. They fell into the chastisement of Hell like blind people. The fact is that a person can become a devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) only when the Almighty bestows him with good sense (Taufeeq) of this devotion. The writer himself remembers his own time when during his student days, he considered Imam Husayn (a.s.) a traitor against the Caliphate.

And since Allah gave divine good sense to him, he began to believe in the Imamate of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) after considering them infallible. Allah gave this great divine sense (Taufeeq) to him in the same way as Hurr was given. The situation of the writer was more serious, because although he was a descendant of Bani Hashim and yet he harbored enmity with the Progeny of the Prophet. Curse be on such education, which does not allow one to realize the rights of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Praise be to Allah and Praise once again that Allah gave us the good sense to research facts on the basis of which we were prevented from being counted among Bani Umayyah and their cohorts.

Indeed, the tragedy of Karbala’ was an astounding occurrence and Islam was very much in need of it. This incident has proved the veracity of Islam. It has shown how the Quranic teachings of patience and contentment could be transformed into actions. How we can be away from material greed that is criticized in the Quran. Many of the merits of the Holy Quran were unveiled by this incident. It has shown what is religiousness and how it is different from worldly matters. It has shown that religiousness is such a courage that cannot be in the share of a materialist. It has shown us that pulling out the sword in the way of Allah is different and arranging rows in greed for kingdom is different.

The same incident has shown how a man of the world can remain steadfast on the way of Allah. How he prefers the will of Allah and how he considers the life of this world worthless.

In brief, Imam (a.s.) has expounded the merits of the Holy Quran. Now if some evil-minded person has not realized it, it is his misfortune.

- 1. Refer Tarikh Tabari

Justification Of The Martyrdoms Of Imams Hasan And Husayn

Scholars have written that the Almighty Allah had bestowed every type of excellence on the Holy Prophet (S), except for the position of martyrdom. This exception is explained in the way that if he had been martyred directly, it would have been somewhat disrespectful for his stature. Therefore, this martyrdom was saved for his sons. In the view of the writer, this is a defective opinion.

First of all, how can martyrdom be disrespectful to any prophet? Secondly, if martyrdom is in anyway related to respect, how is it possible that it should apply to the Prophet but not for his grandsons? If martyrdom was a cause of disrespect for the Prophet, it should in the same way for his grandsons. According to the writer, this is not a valid explanation of the martyrdoms of Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Because, the fact seems to be that the martyrdoms of the grandsons was intended by Allah to prove the veracity of the Holy Quran.

Thus, this martyrdom proved the truthfulness of the claim of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S). Imam Hasan (a.s.) showed to the whole world the beautiful patience that the Quran has prescribed and Imam Husayn (a.s.) practically showed all the teachings of the Holy Quran.

O Allah! Bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Infallibility and Fallibility of Imam Husayn

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is as explained above. Now you can see it from any point of view that you like. Only those people consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the martyr who consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). But those who do not consider him infallible and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) cannot believe that he was a martyr. In such a situation, they cannot believe that he was oppressed. Thus, to consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a martyr, it is must to believe in his infallibility and rightful successorship of the Prophet.

It is evident that when infallibility was not accepted as a condition of Caliphate, what doubt can there be that Yazeed was a rightful Caliph? In such a situation, what can Imam Husayn (a.s.) be considered, except a traitor of Caliphate? How can anyone support this traitor and how can his killing be martyrdom? We are very surprised on those who believe in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) but deny his infallibility. It is a sect that does not keep in view the final outcome. Their mourning the calamities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is a meaningless act. Such people may weep at their own misfortune, but they have no right to weep on Imam Husayn (a.s.).

There are also some who consider the Holy Prophet (S), the twelve Imams and Lady Fatima (s.a.) to be infallible. And only Shias perfectly believe in the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), though Ahlul Sunnat believe only in the Caliphate. These people consider the three Caliphs to be rightful, but act according to the practical laws of Ahlul Sunnat faith. This is a strange sect, which is neither completely Shia nor Sunni.

They do not understand that if the infallibility of the fourteen Infallibles is a fact, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs becomes meaningless. In such a situation, Ali (a.s.) being infallible, becomes the immediate successor of the Holy Prophet (S). Since even Ahlul Sunnat did not regard the three Caliphs as infallible, their superiority cannot be valid in comparison to Ali (a.s.). It is apparent that an infallible cannot be inferior. Thus, when on the basis of infallibility, Ali (a.s.) was superior to the three Caliphs, how can the three be regarded as rightful Caliphs?

It is surprising that one should believe that Ali (a.s.) was infallible and the three were not, but that in the matter of Caliphate one prefers the three Caliphs to Ali (a.s.)! Preferring a fallible person to an infallible one is against reason. It seems to be a very irrational matter that the successor of an infallible person like the Messenger of Allah (S), should also be fallible. In this way, the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar is completely disproved. Although none of Ahlul Sunnat oppose this belief of superiority.

Doubtlessly, the Sunni sect that accepts the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles is a very weak sect. Without any doubt, the acceptance of infallibility of the Imams entails invalidation of the three Caliphs. The belief of the infallibility propounded by Shias is incompatible with the belief of the Caliphate, as followed by Ahlul Sunnat.

The Sunni sect that confesses to the infallibility of the fourteen infallibles seems to be devoted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they hardly follow the beliefs or practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). They do not follow even a single practical law of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), their followers or their scholars. It is indeed a strange thing, that this sect gives much importance to the guardianship (Wilayat) of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but they have no regard even for namesake, to the beliefs or worship acts of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

This sect usually follows the Hanafite School of law but some people of this sect follow the Shafei School. It is well known that this sect has got nothing to do with the roots and branches of faith of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) even though they always chant their names and make noise on the atrocities inflicted upon them.

We should know that a Muslim can either be a Sunni or a Shia but he cannot follow a religion between the two. The principles of Ahlul Sunnat religion are distinct from those of Shia faith. Both are faithful to their principles. But this sect has a strange admixture of both. It believes in the infallibility of Fourteen Infallibles, but in the matter of Caliphate, believes like Ahlul Sunnat do. How can these opposite beliefs find a place in the mind of a single person? It is beyond the understanding of this writer.

The Absurd Belief Of Tafzeeliya Sect

The situation of these people is indeed surprising. Shias cannot call them Shias, and Sunnis seem disinclined to call them Sunnis. The Tafzeeliya sect considers Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr and Umar. These people, like Shias, also believe in the five holy beings (Panjetan Paak). Apparently, it is a very weak faith.

It is well known that Shia and Sunni sects are particular about the principles of their religion, but the Tafzeeliya sect does not seem to follow any particular faith. I would like to present an example of the absurdity of this sect. It is well-known that the Tafzeeliya sect has special faith in Abdul Qadir Jilani like Ahlul Sunnat people, whereas Shias believe in Ali (a.s.) as the remover of difficulties. Sunnis invoke Ghaus Paak1(Pure Refuge) just as Shias invoke the name of Ali (a.s.) during difficulties. It seems that Sunnis believe that Pir Dastagir (Helper Saint) accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) to Ascension.

On this night, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on his shoulders and said: “My foot is on your shoulders and your foot is on the shoulders of all the saints (Awliya).” Apparently, this proves his superiority even to Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) because the Holy Prophet (S) had made Ali (a.s.) climb his shoulders to break the idols as Ali (a.s.) was incapable to bear the weight of Prophethood. But in Ascension, the Holy Prophet (S) stepped on the shoulder of Piranepir (saint of saints), which shows that he had the strength to bear the weight of Prophethood. Also in addition to this, it is related that Pir became the Buraaq on the night of Ascension.

Another proof of his superiority mentioned in writings, is that one night Imam Hasan (a.s.) saw in dream the progeny of his brother, Imam Husayn (a.s.) that nine of them were to be Imams, while in his own progeny there no sign of any Imam. He was saddened due to this, but the Almighty Allah told him that he must not be sad and that from his progeny will come a person who shall be superior to the nine Imams from the progeny of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

And this was the same Abdul Qadir Jilani. We should know that this Tafzeeliya sect accords great respect to Abdul Qadir Jilani. But in the matter of his commands, they completely oppose him. He says in Ghaniyatu Talibeen that Ahlul Sunnat should believe that the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S) is the best of all Ummahs.

Then they are best who have seen the Holy Prophet (S) and believed in him, testified him and followed him and fought with him against the infidels and sacrificed their lives and properties for Islam. Among them the best are the people who pledged allegiance to the Prophet at Hudaibiya, which is known as the Allegiance of Rizwan. They were 1400 persons in all. From them the best are the people of Badr. They were 313 people equal to the companions of Talut. Of them come the best forty who are known as Ahlul Darul Khizran,2 which after including Umar, come to forty.

Then of them are the ten, whose salvation was foretold by the Holy Prophet (S). They are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Talha, Zubair, Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad, Saeed and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah. Of them the best are the four righteous Caliphs. The most superior of the four is Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then Ali (a.s.). The writer has remained content with the translation rather than give the original Arabic quotation to maintain brevity. Those who wish to refer to the original text may see it on Page no. 86 of Ghaniyatu Talibeen.

It should be clear that this is the actual belief of Ahlul Sunnat and Pir Dastagir (Abdul Qadir Jilani) also believed in this. Now the Tafzeeliya should tell us how they could consider Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr? The writer can show thousands of such examples how the Tafzeeliya sect opposes the commands of Ghausul Aazam (Abdul Qadir Jilani). The fact is that there is no limit to absurdity of the Tafzeeliya sect. The limit is that when they are defeated in debates, they at last say that the book of Ghaniyatu Talibeen was not written by Ghaus.

But the proof that it was indeed written by him as mentioned in numerous Sunni books. Even though the Tafzeeliya may deny it was so, the authentic books of Ahlul Sunnat like Fathul Ghaib, Kashfuz Zunoon and Sharh Fiqhul Akbar mention it. We should also know that this book is of scholarly level and I have referred to it as a majestic book, because this book of Ghaus explains in detail, the principles of Sunni faith. That is why it is absolutely opposed to the beliefs of Tafzeeliya. In brief, this book is exactly as a scholarly book of Ahlul Sunnat should be.

- 1. Abdul Qadir Jilani, also called Piranepir

- 2. People of the bamboo house.

Piranepir And Sadaat Hasani

Recently a Sunni has written in his magazine about an amazing miracle of Pir Dastagir. He says that since he was a Hasani Sayyid, his spiritual effect is such that all Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Hasan) are all Sunnis while the Sayyids (descendants) of Husayn (a.s.) are Shia. When a person is a bigot, he is blind and deaf. First of all, Abdul Qadir Jilani was not a Sayyid. It is a false claim and also that other Hasani Sadaat were Sunnis.

It is written in Umdatul Matalib that Pir Dastagir was not a Sayyid and he never even claimed thus. His sons also did not make such a claim. His grandson was first to claim it, but he could not prove his claim. Even if Abdul Qadir had been a Sayyid, he could not have the power to make anyone Shia or Sunni. Except Allah, no one has the power to make anyone a believer or infidel. Even the Holy Prophet (S) had no power to forcibly convert infidels into believers. Just as the Holy Quran says:

“Surely you cannot guide whom you love.”1

Such vain thoughts are possible only in such people. If a writer is not unbiased, he cannot write the truth. The claim that all the past and present Sadaat Hasani were Sunnis is false. There is nothing to prove that Hasani Sadaat should only be Sunnis and Husaini Sadaat only Shia. At present there are many Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Husayn) who are Shias and many Husaini Sadaat who are Sunnis. The same had been in the past. Since disunity occurred in Sadaat, they never followed one and the same religion, as we have proved in the foregoing pages.

There was a tribe that descended from Imam Hasan (a.s.) and resided outside Medina. They were all Shias, but it seems the writer of Zujarul Awaam is unaware of this. This tribe still follows Shia religion even though Sunnis of Medina accuse them of various falsehoods, but they are not prepared to forgo their ancestral faith. Since they are Shias, Sunnis of Medina oppress them in various ways. Even the Turkish government did not accord them any respect. Except for menial and laborious jobs, these Sadaat do not have any gainful employment. They live in very difficult conditions, yet they do not wish to go away from there. If someone offers them Khums money, the Medinites snatch it away from them and the Turkish authorities are mute witnesses of this. Why do the heavens not crash at such atrocities on these Sayyids? It is nothing but the consequence of Umar’s words: “We have the Book of Allah with us.” Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Say, I do not ask from you any recompense except the love of my family members.”2

And the Prophet said: “I leave among you two heavy things.” But the commands of Allah and His Prophet were not obeyed. The statement of ‘We have the Book of Allah with us’ became more powerful. Now I wish to ask whether such things have an iota of truth? The fact is that no miraculous power can make any Sayyid a Shia or Sunni, although it is very unlikely that a Sayyid should become a Sunni, but when the factors are such that can make him a Sunni, he becomes a Sunni. There are mainly three causes that can make a Sayyid, Sunni. They are as follows:

(1) The first cause is ignorance. That is, he doesn’t know what is the religion of Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) and what is the religion of Zaid Ibn Thabit. He thinks the religion he is following was the same as the one his ancestor, Ali (a.s.) had and all Bani Hashim were believing in the same religion. Most of the time he has this misconception and the truth is never revealed to him.

But if he learns that the religion of his ancestor was distinct from the Farooqi religion or that the name of his ancestor has been removed from Quran, as we have shown above, he would not remain a Sunni for a moment. The same thing happened to this writer, who after studying the books had to give up the deviated religion.

(2) The second cause, which is not less powerful than the first one, is worldly position and power. When Ahlul Sunnat were in power, Shias had to observe dissimulation (Taqayyah) and thus they pretended to be Sunnis. Their children and descendants thus became Sunnis and still continue to be.

(3) The third cause is social influence and education. Usually many Sayyids at a young age are influenced by Ahlul Sunnat company and themselves become Sunni. They never give up their ancestral religion after research and study. It would not be surprising if one day such people were to become Jews or atheists due to the influence of company.

Similarly, due to education and training, there is a distance from ancestral religion. A good example is that of Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan Sahab, Mohsinul Mulk. He was a Sadaat from a high family. His family religion was Imamiyah, but he left it and died on the faith of Ahlul Sunnat. I used to be astonished at his giving up his ancestral religion. But one day I heard him in a speech at Bankipur and from that day my astonishment ended. It seemed from his statements that beyond his grandfather, they were of a famous family. They were leaders of religion being Sayyids and they also had worldly power. But during the time of his father, they underwent difficult times. In his own words, they could not even afford five rupees a month to pay for a tutor.

In such a state of poverty, he was forced to go to Barabanki at the age of eight, where a royal personage took him under his care. He gained education and finally got a job under the British. Since he was very brilliant, he worked hard and soon he rose to a good administrative position and finally became the Deputy Collector.

Obviously, if the Nawab had continued to live with his family, he wouldn’t have got the chance to gain such education and to become a collector. What else could he have done rather than opt for the religion of the collectors, because he did not get any chance to get religious training at home? If he had gone under the care of a Padre, he would have become a Christian. There is no doubt that his family religion was Shiaism, but he did not get any teaching of Shia faith.

On the other hand he got training in the Hanafite School. The first impression is the most powerful one, so it was not unexpected from him. Thus, being a boy from a Shia family, he left his religion. His relatives used to be very surprised at this, but he did not do anything unexpected. He followed only the religion whose teachings had been inculcated in him. And that was also the religion of his benefactor who had taken him under his care and had done everything to provide him shelter and education. The Nawab used to remember his benefactor with gratitude.

It is well known that Nawab Mohsinul Mulk reached the position of collector and was based in Mirzapur. At that time, other Sunni officers like Imdad Khan served in the capacity of Deputy Collector. Though he was not a religious person, the Nawab took care to follow the exigencies and during his stay in Mirzapur, he wrote his book, Aayatul Bayyinah. The quality of this book is well known to all those who are well-versed in Ilmul Kalam (Scholastic Theology). Here we do not wish to evaluate his book. It is sufficient for us to prove that education and training in wrong hands can make a boy from a Shia family a Sunni.

- 1. Surah Qasas 28:56

- 2. Surah Shura 42:23

Caliphate is From Allah or Caliphate is From People – Its Connection with Composition of Marsiya (Elegy) Writing

It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat Caliphate includes Imamate and in fact, Caliphate cannot be separated from Imamate. They consider it as an affair of people while Shias consider Caliphate as an affair ordained by Allah. Since Mir Anees1 was also a Shia, he also had the same view regarding Caliphate. That Caliphate which includes Imamate, is an affair ordained by Allah and in no case can it be an affair decided by the people.

All the elegies (Marsiya) of Mir were based on this very belief and all Shia Marsiya writers follow this belief in the past and still are. If the reader is not aware of this matter that Shia consider Caliphate a divine affair, which means that the Holy Prophet’s Caliph cannot be man-made because the Holy Prophet’s Caliph should be like the Holy Prophet (S), an infallible, this unaware person cannot gain any benefit from these Marsiya writers. For example if any person is not aware of the Christian belief of Trinity, he cannot appreciate Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Thus, the reader of Shia Marsiya must keep this in mind that as per the belief of Shias from the fourteen divine personalities, the personality about whom he is reading the Marsiya, is indeed infallible. Allah makes his infallibility obvious and only Allah has made him infallible, and if he is from the Twelve Imams, he is the Caliph and Imam from Allah’s permission and people have not selected him.

It is seen in the writings of Shia Marsiya writers that all these Shia poets consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful Imam and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). They all confess to his infallibility. They consider his military action as Jihad and his killing as martyrdom. It is obvious that these views have no compatibility with Sunni faith.

The principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat state that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was neither the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S), nor the Imam of the time or infallible. His battle against Yazeed was an uprising and that is why his killing cannot be considered martyrdom. As mentioned by them: “Husayn engineered an uprising and was killed by the sword of his grandfather.” It is well-known that this statement was of Pir Dastagir Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen. But it cannot be found in the printed version of this book.

But there can be no doubt that it is the statement of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharbi as Nawab Siddiq Husayn Khan Bhopali writes in his book Hujajil Karamah and the words are as follow: “There is no doubt that from the aspect of demand of religion of Ahlul Sunnat, the belief of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharibi is not inappropriate. It is a necessary thing that from the aspect of roots of belief, only this should be the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, but those Sunnat who have a contrary belief, are indeed unprincipled.”

In short, to read the Marsiya of Shia, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of Shia beliefs. Otherwise, he would not be able to fully understand the principles of Shia faith and nor would he be able to derive any pleasure from them. It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat of Bihar who follow the Hanafite religion and who are safe from the influence of Wahhabis, look at the tragedy of Karbala’ as viewed by Shia. They consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and believe that his killing was martyrdom. Though they may be opposed to the rituals of mourning as practiced by Shias, they have no difference of opinion regarding the tragedy of Karbala’ itself.

According to the belief of Shias, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was infallible like his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S) and his father, mother and brother were, like the Holy Prophet (S) also infallible. And his successors from Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) to Imam Sahibul Asr (a.s.) are considered infallible. The Imamiyah consider these fourteen infallibles to be pure from small and great sins and to be immaculate in all aspects.

This however is not the belief of Ahlul Sunnat. But since Shia Marsiya writing is based on Shia beliefs, Imam Husayn (a.s.) is mentioned as an infallible in Shia Marsiya and his Imamate is considered a divinely ordained affair. On the basis of his infallibility and divine appointment, Shias ascribe to the belief in his oppressed position and his death is considered a martyrdom.

Thus, if the matter of infallibility and divine office is taken away, the structure of Marsiya writing crashes to the ground. Sometime ago, a book was published by Maulavi Nazir Ahmad Dehlavi, which shows that the writer had no connection with the belief of infallibility. That is, he did not even ascribe to the belief in the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S).

- 1. A very famous Urdu poet of India.

‘Devotion’ Of Maulavi Nazir Ahmad to the Holy Prophet and His Family

From the topic of his writing, it seems to be devotion, but he says: “We consider the Holy Prophet (S) to be having all the human weaknesses and regard him as human.”1 If this statement is correct, the Prophet cannot be in any way considered superior to Isa (a.s.) and from this statement, the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S) is nullified. Indeed, being a prophet, Isa (a.s.) was infallible just as his followers agree to his infallibility and on the basis of his infallibility, he was away from all human weaknesses. In this way, the non-infallible cannot be superior to an infallible.

Now the Christians would know that a well-known Ahlul Sunnat scholar has made a statement, which testifies to the claim of the Christians and falsifies the claim of the followers of Muhammad. It is correct that: The people are on the religion of their rulers. Thus, the writer has only supported the religion of his masters, the British, who were ruling the country during this time, so it was not unexpected from him. The writer has, by his writing, repaid the favors of his British masters, especially, Sir William Mayer, who was the Lieutenant Governor and a well-known anti-Muslim personality. The Maulavi has written similar things about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), which shows that he had no regard for the infallibility of the great lady.

On page 99 of his book, he writes: “In spite of the fact that Fatima was not denied her rightful share of Fadak, she, on the basis of her enmity with Abu Bakr took a negative stance. She stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and made a request that she must be buried at night and these people should not be allowed to participate in her funeral. What a severe anger she had!”

We seek Allah’s refuge! O Maulavi fear Allah! You have written such a statement about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise! And accused her of anger? Can such words be justified for a daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) like Fatima (s.a.)? Except for an everlasting unfortunate person, such a misdemeanor cannot be performed by anyone. Whether Fatima (s.a.) rightfully expressed her dislike for Abu Bakr and Umar or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. Here, we just point out the disrespectful attitude of the Maulavi. Indeed, such a statement about the chief of the Lady of Paradise can only be issued by one who is an opponent of the family of the Holy Prophet (S). It seems that the writer had no manners at all, though he considered his style to be liberal.

There is no strength and power except by Allah.

Another example of the same type of misdemeanor is presented below. The Maulana says: “It was all the better for Islam that the male issues of the Holy Prophet (S) did not survive. Only a daughter survived him and due to her progeny, the Muslims were divided into Sunnis and Shias, who are forever fighting each other. If a male child had survived, he would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.).”

O Muslims! Is such writing according to Islamic etiquette that he is expressing satisfaction that the Holy Prophet (S) did not leave a male issue? First he said that his son would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.), then he expressed regret that his surviving daughter had issues and progeny. He wished that she were issueless. How can a Muslim pen such words? Or can be pleased with such writings? If such writings are not considered vile, what is?

Apparently, it seems that just as the Maulana is pleased at the absence of male issues of the Prophet, he was also unhappy that Lady Fatima had issues. If the Maulana had been present during the time of the Prophet, he would have congratulated the Prophet for his not having any son and he would have also expressed condolence on the birth of his grandsons. The statement of Maulana clearly shows that he is indeed hateful to the Sadaat, and he wished that all Sadaat became extinct. But when cruel people like Muawiyah and Yazeed could not destroy the Sadaat how can this Maulana succeed in his aim?

When the wretched infidels began to address the Prophet as childless, the divine command affected the spread of the Prophet’s progeny to such an extent that Muawiyah, Yazeed and all the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas got tired of killing the Sadaat, but they did not succeed in their mission. How can the Maulana be considered in any way effective in this matter?

The Maulana writes that if a son of the Prophet had survived, he would have been like the son of Nuh (a.s.). This is indeed a strange statement. It is not necessary that the son of every Prophet should be like Nuh’s son. However, one thing is certain that if the Prophet had left a son, he would also have been treated like the other members of the Prophet’s family at the hands of people like the Maulana.

The next example of this disrespect is on the page 99 of his book where he writes: “On one side was Fatima (s.a.) that she died but did not reconcile and on the other was ‘A’ysha, much more than this. In our country there is a belief that women are extremely stubborn and the same qualities were found in these two.”

Whatever the Maulana has written about Fatima (s.a.) will be recompensed by the Prophet but whatever he has written disrespectfully about ‘A’ysha caused consternation among Sunnis and after this he was greatly criticized by Ahlul Sunnat intellectuals. Apparently, Shias do not say anything because this sect was used to such disrespectful acts.

Now in the end, I am giving another statement of the Maulana by which we realize the devotion of the Maulana to the family of the Messenger (S), especially with regard to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the tragedy of Karbala’. In the same book, on page 94, he writes: The Prophet willingly spent his life in poverty and hunger and he preferred it. He always prayed for such a life for himself: “O Allah! Make me live among the poor and count me among the group of the destitute.” And for his progeny he used to pray: “O Allah! Appoint the bare minimum sustenance for the progeny of Muhammad.”

The Progeny members could not remain content on their sustenance and they began to dream of kingdom and even lost their demeanor. How many conquests did His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) obtain when he was on the seat of Caliphate. Poor man! He could remain a Caliph only for four years and nine months. And in the beginning itself an internal war erupted. When he was free from it, Muawiyah usurped the Caliphate and he was just a Caliph for namesake.

After his death, his son, Hasan, tried his best to obtain Caliphate but within a period of six months, he had to forgo Caliphate and the power of governance completely came into the hands of Muawiyah and after his death this continued in his progeny. At that time, the Prophet’s progeny should have remained patient and content like their respected grandfather. But Husayn, the second son of Ali, did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah. And reaching Kufa, he took allegiance of the people for his own Caliphate. Everyone knows the consequence of this. The future progeny of Fatima (s.a.) should have derived a lesson from this incident. But the greed of kingdom never allowed them to sit in peace.

In the view of this Maulana, Muhammad’s Progeny had no contentment and they were greedy for rulership. If Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, it was a very unsuitable act. And when he did not do so, he had to suffer the consequence of his deed. This shows that the Maulana does not consider Muhammad’s Progeny worth honoring. Apparently, in his view, Muhammad’s Progeny was selfish and greedy. If the Maulana had only half the love for Muhammad’s Progeny that he has for their enemies, he would not have written such a book.

Patience, contentment and thankfulness were imbibed in the very souls of Muhammad’s Progeny and they had no desire for rulership. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had opposed Yazeed for religious factors. He considered it illegal to give allegiance to Yazeed and he also believed that the allegiance of Muslims for Yazeed was incorrect. Imam Husayn (a.s.) knew that he was the rightful Imam and the Caliph appointed by Allah. That is why he gave his life on the path of truth with absolute patience and satisfaction. The view of Maulana that Imam Husayn (a.s.) lost his life for greed of material world, could only be the belief of the followers of Yazeed and it cannot be a belief of any Muslim. The views of a person are in consonance with his character.

Here, I am reminded of an incident, which is very suitable at this juncture. A person who had become rich by chance, told a friend of mine that Husayn (a.s.) gave his life in pursuit of material wealth. If he had no greed of wealth and kingdom, he would not have rebelled against Yazeed. My friend replied: “Because you are prepared to lay your life for worldly wealth, always busy in selfish pursuit of wealth and spend a life of selfishness, you consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) like yourself. Indeed, one considers others like oneself.

I know what type of a person you are. Providence has not given you the ability to discern the merits of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Your internal make up is like Bani Umayyah and you are created only for the worldly life. How can you understand the benevolence, courage, magnanimity and other praised qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?” One who considers Caliphate and Imamate as divinely ordained affairs could not have a view like that of the Maulana. It is a pity that on the basis of false beliefs, Muslims used to consider Muhammad’s Progeny as ordinary people. They should look at them with an impartial view. How can the Maulana call himself a Muslim and refer to Imam Husayn (a.s.) in such words?

While a German scholar has contrary views. He writes: “Imam Husayn (a.s.) certainly did not undergo the hardships of Karbala’ for greed of wealth. It was for the defense of his grandfather’s religion that he suffered such tribulations.” The same scholar has penned a seven-volume book on Islamic Politics. The followers of truth must appreciate his impartiality and truthful view and gain divine rewards for this. He writes: “On one hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) saw that Yazeed has become the heir apparent and Bani Umayyah has got the rulership of Muslim lands. They were slowly gaining influence over the religious affairs of the Muslims. It was certain that in the due course, they would destroy the faith of Muslims and deviate them from the religion of his grandfather.

On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certain that due to ancestral enmity, Yazeed will destroy Bani Hashim whether he was given allegiance or not. This was the reason why he decided to start a revolution against Bani Umayyah. From the time Yazeed became the successor of Muawiyah, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered it obligatory for himself to deny his obedience. He did not even conceal his opposition from anyone. And on the same basis, Yazeed was in pursuit to extract allegiance from him and to make him subservient. Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved towards martyrdom and established a superb example of revolution.”

Anyone who is aware of the historical realities of that time and the kind of carnage unleashed by Bani Umayyah and the way they had started distorting the religion of Muhammad (S) would indeed confess that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had not laid down his life at Karbala’, the Muslim Ummah would have had quite a different Islam than what they are having now. It was the initial period of Islam and hence it was possible that its rituals and rules would have been destroyed completely. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had seen the character of Bani Umayyah during the Caliphate of his father, Ali (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.), that is why immediately after Yazeed came to the throne, Imam Husayn (a.s.) traveled from Medina so that he may propagate true Islam in major Muslim areas. Wherever he went, people developed hatred towards Bani Umayyah.

Yazeed was also not unaware of these subtle factors. He knew that even if Imam Husayn (a.s.) got the support of people at any minor town and raised the standard or revolt due to the hatred of people towards Bani Umayyah and their love for Imam Husayn (a.s.), he would gain influence over all the kingdom of Islam and Bani Umayyah will be annihilated; that is why immediately after assuming the throne, Yazeed made a firm intention to kill Imam Husayn (a.s.). This was the only cause due to which Bani Umayyah contributed to their own eradication from the face of the earth.

The greatest proof that Imam Husayn (a.s.) willingly moved to martyrdom is that he was well aware of the military prowess of Bani Umayyah since the time of his father and brother. He was certain that he would be martyred and this was often stated after the martyrdom of his father. This proves that he had no ambition for rulership. He had time and again reiterated since he left Medina that he would certainly be killed. If it had not been a willing step, he would not have rushed to it, knowing fully well the military prowess of Bani Umayyah.

He also stated this to the people who had accompanied him, so that if any among them were after material benefits, they may leave his side. If Husayn (a.s.) had desired to save his life, he would have tried his best to collect an army. But instead of mobilizing forces, he was constantly beseeching his companions to leave him if they wanted to live. Knowing that it was the first step towards a revolution, Imam Husayn (a.s.) let himself be martyred in the most pitiful manner, so that people may be more affected by his sorrowful plight.

Obviously, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had exploited the devotion that the people had towards him, he would have succeeded in raising a huge army. But if he were killed in those circumstances, it would have been said that he died for greed of wealth and rulership and the oppressed position that heralded the magnificent revolution would not have been achieved. Thus, except for whom it was impossible to leave; that is the sons, brothers, and nephews; he told them to leave him, but they did not agree. They were also such people whose piety and honor was much valued by the Muslims. Their martyrdom with Imam Husayn (a.s.) lent more effectiveness to the tragedy.

On the basis of his knowledge and diplomacy, and on the basis of the animosity of Bani Umayyah towards Bani Hashim, be left no stone unturned to highlight all this. Imam (a.s.) knew that after his martyrdom, the women and children of Bani Hashim, who were Muhammad’s Progeny would be made prisoners and would be taken from one place to another. This incident would spread in the Arab world and have such an effect as cannot be imagined. Thus, the way the prisoners were taken around, was in no way less cruel than being killed. Similarly, it created the same effect on Muslims as the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) had.

In these incidents, the enmity of Bani Umayyah to the Prophet’s family and their beliefs regarding Islam and their treatment of Muslims has been clearly brought out. This was the reason that Imam Husayn (a.s.) used to clearly tell those of his friends who restrained him from this journey that he was going for being killed. It was because their thoughts were limited and they had no idea of Imam Husayn’s aim, which is why they used to restrain him. The last reply of which was that he was going because it was the Will of Allah and his grandfather had ordered him to take the step. The people used to say that since he was going to be killed, he should not take women and children with him. On this Husayn (a.s.) used to reply that it was the Will of Allah that his family should be made prisoners.

The words of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were unique from the aspect of spirituality and apparently he did not take these steps to obtain rulership or power. And he also did not step into this great danger without being aware of consequences. The proof is that a year before this tragedy, he used to tell his close confidants who had an enlightened heart and perfect reason to comfort them that after his martyrdom, the Almighty Allah would prepare a group who would separate truth from falsehood. And who would visit their graves and weep on their tribulations and destroy the enemies of Muhammad’s Progeny. These people would follow the religion of his grandfather. He and his father would love them and on Judgment Day, they shall be raised with Muhammad’s Progeny.

O readers! What should be done! It is surprising that a scholar of non-Muslims is relating the incident of Karbala’ in such a way that informs of the great status of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) while a Maulana of Delhi in spite of his claim for being a Muslim, lays false allegations on Imam Husayn (a.s.) that are not possible in any respectable people. No one can say that the Maulana was insane, but it is certain that his blind greed for worldly status had deprived him from the wealth of the love for Muhammad’s Progeny.

- 1. Ummahatul Aimma, Pg. 33, line 7.

Tragedy Of Karbala’ Demands Close Attention

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is such a tragedy that has attracted the attention of writers, philosophers, historians and all intellectuals. From the aspect of religion and ethics, it is such an incident in Islam that its equal is not found. Rather, if it is compared to other such incidents that are often recorded in war poems, we shall see that it does not have any equal. Since it is a factual incident, it is very much clear which people constituted the opposing groups and which group was on the side of Yazeed and which one sided with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Husayn’s Side

1. Imam Husayn (a.s.), the chief of the martyrs.

2. Muslim, paternal cousin of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

3. Aun and Muhammad, sons of Zainab binte Ali (a.s.).

4. Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

5. His Eminence, Ali Akbar who was brought up by Lady Zainab (S).

6. Ali Asghar, the six-month infant of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

7. Lady Zainab and Umme Kulthum, daughters of Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) who loved Imam Husayn (a.s.) greatly.

8. Fatima Sughra, the younger daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.) whom the Imam (a.s.) had left in Medina because she was unwell.

9. Fatima Kubra, who had come to Karbala’ with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

10. Sakina, another daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

11. Lady Laila and Umme Rabab, the respected wives of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

12. Qasim Ibn Hasan.

13. Abbas Ibn Ali, standard bearer of Imam Husayn’s army, who was the half brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.), but was greatly devoted to the Imam (a.s.). He had no equal in his sincerity and sacrifice.

14. Hurr who was previously the commander of Yazeed’s forces, left them and joined the ranks of Imam (a.s.) and achieved the wealth of martyrdom.

15. Habib Ibn Mazahir, who was the childhood friend of Imam Husayn (a.s.). He was martyred in Karbala’ while he was of an advanced age.

16. Fizza, the maidservant of Lady Fatima (s.a.); after whose martyrdom she continued in the service of Lady Zainab.

17. Hind, the wife of Yazeed and who was devoted to the prophet’s family. She had no information of the tragedy of Karbala’ but when the prisoners were brought to Damascus she came to meet them in prison. It is not inappropriate to include her among the partisans of Husayn (a.s.).

18. Wahab Ibn Abdullah Kalbi and Zohair Qayn.

These exalted personalities are mentioned in the elegies (Marsiya).

Yazeed’s Side

1. Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the ruling Caliph.

2. Ibn Ziyad, son of Ziyad who was made a brother by Muawiyah. At the time of the tragedy of Karbala’, Ibn Ziyad was the governor of Yazeed in Kufa.

3. Umar Ibn Saad, Commander-in-Chief of Yazeed’s army.

4. Shimr, who mounted the chest of Imam (a.s.).

5. Khuli, who beheaded Imam Husayn (a.s.).

6. Hurmala, who martyred Ali Asghar by shooting an arrow at him.

7. Naufal.

8. Hakim Ibn Tufail.

Destruction of the Imam’s Enemies

All the above oppressors and also those unfortunate ones who participated in the killing of Husayn (a.s.) either died or were killed during three or four years. None of them survived to bear the sorrows of this world. Yazeed himself died within three and a half years of this incident. Indeed, the people who helped Yazeed and acted on his orders will be raised with him and they all would be recompensed like him and abide in Hell forever.

Philosophy of Karbala’ Tragedy And Distribution Of Wisdom

It is well known that wisdom is of two kinds: religious and practical. Practical wisdom is of three types:

1. Good manners

2. Determination

3. Diplomacy.

The first of these is the personal trait of every person. The second is applicable to his relationship with his family members and the third is concerned with the affairs of the nation. All three of them are discussed with relation to the tragedy of Karbala’.

Manners And Etiquettes

This is the first type of practical wisdom. Every human being is concerned with this, though he may be of any class or creed. Being human, if one has no human manners, one is not considered a human being. It is well known that the Almighty has bestowed human beings with two types of existences. An apparent existence that is evident from his physical body that includes flesh and blood, organs and nerves. The next is his internal existence that includes his moral capabilities.

Moral capabilities are of two kinds: One is natural perception and the other is responsibility. The former are such that if they had not been in control of human beings, they would have never got superiority over other animals. The latter is opposite to these. If they are not paid attention to, human beings can be worse than animals. We must know that moral training is concerned with the first type. After considering the incident of Karbala’, it becomes evident that from the ethical point of view, it is a great matter of moral values.

That is, it is a great treasure of moral ethics. The good moral points are: helpfulness, faithfulness, bravery, charity, patience, satisfaction, forbearance, concealing of defects, forgiveness, mercy, favor, worship, meditation, piety, modesty, loyalty, sincerity, truthfulness and openness. In the same way, bad qualities are greed, anger, wrath, enmity, falsehood and jealousy etc.

It is necessary for man to cultivate good morals and to control bad habits and he must always strive in this direction. Another name of this practice is moral training. The incident of Karbala’ is such a great event that by considering its events, one can achieve moral perfection in full. Just as the partisans of Husayn (a.s.) present such interesting examples of moral perfection, the partisans of Yazeed exhibit the abased characteristics.

For examples, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) shows benevolence to the army of Hurr and his animals, the army of Ibn Ziyad repaid this kindness by preventing them the water of Euphrates. Rather, in return of the request of water, Hurmala shot an arrow at the six-month infant of Imam (a.s.), Ali Asghar and martyred him.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of examples from which we realize the good morals of the people of Husayn’s side and the evil nature of Yazeed’s partisans. Mir Anees, with his astonishing narrative capability, beautifully presents the picture of the morals of the two parties. Mir has shown how good were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers.

And how evil were Yazeed and his cohorts. How far were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions from material desires and how Yazeed and his compatriots were more inclined to wealth and pelf. Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused to pledge allegiance for the sake of religion and Yazeed for the sake of worldly life, was demanding allegiance of Imam Husayn (a.s.). For the sake of religion, the followers of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were his followers and the people followed Yazeed for material greed.

Mir Anees has realistically explained the benevolent qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his side; including, Aun, Muhammad, Akbar, Abbas and Qasim. Hurr’s love for truth and the way he confessed to truth and how he changed sides when truth had become manifest to him. In the same way, Mir Anees has presented the admirable qualities and lent beauty to his composition. On the other hand, his poetry brought out the evil qualities and vicious traits of the partisans of Yazeed. In the knowledge of this writer, it is the natural duty of every person that he must study the elegies of Mir Anees from the aspects of moral values because the event of Karbala’ is extremely edifying and Mir Anees has described these events in a natural manner and in a beautiful style.

The statement of the Maulavi that Imam Husayn (a.s.) arose to gain power, informs about the evil thinking of this writer. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certainly not a discontented person. Imam (a.s.) indeed did not arise for kingdom and greed of wealth. Imam (a.s.) considered himself the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and hence he refused to give allegiance to Yazeed.

The allegation of the Maulana for Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he was greedy, is no less than the atrocities committed by Ibn Ziyad and Shimr. Anyone who makes such allegations against the noble personality of Imam (a.s.) cannot be called a follower of the Holy Prophet (S). What type of Islam is it that is based on the enmity of Muhammad’s Progeny?

I am extremely regretful for the Maulavi and Mirza Hairat Dehlavi. Destiny has made these two gentlemen opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny, whereas the allegation perfectly fits the character of Muawiyah, because as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S): “This person will never be satiated by eating.”

It is justified that this allegation is concerned with the family of Yazeed. May Allah be merciful to this Maulana and people who have similar view and bestow them the ability to realize the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny. Their situation seems to be serious and we sincerely pray for their guidance.

Obviously, when a person considers Imamate and Caliphate as divine affairs, he cannot blame Imam Husayn (a.s.) for greed and discontentment. To consider the office of Caliphate an affair decided by the people is the first step towards the dishonor of the noble personages. Such people can never believe in spirituality. Till the time of his death, such a person will remain a materialist and nothing else. Thus, for these people, all are same: The Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). They are all equal in the view of those who have no spirituality.

Determination

It is a trait that is concerned with the family and society of the people. The first type of this wisdom as mentioned by us, is connected with the being of every person. No one is free from it. If a person lives in a corner of the world alone, then its relationship cannot be broken. But the next type, which in the terminology of rulership, is determination, it is clearly related to the children, friends and neighbors etc. This type informs us of their rights and how we should live among them. It is necessary for us to first improve our morals. And then we should become habitual of determination for achieving our aim. The tragedy of Karbala’ is also concerned with this type of moral quality.

We should know that the behavior of Imam (a.s.) with Lady Umme Laila, Umme Rabab, Lady Zainab, Fatima Sughra, Fatima Kubra, Sakina, Abbas, Ali Akbar, Ali Asghar, Aun, Muhammad, Habib Ibn Mazahir, Hurr and with all the participants of the event of Karbala’ informs us of the perfection of Imam’s morals. The behavior of the husband with the wife, the behavior of the brother with the sister, the behavior of the father with the son, the behavior of the uncle with the nephew, behavior of the friend with friend, of the master with his servants. All such ideal behaviors are explained through this great event in a beautiful manner.

Mir Anees, by divine help he received in composing the elegies (Marsiya), describes the events most eloquently. There is no doubt that the Mir has also, through his poetry, presented a study of moral science by this incident. The elegies of Mir only from these two aspects are such that ordinary people to whichever faith they may belong, must not deprive themselves from their study. Indeed, it is a misfortune not to get the chance of reading the Marsiyas of Mir Anees.

If Mir Anees were born in a European country, the educated public of that time would have sung his praises. But it is a pity that he was born in such an ignorant land, where his presence did not make any difference. The limit of ignorance is such that due to this carelessness, his literary compositions were printed on such cheap paper that even mediocre verse is printed on better material. The work of Mir Taqi Mir is printed in a beautiful edition. It is only so because it has reached the hands of those who have literary values and they could not publish it in any way less respectful. The writer is certain that when the Europeans realize the literary values of the compositions of Mir Anees they would definitely not leave any stone unturned in according it the respect that it deserves.

Civic Sense

This is the third type of moral ethics. It is the quality that is clearly related to the nation. All the efforts of the governments of the world are busy to find out these principles. In Europe, there is such a great demand for this that it is beyond the comprehension of we, Indians.

The incident of Karbala’ also has great cultural aspects. It is so much concerned with moral values that every kind is related to this event. Some of the cultural aspects of these events are discussed below.

Revolutionary Condition of Bani Hashim

The Holy Prophet (S) migrated (did Hijrat) and settled down in Medina and with the help of Helpers (Ansar) he was able to establish a religious government in the city. Although Bani Umayyah and other tribes, from time to time launched attacks against Medina, so that this religious government is destroyed, but enemies of Allah were always unsuccessful. Bani Umayyah continued to confront Muslims in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Hunayn and Khandaq, but except for suffering losses, they did not gain anything.

And in a period of ten years, they became so weak that they had no more strength to raise their heads. The Holy Prophet (S) was able to subdue Bani Umayyah after great efforts. To raise their status was with ulterior motives. First of all, this tribe was irreligious, transgressing, sinful and wayward; and hence it was greatly deviated.

Secondly, in its well being the well being of Islam was not expected. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) with great tact, in his own time, subdued this tribe to such an extent that not only Islam, rather, all Bani Hashim was also protected from its mischief. It is not unknown how much help the Prophet received from Ali (a.s.) in this matter. But Bani Umayyah had to become strong after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) and the tragedy of Karbala’ had to occur. Immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Sufyan the chief of Bani Umayyah, easily because the ruler of Shaam (Syria). Although he himself did not leave Mecca for Shaam, he sent his son over there.

In the beginning, Bani Umayyah ruled Shaam under the command of the three Caliphs and later gained power over whole of the Islamic lands. They ruled for 83 years. On one hand, Bani Hashim were degraded but Bani Umayyah continued to get every type of material well-being. To bestow Bani Umayyah with such undeserved honor immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) was a clear mistake of Caliphate. If Caliphate had been left to Ali (a.s.) from the beginning, Bani Umayyah would have remained as weak and helpless as the Holy Prophet (S) had left them.

If, after becoming the Caliph, Ali (a.s.) had also proved to be a supporter of Bani Umayyah, the blame of the tragedy of Karbala’ would have been upon him. But indeed Ali (a.s.) could never consider support to Bani Umayyah as lawful, because Ali (a.s.) did not have the slightest difference with policies of the Prophet. That Ali (a.s.) did not get Caliphate, not only resulted in the Prophet’s family being subjected to trouble, but the face of Islam also changed to a great extent from the Islam of the Prophet’s family.

At the time, when the tragedy of Karbala’ occurred, the Islam of the people of Shaam and other Islamic territories was that which was established by the compilations of Ibn Masood. Bani Hashim were aloof from this religion. It is very much possible that if Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as the sole successor of the Prophet, the Umayyad religion would not have come into being. Only that religion would have been followed in the whole of Islamic lands, which in the words of Shah Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi and other Sunni scholars, is called the religion of Ali.

Indeed, the tragedy of Karbala’ implies great destruction faced by Bani Hashim but the evil seed of this incident was sowed just after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). That is the statement: “We have the book of Allah with us.” By which the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) could not be willed in writing. When Bani Hashim lost the opportunity for Caliphate, Bani Umayyah began to rise in power. Just as the matter proved harmful to Bani Hashim, it was beneficial to non-Bani Hashim.

As we have stated, due to the loss of Caliphate, Bani Hashim lost their economical as well as religious position. As a result, Bani Hashim weakened greatly and became ordinary citizen and the Bani Umayyah became powerful and became the rulers of Islamic lands. The tragedy of Karbala’ is a clear-cut consequence of that deprivation of Caliphate. In the same way, there were hundred of consequences of that deprivation that the Bani Hashim encountered at that time and those, which are still seen today, though neither the Imam of that family is apparent nor Bani Hashim of that age.

The status that Bani Hashim had, at the time of the Prophet would not have made them to expect that after the Prophet, their tribe will be distanced from government. But the action of Umar easily served that purpose. A study of the prevailing situations of that time makes us feel that Umar really despised the family of the Prophet and Ali (a.s.) also had no sort of attachment with Umar. It is a historical misconception that Ali (a.s.) and Umar were fast friends. Ali (a.s.) and Umar were of opposite temperaments and friendship is not possible between people of such opposite temperaments.

In such a condition, Umar could not make Ali (a.s.) the Caliph and he considered himself becoming the Caliph against hidden wisdom. So he apparently made Abu Bakr the Caliph and gave him oath of allegiance. Though Umar had no military exploits to his credit, as seen in the battles of Badr, Uhud, etc. it is true that he had cunning for political manipulations. He made Abu Bakr the Caliph after great manipulations. First of all, this action distanced Bani Hashim from kingdom.

Secondly, the appointment of Abu Bakr was actually the appointment of Umar as the Caliph.

Thirdly, this course of action served as a defense of his selfishness.

Fourthly, due to the old age of Abu Bakr, it was clear that the time of Umar’s Caliphate was not far off. Thus, within a period of two years Abu Bakr made Umar the Caliph and left the mortal world. History shows that since the time of passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) till the time he himself died, Umar continued to make political machinations, but Ali (a.s.) did not resort to any such machinations. Whenever the Caliph’s court was held, he reiterated his rights and kept silent. But the separation from government was very sorrowful for Bani Hashim.

But when Abu Bakr was declared the Caliph, they became sad and kept quiet and were not able to do anything. The reason was that Ali (a.s.) did not resort to violence at the appointment of Abu Bakr as the Caliph. Apart from this, Bani Hashim had hopes that Ali (a.s.) was young and after sometime he would surely become the Caliph, but their hopes were dashed when Abu Bakr made Umar the Caliph by bequest.

Indeed, the appointment of Umar as Caliph by Abu Bakr was an act of returning the favor. Now the Bani Hashim were certainly distanced from rulership. Since Umar was not aged like Abu Bakr there was no hope that the seat of Caliphate would fall vacant in near future. Umar occupied the seat of Caliphate for ten and a half years. If he had not been killed, he might have continued for another ten years at the helm of affairs. But these ten years were not in any way less for Bani Hashim and the fact is that even after these ten years, Ali (a.s.) was not able to gain the seat of Caliphate. Before his death, Umar left the appointment of Caliph an undecided matter. It was a political trick by which Ali (a.s.) had very remote chances of success. Rather, there was also an aspect for Ali (a.s.) to be killed.

Then after Umar, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not become the Caliph by the Consultative (Shura) Committee. Uthman became the Caliph. He was a weak- willed person and his tenure witnessed many upheavals and though his period of Caliphate was the longest among the three Caliphs, his Caliphate was mired in controversies. During his time, Bani Umayyah gained more power. It were already flourishing in Shaam and now the Caliph was also from their clan. In Medina also, Marwan and other Bani Umayyah continued to bleed the Islamic treasury.

After Uthman’s murder, Ali (a.s.) reluctantly accepted the responsibility of Caliphate. As soon as Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph, opponents began to gather means of war. Talha and Zubair who were from the ten special people according to the belief of Sunni, who were guaranteed Paradise, paid allegiance to Ali (a.s.) but soon broke their pledge and joined the ranks of ‘A’ysha. In this battle, ‘A’ysha suffered defeat and these two gentlemen were also exterminated. When Ali (a.s.) got reprieve from these people, Muawiyah rose up in revolt against the rightful Caliph of his time; that is Ali (a.s.).

According to Ahlul Sunnat, this revolt of Muawiyah was an error of jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). Whatever error it might be, the short period of Ali’s Caliphate passed in these conflicts. During the 5th year of his tumultuous Caliphate, Ali (a.s.) was martyred and Imam Hasan (a.s.) was appointed the Caliph. He also had to abdicate within a period of six month.

Now Muawiyah became the de facto ruler of Islam and continued in this position for a long time till his death. In his place, his beloved son assumed the seat of Caliphate. During this period, Muhammad’s Progeny were massacred at Karbala’. Only Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) remained, through whom the progeny of Sadaat continued and the name of the Prophet’s family lived on.

That Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph after Uthman did not in any prove beneficial to Bani Hashim. Bani Hashim had apparently lost religious authority in addition to material losses. Even the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) did not help them to regain their religious or economical power. Rather, day by day they were hated more by materialist people. Till the time the tragedy of Karbala’ occurred, and after the tragedy, the killings and oppression of Sadaat continued and even today it is seen that these people are hated and people are aloof from them and their faith.

Indeed, all these are the fruits of the statement, “We have the book of Allah with us,” which has effectively invalidated the tradition of the Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn).

Writer’s Belief

It is the writer’s belief that the Holy Prophet (S) was infallible and all the prophets that have passed, were also infallible. Their successors and their legatees were also infallible like them. Reason dictates that the legatee of an infallible cannot be fallible.

From this point of view, it is necessary that the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) must also be infallible. According to our belief, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was infallible and inerrant in every way. He never worshipped idols, never indulged in polytheism or drinking wine and never disobeyed the divine commands. He was always steadfast in the battles in company of the Holy Prophet (S). He never fled from the battlefield.

He never left the Holy Prophet (S) in danger to save his own skin. He helped Islam with his sword in such a way that in its absence, Islam would not have gained stability in Medina. He is included in the verse of Purification (Quran 33:33) and the verse of Malediction (Quran 3:16) and there are many verses that are with regard to his merits. He had clear Quranic nomination to the post of Caliphate before the Caliphate of the three Caliphs and even today, he holds the same position near Allah.

The Holy Prophet (S) has mentioned his creation along with the creation of Ali (a.s.) to be from a single radiance (Noor). Even from the aspect of tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), since he is from the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, he is deserving of attachment. And from the point of view of the same tradition if Ali (a.s.) is not superior to Quran, at least he is equal to it. The Holy Prophet (S) had stated that Ali (a.s.) was his soul, flesh and blood.

What more can be said to prove his infallibility? If the Holy Prophet (S) was infallible, his successors must also be infallible. Anything else is bigotry and an unfortunate thing. The Holy Prophet (S) has stated that Ali (a.s.) is the gate of knowledge. In the same way, he said:

“Ali is with Quran and the Quran is with Ali.”

In brief, it is beyond reason and understanding to consider him non-infallible. Anyone who is unbiased and his heart is pure of his enmity, will indeed consider him infallible. In brief, the writer, from the aspect of his belief, considers Ali (a.s.) and the rest of the eleven Imams as infallible, like the Holy Prophet (S). The consequence of this belief in their infallibility implies that the Caliphate of these infallibles was a divinely constituted affair. It cannot be a matter decided by the people.

Thus, from Ali (a.s.) to the Master of the Age (a.j.), all these Holy Imams (a.s.) were successors of the Prophet who were appointed Caliphs and Imams by Allah. This belief is in all respects, his spiritual style. From the aspect of this belief, Ali (a.s.) has the right to be considered the successor of the Holy Prophet (S). Even if we forgo this aspect and view it from a political lens, we again have to agree that only Ali (a.s.) should be the successor of the Prophet. The political expediency dictated that Muslims would have selected only Ali (a.s.) as the successor of the Prophet. The below discussion deserves our attention.

Generally, Sunni belief is not that Abu Bakr became the Caliph of the Prophet through Quranic injunction or prophetic tradition. According to the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, Abu Bakr became the Caliph on the basis of consensus. This is the fact, and majority of Sunnis confess to it. However, some people also present Quranic proofs in support of the rightly guided Caliphate. If Allah wills, we shall investigate this point of view in the future.

But just for the time being, it can be said that this consensus, which had many defects, cannot be construed to be an election. Because an important tribe of Muslims to which the Prophet himself belonged, was not represented in this consensus and neither was it able to exercise its opinion. Rather, this matter of Saqifah was conducted in such a hurried manner that Bani Hashim had no news of it.

Apparently, it seems that even if Bani Hashim had received information, they still would not have been able to attend the gathering, because they were busy in the last rites of the Holy Prophet (S). It was not possible for them to leave the Prophet and attend the election of Saqifah. But if the Bani Hashim had been able to attend the election, Abu Bakr would not have become the Caliph so easily.

At that time, Umar, who had great political cunning, hurriedly decided the matter of Caliphate. This election, which did not follow any principle of election, informs us of a certain defective course of action. At the time of the passing away of the Prophet, Medina alone did not constitute Islamic territory. The religion of Muhammad had spread to the whole of Hijaz. For a perfect election, it was necessary that all the chiefs of all the areas must be gathered.

But this did not happen. In this haste, leave alone the people of Hijaz, even all the respectable personalities of Medina could not be summoned. The people of decision will themselves decide to what extent is correct the claim of Ahlul Sunnat that Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus.

Indeed, this weak claim of the supporters of consensus is defective was well known to even those people. But for the need of religion they consider it rightful. The believers of consensus have also believed that consensus is correct even if two people other than Bani Hashim take part in it.

On the other hand, if thousands of Bani Hashim effect a consensus, it shall not be accepted as valid. Obviously, these types of bigotries create many disconcerting views in the minds of unbiased and just people. There is no need to mention them. Those who claim it was an election, must see it with absolute sincerity was it really a fair election that was effected in a hurried manner at Saqifah Bani Saada?

Though we confess to the cunning of Umar, who easily wrested Caliphate from Bani Hashim so easily that they could not do anything. Though Bani Hashim were once considered indispensable for Caliphate. If he had desired, Umar could have passed on the benefit of this consensus to Ali (a.s.) but he did not like Ali (a.s.) due to a number of factors. That is why in the absence of Ali (a.s.), he made Abu Bakr the Caliph.

Although Umar and Ali (a.s.) had such opposite traits that friendship between them is unimaginable, but apparently it seems that Umar had extreme hatred towards Fatima (s.a.). Thus, he could not bear any good for Ali (a.s.). The cause of this enmity seems that Umar had once desired to marry the Lady of Paradise, but the Holy Prophet (S) on the basis of his hidden wisdom, married her to Ali (a.s.).

Umar very well knew that Abu Bakr had no merit in comparison to Ali (a.s.), but he pledged allegiance to him and other people at Saqifah were also compelled to do the same. The other people did not hesitate in giving allegiance to Abu Bakr. They did not even ask why any member of Bani Hashim was not present. Without considering if Abu Bakr had any superiority to Ali (a.s.), they followed Umar in giving allegiance. This definitely did not prove beneficial to Islam.

As shall be clear from my further analysis, the preference of Umar towards his personal affairs instead of the general good of the people was most unbecoming for Umar. It was also not that Umar was ignorant of the merits of Ali (a.s.). In spite of having no knowledge of Quran, he still knew that Ali (a.s.) was included in the verse of Purification and the verse of Malediction. The verses of Surah Insan1 were also applicable to Ali (a.s.).

In addition to this, there are many other verses that are revealed to highlight the merits of Ali and Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Apart from this, at the time of the passing away of the Prophet, the position of Ali (a.s.) as the successor of the Holy Prophet (S) was well established. The name of Ali (a.s.) was indeed included in the Holy Quran at many places and the word of Aale Muhammad (Muhammad’s Progeny) was also present therein, as we have shown above. Umar knew that the Prophet had said about Ali:

“Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran and I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate and your self is my self and your soul is my soul and your blood is my blood and your flesh is my flesh and I and Ali are from one single radiance (Noor), and you are to me like Haroon was to Moosa.”

And many other similar traditions are there that describe the merits of Ali (a.s.). Umar knew full well that Islam owed a lot to the sword of Ali (a.s.). If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, the Islamic Medina would have been annihilated by the attacks of Meccan infidels. And without the sword of Ali (a.s.) the establishment of Islam would not have been possible during the time of the Prophet. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was firm-footed in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hunayn and Khaybar.

Rather, the success in all these battles was due to the unique valor of Ali (a.s.). Umar knew how much the Holy Prophet (S) loved Ali (a.s.) as proved by the tradition of the Roasted Fowl (Hadith Tayr). Umar knew that in addition to excellent knowledge, the Almighty had also bestowed Ali (a.s.) with great piety. Umar knew that after the Holy Prophet (S) it was Ali (a.s.) indeed, who was the chief of Bani Hashim tribe and the Bani Hashim was the most superior tribe of Arabs from many aspects.

First of all, from the ancient age, this tribe was the leader of Arabs. Secondly, the Holy Prophet (S) was a chief of that very tribe. Umar knew that Abu Bakr belonged to a nameless tribe. Bani Teem could not be in any way compared to Bani Hashim. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was the husband of the Lady of Paradise. Apart from this, he was a close cousin of the Holy Prophet (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had no son and Ali (a.s.) had the status of the son of the Prophet. Umar knew that although Abu Bakr migrated to Medina with the Holy Prophet (S) his predicament could not be more meritorious than the risk that Ali (a.s.) faced after the Prophet’s departure. It was a time that the infidels of Mecca could have martyred Ali (a.s.) mistaking him to be the Holy Prophet (S).

But Ali (a.s.) did not care for his life and continued to lie on the Prophet’s bed all night. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was the first to agree to the help and obedience of the Holy Prophet (S). He was the first to believe in the Holy Prophet (S), he never worshipped idols; he was always aloof from polytheism. Umar knew that after the Holy Prophet (S), Ali (a.s.) was the chief of the tribe in which Prophethood has been sent. Umar knew that the Holy Prophet (S) made elaborate arrangements at Ghadeer Khumm and declared Ali (a.s.) as the master of all believers.

Umar himself at that time had congratulated Ali (a.s.) saying, ‘Bakhin Bakhin’ (congratulations) and confessed that Ali (a.s.) was indeed his master and the master of all believers. It is surprising that in spite of knowing all this, how Umar gave preference to Abu Bakr? And after appointing Abu Bakr as the Caliph, he made such haste in allegiance. If Umar had even the slightest attachment to Ali (a.s.), he would not have turned his face away from him and paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.

If it is said that Ali (a.s.) was not capable of Caliphate, as some ignorant people say, and thus Umar made Abu Bakr the Caliph. This statement is absolutely incorrect. Ali (a.s.) was more capable of being a Caliph than Abu Bakr. The defect of old age was not less in Abu Bakr. The reality is that if Umar had not remained at the side of Abu Bakr, he would not have been able to perform any caliphal function.

Though apparently Abu Bakr had become the Caliph, it was actually the Caliphate of Umar. This seems to be the greatest cause why Umar did not make Ali (a.s.) the Caliph. Umar knew that Ali (a.s.) was an independent person having his own opinions. He would never allow any interference of Umar in the matters of Caliphate. So he kept Ali (a.s.) away from Caliphate and behind the veil of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, himself became the Caliph. The interference of Umar was to such a great extent that Abu Bakr was compelled to say: “O Umar! Then what was the need to make me the Caliph?” If Ali (a.s.) had become the Caliph, Umar would not have got any chance of interfering like this and would have been forced away from Caliphate.

In the view of the writer, in addition to his personal difference, this was the reason why Umar could not stand Ali (a.s.) becoming the Caliph. In brief, it was the first political blunder of Islam that Ali (a.s.) was kept away from Caliphate. This error gave rise to all sorts of conflicts in Islamic lands, whose consequences are still being borne by Muslims. If Umar had accepted Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph instead of Abu Bakr, Ali (a.s.) apparently would have remained the Caliph for a long time and performed all the duties of Caliphate because he was healthy and young.

It is likely that if Umar had accepted Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph, there would have been only one religion among the Muslims, because Ali (a.s.) was absolutely cultured, educated and an accomplished personality, so there would have been no kind of turmoil in the affairs of Islam. The opposition of Umar not only proved harmful to Ali (a.s.), it caused widespread destruction in Islam also. Umar also beautifully arranged the Caliphate of Uthman.

The third time also, though Ali (a.s.) was superior, he was again deprived of Caliphate, which was nothing but harmful to Islam. We shall discuss the turmoil of the period of Uthman’s Caliphate. At last Ali (a.s.) did become the Caliph, but the Caliphate had deteriorated to such an extent that it was one and the same whether he was a Caliph or not. What is the use of discussing the Caliphate during which conflicts like the battles of Jamal and Siffeen occurred. The one single mistake of not accepting Ali (a.s.) as the first Caliph caused numerous turmoils, and still proves to be a bane for the Muslim world.

Umar was a very clever man and he could have teamed up with Ali (a.s.) and served Islam to a great extent. If he had been a supporter of Ali (a.s.), Ali (a.s.) would have continued at the helm of Caliphate for a long time, which would have bestowed all sorts of benefits on Islam. The statement of the opponents of Ali (a.s.) that he had no capability of Caliphate is a lie. Ali (a.s.) had the same capability to conquer Shaam and Fars just as Umar had. There was no special capability required for such conquests. Shaam was a part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman had become useless like their Western counterparts. As with all the nations, there is decadence after exaltation. The same happened to Fars. They had become accustomed to vices and pleasures.

On the other hand, the Arabs on the basis of a new faith, had fresh impetus and zeal. In such a situation, it was not a matter of surprise that Muslims conquered these territories in a short time. These conquests were not a result of any special capabilities of the Caliph. The conquests were effected when the hungry Arabs rushed to Shaam and Rome in greed of war booty. Just as Goth and Vandel conquered Rome, the Arabs conquered Shaam etc. Such conquests would have been possible even in the time of Ali (a.s.) but he didn’t get any chance. First of all, during his Caliphate, Ali (a.s.) did not get respite from mischief mongers.

Secondly, at that time, the Arabs had already accomplished all the conquests possible. In those circumstances, no scope remained for territorial expansion. If Ali (a.s.) had become the Caliph immediately after the Holy Prophet (S) all the conquests made during the Caliphate of the second Caliph would have been made during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Umar, instead of being the Caliph, would have become the deputy Caliph and served Islam in a beautiful way. But such a golden age for Islam was not destined and the events turned in the way they did.

It should be clear that the aloofness of the people from Bani Hashim in the matter of Caliphate proved very harmful from the political point of view. It is well known that Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah were the two most powerful tribes of Arabs. They were at loggerheads from ages. Even before the arrival of Islam, sometimes Bani Hashim and sometimes Bani Umayyah gained the upper hand. That is why these two tribes were considered equal.

But when the Holy Prophet (S) migrated and settled down in Medina and Bani Umayyah become weak due to repeated defeats, at that time, Bani Hashim were becoming powerful in Medina, and the people of Medina used to regard them with great respect. But immediately after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) they were unexpectedly distanced from rulership and power.

And the cause of the distancing was the ‘election’ of Saqifah. It was the great political blunder of Saqifah when they did not select Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph. Ali (a.s.) at that time, was the chief of Bani Hashim. If he were made the Caliph, the future political terror of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas would not have come into being. The result of the error of Saqifah was such that Bani Hashim had to fight for their rights with Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and they continued to be weakened, till finally at the hands of Tartars, Muslim hegemony was completely wiped out.

This ‘election’ of Saqifah not only resulted in the massacre of Bani Hashim, but non-Bani Hashim were also mercilessly massacred. Bani Hashim continued to confront the enemies and sacrifice their lives, because in every age they considered themselves rightful claimants for Caliphate, and many Arabs also confessed that they were on the right. Apparently, the history of Islam is filled with series of uprisings by Bani Hashim and it was because they had lost the Caliphate at Saqifah at the hands of Umar.

It should be remembered that Bani Hashim was a tribe that could not be easily wiped out. This was the lifeblood of Arab nation. It had great importance like Bani Umayyah. It was in this tribe that prophethood had descended. Thus, it was not an easy job to exterminate this tribe. The honor that it had got during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) made it eligible that it must not be deprived of Caliphate.

If Umar or the people of Saqifah had the good of the Muslims in mind, instead of choosing Abu Bakr, they would have chosen Ali (a.s.). Abu Bakr was from an insignificant tribe and neither he trusted his tribesmen nor did they trust him. To bring such a person at the helm of affairs of Caliphate was a dreadful political mistake. The distancing of Bani Hashim from rulership could not have been beneficial to the country. Thus, it resulted in untold turmoil for the community.

If Ali (a.s.) had been selected as the Caliph, there would have been no division of sects. There would have been no Sunni or Shia.

In the event of Ali becoming the Caliph, Bani Hashim would have forever been released from participating in the uprisings. Due to his successorship, neither Umar nor Uthman had been killed, nor Muhammad bin Abu Bakr slain. Ali (a.s.) himself would have been safe from the battles of Jamal and Siffeen etc. Neither ‘A’ysha would have joined the Battle of Jamal nor Talha and Zubair had died.

Neither ‘A’ysha would have been killed by being thrown into the well nor Bani Umayyah had become such blatant oppressors. Neither Ali (a.s.) had been killed nor Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned. Neither Imam Husayn (a.s.) had to face the tragedy of Karbala’ nor would there have been the killings of Imams in the future. Neither horses had been tied in the Holy Kaaba not there would have been bloodshed at the hands of Bani Umayyah.

Neither Bani Umayyah had to face downfall nor Bani Abbas would have become powerful, nor they would have soiled their hands with the blood of people. And neither the Arab nation had been conquered by foreigners. The ‘election’ of Saqifah was responsible for all the ills that have plagued the Muslim nations till now and which still continue to do so.

In brief, the first mistake was to distance Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate but on top of that such developments were effected that Bani Umayyah were enabled to rise to the heights of affluence. Bani Umayyah had no right to become rulers of Muslim dominions. This tribe had been the deadliest enemy of Islam, since times immemorial. What right this tribe had to gain power through means created by the religion of Islam?

Yes, if Bani Hashim had become Caliph or had been made Caliph, it would not have been against wisdom, because the Prophet belonged to this tribe and in his time, he was the ruler of the Arab world. It would not have been surprising if his progeny were made Caliph or ruler. Indeed, to keep Bani Hashim away from power and to give the same power to Bani Umayyah was the worst mistake of Saqifah.

Of course, Abu Bakr and Umar gave in to the wishes of Abu Sufyan because they were helpless. It is also true that if they had not furnished the means of pleasing Abu Sufyan, all that was achieved in Saqifah would have been destroyed. But if Ali (a.s.) had been in the place of Abu Bakr, he would not have supported Abu Sufyan for many reasons. To keep Bani Umayyah weak would have been in the best interest of Islam.

No doubt, Bani Umayyah had vied for equality with Bani Hashim but the Holy Prophet (S) had weakened them. Now to make them strong again was very harmful for the mission of the Prophet. If all the factors had been sidelined, and Ali (a.s.) had been made the Caliph, it would have been absolutely appropriate according to reason.

Ali (a.s.) was not an uneducated, incapable person and he never went around sowing seeds of discord. He was a brave and guided one and had his own opinion. He very well understood the affairs of the world and was expert in understanding people. He never had anything to do with diplomacy and deceit. But he well understood the deceit of other people. He was incomparable in forbearance and maturity. He was exceedingly courageous and compassionate. He was enriched with the wealth of contentment, had incomparable divine good sense for worship; he was truthful, stable minded and gentle in words. Though his praised qualities were same as those of the Great (Ulul Azm) prophets he has also been praised by Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). Who can dare to excel him in those qualities? According to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S), the remembrance of Ali (a.s.) is worship.2 The Holy Prophet (S) also said: “Decorate your gathering by the discussion of Ali.”3

Though this is an emphatic saying of the Holy Prophet (S), here the condition of the people is such that when they hear the praise of Ali (a.s.), their faces redden in fury. In many gatherings, it is even against wisdom to utter the name of Ali (a.s.). Anyway, if with the above merits, Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as Caliph, Caliphate would not have suffered from any lacunae or defect.

Apparently, if any mischief was to be expected, it was from Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had already subdued Bani Umayyah and after becoming the Caliph, Ali (a.s.) would not have allowed this tribe to gain fresh strength and in the whole of Islamic lands, there would have been nothing but unity among Muslims.

Not only Islam would have remained strong, its strength would have increased day by day. The rise of Bani Umayyah was effected due to internal strife, which led to the weakening of Arabs and at last, they had to face humiliation and at last Bani Umayyah were obliterated from the face of the earth.

The Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) would have bestowed unity to the Islamic nation. The progress of the nation would have remained in order. And the time and wealth that was spent in internal wars would have been put to some useful purpose. It is very regrettable that due to the deprivation of Ali (a.s.) from Caliphate, whatever worst that could have been expected, came to pass on the Arab kingdom.

The truth is that all the calamities that befell Muslims and Islam were rooted in the misdoings of Umar and Abu Bakr. Rather, it was especially due to Umar. Although Ali (a.s.), by his own efforts, restrained Bani Hashim from confronting the people of Saqifah, but the conflicts of the future could not be controlled. The condition was that the ‘Rightful Caliph’ sided with Bani Umayyah either due to fear or due to their attachment with them. Getting this opportunity, Bani Umayyah began to revitalize themselves.

Till the period of the first two Caliphs, this tribe had regained so much strength that no excuse remained for them to be suppressed by Bani Hashim. Though apparently they did not create any mischief against Bani Hashim during this period, when the period of Uthman arrived, this tribe made further progress. The third Caliph himself belonged to this tribe.

In his period, Bani Umayyah became so strong that if after this there was to be a Caliph from Bani Hashim in the future, Bani Umayyah would not be compelled to obey him. This is what happened when Ali (a.s.) was appointed as the Caliph and Muawiyah began to confront him.

The Battle of Jamal was through the instigation of Muawiyah alone. After that, Muawiyah came out openly in opposition to Ali (a.s.) and continued to be independent of Ali’s Caliphate. Then finally, Bani Hashim had to suffer the carnage of Karbala’. Thus, Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah were always at war. This uprising and war of Muhammad’s Progeny continued till the time of Bani Abbas.

In view of the writer, the destruction of Muhammad’s Progeny was not an insignificant matter. Though their opponents may be pleased at it, it is very painful spiritually for the followers of Muhammad’s Progeny. Here a question could be raised that when in the tenure of the Caliphate there were two powerful tribes of Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashim, and due to their mutual enmity, there was great danger of civil war, was it not a political necessity to subdue one of them? Thus, the Caliphate sided with Bani Umayyah and strove to destroy Bani Hashim.

Therefore, from the political point of view, the Caliphate could not be blamed for supporting Bani Umayyah. The reply to this objection is that though it was necessary to subdue one of these tribes, the suppression of Bani Hashim by the Caliphate was not correct due to some reasons. First of all, Bani Hashim was the tribe in which Ali (a.s.) was born and also because prophethood was in this tribe. They should have accorded more honor to this tribe instead of degrading it. Justice, religion and ethics demand only this.

Secondly, the Holy Prophet (S) was extremely hateful to Bani Umayyah. He was so infuriated with it that he used to curse this tribe.

Thirdly, after the efforts of ten years, the Holy Prophet (S) had weakened Bani Umayyah. The Caliphate should not have acted against the policy of the Prophet.

Fourthly, Bani Umayyah did not deserve any respect and honor from the Islamic government. They were the same who had exceedingly troubled the Holy Prophet (S) and were such deadly enemies of Islam, that not only did they hinder the progress of Islam in Mecca, they continued to make efforts to destroy Islam till Medina. The battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn were such that now Bani Umayyah had completely lost hope of wealth and power.

Fifthly, Bani Umayyah were absolutely wanton people. In the days of ignorance, as well as after accepting Islam, they had the same enmity towards Islam and Ali (a.s.). A simple example of this is that when the Holy Prophet (S) had before him the Battle of Hunayn, Abu Sufyan who had apparently become a Muslim and was also with the Holy Prophet (S) in the battlefield but since in reality this battle was also between the Holy Prophet (S) and Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan and his supporters just stood by and watched the fighting.

When the Muslim fighters were beheaded by the swords of Bani Umayyah, Abu Sufyan and his supporters used to laugh in joy. If Ali (a.s.) had not participated in this battle, the Holy Prophet (S) would surely have suffered defeat. This incident clearly shows what type of people Bani Umayyah were.

It is very astonishing how Caliphate presented Abu Sufyan, the governorship of Shaam. It is well known what type of a person Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan was. Deceit, falsehood, intrigue and bloodshed was his practice. Yazeed, the illustrious son of Muawiyah, was beyond praise!

In addition to the greatness of his grandfather and father, Yazeed had horses tied in the Holy Kaaba.4 Yazeed allowed homosexuality and incest etc. Marwan was also an excellent example of Bani Umayyah. In the same way, there are many personalities of this tribe whose detailed description is not possible here. In brief, all the misdeeds of Bani Umayyah are clear and obvious in the historical records of their age. It is not surprising that bigots consider Bani Umayyah to be praiseworthy. There is an Arabic saying: “If the eyes are pleased with someone all their defects are negligible.”

Sixthly, as Bani Umayyah were extremely bad character, in the same way, Bani Hashim were good natured and kind. Now the job was to suppress Bani Umayyah and promote Bani Hashim. But regretfully, Umar and the Rightful Caliphate acted against Bani Hashim, but they were not so weak that Bani Umayyah’s empowerment would have immediately wiped them out. The weakening of Bani Hashim was possible. Just as was clear from the actions of Righteous Caliphate, but it was not possible to wipe them out.

This is what actually happened. For a long period, Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyah continued to fight each other, but when Bani Hashim could not be wiped out easily, the causes of internal strife remained intact, through which the nation had to suffer many losses, economical as well as in terms of human lives. There seem to be two causes of the help and assistance to Bani Umayyah from the side of Umar and the Righteous Caliphate.

Firstly, the Righteous Caliphate saw it as necessary that Bani Umayyah should be kept happy. There is a Persian saying that ‘feed the dog to keep it happy’. On this principle, they were given the rule of Shaam. The fact is that Bani Umayyah was a tribe, which had exceeding greed for wealth and power. They had no aim except to gain worldly benefits. They had nothing to do with religion. They had absolutely no regard or respect for Islam. The chief of this tribe, Abu Sufyan, had apparently become a Muslim due to compulsion. When he saw that there was no gain in remaining an infidel, he accepted Islam.

When the Holy Prophet (S) passed away, Abu Sufyan decided to cash upon the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S). He saw nothing gainful in the happening of Saqifah. So he could not do anything but come to Ali (a.s.) and said that “the matter of Caliphate has been decided and you have been deprived of your right. If you say, I will fill the land of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy this Caliphate of ‘election’.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), on the basis of the factors already mentioned before, became infuriated at Abu Sufyan and said: “O Abu Sufyan! You created mischief when you were infidel and now that you have accepted Islam, your mischief mongering is still there.”

After getting this reply, Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said, “You people have got hold of Caliphate and we have not got any benefit from it. If you don’t provide us with something, we will destroy the Caliphate.” Umar and Abu Bakr realized that though Bani Umayyah had weakened by the action taken against it by the Holy Prophet (S) now if they are not heeded, they will start their harmful activities against Caliphate and it would not survive. After pondering on this matter, Umar and Abu Bakr asked Abu Sufyan that if he is given a share in Caliphate, would he still oppose it?

Abu Sufyan had nothing to do with Ali (a.s.) or Umar and Abu Bakr. He had only his benefit in mind. The governorship of Shaam was given to him in a platter and now it made no difference whether the decision of Saqifah was good or bad. It is clear that this gift of governorship from Caliphate was due to compulsion. Umar and Abu Bakr had to somehow dispel the danger and they finally achieved this. The fact is that Umar and Abu Bakr were helpless in comparison to Abu Sufyan.

What else could they have done? Abu Sufyan was the chief of a great clan. It would not have been much difficult for Abu Sufyan to shake the Caliphate of ‘election’ (Ijma). Abu Bakr was not from a tribe of any distinction. He did not have any trust on his clan. Umar also did not rely on his tribesmen. The Bani Hashim were already in consternation at the happenings of Saqifah. In such conditions, how else could Umar and Abu Bakr save the Caliphate?

Secondly, Umar and Abu Bakr were not feeling safe from Bani Hashim. Both of them knew that Ali (a.s.) will not take any strict measures against Caliphate. But it was clear that Ali (a.s.) was not satisfied by the decision of Saqifah. And along with this, was the certainty that Bani Hashim were nursing a grudge. If Ali (a.s.) had not restrained them, every member of Bani Hashim tribe would have taken up arms. In such circumstances, what else could Umar and Abu Bakr have done? Whether it was due to political exigency or due to the love of Caliphate seat.

In brief, due to these two compulsions, Umar and Abu Bakr accorded respect and acquiesced Bani Umayyah. And the truth is that one mistake begets thousands. How sad that one mistake of Saqifah had wreaked havoc in the world of Islam and till now, Muslims are suffering its consequences. If they don’t reform their conditions, they would continue to suffer till Judgment Day. Now the equitable people are free to take whatever decision they like on the tragedy of Karbala’ while keeping in mind the above discussion.

Apparently, in the history of Arabs, there is no event of such significance and the causes of this event were such that any historian having an unbiased mind, can derive many useful conclusions from it. In the view of the intelligent people, the seed of this tragedy was the saying of Umar: “The Book of Allah is with us.”

The immediate result of this was the ‘election’ of Saqifah and the tree of Caliphate took root. And among the various fruits of this tree was the tragedy of Karbala’. It is not stated from the religious point of view. Rather, the fact is that those who view the history of nations with an unbiased eye, have no recourse except to conclude that this tragedy was nothing but the political consequence of the upheavals that started immediately after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

- 1. Quran 76:1 and 76:6

- 2. Sawaiqul Mohreqa

- 3. Refer to the Biography of Ali (a.s.) by Maulana Amritsari.

- 4. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa of Suyuti.

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in the View of Ali

Although Ali (a.s.) did not oppose the Caliphate of Abu Bakr by taking up arms and by which the Bani Hashim family also remained quiet, neither Ali (a.s.) was pleased with this Caliphate nor Bani Hashim. The dissatisfaction of Ali (a.s.) is clear from his sermon in Nahjul Balagha. Ibn Abil Hadid, a well- known scholastic theologian and scholar of Ahlul Sunnat, who was not from Shia sect, has written the commentary of this sermon.

Which educated person is unfamiliar with the Shiqshiqya Sermon and its commentators? A few statements of the sermon are presented below:

“Beware! By Allah! The son of Abu Qahafa (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the Caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it is the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The floodwater flows down from me and the bird cannot fly up to me. I put a curtain against the Caliphate and kept myself detached from it. Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulation, wherein the grown up are feebled and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain, till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throats. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way.”

Indeed, the above words are insignificant for others; but for the followers of Ali (a.s.), they have in store, innumerable causes of sorrow. Apparently, it seems from the above statements that Ali (a.s.) considered the Caliphate of Abu Bakr forcible and illegal, and he considered himself absolutely fit for Caliphate. But keeping in mind the exigencies of the time, he did not confront Abu Bakr.

He remained patient. In his words, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was painful for him, while he considered it a right of his, inherited from the Holy Prophet (S). Those who consider Ali (a.s.) true, may decide for themselves how the above statements are. And what effect they have on our feelings? The writer has no intention of misleading the people. The Almighty Allah has bestowed human beings with bounties of sight, hearing and intellect. If in spite of these favors, one remains deaf and mute, the Almighty is not to be blamed. The person himself is responsible if he does not prefer to derive any benefits from them.

Value Of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

It should be clear that according to the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat that are expounded in the books of Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim, Aqaid Nasafi, Sharh Aqaid Jalali and Sharh Nahdi, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was not due to the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S), it was at a result of the selection by people. Thus, it could not be said to be from Allah. It was from the side of people. Those Ahlul Sunnat, who consider it to be in keeping with divine appointment, are living in a misunderstanding. Thus, it is not proper to consider Abu Bakr as the Caliph of the prophet, because the people had selected him.

In Sharh Aqaide Nasafi1, it is written that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat regarding Caliphate and Imamate is that for it to be valid it is necessary that all the people should have consensus on Caliphate. Then there is election; that it is for people to select an Imam and not Allah according to Quran and tradition, because the Holy Prophet (S) said that one who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies a death of disbelief. Due to this, after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) considered it the most important duty to select an Imam. They considered the appointment of Imam to be more important than even the burial of the Holy Prophet (S).

Readers! Please note! One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of infidelity. This only implies that the recognition of the Imam is obligatory and not the selection of an Imam. In such a condition, by giving preference to the selection of Imam over the burial of Prophet, the people committed two sins. One is that Abu Bakr and the other participants of Saqifah Bani Sadah were deprived of the rewards of participating in the burial of the Holy Prophet (S). Secondly, the selection of the Imam was itself an innovation. There is no doubt that innovation is deviation. The selection of Imam was an innovation because there is no proof of selection of Imam from Quran and tradition.

If it had been an obligatory duty, the Almighty would have informed about it and the Holy Prophet (S) would also have mentioned that ‘after me you may undertake election and select anyone as my successor.’ In the same way, the selection of Imam is also an illogical act because sometimes reason earns rewards and sometimes it becomes eligible for punishment. Therefore, the Almighty Allah refrained people to use reason where there was no Quranic verse or tradition regarding something.

“O Muhammad! Therefore, do not follow (your) conjectures…” 2

Thus, if such a command is for the Prophet, how can the people be allowed to use their opinion for formulation of religious laws. Allah also says:

“Surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.” 3

In other words, from the aspect of both religious text (Nass) and reason, the selection of Imam was an innovation committed by the people of Saqifah and it informs us of their deviation. Now, we have to see whether anyone can be selected by ‘election’ for the post of Prophet or Caliph of Prophet. It is well- known that since the time of Adam (a.s.), till the Holy Prophet (S) there has never been a single instance when a prophet or the Caliph of a prophet was selected by the ‘election’ of people.

Prophets and Caliphs were always appointed by Allah. The Almighty Allah made Adam (a.s.) a prophet as well as His Caliph. In the same way, the Almighty Allah made Dawood (a.s.) His Prophet and also appointed him as His Caliph. This proves that prophethood is from Allah and not from the people.

The appointment of Abu Bakr by the people was a sort of innovation and a new system. It was a pity that the Caliph of the greatest Prophet should neither be appointed by the Prophet himself nor by Allah, and that he should be selected by a group of people that did not even deserve to be called a perfect group. That is some people should gather and select him as the Caliph in a casual way.

If there had to be a real consensus for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, if not from all the lands of Islam, at least the leaders of various Arab tribes who had embraced Islam should have been invited. Here the position was, that leave alone the tribes of other than Medina, even the tribe of Bani Hashim, which resided in Medina, was not informed, while it was also related to the Holy Prophet (S).

Umar hurriedly called for the hand of Abu Bakr and an instant ‘marriage’ was performed, thus making him the Caliph. Many companions also did not participate in this ‘election’. For example Zubair, Utbah, Khalid, Miqdad, Salman, Abu Dharr, Baraa and Ubayy, who were having some inclination to Ali (a.s.). By studying all the events, we realize that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was neither from the side of Allah nor was it absolutely from the side of people. No one in his proper sense could call this defective Ijma ‘an election’.

Evidently, it seems that if with this haste, Umar had not made Abu Bakr the Caliph, and he had initiated a proper system of election, it would not have been possible for Abu Bakr to become the Caliph so easily. In the end, it is my humble statement that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat that the Holy Prophet (S) had not appointed anyone as his successor is an invalid assertion. The truth is that by the command of Allah, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) his Caliph, practically and by his statements.

But his selfish community (Ummah) rejected his choice. Though apparently the choice was of the Holy Prophet (S), actually it was that of the Almighty. There can be no doubt in its validity. Ali (a.s.) was indeed such a great person that he had no equal in the Ummah of the Prophet and his selection as a Caliph carried many advantages, as mentioned by the writer in the foregoing pages. We should know that the Prophet and Allah dictate the affair of Caliphate. The ‘election’ (Ijma) of Ummah cannot interfere in it. As we see in these words of Allah:

“And set out to them an example of the people of the town, when the messenger came to it. When We sent to them two, they rejected both of them, then We strengthened (them) with a third, so they said: Surely we are messengers to you.” 4

The incident is that Isa (a.s.) sent two of his Caliphs or representative to Antioch but the people denied them both. Then the two were helped by a third representative. In this verse, the Almighty has mentioned the act of Isa (a.s.) as His own act and says: “We sent…”

Indeed, this verse clearly proves that Caliphate or representation of Prophet cannot be by anyway, except by the Prophet or Almighty Allah. Rather, this verse also proves that even a prophet is not allowed to appoint his Caliph. He has to take permission of Allah. He mentions in Surah Taha:

“And give to me an aider from my family: Haroon my brother, strengthen my back by him, and associate him (with me) in my affair.” 5

This proves that Moosa (a.s.) requested Allah to appoint Haroon as his vizier. This proves that if a Caliph could be appointed by the people, what was the need of Moosa (a.s.) to pray to Allah for this? After the acceptance of this prayer, we learn that Moosa (a.s.) told his brother: You are my Caliph for my people after me.

“And Moosa said to his brother Haroon: Take my place among my people…” 6

If Moosa (a.s.) did not value the permission of Allah, he would have appointed Haroon his Caliph or he would have gone to meet the Lord without appointing anyone as his Caliph and the Bani Israel could have appointed a Caliph of their own choice. Regarding the appointment of Haroon (a.s.) as the Caliph, the Almighty says in Surah Furqan:

“And We appointed with him his brother, Haroon an aider.” 7

This clearly shows that only Allah has the authority to appoint the Caliph or representative of a prophet. No prophet has the right to select anyone as his Caliph or representative. May Allah be merciful on the nation (Ummah) which appointed Abu Bakr as the Caliph after the Prophet and they did not try to see the choice of Prophet and Allah. The establishment of belief by these people that Allah and the Prophet had not appointed anyone as Caliph is very astonishing. Reason cannot accept it. That the Caliphs of the previous prophets be appointed by Allah by special arrangements and the Prophet’s Ummah be not given any Caliph and it should be left like cattle to select its own Caliph.

Indeed, this Ummah has more importance in comparison to the past nations. To get such careless treatment by Allah is against reason. Indeed, Allah and the Prophet appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph on Muslims, as clear from the event of Ghadeer Khumm. But the world-seeking people preferred the bounty of the world to the bounties of the Hereafter and did not accept Ali (a.s.) the Caliph.

In brief, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr cannot be in anyway from the side of Allah. It also seems to be deficient in being referred to as being from the people. When the Caliphate of Abu Bakr is such, the Caliphate of Umar cannot have any value, whatsoever. That is, his Caliphate is from such a Caliph who himself was not a Caliph from Allah, and it was even doubtful, if he could be called from the people.

Thus, the Caliphate of Umar was itself baseless. From this aspect, he was only the Caliph of Abu Bakr. To think that he was from the Messenger of Allah (S) is wrong. The tradition itself that “the thirty years…” is the period of the Righteous Caliphate is a concocted tradition. If the tradition is really from the Prophet, the total period of four Caliphates had reached 30 years. But this period of 30 years is not complete even after adding the six months of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.). Indeed, this tradition is fabricated and it was most probably fabricated so that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs should be said to have been acceptable to the Holy Prophet (S) and thus should be accepted as the Righteous Caliphates.

- 1. Pg. 94

- 2. Surah Nisa 4:135

- 3. Surah Najm 53:28

- 4. Surah Yasin 36:13-14

- 5. Surah Taha 20:29-32

- 6. Surah Araaf 7:142

- 7. Surah Furqan 25:35

Caliphate From People Or Caliphate From Allah

The writer has already shown the political necessity of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), according to which, if Ali (a.s.) had been appointed a Caliph after the Holy Prophet (S), his Caliphate would have been from the people. Just as the Caliphates of the three Caliphs is considered to be from the people, by Ahlul Sunnat. However, it is not the religious belief of the writer and Shias that Ali (a.s.) should have been the Caliph due to political exigency.

The religious belief of the Imamites is that Ali (a.s.) is the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) by the leave of Allah. His appointment as Caliph was not in need of selection by people. It was only Allah that had made him the successor of His Prophet in the world and in the religious sphere. It is a link of the complete series of spiritual Caliphate and Imamate. The material factors are in no way allowed to interfere in it.

A Close Look At The Present Situation Of The World

On this point, the writer advises that a rational person should look with a critical mind, anything that is related to religion, politics and poetry or any other art. He must not be biased or bigoted. For if he sees the world through these eyes, he would not able to see the truth. There are very few truth-loving people in the world. Such are very few who could form an independent opinion. Most of the people can only follow blindly. The results of blind following does not need to be mentioned. The duty of man is to always try to unravel the truth.

First, he must work hard to do research and only then should he form an opinion. But those who look for truth and those who seek the truth and those who see the truth are very less in the world. Most of the people are such that they form an opinion without investigation and begin to act on it. Such people cannot form an opinion based on research. If their companion says that in China the crows are white, they would believe it without going to China or confirming it with a native of China or from a book of natural science. This is the condition of common people. They could not be expected to carry out independent research.

It is on this basis that the writer has no hope that this book will become very much popular. Since the writing is not aimed at common people, it is not expected that except for people of discerning minds, anyone else will like it. This book does not contain things that are required for popularity. First of all, it is not printed in colored ink. Secondly, the results of the research are not the same as the views held by common people. Thirdly, this book is different from Asian taste.

Fourthly, this book is filled with discussions of Muhammad’s Progeny. Apparently, it is not a taste of the Islamic world of this country that the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny should be propagated freely and that they should be seen in a wise way. Indeed, this book is not written keeping in mind the conditions of the present age. It is not to please any ruler, any wealthy person or a particular sect. The only aim of this book is public good. The writer does not expect any monetary benefit. He only intends to express the truth. By the praise of Allah, till date, the writing of this book has continued in the path of expressing the truth.

Obviously, the writer has no worldly greed through it that he should have deviated from the straight path. Selfishness and bigotry have never been allowed any scope therein. And why should he have deviated from the path of truth, while he had no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone or to usurp the rights of others. He considers all such things to be degrading. When the writer of this book had no desire for fame and greed for wealth or intention for gaining honor, why he should have taken up such freedoms. Anyone, who is needless of the world and the people and not dependant upon any government or authority, if even such a person cannot write the truth, only Allah can help him. Obviously, such a person would not be eligible for Divine Mercy.

Caliphate Of The Prophet In The View Of The Two Sects

It should be clear that the religious differences between Shia and Sunni are not that their twelve Caliphs are different. Rather, it is that Ahlul Sunnat consider their Caliphs to be appointed by people, while Shias consider that vicegerency of the Holy Prophet (S) could never be from people. It has to be from Allah. This difference clearly shows that Caliphate from the side of the people is something, which has no interference of divine revelation and neither is infallibility a requirement of it.

On the other hand, Caliphate from the side of Allah is a spiritual affair, which could not be possible without Allah’s permission. Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate same as selection of Presidents in democratic governments. No one can say that the Presidents of America, Europe and France have been appointed by divine revelation. Everyone knows that the appointment of such people is from the public. On the basis of this, Ahlul Sunnat consider the Caliphate of their Twelve Caliphs to be based on election or consultation or force, and consider it valid for these reasons. Obviously, all these conditions have no spiritual aspect.

In brief, Ahlul Sunnat regard Caliphate in a way that when the Prophet passed away from the world, Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus. When he passed away, he nominated Umar as his successor and when Umar was on his deathbed, he left Caliphate at the discretion of Consultative Committee (Shura).

Uthman was appointed as Caliph through Shura Committee. It is not clear from any Sunni book, by which principle Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph. Anyway, when it was the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate, he became the rightful Caliph by obtaining it through force.

Obviously, it is an unscrupulous method of Caliphate, so there could not any basis for it in revelation. Therefore, we should know that the Caliphate from the side of the people is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat in particular. And due to this belief, many scholars of the sect, like Allamah Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Allamah Ibn Hajar, author of Fathul Bari and Imam Razi, the writer of Nihayatul Uqool etc. do not believe that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs or other Caliphs are based on Quranic or traditional injunctions.

But there are some Sunni scholars who are not completely satisfied with this mundane way of selecting the Caliph. And even in the people of that time, there was no Sunni who could prefer to consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr an independent result of consensus. The writer has tried his best to find out the beliefs of contemporary Sunni scholars and the result that he has obtained is that they all consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be in the way as Shias believe in the divine sanction of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.).

Now the matter to be investigated is, is there any Quranic verse or prophetic tradition, according to which Abu Bakr or the Caliphs after him attained their posts? These Sunni scholars have tried to prove the Caliphate of Abu Bakr with the help of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions and Shias have refuted these dissertations. There is no scope in this book to discuss the arguments of the two sects. Its aim is centered around the tragedy of Karbala’.

This book has no relation to the arguments whether the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was right or not? The writer just had to show the relationship of this Caliphate with the tragedy of Karbala’, and this relationship has already been explained. The writer has not argued with all the traditions and verses that Ahlul Sunnat use to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, but he will only discuss two verses in the following pages. One of the verses is considered by Ahlul Sunnat to be particularly the proof of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and the second verse supports the Caliphate of the Rightful Caliphs. The readers are requested to study these verses and see if these verses in any way prove the Caliphate of the Caliphs?

Verse Of The Cave

Ahlul Sunnat present the verse of the cave to support the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The complete verse is as follows:

“If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see…” 1

Ahlul Sunnat people prove various merits of Abu Bakr from this verse. Even the Caliphate and rulership of Abu Bakr could be derived from this verse. The Imamites say that leave alone Caliphate, it does not prove any special quality of Abu Bakr. Rather, it seems to be just the opposite. To know the truth, we shall study the parts of this verse, there are many portions of this verse that are points of contention.

First of all is ‘Thani Ithnain’ (the second of the two), secondly, ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion), thirdly, ‘Laa Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us), fourthly, ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (tranquility upon him). Below, we shall discuss each of these portions in detail. First of all, regarding: “The second of the two”, Ahlul Sunnat say that the second of the two is Abu Bakr who is the second person after the Messenger of Allah (S) who is nominated for the fulfillment of religious responsibility after the Holy Prophet (S).

The Imamites say that the second of the two denotes the Holy Prophet (S) himself and not Abu Bakr and there is no indication of conferment of religious authority in the verse. The Almighty is complaining about those people who are not helpful to his Prophet (S). They are such that either they avoid Jihad or flee from the battlefield, instead of sacrificing their life. Abu Bakr himself was one of those who had fled the battlefield. Or there were such people, who could not help the Prophet in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn and they left him and ran away. Then the meaning of “second of the two” and the “third of the three” is “one of the two” and “one of the three.” Here the “second of the two” is that same “one of the two” who was one of the two people in the cave and who was comforting the other.

Apparently, this comforting one was the Holy Prophet (S) and not Abu Bakr. This portion of the verse in no way proves the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and it has no relation to Caliphate or rulership. Although there is no cure for religious obstinacy.

Second: ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion): Ahlul Sunnat say that ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion) has proved the companionship of Abu Bakr. The Imamites do not deny the companionship of Abu Bakr, but they say that companionship on its own is not something that deserves to be praised, if there is absence of belief or faith. Only that companion of the Holy Prophet (S) is deserving of honor, who has faith; and mere companionship is of no use.

What is the use of such a companion, who is denounced in the words of Allah? As Allah mentions about those companions who avoided Jihad or who were the first to flee the battle, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in danger. Apparently, this verse does not even mention those characteristics of companionship that are generally accepted by the people. Here, companion means one who was with the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, that is Abu Bakr. This is the apparent meaning of that companion. Apart from this, the Arabic word of Sahab is not a word whose use is limited to special people. It can be used for ordinary people also, as mentioned in Surah Yusuf:

“O my two mates of the prison! Are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme?” 2

It is used for people who had no sort of worldly or religious power. The Arabic word of Sahab does not prove any merit for Abu Bakr.

Thirdly: ‘La Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us): Ahlul Sunnat say that these words prove that the Messenger of Allah (S) comforted Abu Bakr and made him his partner in receiving Allah’s help and peace. The Imamiyah say that these words do not indicate any merit for Abu Bakr or anyone else. The condition is that Abu Bakr did not give up his native place for helping the Prophet or the religion of Islam.

When he left Mecca with the Holy Prophet (S) in order to escape the enemies, the Holy Prophet (S) took refuge in a cave and Abu Bakr also entered the cave. But Abu Bakr was so nervous in the cave that he started weeping in fear of the enemies. The Holy Prophet (S) comforted him and asked why he was weeping? But despite this, he did not stop crying. Obviously, in such a condition, while the Holy Prophet (S) was inside a dark cave to escape the enemies, it was very much necessary that they should be quiet and peaceful. This untimely crying would have given them away, because the enemies had come out to search for the Holy Prophet (S).

It is surprising that when Saraqa reached the mouth of the cave, the weeping of Abu Bakr did not stop. If that enemy of Islam had entered the cave, Abu Bakr would hardly have been able to defend the Holy Prophet (S), keeping in mind that he was already crying in fear. The Holy Prophet (S) would have had to fight a duel with that enemy of Islam alone. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) comforted such a chicken-hearted companion in the words:

“Do not grieve, certainly Allah is with us.”

So what is the merit of such a companion? Rather, it certainly indicates that the companion of the Holy Prophet (S), in spite of knowing that the Almighty will not allow His Prophet to be killed at the hands of infidels, had no faith in Allah.

We should know that as with ‘La Tahzan’ (Do not grieve…), Ahlul Sunnat prove many merits of Abu Bakr by the words ‘Inallaha Maana’ (certainly Allah is with us). They show many types of companionships with ‘Maana’ (with us).

Truly, priesthood (Maulviyat) is a strange thing. Sometimes they decorate their speeches to say that the companionship was of help and assistance and sometimes it was companionship in knowledge. In the end, they also show that the words of the Prophet prove the companionship of Allah with Abu Bakr. The Imamites say these are all wordplays. Actually, it is nothing worthy of mention that could prove any merit of Abu Bakr. The Holy Prophet (S) was comforting him not to be sorrowful, Allah is their helper and aider. ‘You think that enemies have arrived and who is it that will help you? Do not be aggrieved Allah is our helper and friend.’

The Imamites also refute Ahlul Sunnat saying, that here the Prophet has said ‘Maana’ (with us) denoting ‘Maaii’ (with me) and it is a style in Arabic to speak in plural form. In the Urdu language too, instead of singular, we speak in plurals. Thus instead of ‘I’ we say ‘We’. Is it necessary that ‘Maana’ (with us) should be considered ‘Maaii’ (with me)? The clear thing is that just as Allah was with the Holy Prophet (S), He was also with Abu Bakr and was with every creature; He was and He shall remain to be so. Thus, what merit could anyone have in this type of companionship?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said ‘Maana’ (with us). This does not prove any merit of people, rather it proves the quality of Allah that He is with everyone. In my view, Shias are not required to say that ‘Maana’ (with us) is used in place of ‘Maaii’ (with me).

A Shia scholar says that if Ahlul Sunnat say regarding ‘Maana’ (with us) that we do not like to use plural instead of singular and it is necessary that instead of one, two people must be included in it, we shall say that the second person is Ali (a.s.). That when the Holy Prophet (S) asked Abu Bakr why he was weeping, as Shah Waliullah writes in Izalatul Khifa that Abu Bakr said: “I am not crying for myself. I am crying for Ali (a.s.). That he must have been killed and I am crying for you that soon you will be martyred.”

Then the Holy Prophet (S) said Allah is with both of us. This means that “Allah is the helper of me and Ali (a.s.).” On this point, both the scholars of Shia and Sunni have indulged in word play. The reply of each sect is as per the objection of every sect. On top of this is the statement of Shah Waliullah. Now I ask: O Imamites! What did you lose if ‘Maana’ (with us) includes Abu Bakr? Indeed, Abu Bakr was included in this ‘Maana’(with us). And if there had been a third, even an infidels, he would also have been included in this ‘Maana’ (with us). And Ahlul Sunnat are requested to consider what merit is obvious from the fact if Abu Bakr was indeed included in this?

The fact is that those who indulge in religious argumentation are distanced from nature, which is why they are prone to such unnatural views. Here, the arguments of the two sects are mere arguments. It is astonishing that a scholar of the caliber of Shah Waliullah should write such weak statements, as mentioned above. No sane person will give importance and consider true, such imaginative affairs. Such a person would consider the writing of Shah Waliullah to be unreliable and away from truth.

It is surprising that the Holy Prophet (S) did not weep for Ali (a.s.) in the cave, while it was Abu Bakr who wept. The condition of Abu Bakr himself was so tense that it seems unlikely he would worry about Ali (a.s.) and weep for him. Indeed, the cause of this weeping was the weak-heartedness of Abu Bakr. The truth is that he never wept for anyone. If the statement of Shah Waliullah is that he wept for Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S), it is an ignorant action. Fear is a natural feeling. Very few people could be said to possess bravery. Thus, one who is not made brave, cannot be blamed for cowardice.

I also do not agree with the claim of Imamite writers, who say that Abu Bakr was weeping and wailing, so that enemies may learn of their presence and enter the cave. In my view, Abu Bakr never wailed for this purpose. He had entered the cave with utmost sincerity. He started crying when faced with this difficulty. It cannot be construed that Abu Bakr desired that the Holy Prophet (S) should be caught. Abu Bakr stood to gain more if the Holy Prophet (S) remained safe and sound. He was not a wealthy person nor his tribe had any superiority. He had taken up companionship of the Prophet only because through this, he would gain monetary progress.

Thus, by living in Medina, and through trade and war booty, his economical conditions improved till the time that after the Holy Prophet (S) he also became the ruler of Muslims. Abu Bakr was a very clever person. He could never desire Prophet’s death, while he was with him in the cave. Shah Waliullah agrees that the weeping of Abu Bakr was due to fear and fear is rooted in a weak heart.

Thus, this action of Abu Bakr is not deserving of any praise. In such a delicate moment, though it was indeed harmful for the Holy Prophet (S) if one wept loudly, but it was also against wisdom to weep quietly. In such a situation, it is the duty of every companion to reassure each other, rather than creating nervousness. But this incident shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was a very stable minded and a valiant person. That he kept his emotions intact in such perilous circumstances and even comforted Abu Bakr. In brief, what merit does this verse shows of Abu Bakr? Except for Ahlul Sunnat, no one has become cognizant of any such points.

Fourthly: From the words ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (Allah sent down His tranquility upon him) Ahlul Sunnat show that the Almighty sent peace on Abu Bakr and this informs us of the high status of Abu Bakr. Imamites say that peace was sent by Allah on His respected Prophet. That in such a serious situation, when his companion had started weeping due to fear, it was necessary for the companion to console his counterpart.

The Almighty Allah sent peace on the Prophet (S) and helped Him with armies invisible to the human eye. People of justice may see whether the relation of this peace is with the Prophet or Abu Bakr. It is well-known that the verse refers to peace on the Holy Prophet (S). It seems from the life history of Abu Bakr that apart from that cave he never had peace of mind. It seems irrational that one should be given peace of Allah and that he should leave the Prophet and flee from the battlefield, or when he goes for Jihad, he could not face the infidels due to the weakness of heart.

In such a situation, he should always have trusted Allah and he should have faced the enemies of Allah in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn. But when he had never got that peace of heart, how he could be considered recipient of Allah’s peace in the cave or anywhere else? Truth-loving people may weigh this reply of Shias in the balance of justice and the writer does not wish to express any opinion.

It should be clear that some Ahlul Sunnat people turn the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards Abu Bakr. Nawab Maulavi Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan, the writer of Ayate Bayyinat, and some other non-famous scholars also do it. But the greatest exegesists of Ahlul Sunnat clearly apply the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards the Messenger of Allah (S), from which the Holy Prophet (S) becomes the recipient of the peace of Allah.

Indeed, the Almighty also intended this, but priesthood is a strange thing! They always try to use the play of words in debates and discussions, even though the incident may be murdered at the altar of argumentation, but they will not change their stance. Debate means that two groups take part in a discussion and arrive at a conclusion regarding something. When it is so, what is achieved by useless contests? Now, people of justice should see that if the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) is turned towards, Abu Bakr, what sort of grammatical blunder is committed.

All the pronouns in this verse are applicable to the Holy Prophet (S), in between, one pronoun is construed to be for Abu Bakr. Then the pronoun after this, that is ‘Ayyadahoo’ (strengthened him) is for the Holy Prophet (S). Is there any sense in it? No, but priesthood is always indulging in such nonsense. We should see that by turning the pronoun to Abu Bakr, the beauty of the language of the Quran is lost. In brief, the verse of the cave is not related to the Caliphate or rulership of Abu Bakr or anyone else, and it is not in praise of anyone.

The meaning of the verse is just that Allah says: “O enemies of Islam! If you don’t help My Prophet, Allah helps him. He was even helped when infidels expelled him from his home and he took refuge in a cave. At that time, there were two people; he himself and his companion who was weeping and wailing.

In such a condition, the Prophet comforted him that Allah was with them. Then Allah sent peace on His Prophet and helped him with an army of angels.” This is all there is to it. But the interpretations that have deformed this verse, do not require a mention. The people of justice may themselves compare truth with untruth. We also present two additional points that are found in this incident:

First of all, even if we agree that Abu Bakr bravely accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, even then when this companionship is compared to the action of Ali (a.s.) for sleeping on the bed of the Prophet, we realize that Ali’s action was more a feat of bravery than the companionship of Abu Bakr, because Ali (a.s.) slept fearlessly on the bed of the Holy Prophet (S). The natural bravery of Ali has no equal. He was a stable and a brave personality. It was the job of a loyal, Allah-knowing and religious person that Ali (a.s.) performed. Such a thing cannot be thought about Abu Bakr’s presence in the cave.

Despite this, Abu Bakr is given precedence over Ali (a.s.) and is said to be deserving of the Prophet’s successorship. It is a strange world where there is no justice! If there is justice, it is with Allah or it would be Judgment Day. In my view, it behoves a Muslim not to forgo justice. How can a bigot be a Muslim? The presence of Abu Bakr in no way makes him superior to Ali (a.s.).

But what would the people of justice say to that the Prophet said ‘La Tahzan’ (do not grieve): That clearly shows the dissatisfaction of Prophet (S) over an action of Abu Bakr. In such a situation, is Abu Bakr not proved to be inferior? Then to prefer Abu Bakr because of this, is very far from justice. Only Allah knows what this blind love for Abu Bakr will earn for Ahlul Sunnat in the hereafter? It is a strange unjust love that Quran, tradition, reason and understanding, all are murdered for it.

(2) Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes that Abu Bakr was the bravest companion. If Suyuti had just referred to Abu Bakr, it would have been something else, but to say that he was the bravest companion is an astonishing statement. Over and above, he relates a tradition of Ali (a.s.) to say that Abu Bakr was the bravest of men. That is Abu Bakr was not only braver than Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, he was the bravest among all the people. The action of Suyuti to call Abu Bakr the bravest of the people in the words of Ali has brought out two evils: one is that Abu Bakr, who was not even an ordinary brave, is said to be the bravest.

Secondly, Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S) who were brave in their own right, were rendered inferior. It is clear from the incident of cave that of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr, who was braver? In the same way, it is crystal clear from the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn, how brave Abu Bakr was. Who deserves to be called braver, Abu Bakr or Ali? Till now the writer has not come to know from Quran, tradition, history, etc. how Abu Bakr was the bravest of the companions or bravest of the people. The incident of cave tells of no kind of bravery.

In fact, Abu Bakr had no experience of battles or war. But he had good experience of business. He used to go to the markets of Medina everyday and make a lot of money. It is not necessary that everyone must be a soldier. Providence neither made Abu Bakr a soldier nor Umar; both these gentlemen had different qualities. Just as Abu Bakr had business acumen, Umar was having a political mind. That is why, in the battles of the Prophet, these two gentlemen had no achievements worthy of mention. Those who fought in these battles were Ali (a.s.), other Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The sword of Ali (a.s.) performed great feats that are mentioned in the books of poetry and history.

If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established in Medina. The fact is that though anyone could be considered bravest, the quality of bravery was perfect only in Ali (a.s.). It is surprising that a scholar like Suyuti should also write such baseless things that are absolutely impossible.

Another inappropriate statement of Suyuti is that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions and the most pure. Indeed, this is only applicable to Ali (a.s.) and none else. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr was more knowledgeable than Umar and cleaner. In brief, we could say that bigotry is the enemy of faith. May Allah give good sense to people to speak and love the truth. Without recognizing the truth, man cannot achieve salvation in the world and the hereafter.

- 1. Surah Taubah 9:40

- 2. Surah Yusuf 12:39

A Glance At The Verse Of “Wallazeena Ma-Ahu” (And Those With Him)

Let it be understood that we have, from the verse of the Cave, shown above, that it does not prove any kind of praise or Caliphate or emirate of Abu Bakr or of any other person. Now we invite the attention of the readers to a verse, which is being loudly used as proof of the serial order of Caliphate of the four Caliphs. It is:

“Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces, because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.” 1

Supporters of Righteous Caliphate (Khilafate Rashida) say that, in this verse, ‘those with him’ means Abu Bakr, ‘firm of heart against the unbelievers’, means Umar, ‘compassionate among themselves’, means Uthman and ‘bowing down, prostrating themselves’, means His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and that the Caliphate too has come to be established in the same order.

The truth is that this statement can deceive only ignorant people. So we find thousands of Muslims who have been deceived by it. May Allah grant them the ability to see the truth. O justice loving gentlemen, this verse is very clear. Neither unknown words have been used in it, nor its grammatical construction is so complex that it be difficult to understand.

The only purport of this verse is that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and the specialty of his companions is that they are ‘firm of heart…’ etc. till the end of the verse. And doubtlessly, the companions of the Holy Prophet (S), whose hearts were clean of polytheism and hypocrisy and who were truly faithful, did have these virtues as mentioned by the Almighty Allah in this verse. This verse never conveys that such and someone was ‘compassionate…’ that somebody was an frequent bower and prostrator upto the end.

Rather, this verse gives a true picture of the true companions of the Holy Prophet (S), which brings before all, their true appearance. But, alas; instead of leaving aside the simple and plain meaning of this verse, Shah Waliullah in Izalatul Khifa, with reference to Ibn Abbas, says that “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ‘and those with him’ is Abu Bakr and ‘you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves’ is for Ali (a.s.), ‘seeking grace from Allah and pleasure’ are Talha and Zubair, ‘their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration’ are Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas and Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah.”

O just gentlemen! Can there be any answer to such nonsense? How pitiful that a scholar like Shah Waliullah can say such meaningless thing and include such weak matter in his books and allow its publication. Had such a thing been written by any non-scholar, it would have been taken as ignorance and readers would have taken no notice of it. But the appearance of such words from the pen of a great scholar, clearly shows that prejudice is a great calamity. Prejudice turns even the greatest scholar into an ignorant man.

While writing such things, Shah Waliullah did not think how meaningless things are being jotted down and, worse than that, the author takes its proof from Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abbas was a learned man who had obtained knowledge of Quran from Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.). There should be no doubt that neither Ali (a.s.) has made such a reckless change in the meaning of this verse nor Ibn Abbas. Obviously, the subject words, ‘those with him’ are subject and their predicates have come one after another and not that it is a list of different people, as seen from the writing of Shah Waliullah.

Similar explanations are found in other books of Ahlul Sunnat like Ghaniyatu Talibeen. How strange that such great scholars have come down to such an extent that they have tried to give wrong meaning to the obvious and clear words of the Divine verses! They have, with extreme selfishness, given up all rules of grammar and language. Now we throw a glance of research on each and every phrase of this holy verse and whatever comes up will be presented without any prejudice and partiality.

It should be clear that the first part of this holy verse, which has been made disputable, is ‘those with him’, which, according to Shah Waliullah, means Abu Bakr. Obviously, the Shah has taken this ‘Maahu’ (those with him) to be a reference to that Maeeyat (company) of the Holy Prophet (S), which has been discussed earlier with reference to the verse of the Cave. Doubtlessly, the companionship of the cave is no event of pride or prestige for Abu Bakr, as the writer has shown earlier with proof. Then, why should Allah remind of the company of cave in any other verse?

So, it is never likely that Allah Almighty has referred to the company of the cave in this verse. In such circumstances, stretching the meaning of the word

‘Maahu’ (those with him) upto companionship of the cave is nothing but a game of words. The fact is that searching for truth, seeing of truth and telling of truth has disappeared from the world. Actually, it is the duty of scholars to establish truth, but the deeds of some learned people appear to be quite contrary. Let these just people see as to what connection this ‘Maahu’ (those with him) has with the companionship of Abu Bakr in the cave. Had it any special relationship with Abu Bakr, then wherever the word ‘Maahu’ (those with him) is used, it would mean the company of Abu Bakr in the cave. Is this meaningful? It is the duty of man not to allow his tongue to have anything with lying or falsehood because as the Persian saying goes: “Eulogizing the word fire is the practice of Fire worshippers.”

In his book, Ghaniyatu Talibeen, Pir Dastagir says: “In the verse ‘Those with him…’ the Almighty has, very clearly, mentioned the summary virtues of the faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (S).” But Ghausal Aazam also, like other Ahlul Sunnat scholars, fixes the reference of ‘Maahu’ (those with him) with Abu Bakr.

Firstly, shedding light on the writing of the Pir, makes the grammatical construction of the Divine words appear weak, as can be easily seen by anyone who is well-versed with Arabic grammar.

Secondly, the explanation presented by him does not apply to the events of the Holy Prophet (S). According to the words of the Pir, the company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) is mentioned on four occasions: first company in ‘usr’ (difficulty), second companionship in ‘yusr’ (ease), third, companionship in the cave and fourth company is ‘Areesh’ (throne). Now let us see what is the truth behind these companies. ‘Maeeyat fil usr’ means the company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) in times of difficulty. This is not seen anywhere. Rather, many things appear contrary to it.

The first significant company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S) is the company in the cave, as mentioned by the writer earlier. In fact, this company has no importance. A look into this company shows that it would have been better if this companionship had not been there and every nice soul would wish that the Holy Prophet (S) would have been better off without it. Shaykh Saadi has written a couplet in his famous prayer poem, Karima, that has rightly been popular all around the world, as it mentions the truth. This ‘Maeeyat fil usr’ also includes company in battles (Maeeyat fil ghazwaat).

Now, who will go into the details of Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq and Hunayn etc. Since they are known to all knowledgeable persons, they need no repetition. In short, there is no important company of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet (S), which is distinct. Much can be said for the sake of saying, which is a different thing. Now we should see about ‘Maeeyat fil yusr’ (company in times of ease). The writer does not disagree with it at all. Undoubtedly, this word of the Pir is totally true which no one can truthfully contradict. The third company is the company in the cave, which has been looked into. It needs no repetition.

The last company, in the words of Ghausal Aazam is the company in ‘Arsh’. If, here, ‘Areesh’ means the throne (seat) prepared for the Holy Prophet (S) in the Battle of Badr (according to Suyuti), then in that matter too, the writer has nothing to say, as this company for Abu Bakr is like a company in ease. What has happened during the Battle of Badr was that Muslims had built a high seat of wood for the Holy Prophet (S) from where he, as the commander, could observe every activity in the war. Military top brass do need such elevated places as a general is the spirit or soul of the army, who has to keep a vigilant eye on his army’s movements. Though the fight is carried out actually by soldiers, it cannot succeed without the guidance and supervision of the commander-in-chief.

This was the position of the elevated seat, which was prepared for the Holy Prophet (S). Since Abu Bakr was not a man of war, he remained inactive with the Holy Prophet (S) upto the end of the battle. This is the fact. But Suyuti has painted the picture showing that Abu Bakr was an expert sword-wielder and he stood by the Prophet for his constant protection. Now, what Abu Bakr has to do with the sword? He was never known to be a warrior. He did not take up the sword either in Badr, or in Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar, Hunayn or in any other battle.

The truth is that the virtue of telling the truth and only truth has been given only to the true lovers of Allah. This blessing is not bestowed on everyone. Those who have been granted this bounty look at the world in a totally different way. May Allah give this virtue of telling the truth to everyone, as it is the way to salvation.

Now we will look into ‘firm of heart against the unbelievers’ who did not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for carrying out the commands of Allah and His Prophet, who fought with the enemies of Islam wholeheartedly and who never turned back even if they had to give up their lives; who remained steadfast along with the Holy Prophet (S) in the battles for truth, who never tried to sit aside during a fight with the opponents of the Prophet, who had never fled from battlefield, were fully entitled to be called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

Shah Waliullah and other Sunni scholars say that in the verse under discussion, ‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart) means Umar. In order to look into this claim, it is necessary to look into his life sketch. Reason demands and wisdom accepts that one can be called ‘Ashiddaau Alal kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) only when one is brave and courageous. In this case, we must first discuss his courage; if he proves to be courageous and brave, he can be considered worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

The first thing to which a researcher is attracted is that when Umar was about to propagate a new religion, he became very angry and he remained furious for six years because of it. He was ever ready during this time, to kill the Messenger of Allah (S); but he could not achieve his ambition. However, one day he left home with a sword to kill the Holy Prophet (S) but on his way, somebody told him: “You are proceeding to kill Muhammad, but mind well that the people of Bani Zahra and Bani Hashim will take revenge from you.” Upon this, he gave up the idea. It seems that the intention was due to anger, but when he thought over its consequences, his intention changed and he gave up the idea.

Another example of Umar’s bravery, which is being hyped, is that he migrated from Mecca openly with courage and did not hide himself while going to Medina. Those who do not know the facts may wonder thinking that when the Holy Prophet (S) had to leave Mecca secretly, it must have been extraordinary courage of Umar that he could go directly and openly from circumambulating the sanctuary towards Medina. It must have needed a very brave heart; that it shows that Umar was so courageous that the people of Mecca could not dare obstruct him.

But this bravery of Umar could be considered as an exemplary courage, had his uncle Abu Jahl not given him protection, because of which no Meccan could harm him at all. This is the fact about his migration from Mecca to Medina. Now we should look at another event, wherein he had to go to Mecca from Medina but could not proceed.

The truth about it is that before the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Holy Prophet (S) had asked Umar to go to Mecca and assure the Meccan Quraish that they wanted to enter Mecca only to perform Umrah pilgrimage, but Umar could not carry out the order of the Holy Prophet (S). He replied that the Quraish would not leave him alive; that at that time, there was no sympathizer for him in Mecca. This excuse was indeed genuine, because Abu Jahl, because of whose protection he had dared to migrate from Mecca openly, had departed for Hell in the Battle of Badr. The truth is that the way in which he had courageously left Mecca, could not be adopted by him for going to Mecca again.

Everything has a time and circumstances do not remain same forever. Well, the author could not know of any other event of Umar’s courage, except these two occasions. Hence no comment is needed. Now we give below a brief introduction of his bravery in war:

Umar got opportunities to accompany the Holy Prophet (S) in some important battles. The first was in the Battle of Badr, in which his flight is not proved. Only his inactiveness is recorded, which was due to the fact that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl, had come to fight against the Prophet. He could in no way fight against his uncle, as he did not want to tarnish his character by killing an obliging relative, so he refrained from fighting. In the battle of Khandaq (Ditch), he flatly refused to fight against Amr bin Abde Wudd.

This excuse also was not against wisdom, because that infidel was extraordinary in physique. He looked like a giant, not a man. To fight such a fellow was against reason. In the battle of Uhud, Muslims were forced into a very difficult situation when the Holy Prophet (S) was injured. Many Muslims ran away from the battlefield and Umar also was among them. When there are no guts for fighting, flight was the only way out. His confession of flight is clearly mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. So also his fleeing is proved from what is written in the books of Fakhruddin Razi and Nishapuri. It is mentioned therein that besides Umar, Uthman was also among the absconders.

Suyuti records Umar’s words about this running away: Umar himself says, “We fled from the battlefield…”Now about the flight of Abu Bakr. It is also proved from Umar’s words. What had happened actually was that when the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) ran away, leaving him alone and he fainted after being injured, someone shouted: “Muhammad has been killed, so all of you should turn back to your earlier religion (ignorance).” We find a hint of this in the Holy Quran also. It is mentioned in a verse:

“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Many messengers had come before him. So if Muhammad dies or is killed, would you then turn back from the religion of Muhammad? So whoever turns back like this will not harm Allah at all (he would harm only himself).” 2

According to Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, when His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked Umar: “Did you not give out the call that Muhammad has been killed, so you may revert to your religion of ignorance?” Umar replied: “Verily, Abu Bakr made this announcement.” This shows that Umar and Abu Bakr, during their flight were near one another at some place; that they were so near that Umar could easily say that the announcement was in Abu Bakr’s voice

This event has indeed a strange color and a number of consequences do come out from it, but I leave the matter here. Besides, in the said narration of Ahmad bin Hanbal, a word of Abu Bakr is also recorded in Tarikh Khamis, which shows that on the day of Uhud, Abu Bakr had also fled. He says: “All had left the Prophet on the day of Uhud, Abu Bakr had, like other people, went off leaving the Prophet in the battlefield; but when the runaways returned, he was the first among them.” It should not be understood by this that he returned to Medina after two or three days. In short, during the Battle of Uhud, except Bani Hashim and Helpers (Ansar) of Medina, all leading Emigrants (Muhajirs) had left the battle of Uhud.

There is no need to mention the steadfastness and courage of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). A voice came from the unseen: “Laa fata illa Ali…” (There is no brave youth, except Ali…) During the battle of Khaybar, Abu Bakr and Umar had returned to the tents of the Messenger of Allah (S) after being defeated by Harith for two consecutive days and the Jews pursued them during the said two days, right upto the camp…In my knowledge, these are neither allegations not talks of timidity. Neither Umar nor Abu Bakr were created for battlefields. No blames can be put on nature.

Allah had created His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), the Lion of Allah for such courageous and brave deeds. He performed the same deeds as per Divine Wish. In Hunayn also, neither Umar nor Abu Bakr could show any martial achievement. Like all other fleeing Muslims, both ran away from the battlefield. Here also, the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) saved Islam. The heroic deeds, which were to be performed for Islam, were performed by the Lion of Allah.

During fighting, the deeds of Abu Bakr and Umar were similar and the fact is that the two Caliphs were not molded like warriors. It is a lie to say that Abu Bakr was ‘the bravest of men’ (Ashja-un-naas) and Umar, a great Arab hero (Shuja-ul Arab). Neither was a man of the battlefield.

During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (S), they did not perform any martial deed, which can make them men of war. It is because of the talk of the partisans of these two fellows that they ascribe to them the virtues they never possessed. Such baseless talks are being framed to prove that their Caliphates were legal, according to the Holy Quran. It is a vain effort to support their Caliphate.

When the fact is that all these Caliphates were established through consensus, inheritance and force and power, it is illogical to try to prove their legality through the Holy Quran. Well, it is certain that during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) no courage was shown by the two Caliphs that could make them ‘the bravest of men’ (Ashja-un-naas) or a great Arab hero (Shuja-ul Arab). But whatever the two Caliphs did after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), can have no relevance with the verse under discussion.

Obviously, this verse pertains to the time of the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, not its aftermath. Now, we will look at the time following the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). No doubt, Muslims conquered many countries during the time of Umar and some also during the time of Uthman, but what is significant is that these victories were not like the victories in Badr, Khandaq, Khaybar, Hunayn… etc.

These victories of Muslims were like the victories gained by communities of Goths and Vandal against Byzantine (Roman Empire). As we mentioned earlier, the hungry Arabs came down like ants and flies on parts of the kingdom of Caesar and eastern Roman and snatched many countries from Iranians and Byzantines. There was no contribution of personal bravery of the Caliphs; any Caliph of Medina would have got these victories for Arabs. All the victories were possible at that time for Arabs. More than that was neither possible for the armies of Arabs, nor time was favorable for more.

Apparently, victories during the Caliphate of Uthman preceded that of Umar while it should have been vice versa. In short, these victories had nothing to do with the personal courage of these two persons. Of course, had the sword of Abu Bakr and Umar gained victories for the Holy Prophet (S) in the battles fought by the Prophet, no one could deny the courage and bravery of these two Caliphs.

In short, even after the time of the Holy Prophet (S), personal courage or heroism of Umar is not traceable anywhere. Thus, the virtue of bravery does not apply to him at any time. In these circumstances, how can he be considered a man to whom the virtues of ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) can be attributed? Let just people decide. His being tough against the deniers is not established. However, since there was extremism in his nature, he never restrained himself from being tough towards the prisoners of war.

He was also very tough even with his friends, relatives, sons, sisters and family members and his extreme severity was against Lady Fatima (s.a.) and her husband as explained in detail by the writer earlier. Obviously, such extremism does not make a man ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers). However, anybody can raise any claim. Nobody can hold anyone’s tongue; but telling the truth and only truth, is a great bounty from Allah. May Allah not hold it from any of His slaves. Doubtlessly, only he is devoid of it, who is bound to taste the anger of Allah.

Now, it should be seen, whether or not there is any connection of ‘Ruhamaa Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) with Uthman. Basically, the life of Uthman is divided into four periods. The first part is that of disbelief, that is, the period of his life when he had not yet embraced Islam. Obviously, the praise for this part of his life cannot be seen in the Holy Quran. Ahlul Sunnah also do not claim that he was ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) during that part of his life, when he had not yet embraced Islam.

The second phase of his life was the time between his becoming Muslim and the demise of the Holy Prophet (S). Verily, the captioned verse was also revealed during this period. But no distinct deed of the caliber of ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) is ever seen to have been performed by Uthman in this period. Then how could the Lord ever remember him with this special virtue? No performance of any merciful deed or behavior with any of the companions of the Prophet is found. Hence ‘Ruhamaa’ (compassionate) by no stretch of imagination, can extend to him.

However, there is no doubt that in his tribe of Bani Umayyah and other Quraishi tribes who were polytheists before the fall of Mecca, Uthman did, even after his becoming a Muslim, enjoy influence and position as before, and his former relatives did maintain love for him as before. This was because he too had maintained his earlier affectionate relations with them. So he was able to move among those polytheists without any fear of life and also because of this love for them, they too loved him in reciprocation. That is why, he was a beloved man of Quraish. Otherwise, the existence of unity between a Muslim and a polytheist was unexpected.

Therefore, in view of this, a scholar says in a lighter vein; if the pronoun of ‘Bainahum’ (among themselves) is turned towards the polytheists of Quraish then of course, looking to actual events, his being ‘Ruhamaa bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) will be established.

But if those who make such change in the pronouns in the text say that, in the word of Allah, there is no mention of Quraish in this ‘Bainahum’ (among themselves), then there is, before this ‘Ruhamaa Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves), the word ‘al-Kuffar’ (the disbelievers). So they may gladly turn this pronoun ‘Hum’ (them) towards ‘Kuffar’ (the deniers). Then at least, he will be proved ‘Ruhamaa bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) and it will also not go against history.

Obviously, this is a light oratory, nothing else. What Allah conveys is not ‘Ruhama bainal Kuffar’ (compassionate among the deniers). It is necessarily either Bainal Muslimeen (compassionate among Muslims) or Bain allazina maahum (compassionate among those who were with them). So this clarifies that ‘Ruhama bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) also applies only to those whom ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) had applied.

It applied only to those who confronted the deniers, who killed deniers and who saved Islam from destruction and helped the Prophet; who did not allow disrespect to the religion of Allah, who never hesitated in fighting for truth, who remained always steadfast, who never fled from the battlefield, leaving the Prophet and his companions; who protected the Muslims from the attacks and harms of deniers and who did not leave them to the mercy of the deniers, who saved them from being caught by the disbelievers; who did not allow attacks on women and children of the believers and left no stone unturned in serving their brothers and sisters in faith, who fought unceasingly in the Path of Allah, who confronted big giants among deniers; who never showed their back to the oppressors and who never cared for the safety of their own lives.

Such brave and courageous people were those to whom the phrase ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) and ‘Ashiddaau alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) is applicable and not that one can be ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves) but not ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers) and vice versa.

Now, it is for the wise and the just persons to decide whether Uthman was, or was not fit for being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers), so that he could also be called ‘Ruhama Bainahum?’ (compassionate among themselves). It has been historically proved above that he surely was never worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau Alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the unbelievers).

So he also cannot be worthy of being attributed with the phrase of ‘Ruhama Bainahum’ (compassionate among themselves). History shows that neither Abu Bakr and Umar were worth being called ‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart…) nor Uthman, because all the three gentlemen are devoid of the attribute of ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate) too.

It is nothing, but sheer prejudice and undue insistence that they attach each of the attributes shown in the aforesaid verse, to one particular person; that is, they apply ‘Allazeena maahu’ (those who were with them) to Abu Bakr,‘Ashiddaau’ (firm of heart) to Umar and ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate) to Uthman.

The truth is that the clear meaning of this verse is that the virtues of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) are ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…), ‘Ashiddaau…’ (firm of heart…) etc. and never that such and such companion has this attribute and such and such has that.

Had these virtues to mention certain particular persons, Allah would not have made general mention of interdependent attributes and which were the essential attributes or virtues of the Holy Prophet’s faithful (not hypocrite) companions. Verily, this verse applies to those who possessed all the said virtues and their reward is Divine pleasure.

The third part of the life of Uthman is that which was spent during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar. Therein, nothing is found, which can make him worthy of being ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate).

Now remains the fourth part, which is the particular part of his own Caliphate. A glance at it gives the idea of his original nature. How did he behave with common Muslims and with the companions of the Prophet is seen in the events which took place during his Caliphate. Some such events are narrated below. Let the just people decide, how much he was deserving of being called ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate).

Event no. 1: The third Caliph dismissed Mughaira bin Shoba from the post of the governor of Kufa and replaced him by Saad bin Abi Waqqas, who was one of the Ashra Musbashshera (the ten who were given glad tidings of Paradise). This gentleman might have remained on that post when the Caliph replaced him by Walid bin Uqbah. A brief introduction of this fellow is that besides being from Bani Umayyah, he also was a step-brother (from maternal side) of the Caliph.

After becoming the governor, he used to remain drunk to such an extent that one day, being intoxicated, he entered the Masjid, led the Morning Prayer, making it four units (rakats) instead of two, then vomited wine on the prayer mat and asked the follower worshippers whether he should add some more units. People replied: “No need sir, this much is enough.”

It is mentioned in Al Uyoon Fee Seeratil Ameen wa Mamoon that after this event, Ibn Masood commented: “May Allah not give good either to you or to the one who sent you to us (meaning Uthman who had appointed Walid as the governor).”

This event is also recorded in Tarikh Abul Fida and Madarijun Nubuwwah of Shah Abdul Haqq Muhaddith. There is no doubt about its factuality. It should be understood that this Walid was a habitual offender. Giving such a sinful man this appointment, appears to be an amazing deed of the Caliph in an Islamic country. Moreover, no reason of the appointment of Walid need be mentioned as he was from Banu Umayyah and he also had family relations with the Caliph. That is why a man from Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) could be humiliated. This man had no superiority over Saad bin Abi Waqqas except for family relations. His appointment only shows a help to his brother.

But what kind of help is it, which results in oppression of Allah’s creation and deviation from the path of the Holy Prophet (S)? It is indeed very strange that a criminal and sinful fellow should be made governor of an Islamic province. But, it seems, the prejudiced people say that this vain work of the Caliph was an act of Sile Rahmi (good behavior with relatives).

A scholarly gentleman tells me: The third Caliph, Uthman, appointed his relatives to high posts according to the Quranic command of behaving nicely with blood relations. How strange it is to hear such words from a learned man! None can utter such irrelevant words unless his interior has become perverted. Dear readers, for Allah’s sake, be just and decide whether Allah has, at any place, said: “Be kind to your relatives even if others are harmed and even if the commands of Allah and His Prophet are breached, let them be, but you must practice kindness to your relatives?” Let them explain whether the order of helping relatives relates to help from one’s own wealth or from the common public treasury of all Muslims?

In short, how can anyone say that whatever Uthman did to Mughaira and Saad can be called a kind act to relatives? Can he or can he not be called an example of ‘Ruhama…’ (Compassionate…) on account of the help he gave to his brother? Let the just people judge. I need not say anything more. Let the truth- loving people look at the behavior of Bani Umayyah. Most people of this cursed tribe are like Walid bin Uqbah. He was an example of the habits of his tribe. A man of this tribe cannot remain unnoticed even among thousands.

Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah, Yazeed and Marwan etc. were such men who could be traced very easily from among thousands, as each of them reflects the entire mentality of Bani Umayyah. Individuals identify their community. Likewise, Hashim, Abdul Muttalib, Abdullah, Abu Talib, Hamza, Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S), Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) and all the individuals of the families of the Imams, belonging to the Prophet’s progeny, are those who show the collective virtues of Bani Hashim.

Glory be to Allah! How virtuous Bani Hashim were. Had they not been so, prophethood would not have arrived in their tribe nor would Quran have been revealed to them. They were respectable due to their virtues. The Lord Almighty sends salutations and blessings on Bani Hashim. O Faithful, you also should invoke blessings on them.

Event no. 2: This Caliph appointed Abdullah bin Saad as the governor of Egypt. He was an apostate. Obviously, his kindness used to be only with such people. Walid, who was made the governor of Kufa, was a grave offender. This man, who was made the governor of Egypt was a known apostate. What type of kindness is it to make offenders and apostates governors of Muslim provinces? Can such kindness make one worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

Event no. 3: Caliph Uthman dismissed Abu Moosa Ashari from the post of the governor of Basra and replaced him by his cousin, Aamir. This appointment too was based on the rule of family kindness (Sile Rahmi). Now let the just people decide whether or not the dismissal of Abu Moosa for the sake of a relative attracts the virtue of ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) This companion, Abu Moosa was one of the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Sunnis. Can such behavior with such people be called kindness without any valid reason?

Event no. 4: There was a conflict between Saad bin Abi Waqqas, governor of Kufa and Malik Ashtar during the Caliphate of Uthman. The governor’s men beat Ashtar until he fainted. The leading people of Kufa got perturbed due to this happening and men like Thabit bin Qays began to talk against Saad in public meetings and he also spoke with disgust against Uthman. Saad sent a complaint against such people to Uthman and he drove all of them out of Kufa towards Syria. Not only this, they were pushed towards Hums so that the cruel- hearted ruler, Abdur Rahman bin Walid may deal sternly with them. Justice- loving people know that the time of Uthman was full of very strange events of corruption and cruelty.

The relatives of the Caliph were doing whatever unjust things they liked with the assistance of government machinery. Malik Ashtar was persecuted. Those who showed concern for him were also persecuted. These things show the cruel, not compassionate nature of Uthman. Can any wise and just person consider such a Caliph worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

It may be remembered that Malik Ashtar was a well-known companion of the Holy Prophet (S) but at the same time he had also a ‘defect’ of being a friend of the family of the Prophet. He was an intimate friend of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Of course, this was the greatest ‘defect’ at that time in the Islamic world. What happened repeatedly with the friends and companions of Ali (a.s.) during the days of Uthman and the days of Banu Umayyah is known to all. There is not a single person among the friends of Ali (a.s.) who was not either beaten up or extradited during that period.

Event no. 5: The treatment meted out to Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari during the Caliphate is very significant. The poor gentleman was a very sincere and well-known companion of the Holy Prophet (S). But he also had, like Malik Ashtar, Salman, Miqdad and Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.), the defect of being a friend of and having affection for the family of the Prophet. Unjust and oppressive treatment to the partisans of Ali (a.s.) was not at all unexpected during the days of Bani Umayyah.

So being angry with Abu Dharr (r.a.), Muawiyah wrote to the Caliph: “If you need the province of Syria, then send Abu Dharr away from Syria to any other place.” In response, the Caliph wrote to Muawiyah: “Send Abu Dharr to me here in Medina, making him ride the bare back of an untamed camel.” The order was carried out in toto. Readers may kindly see how much novelty is found in this way of punishing somebody and decide how much compassion can be traced in the heart of the Caliph?

Can ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) be such people? Can they ever drive the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) on wild animals like this? It is a different thing how much pain the aged companion of the Holy Prophet (S) might have suffered during this torturous journey. What is surprising, is how he reached Medina alive at all! Only Allah was his protector, otherwise, his death during such torture was almost certain.

There is every likelihood of the Caliph’s intention being the same. But since his lifespan had not yet come to an end, he survived the cruelty. This event exposes cruelty (not kindness) of the Caliph and it also indicates that the attribute of modesty, which is being attached to him, was also imagined. No modest ruler can ever give such a punishment of putting an old man on a unbridled camel. As modesty comes in the way of the one who describes this event, it is recorded in history books for all to see.

Anyway, even after the aged and broken down companion reached Medina, the Caliph turned him away from there too. So Abu Dharr went to Rabaza.3 The Caliph had also issued orders that nobody should accompany Abu Dharr. So no one went to see him off, except Ali bin Abi Talib and Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) who walked with that lonely traveler for some distance.

Biographers have written that when Abu Dharr got the extradition order, he said: “I have heard the Holy Prophet say that Abu Dharr will live a lonely life and die a lonely death.” So it happened like that. Whose heart does not move hearing the oppression suffered by Abu Dharr?

Only Allah can give him justice. It should be noted that all allegations made by the Caliph against Abu Dharr were totally baseless. He had denied all the allegations and recommendations of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) were also not acceptable to Bani Umayyah, so no one paid any attention and Abu Dharr (r.a.) was driven out of the town humiliated, despite being innocent. The only reason of all these oppressions was that he was ‘guilty’ of loving Amirul Mo-mineen and of praising his virtues.

Had he not been a friend of Ali (a.s.), he would not have suffered this trouble. Now, let the men of justice decide whether a man who could be so cruel to a sinless Abu Dharr can ever be regarded as ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

Event no. 6: The wrong, which was done to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (r.a.) was that in the official letter to Egypt, the word ‘Aqbiluhu’ (welcome him) was turned into “Uqtuluhu” (kill him). Even if it is said that Marwan did this mischief, the Caliph cannot stand absolved of the allegation, as Marwan was his right hand. The Caliph himself had appointed him as his minister, who had everything to do with all state affairs and revenue matters. Hence, whatever good or bad Marwan was doing, was by the Caliph’s leave. The Caliph was squarely responsible for every act of Marwan.

The Holy Prophet (S) had driven this man (Marwan) out of all Islamic territories. Therefore, even the two Caliphs had not allowed him to enter the land of Islam during their Caliphate. But Uthman, due to his family bonds, called him to Medina and made him his minister and adviser.4

In this situation, the only person who was responsible for all the misdeeds done by the man who was externed by the Holy Prophet (S) himself was none but Uthman.

The cause of Marwan’s enmity towards Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was nothing but his partisanship with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), despite his being the son of the first Caliph. This was enough to make the entire Bani Umayyah enemies of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. Otherwise, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was such a man whose being a son of Abu Bakr would have been considered a merit by the opponents of Ali (a.s.). But anyway, it was Bani Umayyah who took the life of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr. Muawiyah got him killed, got his dead body put in the skin of a donkey and then put to flames.5

Event no. 7: What a kind and merciful behavior was meted out to Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) [who also was a companion of the Holy Prophet (S)] by Caliph is not unknown to the knowledgeable people. Be it understood that when the iniquities of Uthman crossed limits and the Muslim masses became very restless, fifty men from Helpers (Ansar) and Emigrants (Muhajireen) sent Ammar bin Yasir (r.a.) with a letter addressed to the Caliph. The subject matter of that letter was: “If the Caliph does not refrain from unjust things and harmful acts, he will be deprived of his Caliphate.”

As a result of this message, Ammar (r.a.) was so severely beaten up that he became a victim of hernia. Let the just people decide, whether this too was a merciful deed of the Caliph, which can make him worthy of being called

‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…). This ill treatment was also meted out to a companion of the Prophet. If the friends of the Caliph say that the Caliph himself did not beat Ammar (r.a.), one can very well ask as to why did he not of his community to high posts in various countries. It appeared that rule everywhere was only of Bani Umayyah, who did whatever they liked and the Caliph never stopped aiding them.

Government of Bani Umayyah was already established in Syria (Shaam) ever since the time of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, and the area around it had become almost a property of Bani Umayyah. During the days of the third Caliph, the entire Islamic territory had fallen in the hands of Bani Umayyah and these evil-doers had started blowing the bugle of ‘My Word is Law’ and hence all evils erupted in this area, without leaving any doubt to believe that things were being done by mischief-makers through the Caliph. All this goes to show that the third Caliph and his officers were doing only self-service at the cost of general common good, mercilessly throwing public interest to the winds.

Event no. 8: Abdur Rahman bin Auf, according to Ahlul Sunnat, is one of the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten). He was one of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S), but he too was thrown out of Medina by the order of the third Caliph. Those who know are aware that Uthman was made Caliph with the help prevent the oppressors from that cruelty and even if he did not do so at that of Abdur Rahman bin Auf.6

Had this companion not been there, Caliphate moment, why did he not take any punitive action against the wrongdoers afterwards?

But the truth of the matter is that the oppressors had done this misdeed only in the interest of the Caliph, then how could he prevent them? How could he punish them and why? The truth is that we are taking these things lightly. Otherwise, such misdeeds were not only allowed during the Caliphate of Uthman but they were also considered necessary and sometimes he himself was not only carrying out such misdeeds, but was also planning them as had happened in the matter of seating Abu Dharr (r.a.) on the bare back of an unbridled refractory camel.

The cause of cruelty to Ammar (r.a.) too was that he was a friend of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). So here, they got an opportunity to do and did what they did. Knowledgeable people know very well that the Caliphate of Uthman was the time of a very strange anarchy. He himself was not qualified to rule a state and the people of his tribe (Banu Umayyah) were naturally inclined to evil. Whenever they got any opportunity to commit any evil, they committed it either themselves or through the Caliph. Because of his weak heart, the people of his tribe did whatever they wanted to do and Muslim masses were suffering a lot because of such misdeeds. Men of Banu Umayyah held all the high posts and the Caliph did whatever good he could do to them.

For example, the Caliph called Marwan back in the Islamic state and appointed him his vizier. He also allotted the Khums of Africa to him. Once, he gave a hundred thousand dirhams to Hakam bin Aas and ordered that every shopkeeper of Medina must pay 1/10th amount to his son, Harith. He appointed the people would have never reached Uthman, but despite this, what was done to him only shows that he got the punishment of his unjust deed by Allah’s will.

The fact is that soon after becoming the Caliph, Uthman showed displeasure in Abdur Rahman bin Auf. It was due to the fact that once Abdur Rahman had told the Caliph: “Had I known that you would behave like this, I would never have allowed you to become the Caliph.”

The story of this king-making is that when Umar received a fatal blow with the sword of Abu Lulu and he saw his death near, he made an arrangement, through which it was impossible for the Caliphate to reach His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Not only this, the atmosphere was such that had His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) insisted, his being killed was almost certain.

Verily, Umar was a very cunning man. He did not allow Ali (a.s.) to become a Caliph before himself and also very beautifully prevented him from assuming the office after him. Indeed, his political mind was extraordinarily cunning. He passed the time during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and of himself with a very alert mind. It was his political influence, which brought Bani Umayyah to the top, in a very short time.

He not only weakened the strong tribe of Bani Hashim, but also brought it down to be kicked continuously in the future. His political acumen was indeed extraordinary. Even when he was almost on the deathbed, his political mind did not weaken and so he, very cunningly, left the matter of his succession to Shura (Consultation) Committee. He knew it well that other men on the board would, due to enmity, never support Ali (a.s.), thereby debarring him from Caliphate.

Along with this, he also put a very strange condition that anyone who opposes the Shura decision should be killed. It was never the work of an ordinary man’s brain to think of such intrigues at the last moment of one’s life. Well, Umar departed and the Shura began their maneuverings. Abdur Rahman bin Auf asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, will you run the administration according to Quran, Sunnah and Abu Bakr and Umar’s line or not?” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was a true man, so he replied: “To the best of my ability.”7

But the fact which came out after research is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had said: “I will act according to Quran and Sunnah and thereafter, what will be correct according to my knowledge. The behavior of Abu Bakr and Umar is nothing in my view.” This reply apparently displeased Abdur Rahman bin Auf. He told His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that his reply was conditional. Then he put the same query to Uthman who very gladly concurred that he would readily do as he says.

Getting this unconditional affirmative reply, Abdur Rahman at once appointed Uthman as the Caliph of Muslims. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) kept quiet and did not think it wise to endanger his life in an ignorant manner. Had he put up any opposition at that time, he would at once have been put to death as per the last will of the second Caliph, who was not mindful of stalling Ali (a.s.) even when he himself was about to die of wounds. What a cunning mind! However, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) too was wise enough to keep himself safe through foresight. Now, the knowledgeable people know how much Uthman acted in accordance with Quran, Sunnah and the line of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Event no. 9: When Uthman burnt the copy of Quran belonging to her father along with all other copies, ‘A’ysha became very sad and cried angrily: “Uqtuloo Nathala…” meaning ‘Kill Nathal’. Nathal was a Jew who looked very similar to Uthman. Or Nathal means a feeble old and foolish man. Some also say that Nathal means a hyena. Whatever be its meaning, this word speaks volumes of ‘A’ysha’s anger. What we want to convey by citing this event is that few people were happy with the deeds of the third Caliph.8 There are many more such examples, but they need not be narrated here.

With what wisdom the second Caliph had made Uthman his successor is not known to the writer. Uthman had no qualification at all of administering Caliphate. As a well-wisher of Islamic society, it was the duty of Umar to appoint a deserving person. The only reason behind leaving the affair to Shura seems that it could prevent Ali (a.s.) from becoming the Caliph, as it did. It is also doubtless that Umar never wanted that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) should be a Caliph either before him or after him.

But, because of this enmity, to put the entire nation of Islam to anarchy was in no way good for Islam and Muslims. In the matter of selecting the Caliph, it was the duty of Umar to forget totally his like or dislike.

Indeed, had Ali (a.s.) been selected by any means, he would have proved a far better Caliph. Many calamities and quarrels, which he had to see after becoming Caliph after Uthman, would have been averted had he become a Caliph after Umar. For example, the Battle of Jamal would not have occurred. Muawiyah would have been dismissed easily and all bloodshed, which happened because of him, would have been averted.

His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would have been able to administer Caliphate peacefully and satisfactorily. No doubt, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was a very able and wise gentleman and therefore, the ugly events that took place, would not have come up as mentioned due to Umar’s ‘love’ for Caliphate. Alas! Ali (a.s.) could not become the Caliph even after Umar, but became Caliph at a time of great troubles and upheavals and he got no time at all to reform civil affairs attentively.

Now, looking at all the above matters, let the just people decide how Shah Waliullah could ascribe the virtue of being ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) to a Caliph who made an offender like Walid bin Uqbah, governor of an Islamic province, appointed a man like Marwan, who was driven out of Islamic territory by the Prophet, a minister, who gave away a lot of money regularly to Hakam bin Aas, who allotted a tenth of trade levies to Harith without any right,9 gave official posts to all mischief-mongers of Bani Umayyah, who unlawfully dismissed Abu Moosa Ashari and Mughaira who are among the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) in view of Ahlul Sunnat, who drove yet another man from Ashra Mubashera, viz. Abdur Rahman bin Auf, from Medina, who very mercilessly oppressed companions of the Holy Prophet (S), that is, men like Malik Ashtar, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Ammar bin Yasir, who planned or allowed planning for the killing of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, who made ‘A’ysha unhappy by his misdeeds, who put leaders of Kufa to various troubles and who harassed the entire Muslim society by his unwise decisions?

The Shah is not the only person to say so. I have come across such observations in books like Ghaniyatu Talibeen also. It seems such misconceptions have come down right from the top. May Allah give His servants the good sense of seeing and speaking the truth, as salvation depends only on such truthfulness. One who follows falsehood, obviously cannot be a friend of Allah, nor can he succeed in the Hereafter. In short, Uthman was not worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…) in any part of his life.

Now, it should be seen, whether or not Ali (a.s.) was worthy of being considered as ‘Tarahum Rukkan Sujjadan’ (you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves). Obviously, no one can have any doubt about the intense worship of Imam Ali (a.s.).

The first company is that the Holy Prophet (S) and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) are from one radiance (Noor), as the Holy Prophet (S) himself has averred: “I and Ali are from a single radiance.”10

No Muslim can have any objection to this tradition being true.

The volume of Abaqat wherein this tradition of Radiance (Noor) is recorded, is worth pondering. It will leave no doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced person.

In short, only Allah knows what kind of companionship it is and since when it came into existence. None but Allah knows it fully.

The second company is that according to a word of the Holy Prophet (S): Ali (a.s.) is the blood, flesh, heart and soul of the Holy Prophet (S). Which company can be closer than this? The exact words of the Holy Prophet’s words are: “Your blood is my blood and your flesh is my flesh and your self is my self.”

The third company is that, as per the words of the Holy Prophet (S): “O Ali! Your position to me is the same as Haroon had with Moosa (a.s.).” This tradition is present in Sahih Bukhari. This companionship is in no way less significant.

The fourth company is that, as per the words of the Holy Prophet (S): Ali (a.s.) is the brother of the Holy Prophet (S) both in this world and in the Hereafter. This shows that the company between the two is similar and equal in both the worlds. Which company can be greater than this?

The fifth company is that the verse of Malediction (Mubahila) mentions His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to be with the Holy Prophet (S).11

The verse is as follows: “Then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”12

Glory be to Allah, may Allah be praised. This indeed is ‘company’!

The sixth company is that, in the verse of Purification13 also, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not separate from the Holy Prophet (S).14

The verse is: “Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying.”15

What a wonderful company indeed!

The seventh companionship is seen clearly in the Holy Prophet’s words saying that whosoever’s master the Prophet is, Ali is also his master. Whatever meaning, people with vested interest may give to the word ‘maula’ (Master), it is certain that in that ‘mastership’, Ali (a.s.) is with the Holy Prophet (S). Is it a small matter?

The eighth companionship is when during the Ascension, Allah spoke with the Holy Prophet (S), His tone was like that of Ali (a.s.).16 The reason for this was that the Holy Prophet (S) may hear the voice with which he was accustomed. This shows that Almighty Allah took into consideration Ali’s company with the Holy Prophet (S). Let the just people keep this companionship in mind.

The ninth companionship: When the Holy Prophet (S) entered the Kaaba to break idols, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was with him. On the order of the Prophet, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) climbed the holy shoulders to topple the idols, which rested on a higher level.17 Is there any parallel to this companionship? Glory be to Allah, this is companionship!

The tenth companionship is when the Holy Prophet (S) sat to eat the roasted bird, he prayed to Allah: “O Allah, send the one who is dearer to You for me so that he may accompany me in eating this feast.” There came up Ali (a.s.). Both then ate the fowl. What a tasty company indeed!18

The eleventh company is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) did not run away in any battle leaving the Holy Prophet (S) alone. He constantly remained with the Holy Prophet (S) to help him fight the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar, and Hunayn etc. and continued to punish the enemies of Allah.19 How can others be so lucky in company, who had run away from battlefields? This company in battles is all the more significant, which none of the three Caliphs could have it, as all of them had fled leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in battlefield in the midst of enemies? This is the most valuable company, which they could not get due to their flight. How unlucky!

The twelfth company: Right from his childhood, upto the last day of the life of the Holy Prophet (S), His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had been with the Prophet. This is called lifelong company. The example of childhood company is that during the initial days of prophethood, when the Prophet invited Bani Hashim to a feast and addressed them: “Who is there to be my brother, my legatee, my minister and my Caliph,” no one responded, but Ali (a.s.) arose and declared in a loud voice: “I will be your brother, legatee, minister and Caliph.20 Glory be to Allah, what a company! The truth too is that as long as the Holy Prophet (S) was alive, Ali (a.s.) never left his side.

The thirteenth company is that when the Holy Prophet (S) departed from this world, Ali (a.s.) was constantly with him during the entire funeral. Truly a true friend is he who does not separate till the last moment. This fortune too was reserved only for Ali (a.s.) who did not leave the corpse of the Holy Prophet (S) in search of material gains.

The fourteenth company was when the Holy Prophet (S) got a camel saddle stage erected and lifted Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Allah, love one who loves him.” Is there any answer to this company anywhere? In front of thousands of people, the Holy Prophet (S) gave place to Ali (a.s.) near him and granted him the position of the Master of believers. The blind may not be able to see this company, but the way able lookers view this companionship need not be described. Now let the just decide, whether the virtue of being a ‘companion’ ends with Ali (a.s.) or with anyone else?

Likewise, the adjective of being ‘Ashiddaau alal Kuffar’ (firm of heart against the disbelievers) also applied only to Ali (a.s.) perfectly. Islam is totally indebted to the sword (Zulfiqar) of Ali (a.s.). Islam became strong with the help of the strong arms of “Laa Fataa illa Ali” (there is no brave youth except Ali). This ‘Hand of Allah’ has broken the backbone of disbelief. The attribute of ‘Ashiddaau…’ (firm of heart…) can by no means go to either Abu Bakr or Umar.

These gentlemen have not even touched any infidel in any Jihad, what to say of killing one as they only ran away from every battle? The flight of both the Caliphs is confirmed by history in eight battles, most prominent being the battles of Khaybar and Hunayn.

The thing worth noting is that in every battle, in which the Caliphs either remained inactive or they refused to confront any sandow or when they preferred flight, it was only the sword of Ali (a.s.) that cut the roots of the enemies of Allah. In short, just as Ali (a.s.) is deserving of the attribute of companionship, so also he alone is worthy of being called ‘Ashiddaau...’ (firm of heart…) and we have already shown that Uthman can have no relation with ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…).

Now, we shall explain that this virtue is also related with only Ali (a.s.). For this virtue of ‘Ruhama’ (compassionate…), it is necessary for a person to be very kind-hearted and sympathetic. Also, as we said, the virtue of sympathy is not possible without being brave. The more a man is brave, the more he or she will be sympathetic. Sympathy is not separate from kindness and hence bravery and kindness are always close to one another.

Since Ali (a.s.) was the bravest of men, he was extremely sympathetic too and consequently very kind also. Ali (a.s.) never fled from the battlefield. He never left his companions in the midst of enemies. He never allowed Muslims to fall in the hands of infidels.

He left no stone unturned for the welfare of Islam nor did he ever care for his own life in this matter. He behaved extremely kindly with the faithful. No man could ever surpass him in such kindness. Then how can he not be regarded as worthy of being called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)?

From this angle also, the virtue of kindness also refers to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it cannot be attributed to those who left their companions in battlefield in the midst of enemies and fled in such a way that they could not be traced for three days. Now let the just people see that since such men had no courage, they did not possess sympathy and as there was no sympathy, there was no kindness also in them.

How then they can be called ‘Ruhama…’ (compassionate…)? Briefly speaking, it is sheer injustice on the part of prejudiced people to consider His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) as only ‘Rukkan wa Sujjada’ (bowing and prostrating), whereas, in fact, he is worthy of all the titles mentioned in the verse under discussion and so also all those Helpers and Emigrants who followed the path of Ali (a.s.).

Ahlul Sunnat people say that according to this verse, the Caliphate of the first three persons was appropriate. This seems to be a baseless argument. This verse proves neither Caliphate nor its succession order. It only shows us the virtues of good and faithful companions of the Holy Prophet (S) and nothing else. It is mere a wrong insistence to harp that it proves the order of Caliphate; whereas, as mentioned above, it has no relevance to Caliphate.

This Caliphate, which is called the Rightful Caliphate by Ahlul Sunnat, is based neither on any verse of Quran nor on any saying of the Prophet. Undoubtedly, this Caliphate came into being by people’s will and that its truth is that first, it was Abu Bakr who was made a Caliph through ‘consensus’ as mentioned in Sharh Aqaide Nasafi and books of history and biography. Even if this ‘consensus’ is considered perfect, it is nothing more than the election of presidents.

The second Caliphate is that of Umar. It came about through succession.

Third is that of Uthman, which was directed by Umar through Shura (advisory board).

The fourth Caliphate is that of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). How it came about is not known and Ahlul Sunnat are silent in this regard. This writer could not, till today, find the name of the condition for the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Hence I cannot say anything about this Caliphate.

In short, the Rightful Caliphate has no religious importance in view of the writer. The only position of this Rightful Caliphate in the opinion of researchers is that had there not been Umar and had he no grudge against the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), neither Abu Bakr would have been made the first Caliph through Saqifah nor he and Uthman would have become second and third Caliphs.

Since this Rightful Caliphate had come into being by the people, it was also quite possible that, in place of Abu Bakr, Zubair or Talha or any other fellow from the Helpers (Ansar) would have become the first Caliph. Incidentally, Umar’s cunning only settled the matter of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Obviously, such a Caliphate can be considered respectable, which is not made by men, but is divinely ordained, as is in the matter of the Twelve Imams (a.s.). Therefore, this Caliphate (Imamate) has a religious importance and position.

Because of such religious value, people like Shah Waliullah and some other Sunni scholars wish that the Caliphate of the four Caliphs should also be considered divinely ordained. But it has become clear from above writings that this Caliphate has no divine position.

Obviously, if it had been divinely ordained, it would not have been appropriate to call it a Caliphate of public consensus. In short, the divine Caliphate remained limited to the family of the Holy Prophet (S) and the first Caliph of this series is Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.), second is Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.), third is Imam Husayn, the Martyr of Karbala’ (a.s.), fourth Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), fifth Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.), sixth Imam Ja’far as- Sadiq (a.s.), seventh Imam Moosa al-Kazim (a.s.), eighth Imam Ali ar-Reza (a.s.), ninth Imam Muhammad at-Taqi (a.s.), tenth Imam Ali an-Naqi (a.s.), eleventh Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) and twelfth Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, the master of the Age (a.j.).

The clear examples of man-made Caliphs and divinely appointed Caliphs is that of Yazeed and of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Doubtlessly, both were contemporary Caliphs of their time but one of them had the position of being divinely appointed and the other was man-made. Muawiyah appointed Yazeed the Caliph, hence his Caliphate was from men and Imam Husayn (a.s.) was the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) on the basis of being infallible, and therefore this Caliphate was divine.

It should be remembered that Sunni gentlemen like Shah Waliullah derive two objectives by using the above mentioned verses in their books: Firstly they want to prove the order of Caliphate and secondly, it appears, they try to give an impression that the notion of Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) is also a divinely worded matter. It should be understood that in this Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Ahlul Sunnat, four are these very four Caliphs viz. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). As regards the remaining six, they are Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah and Abu Moosa Ashari. Usually, these ten gentlemen are regarded as the ten lucky ones. But a look at various Sunni books shows that these ten have no permanent position.

In Mishkat, the figure of thirteen is mentioned instead of ten and in those thirteen, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not seen. Moreover in it, Saeed bin Amr bin Nufayl is mentioned as the tenth man of Paradise. Again in some narrations, the names of Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah and Saeed bin Amr are not found. Similarly, contrary to all these narrations, a narration includes Saad bin Malik also. If all these sayings are considered, the figure of the blessed ones reaches twelve. So this is what is understood as Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten). Anyway, leaving aside Abu Moosa Ashari, Shah Waliullah says about the remaining five that ‘seeking grace from Allah and pleasure’ means Talha and Zubair.

If once glances at the life of these two persons, what is found is that they did not possess any virtue, except that of making mischief. Their nature was very strange indeed. The fact is that these two gentlemen had nothing to do with the desire of earning Allah’s pleasure. On one hand they gave oath of allegiance to the fourth Caliph, and on the other, broke that vow and went from Medina to Mecca. After reaching Mecca, they instigated ‘A’ysha against the Caliph of the time, thereby instigating the public against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and thus, to tell the truth, they started a high treason.

Then they joined ‘A’ysha in the Battle of Camel (Jamal), which took the lives of thousands of Muslims including themselves. Knowledgeable people are not unaware of the prophetic saying about the one who fights with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). According to a tradition, both, who were killed by Ali (a.s.) and those who killed His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), are condemned to Hell. Obviously, haters of Imam Ali (a.s.) feel affection for them, because of their open opposition to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Sunni gentlemen say that it was a mistake of jurisprudence on the part of these two men. Such excuse is also put forth on behalf of Muawiyah. Nobody knows how and since when they became qualified to perform jurisprudence (Ijtihaad). O just people! Can treason, uprisings and revolt made by Talha, Zubair and Muawiyah be called mistakes of jurisprudence?

Ahlul Sunnat may give whatever name to the revolts of these three persons; the fact is that these three were doubtlessly rebels against the Caliph of the time. They had raised the flag of treason after treason, yet Sunni scholars have grasped a wonderful ploy of ‘mistake of jurisprudence’, which they always employ to protect the opponents of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) from serious allegations. O just gentlemen! Just think how anyone can, by way of divine command or according to reason, resort to jurisprudence for opposing the Caliph of the time?

Verily, this subject of ‘mistake of jurisprudence’ is such that it can never convince a man with reason who follows truth, sees truth and understands truth. Now, let the just people pay attention to ‘Seemahum…’ (their marks…), which also have been imaginarily applied to persons of their choice.

Shah Waliullah says: “Those meant by this part of the verse are Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas and Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah.” While the fact is that all the events of their lives never show how these virtues (mentioned in the verse) can ever be extended and applied to these three fellows. The honorable Shah also does not mention any distinct virtue, nor can the writer find any such thing despite deep thinking.

But here arises a question that if these gentlemen were so virtuous that Allah mentioned their distinction in this verse, then it was the duty of Uthman not to treat them with the harshness that he showed to them. How strange that the Caliph gives such bad treatment to those who in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, have earned Allah’s praise in the said verse of the Holy Quran!

Now, the just readers may kindly think over what has been said and then decide what is the aim of ‘Wallazeena…’ (those who are with him)? The writer has quite clearly proved that no particular persons are meant by this verse, in which Allah describes common virtues of the sincere companions of His Messenger (S). It neither mentions the order of Caliphate, nor such order has any relation with this divine verse.

Similarly, it does not show any relationship with the Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) of Ahlul Sunnat. How strange that Shah Waliullah mentions such weak things in his book, Izalatul Khifa. It seems he has merely copied without research, whatever he saw in books like Ghaniyatu Talibeen, regarding the said verse. What is the fault of the general public? The poor fellows think that whatever is said, is generally believed to be in support of Caliphate and its order. A large section of the Muslim world is caught in this misunderstanding but the responsibility for it lies with those scholars who inserted this wrong belief in the minds of the general public.

It should be kept in mind that I have written this book for those who can differentiate between right and wrong and who also believe that research is essential for making such decisions. My humble request to such gentlemen is that they may throw a thoughtful glance on whatever I have written and then they are free to either agree with me or not. To the best of my knowledge, I have mentioned truth and only the truth after deep thoughts in this book and I have not allowed prejudice to come in its way.

In my view, I am so far, away from prejudice that if I find that such and such course is correct and true, I do not hesitate to accept it without any excuse. What I have found after a thirty- year research is that no faith is better than the faith which I have adopted. The justice-loving gentlemen know that I have left no stone unturned in making research of faiths. The just people also know that I have worked very hard in research. Now, I feel that I shall leave the world with the beliefs, which I now follow.

Well, it seems essential to submit my thoughts about Caliphate and matters related to it for the attention of justice-loving people. The more one thinks about Caliphate, the more things come to mind. It should be understood that Caliphate has not come out of any Quranic injunction or saying of the Holy Prophet (S). There are traditions about Caliphate, but none that proves the Caliphate, which was established. There is no such satisfying tradition. Those who want to support the known Caliphate on the basis of Quran and Prophetic practice (Sunnah), appear to follow their prejudice.

As shown above, the ‘consensus’ (Ijma) for Abu Bakr and the Caliphate of Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah were through succession, consultative committee and high handedness. Similarly, all other Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat also got Caliphate in that way. Of course, out of all the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat, their fourth Caliph, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is such that the condition of his attaining Caliphate is not found in any of their (Ahlul Sunnat) books.

Nowhere is it mentioned in their books how (on what basis) he (His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)) became the Caliph. In these circumstances, it is obvious that it was not man-made. It is no secret that the Caliphates of Ahlul Sunnat are based on different systems. It also appears that the principles, if any, were formed after some persons became Caliphs in any possible manner.

The proper course was that if the first Caliphate of Abu Bakr was based on ‘consensus’ then all the remaining eleven too should have been in the same way. But what we see is indeed anarchy. How strange that Abu Bakr himself may become a Caliph as per consensus but leaving that rule, he may appoint Umar as his successor and pass away. If the rule had been followed, it was likely that Umar had not been elected. Had there been an election, Umar would not have come to power as easily as he himself (Abu Bakr) had come.

In turn, Umar also, at the last moments of his life, did not like to adopt the law of election, because in that case, Uthman would have hardly become the Caliph. So he left the affair to Shura (advisory council). Then he appointed advisors whose number did not exceed six and most of them were supporters of Uthman. At last, Muawiyah followed neither consensus, nor succession or advice, but grabbed the Caliphal seat by force. Therefore, his Caliphate is called a Caliphate of oppression. In short, a look at all these Caliphates shows that none of them can be called divinely nominated Caliphates and hence do not have any religious base either from the viewpoint of a divine word or through reason.

No wise person can consider them as true Caliphates (succession) of the Holy Prophet (S). Contrary to this, we see the belief of the Imamites about Caliphate. They consider Caliphate to be decided by divine will and also believe that infallibility is necessary for one to be a successor of the Holy Prophet (S). According to this principle, they believe that the Twelve Imams, being infallible, are Caliphs of the Holy Prophet (S), whose Caliphate has been decided and ordained by Allah and they are from Allah.

In this principle of Imamate, there is no confusion. Hence one sees no conflict or irregularity in the Imamate (Caliphate) of the twelve Imams. In other words, one and the same rule is applied to all the twelve. Obviously, these Caliphates have a totally religious color. Contrary to this, in the Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat, political color is prominent.

Undoubtedly, it is due to this material business that some scholars of Ahlul Sunnat also do not find it convincing and hence some try to prove that they are in accordance with Quran and tradition. It is indeed difficult for them to prove it from any divine word (Nass), as I mentioned earlier. What to say of Quran, there is not even a single tradition, which supports Sunni Caliphate in the eyes of a wise man. It is for obvious reasons that Ahlul Sunnat do not find any occasion or chance by which they can prove that their twelve Caliphs have a spiritual aspect and hence their religious value does not rise. Everybody knows that no religion has, nor will ever have any value without spiritual weight.

It is no secret that spiritualism has a lot to do with Judaism, Christianity and various other religions. A lack of this aspect has made Sunnism poor, because mere material consideration does not provide religious weight to the Caliphs. So this necessitated the bringing in of spiritualism, which was done by taking recourse to Sufism. Sufism had already penetrated the Greeks. Iranians also had indulged in it for some centuries. This thing also came to Muslims through the sciences of Greeks and Iranians.

Thereafter, when Muslims came to India and met Indian Hindu saints, their spiritualism affected them to such an extent that slowly Sufism became a part of the religion of high class Ahlul Sunnat which resulted in promotion and development of Gnostic terms like remembrance (Zikr and Azkaar), and séances (Haal and Samaa) etc. Brief speaking, the shortage of right spirituality, which was felt in Ahlul Sunnat, was found in the mysticism of Iran and India. Contrary to it, Imamites had no need of importing Sufism from anywhere, as their faith was already having ample spiritualism and the teachings of their Imams were full of it. So they remained naturally in their original state. It is a misunderstanding that Imamites have no Sufism. They have it, but it is Sufism based on Quran, traditions and teachings of the Imams (a.s.) and which is the best kind of Sufism under the sun.

- 1. Surah Fath 48:29

- 2. Surah Aale Imran 3:144

- 3. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 525; Asim Kufi 220; Abul Fida, Pg. 401; Rauzatus Safa, Vol. 2, Pg. 19 and Rauzatul Ahbab.

- 4. Ref. Mahazirat Raghib Isfahani

- 5. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 592 and Abul Fida, Pg. 434

- 6. Ref. Tarikh Tabari

- 7. Ref. Tarikh Tabari

- 8. Ref. Suyuti’s Tarikh Khulafa and Tarikh Tabari

- 9. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar, Chapter Seven: Uthman, section three.

- 10. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar Makki.

- 11. Sawaiqul Mohreqa by Ibn Hajar Makki.

- 12. Surah Aale Imran 3:61.

- 13. Quran 33:33.

- 14. Ref. Mishkat Sharif.

- 15. Surah Ahzab 33:33

- 16. Refer to the biography authored by Maulavi Ubaidullah Amritsari.

- 17. Ref. Zainulfati Aazami

- 18. Ref. Mishkat Sharif

- 19. Refer to books of History.

- 20. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

A Glance At The Prevalent Sufism

As I have mentioned above, the best mysticism is the mysticism of Quran and traditions. But, as regards the prevalent Sufism, the fact is that knowledge and science of religion remained all right upto the time of the companions, but thereafter, many innovations (Bidat) entered, one of which is the mysticism adopted by Ahlul Sunnat. Ever since it entered Ahlul Sunnat circles, it created a very serious change in them.1

They deviated to such an extent that they reached almost upto the belief of Christians in the matter of metempsychosis and ‘union’ as is seen among some Sunni Sufis.2

It seems, they adopted the beliefs of Greek philosopher, Farforius.3 Now it has deviated so much in India that matters which are totally against the teachings of the Shariat of Muhammad have become prevalent among these Sufis. Today there are many Sufi teachers who have nothing to do with mendicancy and whose business runs on the falsities spread by the agents of selfish Sufis who have turned mysticism into a money-making trade thus changing monkery into self interest. None remains poor so long as fools live.

Hence cheating, deception, lying etc. have entered the deviated form of mysticism. Now they need not refrain from things prohibited by Shariat, so drugs like marijuana and ganja have become inseparable necessities for such Sufi masters. Beauty worship has become the heart of mysticism. Musical instruments like two-sided drums, sitar (Indian guitar) and singing of mystic poems are a must for being lost in a statement of mysticism. Their programs present a scene of Hindu singing parties. Even prostitutes, and singing and dancing girls participate in their programs for improving their ‘hereafter’? Hoards of dancing prostitutes are seen before living and dead mystic saints! O Allah! What kind of Islam is this, which is glaringly opposed to the Islam brought by Muhammad (S)? Hindu temples used to have (and some still have thousands of prostitutes). Now they are entering Khanqahs (Sufi dens) also.

In short, all the things, which were prohibited by the Holy Prophet (S) are made necessary for this new mysticism so willingly! Some Sufis have freed themselves from fasting and prayer too! Likewise, many necessities of this Sufism are totally against original Islam! Allah forbid! Briefly speaking, so many things are there, which have nothing to do with the ways of Allah, Prophet (S), Imams (a.s.) and Ahlul Bayt.

Research shows that such mysticism began during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. The aim was to divert the attention of people from the teachings of the Holy Family, so that they might remain attached to unlawful rulers. The biggest machination for this evil purpose is Mukashifa (spiritual contemplation). There is nothing in it. Mulla Ali Qari says that it can be obtained by both Muslims and infidels.4

In short, the best mysticism, in the opinion of the writer, is to follow the teachings of Allah, His Prophet and the Holy Imams (a.s.). “The path of purity can be trod only by following the Holy Prophet (S).”5

Note that the Imamites also have Persian mysticism, but theirs is not deviated from the Persian mysticism of the Shariat of Muhammad (S) even by an inch. The Imamites also believe in Awliya (friends of Allah) but not so madly as seen among Sunni Sufis.

A number of Sufis were there among Shias also, like Sadruddin Shirazi, Abdur Razzaq Laahiji, Mulla Hasan Kaashi, Hajib Rajab Barsi and others. Quite a long list of Shia Sufis can be seen in Majalisul Mo-mineen by Qadi Nurullah Shushtari. Prominent among the listed are Shaykh Shahabuddin Suhurwardi, Najmuddin Kubra, Bayzid Bustami, Jalaluddin Rumi, Shaykh Muslehuddin Saadi Shirazi, Khwaja Hafiz Shirazi, Fariduddin Attar, Sayyid Ashrafuddin Jehangir Kachhoch, Sayyid Muinuddin Chisti Ajmeri. Many of them had to adopt dissimulation due to circumstances.

That is why Ahlul Sunnat have mistaken them to be Sunnis. There are Sufis in Shias today also. Here it seems proper to mention about Ghazzali that in the beginning he was not following any particular creed of Islam. Thereafter, he became a Hanafite and then changed to Shafei. Thereafter, he turned Sufi and at last adopted the path of Shiaism of Ahlul Bayt.

That is why his works (books) show different colors of different periods of his life. This is what usually happens to researchers as their thoughts change in the matter of religion. At last, when his research ends, he is seen in the color of the creed adopted by him after all the findings. Research shows that Ghazzali’s path before his death was that of Ahlul Bayt, that is, creed of the Imamites.

“And whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray.” 6

All praise to Allah. The last belief of the writer of this book has also been the Imamiyah and if Allah wills, he too will die a Shia.7

Here we end the discussion of Sufism, because this book has no more room for more discussion on this matter.

- 1. Ref. Chalapi, Vol. 1, Pg. 422

- 2. Ref. Sharh Muwaqif, Pg. 475

- 3. Ref. notes of Siva al Huda on the comments of Ghulam Yahya Bihari, Pg. 182.

- 4. Ref. Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar, Pg. 97.

- 5. Persian saying

- 6. Surah Zumar 39:37

- 7. This happened when he breathed his last in 1354 H.E. and attained nearness to the Holy Family.

Abu Bakr’s Leading Of Prayer

When the Holy Prophet (S) became fatally ill, a difference arose between him and his followers in two matters viz. one in the form of ‘the story of the paper’ (Qissa Qirtaas) and second in the matter of the army of Usamah as both things have been briefly narrated earlier. But it is not improper to mention here that the Prophet had become very displeased due to these matters.

The proof is that when Muslims made a request that they be allowed to have a last look at him. But in reply, according to Abul Fida, the Holy Prophet (S) sent a word that: “The trouble of my illness is less than your presence.” It appears certain that the Prophet was very much unhappy about his community at the time of his departure. What could be more displeasing than that in his last moments, he neither allowed Muslims to see him nor did he like to get any service from them?

Though historians have not given the names of those who had made such request (permission to see him at the last moment). Yet reason can tell us who such fellows could be, who had made him unhappy. Apparently, it seems that they must be those who were connected with the story of paper and Usamah’s army. A look at the last days of the Holy Prophet (S) gives a hint that had he lived for few more years, Muslims of those days might have openly disobeyed him. The political disobedience had begun when his order about joining Usamah’s army was defied. No one can say to what extent they had opposed the wish of the Prophet, but it looks very likely that the defiance would have gone increasing.

Anyway, the matter of leading prayers during the last illness of the Holy Prophet (S) is also one of the events through which Ahlul Sunnat try to justify the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Knowledgeable people know what weightage is there in this matter. Ahlul Sunnat say that when the Prophet became too weak to go to the mosque and lead prayer, the latter did so; so this qualified him to become his successor. It is for the wise and learned people to decide whether or not leading a prayer looks disputable.

Only Ibn Khaldun says that Abu Bakr led the prayers. All others like Tabari, Asim Kufi, the author of Manaqib and Murtazavi, author of Hayatul Quloob, all differ with Ibn Khaldun on this account. The summary of what Ibn Khaldun has written is that when Abu Bakr got the order of the Prophet to lead prayers, he began to lead; that he was still leading when the Prophet felt somewhat good and he came to the Masjid; Abu Bakr intended to draw back but the Prophet caught hold of his shoulder, which made it impossible for Abu Bakr to move from his place; the Prophet sat beside Abu Bakr and completed the prayer.

This narration does not appear quite convincing, because at that time, the Prophet was so weak that he was unable to walk and therefore he was brought to the mosque with the help of two persons. It is very difficult to believe that he was thus brought only to pray behind Abu Bakr.

More unconvincing is that, despite such extreme weakness he was able to press Abu Bakr’s shoulder. The Prophet’s praying behind Abu Bakr seems more unlikely due to the fact that the latter had not obeyed the former’s command to join Usamah’s army and the command was not withdrawn. Ibn Khaldun must explain why the Prophet followed Abu Bakr in prayer? What is understood from his writing is that there was some very special reason because of which the Prophet had to come to the Masjid, taking assistance of two men and that it was not the Prophet’s longing to pray behind Abu Bakr.

Apparently, it does not seem likely that the Prophet took such trouble to follow Abu Bakr in prayer. Rather, it appears that he undertook all this hardship to prevent Abu Bakr from leading the prayer. What Tabari has written about this fully supports the view of the writer. He says: “When the Holy Prophet (S) entered the Masjid, not only the worshippers broke their intention of praying behind Abu Bakr but Abu Bakr himself discontinued his prayer.”

This shows that Abu Bakr did not get any order from the Prophet to lead prayers. Had he got such a command, why he should have discontinued the prayer? The writing of Murtazavi, author of Manaqib, supports this view. He writes, “If the order to lead prayer was issued by the Prophet, he would not have come out of his room.” This opinion is also supported by the author of Hayatul Quloob who says, “‘A’ysha prevented Abu Bakr from joining Usamah’s army because of the Prophet’s illness.”

Thereafter, this learned author writes: “When Abu Bakr went to the mosque, people asked him as to who had sent him? Bilal said: “Just wait, I will soon inquire and return.” Bilal went and met Fazl bin Abbas. Fazl asked him whether Abu Bakr did not join Usamah’s army? Thereafter, the Prophet came to know what had happened. So he also came to the mosque. Asim Kufi is also of the view of the aforementioned authors. Obviously, the statements of all these writers seem convincing and authentic. Lastly, this author is of the opinion that ‘A’ysha was guiltless regarding all allegations about prayer leading. If she had, owing to her particular interests, prevented her father from joining Usamah’s army and had sent her father to lead prayer in Masjid, she did not do anything against nature. The son is a son and man is a man, not Allah. ‘A’ysha is a mother of the faithful. It is our duty not to reduce the respect, which was given to her by the Prophet.

Regarding the leading of prayers by Abu Bakr, it is totally unreasonable and unwise to consider it his right to Caliphate. Those who do so, follow the proverb, ‘a drowning man clutches at the straw’. Even if the Prophet had asked Abu Bakr and he too followed him in prayer, how can it justify his claim to Caliphate? A look at Madarijun Nubuwwah and Muwattah1 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) had prayed behind Abdur Rahman bin Auf also. If such praying was a justification then Abdur Rahman should have preceded Abu Bakr as the Caliph.

Now the writer quotes below some traditions and comments on them:

It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari2 that as narrated by Anas bin Malik, Abu Bakr led the Morning Prayer on Monday, thinking that the Holy Prophet (S) was too weak to attend the mosque; then he (Prophet) suddenly lifted the door curtain and looked into the mosque. Abu Bakr imagined that the Holy Prophet (S) intended to come for Prayer and so he thought of leaving the line but the Prophet signaled him to continue the prayer and to conclude it. This narration thus only gives a hint that Abu Bakr led the prayer of his own. Had he done so as per the Prophet’s order, why he should have thought of leaving the prayer row?

A narration of Sahl bin Saad Saaidi, in Sahih Bukhari3 states that Abu Bakr led the Asr prayer and that the Prophet followed the former in it, but when Abu Bakr came to know that the Prophet was behind him, he intended to withdraw, but the Prophet signaled him to continue.

Just note, what is mentioned in this tradition appears to be contrary to what is written in the six canonical Sunni tradition books (Sihah Sitta) according to which, the leader (in prayer) must be more gracious than the follower (whereas in this tradition it is said that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr). Then how was it proper and in order? Moreover, according to this tradition, the Holy Prophet (S) corrected a mistake of Abu Bakr’s recitation. Then how could the Imam make a mistake? How strange to observe that Abu Bakr could not perform even the prayer properly; that he was unaware of the difference between the prayer of a male and a female!

And despite all this, Suyuti, quoting the Holy Prophet (S), says that Abu Bakr was, “My most learned and pure companion.” O Ali! O Ali! Verily the ignorance of those so-called scholars who, leaving aside you (Ali), say that Abu Bakr was most honorable and knowledgeable! Please also note that this tradition says that it was the Afternoon Prayer, which was led by Abu Bakr and in the earlier tradition, it was stated that it was the Morning Prayer! The tradition written in Nasai4 is similar to that of Sahih Bukhari.

It is seen in Sahih Bukhari5 that ‘A’ysha says that when the Holy Prophet (S) said during his last illness: “Ask Abu Bakr to lead the prayer, I said that Abu Bakr is very soft-hearted and hence he will not be able to recite properly due to grief, so please ask Umar to lead the prayer.” Then ‘A’ysha asked Hafasa to advise the Holy Prophet (S) in this matter and she did so. But the Holy Prophet (S) replied: “In the matter of talking and insistence, you are like the women of Yusuf. Just tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer.”

Now, please note that the narrator of this tradition is only ‘A’ysha and none else, which also is very strange. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari6 that ‘A’ysha said that she was very often requesting the Holy Prophet (S) to make her father the former’s successor. This tradition gives a clear idea of the intention of ‘A’ysha. So, the above narration about his prayer appears far from reason.

It must be noted that there is much difference about the time of the prayer, which is said to have been led by Abu Bakr. Seeratul Halabiyah7 and Tarikh Khamis8 mention that it was Night (Isha) Prayer. Also remember that Bukhari mentions many conflicting statements.

Some say that the Holy Prophet (S) followed Abu Bakr and some say he did not. One says, Abu Bakr followed the Holy Prophet (S) and another says the congregation followed Abu Bakr. Thus, two Imams and two follower groups have been mentioned. Then there is a difference in the day of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) too.

Most mention Monday, but a tradition of Sahih Bukhari says it was Tuesday. According to a narration of Sahih Bukhari, the time of the Holy Prophet’s departure was at night but Sahih Tirmidhi says it was noontime! Again, one of the narrations of ‘A’ysha (in Sahih Bukhari) states that the Prophet, due to serious illness, performed prayer in his room, not in the mosque, and followers followed him in it. This renders the matter of the Prophet’s following the prayer of Abu Bakr meaningless. In short, the statements of Sahih Bukhari themselves are full of contradictions.

Now look at Pg. 285 in Vol. 2 of Sunan Abu Dawood. Abdullah bin Zama is reported to have said that the Prophet said: “Ask someone to lead the Prayer.” So Abdullah went to the people and saw Umar there, while Abu Bakr was not there. Abdullah asked Umar to lead the Prayer, so Umar led the prayer. When the Prophet heard Umar’s harsh tone, the former asked where was Abu Bakr? Abu Bakr came after Umar concluded the prayer. He led the prayer afresh. How strange is the narration that first the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ask anyone to lead,” but when Umar led, Abu Bakr was called and so he led the prayer!

Anyhow, this tradition of Tirmidhi9 narrated by Salim shows that the Prophet ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayer but at that time the condition of the former was very serious; that he was almost fainting. Abu Bakr led the prayer, but the Prophet could not join the congregation and expired. It is mentioned in Qastalani10 that Abu Bakr and Umar were not present near the Prophet at that time, but had left Medina with Usamah’s army. What is then the meaning of Abu Bakr or Umar leading that prayer?

On the other hand, Kitabul Maghazi11 shows that the Holy Prophet (S) asked the people to tell Umar to lead the prayer. So they went to Umar and said: “The Prophet wants you to lead the prayer.” Umar replied: “It is not possible for me do so in the presence of Abu Bakr.” Then Bilal went back to the Prophet and reported Umar’s reply and also told that Abu Bakr was standing at the door. The Prophet said: “All right, whatever be their opinion. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the Prayer.” So Abu Bakr led the Prayer for eight days. Obviously, this narration too does not fall in line with that of Abu Dawood (Ref. above). In short, there are contradiction and difference in the above narrations and they are:

(1) In one narration, the day on which Abu Bakr led prayer is Monday and in another, Tuesday.

(2) In some, the time of prayers is reported to be morning, in another noon and in yet another, night.

(3) Some say Abu Bakr followed and some say the Holy Prophet (S) followed.

(4) In one report, Abu Bakr led the prayer with the permission of the Prophet and in another, it was without his permission.

(5) In some, it is mentioned that Umar led the prayer.

(6) There is difference in the position of standing and sitting of the leader who led the prayer.

(7) The place of prayer is also not the same. In some, it is said that it was held in the room and as per another, it was in the Masjid.

(8) One narration shows that the Holy Prophet (S) attended the mosque taking help of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Abbas due to his weakness. Now, when the Prophet wanted Abu Bakr to lead, why should he have gone to the mosque?

(9) Some narrations mention that Abu Bakr led the Prayer without the Prophet’s permission. Only one narration, which is of ‘A’ysha, says that it was done with his permission; but this tradition does not appear to be true because ‘A’ysha always wanted her father to become the Caliph, as has been shown above through her own word.

It is really very strange that only one person i.e. ‘A’ysha has reported about the permission and no one else at all said so, though it was a congregational prayer and owing to the Prophet’s illness, most near and dear ones and the companions used to remain with him during those days. At least someone of them should have said what ‘A’ysha has said. In such circumstances, how can a solitary report be accepted, and that too of such a kind?

(10) The Holy Prophet (S) has said that the standing and sitting of the one performing prayer depends on the standing and sitting of the leader (Imam). Now when the Prophet leads the prayer sitting and the followers could not sit because of the standing of Abu Bakr, what kind of prayer was it? Qastalani has also raised this objection quite properly.

(11) Most biographers have mentioned that the two Caliphs were made to go with Usamah’s army, as has also been mentioned by Qastalani, then what about the reports regarding their leading prayers?

(12) In one narration, it is said that Abdullah bin Umar led the prayer and was ousted. Some say that Abu Bakr led the prayer with the Prophet’s permission and the Prophet came to the mosque. Yet another tradition says that the Prophet made Abu Bakr stand behind him. Another narration says Abu Bakr became the reciter of Allaahu Akbar (Takbeer). Another reports says that he stood silently aside. In short, is it the matter of Abu Bakr’s leadership or a lawless exercise?

The only aim of all this is that the Caliphate assumed by Abu Bakr be regarded as legal, proper and just. But when the Prophet had also followed Abdur Rahman bin Auf in Prayer, what was the fault of the latter that he was deprived of Caliphate?

It is also very strange that according to Ahlul Sunnat the matter of leading a prayer and leading a society has no importance as any good or evil man can get it. They write “offer prayer behind any man, good or bad.” So even if it is accepted that Abu Bakr led the prayer or the Prophet made him lead or he followed himself; what is graceful in it? As per their opinion, any good or bad person can lead the prayer and thus leading is no proof of somebody’s honor or prestige.

But we have said that this happening is surprising because, in it either leadership of prayer could not prove nobility or the same leadership turned into a justification for holding the high office of the Caliph! Very puzzling indeed!

- 1. Pg. 12

- 2. Vol. 6, Pg. 38

- 3. Vol. 10, Pg. 206

- 4. Vol. 1, Pg. 234

- 5. Vol. 10, Pg. 257 and Vol. 2, Pg. 37, 38, 39.

- 6. Vol. 6, Pg. 379

- 7. Vol. 3, Pg. 459

- 8. Vol. 2, Pg. 163

- 9. Pg. 31

- 10. Pg. 358, Vol. 6

- 11. Vol. 1, Pg. 17

Descendants Of Ahlul Bayt (Sadaat) Were Slave Children

The reason for writing this is that one of my mentors, who is a manager of a landowner (Zamindar) and has a discerning eye as far as books are concerned, said to me one day that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was acceptable to the family of the Prophet, so there could not be any doubt regarding the validity of that Caliphate. If it had not been so, Ali (a.s.) would not have shared the war booty in the way he did. He would not have taken Lady Shaharbano as a slave girl. This was not a new opinion of the manager.

Generally, people think on the same lines. That when Lady Shaharbano came as a prisoner of war, and because there was no need to perform marriage before having sexual relationship with slave girls, she remained under the charge of Imam Husayn (a.s.). In such circumstances, it is obvious that the children born to her, and till the present age, whatever of her progeny is present; all of them are continuous descendants. This proves that the family of the Prophet used to share the war booty from the wars undertaken by the three Caliphs. It also proves that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs had the approval of the Prophet’s family, thus their Caliphate was valid. If on the contrary they had considered their Caliphate invalid, they would not have shared the war booty.

It should be clear that the followers of Ali (a.s.) certainly believe that the Caliphate of the three Caliphs is not valid. But along with this, it is not the belief of this sect that all Islamic activities that took place during the tenure of these three Caliphs should be considered illegal. Rather, whatever activities were legal should be considered legal and whatever was illegal should be seen as illegal. For example, if a mosque was constructed during the reign of a Caliph, it could not be labeled illegal or if during the time of Caliph, some territories were annexed or booty obtained, it cannot be called illegitimate.

In the same way, there are many legal things that could be performed by an illegal Caliph. But since they are not illegal according to Islam, the followers of Ali (a.s.) could not deny their legality. On the basis of this principle, the sharing of booty by Ali (a.s.) was not against any law of Islam. Such action of Ali (a.s.) does not prove that Ali (a.s.) used to consider these Caliphates lawful. His considering the Caliphates illegal was right and his sharing the booty was also correct.

It is worth noting that when Ali (a.s.) came to the Caliphate seat, at that time many territories that were hitherto infidels had entered the dominion of Islam. After becoming the Caliph, he continued to retain these territories in his Caliphate. He indeed did not say that these territories were conquered during the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, so now they should be returned to their original rulers. And that only those territories shall be retained that were in the Islamic kingdom at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

The writer said by way of example to the manager: “Suppose you were to usurp all the property of your master and for a long time you have everything under your control. During this time you carry out many developments activities, like the digging of canals and building courts etc. You also purchase new properties and add them to the existing estate. But after a long time, the original owner is able to wrest control of his property from your hands. In such circumstances, would he be bound by law or common sense to demolish all the constructions that you had carried out? No sensible person will act in this way. Though you had illegally occupied the estate, your suitable activities could not be considered unlawful. Try to apply this example to the usurpation of Caliphate and the booty obtained during that period.”

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan Bahadur has proved that the Holy Prophet (S) was not a slave child. His ancestor, Ismail (a.s.) was not the son of a slave girl. Hajra was not a slave girl, she was a princess. Now this writer would prove that the mother of the fourth Imam, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), was the proper married wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and not a slave girl. It is a pity that people who want to prove the legality of the three Caliphs are absolutely blind to other things.

Whether the eloquence of Holy Quran is rendered useless or not, where the laws of Quran are trampled upon, whether the Prophet (a.s.) is insulted, the Caliphate of the three Caliphs must be proved valid in any case. What type of an attitude is it? Who is preventing you to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs? But in the path of research, it does not befit a research scholar to include inequitable and irrelevant elements.

The view presented by the opponents not only proves that Allah forbid, Imam Zainul Aabideen was the son a slave girl, but it also alleges that, God forbid, he was illegitimate! The manager was having a similar view, but he was very surprised when I told him that even if the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was illegal, the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Lady Shaharbano could not be considered illegal. She was not betrothed to Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a slave girl. It should be clear that there is difference of opinion regarding the period when Shaharbano is reported to have come to Medina as a slave girl.

Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) says that she came during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), Shaykh Ibn Babawayh says she came during the Caliphate of Uthman and Qutub Rawandi says she came during Umar’s Caliphate. Whatever may be the period of her arrival, the allegation of the opponents is not proved true in any case. The sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) cannot be said to be illegal as we have stated above. Their sharing of the booty does not prove that they had approved the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. The research of this humble slave says that just as Shaykh Mufid (a.r.) has written, Lady Shaharbano came to Medina during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

The Shaykh says, “After the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), the next Guide is the Chief of Prostrators, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) His mother was Shahezanaan, the daughter of King Yezdgird, son of Shahryar, son of Choesroe. Some say that her name was Shaharbano. Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi as the Governor on some Eastern province. He took two daughters of Choesroe as prisoners and sent them to Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) gave Shaharbano to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the other one to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

Lady Shaharbano gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen and the other girl gave birth to Qasim Ibn Muhammad. Maulavi Sayyid Shah Muhammad Kabir Danapuri (r.a.) has certified the research of Shaykh Mufid (a.r.). The Shah writes in his well known book, Tazkeratul Kiraam, Tarikh Khilafa Arabo Islam1 that the above incident took place during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

It should be clear that this book was based on various English and Persian books and published by Naval Kishore Press. The writer was a great scholar of the Sufi School. When the writings of Shaykh Mufid and the Shah prove that Shaharbano had come to Medina during the tenure of Ali (a.s.), any doubt contrary to this cannot be entertained.

Just as all activities of the time of Ali (a.s.) are considered valid, the union of Shaharbano with Imam Husayn (a.s.) shall also be considered valid. The objection of the manager in this regard does not hold any water. Now the writer also intends to prove that Shaharbano was properly married to Imam Husayn (a.s.) through Islamic marriage (Nikah). She was not joined to him as a slave girl obtained in a battle.

The same Shah has also written that Ali (a.s.) had appointed Harith bin Jabir Juhfi over some cities of Khorasan and he took three daughters of Yezdgird as prisoners: The three were Meherbano, Mahbano and Shaharbano. He sent them all to Ali (a.s.) and said that they were daughters of a king and they should be given to respectable people. Thus, Meherbano was given as a wife to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Mahbano to Abdullah Ibn Umar and Shaharbano to the Chief of the Martyrs, Imam Husayn (a.s.), who gave birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

This proves that Shaharbano was the legally wedded wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The word of ‘wifehood’ used by the Shah proves this. Shia books also prove that the Shaharbano’s marriage took place with Imam Husayn (a.s.) and by the order of Ali (a.s.), the Nikah sermon was recited by Huzaifah.

Thus, the above discussion proves that the sharing of war booty by Ali (a.s.) could not be blamed and that the relationship of Imam Husayn (a.s.) with Shaharbano was based on proper Nikah due to which Imam Zainul Aabideen Ali (a.s.) is safe from the label of “slave-child.”

Here, it is worth mentioning that according to the directions of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), whatever booty is obtained through wars conducted without the permission of the Imam of the time, belong to the Imam of the time. Therefore, all the booty obtained during the time of the Caliphs actually belonged to Ali (a.s.). Thus, whatever Ali (a.s.) got from the booty was already his rightful property and others are responsible for whatever they had taken.

Apart from this, most of the time, Jihad was undertaken only after consultation with Ali (a.s.) and the correctness of Jihad is not a certificate for the validity of Caliphate. The fact is that Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) is a prince from both his parents. His paternal lineage goes to Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S) and Ali (a.s.), this is his religious princehood. His maternal lineage goes to Nausherwan Aadil, which is his worldly princehood. What can be said about Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.)? Only that will see him lowly who has been blind in the past and is still blind. May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

In the end, it is necessary to say that the writer, by writing all this, does not desire to hurt any person or sect. As far as possible, the writer relates the relevant incidents and always quotes only the authentic facts. Even then in a gathering some people said that this writer, writes the praises of some religious leaders. Now he will be dealt in the same manner as that particular writer of Patna was dealt with.

By Allah! Such dealing will not only be a favor on me, it will be salvation. The opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) may be pleased to deal with me as they please, as it is proved that Lady Fatima Zahra, Ali (a.s.), Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) are already wrongly criticized by the opponents. I am a slave of their slaves. It would be my fortune to suffer just as they had suffered. I would consider the suffering as a certificate for being a slave of their slaves. Indeed, I have no fear of persecution. When such great masters of mine were persecuted, how can I worry about my humble self? I am the one who keeps in mind the following verse:

“Say I do not demand of you recompense, except the love of the near kindred.” 2

Obviously, one who keeps this in mind cannot have any fear of persecution. It is astounding that opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) have always ignored this verse. And leave alone the love of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), they did not even have the slightest respect for them. The above writings have proved how the opponents persecuted and insulted the family of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

In order to maintain brevity and regard for the people of the time, the writer has hardly written anything about their behavior towards Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). If the writer had written in detail, this book would have been many times its size. The fact is that whatever ill-treatment was initiated from the time of the Prophet’s mortal illness, is still continuing. If all their calamitous circumstances were written, they would form a bulky book. Even today the world is not empty of opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Though Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) themselves are not apparent, the opponents are bent upon persecuting the followers of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

- 1. Part III, Pg. 355

- 2. Surah Shura 42:23

Islam and the Two Caliphs

There was no need to write on this topic, but the writer encountered such a problem that he had to write it. I have a mentor who is a Sayyid by birth and a Sufi by faith. He is always organizing functions on birthdays of the Infallibles (a.s.) and mourning ceremonies (Majalis) and he invites both Ahlul Sunnat and Shias in these programs.

One day I was at his residence on the occasion of a birthday. There, I saw a poet of the new generation, who had recently earned great fame and people used to gather in large numbers to hear his recitations. That is why there was extraordinary crowd on that day. The reciter gave a great performance. When he finished the poetry part, he began to give a speech. He had learnt that I was not from Ahlul Sunnat. This information caused him great discomfort. On the basis of the enmity that he harbored against my ancestors, he began to say in his speech:

“Abu Bakr and Umar were of perfect faith while the faith of Ali (a.s.) was imperfect (Allah forbid!), etc. What did Ahlul Sunnat have to stop of him from such nonsense? They all continued to hear it and he went on speaking this rubbish. Anyway, that speech ended, but below I present a detailed classification of the faiths of the two Caliphs and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Regarding Abu Bakr, I would like to say that if he really had perfect faith, he would not have abandoned the Holy Prophet (S) and fled from the battles of Uhud and Hunayn. One with a perfect faith cannot act in this way. Anyone with perfect faith would not hesitate to sacrifice his life in the way of Allah. The way Abu Bakr left and ran away is not expected even from an ordinary friend.

As far as I know, no respectable person will run away leaving his friend in danger. It is most shameful for a man, what type of a Muslim behavior is it? That a person goes for Jihad, but when there are difficult times, he leaves the Prophet in a lurch and disappears from the battlefield. What type of a ‘perfect faith’ is it?

A Muslim cannot act in this manner. The flight of Abu Bakr shows that his faith was not even like that of an ordinary Muslim. He ran away from Marhab and Harith during the battle of Khaybar for two days. Common sense tells us that the faith of such a person is not perfect. Where was he hiding in Medina during the Battle of Ditch is best known to himself or his friend, Umar. He did not even see the face of Amr Ibn Abde Wudd. Are these incidents insufficient to prove the defective faith of Abu Bakr? Certainly not! A person with a perfect faith will never abandon the Prophet to save his own skin; and it seems improper to call such a person a Muslim, who has always avoided Jihad. How can he be considered a Caliph of the Prophet? These were practical examples of Abu Bakr’s defective faith.

Now, I will show from his sayings that if Islam had any place in his heart, he would not have acted like that in the Battle of Uhud and he would not have uttered: “Muhammad has been killed, you all turn back on your religion.” The readers may refer to the above writing of the author and they will know the facts about the above statement. One who can say such a thing, cannot have perfect faith. The Almighty Allah has also refuted this statement. Allah says:

“And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least…” 1

It is very surprising that Allah is so emphatically prohibiting people to turn back to Ignorance (Jahiliya) and Abu Bakr is doing the opposite and exhorting Muslims to return to it. Indeed, this shows that Islam had not wholly occupied the heart of Abu Bakr, due to which he did not have perfect faith. The military activities of Umar are the same as that of Abu Bakr. Their flights from battlefields are equally recorded. With these conditions, how can anyone call them perfect believers? He also seems to have defective faith, like Abu Bakr.

Apart from written records, his saying at the treaty of Hudaibiya is: “I never had such doubt on Prophethood as I had today.” This sufficiently proves that he always had doubts regarding the prophethood of the Prophet, but at the allegiance of Hudaibiya, it was intensified.

This doubt shows that like Abu Bakr, leave alone perfect faith, he had no sort of faith worth praise. It is surprising that in the battles, where Abu Bakr and Umar took to heels, Ali (a.s.) was seen to be performing extraordinary feats of bravery. Apart from this, Ali (a.s.) never uttered a sentence that could show any type of weakness of faith. He was verbally and practically always the follower of the Messenger of Allah (S). He never did anything against the command of the Prophet. He was an exemplar of perfect faith. On the basis of his words and actions, he had absolute right of the successorship of the Prophet. The fact is that he remained steadfast in every military encounter.

Not only was he steadfast, he was instrumental in the victory of every battle. He never left the side of the Prophet. He always defended the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of religion. He did not allow the slightest cowardice to come near him. Then on the basis of his achievement, the Prophet twice said: “All the good deeds of the creatures, past, present and future cannot equal the military exploits of Ali (a.s.).”

In such circumstances, no one can have any doubt about the perfection of his faith. Rather, it could be said with justice that there would never be anyone with such perfect faith as that of Ali (a.s.). What a pity that the opponents have labeled the faith of Ali (a.s.) to be defective and that of the two Caliphs as perfect. The fact is that bigotry blinds man and a bigot cannot see the truth.

- 1. Surah Aale Imran 3:144

The Verse Of Surah Noor Discussed

“Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange: they shall serve Me, not associating ought with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors.” 1

The Ahlul Sunnat say that the above verse proves the validity of the Righteous Caliphs or the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. However, no word of this verse indicates that it is in any way restricted to the Caliphs. Here, Allah has clearly promised the believers and good doers, Caliphate. That Allah will make some of them rulers in the land just as He had made rulers before them. This address of Allah is for all the believers, as clear from Tafseer Zahidi:

“And it is not restricted to the three Caliphs. Neither is it restricted to any particular time period. It is a promise that applies to all the believers from the time of the Holy Prophet (S) till the present time.”

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

It is a verse that followers of the three Caliphs can apply to their Caliphs, the Bani Umayyah can apply to their rulers, the Bani Abbas can pull it towards their Caliphate, the Bani Hashim can say it is a promise of their Caliphate. In these circumstances, it is obstinacy to restrict it to the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

If this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar would have used it to prove their stand in Saqifah. But they did not do so.

This shows that this verse was not considered a proof during the Caliphate of Umar and Abu Bakr. Leave alone that period, this verse has never been presented as proof in the subsequent period. Such illogical interpretations were invented much later to prove the validity of Caliphate.

Though the above verse does not prove the Caliphate of three Caliphs, a tradition of the Prophet (S) indicates that this verse is applicable to the family of the Prophet (S).

Muhaddith Mir Jamaluddin Husaini quotes this tradition in Rauzatul Ahbab. Jabir Ibne Abdullah Ansari (r.a.) relates that when the verse: “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you…”…was revealed, I asked the Messenger of Allah (s.a.): I have recognized Allah and the Apostle, but who are ‘those in authority’ whose obedience has been made compulsory by Allah?

The Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘They are my Caliphs after me, the first of whom is Ali Ibne Abi Talib, then Hasan, then Husain, then Ali the son of Husain, then Muhammad the son of Ali, known in the Taurat as al-Baqir, and you will soon reach him, when you meet him, convey my salutations to him. Then Sadiq, Ja’far, the son of Muhammad, then Moosa, the son of Ja’far, then Ali, the son of Moosa, then Muhammad, the son of Ali, then Ali, the son of Muhammad, then Hasan, the son of Ali, then the proof of Allah on His earth.’”

This book, Rauzatul Ahbab is such that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi has praised it in his journal, ‘Usoole Hadith’. We should know that the twelve Imams are such that they are clearly mentioned in Taurat. The Almighty Allah says in the Book of Genesis:

“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.”2

Apart from this, the above tradition also shows that Imam Muhammad Ibn Ali is mentioned as ‘Baqir’ in the Taurat. It is not surprising that the verse “Allah promises those…” mentions Caliphate in relation to the twelve Imams, who the Prophet has said were his Caliphs in his saying to Jabir. In fact, who can be more deserving of the Caliphate of the Prophet?

Even though they could not achieve worldly kingdom, due to the lack of support from Muslims, but their religious authority had always been there and it will be till there is Islam. Obviously, what is the value of a worldly kingdom? Even Nimrod, Shaddad, Firon, Muawiyah and Yazeed had it, and of what use was it? Can the verse apply to such people? Certainly not! Indeed, what is worthy, is religious Caliphate and as per the saying of the Holy Prophet (S), it is the right of the twelve Imams (a.s.).

May Allah bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

- 1. Surah Noor 24:55

- 2. Genesis 17:20

Analysis Of The Tradition, “My Companions Are Like Stars; You Will Be Guided, If You Follow Any Of Them.”

The above tradition is fabricated. Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is weak.1 Bazzaz says that this tradition quoted from the Holy Prophet (S) is inauthentic and it is not found in any authentic book of traditions. In the same way, Ibn Kuram says in his journal Kubra, that this tradition is invalid and false. Ahmad Wamzi Zahabi, Wathqi and Abul Hujjaj have all said similar things about this tradition. Maulavi Abdul Ali Bahrul Uloom writes in Sharhe Muslim and Mulla
Nizamuddin, his father, in Subhe Sadiq Sharhe Manar consider it invalid and false.

Abdul Hai Lakhnavi also writes in his book, Tohfatul Akhyar, that this tradition is concocted and he does not consider it correct at all. Briefly, we say that this tradition is not at all the saying of the Holy Prophet (S). When it is so, why Ahlul Sunnat people are so much in love with this tradition? Apparently, it is so, because Ahlul Sunnat find their water bags tied to the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqlayn).

Thus, what could they do if not to consider this tradition consoling. It is an ancient saying that the drowning man clutches at the straw. Obviously, this act of theirs is an open attribution of falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S).

But they could not see anything in their blind love of the three Caliphs. That is why they close their eyes from the falsification of the captioned tradition. May Allah give good sense to all His servants. Amen. A poet has penned a beautiful couplet in this connection:

“If all the companions be like stars; some stars are of ill omen.”

- 1. Ref. Minhaj

Existence Of Mahdi, Master Of The Age

It should be clear that Jews once had a belief and they still have, that one day the Messiah, the Promised one will appear in the world. When Jesus came, the Jews did not accept him as the Promised Messiah and they were inimical towards him to such an extent that they did not leave any stone unturned to kill him. The Jews are still awaiting the Promised Messiah.

The Christians are also awaiting the return of Jesus. Muslims also share this belief. The difference is that Muslims are waiting for the return of Jesus after reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.). It is proved from the books of both the sects that the Twelfth Imam (a.s.) has already taken birth. He is the last of the twelve Imams and is from the progeny of the Lady of Paradise [Fatima Zahra (s.a.)]. His respected father is Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.), son of Imam Ali Naqi (a.s.), son of Imam Muhammad Taqi, son of Imam Ali Reza, son of Imam Moosa Kazim, son of Imam Ja’far Sadiq, son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, son of Imam Zainul Aabideen Ali Ibnul Husayn, son of Ali al-Murtadha’ [Peace be on them all].1

The name of his honorable mother is Narjis Khatoon. However, Mulla Abdul Rahman Jarri’s book Shawahidun Nubuwwah2 indicates that the name of that lady was Saiqal, and some have also mentioned it as Susan. His name is the same as the Holy Prophet (S).

Tarikh of Ibn Khallikan mentions3 that he was born on Friday, in the middle of the month of Shaban. And when his father, Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) passed away, he was only five years old. Ibn Arzak says that he was born on the 9th of Rabiul Awwal, 258 A.H. and it is also said that his date of birth was 8th Shaban and the year of the birth was 256 A.H. (Some over intelligent people had derived from numerology that the equivalent of the Arabic letter ‘noon’ (N) is 256.

In the view of this writer, the conclusion of Ibn Khallikan seems to be correct and most historians of that time have agreed that the date of his birth was 15th Shaban. In the same way, when he disappeared after entering the cellar, he was five years old, while some have said that he was four years.

It is also mentioned that his disappearance into the cellar was in 275 A.H. At that time his age was 17 years (The fact is that the Minor Occultation occurred at the age of five years.). Abdul Wahhab Sherani says that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the son of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). He was born in the middle of Shaban. He is alive and present in the world. His birth is also mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood and Sawaiqul Mohreqa.

Shaykh Muhiyuddin says in Al-Futoohat that the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is certain, but not until the world is filled with injustice and oppression.

And when that Imam appears, he will fill the earth with justice and equity just as it would have been full of injustice and oppression. He is the descendant of the Holy Prophet (S) and from the progeny of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Shaykh Imam Bakhsh Nasikh Lakhnavi says in a poem (Ghazal):

“Show us, O Lord! About whose advent there is clamor in the world My Lord! I am very desirous to view Muhammad. Show us now the spring of the Religion of Muhammad (S). The bubble of the heart is in anticipation of the spring of the flower.”

- 1. Ref. Isafur Raghebeen, Pg. 140

- 2. Pg. 247

- 3. Pg. 24 of Vol. 2

Lineage Of Imam Mahdi

Only one Muslim sect believes that he is not yet born and that he would be born in the future. It is clear from the books of both the sects that he has already taken birth and after sometime he went into occultation. He would reappear in the last age and lead Prophet Isa (a.s.) in prayers. There is no difference between the sects so far, but from here begins a falsification process by the Hanafite scholars. It is written in Durre Mukhtar that on his return, Isa (a.s.) will emulate (do Taqlid) of Abu Hanifah. It is a strange belief.

Anyway, Maulana Abdul Hai Lakhnavi presents its refutation in the preface of that book itself: “It is a matter unsupported by arguments.” In the same way, Suyuti has said that the prophecy that Isa (a.s.) will follow the four schools of thoughts is baseless. And how can it be possible that a prophet should follow a jurisprudent (Mujtahid)? Rather, he will act on the religion of Muhammad in conformity with the Shariah and Quran.

Mulla Ali Qari has also said that one of the stupid innovation of Hanafite scholars is that Khizr studied under Abu Hanifah for thirty years, first when he was alive and at his grave after he died. Mulla Ali Qari says that Khizr is the person regarding whom the Almighty has said in Surah Kahf that he had Divinely bestowed Knowledge (Ilme Ladunni). He had been a teacher of Moosa (a.s.). How can such a personality be a disciple of Abu Hanifah? And it is also false that Isa (a.s.) will descend and follow Abu Hanifah in religious law. Mulla Ali Qari says that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is himself a jurisprudent, it is not permitted for him to emulate anyone.

Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi has said that analogy is prohibited for the Imam of the Age (a.j.). Whatever he would command, would be on the basis of whatever the divinely appointed angels guide him to. In no case can it be allowed for him to emulate Abu Hanifah. Now there remains no need for me to refute such baseless claims of Hanafite scholars. I have been saved the trouble by the writings of Abdul Hai. But the people of justice may note how bigoted the Hanafite scholars are! They say whatever they like in praise of Abu Hanifah. How beautifully they raise the status of their ‘Imam’. O Hanafite brothers! Remember that following the truth is a great thing indeed. No one can remain a Muslim, if he does not follow the path of truth. I request my Hanafite brothers not to become blind to truth in their love for their ‘Imam’.

The following are the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat with regard to the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (a.j.), and along with them are presented the objections of Shias against the concocted beliefs:

1. Ahlul Sunnat believe that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the divine Caliph appointed by the Almighty.1 The text is as follows: “The Almighty appointed the Qaim, a rightful Caliph.” This tradition is related by Abi Dawood. Then is the report of Ahmad in the same book. He will be the Caliph in the last age. Then Ali (a.s.) is reported to have said as mentioned on page 233 of Sunan Abi Dawood:

The Prophet’s saying is that: “Allah will send a man from my Ahlul Bayt who would fill the earth with justice, just as it is filled with inequity.”

The objection applicable to this belief is that according to Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate depends on consensus and allegiance but there is no consensus of scholars and leaders for Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Thus, how can his Caliphate be correct from the principles of Ahlul Sunnat? The second objection is that according to Ahlul Sunnat, appointing of the Caliph and the Imam is obligatory on people and not on Allah. But the text of Sunan Abi Dawood says:

“Allah appointed Qaim as the rightful Caliph…”

This shows that Allah has considered the appointment of Caliph and Imam obligatory on Himself and not on the people. Thus, we realize that the appointment of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) was by the will of Allah and not by the selection of people. In such circumstances, the application of consensus and allegiance, for Caliphate is invalid.

2. If, according to Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is from Allah, why the Imamate of other Imams could not be from Allah? How can the Imamate of the 12th Imam be considered divinely appointed and the Imamate of the other eleven Imams from Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) be considered the opposite? It is no secret that Shias follow only one principle. That is just as they consider the appointment of eleven Imams to be from Allah, the Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is also considered to be from Allah.

Now we realize why Ahlul Sunnat believe in the opposite. It is so because by believing in the divine appointment of the eleven Imams (a.s.), the Caliphate of the three Caliphs would be rendered invalid.

3. According to most Sunni scholars, Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the twelfth Imam. But the list of the Twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnat includes the Caliphs of Bani Abbas and Bani Umayyah. Thus, there is no option but to make Imam Mahdi (a.j.) as the thirteenth Imam! Then how can Ahlul Sunnat say that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is the twelfth Imam?

4. Some Ahlul Sunnat traditionists have believed Mahdi the Abbasid to be the promised Mahdi. But when did Isa (a.s.) pray behind Mahdi, the Abbasid, or followed him in any way?

5. The following tradition of Umar is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: “The Messenger of Allah (S) did not have a Caliph.” But regarding Imam Mahdi (a.j.), often we see the word of Caliph. How can we relate this to the tradition of Umar?

6. According to Ahlul Sunnat, prophets are superior to the Holy Imams; then the prayer of Isa (a.s.) behind Imam Mahdi (a.j.) would be invalid.

7. If Isa (a.s.) prays behind Imam Mahdi (a.j.), it would imply that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is superior to Isa (a.s.). But Ahlul Sunnat believe that the three Caliphs are not superior to Isa (a.s.). Then it is necessary that Imam Mahdi (a.j.) is superior or more than superior to the three Caliphs. But Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) is superior to Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Then, it is obvious that Ali (a.s.) should be much more superior to the three Caliphs. But according to the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, Ali (a.s.) is considered inferior to the three Caliphs. What enigma is this? Ahlul Sunnat may themselves sort it out!

The fact is that many things of Ahlul Sunnat defy logic. And the specialty of their belief is that they include the progeny of Abbas in Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. But from the aspect of the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), it is necessary to remain attached to the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Therefore, all Abbasids have to be obeyed obligatorily in affairs of religion.

In such circumstances, why do Ahlul Sunnat follow the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafei and Hanbal? They should follow the religion of Motasim, Mutawakkil, Haroon and Mamoon, most whom where Motazalite. Why do Ahlul Sunnat not follow the Motazalite school of thought? It is indeed true that once you follow a false principle, you will have to face thousands of invalid and concocted principles.

The writer actually wanted to end the discussion with the controversial points between the two sects, but here it seems necessary to discuss the following additional controversial matters between the two sects. The humble writer pleads the people of justice to read them with utmost attention.

- 1. Ref. Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Pg. 114.

Some Important Topics: Abdullah Ibn Saba And Shiaism

Ahlul Sunnat say that the founder of Shia religion, is Abdullah Ibn Saba. Thus, Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his book, Tohfa Ithna Ashar has also written the same in following Nasrullah Kabuli. In Milal Wan Nihal of Shahristani, the following is seen: “The Sabiya is the sect of Abdullah Ibn Saba, which believed in the divinity of Ali (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) had sent Abdullah Ibn Saba to Madayan and it is thought that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam.

The belief of the Sabiya sect was that Ali (a.s.) is alive. He has not been killed. And there is a divine part within him. The sounds present in the cloud and lighting belongs to Ali (a.s.) and lighting is his rubbish and a short time before Judgment Day, he will come back to the earth.”

This statement shows that Abdullah Ibn Saba was the founder of Nusairi1 sect. Shia Ithna Asharis do not believe in the divinity of Ali (a.s.), neither call him God nor they deny his martyrdom. It is astonishing that Shah Abdul Aziz should write such baseless things! One has pity on the respected Shah. This writer left the Sunni religion after reading such books. How can Shia Ithna Asharis be compared to the followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba? What relation does Abdullah Ibn Saba has with the founding of Shia religion.

- 1. Who believe in the divinity of Imam Ali (a.s.)

Superiority Of Abu Bakr And Umar According To Zaidiya Traditions

Ahlul Sunnat say in Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Ibn Hajar Makki has quoted some traditions on the authority of Darqutni from Sadaat and Zaidiya Imams, which imply the superiority of Umar and Abu Bakr. The source of all those traditions is Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

In such circumstances, the denial of Shias of the merits of Abu Bakr and Umar seems to be against the pure sayings of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). This objection is answered in the following way: According to Shahristani of Milal wan Nihal, the Zaidiya sect followed the Motazalite school thought, which in the end became Shia. In such a case, according to the principles of Sunni jurisprudence, the traditions of both sects are unacceptable.

In addition to this, the objection would have been sustainable when it had been proved from authentic books of Shia traditions. To make such allegations on the basis of traditions recorded in Sunni books, is beyond the sphere of justice. Anyway, it should be seen what those traditions are. When we check them we find that those traditions are without complete chains of narrators. Also, some of the narrators are stooges of Bani Umayyah, some are liars and others, enemies of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Some like Sairafi are Motazalite. In the same way, a tradition is attributed to Imam Shafei. But there is no proof that Shafei ever came in contact with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

It is a well known fact that Muawiyah used to spread false traditions in praise of the two Caliphs. As Ibn Abil Hadid has written and Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi writes in Ashatul Lumaat, in the chapter of the Merits of two Caliphs: “Many traditions in praise of the two Caliphs are inauthentic.” In the same way, Shah Abdul Aziz writes in Bustanul Mohaddethin that Ahlul Sunnat have fabricated 14000 traditions in praise of the two Caliphs and Ibn Jauzi has collected these.

Obviously, if there had really existed traditions in the praise of two Caliphs, what was the need of concocting these reports. It is worth noting that if the Purified Imams had approved the merits of the two Caliphs, why would they have issued verdicts against them and their followers. In the same way, when Abdul Rahman bin Auf asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, would you continue the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar?” Ali (a.s.) flatly refused. Obviously, if Ali (a.s.) had approved the two Caliphs, he would not have given such a reply. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was not in the least agreeable to the merits of the two Caliphs. If he were, he would not have mentioned Abu Bakr in the Shiqshiqya Sermon with such anger and grief.

Thus, the merits of the two Caliphs can never be the religion of Sadaat. All Sadaat who confessed to the superiority of the two Caliphs or still do, have acted and still act against the religion of Sadaat. This confession of theirs was indeed for material benefits. Just as due to love of material wealth, the sayings of Abbas, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Aqeel and Abdullah, Yahya and Mutawakkil and Ja’far Kazzab are unreliable. The Purified Imams definitely did not agree to the merits of the two Caliphs. Thus, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) recited a sermon in Damascus, in which he mentioned the merits of himself and his purified forefathers and he did not say a word about Abu Bakr and Umar.

Ibn Athir has quoted this sermon in his Tarikh Kamil. It was a sermon, after hearing which, the nobles of Damascus released a deep sigh and wept profusely and began to criticize the accursed Yazeed. In the same way, in the debate between Imam Taqi (a.s.) against Yahya bin Aqsam in the court of Mamoon, the great Imam continued to deny the superiority of the two Caliphs and laid various blames on the two of them. This debate is also mentioned in Ibn Athir’s Tarikh Kamil. Thus, we should know that belief in the superiority of Umar and Abu Bakr cannot be a part of Shia faith. They differ like black differs from white.

In the end, I will also mention the factors that sometimes compelled the Sadaat to confess to the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and that was in dissimulation (Taqayyah). If at that time, the Sadaat had not practiced dissimulation, there would have remained no sign of Sadaat or their ancestral religion.

The discussion of dissimulation is to come in the following pages. To fend off the attacks of Ahlul Sunnat, Shias had dug out the shield of dissimulation. If one does not do it, one is sure to die. It is an old proverb. There was no option for Shias except to show themselves to be Ahlul Sunnat. What else can they do against a religion, which was established on the enmity of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)?

Praise be to Allah, during this British rule there remains no need to practice dissimulation. Praise and Glory be to Allah. Anyway, the sayings of Zaid, the Martyr, are often based on dissimulation and were due to the existing circumstances. They are Zaidiya Sadaat who at one time believed in the superiority of the two Caliphs and the same who during the reign of Taalallah and Maazuddaula wrote curses on the names of two Caliphs on the doors of the mosque. In the same way, Ibn Abil Hadid has mentioned such Zaidiya traditions in Sharh Nahjul Balagha that show the injustice of the two Caliphs with regard to the affairs of Caliphate.

Sahifa Kamila And Merits Of The Two Caliphs

Ahlul Sunnat say that in a supplication of Sahifa Kamila are mentioned merits of the Righteous Caliphs. The supplication does not mention any names but it says: “Companions, who helped the religion, bore troubles and strived greatly in the establishment of faith.” Such companions are intended in this supplication. There can be no indication in this supplication for the three Caliphs, because those people did not help the faith in anyway, they bore no difficulties for religion and did not make any efforts for the establishment of religion. They always left the Prophet surrounded by enemies and bolted to save their dear lives. They never faced the infidels. They always avoided the hardships of Jihad. Then how can Imam (a.s.) pray for such people?

But since the word of ‘companions’ appears in this supplication, Ahlul Sunnat thought of their three Caliphs at once. Here the situation of Ahlul Sunnat is like the drowning man who clutches at the straw. The writer would like to state that if Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) had really meant the two Caliphs, there was nothing preventing him to mention them by name.

Martyrdom Of Imam Husain And Yazeed’s Desire

Some followers of Yazeed try to prove that Yazeed told Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.): “By Allah, I never intended to kill your father.1 Curse on the son of Marjana (Ibn Ziyad). I did not command him to kill Husayn.”

All this is okay, but the Tarikh of Abul Hasan Madayani, Seerat Hisham Kalbi, and Ibn Athir, writer of Tarikh Kamil and Abu Ja’far Tabari and Abi Makhnaf, Abu Ishaq Isfayarani show that Yazeed had openly sent the following message to Walid, the governor of Medina: “If Husayn refuses to give allegiance, kill him and send me his severed head.” It is not hidden that the denial of Yazeed was to save himself from the criticism of Syrians and that there might not be civil disturbance in the country, resulting in his dethroning. Otherwise, his correspondence with Walid is still present in history books.

The report of Abi Makhnaf shows that when Yazeed feared the censure and criticism of the people of Syria, he began to ask each of his commanders whether he had killed Husayn. All the accursed ones denied. Even Shimr and Khuli denied having killed Husayn.

At last, Qays said to Yazeed: “You have killed Husayn.” This made Yazeed ashamed and from that moment, Yazeed used to slap his own face. Then he also apologized to the prisoners of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The friends of Yazeed can say that this regret of Yazeed had got his sins forgiven. But such people should know that when he was drowning, Firon had also said: “I believe in the Lord of Moosa and Haroon.” Can this statement be a proof of Firon’s faith? A shaky action cannot be considered firm and cannot be accepted.

I ask the friends of Yazeed why they are so much aggrieved on the martyrdom of Husayn? Why do they not say in support of Yazeed that Husayn was a traitor to the Caliph? If he was killed, the Caliph cannot be blamed. The friends of Yazeed have the right to claim thus, because according to the principles of their faith, Yazeed was a rightful Caliph and Husayn was a traitor. Though there are not many Muslims having such a belief, yet they are not against the principles of their religion.

What is the need to say that Yazeed did not desire the killing of Husayn (a.s.), etc.? What is the need to present this excuse? If the principles of Caliphate had been against Yazeed, it would have been another matter. Not only one principle, many rules were in favor of Yazeed. The fact is that following one falsehood, compels us to thousands of deviations. One affair of Saqifah has misguided people in a thousand ways.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 176

Lady Khadija And ‘A’ysha

Lady Khadija and ‘A’ysha; both are mothers of believers (Ummul Mo-mineen). From this aspect, both these ladies are deserving of respect by the Muslims. But the difference of both these mothers of believers will be apparent from their personal circumstances. The following discussion is worthy of attention:

Lady Khadija was related to the Holy Prophet (S). The respected lady was wealthy and the Prophet used to manage her business. During that time, the Prophet used to carry Meccan goods for trading in Syria. Upon his return, he used to give the accounts to the owners. He used to perform these duties with such honesty and integrity that the people of Mecca called him by the title of Ameen (trustworthy).

Along with other goods, he used to carry the goods of Khadija also for trading. The gentle and honest nature of the Prophet affected Khadija and she desired to marry him. Nothing could prevent this marriage, because Lady Khadija was a noble lady of Mecca and the Prophet was equal in class. Thus, his uncle and benefactor, Abu Talib also liked the proposal and Lady Khadija was married to the Messenger of Allah (S). At the time of this marriage, the age of the

Prophet was twenty-five years and Lady Khadija was forty years old. Though there was a vast difference between their ages, their marriage proved to be a very happy union. May Allah make the marriages of all the people so happy and blessed.

Though Lady Khadija was fifteen years senior to the Holy Prophet (S), he was very much attached to her. The proof of his affections for her is clear from the fact that during the lifetime of Lady Khadija, the Prophet did not take another wife. If he had done so, it would not have been against religion and tradition. The reason for not doing so was that the Prophet had a spiritual relationship with Lady Khadija. He had not married her only for physical relationship. The Prophet used to respect Lady Khadija a great deal, and he loved her all his life. Even after her death, he never forgot her and he remembered her with the same love and affection.

The greatest reason for this love was that Khadija (s.a.) had great respect for the Messenger of Allah (S). She did nothing that would even slightly displease the Prophet. She at once understood that the Messenger of Allah (S) was a true Prophet. Indeed, she was the first lady to bring faith on the Messenger of Allah (S). Lady Khadija was an accomplished and cultured lady. She possessed all the superior qualities of womanhood. Though it is an honor for a woman to be called a perfect woman, Lady Khadija also qualified to be the most superior woman by her spirituality. Her spirituality was obvious from the fact that ‘the Lady of Judgment Day’ and rather, ‘the Chief of the Ladies of the world’ was to be born from her womb. And she was the lady who became the wife of Ali (a.s.) and from whose womb were born Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn (a.s.) and then from the progeny of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were born nine purified Imams, one after the other.

On the basis of those excellences, the Messenger of Allah (S) loved Lady Khadija (s.a.) so much. Indeed, without spiritual superiority, the husband can never love his wife so much. Lady Khadija passed away at Mecca itself before the Hijrat (migration) of the Messenger of Allah (S). The Prophet was so aggrieved due to her demise that he could not forget his dear wife for the rest of his life. After emigrating from Mecca to Medina, the Holy Prophet (S) married ‘A’ysha. And after that he married a number of ladies. But whatever Khadija had, was taken with her to the grave. It is worthy to note that at the age of 25, he married Khadija and spent his youth and a part of his middle age with her. The love of the Holy Prophet (S) to Khadija increased day by day and never decreased. The cause of such a love has spiritual aspects and is restricted to the selected ones of Allah.

Now, the writer shall mention some facts about ‘A’ysha. ‘A’ysha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. She married the Prophet at a very young age. Her young age is proved from the fact that at the time of the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) she was only 18 years old. She married in Medina and she was widowed only after a few years.

After his marriage to ‘A’ysha, the Prophet married a few times more. ‘A’ysha was beautiful and the Prophet appreciated this quality of hers. In spite of her beauty and attraction, ‘A’ysha could not create such a respect in the heart of the Prophet as Khadija was having, because ‘A’ysha was not bestowed with those spiritual qualities. And how could it be? Because Providence did not intend that a daughter like Fatima should be born from her and should marry a person like Ali (a.s.), and that such sons should be born from her, who are mentioned in Taurat and those who would all be the true Caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (S).

We never compare Lady Khadija to ‘A’ysha because both are mothers of believers for us. But Ahlul Sunnat do a lot of injustice in this regard since the beginning. What type of justice is that ‘A’ysha should be called the most superior of the women, instead of Lady Khadija? But since their religion is based on opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) what else could they have done? The main cause is that ‘A’ysha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. If it had not been so, Ahlul Sunnat would not have acted like that. Indeed, if Pir Dastagir had referred to Khadija as the favorite wife of the Prophet, it would have been all right, but indeed it’s a pity that he calls ‘A’ysha the favorite wife of the Prophet. In the view of the writer, ‘A’ysha had nothing extraordinary except that she was a wife of the Prophet. That alone could not lend her spiritual superiority. It is not difficult to learn about her manners and spiritual position.

On page 284 of Sahih Muslim, we read about the inner feelings of ‘A’ysha. One day Hawla Binte Khuwailid, the sister of Khadija, came to visit the Messenger of Allah (S). The Prophet met her with exceeding good behavior. This made ‘A’ysha jealous. She said: “You continue to remember that old woman whose teeth had fallen off, the redness of whose hair faded and whose thighs had become dry? Allah has now given you a better woman.”

Now we ask the readers: “Does this conversation imply any spirituality? Can any respectable lady talk in this way?” ‘A’ysha is the wife of the Prophet. We cannot express our views about her openly, but suffice it to say what type of manners are these. That one should speak in this way in front of the sister of a late co-wife? Indeed, it was beyond the understanding of ‘A’ysha that how discerning the Prophet was regarding merit and that why he remembered Khadija even after her death in the way he did. It was not without any reason that the Messenger of Allah (S) has made Lady Khadija equal to Lady Maryam and Lady Aasiya.1

Both these ladies also were having a pure soul like Khadijatul Kubra.

In that same tradition, the Prophet has compared ‘A’ysha to a brittle piece of bread whose taste is only material and has no connection with spirituality. ‘A’ysha was having a great friendship with Hafasa due to their similar natures. Hafasa was the daughter of Umar and she had such a nasty temperament that no one was prepared to marry her. When Umar saw that there was no possibility of her marriage, he became very angry and we do not know what would have been the consequences of this, but the Holy Prophet (S), in order to dispel turmoil, married Hafasa. Among men, ‘A’ysha had great hatred towards Ali (a.s.) and the Battle of Jamal was the result of this animosity.

Regarding the death of ‘A’ysha, it is said that Muawiyah had her drowned in a well. Such a thing is not unexpected from Muawiyah. It is very much possible.

We have already mentioned that there was great friendship between ‘A’ysha and Hafasa due the similarity of their natures. Thus, the two of them had confidential conversations and sought advice of each other and also made many policies.

The following incident is an example of this:

The Holy Prophet (S) used to compulsorily visit the houses of all the wives. Sometimes he ate something at one place and sometimes he just drank something. Often he had honey drink at a wife and then came to ‘A’ysha or Hafasa. These two planned to do something, so that the Prophet will not go to the other wives. They decided to tell the Prophet that he was having a foul breath due to something he had drunk at the houses of his other wives. May Allah the Great, give us refuge! The Quran says that ‘A’ysha and Hafasa exposed some secret of the Holy Prophet (S) regarding which, the Almighty Allah informed the Prophet. The verse of Surah Tahrim says:

“But when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it, 2 ” 3

The Almighty Allah chided ‘A’ysha and Hafasa in the following words, in the same Surah Tahrim:

“If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian…” 4

In spite of such severe words of the Almighty, Pir Dastagir in his book Ghaniyatu Talibeen, makes ‘A’ysha the most superior of the women. Indeed, it is an enigma of Sunni faith. On one side is the stricture of Allah and on the other side, they consider her most superior of womenfolk. It seems the foundation of Sunni religion is acting against the truth and enmity to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Indeed, the edifice of a religion based on such a defective foundation will be weak. Now the equitable people should decide, who has the right to be called the superior most, Lady Khadija or ‘A’ysha? In addition to the above verses, there is a verse in Surah Ahzab:

“O Prophet! Say to your wives: If you desire this world’s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing… And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore…” 5

The wives meant herein are ‘A’ysha and Hafasa. So much hurt has been caused by these two that the Holy Prophet (S) had spoken of divorcing ‘A’ysha and had already given revocable divorce to Hafasa.6

All this shows that the Messenger of Allah (S) was not pleased with ‘A’ysha and Hafasa. Obviously, ‘A’ysha cannot claim equality with Lady Khadija, how can she be considered superior to her? O servants of Allah! Your creator has not created you without intellect. At least use your brains. If you don’t beseech Allah to make you the followers of truth, I pray on behalf of you.

It well known that Lady Khadija was bestowed with al the good qualities. She never troubled the Messenger of Allah (S) for any worldly thing. She put all her wealth at his disposal and herself lived like a poor woman.

Lady Khadija already possessed the praiseworthy qualities herself and the company of the Holy Prophet (S) further enhanced her good qualities. On the other hand, it is seen that the company of the Holy Prophet (S) had no effect on ‘A’ysha. She had no wealth that could have given her contentment.

Thus, whenever war booty arrived, ‘A’ysha used to rush towards it to get her share. In brief, after studying this in an impartial way, we find that Lady Khadija was an incomparable lady, whereas ‘A’ysha was not worth anything in comparison to her. Pir Dastagir said that ‘A’ysha was the most superior of the womenfolk was only on the basis of his love for Abu Bakr. There is intoxication in love and man becomes completely blind in love.

In the end, the writer presents an incident, which is related to the above discussion. This writer had attended a function to commemorate the Prophet’s birthday at a friend’s place. Two reciters of poems after giving their recitations, began to give a speech. In their speech, first they praised the Messenger of Allah (S), then started extolling ‘A’ysha and they did not leave any stone unturned to praise her. The poor audience, most of whom were illiterate and only a few educated, listened with rapt attention.

The writer underwent great torture during the speech, till the speaker alluded to the incident that most Ahlul Sunnat quote to prove the merit of ‘A’ysha. And that is the report that the Holy Prophet (S) took ‘A’ysha upon his shoulder so that she can watch some entertainment program. Now what is so great in that? How does this prove the merit of ‘A’ysha? This does not in any way prove any spiritual connection between ‘A’ysha and the Holy Prophet (S). It is just blindness in the love of Abu Bakr.

Even if we suppose it to be true, though it seems unlikely, it has nothing to prove any good quality of ‘A’ysha, except that being of very young age, she wanted to watch the performance and the Holy Prophet (S) made her perch on his shoulders. This shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was very kind to ‘A’ysha and he would have been kinder if she had not hurt him. The sorrow that she caused him was so intense that he even thought of divorcing her. The function continued for a long time and at last the sane people got release from it.

It is really astonishing that the two poets praised ‘A’ysha no end but none of them even mentioned the name of Khadija. This shows how much Ahlul Sunnat are attached to truth. O Sunni brothers! You must understand that leaving the path of truth is not allowed in any religion. You consider yourself as the sect, which will alone achieve salvation, then why this concealment of facts? Your books are present, wherein you can read about Lady Khadija and also ‘A’ysha.

- 1. Ref. Nawawi

- 2. Surah Tahrim 66:3

- 3. Refer Tafseer Baidhawi, Vol. II, Pg. 373; Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Pg. 919; Tafseer Nishapuri, Vol. III, Pg. 435; Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 4, Pg. 233.

- 4. Surah Tahrim 66:4

- 5. Surah Ahzab 33:28-33

- 6. Ref: Tafseer Nishapuri Vol. II, Pg. 207; Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Pg. 715; Tafseer
Baidhawi, Vol. II, Pg. 79.

Ja’far, The Liar (Kazzab)

Ja’far, generally known as Kazzab, was the son of Imam Ali Naqi (a.s.) and the brother of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). Since he had claimed Imamate against Imam Mahdi (a.j.), the biographers refer to him as Kazzab (liar). He was initially a wayward and an evil person. He had left no stone unturned in his enmity to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.). He did not give up trying to get the Imam (a.s.) imprisoned, though he always failed in his efforts.

Regarding Ja’far Kazzab and his son, there is a saying of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) that they are like the brothers of Yusuf (a.s.). Tabarsi and some other scholars are of the view that Ja’far had repented like the brothers of Yusuf (a.s.) and that after this repentance, he came to be known as Ja’far Tawwab (Ja’far the repentant). This is also supported by the tradition of Riyazush Shahadat.

Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya And Imam Zainul Aabideen

Ahlul Sunnat say that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya was the son of Ali (a.s.) and he denied the Imamate of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) and himself claimed to be an Imam. In spite of that Shias praise him. Then why do they not praise the three Caliphs too? The only reason for this is because Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya was from Alawite Sadaat.

The reply of Shias is that when Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya said to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.): “My father’s bequest was for Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and your father died without making a bequest. I am more senior to you. So you must not oppose my Imamate.” Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) said: “O my Uncle! My father had made bequest regarding my Imamate. To prove this, I have the weapons of the Holy Prophet (S). It would be better if you do not oppose me in the matter of Imamate. Lack of age and wealth have no effect on this matter. You must know that Almighty Allah bestowed Imamate in the loins of Husayn (a.s.).”

This reply was sufficient for an intelligent person like Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya. After this he always considered Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) his Imam and his master. If only the three Caliphs had also agreed to the claim of Ali (a.s.), Shias would surely have praised them. The truth is that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya committed one ‘mistake’ and then corrected himself in time. The three Caliphs were firm on their numerous mistakes till the end of their lives. In such a case, how can Shias accord respect to them?1

The detailed incident is that Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) proposed to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya that they refer this matter to the Black Stone at Kaaba (Hajar al-Aswad). Muhammad accepted this and both came to Hajar al- Aswad. The Black Stone spoke up by the will of Allah that the bequest of Imam Husayn (a.s.) for Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was proved true. On hearing the decision, Ibn Hanafiya gave up his claim and for the rest of his life, considered Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) as his Imam. In view of the writer, the claim of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was so strong that there was no need for him to refer the matter to Hajar al-Aswad.

- 1. The report is from Ihtejaaj of Shaykh Tabarsi; Pg. 177.

Ahlul Sunnat And Lady Shaharbano

Ahlul Sunnat say that Shaharbano was brought to Medina as a prisoner, which did not have religious sanction according to Shia faith; so how can her relationship with Husayn (a.s.) be justified and how can her giving birth to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) be legitimized? The writer has already proved in detail these things in the foregone pages. Here it suffices to say that according to a traditional report of Biharul Anwar1 the proper marriage (Nikah) of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was performed with Shaharbano and she was not dealt with like other women prisoners of war. The reason for this was only so because she had come as prisoner of war conducted by the Caliphs and these wars were themselves not legitimate.

- 1. Vol. 10

Parents Of The Holy Prophet And The Imams

Ahlul Sunnat say that according Shia belief, the parents of the Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) must be Muslim, so what can be said of the mother of Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.)?

The reply to this is according to a report of Allamah Majlisi in Jilaul Uyoon, is that Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.) had taught Islam to Shaharbano in a dream. This made her long for the Prophet’s family. She was also told the name of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and was given the good news that she was to marry him. Her marriage (Nikah) was performed to Imam Husayn (a.s.) according to perfect Islamic rites and she had become a Muslim before her marriage. Those who call her infidel are themselves the worst of infidels. She was a believer and remained a believer till the end of her life.

Was Abu Talib a Disbeliever?

Ahlul Sunnat say that Abu Talib was a disbeliever! The writer wishes to state that Abdullah had two brothers, one of them was Zubair and other, Abu Talib. Regarding Zubair, it is said that he brought up the Prophet in his childhood, but in Tarikh Khamis1 it is seen that Abu Talib and Zubair had cast lots for this purpose and the lot fell in favor of Abu Talib and the Holy Prophet (S) had himself preferred Abu Talib, because he was more attached to him.

The fact was that Abu Talib loved the Prophet even more than his own children. He always slept besides him. Wherever the Prophet went, he went with him to protect him. When the Holy Prophet (S) reached maturity, Abu Talib told him: “I have many children and I am poor and Lady Khadija is going to appoint someone for Syria. If you approach her, she will definitely select you.”

When Khadija learnt of this, she sent her own messenger to the Holy Prophet (S) and requested that he accept her offer to trade her goods in Syria and that she was prepared to pay him twice the normal remuneration. The Prophet served her with great honesty and integrity and she realized that he was an extraordinary person and decided to marry him. Abu Talib also approved the proposal and the marriage was performed. Tarikh Khamis, Seeratul Muhammadiya and Seeratul Halabiyah show that the sermon of this marriage was recited by Abu Talib himself. He said in that sermon:

“Praise of the Lord who made us inheritors of the progeny of Ibrahim (a.s.) and entrusted us with the caretaking of Kaaba and pilgrims. And we became the ones to establish Divine laws and the Sanctuary of the Kaaba became our home and we became rulers of men. And though my cousin is without parents, in his lineage and family, in intellect and knowledge, he is the most superior. And wealth and position is temporary, while the wealth of the faith is forever. And soon that wealth will be become apparent.”

The last sentence is worth attention. This clearly shows that Abu Talib had recognized the spiritual qualities of the Prophet and had faith that he had the appointment of Allah. The sentences before this show that Abu Talib had not considered the material progress of the Holy Prophet (S). If it had been so, he would not have said:

“Wealth and position are temporary, but the wealth of the faith is forever.”

Glory be to Allah! What pure thoughts Abu Talib had. What else is religiosity? O opponents of Abu Talib, would you still consider this uncle of the Prophet an infidel? It was impossible that the successor of the Prophet and his rightful Caliph should be the son of some infidel. Anyway! The incident connected with the marriage of the Prophet is as follows: When as per the desire of Lady Khadija, the Holy Prophet (S) came to her, she held his hand, and said:

“My parents be sacrificed for you. Accept my spousehood, I hope that you would be a Prophet, you must acknowledge my favor.”

The Prophet said that if he is ever given prophethood, he would do as she says. Thus, the marriage of the Prophet was performed after the trip to Syria. After his marriage, the infidels of Quraish decided to kill him. Abu Talib collected all the Bani Hashim whether infidel or Muslim and said:

“Go to my house and stop the infidels of Quraish from this action. Then all the Bani Hashim did as they were advised.”

Those who call Abu Talib infidel, please tell us whether this action of his was of a Muslim or an infidel? The person who saved his life is called an infidel and those who left him surrounded with infidels and escaped to save their own skins (like the three Caliphs ran from Uhud and Hunayn), or sometimes excused themselves saying the infidels were their relatives; like Umar said Abu Jahl was his maternal uncle, so he could not kill him in Badr, and sometimes they refused to take up the challenge of the opponents due to their power; like Umar said regarding Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq; such people are considered perfect Muslims. They are Caliphs of the Prophet and Imams of the Muslim world! If this is the way Muslims judge truth and falsehood, then their religion is the strangest of things.

After this, if we see Sirul Muhammadiya2 we see that when the Quraish saw that Abu Talib refused to expose and destroy the Prophet, they brought Ammara the Quraishite to Abu Talib and said: “This lad is handsome and rich. You take him; and in return give us Muhammad (S).” Then they said: “What type of a person you are that you support one who has opposed your religion and insulted your people and the elders of the community?”

Abu Talib replied: “Your evil view has been very much painful to me. How good an advice you give me! That I rear your son and give my son to you so that you can kill him? By Allah, this is not possible.” After this, the Quraish began to trouble the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) told Abu Talib: “O Uncle! Find out a way to dispel the mischief of Quraish.”

Upon this, Abu Talib collected the whole Bani Hashim clan and said to them: “You all protect Muhammad and save him from the mischief of the enemies.” Except for Abu Lahab, all Bani Hashim accepted this request of Abu Talib.

Now, those who call Abu Talib a disbeliever, was it any kind of wrong behavior that Abu Talib indulged in against the founder of Islam? Fear Allah, my friends! A person who is so much supportive and helpful to the founder of Islam; should he be considered a disbeliever according to Muslim belief?

If this is Muslim behavior, then a million salutes to such an attitude! What a way to thank for the favors of Abu Talib! In Tarikh Abul Fida3 we see that the Holy Prophet (S) told Abu Talib: “O my uncle! The Almighty has sent prophethood in the world through the Quran and there is name of Allah in the Quran and it refrains from evil acts.”

Abu Talib went to the Quraish and related the matter to them and said: “Do not break off relations. If Muhammad proves to be false in his claim, I will hand him over to you myself; but if he is true, you all must come to the path of truth.” The Quraish agreed. This shows that Abu Talib always acted in the interest of Islam and the founder of Islam. Yet the opponents of Abu Talib do not feel ashamed of calling him a disbeliever. The fact is that if Abu Talib had not been so protective and defending for the Prophet, he would not have survived the machinations of Quraish.

Please note how beautifully Abu Talib has conveyed the message of Islam to Quraish and at the same time prevented them from violence. O people who love justice! Please compare this statement of Abu Talib with that of Abu Bakr when he said: “Indeed! Muhammad is killed. You all turn back to your religion of ignorance!” Or Umar’s words: “I had never doubted prophethood so much before, as I doubted it today.” Then we shall realize which of the statement conveys acceptance of Islam and which one conveys denial.

Even Muslim and Bukhari have related that Abu Talib died a disbeliever and is being punished in Hell. Indeed, this report is concocted by Bani Umayyah and that is why it is against logic and rules of traditional science.

Thus, Ibn Abil Hadid writes in Sharhe Nahjul Balagha: “If Abu Talib had been a disbeliever, the Messenger of Allah (S) would not have loved a disbeliever, because the Almighty Allah has prohibited loving the infidels.”

Please note that one of the captioned forged traditions are related by Mughaira, whose friendship of Bani Umayyah and enmity to Ali (a.s.) is proved beyond any doubt. In addition to this, Mughaira was a terrible transgressor. The narrator of the second concocted report is Shaibah regarding whom Darqutni has argued and said: “This person is like a wheat seller. Apparently, he is trustworthy but inside he is a terrible Satan. He was also a terrible transgressor.”

It is a pity that opponents have taken such fabricated traditions as the basis and labeled Abu Talib as a disbeliever. And all this was carried out so that Ali (a.s.) is not proved superior to Abu Bakr and Umar! Apparently, the fathers of Abu Bakr and Umar had never accepted Islam. Thus, if Abu Talib is considered a Muslim, he would be considered superior by way of paternity. Thus, the best thing was to consider all their fathers disbelievers. To save the honor of the three, the religion may be put to humiliation!

There is another hidden cause in this. It is that from the aspect of Imamiyah religion, the father of Prophet and Imam must be steadfast on the religion of Allah. Thus, if the father of Ali (a.s.) is accepted as a Muslim, Ali (a.s.) would have to be considered at the position of an Imam to whom people refer in all their problems.

Thus, there was no other way except to fabricate traditions alleging Abu Talib to be a disbeliever. The fabrication of traditional reports was common during the time of Muawiyah. As mentioned above, 24000 traditions were fabricated in praise of Abu Bakr and against that numerous traditions were concocted to degrade Ali (a.s.) that make people shun and curse him. The curse of Allah be on the unjust people!

Seeratul Halabiyah4 says that the people of Quraish complained to Abu Talib regarding the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Talib said to the Holy Prophet (S): “My nephew! As far as I know, no action of yours is despicable.” The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “O uncle! Recite the confession formula (Kalima) so that my intercession will be in your favor on Judgment Day, even though you might have committed any sort of sin.”

Abu Talib said: “Son! If I had not been worried of the increase of the atrocities of Quraish, increase in their animosity and weakness of Muslims, I would have obliged you. But I will die only on the religion of my forefathers.” At the time of his death, Abu Talib made bequest to all Bani Hashim that they should obey Muhammad (S) and testify to his prophethood “so that you may be guided to truth.” At that time, the Holy Prophet (S) told him: “O uncle! You preach to others, what you yourself do not practice?” In reply to this Abu Talib said: “I know that you are true in your claim, but I am ashamed of the fact that Quraish will say I confessed to your prophethood due to the fear of death.”

The above tradition shows that Abu Talib sincerely supported Islam and secretly tried to make it popular. This is sufficient to qualify him to be called a Muslim. His refusal for public acceptance of Islam was not against reason. If he had openly announced his Islam before Quraish and Bani Hashim, his influence on them would have become nil.

Having confessed to Islam, he could not have saved the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of Islam. If he had publicly become a Muslim, the Quraish and the infidels of his clan would not have paid any heed to his words.

In order to maintain proper influence, he remained as he was apparently. The ending of this influence would have been poison to the Holy Prophet (S). The Quraish would have killed him and due to this, Islam would have been finished before it could begin. Abu Talib was a very astute person and well understood the prevailing circumstances. He knew that by accepting Islam openly, he would not be able to serve Islam and the founder of Islam more. That is why apparently he remained on his previous condition. Although actually he had complete submission to Islam and well understood the merits of that faith. May Allah bestow him with the best of recompense.

- 1. Vol. 1, Pg. 253.

- 2. Pg. 88

- 3. Vol. I, Pg. 121.

- 4. Vol. 1, Pg. 366.

Why Ali Did Not Take Up Arms Against The Caliphs?

Ahlul Sunnat say that when the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away, why Ali (a.s.) did not take up arms against Abu Bakr? This proves that Ali (a.s.) approved of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The reply is that Ali (a.s.) definitely did not consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be valid, but he obeyed the advice of the Holy Prophet (S) as seen from the book of Anwarul Nomania.

The tradition of Sulaym bin Qays Hilali is present therein which says: Someone asked Ali (a.s.) why he did not fight the Bani Teem, Bani Adi and Bani Umayyah because they had usurped Caliphate? Ali (a.s.) replied: “The Messenger of Allah (S) had told me: ‘Till you do not find supporters, you must refrain from Jihad.’”

Then he said: “When Moosa (a.s.) went to meet God, on Mt. Toor leaving in his place, his brother Haroon, as his Caliph and successor, Bani Israel started worshipping the calf against the commands of Haroon. At that time, Haroon decided to refrain from Jihad while Haroon was a Prophet and Jihad was permitted according to the scripture of Moosa (a.s.). Thus, when the Messenger of Allah (S) departed from the world, some people were attracted by Abu Bakr and paid allegiance to him and I was busy in the shrouding and burial of the Messenger of Allah (S). And after this, I was collecting and arranging the verses of the Holy Quran.”

We should know that Haroon and Ali (a.s.) refrained from Jihad due to hidden wisdom. If Haroon (a.s.) had started Jihad, Bani Israel would have been destroyed. In the same way, if Ali (a.s.) had taken up arms against Abu Bakr, the religion of the Messenger of Allah (S), which was in a nascent stage, would have become extinct very soon.

The calf worship of Bani Israel and turning away from the Imam of time by the people of Medina, both are very similar incidents. Indeed, there is no limit to the eloquence of Ali (a.s.). Why should it not be so? All those who are familiar, know the eloquence of Ali (a.s.). It is correct to say that the speech of the Master is the Master of speech. The speech of the Infallible is the speech of Allah and the speech of Allah is not in need of being praised by mortals.

In the same book of Anwarul Nomania, a person asked Imam Reza (a.s.) why Ali (a.s.) did not fight his enemies for 25 years though he did perform Jihad during his Caliphate? Imam Reza (a.s.) said: “Ali (a.s.) followed in the footsteps of the Messenger of Allah (S) in avoiding armed conflicts. After becoming the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah (S) did not fight the infidels during 13 years of his stay in Mecca and first 18 months in Medina. The reason was that for such a long time, he had very few helpers and supporters. But his refraining from Jihad for such a long time did not make his prophethood invalid. In the same way, the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) was not affected, if he did not take up arms.”

We should know that the action of Prophet and Imam is according to divine Knowledge. The past, present and future; all are exposed on the Prophet and the Imam (a.s.). After the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) there was such a shortage of friends and helpers for Ali (a.s.) that only four companions of the Prophet were on his side: Miqdad, Ammar, Salman and Abu Dharr. On the other hand, most companions of the Prophet became aloof from him and were in support of the three Caliphs.

Allegation That Abdullah Ibn Umar Paid Allegiance To Yazeed

Ahlul Sunnat say that the allegation of Shias that he had given allegiance to Yazeed does not in any way indict Abdullah, because the son of the Imam of Shias, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya the son of Ali (a.s.) had also pledged allegiance at the hands of Yazeed.

The reply to this is that when Yazeed wrote a lengthy letter to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya to pledge allegiance to him, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya replied, “Yes, I have given allegiance to you.” He did not travel from Medina to Damascus to give the allegiance. Sitting in Medina, he sent such a reply to Yazeed’s letter so that he remains safe from Yazeed’s mischief. He was seeing how Yazeed had acted with Imam Husayn (a.s.) regarding the allegiance.

Now neither Imam Hasan (a.s.) was alive nor Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the Bani Hashim had been weakened a great deal. Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya himself was so handicapped due to the severing of the nerves of his arms in the Battle of Siffeen that he could not confront anyone. In such a helpless condition, what else could he have done? We should know that this tradition is of Baihaqi, who was a Sunni. There is no such report in Shias.1 This allegation of Ahlul Sunnat is based on their own tradition. There is no Shia tradition that can prove the allegiance of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya at the hands of Yazeed.

In the view of the writer, the allegation of Shias on Abdullah Ibn Umar is useless. If any Ahlul Sunnat has given allegiance to Muawiyah or Yazeed what has he done against the demands of his religion? Just as Muawiyah was a valid Caliph, Yazeed also has the right to be called a proper Caliph. How can you blame an Ahlul Sunnat for pledging allegiance to a legitimate Caliph? That Yazeed was a legitimate Caliph for Ahlul Sunnat is proved by the statement of Ghazzali, which says that it was obligatory for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to obey Yazeed, because Muawiyah had made Yazeed the Caliph by bequest.

The fact is that Muawiyah had acted upon the practice of Abu Bakr. Thus, Abdullah Ibn Umar did not do anything wrong by the criteria of Sunni faith, though it may seem unacceptable according to Shia belief. In addition to nomination, the conditions of consensus, consultation and armed power were in favor of Yazeed. From the aspect of the followers of Caliphate, Yazeed was a legitimate Caliph and the allegiance of Abdullah Ibn Umar to him was an action to save himself from the death of ignorance, because according to the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (S):

“One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of ignorance.”

- 1. Ref. Biharul Anwar, Vol. 10, Pg. 299.

Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan

I have stated above that the Holy Prophet (S) absolutely despised the Bani Umayyah. So much so that he had even cursed this clan. The accursed tree in the Holy Quran denotes Bani Umayyah according to the unanimous view of the interpreters of Quran. The Holy Prophet (S) says: “I dreamt that Bani Umayyah were jumping on my pulpit like monkeys.”1

I have also described how Bani Umayyah became the rulers of Shaam (Syria) and how the Arab Kingdom passed into their hands. The Holy Prophet (S), after ten years of efforts, had left Bani Umayyah so weak that now there remained no capacity for them to create mischief. But in order to save their Caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar made the Chief of this tribe, Abu Sufyan, the ruler of Shaam. Since Abu Sufyan could not move to Shaam himself, his elder son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan was appointed the governor of Shaam. He died within a period of four years and Muawiyah took his position.

With this, began the worldly ascendancy of Bani Umayyah and its main promoters were Abu Bakr and Umar. Similarly, the two were also responsible for all the calamities that visited the family of the Messenger (S). Muawiyah is the fifth Caliph of Ahlul Sunnat. He became a Caliph by use of force, but the condition of consensus was also present in him. Below we describe the traits of Muawiyah:

On page 194 of Tarikhul Khulafa and in Izalatul Khifa, it is written that Muawiyah said: “Since the Prophet told me that when you become a king be kind to the subjects, I always vied for rulership.”

Indeed, whatever kindness he might have done to common people, he was indeed very kind to the family of the Prophet after he became the ruler! The reward of this kindness will definitely, be given to him on the Day of Recompense by Ali (a.s.), Hasan (a.s.) and their numerous companions. The Prophet must have learnt through divine intuition, what Muawiyah was about to do, that is why he told him to be kind to the creatures of Allah.

Jabir bin Saad is reported to have said in Sahih Muslim2 that Muawiyah asked Saad bin Abi Waqqas why he did not curse Ali (a.s.)? It is also written in Asaatul Labeeb that Muawiyah forcibly told people not to relate any tradition in favor of Ali (a.s.) and no one should narrate any tradition from that person. Tarikh Abul Fida3 says:

In the initial period of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.), in 41 A.H. upto 99 A.H., the Bani Umayyah Caliphs recited curses on Ali (a.s.) from pulpits till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz discontinued the practice.4

It is also written in Tarikh Abul Fida5 that the agents of Muawiyah used to recite curse on Ali (a.s.) in the sermon of Friday prayers. In the same way, in Izalatul Khifa6 it is seen that Muawiyah told his officials: “You all force to curse Ali, anyone who praises him.” Thus, the preachers began to recite curse on Ali (a.s.) from the pulpits throughout the kingdom of Shaam. At that time, Shias of Kufa were under very perilous circumstances. No well-known Shia personality survived.

Muawiyah had written to his officers that if any Shia of Ali was in any government post, he should be expelled and he should not be paid any compensation. Anyone found having regard for Ali should be put to the sword and his house should be demolished. In those days, if a Shia visited another Shia, it was in an extremely secret manner. They would only open themselves up when they are absolutely certain they would not be exposed.

Masters were in fear of their slaves and maids and used to take oaths from them that they would not betray their Shia faith or they shall be destroyed. The time of the passing away of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was the most difficult period. They spent their life in dissimulation (Taqayyah). After the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdul Malik bin Marwan became the Caliph. The period was no better for Shias. The order of the Caliph was that people should practice hatred of Ali – as it was actual piety.

In Tarikhul Khulafa7 it is seen that the people of Shaam raised the pages of Quran as per the advice of Muawiyah. What an intelligent way to use the Quran! Muawiyah was indeed incomparable in deceitful ways. It is written on page 76 of Dar Asaatul Labeeb that Muawiyah started many innovations. The chief of them being kissing the Rukne Yamani8 in Kaaba and omitting Bismillaah (In the name of Allah…) etc.

The same book says, that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) passed away, Muawiyah said: “It was a spark that has now become silent.” Followers of Muawiyah must also consider Imam Hasan (a.s.) as a spark, and like their leader, should also celebrate the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). If you really follow Muawiyah, you must act as he did. The Holy Prophet (S) would indeed intercede for such Muslims of Muawiyah on Judgment Day and their intercession is guaranteed. They must continue to follow Muawiyah.

In Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar9, it is mentioned that Muawiyah said: “The responsibility of the killings of Muslims is on Ali, because if he had not fought, there would have been no bloodshed.” Ali (a.s.) replied: “It means that the killing of Hamza lies on the Prophet!” On page 83 of the same book, we see that the first king of Islam was Muawiyah and he is the greatest of the Bani Umayyah kings and he is also the rightful Imam.

O Muslims! Congratulations for getting such an Imam! The known fact is that Muawiyah uprooted the pulpit of Medina. The day he did this, the sun became dark and stars were seen. The writer of Tarikh Khamis writes10 that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) was sick, Marwan sent the information to Muawiyah. Muawiyah replied that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) dies, Marwan should immediately inform Muawiyah.

When Muawiyah got the news of Imam Hasan’s death, he recited “God is the Greatest” (Allaahu Akbar) aloud and the people of Shaam followed suit. Upon this, his wife said: “You are happy on the death of Fatima’s son?” Muawiyah said: “Not only am I happy; my heart has become restful.” O followers of Muawiyah! Do you also feel restful or not? If not, then what type of followers are you? The passing away of Imam Hasan (a.s.) should cause restfulness! What a strange thing indeed! Curse of Allah be on the unjust people.

It is written on page 199 of Tarikhul Khulafa that the first to recite the sermon in the sitting position, was Muawiyah. This was so, because he was very obese and had a huge belly. In the same way, he made innovations before Eid prayer; he removed one Takbeer (Allaahu Akbar) from the funeral prayer; he castrated males and kept them as slaves and he also uncovered the Holy Kaaba, though before this, there used to be layers on the Kaaba.

It seems that Muawiyah was only worried about this world. The thought of the Hereafter never troubled him. How evil is a man who castrates another man to enslave him? Such a practice is not sanctioned in any religion or community. Which is that evil deed Muawiyah was not capable of doing? Poison, deceit and intrigue was his staple diet. He was an exemplar of his tribe, Bani Umayyah. Bani Umayyah was cursed by the Holy Prophet (S).

On page 234 of Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, we see the statement of Tabari that the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Muawiyah will not die on the Shariah of Muhammad.”

Also that Muawiyah will scream from the casket of fire that he was burning and the angel’s will reply: “You were from the transgressors and you deserved it.” The statement of Nasai is similar to this: The Prophet said: “It would be too much if Muawiyah could escape Hell fire, how can there be any good in him?11

This Nasai is the same person who used to relate the merits of Ali (a.s.). One day the people of Shaam asked him to mention some merits of Muawiyah. He said what merit Muawiyah had that could deserve mention? Yes, there is only one merit of Muawiyah that the Prophet said: “May Allah never fill your stomach.”

Upon this, the people of Shaam beat up Nasai, crushing his testicles, resulting in his death. The above prophecy was from the Prophet. It was proved true and Muawiyah was greedy all his life and was never satisfied till death. In view of the writer, the Prophet, due to his divinely bestowed knowledge, had known that Muawiyah will enter Hell and he would be burning. Actually the proof of existence of Hell is the existence of Muawiyah. There would be no lack of space in the domain of Muawiyah in the abode of fire. All his supporters, friends and followers will be accommodated with him. One gets a place in the neighborhood of one that loves.

Of the merits of Muawiyah is that he brought together the companions and the Tabein (companions of companions) on a single purpose to invent traditions criticizing Ali (a.s.). Of them were Amr Ibn Aas, Mughaira, Urwah and Zuhri and also Abu Huraira who is the favorite companion of the Sunnis. Urwah has fabricated a tradition on the authority of ‘A’ysha that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Abbas will die on disbelief and the two of them will go to Hell. Refer Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, page 194.

Apparently, it is a concocted tradition of Muawiyah, which is fabricated to counter the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (S) that prophesied that Muawiyah will go to Hell. That Muawiyah was finally relegated to Haawiya12 in Hell, those who cursed Ali (a.s.) were also due to Muawiyah, involved in new kinds of maladies in this world and at last after death, they were taken to the place where Muawiyah was dispatched.

The supporters of Muawiyah quote the following tradition of Tirmidhi to prove the superiority of Muawiyah: “O Allah! Make him a guide and the guided one.” And the tradition of Ahmad Hanbal: “O Allah! Teach the book to Muawiyah and save him from punishment.” But Muhaddith Dehlavi writes in Madarijun Nubuwwah that traditionists are unanimous that no tradition is proved authentic in praise of Muawiyah. Both these tradition are concocted.

Whatever the devotees of Muawiyah might say, the Prophet despised Muawiyah greatly. Thus, in Tarikh Abul Fida13 it is written that Muawiyah and his father accepted Islam at the time of the conquest of Mecca, but the Holy Prophet (S) continued to hate them. How can he be virtuous, one who is said to be an inmate of Hell by the Prophet? Only that person can believe in the merits of Muawiyah that is an opponent of the Messenger of Allah (S) and who harbors enmity to Ali (a.s.).

Now I will show what position Muawiyah has in Islam. The Imamite sect considers him a traitor, an enemy of Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet’s family (a.s.). He is absolutely irreligious and an inmate of hell on the basis of the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S). The Sufi sect is also against considering Muawiyah to be good. But Ahlul Sunnat consider him a rightful Caliph and Imam due to the demands of their faith they call his mistakes, mistakes of jurisprudence. They consider him fifth of their twelve Caliphs. Below we shall discuss his religious leadership.

Abu Shakoor Salmi’s Sharh Aqaide Nasafi14 indicates that after Ali (a.s.), the majority of companions and Muslims followed Muawiyah, son of Yazeed. They say it was valid, because Muawiyah had made a bequest for him and the companions and the Muslims obeyed Yazeed.

According to analogy, the obedience of Yazeed was obligatory on Imam Husayn (a.s.). Thus, I (Abu Shakoor) say: “Muawiyah was a scholar who had committed no transgression and he was also a trustworthy man. If he had no trustworthiness, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him. After Ali (a.s.), Muawiyah was a just Imam, a righteous and pious person in the religion of Allah.”

The above statement of Abu Shakoor Salmi informs us of a few things:

First of all, Muawiyah was made a Caliph in the same way as Abu Bakr was appointed Caliph by consensus.

Secondly, the son of Muawiyah was made Caliph and Imam by will, just as Umar was appointed a Caliph.

Thirdly, since the companions and Muslims had approved the appointment of Yazeed, it was necessary for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to consider the obedience of Yazeed to be compulsory.

Fourthly, Muawiyah was a non-transgressing scholar and was trustworthy.

Fifthly, if there had been no trustworthiness in Muawiyah, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him.

Sixthly, Muawiyah was a just Imam, righteous and pious in the religion of Allah. Now what remains to be said for Muawiyah and Yazeed? The father is like Abu Bakr and son is like Umar in the affair of Caliphate and Imamate. Muawiyah himself was on the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar, so why his son should not have acted according to their practice?

However, Imam Husayn (a.s.) could not have obeyed Yazeed, because on the basis of his religious beliefs, leave alone Yazeed, he did not even consider, Muawiyah and his peers (like Umar and Abu Bakr) worthy of obedience, because the four of them were not the Caliphs of the Prophet; they were made Caliphs by the people. On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered himself to be the Caliph of the Prophet, and he was correct in this way. Then how could Imam Husayn (a.s.) obey Yazeed?

The fact is that neither Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered Yazeed to be a rightful Caliph and Imam on the basis of appointment by will nor he considered Umar to be so. Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Imams of the family of the Prophet considered Caliphate and Imamate to be divinely ordained and not something decided by the people. Such a person cannot be expected to obey Yazeed.

Indeed, in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, Yazeed seems to be one whose obedience is compulsory. If it had not been so, such a large number of Muslims, the people of Shaam and other unscrupulous religion-sellers would not have taken precedence in giving allegiance to Yazeed. But when Imam Husayn (a.s.) had remained aloof from all the preceding so-called Caliphs, what was so special in Yazeed that he should have given allegiance to him? Imam Husayn (a.s.) was an Imam like his father and a member of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

If he had been a Sunni, he could have paid allegiance to Yazeed, Muawiyah, Umar, Abu Bakr and all the Caliphs and Imams of Ahlul Sunnat. As for as the matter of trustworthiness and non-transgression of Muawiyah, except for Abu Shakoor Salmi, no sane person could agree to it. If Muawiyah had been so, why was the Prophet displeased with him? Why should he (S) prophesize that Muawiyah will go to hell? If he had any type of merit, why did the writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah write that no merit of Muawiyah is confirmed?

And why would Nasai had said that on the basis of the saying of the Prophet, if Muawiyah escapes the fire of Hell, it is sufficient? What merit can there be in him? Abu Shakoor Salmi can write whether he likes about Muawiyah but according to Ali (a.s.) the abode of Muawiyah is Haawiya (in Hell). This statement of Ali (a.s.) is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Thus, according to both their sayings, Muawiyah belongs to Hell.

The argument of Abu Shakoor that if there had been no trustworthiness in Muawiyah, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him, is also mentioned in the book Ashatul Lumaat15 to prove the correctness of the Imamate of Muawiyah. It is like saying: “That the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya proves the validity of the religion of Meccan infidels.”

The reason for signing the treaty was that the faithless Muslims of that time, especially the people of Shaam, had become opposed to Imam Hasan (a.s.). With what strength could he have fought the father of Yazeed? Muawiyah had been made so powerful by Umar and Uthman that this traitor had no problem in confronting His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). What did Imam Hasan (a.s.) had that he could have fought an enemy of the family of the Prophet?

What recourse did Imam Hasan (a.s.) have, except to sign the treaty? Signing the treaty does not prove any superiority of Muawiyah? If Caliphate obtained through force is considered valid by Ahlul Sunnat, let it be so. Apparently, the signing of the treaty by Imam Hasan (a.s.) was very much appropriate. The army and wealth of Muawiyah was much more than the military and wealth of Imam Hasan (a.s.). The result of such a fighting would have been nothing, except defeat. The followers of Imam Hasan (a.s.) would have been killed in vain. Keeping these consequences in mind, Imam Hasan (a.s.) made peace with the enemies. But how could this treaty make his enemy a rightful Imam and a Caliph? Yes, if Imam Hasan (a.s.) had signed the treaty saying:

“O Muawiyah! You and your tribe had been a helper and supporter of Islam since the time of the Prophet and the Holy Prophet (S) has not said that you and your tribe will go to Hell and you are deserving of Imamate and Caliphate by the divine command,” it would have proved the correctness of the Caliphate of Muawiyah. Just suppose, instead of Muawiyah some transgressing king had attacked Imam Hasan (a.s.) and he had made peace with him due to his inability to confront him, according to the logic of Abu Shakoor Salmi that king would not have been considered a transgressor, because Imam Hasan (a.s.) could not have made peace with a transgressor. Obviously, in such situations a person only sees the best option rather than insist on the trustworthiness and religiosity of the foe.

The Holy Prophet (S) had also this in view and he had not considered whether his opponents were disbelievers or not, but by the logic of Abu Shakoor Salmi, they could not be considered disbelievers, because the Prophet could not make peace with infidels. Indeed, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is a very astounding faith. Though there are many strange things in the world, this religion is the strangest of all.

Because Ahlul Sunnat religion is based on opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), that is why this rule is framed that if the companions commit any mistake or become eligible for curse and criticism even then with the help of interpretation they can be saved from blame, even if that interpretation is against Quran and tradition. There is no need to comment on this rule.

According to the principle of Ahlul Sunnat, an Imam cannot become disqualified on the basis of transgression and injustice. Because most Sunni Imams, after the Righteous Caliphs had committed sins and transgression and the scholars of the time were under the control of the unjust Imam. Obviously, if infallibility is not accepted as a necessary condition of Imamate, it is one and the same thing, whether the Imam is good or bad. Ahlul Sunnat want an Imam. It is not important what type of an Imam he is. That is why on this principle, Yazeed is as qualified for Imamate as Abu Bakr was. Thus, Yazeed is one of the twelve Caliphs of Sunnis. What a strange rule, under which every transgressor and sinner can become an Imam of Ahlul Sunnat just as often was seen and the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah are included in the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat.16

In this book17 it is written that all battles fought against Ali (a.s.) were not because of the Caliphate. They occurred due to the mistake of jurisprudence. For example, the Battle of Jamal and Siffeen. But on page 395 of Seeratul Muhammadiya, it says that the confrontation between Ali (a.s.) and Muawiyah was the confrontation of Caliphate. Then the statement of Nasafi regarding the mistake of jurisprudence will be proved invalid. Now we don’t know what is the correct position.

It is proved in history that Muawiyah totally denied the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Thus, Muawiyah practically opposed Amirul Mo-mineen in the treaty, as clearly mentioned in Shawaahidun Nubuwwah.18 The fact is that the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is a concocted one. If one thinks deeply in this matter, it is proved that there is a great shield in Ahlul Sunnat called the mistake of jurisprudence. It was created to protect the opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from criticism.

Apparently, it is seen that Ahlul Sunnat tried their best so that no blame should come on the opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Even though in this venture, the interpretation of Quran and tradition may be distorted beyond recognition.

- 1. Tafseer Nishapuri, Tafseer Baidhawi and Tafseer Kabir of Razi

- 2. Vol. 2, Pg. 278.

- 3. Vol. 1, Pg. 212.

- 4. Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Vol. 2, Pg. 317.

- 5. Vol. 1, Pg. 196

- 6. Vol. 2, Pg. 96

- 7. Pg. 72

- 8. A sacred place in Holy Kaaba.

- 9. Pg. 79

- 10. Vol. 2, Pg. 294.

- 11. Ref. Tarikh Ibn Khallikan

- 12. A particular section of Hell.

- 13. Pg. 198

- 14. Pg. 102

- 15. Vol. 47, Pg. 678.

- 16. Ref. Sharh Aqaide Nasafi

- 17. Ibid.

- 18. Pg. 87

Yazeed Bin Muawiyah Bin Abu Sufyan

Allamah Suyuti writes that Muawiyah wrote to Marwan, the Governor of Medina, to take allegiance for Yazeed. Marwan told the people of Medina that Muawiyah has ordered them to give allegiance to Yazeed, as it is the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar.1 On page 197 of the same book, it is written that when Muawiyah made Yazeed the heir apparent and began to take allegiance, the people of Shaam paid the allegiance.

Marwan bin al-Hakam tried to take allegiance from the people of Medina, but Husain, Abdullah Ibn Zubair and Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr prevented it and due to that, the men of Medina refused to pledged allegiance. Then Muawiyah came to Medina with 1000 riders and explained the matter to ‘A’iysha. It was then that the people of Hijaz gave allegiance for Yazeed.

In brief, Muawiyah made Yazeed, the Caliph by inheritance and left this world. The day Muawiyah died, people gave allegiance of Caliphate to Yazeed and a royal edict was issued for people to give allegiance. Everyone acted on this, except Husain and Abdullah Ibn Zubair, who went into hiding from Walid, the governor of Medina.2 Abdullah Ibn Umar wrote a very sincere letter to Yazeed after the death of Muawiyah.

But the people of Medina broke the allegiance of Yazeed. The reason was that Yazeed had appointed Ammar bin Muhammad bin Abu Sufyan, his cousin, as the governor of Medina. Some people complained about him to Yazeed, exposed his transgression and alcoholism and at last externed him from the city.

When Abdullah Ibn Umar learnt of this, he collected a vast body of men and said: “I have heard from the Holy Prophet (S) that on Judgment Day every traitor will be given a painful chastisement and it is for this very reason I have given allegiance to Yazeed. And this allegiance has the approval of Allah and the Prophet and in my view nothing is greater than the fact that one should pledge allegiance on the command of Allah and the Prophet and then go back on his word. And I do not find any justification for refusing to give allegiance.

Obedience of that Imam is obligatory on whom consensus has taken place. And refusal to give allegiance on the basis of transgression is not allowed.”3

All this shows that Abdullah Ibn Umar had special attachment to the allegiance of Yazeed. He had not done the allegiance of Yazeed under any compulsion. People of justice may compare this allegiance with the allegiance of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya. The fact is that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya just said: “I am prepared to give allegiance or I give your allegiance,” and in this way he passed over the demand of Yazeed. Anyone having some faith cannot blame Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya for allegiance. But Ahlul Sunnat blame Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya in order to justify the actions of Abdullah Ibn Umar regarding the allegiance of Yazeed.

Most Ahlul Sunnat scholars are seen in support of Yazeed. Ibn Hajar Makki writes in Sawaiqul Mohreqa that it is not allowed to curse Yazeed or call him a disbeliever, because he was from the believers and his affair is in Allah’s hand.

In Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar4 Mulla Ali Qari and Ghazzali have stated that the killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) is not proved on Yazeed, so it does not make Yazeed a disbeliever.

It is not allowed to blame a Muslim for having committed a Greater sin without any proper investigation. Abu Shakoor Salmi writes in the marginal notes of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi5 that the allegiance and obedience of Yazeed was obligatory on Imam Husain (a.s.), because his Caliphate was legitimate. It is written in Hayatul Haiwan6 that Ghazzali says: “If at all, the blame of Husain’s killing is proved on Yazeed, it would only be that he has killed a Muslim. He might have repented for it. Thus, Yazeed who was a Muslim must not be cursed.”

It is written in Tarikh Ibn Khallikan that according to Ghazzali, Yazeed is deserving of mercy and it is recommended to invoke blessings on him. Tafseer Baidhawi7 says that divine help was given to Yazeed in view of the prophecy of the verses of Holy Quran. The greatest support is seen in the fact that Yazeed is one of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat.

It is mentioned is Sharh Fiqhe Akbar that the Holy Prophet (S) said that there will be twelve Caliphs after him. The four of them are the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa Rashideen), i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (a.s.) and the rest are Muawiyah and his son, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan and his four sons. Yazeed bin Abdul Malik, Sulaiman, Hisham and Walid and of them is Umar bin Abdul Aziz. This shows that the Caliphate of Yazeed came into being in accordance with the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Now what can be said of Yazeed? Father and son, both became the successors of the Prophet.

In Shahristani’s Al-Milal Wan-Nihal8 it is said that Ahlul Sunnat believe in the Caliphate of Muawiyah, Yazeed and Bani Marwan. All this shows that the foundation of the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is based on enmity to Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. The fact is that from the time of Abu Bakr, till today, it has continuous opposition to the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and it will continue till Judgment Day.

Now let us find out whether Yazeed was pleased with the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) or not? Why should he not be happy? When he had, before this, written to Walid that if Husayn does not give allegiance, he should be beheaded and his head should be sent to Medina? If Walid could not carry out these instructions and Ibn Saad did it instead, it was same for Yazeed. He became happy by this according to the dictates of reason.9

It is written therein: When Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions were martyred and their blessed severed heads were brought to Yazeed, he became extremely happy; but when Muslims criticized him, he became ashamed. In the same way, it is written on page 102 of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi that Yazeed indeed approved the killing of Husayn and was pleased when it was carried out. He used to be happy at the martyrdom and the insult to the family of the Prophet.

This report is narrated by a large number of historians and traditionists. After this, the commentator writes: “I do not approve the cursing of Yazeed, his friends and supporters.” Curse of Allah be upon him. One would pose a question whether Muawiyah could be considered among the supporters of Yazeed or not? If not, why not? In Tarikh Balazari10 it is written that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) was martyred, Abdullah Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed: “A great calamity occurred in Islam and a tragedy has occurred. That is, Husayn is martyred!” Yazeed replied: “O foolish man! I am sitting in my house on a restful couch. If our opponents were on the right, your elders were the first to initiate this trend.”

On this basis, people say that Husayn was killed on the day of Saqifah.

This reply of Yazeed is very much appropriate. Saqifah was the first of the chain of events that finally culminated in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The fact is that as there arose controversies in Islam, which brought new kinds of calamities on the Prophet’s family, there was bloodshed of Muslims and due to disunity among Muslims they are weak and downtrodden in every part of the world.

The root cause of all this lacunae is Umar, the father of Abdullah. Yazeed was aware of all this, that is why he could give such a fitting reply to Abdullah Ibn Umar. The fact is that if Umar had not been there and if he had not been such a severe opponent of the Prophet’s family, the history of Islam would have been quite different. The writer has written a great deal in this regard and it is not worth repeating here.

- 1. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 195

- 2. Hayatul Haiwan, Vol. 1

- 3. Qastalani, Vol. 10, Pg. 162.

- 4. Pg. 87

- 5. Pg. 102

- 6. Hayatul Haiwan

- 7. Pg. 33

- 8. Pg. 8

- 9. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 308.

- 10. Pg. 462

A Thirty-Year Caliphate

A tradition of Safina is seen in Tirmidhi1 that according to the Holy Prophet (S), Caliphate is only for thirty years, and after that, there is kingship. A tradition like this is also seen in Sunan Abi Dawood.2 It is reported from Saeed bin Jumhan. Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar also indicates that the period of Caliphate is thirty years.

Author of Sharhe Maqasid, Allamah Taftazani says: “Caliphate is as follows: Abu Bakr for two years, Umar for ten years, Uthman 12 years and Ali (a.s.) for six years. From this aspect the figure of 30 is reached easily.” But books of history and biography throw up many difficulties and the calculation of Taftazani is proved incorrect. Now the readers may see that Taftazani says the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was only two years. But in Hayatul Haiwan3 the period of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is given as two years, three months and eight days. Similarly, in Tarikh Abul Fida4 it is given as two years, three months and ten days. Then in Seeratul Muhammadiya5 it is given as two years, three months and 4 or 5 nights. In brief, these different accounts show that the period of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was two years, three months and some days.

According to Taftazani, the Caliphate of Umar was 10 years. While in Seeratul Muhammadiya it was 10 years, 7 months and 5 nights, in Abul Fida6 and Hayatul Haiwan this period is 10 years, 6 months and 8 days or 5 nights. Some have written, 13 nights instead of 5 nights. All this shows that the period of Umar’s Caliphate is more than 10 years, whether it is seven months or less. There are not many differences of opinion regarding the period of Uthman’s Caliphate.

Abul Fida also says it is 12 years and Damiri’s research also says the same. But some have written 11 years, 11 months and 14 days. But there is a great divergence from the view of Taftazani regarding the period of Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Taftazani says it was 6 years but on page 574 of Seeratul Muhammadiya, it is 4 years, 4 months and in Hayatul Haiwan it is 4 years and 9 months. None of the books mention it to be 6 years.

The conclusion of all this calculation is the Caliphate of all these four Caliphs together does not add up to 30 years. Then in order to complete the figure, scholars include the short Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.) in this thirty years Caliphate. In spite of this, the figure of 30 years is not reached.

Also the view of Taftazani, that the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) was six years, necessitates that we include the period when there was no Caliphate, since the condition of Caliphate is control over Islamic territory. This control had passed into the hands of Muawiyah. Thus, the view of Taftazani is incorrect.

Some have calculated the period of Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s.) till his martyrdom. But this also seems incorrect, because his control on Islamic lands had ceased to exist. Thus, the period of 30 years can never be made to fit Caliphate. According to the writer, this tradition itself seems baseless. If it had really been authentic, the period would have definitely reached 30 years. On the basis of the unseen knowledge of the Holy Prophet (S) he knew all that was to occur till Judgment Day. So how could he not know the duration of Caliphate? Thus, this tradition is a fabricated one. The one who has fabricated it, did not do his calculations properly. It seems it was concocted to prove the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs.

- 1. Vol. 2, Pg. 50.

- 2. Vol. 2, Pg. 282.

- 3. Vol. 1, Pg. 60.

- 4. Vol. 1, Pg. 167.

- 5. Pg. 566

- 6. Vol. 1, Pg. 173.

Jurisprudence Based On Personal Opinion and Analogy

Of the four Sunni Imams, Abu Hanifah seems to be particularly fond of personal judgment (Rayy) and analogy (Qiyas). Personal opinion and analogy that is not based on Quran and tradition is generally unacceptable. Conformity with Quran and tradition is necessary for jurisprudence.

A jurisprudent should not become aloof from Quran and tradition and depend on his personal opinion and analogy. This aloofness results in innovation and innovation destroys religion.

On page 19 of Mishkat, there is a tradition from Muslim narrated by Jabir on this topic: “The Holy Prophet (S) has said that the best of the tradition is Quran and the best biography is the biography of Muhammad.” That is, we must remain attached to Quran and act upon it and the best of the guidances are the guidances of Muhammad. And innovation is the worst of the evil deeds. All innovations are deviations. Another prophetic tradition is related from Ayesha in Mishkat: “One who concludes something new from my sayings, is accursed.”

Muawiyah had 14000 traditions fabricated in praise of Abu Bakr and also got thousands of traditions fabricated in criticism of Ali (a.s.). What type of a person was Muawiyah in light of Ayesha’s tradition? Similar traditions are recorded in Mishkat from Ibne Abbas, Afif bin Harith and Ibne Maisera etc.

These sayings emphasize on remaining attached to Quran and traditions. There is one more tradition in Mishkat, which is very much concerned with our discussion below. On page 27 of that same book, we have from Abi Dawood a tradition:

“One who gives a verdict without having knowledge of Quran and tradition, has committed misappropriation (done Khayanat) with Shariah.”

On page 432 of Asaatul Bayat, it is written that the purified Imams, after Ali (a.s.) were giving verdicts against the scholars of that time, though the latter were having knowledge. These Imams considered personal opinion and analogy unlawful in religious jurisprudence (Fiqh). One day, Abu Hanifah came to Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and the Imam (a.s.) said: “You use analogy in jurisprudence, while it must not be, because the first one to resort to analogy was Iblees.”

Imam (a.s.) says: “The worst mischiefs in Muhammad’s Ummah are personal opinion and analogy, which have changed unlawful into lawful and lawful into unlawful.”

It is also related from Thalabi that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Very soon a nation will appear, which will use analogy and personal opinion in jurisprudence, by which Islam will be destroyed.”

Doubtlessly, Abu Hanifah was very fond of analogy and personal opinion, as seen from his jurisprudence. The apparent reason for this is that in his time, he had no access to authentic traditions.1 This is supported by the statement of Mulla Ali Qari, who quotes from Sakhawi in an authentic report that due to his young age, the great Imam (Abu Hanifah) did not get any chance of meeting any companion.2 There is no doubt that Abu Hanifah had great trust in his opinion and analogy.

Thus, it is apparent from Pg. 82 of Al-Milal wan-Nihal that Abu Hanifah preferred analogy to a solitary report. Thus, to prefer ones personal opinion over tradition is like abrogating the traditions. On the same basis, the later scholars have criticized Abu Hanifah for his verdict regard divorce.3 In the same way, Khatib Baghdadi, Ahmad Hanbal, Ibne Jauzi have all ridiculed Abu Hanifah.4 On page 4 of the same preface, the Holy Prophet (S) is reported to have said: “My nation will be divided into more than seventy sects but the worst sect is the one which uses analogy and one who does so, has legalized illegal things and made the legal ones illegal.”

Another tradition of the Prophet (S) says: “No one has snatched away the knowledge of religion, except the incapable scholars.”

When there remained no scholars of religion, people began to follow ignorant rich men, and they began to issue verdicts based on personal views without the help of Quran and tradition. They became misguided and also misguided others.

In Vol. 1 of Qastalani there is a tradition from Abu Saeed Khudri that the Prophet (S) said:

“One who performs jurisprudence without tradition, only on the basis of analogy, is accursed, and one who acts upon it, is also accursed.”

The gist of the above is that in presence of Quran and tradition, jurisprudence based on personal opinion and analogy, is severely prohibited. It is also prohibited to emulate (do Taqlid) of a jurisprudent (Mujtahid) who relies on analogy and personal opinion. This view of the writer is certified by the statement of Hujjatul Baligha.5

The writer says: “Allah has not permitted the emulation of anyone except that of Quran and tradition. It is unlawful to act on any other thing. There is consensus of opinion among the companions, Tabein (companions of companions) and Tabe Tabein (companions of companions of companions) continuously, against the emulation one person. Thus, one who has emulated Abu Hanifah or Shafei will not trust the statement of anyone else. Such a follower will no more regard Quran and tradition to be of any importance.”

The book of Allah, that is Quran; and traditions, that is the sayings of Prophet (S), have criticized personal opinion and analogy. Now we shall quote such a tradition that really upsets the mind: The Holy Prophet (S) said:

“Adam (a.s.) became proud on our existence and I am proud of the existence of Abu Hanifah that he is the lamp of the community.” Then he said:

“All the prophets are proud of my existence and I am proud of the existence of Abu Hanifah. One who befriends him, has befriended me and one who has harbored enmity to him, has harbored enmity to me.”

There has to be a method to concoct lies! It should at least have some semblance to truth! What type of a lie would be that “in China, there is an ant as huge as a mountain?” Anyway, there is no need for me to prove the falsity of this concocted tradition. The scholars of Ahlul Sunnat have themselves considered it baseless. Thus, Ibn Jauzi, Zahabi, Suyuti and Ibn Hajar and even Shaykh Qasim Hanafi have said that these traditions are fabricated.6 Some more discussion about Abu Hanifah is to come in the following pages, if Allah the High wills.

- 1. Ref. Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 65.

- 2. Ref. Muqaddima Hidaya of Maulavi Abdul Hai of Lucknow, Pg. 8.

- 3. Darasatul Labeeb, Pg. 65.

- 4. Muqaddima Hidaya, Maulavi Abdul Hai Lucknowi

- 5. Pg. 59

- 6. Muqaddimah Hidaya, Maulavi Abdul Hai Lakhnavi, Pg. 9.

Seeing Allah

We should know that there is difference of opinion regarding the seeing of the Almighty. Ahlul Sunnat say that Allah can show Himself to His creatures in a way the moon is visible on a moonlit night. That is the people will be able to see Allah with the eyes just as they can see the moon at night.1 The same is the belief of the commentator, Qaushiji, Haji Izuddin, Sayyid Sharif, Amadi and Shafei.

People of the Nusairi sect were also following this belief. The Motazela and the Imamite sects do not believe in seeing Allah with the physical eyes, whether in this world or in the Hereafter. The eyes are given to human beings and the animals to see material objects. It has no effect in the sphere of spirituality. Thus, how can he see a God, Who is, according to the Sharh Aqaide Nasafi2 neither has body, elements, shape or form? He can neither be measured nor divided into parts. He is neither restricted to space nor is a compound. He is neither limited nor has material qualities. He has neither change in condition, nor is restricted in time. He is neither a partner nor anyone or anything is His partner.

The above qualities are material things, which are within the sphere of visibility. Thus, when Allah is beyond material existence, He is also beyond the sphere of visibility. The eye can neither see such a thing in the world nor in the Hereafter.

When Bani Israel said to Moosa (a.s.): We would definitely not believe till we do not see Allah with our own eyes. Moosa (a.s.) conveyed the request of his people to Allah. Allah ordered them to come to Mt. Toor. Moosa (a.s.) selected seventy persons from Bani Israel and went to Mt. Toor. At the foot of the mountain, they said to Moosa (a.s.): “You question Allah so that we can hear His voice.” On the request of Moosa (a.s.), a cloud came and shaded the questioners. At that time Moosa (a.s.) ordered them to fall down in prostration. When Moosa (a.s.) used to converse, the divine light was visible on his holy face. On that point, Allah told Bani Israel that He has liberated them from Firon and settled them in Egypt. “You must worship Me and except for Me you must not be worship anyone else.”

But Bani Israel were not satisfied with this divine voice. They demanded Moosa (a.s.) to see Allah with their own eyes. The result of this demand was that suddenly lightning struck Mt. Toor and all those who were present there died. Moosa (a.s.) himself fell down in a swoon and regained consciousness only after a long time. Later, Moosa (a.s.) began to weep and said how he could go back to Bani Israel? “They would blame me for the death of their elders. If You had killed them before this incident, I would have been free from this blame. Now the Bani Israel will try to kill me. I committed this foolish act of asking to see You with the eyes. O my God, please raise them alive again, so that they can testify the seeing.”3

The writer says that the incident of Moosa (a.s.) shows that neither Moosa (a.s.) saw Allah nor the people did. They all saw only the lightning, which is a sign of Allah’s power. Staff, Shining arm, the flood etc. and all the miracles are visible, but Allah can never be seen, because he is beyond vision.

Some Ahlul Sunnat scholars say that though Allah cannot be seen in the world, people would be able to see Him in the Hereafter, and Muhiyuddin Arabi also has the same view.4 Obviously, just as Allah cannot be seen in the world, the same condition will apply for the Hereafter. Though Moosa (a.s.) did not see Allah with physical eyes, he saw the lightning, which is the sign of Allah and he swooned due to it. Now the question is, whether the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah on the night of Ascension or not? In view of the writer, the Prophet did not see Allah with this organ of sight, which is the eye. No one can say what he saw and with which eye.

Anyway, in Sahih Muslim5 there are traditions from Shaibani and Abdullah that the Holy Prophet (S) saw only Jibraeel (a.s.) with these eyes, he did not see Allah. Ibn Abbas says that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah, but with the eye of his heart.

The writer says that this tradition of Ibn Abbas is in accordance with reason. According to the tradition of Shobi, ‘A’ysha says: “The Messenger of Allah (S) saw Jibraeel, he did not see Allah.” The same tradition is present in the 10th volume of Sahih Bukhari.6 And on page no. 98, according to a report of Masruq, ‘A’ysha said: “The Holy Prophet (S) did not see Allah. When I hear this, my hair stand on their ends.”

In the same way, on Page 99 of Sahih Bukhari, we see the following tradition of Abu Dharr that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “On the night of Ascension, I saw only a radiance.” But he didn’t say that, that radiance was Allah Himself. From the aspect of commentaries also, the seeing of Allah by the Prophet on the night of Ascension is not proved.

In the Tafseer of Surah Najm, on page 33, Baidhawi says that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Allah with the eye of his heart and not with these ordinary eyes. Seeing Allah on the night of Ascension, denotes the various powers of Allah and the world of angels etc. Muhiyuddin Arabi says on page 271 of the second volume of his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) saw Jibraeel in his true form.

Then on the same page, he says, eyes cannot see Allah. This is also the belief of the Imamiyah and Motazela and there is no doubt that it is logical and therefore acceptable. The writer says that when man cannot see the air with the physical eyes, how can he see Allah? Air is a material thing but it is beyond the scope of vision. But Allah is even beyond physical perception, so He cannot be seen through physical eyes.

- 1. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Pg. 503.

- 2. Pg. 27

- 3. Ref. Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel, Baghawi, Pg. 38.

- 4. Tafseer Surah Anam, Pg. 317.

- 5. Vol. 1, Pg. 97.

- 6. Pg. 296

According To Ahlul Sunnat It Is Permitted To Curse The Imamiyah Sect

In Masala Laan of Nawawi1 it is written: “According to scholars, it is unlawful to curse anyone and in the Islamic terminology curse (Laan) indicates keeping away from Divine Mercy. Since it is not known what type of end is in store for any person, cursing is objectionable. So much so, we must not invoke curse on Muslims, disbelievers and even on quadrupeds. But when we know for sure in Shariah that a particular person will indeed die on disbelief, like Abu Jahl or Iblees, such a curse or a curse without naming, like curse on the unjust or transgressors etc. is allowed.”

Similarly, the Holy Prophet (S) has cursed those who drink wine.2 In Kanzul Haqaiq, on page 128, it is said that cursing the Satan is also prohibited.3 But as for Baghawi, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masood, Qatadah, Hasan Basri, Mujahid, Nizamuddin Nishapuri, Fakhruddin Razi, Qadi Baidhawi, Zamakhshari, Qadi Abdul Jabbar, Mulla Abu Saud, Shafei, the author of Gunahe Kabira, all believe that it is permitted to curse the infidels.

The writer asks how it could be illegal to curse someone who is deserving of curse? The Malediction (Mubahila) with the delegation of Najran was that of invoking curse on the liars. If invoking curse had been illegal, how the Prophet could have asked for it? It is indeed surprising how Ahlul Sunnat consider cursing illegal, not alone for Muslims but also upon disbelievers and quadrupeds. Then how did Shias become eligible for cursing? In the chapter of calling Shias infidels, in the book Sawaiqul Mohreqa, it is clearly mentioned: “Curse of Allah be upon them and Allah’s punishment be upon them.” Then the commentator of Baghawi, Mulla Ali Qari, Qadi Ayaz and Qastalani write: “The Rawafiz (Shia) have disbelieved and according to the majority of scholars, they are fit for cursing.”

Now, I want to ask Ahlul Sunnat, what is it, if not Tabarra (cursing)? Tell us the truth. Does your religion not include invoking curse? Is there a limit to this bigotry? The tradition: “Do not curse the people of Qibla (Muslims),” is present in Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar. They try to explain by this in the prohibition of cursing Yazeed, whereas Shias, who are indeed from the people of Qibla, are labeled as disbelievers and cursed without restraint. Indeed, there is no limit for the bigotry of Ahlul Sunnah. Abdul Qadir Jilani, who is apparently the partner of the Holy Prophet (S) when he went for Ascension, writes again and again in his book, Ghaniyatu Talibeen regarding Shias: “May Allah destroy them.”

What a way to speak! Such a great personality! It is really shameful!

Cursing is permitted in Shia religion, just as it is permitted among Ahlul Sunnat but Ahlul Sunnat have defamed the Shias in this regard a great deal. I have just shown what Pir Dastagir and writer of Sawaiqul Mohreqa have written. They even label Shias as infidels. The same views are seen in the commentary of Nawawi and those of Mulla Ali Qari and Qastalani etc. regarding Shias. However, instead of considering Ahlul Sunnat disbelievers, Shias consider them Muslims and believe that it is not permitted to curse them.

The reason why Shias have been defamed so much, is that it has become a practice in Shia religious gatherings to curse the three Caliphs by name. This seems to be an invented affair, because in the authentic books of Shias, the three Caliphs have never been cursed by name. The senior leaders of Shias believed in the inferiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and did not believe in cursing them. That is why they do not curse the two Caliphs.4

Apparently, the practice was started by Abbasid rulers. In the view of the writer, the contemporary Shia scholars should act in the footsteps of ancient Shias. If Shias stop cursing, they would benefit by it rather than lose anything.

The progress of Shias was hindered due to this very practice. It is the duty of Shia leaders, that they must keep in view the benefit of Shia religion and pay attention to this reform. In this age, there is no need to curse in the usual way. If you see with a just eye, the religion of Imamiyah, which in other aspects is immaculate, has become tainted by this practice. It would be very difficult for someone to convert to this faith if cursing is made compulsory.

The condition of cursing cannot be considered a part of faith, according to reason. But at present, there are thousands of Shias who consider this act so necessary, that without it, it is impossible for anyone to be a Shia. I have experienced this personally and feel very sad that hundreds of people are ready to accept the Imamiyah faith, but due to the condition of cursing, they are uncomfortable in it.

- 1. Pg. 442

- 2. Tirmidhi Vol. 1, Pg. 167.

- 3. This tradition is of Dailami and apparently it seems to be against the Quran.

- 4. Although it is necessary to be absolutely aloof from them. And we must despise all their actions and deeds. All this is a compulsory part of considering the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) to be right.

Is Ali Inferior To Abu Bakr And Umar Even From The Lineage Point Of View?

This is a question posed by some people. The reply to this is that it is proved from the books of Ahlul Sunnat that Ali (a.s.) is not inferior to the two Caliphs from any aspect. The few merits of Ali (a.s.) that the writer has mentioned so far are sufficient to make Ali (a.s.) the best of the human beings. If the bigots do not believe it, it is another matter. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) is superior to everyone of the Muslim nation. Now, as far as the question of his superior lineage is concerned, the readers are invited to read on.

We all know that Bani Hashim was a well-known clan, even during the pre- Islamic age. Its members were famous for their leadership and good character even beyond their country. Their fame had spread as far as Shaam and even today, they are very famous. The greatest proof of this fame is their greatness. On the other hand, the Teem and Adi tribes were neither famous in the pre- Islamic age nor during the time of the Holy Prophet (S); and even today they have no fame to their credit. They are so obscure that only the well-informed people have heard of them. The average educated people have not even heard of the Teem and Adi clans. Thus, to compare the lineage of Ali (a.s.) with those of the two Caliphs, is useless.

Just as in other aspects they are not superior to Ali (a.s.), in the matter of lineage also, they have no standing before the brother of the Holy Prophet (S). It is sufficient to say regarding Abu Bakr that he was from a good family. No one can say anything about the character of this family. Regarding the family of Umar, I cannot say for sure whether they have the blood of Hashim bin Abde Manaf.

The book, Kitab Masalik shows that the grandfather of Umar, Nufayl was born of an Ethiopian slave girl. Her name was Zahaka. She was the slave girl of Hashim bin Abde Manaf who later entered into the service of Naufal bin Hashim and Abdul Uzza bin Ribah. This book does not say whether Nufayl was the son of Naufal bin Hashim or Abdul Uzza. Anyway, Nufayl in his time, married a woman of Fahem tribe and a son Khattab was born.1 This woman also seems to be the slave girl of Fahem tribe, because by the principle of ‘slave mother’ (Ummul Walad), at last she came into the possession Amr bin Nufayl. Allah knows best.

We should know that Kitabe Masalik is the work of Hisham Ibn Sayabal Kalbi, who was one of the great Sunni scholars and of such caliber that Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi consider him their teacher and a researcher like Baghawi has also extensively used his traditions for his Quranic commentary, Maalimut Tanzil. Ibn Taymiyyah considers him the greatest authority of genealogy.

Sibte Ibn Jauzi and Ibn Khallikan also have gained a lot from him. This shows the status of the writer of Kitabe Masalik. Now there remains no need to express any view on lineage of Umar. Thus, the proposal of Umar for Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima, was detestable. However, that is actually with regard to some other Umme Kulthum; it has no connection with Umme Kulthum binte Fatima.

- 1. Ref. Ma’rif of Ibn Qutaibah.

To The Kind Attention Of Muslims

It is learnt from the names of narrators of Ibn Hajar that some traditionalists lived during the reigns of rulers, who were partisans of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). These people collected traditions on the merits of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) but later they were labeled as Rafzi.1

Then some traditionalists lived during the rule of the tyrant rulers. In such time, the traditionists fabricated traditions for material benefits and due the fear of rulers, by this action of theirs, they left no stone unturned to mislead the people. Today, we have the writings of some ancient scholars and these are sufficient to find the true religion.

These books show that there are many narrators whose traditions are accepted by both the sects and there are many scholars of the two sects, who have continued to include their traditions, considering them trustworthy. Then there are many traditions having similar matter that both sects have included in their collections, without any arrangement and system. There are very few narrators, who are related to a particular sect. In such a situation, it will not be difficult to sort out the controversies between the two sects.

If we are impartial, there remains no division of Shia and Sunnis and the religion of Muhammad (S) will again become illuminated. But to achieve this aim, it is necessary to forgo egoistic tendencies and using reason and justice, the Muslims should study the arguments of both the sects and choose whichever is true. It is a great pity that bigotry has spoiled the Muslims to such an extent that such a scenario is very much unlikely.

- 1. A derogatory term for Shia.

Zaid Ibn Ali Ibn Husayn, Or Zaid The Martyr

Ahlul Sunnat say that Zaid claimed Imamate and fought in the opposition of the Imam. Thus, according to the principles of Imamite faith, why he is not deserving of criticism? Apparently, it seems that Shias praise him, because he is a son of an Imam and is from the Sadaat. Then why do Shias blame the three Caliphs? They were also relatives of the Prophet. They are companions and emigrants too.

The reply to this is that the chain of the Imamate of Zaid the martyr, is not proved from any traditional report. According to reports of both the sects, it is learnt that he had a good faith. He took up Jihad to take the revenge of the blood of Husayn (a.s.) and to destroy the mischief of the enemies. It was same as the mission of Ibrahim and Mukhtar. This was not an illegal act. And neither Imam Muhammad Baqir nor Imam Sadiq (a.s.) had prohibited such a fight. Thus, he cannot be blamed for that. Which devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) would not desire to revenge the blood of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?

What can be said of Zaid who was seeking the revenge for his own grandfather? Books say that Zaid fought the war by the permission of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (a.s.) and they did not express any sort of disapproval. If they had not approved, they would not have expressed such sorrow and anguish on the killing of Zaid. The two Imams have always prayed for the well-being of Zaid. In the end, the writer wishes to state that the matter of Zaid has no connection with the matter of the three Caliphs. The above objection of Ahlul Sunnat is not worth countering.

Khalid Bin Walid

He had not earned any fame before the Battle of Uhud, but when he fought against the Muslims in Uhud, he came to be known as a ferocious warrior of Arabs. In the Battle of Uhud, he was so severe that he came to fight the Holy Prophet (S) with Abu Sufyan. In that battle, he took some Meccans and infidels and went atop the Uhud mountain. The Prophet appointed fifty archers to stop their onslaught, under the leadership of Abdullah bin Jubair. They were instructed not to leave their position under any circumstances.

The infidels were defeated and began to flee when the Muslims attacked them on the plains. The Muslims army began to collect the booty from the fleeing infidels. The archers also left their position for the booty. Seeing an opening, Khalid attacked the Muslims from that same mountain pass and in a few moments, the Muslims were almost routed.

The martyrs of this attack include Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet, whose martyrdom caused so much sorrow to the Prophet that he could not forget it till his last moments. Within a few months of this carnage, Khalid accepted Islam, but he could not get into the good books of the Prophet. It was not only due to the matter of Uhud, but he was a man of unprincipled conduct. Otherwise, having such valor, it was only appropriate that after accepting Islam, he should have become favorite of the Prophet and all the Muslims. The Holy Prophet (S) had become very much displeased with him due to his detestable behavior.

After the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet (S) was in Mecca itself from where he sent Khalid bin Walid to the Yalamlam area, where the Bani Khuzaimah lived, to invite them towards Islam. We should know that Khalid was a member of the Bani Makhzum tribe. Bani Khuzaimah and Bani Makhzum used to fight each other during the days of ignorance. When Khalid reached there, the Bani Khuzaimah formed ranks and confronted him.

They said: “We are Muslims; we offer prayers and build the mosque.” Khalid asked them: “Then why have you formed ranks against me? If you are Muslims you cannot intend to fight me. You must lay down your arms.” Bani Khuzaimah complied. But it is a great pity that inspite of their statement that they were Muslims and had laid down the arms, Khalid had their hands tied and killed some of them and tried to kill some of them at night. Umar was with Khalid at that time. He was very angry at this cruel behavior and openly expressed his dislike.1

When the Holy Prophet (S) learnt of this gory incident, he began to tremble with the fear of Allah and prayed: “O Allah! I dissociate with this act of Khalid and I pray for Your refuge.” Soon after that the Holy Prophet (S) sent Ali (a.s.) with cash and gold, so that he dismisses Khalid and makes peace with Bani Khuzaimah. Ali (a.s.) did not leave any stone unturned to carry out the orders of the Prophet since mercifulness and kindness was complete in him. We should know that no one could have bravery without having mercy and kindness. Because Khalid did not possess these qualities he can never be said to be brave. Khalid had beastliness, which the common people mistake for bravery.

The exemplar of courage is Ali (a.s.). He had such bravery that it is not possible in anyone except the lions of Allah. Such bravery is required to work for the religion of Allah and to keep it established. This courage is for the sake of Allah and not for personal motives. When the infidel spat on Ali’s face, he got up from his chest at once, because after this disrespectful act, there was a chance of personal motive coming in between his slaying. Dear readers, compare this magnanimous act with the detestable deeds of Khalid against the people of Bani Khuzaimah. Though he was by nature a cruel person, in addition to this, he had enmity with Bani Khuzaimah.

Apparently, Khalid was sent to Bani Khuzaimah for a religious purpose by the Messenger of Allah (S), but on the basis of his tribal animosity, he committed such acts as none could do. It is very regretful that Khalid committed the atrocious deeds behind the cover of Islam. Now the people of justice may compare the behavior of Khalid with that of Ali (a.s.) to know what is the difference between bravery and ferocity.

I regret comparing Khalid with Ali (a.s.) but I was compelled to do so when I saw that what an Ahlul Sunnat writer has stated in the marginal notes to this incident on some book. He says: “If the Imamiyah sing the praises of Ali’s bravery, we Ahlul Sunnat have Khalid from our side by the grace of Allah. This Khalid was braver than Ali and not less.” But this writer says that there was not a bit of bravery in Khalid, he only had ferocity. Between Khalid and Ali (a.s.) is a difference of black and white.

The second affair with relation to Islam that is related to Khalid, and which shows the nature of Khalid, is that during the occupation of Yemen, when Ali (a.s.) learnt that those tribes who had embraced Islam around Yemen, had renegaded and were preparing to fight, he went with his army to confront them. These apostates, influenced by the good nature and disposition of Ali (a.s.) again entered the fold of Islam.

There is no doubt that the bravery of manners of Ali (a.s.) had been instrumental in this, but Khalid did not give up his natural evil deeds. He had an old enmity with Ali (a.s.). Khalid consulted Buraidah Al-Haseeb and wrote a letter to the Messenger of Allah (S) complaining about Ali (a.s.). The Prophet was very angry on getting this letter and told Buraidah: “Have you become a hypocrite? Ali (a.s.) is from me and is superior to you and your people. Whatever he commands is according to the command of Allah. Seek refuge from Allah. Otherwise, the enemy of Ali is my enemy, and my enemy is the enemy of Allah.”

Hearing this, Buraidah was frightened and he said: “I wish, I were buried before complaining about Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.).” After that he never opposed Ali (a.s.); but the enmity of Khalid remained as it was. On the basis of this enmity, Ahlul Sunnah call Khalid, ‘His Eminence, Khalid’. If such people are called His Eminence, then what should be title of those companions of the Holy Prophet (S) who really possessed those praiseworthy qualities? The fact is that it is due to their opposition to Ali (a.s.) that people like Khalid Ibn Walid, Talha, Zubair and Muawiyah are called ‘His Eminence’. In addition to this, Ahlul Sunnat have given Khalid the title of ‘Sword of Allah’ (Saifullah).

Only Ahlul Sunnat know how Khalid began to be called by the title of Saifullah. We have already explained in the foregoing pages that this title is exclusively for Ali (a.s.) and indeed no one else deserves to be called thus, because doubtlessly, he was the sword of Allah. His sword, Zulfiqar, was a sign of his being the ‘Sword of Allah’. From which principle, which rule, which verse and which prophecy can Khalid have the right to the title of ‘Sword of Allah’? It is beyond the scope of investigation. Bravery, and not ferocity is required if one has to be ‘Sword of Allah’.

Another example of his animal behavior is presented below; which shows his heartlessness, cruelty and selfishness etc. During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, the Bani Yarbu tribe refused to pay Zakat. Malik bin Nuwayrah was the chief of this tribe. This gentleman was a brave warrior, a cultured person and also a poet. He had met the Holy Prophet (S) and accepted Islam. The Caliph sent Khalid to collect Zakat from this tribe. Malik said: “We perform the Prayer, but we shall not pay the Zakat.” Khalid said: “You have to pray and pay Zakat. Prayers alone are not accepted.”

In brief, when Malik refused to pay Zakat, Khalid said: “I will slay you.” After this, the two parties entered into a heated argument. Abdullah Ibn Umar and Abu Qatadah Ansari were present at that time. Since the two of them did not like the stance of Khalid they tried to cool him down, but Khalid disliked their advice.

At last Malik said: “Take me to the Caliph, he will do as he wishes with me.” Khalid said: “I will slay you.” Thus, Zarar bin Abu Dharr was ordered to behead Malik. Upon this Malik said pointing to his wife: “This woman has caused my killing.” Khalid said: “Your apostasy is the cause of your death.” Malik said: “I am on Islam.”

After this, Khalid ordered Zarar to behead Malik and he was beheaded. The fact is that Malik’s wife was extremely beautiful. There is no doubt that Khalid’s selfishness became the cause of Malik’s death. Khalid should have taken Malik to Abu Bakr according to his wish.

Anyway, after beheading Malik, Khalid at once took his wife to himself. This shameless incident is composed in the satirical verses by the poets of that time. When Abu Bakr and Umar learnt of this perplexing incident, Umar said to Abu Bakr: Khalid has committed adultery. You must stone him to death. Abu Bakr replied: “I will not do it.” Then he explained his stand. Umar said: “Khalid has killed a Muslim unjustly. You must take revenge from Khalid.” But Abu Bakr continued to defend Khalid.

At last, Umar asked that Khalid should be dismissed. Abu Bakr said: “Do you want me to put the sword to sleep? Khalid is a brave warrior and our ardent supporter. Do you want that he should be distanced from us?”2 This incident shows that service to religion is different and selfishness is different. The people of justice may themselves judge the ethics and behavior of Khalid. The writer does not wish to say anything else.

- 1. Tarikh Khamis, Part 2, Pg. 97; Sahih Bukhari; Abul Fida (Pg. 153); Seerat Ibn Hisham Part 3, Pg. 3-4; Tarikh Tabari, Pg. 1651-1653.

- 2. Abul Fida

Ahlul Sunnat And Bani Abbas Caliphs

Allamah Suyuti, Shah Abdul Haqq, Qastalani and Nawawi have included Bani Abbas Caliphs in the tradition of the twelve Imams. Apart from this, we find great praise and respect to Bani Abbas Caliphs among Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, when these Caliphs are such, how could their actions and words be not labeled as goodly innovation (Bidat Hasana)? But some Caliphs seem to be openly Shiite! For example Saffah, the founder of the Abbasid Kingdom, Nasiruddin Billah, Qahirbillah, Qaim Billah, Mutee Billah and Taalebillah; all of them were Shias, without dissimulation.

In such circumstances, it is necessary that their acts and words would also be considered ‘goodly innovation’ (Bidat Hasana). These Caliphs were such that scholars and rich people were supporting them, judges were giving them oaths of allegiance and sermon reciters prayed for them in their sermons. They were reciting Friday and Eid prayers behind them. And in the words of Khatib Baghdadi, the scholars of that time considered them honest, trustworthy and jurisprudents (Faqih). Then the acts and deeds of these Shia Caliphs must also be considered ‘goodly innovation’.

In such a situation, Ahlul Sunnat will have to do many things against their beliefs, which they could not have done, if they followed their religion properly. And they would have to accept many things that those people could not have accepted while properly following their religion. Here, I will quote from Tarikhul Khulafa1 some innovative affairs of the period of Muizuddaulah.

Ahlul Sunnat cannot avoid them. They are: On the gates of the Shia Mosque in Baghdad curses were written on Muawiyah, Abu Bakr, Umar, ‘A’ysha, Uthman. One night someone erased these inscriptions. The chief officer of Muiyiddaula decided to have them re-written. The prime minister advised him that instead of those inscriptions, the following should be written: Curse be on those who did injustice on the Progeny of the Prophet, and curse be on Muawiyah.

Apart from this, Muyiuddaula made such an arrangement that on Ashura Day (10th of Muharram), all the shops and business establishments should be closed and nothing should be cooked. The Caliph also constructed domes and ordered women to come out wailing and mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.).

We should know that this was the first mourning program (Azadari) of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in Baghdad and this continued for some years. Muyiduddaula also performed the recommended worship acts (Aamal) of Eid Ghadeer on 18th of Zilhajj. Muibillah instructed the religious speakers to invoke blessings (Durood) on the Holy Prophet (S), Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and their forefathers.

Now, Ahlul Sunnat should check whether they can follow such Imams or not? But when such Imams are included among the twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnat, they must not turn away from them. There is no doubt that there are as many Shia Caliphs as there are non-Shia Caliphs in Bani Abbas. Then we must know that no one from Ahlul Sunnat does so much research, which they must do if they intend to defend their claim. That is, they must say that only those Bani Abbas Caliphs are included in the twelve Caliphs who are not Shias. But they never claim as such. Generally, all Bani Abbas Caliphs are said be among the twelve Imams.

- 1. Pg. 411

Objection Against The Counting Of Imams As Counted By Mulla Abdul Rahman Jami

Mulla Jami writes in Shawahidun Nubuwwah: “Ali, may Allah honor him, (Karamallaho Wajho) is the first Imam, Hasan is the second Imam, Husayn is the third Imam, Zainul Aabideen is the fourth Imam, Muhammad Baqir is the fifth Imam, Ja’far as-Sadiq is the sixth Imam, Moosa Kazim is the seventh Imam, Moosa ar-Reza is the eighth Imam, Muhammad Taqi is the ninth Imam, Ali an-Naqi is the tenth Imam, Hasan Askari is the eleventh Imam and Muhammad Mahdi is the twelfth Imam.”

But this statement of Mulla Jami is proved incorrect according to the rules of Ahlul Sunnat; consensus and allegiance are necessary for Caliphate. By getting these, Abu Bakr got Caliphate. That is, he became the first Caliph or the first Imam. Now, how can His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) be considered the first Imam? He can only be called the fourth Caliph and the fourth Imam. And how Imam Hasan be called the second Imam? Even if he is considered Imam, after Ali (a.s.), he can only be called the fifth Imam.

Thus, by this rule, if the rest of the Pure Imams are considered Imams, all their sequence numbers will change. Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will be the fifteenth, rather than the twelfth Imam. Moreover, from Imam Husayn (a.s.) onwards to Imam Mahdi (a.j.) none of the Pure Imams is proved as Imam. Because from the point of view of the principles of Ahlul Sunnat religion, Caliphate and Imamate cannot be established without consensus and allegiance. Thus, the numbering of Mulla Jami is incorrect. However, from the principles of Ahlul Sunnat, Caliphate and Imamate goes to Muawiyah and successors of Muawiyah and none of Ahlul Sunnat can refute this.

Those Ahlul Sunnat who believe in the Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) seem to be against their own faith. The Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat had become Caliphs on the basis of consensus, consultation, allegiance and force. But in the Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.), Ahlul Sunnat would be following the rules that Shias consider necessary for their Imams. That is for one to be a Caliph and the rightful Imam, appointment by Quran and traditions is necessary. It is a farce that Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate and Imamate of Imam Mahdi (a.j.) to be divinely ordained.1

They do not believe that it would be based on consensus, consultation and allegiance.2 Another objection that could be laid on Ahlul Sunnat for considering Imam Mahdi (a.j.) as the twelfth Imam is that the twelve Imams of Ahlul Sunnah include Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas Caliphs; but all these Caliphates are over and the figure of twelve is also complete for them.

In such a position, the only solution is to make Imam Mahdi (a.j.) the thirteenth Caliph. Thus, the calculation of Mulla Jami is meaningless. O Ahlul Sunnat people! Look at the best aspects of the principles of your religion. Your religion seems to be absolutely unpredictable. If the rules of Imamate of Shias are not followed, neither Ali (a.s.) can be considered the first Imam, not Imam Mahdi (a.j.) the twelfth. And neither can we consider other Imams to be real Imams.

- 1. Ref. Tarikh Ibn Khallikan, Isafur Raghebeen, Futuhaate Makkiya of Ibnul Arabi

- 2. Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood

Speech And Activities Of Muawiyah Ibne Yazeed

It is written in Hayatul Haiwan that the son of the accursed Yazeed made himself aloof from the Caliphate of his father and sat for a long time on the pulpit. And after praise and glory of Allah he said: “O people! I am not interested in Caliphate and you consider the material kingdom to be something great, while I find it detestable and you all find me detestable too, because I will be involved with you and you would be involved with me. My grandfather, Muawiyah opposed Ali (a.s.) for this very Caliphate. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was rightful and superior. No companion of the Messenger of Allah (S) was equal to him in any quality. At last, by deceit, the Caliphate came into the hands of Muawiyah and then to Yazeed. Yazeed did not deserve the Caliphate. He committed greater sins and transgressions. By Allah, I am helpless due to lack of control on myself that I am speaking these words. The love of Ali (a.s.) is inscribed on my heart.”

The people of Shaam disliked the words of this supporter of Ali (a.s.) and the one who left the worldly kingdom. They caught hold of him and buried him alive, by which his soul departed to the spiritual realm. “Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.”

The matter of Muawiyah bin Yazeed is beyond comprehension. It shows the perfect power of the Almighty. The divine law is just. Muawiyah had obtained Caliphate and kingdom through force, deceit and dishonesty. He opposed Ali (a.s.) and confronted him. He destroyed the lives of thousands of Muslims. He painted the battlefield with their blood. In order to obtain the kingdom, he created thousands of mischiefs.

He continued to torture the followers of Ali (a.s.). He initiated the system of reciting curse on Ali (a.s.). He left no stone unturned to exterminate Bani Hashim. He forcibly took away rulership from Imam Hasan (a.s.) and had him poisoned. He tried his best to obtain allegiance for Yazeed and did not leave any effort to make his kingdom perpetual.

Anyone who has even the slightest worry about the Hereafter will never be so busy in acquiring worldly wealth and pelf. He was very much concerned about gaining personal honor and position and he also wanted that the kingdom should remain in his family forever. He remained so busy in all these activities that he did not spare a thought for after life. The result of all this was that he at last left the temporal world with a load of answerabilities. After him, his son did not even get this much time to stay in power. In addition to this, his grandson refused the kingdom and did not take it even for a day.

Dear readers! Just pay attention to the justice of Allah. The grandson sat at the very pulpit, from which he used to imprecate Ali (a.s.) and said: “My grandfather opposed Ali (a.s.) for this very Caliphate. Ali was rightful and none of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) were equal to him.” The fact is that Allah is the true revenger; He takes revenge from the deniers in this world also.

O readers! See how the grandson of Muawiyah had spoken against him. The truth verily comes to the lips! This is only seen in the justice of Allah that the effects of the ugly deeds are seen in this world itself to some extent. No one could have expected the grandson of Muawiyah to speak such truth! Later, he said that the love of Ali (a.s.) was inscribed on his heart. This shows that the love of Ali (a.s.) is not a voluntary action.

Types Of Traditions Of The Pure Imams

Traditions are of two types, Mutawatir (widely related) and non-Mutawatir. Mutawatir give knowledge and create certainty and it is obligatory to act on them and no other tradition is having precedence to it. There is no inconsistency and contradiction in them. Non-Mutawatir are of two types: First are those which create knowledge and certainty; and the tradition which is correct from the aspect of context, has to be compulsorily acted upon. Contexts are of few types:

Firstly, they should be according to rational proofs, secondly, they should be in conformity with Quran, either in wordings, meanings, in general sense or a special evidence. In such circumstances, traditions are not considered solitary. They become equal in status to Mutawatir.

Thirdly, they should conform the practice of the Prophet either in meaning, in general sense or according to special proof. Fourth, they should be in accordance with the consensus of Muslims and even though they may be solitary according to three rules, but they should be considered Mutawatir.

The second type of non-Mutawatir are of few types. Firstly, they should be free from the above-mentioned contexts and there should not be another contradiction to it. In that case, it is like Mutawatir and when verdicts are found against it, we must not act upon it. And if an objectionable tradition is found in this place, we must check the qualities of narrators, which of them is more just and trustworthy. But if both the narrators are equal in justice, we must see the narrators of which tradition are more.

And if narrators of both traditions are same in qualities and number, and both traditions are free of the above mentioned contexts, it is obligatory to act upon the one on which a perfect interpretation is established, and to reject the other solitary reports, on which interpretation is not possible. And if the interpretation is supported by merging a tradition or if any cause is found in words or by proof, it is obligatory to act upon the mentioned tradition; and if both opposing traditions have scope for different interpretations, one has the choice to act on whichever one likes.1

- 1. Ref. Istibsar of Shaykh Abu Ja’far Tusi.

Use Of Analogy And Personal Opinion Are Not Shia Practices

Ahlul Sunnat object that Shias do not follow analogy and personal opinion, but they resort to jurisprudence, whereas analogy and personal opinion is the final jurisprudence. The reply to this is that Shaykh Bahauddin Aamili writes in Zibdatul Usool, Shaykh Abul Qasim Hilli in Maarijul Usool, and Allamah Hilli in Kashaful Haqq have considered analogy invalid and say that analogy is the religion of Abu Hanifah and not of Shias. Shias do not give legal rulings based on personal opinion. Or in contravention of Islamic text (Nass), they do not prefer personal opinion as the source as Abu Hanifah used to do.1

Some Shia scholars, who have argued in favor of analogy, they mean by analogy, preference, choice etc.; problems of lexicology, etymology, diction, style, discussion upon the narrators, thinking upon different traditions. It does not denote solving the problems from personal opinion etc.

- 1. For detailed discussions on this subject, refer to the Preface of Tafseer Safi, Preface of Tafseer Majmaul Bayan, and Asaasul Usool, Wasailush Shia, Risala Itteqadia of Ibn Babawayh.

Merits Of Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Ammar Bin Yasir, Abdullah Bin Masood, Owais Qarni And Salman Farsi

The tradition of Mishkat1 from Abdullah Ibn Umar says that the Holy Prophet (S) has described Abu Dharr (r.a.) to be a very truthful person. The second tradition is related from Abu Dharr himself. The Holy Prophet (S) said: “Abu Dharr is a very truthful and loyal person and is having similarity to Prophet Isa (a.s.).”

He is the same companion of the Messenger of Allah (S) whom Uthman exiled to Rabaza. We have already written about him in the foregone pages. The main cause for his calamities and discrimination was that he was a great devotee of Ali (a.s.). When as per the orders of Uthman, he came to Medina, Marwan got him exiled from Medina. Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid2 says that the externing of Abu Dharr caused animosity between Ali (a.s.) and Marwan, but due to his relationship to Marwan, Uthman paid no attention to the objections of Ali (a.s.).

Ammar bin Yasir was another devotee of Ali (a.s.) and a distinguished companion of the Holy Prophet (S). We have written about him before also. Ammar also had to suffer at the hands of Uthman. Ammar and Salman were such blessed and great companions that there is a tradition in Tirmidhi, in which the Holy Prophet (S) said:

“Paradise is eager for the two of you and Ali (a.s.).”3

The second tradition is also from Tirmidhi that Allah has protected them from Satan. Salman was an Iranian and lived to a very old age. The Holy Prophet (S) has described him as the scholar of two books: Injeel and Quran. This tradition is also present in Sahih Tirmidhi. He is such that Paradise was eager for him and the key of Paradise used be in the possession of these people and that key is the love of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Owais Qarni is said to be the best of the Tabein (companion of companion) according to the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) recorded in Mishkat.4 He was a great devotee of the Prophet and obviously, one who is the devotee of the Prophet, would also be the devotee of Ali (a.s.). Thus, he in the old age sided with Ali (a.s.) and fought Muawiyah and was martyred on the battlefield.

In Sahih Muslim5, there is a tradition of Abu Moosa that Abdullah Ibn Masood was closely related to Ahlul Bayt of the Messenger of Allah (S). There is a tradition in Tirmidhi from Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Prophet said: “Take Quran from four people: Ibn Umme Abd, Maaz bin Jabal, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Salim, the freed slave of Ibn Abi Huzaifah.” A similar tradition is seen in Sahih Muslim.6 The Holy Prophet (S) said: “Learn the Quran from four people: Ibn Masood, Salim, the freed slave of Ibn Huzaifah, Ubayy bin Kaab and Maaz bin Jabal.”

This is the saying of the Holy Prophet (S) that proves the Quranic knowledge of Ibn Masood, but this same Ibn Masood suffered a lot at the hands of Uthman for this Quran. His Quran was forcibly taken away from him and he was also beaten up. The reign of Uthman was strange indeed, when many distinguished companions of the Prophet suffered in different ways due to the corruption of the Caliph.

- 1. Pg. 242

- 2. Pg. 445

- 3. Pg. 570

- 4. Pg. 574

- 5. Vol. 2, Pg. 292.

- 6. Vol. 2, Pg. 292.

Excellence Of Chief Of Ladies, Fatima Zahra

It is enough to say about Fatima (s.a.) that she is the beloved daughter of the Messenger of Allah (S). Her status is beyond imagination. She is included in verse of Purification1 and the verse of Malediction2.

She is the wife of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and the grandmother of nine Imams (a.s.). She is among the fourteen Infallibles (Masoomeen) and is also included among the Holy Five (Panjetan Paak). Numerous traditions regarding her merits have been recorded. A few of them are quoted below:

According to ‘A’ysha, she had not seen anyone more like the Holy Prophet (S) than Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in behavior, conversation and charity, and neither in the manner of standing and sitting. Whenever Lady Sayyida (s.a.) entered the residence of her father, the Holy Prophet (S) stood up from his place of honor and made her sit in his own place and kissed her. In the same way, when the Holy Prophet (S) went to his daughter’s house, she stood as a mark of respect and made her father sit in her own place and kissed him.3

Another tradition from ‘A’ysha says that once all the wives were present before the Messenger of Allah (S), when Lady Fatima (s.a.) arrived.

Her style of walking resembled that of the Messenger of Allah (S). Seeing her, the Prophet said, “Welcome, my daughter,” and made her sit to his right.4 We understand from this tradition how the Prophet loved his daughter, Lady Fatima (s.a.).

We learn from Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that the Messenger of Allah (S) said that Fatima (s.a.) was the chief of all the ladies of the world. Then how the statement of Pir Dastagir that the most prominent of women is ‘A’ysha and also Lady Fatima (s.a.) could be correct? Because according to his tradition, Lady Fatima (s.a.) is most prominent of all the women of the world, including ‘A’ysha and Lady Khadijatul Kubra (s.a.).

This unrelated statement only shows that Pir Dastagir has praised Sunnism by it and nothing else. But regret for those who consider these writings to be authentic and make them a part of their faith. According to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Lady Fatima (s.a.) is the leader of the ladies of Paradise and in this way also she precedes ‘A’ysha and this also disproves Pir Dastagir’s statement.

On page 556 of Seeratul Muhammadiya, through the tradition of Hafiz Ibn Abde Barr through the chain of Abu Thalabi, it becomes clear that whenever the Messenger of Allah (S) returned from war or travel, he first entered the mosque and performed two unit Prayer; after that he visited Lady Fatima (s.a.) and then he went to his wives.

This shows how much the Prophet loved his daughter, Lady Sayyida (s.a.). Musavvir bin Hadhrama has stated that the Prophet said:

“Fatima is the piece of my flesh. Those who have angered Fatima, have angered me.”5

Perhaps the two Caliphs had no information about this tradition, otherwise, (in the words of Abul Fida) Abu Bakr would not have sent Umar to burn down the house of Fatima (s.a.) and on reaching her house, Umar would not have been so severe with her, and neither they would have harassed and harmed her so much, that when she passed away from the world, she was very angry at them.

What can be a greater proof of her anger that she willed to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that Umar and Abu Bakr should not attend her funeral and should not recite the burial prayer? Due to this, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) buried her at night, without making a general announcement of her death.

Let Maulavi Nazir Ahmad Sahab write whatever he likes about Lady Fatima (s.a.), but the anger of Lady Fatima (s.a.) is not in any way beneficial to Abu Bakr and Umar in both the worlds.

We learn from another tradition of ‘A’ysha that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Fatima is the leader of the believing women and she is the chief among all Muslim ladies.”6

This tradition also negates Pir Dastagir’s above-mentioned statement.

Obviously, when according to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S), Lady Fatima (s.a.) is the leader of Muslim women, how can ‘A’ysha be considered superior to her?

From the traditions of Seerate Muhammadiya7 and Sharh Fiqhe Akbar8, we know the reason of naming Lady Sayyida as Fatima (s.a.) was that she would save her progeny and the believers from chastisement on Judgment Day and her marriage was performed according to Allah’s command.

What doubt is there that she would not allow her progeny and followers to enter hell and what doubt is there that she was married to Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.) by Allah’s command?

It is known that Umar wanted to marry her, but the Holy Prophet (S) knew that Allah’s will was that she marries His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

In this condition, it was necessary for the Holy Prophet (S) to refuse Umar’s proposal. We all know that this refusal caused a severe enmity of Umar towards Lady Fatima (s.a.) and her husband His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) till the end.

In Jameus Saghir9 it is stated that the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Allah has ordered me to marry my daughter Fatima to Ali.”

According to the tradition of Shoban in Isafur Raghebeen10, whenever the Messenger of Allah (S) went on a journey, first he bid farewell to his daughter. How this shows his love for her! In addition to paternal love, he had regard for her due to her exalted position near the Almighty. Another tradition of Isafur Raghebeen11 on the same page says that on the Day of Resurrection, an announcer will proclaim from the empyrean: “O people! Bow down your heads and close your eyes, so that the Lady of Paradise (S) may pass from the Sirat (bridge).”

The third tradition of page 170 of this book is that the Messenger of Allah (S) said:

“Allah is displeased if Sayyida is displeased and He becomes happy from her happiness.”

Tibrani has narrated this tradition from good chains of narrators from His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it shows that in Islamic faith, the sorrow and pleasure of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) has a great importance and it is a fact that the hereafter of all Muslims depends on Allah’s pleasure and displeasure.

It seems that Abu Bakr and Umar were unaware of this tradition, otherwise, they would have refrained from angering Lady Fatima (s.a.). It is regretful that they displeased Lady Fatima (s.a.) very much. There is no escape from destiny. Righteousness is not under man’s control. Allah gives it to whomsoever He likes.

The fourth tradition is mentioned in this book12 from Ahmad that Ali (a.s.) asked Lady Fatima (s.a.), “Some slave girls and slaves have come to your father, so ask for a servant for yourself.” Lady Fatima (s.a.) went to her father and requested him thus and said, “I am having blisters on my hands due to turning the millstone.”

The Prophet replied, “By Allah, I shall not give you; but I will teach you the best thing that Jibraeel has informed; that when you go to sleep, recite Ayatul Kursi (Throne Verse), Subhanallah (Glory be to Allah) 33 times, Alhamdo lillah (Praise be to Allah) 33 times and Allaahu Akbar (God is the Greatest) 34 times.”

This is called the rosary (tasbih) of Fatima Zahra and it is recited after every Prayer. This tradition is recorded in Sahih Bukhari on page 163. We should know that training of poverty becomes apparent from this tradition of the Prophet and the Prophet loved poverty very much. Such as his saying: “Poverty is my pride.”

A tradition in Nurul Ain Fi Mashhadul Hasnain by Abu Ishaq Asfaraini says that on Judgment Day, Lady Fatima (s.a.) will be mounted on the she-camel of Paradise and a crown of light will be on her head and the announcer will proclaim loudly: “O people close your eyes, so that the Lady of Judgment Day can pass by.” Then she would come to the empyrean and complain to Allah: “Unjust and wicked people have oppressed me and my sons. O Allah, take revenge from them.” Allah would say, “My dear, you intercede for whomsoever you like. I swear by My Glory that unjust people would not be forgiven.” Then Lady Fatima (s.a.) would say, “O Allah, forgive my believers and their sins.” Allah will order His Angels to release her believers as Fatima (s.a.) has the right to admit in heaven whomsoever she likes.

It seems that the two Caliphs were also unaware of this tradition, otherwise, they would not become the source of Fatima Zahra’s displeasure knowingly. It seems that they did not know the tradition about Fatima or they did not consider it trustworthy. Obviously, it seems that they regarded it to be useless. It is a matter of great regret that such an emphatic statement of the Messenger of Allah (S) should be disregarded as mere moral teaching.

Obviously, the Holy Prophet (S) was the one about whom the Quran says: “Nor does he speak out of desire…”13 and his words were the revelation of Allah. The believer cannot turn away from his words. Otherwise, everyone is free to do whatever one likes.

It is mentioned in Kanzul Haqaiq that the Messenger of Allah (S) said, “O Fatima (s.a.) be patient on the hardships of the world.” It shows training for poverty. Actually, it is a strange saying and for the believers, these words are source of deliverance and no other words can have such philosophical depth.

It is mentioned in Jameul Sagheer of Allamah Suyuti that the Chiefs of the Ladies of Paradise are four: Maryam (s.a.), Fatima Zahra (s.a.), Khadija (s.a.), Aasiya (s.a.). But Pir Dastagir writes that ‘A’ysha is the most superior woman, thus making her superior to all the above-mentioned ladies. A greater praise for Sunnism was not possible!

In Tafseer Nishapuri14 and Seerate Muhammadiya15, Jabir Ansari is recorded to have stated that due to poverty, the Holy Prophet (S) did not eat anything. He went to his wives, but could not get anything. At last, he came to his daughter’s house and asked for something to eat. Lady Fatima (s.a.) said that she had nothing. So the Messenger of Allah (S) moved away from there. After his departure, a tray of food arrived from Paradise. Lady Fatima (s.a.) asked Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) to go to their grandfather and call him back.

The Holy Prophet (S) came along with them to Lady Sayyida’s house and asked for the tray. The tray was full of mutton and bread. They all had the food as a feast from Allah and became very happy and thanked Allah. She kept that tray before the Messenger of Allah (S). The Messenger of Allah (S) asked where it has come from? This was the same question that Prophet Zakariya (a.s.) asked Lady Maryam (s.a.) at the time of her pregnancy, as mentioned in Surah Aale Imran. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) replied, “It is the sustenance given by Allah.” And the same reply was of Maryam (a.s.) to the question of Prophet Zakariya (a.s.).

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S), Lady Fatima (s.a.), His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and some wives of the Prophet ate to satiation, but the food in the tray did not deplete. Obviously, since it was a feast from Allah, how can there be any question of decrease in it? This incident shows that the Messenger of Allah (S) often remained hungry. Hunger is a must for poverty. Then how is it possible that one who has said: “Poverty is my pride,” should not go without food?

- 1. Quran 33:33.

- 2. Quran 3:61

- 3. Ref. Pg. no. 339, Tirmidhi.

- 4. Ref. Sahih Muslim, Pg. 291.

- 5. Ref. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6.

- 6. Ref. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2.

- 7. Pg. 554

- 8. Mulla Ali Qari, Pg. 131.

- 9. Pg. 170

- 10. Pg. 169

- 11. This tradition is from Ahmad and Baihaqi.

- 12. Pg. no 171

- 13. Surah Najm 53:3

- 14. Vol. 2

- 15. Pg. 422

Types Of Sunni Traditions

The different kinds of Sunni traditions are described below from the following books: Such as Lumaat, Sharh Qastalani, Sharh Noodi and Risala Saiyad Sharif. They are as follows:

(1) Sahih: A tradition whose narration is connected to a sane and disciplined man and not to a rare cause.

(2) Hasan: It is a tradition, in whose chain of narrators there is no one of doubtful integrity.

(3) Mutawatir: A tradition so widely related that no doubt remains of its authenticity.

(4) Zaif: A tradition in which conditions of Sahih and Hasan are not present.

(5) Muttasil: Its testimonials should be continuous and other testimonials should be dismissed.

(6) Marfoo: It is connected to the Holy Prophet (S).

(7) Moanan: In whose chain, the narrator has narrated in the style of ‘so and so has related from so and so’.

(8) Moallaq: It is one whose chains are missing.

(9) Mudaraj: It is that in which the words of the narrator are included.

(10) Mashhoor: It is one well known to the scholars of tradition.

(11) Mushahaf: It is that pair of words written alike but with different vowel- points and due to this, it creates ambiguity.

(12) Musalsal: It is that the link of the tradition reaches to the Messenger of Allah (S).

(13) Motabar: The tradition should be reliable with difference also.

(14) Mauqoof: It is that in which the narrator gives his or someone’s explanation.

(15) Maqtoo: Its link should not reach companions of the Prophet’s companions.

(16) Mursal: In which companions of companions narrate the words of the Messenger of Allah (S).

(17) Munqata: It is that in which the narrator’s words are omitted.

(18) Muazal: It is that in which two or more chains of narrators are eliminated.

(19) Shaz: It is that a trustworthy man has narrated it, but it is opposed to what is related commonly.

(20) Maalal: It is that on account of old age that the narrator has resorted to conjecture.

(21) Mudassas: It is that in which the faulty narrator is concealed.

(22) Muztarab: It is that in which the difference occurs in tradition.

(23) Maqloob: In which the words of narrators are changed.

(24) Mauzoo: It is that which is fabricated by narrators and attributed to the Messenger of Allah (S) or some other leader of faith.

It is not concealed from those who are acquainted that the art of tradition is a very difficult art. No doubt, that Ahlul Sunnat have become experts in this art.

But the progress of this art has not been harmful to the Imamiyah sect. Rather, the fact is that if this art had not flourished by the devotion of Ahlul Sunnat, the Imamiyah sect would have had to face many difficulties to prove their religion.

Indeed, the books of Ahlul Sunnat are very helpful to Shias to prove their claims and prove the correctness of Imamiyah faith. The books of Sunni etc. have become very useful. Writers continuously take advantage of books of Sunni traditions. It is clear that in this book, the writer has not depended on books of Imamiyah religion. Whatever is mentioned in this book is through Sunni efforts.

Bashir, An Opponent Of Ali Among The Narrators Of Ahlul Sunnat

We mention herewith the names of great narrators who are considered reliable among Ahlul Sunnat scholars and their traditions are mentioned in the six canonical books and these narrators are from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (S), at the same time they were also great enemies of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Moreover, some people of Basra, Kufa, and Medina were also his enemies, who harbored enmity towards His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and also cursed him. Anyhow, they are as follows:

Anas bin Malik, Zaid bin Arqam, Ashath bin Qays, Abu Masood, Kaabul Ahbar, Samra bin Jundab, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Zubair, Walid bin Uqba, Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman, Qaaqa bin Shur, Najjashi, Kaab bin Juail, Hanzaltul Katib, Jurair bin Abdullah Alkhali, Imran bin Hasi, Wael bin Tajaral Khazrami, Mutraf bin Abdullah, Alaa bin Ziyad, Abdullah bin Shafiq, Maratul Hamdani, Abdullah bin Numair, Aswad bin Yazeed, Masruq bin al-Ajda, Qays bin Hazim, Abdul Rahman bin Atiyya, Makhool and Zuhri.

Woe upon these writers who were not fit to love His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). The love for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is the soul of Islam and those who do not love His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) have no deliverance from hell. Because the hearts of hypocrites are bereft of Ali’s love and the place of these hypocrites is in hell.

Muawiyah and the Derogatory Remarks For His Eminence Ali

It is seen from Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid1 that Muawiyah persuaded some companions and Tabein (companions of companions) to forge traditions criticizing His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Abu Huraira, Amr Ibn Aas, Mughaira, Urwah and Zuhri are those who forged such traditions. Urwah misquoted ‘A’ysha that Ali (a.s.) and Abbas would die without faith and they belong to the Fire! (Allah forbid!).

In the same way, absurd traditions were forged by others also. May Allah’s curse be on the liars. Husayn Karabasi is also included among the enemies of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and is one who has forged such traditions. Muawiyah had no way but to seek the help of these false narrators. There was a great need of such imprecating traditions! In the same book2, it is mentioned that Muawiyah sent letters to his officers that they should not behave nicely with

Shias and not to trust their testimony. But they should behave nicely with the followers of Uthman. They should respect those who narrate the excellence of Uthman, and to send to Muawiyah their names and their tribe. In this way, traditions of Uthman’s excellence were collected.

According to this command, all officers of Muawiyah narrated the merits of Uthman and were rewarded for it by Muawiyah and due to these traditions, they obtained wealth and honor. After that Muawiyah issued an order that traditions in praise of Abu Bakr and Umar be collected and those who narrate traditions in praise of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) must be derided. Muawiyah said that he liked that the narrators of excellence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) are punished and that it gladdens his heart. The order also stated to be strict with Shias of Ali (a.s.) and that they should narrate the excellence of Uthman, instead of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Then he commanded them to narrate the excellence of Uthman from the pulpit. Till the time the teachers instructed the boys, girls and women to narrate the excellence of Uthman and this continued for many years.

We should ask Abu Shakoor Salmi, the writer of gloss on Aqaid Nasafi, if this is the dignity of a just and pious Imam that he should encourage forging of traditions and lies should be attributed to the Messenger of Allah (S)? It is a fact that when people believe Muawiyah to be Imam and Yazeed bin Muawiyah to be the sixth Caliph, so if people like Abu Shakoor are found in religion, it is not surprising!

What a great arrangement to forge and spread traditions in praise of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman! Allah forbid, Allah forbid. It is the greatest surprise how the traditions in favor of Imam Ali have remained secure? But no doubt Allah is All- Knowing and All-Seeing and Just. Excellence of Ali (a.s.) and the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the traditions of the family members of the Holy Prophet (S) are still present and their names will remain till Judgment Day.

- 1. Pg. 194

- 2. Vol. 2, Pg. 8.

Lovers of Muawiyah Today

A gentleman who considered himself very intelligent and pious was also a fellow native of the writer. He seemed to be imbued with love of Muawiyah and he always mentioned the merits of Muawiyah and never refrained from this habit.

We are certain that after death, he must have reached where his beloved masters and guides dwell since many centuries before him. It is amusing that the gentleman has left a son, who is always praising the son of Muawiyah.

By Allah! The heir of that man is like the heir of his master. If his father was the lover of Muawiyah, the son became the lover of Yazeed. Well, the late gentleman used to often say that when Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) remembered Muawiyah as a brother, why do Shias curse him?

He often raised this objection before less educated Shias and showed his intelligence. Though himself he was not a learned man, he had learnt these things in the company of some educated people of his community. We should know that this objection as well as its reply is mentioned in Biharul Anwar.1

As a matter of fact, a Kufan objected to Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.), “Your grandfather, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) remembered Muawiyah, as a brother; saying: ‘my brothers have revolted against me.’ Imam (a.s.) replied, “You don’t read the Holy Quran – ‘We sent towards the people of Aad their brother, Hud’ Prophet Hud (a.s.) was also like the people of Aad (a.s.) but Allah saved Hud (a.s.) and his followers and destroyed people of Aad (a.s.) by a strong wind.”

We should know that the tradition of Prophet, cursing the followers of Jamal, Siffeen and Naharwan is present. The word ‘brother’ used by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), was according to the apparent faith of Muawiyah. Muawiyah’s honor is not proved by this title and neither is his innocence that could become a source of deliverance.

- 1. Vol. 8, Pg. 430.

Similarity of Circumstances of the Prophet’s Family with That of Moosa and Isa

We should know that the religion of Allah is same from Adam (a.s.) to the Holy Prophet (S), because truth is not changeable. Allah was same at the time of prophet Adam (a.s.) and is today also and will remain forever.

Certainly, His commands can change when it is necessary. For instance the law of war in prophet Moosa’s time was that they killed the subdued infidels, burnt their houses, destroyed their farms and grains and destroyed the cattle and other animals. But during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S), after winning over the infidels, they were not dealt according to this procedure. It is clear that all these commands and prohibitions were restricted to a particular place and time.

The religion of Allah remained same but when any community adopted the wrong path, Allah appointed a new Apostle for them. For example, when the followers of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) started creating trouble in the religion of Moosa (a.s.), Allah sent Isa (a.s.), and then the Holy Prophet (S) arrived to finalize the religion of Islam. And when the whole world shall be full of oppression and tyranny, Imam Mahdi (a.j.) will appear in the world.

We should know that resemblance is seen in the affairs of the Holy Prophet (S) and Prophet Moosa and Isa (a.s.). Just as Moosa (a.s.) was a Great (Ulul Azm1) prophet. In the same way, the Last Prophet (S) was also Ulul Azm. Just as the brother of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) was his helper, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), the brother of the Prophet, was his helper. Just as Shabbir and Shabbar were present in the family of Prophet Moosa (a.s.), in the family of the Messenger of Allah (S), we had Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Just as Bani Israel had faith in the occultation of Uzair (a.s.), the followers of Muhammad believe in the occultation of Imam Mahdi (a.j.). The Messenger of Allah (S) said for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), “Like a sect of the Jews, a sect from my community would be inimical to Ali (a.s.) and a sect like Isa would believe Ali (a.s.) to be God.”

It is no secret that there are many similarities between His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Prophet Isa (a.s.). One of the similarities is that from all the Prophet and Imams, except for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Prophet Isa (a.s.), no one is believed to be God. Indeed, this is absolute infidelity but it is like this. In the end it is the statement of the writer, that just as the Imamate of the twelve Shiite Imams is proved from the words of Allah and the Prophet (S), in the same way, their Imamate is also proved from Taurat, Zaboor and Injeel, according to resemblances the Prophet and his family bear to Moosa (a.s.) and his family.

Although Ahlul Sunnat extol the merits of the three Caliphs and gloss over Muawiyah’s errors; and their quarrels for Caliphates etc. are spread everywhere; these people forge traditions and misconstrue the meaning of the tradition of Ghadeer. Bani Umayyah Caliphs have been instrumental in forging traditions in favor of the three Caliphs and Ahlul Sunnat consider them equal to Quran. Certainly the Jews disbelieved in Isa (a.s.) and Christians denied the prophecy about the Holy Prophet (S). In the same way, Ahlul Sunnat denied the Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s.).

Thousands of Prophets were sent to proclaim the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). But worldly persons did not accept Ali as the Caliph and Imam after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) and hoisted an Imam of their own choice and decided that it was not necessary for Allah to appoint an Imam and a Caliph.

It seems that if Sunnis get a chance, they would even appoint a Prophet of their choice, and if Allah appoints an apostle, they would order him to go back quietly. They are actually helpless to call their three Caliphs as apostles, because there are so many forged traditions in their merits that to consider them less than apostles is against their traditions. Due to the blind faith that Ahlul Sunnat have towards the three Caliphs it would not be out of place to refer to them as the nation of Caliphs.

- 1. A Prophet who brings a new Shariat.

Fifteen Traditions That Prove the Caliphate and Imamate of the Twelve Imams

According to a tradition of Ibn Abbas in the book, Nusoos, Nathal, a Jew came to the Messenger of Allah (S) and said, “I have a doubt. If you give me a satisfactory reply, I would become your follower.” And he asked, “Who is your successor?” The Holy Prophet (S) replied:

“My successor and Caliph after me is Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). And after him, his two sons, Hasan (a.s.) and Husayn (a.s.) will be Caliphs. And there will be nine Imams after Husayn (a.s.).”

Then the Jew asked the Prophet to mention their names, the Prophet replied: “After Husayn, the nine Imams would be Ali Ibn Husayn, Muhammad Baqir, Ja’far as-Sadiq, Moosa Kazim, Ali Ibn Moosa, Muhammad Ibn Ali, Ali Ibn Muhammad, then Hasan Ibn Ali and the last Imam, the Proof of Allah, al-Mahdi. They are twelve and they all are Imams.”

Then the Jew asked, “What would be their status?” The Holy Prophet (S) said, “They shall be in Paradise with me.”

Hearing this, the Jew recited the Islamic creed and said, “No doubt, they all are true and I have read in the book of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) that the last Prophet would be born and his name would be Ahmad (S). There would be no prophethood after him and Imams would come from his progeny. This tradition is narrated from Shoba in Kashful Ghumma and Akhtab Khwarizmi, Hamuyi, Juwaini, Ibn Najjar, Salama Ibnal Akwa, Abdullah bin Ahmad have also quoted it in their respective books.

We should know that there are fourteen more traditions mentioned in Nusoos in which the Caliphate of the Twelve Shiite Imams is proved. A few traditions are mentioned below:

According to Abu Saeed, he heard from the Messenger of Allah (S) that there would be twelve Imams after him. Nine Imams would descend from Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the last would be the Master of the Age (a.j.); it denotes Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Those who are inimical to him would regret it.

The same tradition is narrated from Ibn Masood and we know that the Holy Prophet (S) has given glad tidings of twelve Imams and the same information of nine Imams from the backbone of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is given and the ninth Imam would be Imam Mahdi (a.j.). Umar is also seen as a narrator of this tradition. He says, “We have also heard from the Messenger of Allah (S) that there would be twelve Imams after him and nine of them would be born from the loins of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Imam Mahdi (a.j.) would be from them. One who believes in them would be loved by Allah and one who keep aloof from them would be aloof from Allah.”

The writer says, “It is regretful that at the time of Saqifah, Umar forgot this tradition. Readers should keep in mind that Caliphate is not separate from Imamate, like Jalebi (an Indian sweet meat) is never sold separately from its syrup. It was Umar who made Abu Bakr a Caliph. The fact is that if Umar had faith on the tradition narrated by him, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would have been the first Imam and there was no question of appointing Abu Bakr or anyone as a Caliph. This action of Umar informs us about the lack of his faith and belief.

The remaining traditions are of the same tenor. The writer restrains his pen to maintain brevity. Suffice it to say that all such traditions of the Messenger of Allah (S) prove the Caliphate and Imamate of the twelve Imams and are enough to refute the Sunni Caliphate. But divine help is required to understand the truth. Nothing is possible without good sense.

Verses Of The Holy Quran Proving The Caliphate Of His Eminence, Ali

We should know that traditions and verses of the Holy Quran prove the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). There are so many verses of Quran that point to the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) that the writer cannot include all of them in this book. The following is a brief summary of the verses concerning Imam Ali’s Caliphate:

A verse of the Holy Quran states:

“Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives” 1

According to commentators of Quran, the near relatives mean Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (a.s.).2 The Quraish, Bani Hashim, Helpers (Ansar), Emigrants (Muhajireen) and others are not included in this. Only Ali, Fatima and Hasnain (a.s.) are included. According to this verse, these are the four divinely appointed persons, after the Prophet and nobody else can be more deserving of love.

In such a condition, it seems unlikely that none of them should be selected as a Caliph and Umar should appoint one who is himself obliged by Allah to love these four personalities. Such a man would indeed be inferior to the four. Thus, to appoint such a person as Imam or Caliph over these excellent persons, informs of a great deviation. Obviously, Lady Fatima (s.a.), being a woman, cannot become a Caliph or Imam after the Messenger of Allah (S) and Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) were of a very young age. So it was necessary for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to get the position of Caliphate. But due to his personal enmity, Umar did not allow Ali (a.s.) to become a Caliph.

This was doubtlessly, the first mistake of Muslims as the writer has mentioned previously and it was a mistake due to which Islam had to face great losses and is still facing them. Divine will is supreme, but apparently Umar has committed such a mistake that its correction is impossible till Judgment Day. The verse of Surah Tahrim states:

“And if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Jibraeel and the believers that do good.” 3

This verse shows that the guardian and helper of the Prophet is Allah, Jibraeel and ‘the believers that do good’, that is Ali (a.s.). The writer of Tafseer Majmaul Bayan says on page 423 that ‘believers that do good’ denotes Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) as stated by Mujahid in the book of Fasra Ahl-ul-Tanjeel through Sudair Sairafi and Abu Ja’far.

Mujahid says that the Holy Prophet (S) introduced His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) twice to his community. Once the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Of whomsoever I am the master, this Ali is also his master.” And when this verse was revealed, the Prophet held Ali’s hand and said, “O people! He is the ‘believer who does good’” Asma binte Umais says, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (S) saying that Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) is the ‘righteous believer.”

The writer says, “It is regretful that the ‘righteous believer’ should not be made Caliph, and instead, Abu Bakr is given this post. Abu Bakr, who like all Muslims, was inferior to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), according to the above statement of Allah. Congratulate Umar for clearly opposing Allah’s command and making the superior as inferior! Not only this, he also harassed this superior much and went and burnt down his wife’s house4; hit the belly of his wife, causing miscarriage.5

Bravo, how a community showed regards to ‘righteous believer’! Without any doubt, such behavior can neither be justified from the aspect of reason nor from the aspect of religion, but it seems that Umar did not accord any precedence to the commands of Allah and Prophet, over his own discretion. If he had any regard for them, he would not have opposed His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) so much.

It is a farce that Ahlul Sunnat do not pay any attention to the harms of such an attitude of Umar. When I was also a Sunni, I also believed that every action of Umar was worth praise. Praise be to Allah, that He granted me good sense to know what is right and what is wrong and being freed from the deceit of priests, I became a true devotee of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Today, I love the family of Prophet (S) as much as I hate their enemies. My Lord! Keep me firm on the love of family members of Prophet (S) and also on the enmity of the enemies of the Prophet’s progeny. O Allah! I do not ask for anything except that You keep me firm on faith and love of the family of Prophet (S) till I die.

“O you who believe! When you consult the Apostle, then offer something in charity before your consultation…” 6

Tafseer Maalimut Tanzil, Tafseer Nishapuri, Tafseer Kabir Razi, Tafseer Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi, traditions of Mishkat, Chapter of Merits of Ali (a.s.) and Tirmidhi prove that this verse of Surah Mujadila was revealed in the honor of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Scholars and commentator have widely related that this verse was in excellence of Imam Ali (a.s.) and it mentions such excellence as is not related to anyone else.

It is that the Holy Prophet (S) whispered some secrets to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and kept them confidential by the command of Allah, which shows such affinity that it is not seen for anyone of the Prophet’s helpers and companions.

It is obvious that when Allah commanded that whosoever speaks secretly to the Messenger of Allah (S), he must give alms (Sadaqah), no one was able to fulfill this condition.

His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) fulfilled the condition inspite of difficult circumstances due to lack of affluence, and thus this verse was revealed.

His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) says that “this verse proves my excellence over all the Muslims, because whatever I did was not accomplished by anyone else. That is, I gave ten dirhams in alms to be have a confidential conversation with the Messenger of Allah (S). After that the Almighty Allah abrogated the above verse after ten days.”

Umar says, “How I wish that Allah had granted me this honor! We should know that this secret talk took place during the Taif expedition. Only speaking to Ali (a.s.) in this manner shows that Allah did not consider anyone else eligible for Imamate. It is a matter of great surprise that knowing such excellence of Imam Ali (a.s.), Umar did not allow him to become a Caliph. Rather, he put so many restrictions that Ali (a.s.) should not become the Caliph even after his (Umar’s) death! Bravo! This is called ‘confession of excellence’!

We should know that there are many verses in Quran that prove immediate successorship of Imam Ali (a.s.). Some of them are as follows:

“And most surely, I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction.” 7

“…then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give in (their own) interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge, say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord, and none do mind except those having understanding.” 8

“Come, let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.” 9

“Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them of His grace? But indeed We have given to Ibrahim’s children the Book and the wisdom, and We have given them a grand kingdom.” 10

“Only Allah is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pray the poor-rate while they bow.” 11

“…and that the retaining ear, might retain it.” 12

“…and if they had referred it to the Apostle and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it…” 13

“He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men.” 14

“Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you. O people of the house! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying.” 15

“This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you, your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.” 16

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do it not then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people, surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.” 17

Apart from these, there are many other verses that prove the excellence of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) over believers and from this aspect the excellence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is proved to all the Muslims. It is a heavy argument for the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Without any doubt, the superior one always remains superior and in no circumstances does he become inferior. The inferior can in no case obtain precedence over the superior. Thus, to consider Abu Bakr as superior to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is impossible from the aspect of reason as well as Islamic texts.

It was necessary to consider the superiority of Imam Ali (a.s.) to Abu Bakr at the time of appointing Abu Bakr as Caliph. But his selfish motives made Umar forget every superiority and inferiority. Making Abu Bakr a Caliph was a hasty affair; rather under the pretext of Abu Bakr, he himself became a Caliph.

- 1. Surah Shura 42:23

- 2. Ref. Tafseer Baidhawi, Maalimut Tanzeel, Tafseer Muhiyuddin Ibne Arabi, Kashshaf, Tafseer Nishapuri and Tafseer Kabir Razi, Vol. 7, Pg. 406.

- 3. Surah Tahrim 66:4

- 4. Ref. the Biography of Abu Fida.

- 5. Ref. Al-Milal Wan-Nihal of Shahristani, Pg. 20.

- 6. Surah Mujadila 58:12

- 7. Surah Taha 20:82

- 8. Surah Aale Imran 3:6

- 9. Surah Aale Imran 3:61

- 10. Surah Nisa 4:54

- 11. Surah Maidah 5:55

- 12. Surah Haqqah 69:12

- 13. Surah Nisa 4:83

- 14. Surah Baqarah 2:124

- 15. Surah Ahzab 33:33

- 16. Surah Maidah 5:3

- 17. Surah Maidah 5:67

Verses Proving The Caliphate Of Three Caliphs

Previously the writer has presented his research on verse of Surah Fath:

“Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him…” 1

In the same way he has expressed his opinion on the following verse of Surah Taubah:

“If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him….” 2

And also the following verse of Surah Noor:

“Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good…” 3

There are nine more verses of Quran that Sunnis use to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

Below the writer expresses his opinion on every verse. People who love justice are requested to peruse the following discussion with attention.

Verse 1

“O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah’s way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer…” 4

Ahlul Sunnat use the above verse to prove that Allah has promised the Prophet that those who apostatize after him, in order to keep them away the Almighty Allah will bring a community and that community is Abu Bakr as after the passing away of the Prophet he killed the apostate Arabs.

The reply to this is that there are many differences between the commentators. Tafseer of Nishapuri5 says that Hasan, Qatada Zahak and Ibn Jarih say that community means Abu Bakr and his followers. Mujahid says that it denotes the people of Yemen and some other people say that it stands for the people of Quraish and there is no unanimity that it denotes the companions of Abu Bakr.

Traditions prove that this verse was revealed in the honor of Helpers (Ansar) and since in the expedition of Tabuk, most companions had apostized, this incident of apostasy is connected to the Messenger of Allah (S) and not to the battles of Abu Bakr after the Prophet. Nishapuri, the commentator, says that this verse denotes Imam Mahdi (a.j.) and Thalabi says that Allah implies His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in this verse and it is based on this incident, because all procedures of infidels and apostates were dealt only through His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Allah’s promise seen in the verse is wholly connected to the battles of the Holy Prophet (S). As Imam Razi mentions, that it cannot denote the battles of Umar and Abu Bakr as the battles of the Holy Prophet (S) were the most difficult.

The writer asks that of those battles had not been the most difficult, why the three Caliphs needed to flee from them? And only the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) used to display feats and only he used to be the swordsman in the war. Neither the three Caliphs hurt anyone, nor did they suffer any injury.

Thus, the saying of Thalabi that this verse is related to Ali (a.s.) is not contrary to any matter. Now, the people of justice may decide how the above verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs?

Verse 2

“Certainly Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility on them and rewarded them with a near victory. And many acquisitions which they will take…” 6

Ahlul Sunnat prove the excellence of three Caliphs from this verse but it does not prove any excellence. It does even prove the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. As a matter of fact, the Holy Prophet (S) had taken an oath from such people under the tree who were not trustworthy or who had recently accepted Islam and besides the three Caliphs were not present at that time, because the incident took place at the time of the Tabuk expedition.

If suppose the three Caliphs were present at the time of the allegiance of the tree, and Ahlul Sunnat say that the Holy Prophet (S) put his hand on Uthman’s hand and took allegiance, this matter is more wistful, that even after obtaining the allegiance of the tree, the three Caliphs fled from the battle of Hunayn leaving the Prophet among the enemies of Islam.

The flight of the three Caliphs from the battlefield of Hunayn is proved beyond any doubt, as the Prophet had addressed the people who were fleeing as the people of the tree in order to make them ashamed. Thus, how can such absconders be deserving of tranquility of Allah?

This verse cannot concern the absconders of Uhud or Hunayn. But the descent of tranquility has a great concern with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and those who follow the path of bravery of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Therefore, on the basis of descent of tranquility also, this verse is not concerned with the three Caliphs. So in this condition, the claim of Ahlul Sunnat is weak and baseless. In short, this verse neither proves any excellence of the three Caliphs nor does it prove the validity of the Caliphate of the Prophet for any of them.

Verse 3

“And (as for) the foremost, the first of the migrants (from Mecca) and the helpers (among the people of Medina), and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever…”7

This verse indicates the excellence of precedence in Islam, but according to Maalimut Tanzil8 and Seerate Muhammad9 Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) was the first to bring faith and perform the Prayer. Ali (a.s.) himself says that he preceded all Muslims in Islam and also the commentators of Quran state this fact.10

The revelation of this verse is for the companions of the first period and they were only: Abu Amama, Auf, Qutba, Rafe, Uqbah, Jabir and Bani Najjar.

Due to their deep love, how poor Ahlul Sunnat can forget their Caliphs? They included their Caliphs in the queue of “foremost of the first” (As-sabiqoon al- Awwaloon) without any thought. Apparently, this verse is not concerned with the three Caliphs. But what is the cure of obstinacy? Ahlul Sunnat demand the right of their beloveds at every step. How funny that every Sunni knows about the precedence of Ali (a.s.) in faith, but yet they lay baseless claims of the precedence of three Caliphs in Islam.

In brief, this verse does not in any way prove any excellence of the three Caliphs; leave alone their right to Imamate and Caliphate.

Verse 4

“O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and (for) such of the believers as follow you.” 11

According to Baidhawi, this verse was revealed at the time of the Battle of Badr and it is said that at that time only thirty-nine persons had entered the fold of religion and then Umar accepted Islam.12

According to the tradition of Saeed bin Jubair in Tafseer Nishapuri13 22 men and 6 women accepted faith and after that Umar converted to Islam, ‘and thus the figure of forty was complete for us neo-Muslims.’ Only after that was the above verse revealed. According to Tafseer Nishapuri, we can say that this verse was revealed in the Battle of Badr. The author of Tafseer Kabir also states that this verse was revealed at the time of Badr.14

The writer asks that if this verse was revealed in the Battle of Badr, how can it be related to Umar’s faith in Islam? Umar had converted to Islam in Mecca itself and if the verse is really concerned with the Battle of Badr, then it is not related to Umar. In the same way, the word of ‘believers’ mentioned in this verse is considered by Ahlul Sunnat as referring to the three Caliphs. We cannot find the reason of limiting it to the three Caliphs. There were so many believers; then why only the three are mentioned as ‘believers’? The condition of Ahlul Sunnat is like a drowning man who clutches at the straw.

Just people can see that this verse is not concerned with Caliphate and Imamate. In spite of this, Ahlul Sunnat think that this verse proves the validity of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs. Now the writer shall express his pure opinion about this verse as follows. We should know that the Almighty Allah says:

“O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and (for) such of the believers as follow you.” 15

The writer says this verse is not concerned with Umar. Generally, we think that this verse was revealed in Mecca or at the time of Badr. If we accept the explanation of Baidhawi and Razi that this verse was revealed in Battle of Badr, then it cannot be accepted to have any connection with Umar. Because, what he has done in the Battle of Badr or in any other battle that he could be said to have followed the Holy Prophet (S)?

Either he used to take flight or avoided fighting the enemies of religion. In Badr, Umar did not face the enemies of faith (infidels of Mecca), because his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl, had come to fight the Messenger of Allah (S). In such a situation, reason cannot accept that Allah should lovingly tell His Prophet, “My Apostle, I suffice for you, and Umar from the believers suffices for you.”

The statement of the Almighty Allah can never be absurd. The words, “and (for) such of the believers as follow you,” can never denote Umar. In what way has Umar followed the Holy Prophet (S) that Allah should reassure His Apostle about the personality of Umar? Therefore, this verse has no connection with Umar at all. Now, as for the possibility that this verse is Meccan and if it was revealed in honor of Umar, this too is a remote possibility.

The Almighty Allah well knew what Umar would do during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) and after his passing away. Allah knew that Umar would not participate in the Battle of Badr and refuse to face Amr bin Abd Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq and flee from the Battle of Uhud. In Khaybar, being defeated for two days in row he will come running to the tent of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in the Battle of Hunayn also he would act as he did in Uhud.

That he would express his strong doubts regarding prophethood after the treaty of Hudaibiya and refuse to give paper and a pen to the Messenger of Allah (S); opposing the tradition of Two Heavy Things (Thaqalayn), he would make the claim of “We have the Book of Allah…” would deprive himself from attending the funeral rites of the Messenger of Allah (S); overlooking the rights of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and under the pretext of Abu Bakr, make himself the Caliph. After becoming the Caliph, against the practice of the Holy Prophet (S) give a high status to Bani Umayyah and make Muawiyah the ruler of Syria leading to the martyrdom of Imams Hasan and Husayn (a.s.); would be ready to burn the house of Lady Fatima (s.a.) and would give a severe blow to the stomach of Fatima (s.a.), causing miscarriage.

That he will be the cause of killing and torture of the Pure Imams and make the blood of Sadaat flow like water. In the same way, there are many other things that cannot be mentioned here due to brevity. In brief, even if this verse is Meccan, it cannot be connected with Umar. The Almighty Allah can never label such persons as followers of the Prophet. Thus, in view of the writer, this verse was revealed for one who had really followed the Prophet and all his life he did not give up following the Prophet. He was Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.). Umar could not fit the description of “such of the believers as follow you” in any way, though Ahlul Sunnat may say whatever they like.

Recently, a Sunni scholar told me that Allah has mentioned such excellences of the three Caliphs that He says:

Verse 5

“…and take counsel with them in the affair…” 16

This proves their Caliphate and Imamate. It means that Allah commanded His Prophet to seek advice from the three Caliphs. The reply is that the Holy Prophet (S) cannot take advice from anyone in his prophethood, because it is unlawful to take advice from anyone. As regards worldly matters, it is not necessary that if he consults anyone he would be his successor and Imam after his passing away. The Prophet had the right to seek counsel with Jews, Christians and Muslims in worldly affairs; but Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot become his successors or Imams after his passing away.

Besides being a religious leader, the Prophet was also the worldly ruler, lawmaker, judge and army chief. Therefore, if Allah ordered him to consult people from worldly aspect, what was wrong in it? But Ahlul Sunnat considered it an opportunity to make it a pretext of excellence of the three Caliphs. The pronoun used in the verse can be applied to anyone, but most fitting is for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). And apart from him, there were other persons also from the Helpers and Emigrants. Rather, good counsel can also be expected from non-Muslim citizens of Islamic states; but the Prophet never consulted them.

In brief, when taking advice in propagation of prophethood was unlawful, in such circumstances, if in worldly affair, if the Prophet takes advice from three Caliphs or some other Muslim or non-Muslim, the status of advisers cannot be so magnified that they may qualify to become Caliphs or Imams after the passing away of the Messenger (S). The condition of Ahlul Sunnat is that of the drowning man who clutches at the straw. They have not left any effort to prove the Caliphate and Imamate of the three Caliphs, but in the view of just people, all their struggles are useless.

We should know that Ahlul Sunnat wanted the three Caliphs to somehow become partners of prophethood. Leave alone sharing of prophethood and attachment to the Holy Prophet (S), Maulavi Abdul Ali has also proved the partnership of Umar in divinity as mentioned in the previous part of this book. In the writer’s opinion, their being partners and confidantes of the Prophet is too much to be expected; it would be sufficient if they are proved to be Muslims.

Verse 6

“Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah, these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” 17

Ahlul Sunnat prove the excellence of three Caliphs, their acceptance of faith, migration and performing Jihad through this verse.

The writer humbly states that the explanation of this verse is general and it cannot be restricted to the three Caliphs. Commentators of Quran also do not say that this verse was revealed in honor of the three Caliphs. So this verse cannot be accepted as a special proof of the excellence of the three Caliphs. Rather, a part of this verse: “those who strove hard in the way of Allah,” is not at all concerned with the actions of the three Caliphs. It cannot be concerned with those who fled hearing the name of Jihad as mentioned in connection with the engagements of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar and Hunayn. Though it is applicable to Ali (a.s.) and those who follow his example.

Rather, the complete verse seems to be about these gentlemen only. It is clear to those who know that the faith of Abu Bakr was not perfect, that he should be considered as the person intended in this verse. In the words of Waqidi, on the day of Uhud Battle, the Holy Prophet (S) addressed Abu Bakr and said, “We don’t know what you would do after my death.” If Abu Bakr’s faith was complete, the Holy Prophet would not have made such a statement and Abu Bakr would not have announced: “The Messenger (S) has been killed. Turn back to infidelity.” In the same way, Umar also did not have complete faith. After the treaty of Hudaibiya, expressing a strong doubt in the prophethood of Prophet (S) does not prove perfection of the faith of the second Caliph.

Besides, according to the tradition of Mishkat, the Prophet told Umar: “If Prophet Moosa (a.s.) appears, you would follow him. leaving me.” This clearly shows that the faith of Umar was defective and not perfect. As a matter of fact, Umar, due to his severity of temperament and hard-heartedness, was very much inclined to the Jewish faith. He earnestly wanted to apply the same strictness to Islamic procedures as demanded by the religion of Moosa (a.s.). Obviously, with such inclination of Umar, the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “If Prophet Moosa (a.s.) appears, you would follow him. leaving me.” Undoubtedly, if Umar had not been inclined to Judaism, the Holy Prophet (S) would not have spoken to him thus.

Verse 7

“Those who believed and fled (their homes), and strove hard in Allah’s way with their property and their souls, are much higher in rank with Allah; and those are they who are the achievers (of their objects).”18

Ahlul Sunnat also use this verse to prove the excellence of three Caliphs and their rightfulness to Caliphate. But Vol. I of Baidhawi, Pg. 329, clarifies that this verse is general and it was not revealed for anyone in particular. Baghawi, Razi and Nishapuri also do not restrict it for the three Caliphs. The writer says, “Of course, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and his followers can be subject of this verse.”

And as a matter of fact, only such people are intended in this verse and the three Caliphs cannot in any case be intended, because they never performed the Jihad of self in the way of Allah. Either they fled from the battlefield or avoided fighting the enemies of religion. People of justice may note how Ahlul Sunnat struggle to prove the rightfulness of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, but all their efforts are fruitless. We should know that as long as the foundation of religion is not based on truth, it is never accepted as a true religion by the people of perception; let the bigots and biased ones consider it truth.

Verse 8

“And away from it shall be kept the one who guards most (against evil), who gives away his wealth, purifying himself. And no one has with him any boon for which he should be rewarded, except the seeking of the pleasure of his Lord, the Most High. And he shall soon be well-pleased.”19

Ahlul Sunnat say that this verse was revealed for Abu Bakr, while according to Shias it was revealed for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Author of Tafseer Nishapuri says that Shias attribute this verse to Ali (a.s.) because the Quran has frequently mentioned how Imam Ali (a.s.) spent on Zakat and Sadaqah (alms).

Therefore, to consider the revelation of this verse, like other verses, to be in the honor of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not wrong. In such a condition, no sane person can restrict this verse to Abu Bakr. How the Caliphate of Abu Bakr is proved from this verse is not understood by anyone, except Ahlul Sunnat. O people of justice, see that what excellence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is evident from Quran and traditions. But Ahlul Sunnat cannot see any of them; on the contrary, they go to great lengths to prove from such unrelated verses, the merits and rightfulness of the three Caliphs. Indeed, prejudice is a great misfortune, and may Allah protect the people from prejudice as it is this prejudice which takes one to hell.

Verse 9

“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.” 20

Ahlul Sunnat consider this verse to be about the Jihad of the three Caliphs and thus about their excellence. According to Vol. 2 of Baidhawi21, this verse was revealed in the Battle of Uhud and all commentators of Quran like the authors of Maalimut Tanzil, Tafseer Kabir and Abu Saad, the author of Tafseer Jalalin, Ibn Abbas etc., are unanimous that this verse was revealed in the Battle of Uhud.

O Ahlul Sunnat! After all, modesty is the necessity of faith. I ask you, what Jihad procedure was performed by the three Caliphs in this battle? If running away is another name of Jihad, then certainly it was manifested by them! What a shameful behavior on their part!

Such a flight as manifested in Uhud by the three Caliphs, has not been shown by any honorable man either before Uhud or after it. It is strange that a community of a person whose creed it recites and whose love and friendship it claims, should be having a person who regards himself as his Caliph after him, but leave him injured and flee the battlefield? Such an act can never be expected from a noble person. Flight of the three Caliphs is a historical fact.

Umar himself says, “at that time, we were jumping like mountain goats on the rocks.” Allah forbid! The event of the day of Uhud is very shameful for respectable persons, but Ahlul Sunnat consider this verse in favor of their Caliphs! O people of Sunni community, how can your Caliph be the evidence of a strong wall when they are experts in fleeing from the battlefield? How can they be like a ‘compact wall’?

They ran away jumping like mountain goats and then earned the title of ‘compact wall’? While the fact is that it was His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) who saved the Prophet and eliminated the enemies of religion. He was wounded by the infidels of Mecca, but he did not flee from the battlefield and always cleared the battlefield of the enemies.

O Allah! Why don’t these Ahlul Sunnat people come to senses? How the love for their Caliphs has imbued their hearts that they cannot even see the truth and are ever ready to support a wrong claim! May Allah give you the discernment of truth and falsehood. Although, this was about the Battle of Uhud, the three Caliphs did not perform any feat in any of the battles of the Prophet and every time they ran away from the battlefield and continued to avoid taking part in the conflict.

They never did anything that could be used to hype their excellence. In short, this verse has no concern with the excellence of the three Caliphs. This verse was revealed especially in the honor of Imam Ali (a.s.) and generally for the Muslim fighters of Bani Hashim and Helpers (Ansar). These holy warriors were such that they co-operated with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in the Battle of Uhud with a firm faith and because of their firmness, they were called a ‘compact wall’.

Tradition no. 1

“After me, follow Abu Bakr and Umar.”

This ‘tradition’ is narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Majah. According to Tirmidhi, this tradition is sound and Ibn Habban and Hakim consider it authentic. Shias have raised following objections against this statement:

Objection no. 1

In Tohfatul Akhyar22, Abdul Hai Lucknowi says that this tradition is addressed to the followers, because companions directly oppose the two Caliphs in many cases, but the two Caliphs didn’t object to it, while it was objected to by the four jurisprudents. Therefore, this tradition is not the proof of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

Objection no. 2

This tradition opposes the tradition of ‘stars’, in which ‘following’ is prescribed for all the companions in general.

Objection no. 3

This tradition goes against that of Tirmidhi and Mishkat, which says: “Follow the guidance of Ammar and remain attached to the covenant of the son of the Slave Mother.”

Objection no. 4

This tradition goes against the tradition of: “There will be twelve Imams and all of them shall be from Quraish.”

Objection no. 5

Abu Bakr and Umar has different opinion in almost in every matter due to the exercise of personal exertion, therefore it is impossible to follow both at the same time.

Objection no. 6

This ‘tradition’ opposes the tradition of the “judges are of three kinds; one is destined to Paradise and two are doomed to Hell.” One who gives the right opinion is delivered and one who expressed an opinion against truth purposely or due to ignorance and on the basis of analogy, are both hellish. Therefore, what opinion do the people of justice have regarding Usamah, stoning to death of the insane, penalty for drinking wine, inheritance of the grandfather and Mutah marriage etc?

The writer states that Ahlul Sunnat may construe whatever meaning they like from the above tradition, but it is certain that the Messenger of Allah (S) cannot issue such a saying in the presence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Abu Bakr did not excel His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in any way.

The first Caliph had no knowledge of Quran in comparison to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). If he had any knowledge, he would have compiled the Holy Quran during his reign and not appointed Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy Ibn Kaab etc. for this job. Since Ali (a.s.) had full knowledge of the Quran, he could collect the verses together himself and he had no need to appoint a council for this. Abu Bakr’s traditional knowledge was also imperfect, because he spent more time in the markets of Medina, which was not wrong, but because of this, he had fewer opportunities to hear the statements of the Messenger of Allah (S).

Even if this did not affect his knowledge of traditions, he was not equal to Ali (a.s.) in this regard. No doubt, he was also like Ali (a.s.), not an illiterate person. After Ali (a.s.), the most superior of the people was Salman Farsi.

In short, Abu Bakr was not at all equal to Imam Ali (a.s.) in knowledge and excellence. Sermons of Imam Ali (a.s.) which are present in Nahjul Balagha and other books, prove the literary level of the Imam. The Diwan (collected works) of the Imam is a masterpiece of Moral Science. Compilation of the laws of Arabic grammar started from him only. He had an astounding knowledge of maths.

No one was his equal during the Prophet’s time and he was the best judge among the companions and even Umar fully acknowledged this. Abu Bakr had no power of judgment like him. He was so brave that the religion of the Prophet was secured by his sword. In bravery, Abu Bakr cannot even compete with his shadow. It is clear that when Abu Bakr fled from battles and could not take any action, in the same engagements, Ali (a.s.) displayed unrivalled firmness and feats of wonder. In brief, it can never be that in the presence of Ali (a.s.) the Holy Prophet (S) could say, “after me, follow Abu Bakr and Umar.”

Apparently, Ali (a.s.) was also included in this order of the Messenger of Allah (S)! Was it possible that the Holy Prophet (S), a wise prophet, can give such an advice to his followers? It is highly inconceivable that the Prophet advised Ali (a.s.) to follow Abu Bakr. The writer asks his opponents in what matter could Ali (a.s.) need Abu Bakr’s lead? If not in Quran, traditions, sermons, warfare, honesty, serenity, patience, gratefulness, prayers, exercise of judgment, bravery, humility, abstinence, then in what topic could Ali (a.s.) possibly need to follow Abu Bakr?

And now what kind of leadership of Umar can His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) require? Umar was even less than Abu Bakr and was totally illiterate in comparison to Ali (a.s.). How can a learned follow the ignorant? Umar had no knowledge of Quran at all. Even an old woman knew that the Caliph was completely ignorant of Quran. He also had no power of judgment and was also ignorant of the Shariah. He simply ordered the stoning of a pregnant woman! If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had not be there, the Caliph would been responsible for spilling innocent blood.

A famous saying of Umar is that if Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished. Another order is that of the stoning of insane woman, which even a person of ordinary understanding cannot issue. In the matter of whipping of the drunkard also, he issued a controversial judgment. How can the Messenger of Allah (S) give the leadership of community to these Caliphs and how can they be fit for leading the nation?

How can they lead Ali (a.s.) when they were not even capable of leading the ordinary people of the community? Umar was even lower than Abu Bakr. How can the Messenger of Allah (S) ask Ali (a.s.) to follow him? In short, this statement cannot be accepted as an utterance of the Holy Prophet (S) and it must have been fabricated by those with vested interests. Even though, according to Sunni scholars it is accepted as authentic, it is cannot be accepted by logic and reason. No doubt, it is among the thousands of sayings fabricated to prove the Caliphate of three Caliphs and that is why it seems to be absolutely absurd.

Tradition no. 2

It is based on the statement of Ibn Umar in Sahih Bukhari23. In the chapter of the excellence of Abu Bakr, are the following words of Abdullah Ibn Umar:

“During the time of the Holy Prophet (S) Abu Bakr, Uthman and Umar commanded excellence in the descending order.” Ahlul Sunnat prove their Caliphate and leadership in this order. This claim is first of all rejected, because it is the saying of Abdullah Ibn Umar and not a tradition of the Prophet. Abdullah’s words do not command the position of an established proof, if it had been so, urinating in the standing position would have to be accepted as correct!

After that, Ahlul Sunnat would have to accept the validity of Mutah of Hajj. Similarly, his allegiance at the hand of Yazeed would have to be accepted as valid. This statement is a personal view and nowhere does it show that other companions or the Messenger of Allah (S) accepted it to be correct. If this statement had the status of an established text (Nass), why Abu Bakr Baqilani and Allamah Sayyid Sharif would have considered this grading to be interpretative.

Secondly, if this statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar is right, then the following statements would be incorrect that: ‘Ali is the best of people’ and ‘I was having such a position with the Messenger of Allah (S) as was not held by anyone.’ Thirdly, if Umar had precedence on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) he would not have said, “If Ali has not been there, Umar would have perished.”

Fourthly, Allah’s words that those who fight the holy war are superior to those who just sit at home, disprove the statement of Ibn Umar. That is, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was superior to the three Caliphs, who were among those who sit at home.24

Fifthly, the statement of Ibn Umar is also negated by Umar himself, when he says that Ali had three such qualities as were not possessed by any of us. He got a wife like Fatima; he got permission to live in the Mosque like the Prophet and he was given the standard in the Battle of Khaybar by Allah’s command.

Sixthly, the statement of Umar that ‘Ali is the most equitable among us,’ proves the superiority of Ali (a.s.).

Seventhly, the excellence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is proved according to the tradition of Ibn Abbas, Ibn Asakir, Saeed bin Mustaiyan and Imam Ahmad.

Eighthly, the majority of scholastic theologians and companions of companions have unanimity that Uthman had no superiority over His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

The writer inquires what excellence did Abu Bakr and Umar have over Ali (a.s.), that poor Uthman should be expected to be having some excellence?

Sufyan Thawri and Abu Tufail are clearly convinced of the excellence of Ali (a.s.) over Uthman. Thus, if the statement of Ibn Umar is having the status of established proof, how so many theologians and companions of companions are against it? Ninthly, even if we accept the statement of Ibn Umar, it would be only as a view based on personal exertion and will not have the status of consensus. Tenthly, Maulavi Waliullah in Izalatul Khifa attributes Imamate to the Pure Imams and Caliphate in the meaning of ruler to the Righteous Caliphs.

In such a situation, the statement of Ibn Umar becomes ineffective. Besides, in Shawahidun Nubuwwah of Jami and Futoohate Makkiya of Ibn Arabi, Imamate is established on the lines, which are clearly opposed to the system advocated by Abdullah bin Umar. Allamah Taftazani also does say that the Caliphs were more excellent than His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). In short, the view of Abdullah Ibn Umar cannot be accepted to be authentic.

Tradition no. 3

The Messenger of Allah (S) said, “If I had made anyone as my successor from my community, I would have made Abu Bakr, who was my brother and my companion at Hauz Kauthar (heavenly pool) and due to formula of brotherhood with him is good in Islam.”25

Commentator of this tradition says that the difficulty is that another tradition says, “No one is my successor from the children of Adam, except Allah.” Therefore, it is clear that although the prior tradition was a great thing in favor of Abu Bakr, but due to another tradition it is not worthy of consideration.

Tradition no. 4

The Prophet said, “When you don’t find me, refer to Abu Bakr.” Commentator of this tradition says that the chains of narrators of this tradition are weak and it is possible that it is also from the fabricated ones.26

Tradition no. 5

According to a tradition of Sahih Bukhari27, the Prophet said, “Abu Bakr helped me by his self and property.” Commentators say that this tradition is having solitary status and Burhanuddin Shafei has labeled it to be weak in his book of Seerate Halabiyah. The writer says that it is possible that Abu Bakr might have helped the Prophet by his wealth, but it is not proved by history or tradition that he ever could help by his self, as one who flees from the battlefields cannot save anyone except his own life. Readers may once again take a look at the events of Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar and Hunayn.

Tradition no. 6

According to Izalatul Khifa28, ‘A’ysha states that the Holy Prophet (S) picked up a stone, then Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman one by one, to build a mosque. “I asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah (S), are these people helping you in this work?’ The Prophet said, ‘O ‘A’ysha, they would be my Caliphs after me.’”

It is surprising that if this tradition was true, why did they not present it in Saqifah before the Helpers (Ansar)? And why for satisfaction sake, it was not related to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Zubair and people of Bani Hashim? This tradition also seems to be fabricated and this story also seems to be absurd. What relation does stones of a mosque have with the Caliphate of Prophet? Ahlul Sunnat are always busy trying to make the earth meet the sky!

O Ahlul Sunnat people! When according to Sahih Muslim and Aqaide Jalali, the Prophet did not appoint anyone as Caliph, how can this tradition be reliable? Besides, Baqilani says that if the Messenger of Allah (S) had left a written order, why there would have been discord about Caliphate among Muslims? In short, the tradition of laying the foundation stone cannot be trusted and the Caliphate of the three Caliphs cannot be proved from it. Indeed, Ahlul Sunnat are like the drowning man who clutches at the straw. It is really a matter of great regret that Ahlul Sunnat do not pay any attention to the verses and tradition in favor of the Caliphate of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) and try to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs by even the weakest of evidences.

Tradition no. 7

In Izalatul Khifa29, it is quoted from Safina, the freed slave of Umme Salma, that after the Morning Prayer, the Holy Prophet (S) asked his followers, “Has anyone of you seen a dream?” One of them said, “I saw a pair of scales descending from the sky. First, the Holy Prophet (S) was weighed against Abu Bakr and the Prophet was found to be heavier than Abu Bakr. After that, Abu Bakr was weighed against Umar and Abu Bakr came heavier. After that, Umar was weighed against Uthman and Umar came out heavier. After that, the scale again went to the sky.”

Ahlul Sunnat people say that this dream proves the Caliphate of the three Caliphs in their proper sequence. The writers says that this dream has not made any mention of weighing of Uthman against Ali (a.s.), which shows that Caliphate ended with Uthman. Therefore, from the tradition of the scales, Ali’s Caliphate should be proved invalid. It is clear that if Uthman had been weighed with Ali (a.s.), the Caliphate of Ali would have been accepted as the fourth Caliphate. How can he become the Caliph without being weighed? Doubtlessly, the above dream proves that the period of Righteous Caliphate ended with the Caliphate of Uthman.

But Ahlul Sunnat count the Caliphate of Ali to be within the Righteous Caliphate! Now the people of justice should themselves evaluate the merits and demerits of this tradition. The writer does not want to say more about this. Apparently, this dream also disproves the tradition of ‘thirty-year Caliphate’. The religion of Ahlul Sunnat is only as each individual member of the community conceives it to be!

Tradition no. 8

According to Mishkat and Sahih Muslim, it is narrated from Abi Malika that he said: “We heard about ‘A’ysha that somebody asked her, to whom the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to make the Caliph?” She replied, “Abu Bakr, and after his death, Umar; and after him, Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah.” It is a matter of great surprise that being acquainted with the Unseen, the Prophet did not know that Abu Ubaidah will die before the Caliphate of Uthman? And if he knew about his death, why the Prophet included Abu Ubaidah among the Caliphs?

The fact is that this tradition is absurd. And if it is true, Uthman’s Caliphate also become invalid as it is not mentioned in it. Only the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar are proved from it, which shows that the Righteous Caliphate only lasted till the tenure of the two Caliphs. And this is entirely against the religion of Ahlul Sunnat.

Tradition no. 9

In Tarikhul Khulafa30 Abu Huraira reports that when the Holy Prophet (S) went to the sky on Ascension night, he found written: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr is the Siddiq (truthful),” on every layer. It is good that Allamah Suyuti has written that the chain of narrators of this report is weak. Now the writer does not wish to discuss more about it. It seems that to prove the Caliphate of Abu Bakr right, Ahlul Sunnat fabricators have left no stone unturned.

Tradition no. 10

In the same Tarikhul Khulafa31, Ibn Umar has stated that the Holy Prophet (S) informed that Allah has issued the truth on the tongue and heart of Umar and the whole Quran was revealed according to the opinion of Umar. If it is true, Ahlul Sunnat should create reasonable interpretation of Umar’s refusal of the death of the Messenger (S) and his verdicts on the punishment of the insane woman and penalty for drinking alcohol. No doubt, this tradition is clearly fabricated and at the time of fabricating this tradition, the fabricator forgot all these things.

Tradition no. 11

Again in Tarikhul Khulafa32, Uqbah bin Amira has reported from the Holy Prophet (S) that ‘if there had been any prophet after me it would have been Umar.’ This tradition is also fabricated, as infallibility is a necessary requirement for prophethood. Umar was among the Arab infidels before Islam. He was neither born purified of greater and smaller sins, nor did he die purified of greater and smaller sins. Thus, how can he ever qualify for prophethood?

Tradition no. 12

In the same Tarikhul Khulafa33, it is narrated from ‘A’ysha that the Holy Prophet (S) said, “I saw the Shaitans from Jinns and men that all fled from Umar.” This proves that Umar was more excellent than Prophet Adam (a.s.), because only one Shaitan caused Adam to err while not one, but many Shaitans ran away seeing Umar!

Tradition no. 13

In the same Tarikhul Khulafa34, Ibn Abbas says that Jibraeel came to the Holy Prophet (S) and said: “Convey Allah’s salutation to Umar and inform him that Umar’s anger is respectable and his pleasure is a command of the Shariah.” We should know that this tradition is fabricated. According to the verse of Quran:

“Surely Allah and his angels bless the Prophet…” 35

…was revealed on the Messenger of Allah (S), and the Prophet showed the path of righteousness to his followers, saying that they should invoke blessings on Muhammad (S) and his progeny; and he did not ask them to invoke blessings on Umar! From the above tradition, the status of Umar seems to be higher than that of the Prophet! Therefore, it doubtlessly, is a fabricated tradition. What to say of the recitation of Umar? His anger and pleasure? And to convey salutation from Allah and that also through the Prophet, who disliked all these actions of Umar? The Holy Prophet (S) also disliked Umar’s recitation of Taurat and his leading of prayer during his illness!

If Allah liked his anger and pleasure, why his deeds should be disliked by the Prophet? The details of Umar’s deeds are as follows: Umar had special attachment to Taurat. One day, he came to the Holy Prophet (S) with a copy of Taurat and started reading it. The Messenger of Allah (S) disliked this and his face became red in anger. The Prophet told him harshly, “If Moosa (a.s.) were to reappear, surely you people would leave me and join him.” Doubtlessly, these words inform about the great displeasure of the Prophet.

We fail to understand how Allah can be pleased with those acts of Umar that the Holy Prophet (S) dislikes so intensely? In the same way is the case of Umar’s leading the Prayer. Since Umar’s voice was loud and abominable, the Prophet heard him praying and he immediately issued orders to stop it, and Umar could not complete the Prayer. Another example is that once Abu Bakr and Umar were quarrelling in a loud voice in the presence of the Holy Prophet (S). Allah disliked the manner of these two gentlemen, so a verse was revealed that companions of the Messenger (S) should not speak loudly and that their voice should not be louder than the Prophet’s.

In short, keeping all this in view, the tradition under discussion cannot be accepted as a statement of the Holy Prophet (S). It contains so many absurd things that any sensible person will not hesitate in labeling it to be fabricated.

Tradition no. 14

According to Tibrani and Dailami, Ibn Abbas says that the Holy Prophet (S) stated, “After me, the truth is with Umar.” But here a question is whether truth was with Umar in the matter of Usamah’s expedition, deposition of Khalid, verdict of lashing the drunkards, and the question of Prophet’s passing away? According to this tradition, truth should have been with Umar. But the fabricators of tradition were not sensible people. If they were, they would not have fabricated such absurd traditions in the first place.

Tradition no. 15

In Tarikhul Khulafa36, Ibn Masood states that if knowledge of all the world is placed in one pan of the scale and knowledge of Umar in the other, the knowledge of the whole world would be ninth of Umar’s knowledge. If this tradition was true, why the Messenger of Allah (S) said, “I am the city of knowledge and Ali (a.s.) is its gate?”37

If Umar’s knowledge really had some value, he would not given 80 lashes to the drinker of wine and neither would he have considered the stoning to death of the insane woman permissible. This seems to be the actions of ignorant. It is also proved that Umar had very less knowledge of Quran and was most of the time reciting Taurat, so he did not get time to recite Quran.

Although he is called a jurist among Ahlul Sunnat, but due to lack of knowledge, he could not issue proper justice. So, he appointed a committee consisting of Zaid bin Thabit, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Abdullah bin Masood etc. On the other hand, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) always adjudged cases on his own and never felt the need of any advisor.

People of justice should decide whether Umar’s knowledge was higher than that of the whole world and also more than the Prophet’s knowledge? What an absurd notion! Some manner is needed even if you want to lie. No doubt that fabricators of traditions about the three Caliphs did not follow any decorum, otherwise, they would not have fabricated such traditions.

How can they fabricate traditions that disprove the Prophet’s being the city of knowledge and Imam Ali (a.s.) being the gate of the city of knowledge? But more regretful are those who consider such false traditions as the soul of their faith and leave the world with such misconceptions. According to a Persian proverb, success in the Hereafter depends on correct belief and a wrong belief does not benefit anyone in the Hereafter.

Tradition no. 16

In the same Tarikhul Khulafa38, it is mentioned that Umar states, “The Quran agrees to my opinion in three instances. First, regarding the Place of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.), secondly, in the matter of veiling the females and thirdly, in divorcing of the wife.” But there is difference of views among the commentators as far as these three verses are concerned. For example, in the matter of the place of Ibrahim (a.s.), Mujahid, Ataa and Ibn Abbas have different views.

If Quran had been compatible with Umar’s opinion, why is difference seen among the sayings of companions and companions of companions (Tabiin)? Obviously, they had no enmity with Umar!

Tradition no. 17

In Sahih Muslim39, it is stated that when Abdullah Ibn Ubayy died, the Holy Prophet (S) was called to perform the funeral prayer. When the Prophet arose to go there, Umar came and said, “O Messenger, do not pray for any such hypocrite.” We should know that this statement clarifies that Umar used to coach the Prophet against Allah’s will. Not only this, even Allah had to conform to his instructions! It proves that Umar had a status higher than that of being a partner in prophethood, because not only did he reform the sayings and deeds of the Prophet, he also showed the right path to assist the Almighty Allah.

All this clearly shows Umar’s excellence over the Prophet. The Messenger of Allah (S) did not even know that he should not pray the funeral prayer of Abdullah Ibn Ubayy! Umar showed him the right path or he would have prayed the funeral prayer of a hypocrite. Doubtlessly, this incident proves the Prophet’s mistake. And immediately a verse of Quran was revealed that mentioned divine wrath.

O Sunni brothers! Why are you so much drowned in the love of Umar that you have no regard for the honor of Allah and no respect for the Holy Prophet (S)? What is the position of Umar with relation to the Prophet? It is a fact that if Umar had any say over Allah and His Prophet’s affairs, he would not have given wrong verdicts based on his personal opinion in the case of one who drinks wine and in the matter of the stoning of the insane woman.

Tradition no. 18

The matter of drinking of wine is also found in the same Tarikhul Khulafa. According to Ahlul Sunnat commentary of the following verse:

“They ask you about intoxicants…” 40

…it was Umar who became instrumental in the prohibition of wine. That is Umar asked about wine and it was prohibited by Allah. Apparently, it does not seem that wine was prohibited because Umar asked about it. Baidhawi, says in his Tafseer, that Abdul Rahman bin Auf recited Surah Kafiroon wrongly since he was intoxicated, therefore wine was prohibited.

In the same way, Ahlul Sunnat say that the following verse of Surah Nisa:

“O you who believe! Do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated.” 41

…was also revealed according to the wish of Umar, but famous commentators like Baidhawi, Razi, Nishapuri and Suyuti etc. have not mentioned this. Similarly, according to Ahlul Sunnat, when the Holy Prophet (S) decided to fight the Battle of Badr, he consulted Umar and this verse was revealed:

“Even as your Lord caused you to go forth from your house…” 42

It is surprising that Ahlul Sunnat say that the verse was revealed for Umar, although the decision of Badr was taken by the Holy Prophet (S). Though the Messenger of Allah (S) was more prominent in giving advice than Umar, Ahlul Sunnat say that the Prophet took advice and this verse was revealed! And the Holy Prophet (S) was superior to Umar in every way. But the surprising fact is that Umar did not take part in the Battle of Badr.

He advised the Holy Prophet (S) for war but he himself did not participate in it, putting forward the lame excuse that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl had come to fight from Mecca, so how could he fight against him? Though Ahlul Sunnat have found this excuse acceptable, the truth is that Umar had no guts to fight for Islam. And this was proved at the time of the battles of Uhud, Khandaq, Khaybar and Hunayn also.

People of justice should see that though Umar advocated conflict in the Battle of Badr and also earned the dignity of the revelation of verse, but when the actual battle began, he sheathed the sword for the sake of his uncle, Abu Jahl, an infidel of Mecca!

Tradition no. 19

In the same Tarikhul Khulafa, it is written that Umar said about the allegation against ‘A’ysha that it was a great calumny. So Ahlul Sunnat say that this verse of Surah Noor:

“This is a great calumny.” 43

…was revealed according to Umar’s wish. But according to Maalimut Tanzil44, we know that Abu Ayyub also expressed this opinion and many other people agreed with Abu Ayyub. Therefore, the following verse is not restricted for Umar. Let Ahlul Sunnat say whatever they like.

Tradition no. 20

According to the tradition of Ibn Abbas in Maalimut Tanzil45, we come to know that in the beginning, sexual intercourse with the wife was unlawful even during night in the month of Ramadhan, but Umar had intercourse with his wife; so Allah made it lawful.

We should know that this verse is not based on consensus and according to religious law, it is not proper to accept a solitary report before a widely related narration. Ahlul Sunnat try very hard to show the revelation of this verse to be according to Umar’s deed, which is a very regretful act on their part.46

Tradition no. 21

It is also mentioned47 that the following verse of Surah Baqarah:

“Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibraeel and Mikaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.” 48

…was revealed through the tongue of Umar. The context of revelation of this verse was that a Jew met Umar and said, “The Jibraeel that your master talks about is the same Jibraeel who is our enemy.” Umar said. “If one is the enemy of Allah, His angels, prophets, Jibraeel and Mikaeel and Allah is also an enemy of infidels.”

Upon this, the verse was revealed in the same words. We should know that Ahlul Sunnat’s claim that this verse was revealed according to Umar’s wish would have been valid if there had been no difference of opinion among the commentators with regard to the revelation of this verse. Controversy among the exegesists shows that this traditional report is not reliable.

Tradition no. 22

According to a tradition49, one day, Umar came across Abu Huraira, who was proclaiming that one who recites the Islamic creed of monotheism would be admitted to Paradise. Abu Huraira says, “All of a sudden Umar hit out at my chest and I fell down stunned. Then he said: ‘Go away from here.’ I returned to the Holy Prophet (S) crying. The Prophet asked Umar, ‘O Umar! What is wrong with you? Why do you interfere in my work?’ Umar replied, ‘I was afraid that people would rely on this tradition, because he was only proclaiming that, ‘There is no god except Allah,’ and not that ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. The Prophet said, ‘Good, discontinue that announcement.’” It should be clear that that the above act was not unexpected from Umar.

Once, Umar had also hit out at a lady’s belly. And which lady? She was the daughter of the Prophet and the Lady of Judgment Day, the most superior one and the wife of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), mother of Hasan and Husayn (a.s.) and the grandmother of the other Imams (a.s.). She had miscarriage as a result of this strike of Umar.

So what was the value of Abu Huraira?! That Umar gave him with a resounding blow. Although Abu Huraira was not guilty of any sin and he was only proclaiming according to the order of the Messenger of Allah (S). Anyway, here, an objection is raised by the Imamiyah sect; that the proclamation was according to divine revelation, so it was propagation of prophethood.

Therefore, what is the position of Umar’s interference? Obviously, this tradition, related by Abu Huraira, is fabricated. And if it is not so, it seems that Umar considered himself to be a partner in prophethood and eligible to be a prophet. In both the cases, this tradition cannot prove any excellence of Umar. It only proves that Umar was a short-tempered old man. We should know that one more tradition is recorded in Sahih Muslim50 from Uthman on the above subject. He relates that one who knows creed of monotheism and he dies, would enter Paradise.

Noodi says that there is unanimity among Ahlul Sunnat that all believers in monotheism will enter Paradise. Umar had no right to interfere in Abu Huraira’s announcement, which was based on the Prophet’s instruction. Beside, the Prophet’s discontinuation of proclamation under suggestion of Umar is against this tradition, which has the consensus of Muslims.

Tradition no. 23

In Sahih Bukhari51, it is narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet stated, “You will be greedy of Caliphate very soon and due to this you will be ashamed and regretful on Judgment Day.” The writer says that greed of Caliphate causing shame and regret in hereafter has no need of any proof. The result of such acts will be bad only, according to the saying, “As you sow, so shall you reap.”

But in Izalatul Khifa52 is mentioned the tradition of ‘A’ysha regarding lifting of the stones which shows that first Abu Bakr, then Umar and then Uthman will become the Caliph. Apparently, this saying of ‘A’ysha negates the above tradition. It means that if according to Abu Huraira, Muslims will be guilty of greed regarding Caliphate, after the Prophet and will be ashamed on Judgment Day, how can we consider the Caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman to be valid?

It was only Abu Bakr and Umar who turned their attention to rulership after the Prophet. Thus, who else can be deserving of divine punishment according to the saying of Abu Huraira, except Abu Bakr and his helpers? Anyway, scholars of traditions say that the narrator of ‘A’ysha’s tradition is unreliable, therefore it should be abandoned. As a result of that, Abu Huraira’s tradition remains on its own condition and its effect reaches to Abu Bakr and Umar and their helpers.

Tradition no. 24

According to the tradition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf53 it seems that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Saeed bin Ali, Saeed bin Zaid, Abu Ubaidah bin Al-Jarrah are indeed blessed with Paradise. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is not included among these nine people. But in another traditions there are ten names and Ali’s name is also included.

This shows that the subject of Ashra Mubashera (the lucky ten) is controversial and disputed. We should know that though this tradition proves that these nine or ten people are blessed with Paradise, it is not necessary that they have to be Caliph or Imam. Therefore, this tradition cannot prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs.

Tradition no. 25

The prophetic tradition that, “There is nothing that Allah inspired me with, but that I transferred it completely to Abu Bakr,” is said by the writer of Safar Sadaat to be fabricated. There is nothing surprising in this matter, as fourteen thousand traditions were fabricated by the order of Muawiyah only in praise Abu Bakr; so this may be also be one of them.

In brief, all the verses and tradition that Ahlul Sunnat believe to be in support of the Caliphate of the three Caliphs; not even one of them in the view of this writer is such that it could withstand the scrutiny of a researcher. All these are only the antics of the supporters of three Caliph, otherwise, there is no evidence in Quran or tradition about the rightfulness of their Caliphate. The fact is that all these Caliphates were the actions of Ummah and they do not have even an iota of support in Islamic texts.

- 1. Surah Fath, 48:29

- 2. Surah Taubah 9:40

- 3. Surah Noor 24:55

- 4. Surah Maidah 5:54

- 5. Vol. 2, Pg. 28.

- 6. Surah Fath 48:18-19

- 7. Surah Taubah 9:100

- 8. Pg. 419

- 9. Pg. 517

- 10. Refer Maalimut Tanzeel, Pg. 419; Tafseer Razi, Vol. 4, Pg. 721; Isafur Raghebeen, Pg. 21; Seerate Muhammadiya, Pg. 175 etc.

- 11. Surah Anfal 8:64

- 12. Tafseer Baidhawi, Vol. I, Pg. 323

- 13. Vol. 2, Pg. 221.

- 14. Ref. Vol. 2, Pg. 563 of this Tafseer.

- 15. Surah Anfal 8:64

- 16. Surah Aale Imran 3:159

- 17. Surah Baqarah 2:218

- 18. Surah Taubah 9:20

- 19. Surah Lail 92:17-20

- 20. Surah Saff 61:4

- 21. Pg. 363

- 22. Pg. 7

- 23. Pg. 69

- 24. Ref. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Pg. 96 regarding Abu Bakr.

- 25. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Pg. 70.

- 26. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Pg. 71.

- 27. Vol. 6, Pg. 72.

- 28. Pg. 304

- 29. Pg. 404

- 30. Pg. 53

- 31. Pg. 16

- 32. Pg. 112

- 33. Pg. 116

- 34. Pg. 117

- 35. Surah Ahzab 33:56

- 36. Pg. 118

- 37. Ref. Mishkatul Masabih

- 38. Pg. 120

- 39. Vol. 2

- 40. Surah Baqarah 2:219

- 41. Surah Nisa 4:43.

- 42. Surah Anfaal 8:5

- 43. Surah Noor, 24:12.

- 44. Pg. 624

- 45. Pg. 174

- 46. More regretful is the fact that Ahlul Sunnat do not even consider the other aspect of this tradition in their blindness in devotion for the second Caliph. What a shameful deed it was that Umar had committed, since it was prohibited at that time and till something has not been lawful by Allah, anyone who commits it, is indeed committing a sin. So what is so great in it? And on top of that Allah even makes it lawful after that! Is it not an impossible scenario? But the devotees of Umar have become blind in his love!

- 47. Maalimut Tanzil, Pg. 74

- 48. Surah Baqarah 2:98

- 49. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 44.

- 50. Vol. 1, Pg. 41

- 51. Vol. 10, Pg. 18

- 52. Vol. 1, Pg. 84

- 53. Mishkat 2; Ashra Mubashera, Pg. 558.

Unlawful Matters of Abu Bakr and Umar’s Caliphate

No. 1: According to Al-Milal wan Nihal of Imam Abul Fath Abdul Karim Shahristani, during the days of his terminal illness, the Prophet issued a command to his followers to prepare for the departure of Usamah’s army and invoked curse on one who avoids joining Usamah bin Zaid who was appointed as the commander of the forces by the Prophet.

A group of Muslims said that ‘we are obliged to fulfill the command of the Prophet’, and another group said that ‘the Prophet’s illness is progressing and in such a situation, we cannot stand separation from him.’ And this was the beginning of differences in Islam. Anyway, Usamah left the boundaries of Medina with the Islamic forces.

According to books of biography and history, we come to know that Abu Bakr remained in Medina and did not go out of Medina with Usamah’s army and Umar, Abu Ubaidah, Talha and Zubair returned to Medina from a place called Jarf. Ahlul Sunnat justify the above behavior of these characters saying that Abu Bakr had taken permission from the Prophet to remain in Medina and those who returned to Medina from Jarf, did so because the implementation of the Prophet’s orders was not immediately demanded; and there was a great probability of disturbance from hypocrites of Medina.

It thus happened that later, after being assured of peace, Abu Bakr appointed Usamah as the commander of the forces and sent him on the expedition. Shia reject this by saying that according to the report of Qastalani, Usamah was a slave and the companions were nobles of Quraish; so they disapproved Usamah’s leadership. Abul Fida also writes that Umar despised going under Usamah’s command.

Obviously, when the Prophet orders that Usamah should take over the command of the army and fight the enemies of Islam, why other people should have any say in it? It was the duty of every person to obey the command of the Prophet without any ifs and buts, even if the Prophet has ordered them to obey someone lower in status than Usamah. As for Abu Bakr’s remaining in Medina, the fact is that it is not proved from any narration that he did so with the Prophet’s approval.

The writer says: The fact is that the Holy Prophet (S) wanted Usamah to go out of Medina with his army and also Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters as he wanted Ali to easily succeed to Caliphate after his death, which was very near as his deteriorating health showed. The Prophet knew well that Abu Bakr, Umar and their supporters and even the Helpers (Ansar) were concerned about Caliphate. They would not allow His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to become the Caliph. And the same thing happened that the presence of the opponents of Ali (a.s.) in Medina did not allow him to become the Caliph.

The Prophet was also not unaware of their intention. Thus, Abu Bakr remained in Medina and Umar and his supporters returned to Medina from Jarf. The Prophet expired in the meantime, and the opponents of Ali (a.s.) settled the matter of Caliphate immediately. There is no doubt that if opponents of Ali (a.s.) had been out of Medina at the time of the Prophet’s demise, according to the natural course of events, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would have become the Caliph.

No doubt, all these procedures of Saqifah seem to be tainted. The success of this procedure is the direct result of the non-participating of Usamah’s army. No doubt, opponents of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) succeeded in their aim, but they also deviated from the commands of the Holy Prophet (S). It is a matter of great regret that the Prophet invoked curse on those who disobeyed his commands.

Let Sunni and Shia argue with each other, but the fact is that which the writer has mentioned above. It is obvious that Saqifah was a really a very hideous matter as Abu Bakr and Umar abandoned the Prophet’s funeral for its sake! It was really a very unnatural act that the opponents of Ali (a.s.) indulged in. A Muslim can never abandon the dead body of a Muslim, what to say of Muslims who had to leave the holy body of the Prophet for the sake of rulership!

It seems to be a very grievous matter but Ahlul Sunnat have found a way out by framing the principles of their Imamate in such a way that it is not obligatory on Allah to appoint an Imam and the people are obliged to do so even if due to this they have to leave the dead body of the Prophet without burial1. Refer to the book of Sharh Aqaid Nasafi, which says that priority is for selection of the Imam and the burial of the Prophet is only second in importance.

It is obvious that this principle was framed taking into consideration the matters of Caliphate, although it is absolutely against wisdom, honesty and modesty and such a principle cannot be called divine pleasure. Only those principles are divine pleasure which are based on the laws of Nature. Such an unnatural principle cannot be accepted as a point of divine law.

No. 2: In Tarikhul Khulafa2, it is stated that Abu Bakr sent Umar to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), as some people had gathered at the house of Fatima (s.a.), in order to break up the gathering of Ali’s supporters so that it may not succeed in its purpose. Abu Bakr ordered that if they don’t obey, they must be put to death. So Umar came to Fatima’s house with this order and also brought a burning torch to burn down the house.

In the meantime, Umar met Lady Fatima (s.a.), who asked him, “O son of Khattab! Where are you going? Have you come to burn down my house?” Umar replied, “Yes, we have come to set fire to your house and all those present in it.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) suddenly came out and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. The writer says that the matter of Ali’s allegiance seems to be a Sunni tactic of the author of Tarikhul Khulafa as mentioned in the previous section of this book.

But these tactics of Abu Bakr and Umar do not comply with any law of humanity. Shah Abdul Aziz has justified them in his Tohfa, but their excuses seem to be worse than their deeds. This incident seems to be extremely repulsive in the view of the people of justice. It seems that Abu Bakr and Umar had in their concern for guarding their seat of power, forgotten that Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the daughter of their Prophet, and a daughter that was highly aggrieved and broken-hearted due to the separation of her father. How nicely Abu Bakr sent Umar to Fatima’s house to present condolences! Truly, condolence is given with sword and fire!

The tradition of Sahih Bukhari states that the Holy Prophet (S) said: ‘The greed of Caliphate would overcome you soon, and as a result of which, you shall be ashamed in the hereafter,’ is really true. As soon as the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away, Abu Bakr and Umar and their supporters wrought such actions that may Allah protect all the Muslims from such deeds. Attack on Fatima’s house, setting it on fire, intention of eliminating those who sheltered in it etc, they all are such ugly deeds that prove their greed for rulership. May Allah protect us all from such greed. What else can result from such greed, except regret in the hereafter.

No. 3: According to the report of Hasan Basri3, after taking the oath of allegiance, Abu Bakr delivered a sermon and said, “I am a human being and not one better than you. When I make a mistake, help me against it and when you see me going astray, correct me and know that a Satan is controlling me. When you see that I am talking nonsense, do not accept my words.”

The author says: It is a strange sermon. Abu Bakr says that he is a human being and not better than the people. There is no doubt that he was a human being and not free from human nature. But when he was certain that he was not most excellent for the followers of the Prophet, he had no right to take Caliphate in his hands. Even if you say that Abu Bakr said this by way of modesty, it was never so that there was none better than him among the followers of the Prophet. Ali (a.s.) was definitely many times superior to both, Abu Bakr and Umar, as proved from established Islamic texts. Abu Bakr knew this very well.

Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that Islam gained strength through the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? That if Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established by anyone? Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that Islam could not have been established through them? Did Abu Bakr and Umar not confess to their hearts that it was Ali (a.s.) who had borne all the difficulties of the battles of Badr, Hunayn, Khandaq and Khaybar, whereas the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) have not a single achievement to their credit, except that they either fled from the battlefield or found some excuse to avoid entering the field of the battle.

Did Abu Bakr and Umar not know that the action of Ali (a.s.) only on the day of Khandaq was, according to the statement of the Holy Prophet (S), equal to all the worship acts of all the men and jinns combined? What right Abu Bakr had to take advantage of Islam, when it was the sword of Ali (a.s.) that was instrumental in establishing it? Is it not the case of ‘one takes pains while the other takes credit’? Thus, in this situation, Abu Bakr did not consider himself as the best of the people, and especially better than Ali (a.s.). Then why did he insist to take over the Caliphate?

The statement of Abu Bakr that a Satan dominated him is such that the writer cannot explain it further. It seems to be a matter between Satan and Abu Bakr. How can anyone else know its reality? It is said that a man’s Satan is man only. Perhaps Abu Bakr meant to imply that it was a human Satan who interfered with his decisions. Allah knows best. Thus, in the view of the writer, this sermon of Abu Bakr, though carrying an aspect of humility, is not free from an aspect of censure.

No. 4: Among all the evil deeds of the two Caliphs the worst in the view of the writer was the way they went out of their way to revive and rejuvenate Bani Umayyah tribe in such a way as it had never been revived. The writer has explained this in the forgone pages. But here some repetition will not be inappropriate. It is not hidden from those who know that Bani Umayyah were the greatest enemies of the Holy Prophet (S) and the religion of Allah.

As long as the Prophet remained in Mecca, he continued to suffer at the hands of this tribe. After migration to Medina, the enmity of Bani Umayyah with the Holy Prophet (S) remained as it was before. Many a times the Quraish, which included Bani Umayyah, attacked the Prophet during his stay in Medina, but the sword of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) suppressed them regularly till they were badly routed in the Battle of Hunayn. History and biographical accounts show that the Prophet subdued Bani Umayyah after a struggle spanning a period of ten years, as mentioned previously.

It is no secret that the Prophet completely hated the Bani Umayyah. So much so that he had even cursed them and they were symbolized by the accursed tree. But Abu Bakr and Umar destroyed the ten-years’ efforts of the Prophet. How the Prophet had destroyed and weakened this tribe through toil and efforts! This wretched tribe also deserved such a treatment; but after the passing away of the Prophet, it started becoming affluent.

The story of Bani Umayyah’s rise to riches is that when Abu Bakr became the ruler, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said, “O Ali (a.s.) stretch your hand, I want to give allegiance to you.” And he also said, “Abu Bakr has become the Caliph and you remained quiet. If you allow me, I will fill the deserts of Medina with troops of Mecca and destroy the Caliphate in no time.” Since His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) knew that the Holy Prophet (S) was dead against Bani Umayyah and had even cursed them, he did not pay any attention to Abu Sufyan’s offer.

It is well known that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was not one to act against the policy of the Prophet and since he considered following the path of the Messenger as his faith, he could not co-operate with Abu Sufyan in any way. When Abu Sufyan realized that Ali was not interested in seizing power, he went to Abu Bakr and Umar and said, “You have taken over the Caliphate without thinking of my share! I will destroy your Caliphate now.” Since the two Caliphs were too much concerned to save their Caliphate, without caring that the Prophet was displeased with Bani Umayyah, they rushed forward to satisfy Abu Sufyan by giving him the rulership of Syria.

So Bani Umayyah became richer by the day after the passing away of the Prophet. Up to the point that they became rulers of the whole Arab kingdom through the favor granted to them by Abu Bakr and Umar. These people acted against the Holy Prophet’s policy and made Bani Umayyah richer than they were ever before.

Although Bani Umayyah had no right to put their feet on this ground, because they were the greatest enemies of the Holy Prophet (S), his religion and his family members. They had no right to become prosperous through Islamic rule, but Abu Bakr and Umar, to safeguard their rule, helped this tribe in such a way that it is constituted the greatest sin. As a result of the generosity of the two Caliphs, Bani Umayyah became more and more powerful and all their ignoble traits of character came to light. These people were having a very bad character. They committed all sorts of prohibited acts after gaining temporal power. And no one, but the two Caliphs, could be said to be responsible for all these acts.

If Abu Bakr and Umar had not patronized Bani Umayyah, it would have remained in a miserable condition as left by the Prophet. It was as a result of the generosity of Abu Bakr and Umar that Bani Umayyah became rulers of their time and filled all the Islamic lands with their evil deeds.

It was as a result of the help rendered by Abu Bakr and Umar that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not pass his tenure of Caliphate peacefully. Imam Hasan (a.s.) was poisoned; Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his relatives were martyred in Karbala’. This series of martyrdoms of Imams continued for many years; Sayyid blood flowed like water and the religion of Allah was destroyed from a thousand aspects; thousands of heresies came into being, etc. Without any doubt, the ones responsible for all this were Abu Bakr and Umar and there is no doubt that on Judgment Day they will be answerable before the Almighty Allah for empowering Bani Umayyah against the wishes of the Messenger of Allah (S).

No. 5: According to the traditional report of Qastalani4, Abu Bakr said, “I have never prostrated to idols.” Umar became angry at this and said, “You say that you have not prostrated to idols, though during the period of your infidelity, you indeed committed such acts.” When religion of Arabs, especially the people of Mecca was idol worship, Abu Bakr must also have worshipped idols during the period of Ignorance. Umar’s objection to Abu Bakr was not unreasonable. But the question is, why Abu Bakr denied worshipping the idols at that time?

From the falsification of Umar, it is clear that this refusal was unnecessary, but there must be some reason of his refusal. So far, the writer is unable to find the reason of this refusal. Perhaps Abu Bakr thought that idol worship was a defective behavior.

Especially with the official position he held, and also when he knew that right from the beginning, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had not worshipped idols; certainly this matter rankles in the heart that one who worshipped idols in the age ignorance, how can he become a Caliph of the Prophet who was infallible since eternity? And one who was never a worshipper of idols, how he could be superceded? There is no doubt that:

“A strange thing is this, to be sure!” 5

No. 6: It is mentioned in Mishkat6 and Muwattah7, that a woman was a grandmother of a dead person. She asked Abu Bakr about the share of her inheritance as a grandmother. Abu Bakr said, “Neither the Quran mentions any share for you nor traditions; go away for the time being, we will refer to knowledgeable people about this.”

If the Caliph of his time does not know about the share of a grandmother, it is a matter of great surprise and regret. According to Allamah Suyuti, in view of the Prophet, Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions. Now if this is the case with Abu Bakr, what do you expect from Umar and others?

No. 7: In the book of Maghazi Waqidi8, Talha bin Abdullah, Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah report that the Holy Prophet (S) prayed the funeral prayer for the martyrs of Uhud and said, “I am a witness for them.” Abu Bakr said, “O Prophet, are they not my brothers? They entered the fold of Islam and took part in the war as I fought.” The Prophet said, “Yes, but they never delighted from the prosperity of the world. I don’t know, what you will do after me.” Upon this, Abu Bakr wept and asked, “Would I really commit such acts?”

Dear readers! The Prophet’s saying cannot be without any purpose. Abu Bakr’s deeds certainly came to light after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), as is clear to all. We should know that Waqidi who is also called Imam Maghazi, was such a reliable researcher that Ibn Khallikan, Khatib Baghdadi, Abul Fida, Allamah Suyuti, author of Sharh Qaushiji, Allamah Damiri, Ibn Hajar and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi have testified to his capability.

- 1. Ref. Aqaide Nasafi

- 2. Pg. 74

- 3. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 68.

- 4. Vol. 6, Pg. 152.

- 5. Surah Saad 38:5.

- 6. In the Book of Inheritance.

- 7. Pg. 386

- 8. Battle of Uhud, Pg. 102.

Unlawful Acts Of Umar

No. 8: According to the report of Anas bin Malik1, the Holy Prophet (S) awarded 40 whips to the drunkard and the same punishment was given by Abu Bakr, but Umar whipped a drunkard 80 times on the advice of Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf. Such a good advisor, that he doubled the penalty for imbibing wine! It was only Abdur Rahman Auf who could have done this! And Umar was his special partner. The Prophet had truly said: “I don’t know what innovations you will invent after my death?” This increase in punishment of alcoholism is one more example of innovations after the Prophet.

No. 9: Nine innovations of Umar are mentioned in the first volume of Hayatul Haiwan2, but in the view of this writer, all were not bad, like making rounds of the town, as it was very beneficial for maintaining law and order in the city, but most of them are not without objection. The writer states his personal opinion in three of such innovations:

First: Prohibition of Mutah marriage. This order is against the statement of Quran and traditions and is not worth to be obeyed. Since the writer has discussed this topic in detail, there is no need to repeat it here again.

Second: Tarawih Prayers during the month of Ramadhan, as prescribed by Umar. The writer does not know what was the custom of Tarawih Prayers during the time of Umar, but it was very much disliked at that time. The usual manner of Tarawih Prayers is that people gather in the mosque and the leader starts the prayer. His recitation is like the speed of a motor car, railway, steamer, bicycle, or aeroplane etc. No one can understand whether he is reciting the Holy Quran or Sanskrit texts.

Only the words of Ya’lamoon and Ta’lamoon are audible. During this Ramadhan, the writer went to a mosque to listen to the Holy Quran. Even though the writer is more or less conversant with Quran, he could not understand, in the beginning, which part of the Holy Book the Imam was reciting and only recognized it much later. What type of a worship act is it, is beyond the comprehension of the writer, but all Tarawih reciters recite it as a habit and consider it to be a worship act.

The fact is that Umar has designed this prayer to look like a joke.

Three: He killed a young innocent child mercilessly. This shows his bad temperament and cruelty. The fact is that thinking of his viciousness hurts ones feelings.

No. 10: On the day of the treaty of Hudaibiya, Umar expressed his doubt about the prophethood of Prophet very strongly and said, “Today, so much doubt was created in my heart as had never been created before about the prophethood of the Prophet.” This shows that he used to harbor doubts about the Holy Prophet’s prophethood but on that day, it was maximum.3

No. 11: Umar gave such a hit at Fatima’s belly that she had miscarriage and the male child expired in the womb. It seems that due to this shock, she became ill and died within six months.4 The Arabic text about this incident is as follows: “Indeed, Umar thrashed the belly of Fatima on the Day of Allegiance causing the miscarriage of Mohsin.” This incident is also mentioned in Ibn Abdullah’s book, Al-Iqd and Mizanul Etedal of Zahabi, where the text is almost the same. Besides, the same event is mentioned as the cause of Fatima’s death in Maarijul Nubuwwah.

No doubt, many women die due to miscarriage. Some die immediately and some after a few days. Lady Fatima had miscarriage because of severe blow and her health deteriorated and after a few months, she passed away. When the writer thinks about Umar’s deed, he cannot understand what kind of an elder Umar was? Firstly, to beat a lady does not befit any respectable man. Secondly, to hit upon her belly. Thirdly, to hit on the stomach of a pregnant woman. Fourthly, to hit so hard that she has a miscarriage. Indeed, a gentleman can never commit such a shameful deed. This kind of deed is not permitted by any caste or religion.

Even among uneducated, ignorant and uncultured people, only such a man can commit this who is the most degraded of them. That is class difference is found among the uncivilized tribes also. Hence, one who commits such a deed will the worst of them. Fifthly, to beat a chaste woman. Sixthly, to beat a respectable woman of Bani Hashim tribe. Seventhly, to beat the daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) and that also his most beloved daughter.

Eighthly, to beat the wife of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), who is the brother of the Messenger of Allah (S), the son-in-law of the Prophet, the body of the Holy Prophet (S), the blood of the Messenger of Allah (S), the flesh of the Holy Prophet (S) and the soul of the Holy Prophet (S). Ninthly, to beat the respected mother of Hasan and Husayn (a.s.). Tenthly, to beat the grandmother of the nine Imams. Eleventh, to beat Lady Sayyida (a.s.) and that Sayyida who got the title of Sayyida (a.s.) from Allah due to her inclusion in the Verse of Purification and the Verse of Malediction, who was the descendant of the Holy Prophet (S) and the wife of a Sayyid, and the mother of two Sayyids and the grandmother of nine Imams.

O Sayyid Sunni brothers! Don’t you have some communal shame remaining? Allah forbid, I cannot say anything else here. We should know that this solitary deed of Umar was such that our hair stand on ends. Obviously, how can I, the writer have any association with such a Caliph? After all Lady Sayyida (a.s.) was the mother and ancestor of a sinful person like me and who can tolerate a person hurting his ancestor?

According to the report of Abdullah Ibn Umar5, Umar said: “After I converted to Islam, I never urinated in the standing position.” The writer says that Umar used to urinate only in the standing position like many educated people of today, but he should not have tormented Fatima Zahra (a.s.) in the above fashion.

No. 12: According to the report of Jabir6, Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (S) with Taurat and said: “O Prophet, this is a copy of Taurat. The Holy Prophet (S) kept quiet, but Umar started reading it. The Messenger’s expression began to change and continued changing. Seeing this, Abu Bakr said to Umar: “I wish you were dead and that your mother should have wept for you.” Umar glanced at the Prophet’s face and said: “I seek protection from the anger of Allah and anger of His Messenger. I am pleased with Allah, with Islam, with the religion of Muhammad (S) and with prophethood of Muhammad (S).”

The Prophet said: “I swear, if Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had been present now, he would have obeyed me but you would have left me and adopted the wrong path. This report also shows that Muslims should not recite the Taurat and Injeel.

Obviously, one can’t enjoy the Quran completely without having the knowledge of Taurat and Injeel, but in this narration, Umar’s recitation of Taurat was only irrelevant talk.

Besides, the Holy Prophet (S) knew that Umar had natural inclination to the religion of Jews. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) became annoyed at Umar’s act and in annoyance said: “If Prophet Moosa (a.s.) had been present, he would have surely obeyed me but leaving me aside, you would go astray.”

No. 13: In Sahih Muslim, it is narrated by Abdullah bin Umar7 that when Abdullah Ibn Abi Salool died, his son Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Abi Salool came to the Holy Prophet (S) and asked to give him his holy shirt for his father’s shroud. The Prophet gave him his shirt. Then he requested the Holy Prophet (S) to recite the funeral prayer. The Holy Prophet (S) stood up, but Umar held the Prophet’s cloak and said: “Allah has prohibited you to pray for him.” The Prophet said: “Allah has given me authority and said that we should recite Astagfirullaah (I seek Allah’s forgiveness) 70 times.”

Umar said that the dead man was a hypocrite, but the Prophet performed his funeral prayer. Then Allah sent his revelation on this Prophet (S) that:

“(O Messenger!) And never offer prayer for any one of them (the hypocrites) who dies and do not stand by his grave…” 8

The fact is that the Messenger of Allah (S) was a mercy for all the worlds, why he should not have accepted the request to perform the prayer? The dead person was so fortunate that the Prophet invoked for him, so how can he remain a hypocrite? He was a beloved of Allah. Rather, it seems that the deceased was not a hypocrite at all, otherwise, he would not have had the fortune for such a funeral prayer. This report only shows the ‘mistake’ of the Holy Prophet (S) and Umar’s correctness. Tell us, O Sunni brothers! Isn’t it a wonderful thing for Umar! Such must be the tutor of the Prophet!

No. 14: It is narrated9 that the Prophet stated that the Black Stone of the Kaaba was sent from heaven to the earth and it will get two eyes on Judgment Day and will be witness of Muslims. But according to the tradition of Muwattah10, Hisham Ibn Urwah relates from his father that Umar said: “There is no benefit in kissing the Black Stone.”

Now the readers may decide, whose saying is preferable, the Prophet’s or Umar’s? Apparently, Umar’s statement contradicts the Prophet. Ahlul Sunnat will definitely accept Umar’s statement, because it is a saying of the tutor of the Prophet and it has the position of the final word.

No. 15: According to Muwattah11, Abu Bakr recited Surah Baqarah in the Morning Prayer and Umar was reciting Surah Yusuf and Surah Hajj in the Morning Prayers. Obviously, all these chapters are very lengthy and there is great likelihood that the sun would rise till they are concluded. Then what kind of prayer would it be? That is why, Islamic law prescribes short Surahs in obligatory Morning Prayer.

No. 16: From a report of Tarikh Abul Fida12, we come to know that at the time of the passing away of the Prophet, Umar was saying: “I would kill one who says that the Prophet is dead. The Holy Prophet (S) has been raised to the sky like Prophet Isa (a.s.).” Abu Bakr said: “Muslims should know that the Holy Prophet (S) has passed away, but Allah is alive.” This incident also shows Umar’s severe temperament and irrelevant nature; there is no need to say more on this.

No. 17: It is mentioned in Muwattah13, that a Muezzin14 came to Umar and seeing him sound asleep said: “Chief of believers! As-Salaato Khairum minan Nawm (Prayer is better than sleep).” Therefore, Umar ordered him to include this sentence in the Morning Azaan. It is a strange interpretation of Islamic Law; that if the Muezzin had uttered another sentence, it would also be included in Azaan. How surprising that the Caliph excluded Hayya a’laa khairil a’mal (Rush to the best of deeds) from the Azaan and included As-Salaato Khairum minan Nawm (Prayer is better than sleep).

No. 18: It is seen from the report of Tirmidhi15 that Abu Bakr and Umar quarreled with each other on some matter in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (S) and they raised their voices. The Prophet was annoyed due to this and the following verse was revealed:

“O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another.” 16

Obviously, such shouting in the presence of the Holy Prophet (S) was very much against etiquette. Good etiquette is a great thing. May Allah give us the good sense of manners and etiquette. Thus, the Lord of the Worlds revealed the above verse for the sake of the honor and respect of the Messenger of Allah (S).

No. 19: According to the report of Sharh Aqaid Nasafi17 Umar appointed six persons: Uthman, Ali (a.s.), Abdul Rahman bin Auf, Talha, Zubair and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas to choose the Caliph after him, and specified that the choice of Abdul Rahman would be preferred. According to Sharh Fiqhe Akbar18, Abdul Rahman asked Ali (a.s.): “If you become the Caliph, would you act according to the Book of Allah, Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the practice of two Shaykhs?”19 His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) replied: “I would act according to Allah’s Book and Sunnah of the Messenger and after that I will act according to my own discretion and not according to the practice of the two Shaykhs.”

According to Tarikh Khamis20 when Abdul Rahman bin Auf asked Uthman: “If you become Caliph, would you act according to Allah’s Book, Sunnah of the Messenger and the practice of the two Shaykhs?” Uthman said: “Yes, I would do that.” Therefore, Abdul Rahman bin Auf appointed Uthman as Caliph.

We should know that outwardly Umar selected six persons for the matter of Caliphate but internally he made such arrangement that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not become a Caliph at any cost. The political acumen of Umar was wonderful! He was worried that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) should not become a Caliph after his death. It is not an ordinary thing to appoint some advisors for his successor in such bad and critical condition that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) cannot get chance to succeed. It was also a great political plan of the second Caliph, that he included His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in the consultative committee but disappointed him of success.

According to the reports of Mukhtasar Jame and Abu Fida, Abdul Rahman bin Auf was given more authority about Caliphate because he was the brother-in- law (sister’s husband) of Uthman and Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas was also appointed as an advisor because he was a cousin of Uthman. It was impossible that anybody could become a Caliph, except Uthman; and it happened so because of the plan of Abdul Rahman bin Auf. Instead of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), Uthman became the Caliph.

Umar had given another direction to these people that if any member does not obey Abdul Rahman’s decision, he should be killed, since cruel acts of whipping and murder were in the very nature of Umar. But he put the condition of killing so that if His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) does not obey Abdul Rahman’s decision, he would be killed. Allah be praised! What a policy of Umar! And he used his policy till the last. It is worth considering that Umar was breathing his last but he was worried about his enemy! O people of justice, pay attention. There is no doubt that Umar achieved a great success in Uthman’s appointment.

But Umar has not done anything good for Muslims. The fact is that Uthman was incapable and it was proved during the twelve years of his Caliphate. If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or any other man who did not belong to Bani Umayyah had been there, Caliphate would have been established on him in a much better way than the Caliphate of Uthman.

But Alas, Umar’s ego and his lack of honesty and fidelity overcame him in such a way, that a really capable man could not become a Caliph or the ruler of Arabs after his death. The writer says: If Umar had true love for Islam or if he had been just and friendly to humanity, he would kept away the Caliphate from Uthman. Since the writer has mentioned all the evil affairs of Uthman previously, there is no need to repeat them here.

- 1. Sahih Muslim Vol. 2, Pg. 71.

- 2. Pg. 431

- 3. Ref. Al-Minal wan Nihal, Shahristani, Pg. 20.

- 4. Ref. Al-Minal wan Nihal, Shahristani, Pg. 20.

- 5. Sahih Tirmidhi, Vol. 1.

- 6. Kitabul Ilm, Pg. 24.

- 7. Vol. 1, Pg. 276.

- 8. Surah Taubah 9:84.

- 9. Mishkat, Kitab al-Manasik, Chapter of Tawaf.

- 10. Pg. 143, Chapter of Taqbeelur Rukn.

- 11. Pg. 22 and Pg. 28

- 12. Pg. 164

- 13. Pg. 24

- 14. One who recites Azaan, the call for Prayer

- 15. Vol. 2, Pg. 77

- 16. Surah Hujurat 49:2

- 17. Pg. 95

- 18. Pg. 80

- 19. Abu Bakr and Umar.

- 20. Vol. 2, Pg. 255

Islam And The Faith Of Three Caliphs

When Ahlul Sunnat consider the three Caliphs to be the rightful successors of the Prophet, it is necessary to consider them Imams and leaders and not only religious and faithful persons. Presently, according to the opinion of Ahlul Sunnat the three Caliphs are superior to all the Muslims. But we have no argument with the belief of Ahlul Sunnat.

Here the argument is whether people of Shiite faith, believe that the Caliphs were infidels? The belief of Ahlul Sunnat about this is that according to Shias the three Caliphs were infidels. But seeing the reference from Shia books, we come to know that Shias consider them Muslim and not infidels.

According to Majalisul Mo-mineen1 of Qadi Nurullah Shushtari, the great scholar Khwaja Nasiruddin Muhammad Tusi says in his Tajreed that those who fight against Ali (a.s.) are infidels and those who oppose Ali (a.s.) are transgressors. The three Caliphs did not fight against Ali (a.s.), so they cannot be infidels; and when they were not infidels, they were Muslims. According to Allamah Qaushiji in Sharh Tajrid2, people of Shiite faith are not convinced of the infidelity of the three Caliphs. Therefore, it is clear from both the books of Shia and Sunni that according to Shias, the three Caliphs were Muslims.

- 1. Pg. 64.

- 2. Pg. 29.

Matter Of Inheritance

The Almighty Allah says in the 11th verse of Surah Nisa:

“After (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.”1
According to Quran and traditions, the matter of inheritance is very important for Muslims. According to the report of Ibn Umar2, the Holy Prophet (S) stated that the most difficult time on a Muslim is that only two nights are left for his death and he has not prepared his will.

One more tradition on the same topic is found in Sahih Muslim3 related by Ibn Shahab that Imam Noodi says that majority believe that making a will is recommended and not obligatory. And Dawood and many others have stated that it is obligatory, when the deceased is responsible for some right or he is having an entrusted thing of any person. According to Imam Shafei, the will must be written as a precautionary measure.

It is mentioned in Ashatul Maat4 that according to Jabir the Holy Prophet (S) stated that if a person has prepared his will before dying, he has passed away like a martyr and in the way of righteousness. From Mizan-al-Sharani5 we come to know that if a person is religious, making a will is obligatory on him, otherwise, it is desirable.

From Tarikh Abul Fida6, it is clear that at the time of going to the cave, the Holy Prophet (S) asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to return the entrusted things to the people that were with him and sleep on his bed. In Jame Sagir of Suyuti it is mentioned that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ali (a.s.) is from me and I am from Ali (a.s.) and whatever is obligatory to be fulfilled, cannot be fulfilled by anyone, except me and Ali (a.s.).” And he also said: “Ali (a.s.) will fulfill my religion.”

In the same book, it is mentioned that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Every Prophet had a successor and my successor is Ali (a.s.).” It is surprising that despite verses and traditions about making wills, the Prophet himself didn’t leave any will. There is no doubt that the Prophet wanted to leave a written testament, but Umar said: “We have the Quran with us,” and did not allow the will to be written.

Ahlul Sunnat may offer lame excuses, but the fact is that Umar knew that the Holy Prophet (S) was going to appoint His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) as his successor, as Umar himself confessed after the Caliphate was formed: “The Prophet (S) wanted to appoint Ali as his successor, but we prevented him.”

No doubt, the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to write his will for the sake of religion. If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had become his successor, Islam and Muslims would have been safe from all evils, whose seeds were sown by Umar in the Islamic world. Indeed, the testament of Imamate was one of the best things and it was such an exalted thing that since it could not be realized in the world, Islam had to face thousands of troubles. So much so, that Islam has not remained the religion of Allah, it has become the religion of selfish people.

“Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return”

- 1. 4:11.

- 2. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, Pg. 36

- 3. Vol. 2, Pg. 38

- 4. Vol. 3, Pg. 92

- 5. Pg. 118, Kitabul Wasaya

- 6. Pg. 132

Debate Of Good And Evil, Compulsion And Free Will

In Mishkat1 is mentioned a report of Sahih Muslim that “Allah fixed the very portion of adultery, which a man will indulge in. There would be no escape from it. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look and the adultery of the ears is listening to voluptuous (song or talk) and the adultery of the tongue is licentious speech and the adultery of the hand is the lustful grip (embrace) and the adultery of the feet is to walk (to the place) where he intends to commit adultery and the heart yearns and desires, which he may or may not put into effect.”

It is clear from this tradition that whatever a man does, he does so because it is written in his destiny and therefore he should not be blamed. It means that since it was the will of Allah, what is the mistake of man and why would Allah be displeased with the people? What does all this mean? It means that it is Allah’s work, but man is guilty.2

From another tradition of Mishkat3, it is seen that when Allah creates a man for Paradise, He makes him work, so that he would be eligible for Paradise and when He creates a man for hell, He makes him do as hellish people do and then He puts him in hell, therefore it is proved that a man would not be responsible for his deeds.

According to Ihya-ul-uloom of Ghazzali4, good actions of people show faith in Allah and all worldly affairs appear according to the will of Allah. And good and evil, profit and loss, Islam and infidelity, good guidance and deviation, devotion, sin, polytheism and faith are the commands of Allah and no one can disobey His commands. If Allah wants to mislead anyone, He misleads him. It is thus clear that whatever is done, it is by Allah and man does not do anything. What justice is it that man has to bear punishment?

The writer says that in his opinion, the question of good, evil, free will and compulsion is beyond human’s sense and though he has read discussions about it in different languages, but through his investigation, he hasn’t formed a final opinion. O my Lord! This matter is beyond my intellect. I believe in whatever is Your command and Your Prophet’s and the commands of the Infallibles in this matter, and to follow it, is my duty and I don’t want to argue anything about it.

“Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.” 5

- 1. Pg. 12

- 2. In this matter, a clear and simple faith is enough that Allah has not created a man like vegetables and minerals. On the contrary, He has bestowed him power and strength, that a man can do whatever he likes and he can use his power with the help of Allah’s gift. No doubt that Allah has given some abilities to man and some He has kept beyond him. For example, when a man is standing, he is given choice to raise one of his feet, and he can raise it, but he cannot raise both the feet together and remain suspended in space.
It is clear that a man is helpless in some matters and therefore he cannot be held answerable in those matters as it is illogical. His reward and punishment depends only on his work in which he was given an authority. Readers of the Holy Quran can understand that Prophet Isa (a.s.) is mentioned to have created living things and Isa (a.s.) himself has also mentioned about his creation, but through the power of Allah.

Thus a man performs good deeds and bad deeds but whatever he does, he does not on his own, since he has no personal power. Whatever he does, he does so by the power that Allah has granted to him. Therefore, good or bad will be related to man and to blame Allah for it, is meaningless. Therefore, good or bad, everything is from Allah and if it means that whatever a man does is from Allah, is entirely wrong.

And if it means that whatever is good or bad in the world are granted by Allah, then we accept that whatever good is from Allah and whatever Allah does is all for the best, and evil is out of Allah’s will, because Allah is Supreme, the Knower and Omnipotent. Therefore, He does not allow bad deeds. Those who have invented the concept of compulsion, believe that a man is helpless and whatever Allah wants, He does. Seeing the senseless and inhuman deeds of their elders, they attributed all their misdoings to Allah in order to save them from blame.

- 3. Pg. 12

- 4. Pg. 66/67

- 5. Surah Al Hamd 1:5-7

Piety Of His Eminence, Ali

Muhammad bin Qays narrates from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that Ali (a.s.) used to partake simple food like the slaves. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) used to buy two shirts and ask his slave to choose one he liked and only after that, did His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put on the shirt. He fed the poor, mutton and leavened bread and himself he subsisted on barely bread, olive oil and vinegar.

He never chose prosperity and comforts for himself and was always diligent in the way of Allah. He emancipated several slaves that he had obtained through the strength of his arms and had brought them up for the sake of Allah. No deed of any human could supercede his actions. He used to pray 1000 units of prayers everyday.

Allamah Qaushiji writes in Sharh Tajrid1 that he was the most pious after the Prophet. Despite having the means, he used to lead a life of recluse and he used to say: “O world! You try to lure me and want to cheat me. I don’t need any of your pleasures. I have divorced you thrice. Your pleasure is short-lived and danger is great and your dominion is ungrateful. By Allah, the world in my sight is like perspiration in the hand of leprous man.” He used to wear coarse garments and ate very simple food.

Ibn Rafe says: “One day I came to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and saw a bag containing dry pieces of bread. I asked, ‘O Amirul Mo-mineen! Why have you kept the mouth of the bag sealed?’ His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: ‘So that my children do not mix butter or olive oil in it.’” These clothes and food were especially for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and none should share them. He used to mend his clothes and shoes from the rind of dates. He ate meat in very small quantity and used to say: “O people! Do not make your stomach, a graveyard of animals.”

He was such a worshipper that due to prostration, he had a mark (callus) on his forehead like the knee of camels. He used to recite many supererogatory prayers. People pulled out arrows from his body at the time of prayer and he did not feel the pain due to his concentration and the same thing happened during his supplications. He was so tolerant that he knew about Ibn Muljim but did not deprive him from his stipend and other acts of generosity. In spite of severe enmity, he did not take revenge from Marwan in the Battle of Jamal and left him alive. In the same way, he did not take revenge from Saad bin Aas who was his deadly enemy.

In the Battle of Siffeen, Muawiyah’s forces cut off the water supply from the army of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). The people were thirsty. Ali (a.s.) launched a severe attack and regained control on the river. The army of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) wanted to stop water supply in retaliation, but His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) prevented them. Such was the generosity of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

It is learnt from Izalatul Khifa2 that Muawiyah asked Zarar to say something about the qualities of Ali (a.s.). Zarar said: “By Allah, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was brave, just, learned, clever and wise. He was horrified of the world, was friendly to the loneliness of the night and looked at divine working to obtain lessons from it. He dressed like paupers, but despite that commanded terrific awe. He respected the people of religion, loved the poor and did not like unlawful matters. He did not disappoint the weak and helpless. He used to cry in a sad voice in darkness. He gave up worldly pleasures and said that provisions of journey are scarce and journey is very long.

Muawiyah cried hearing this and said: “May Allah have mercy on Abul Hasan, he was doubtlessly, a venerable and a holy man.” The writer feels highly regretful on Muawiyah that knowing all this, he still made war against him? O, world! How you have destroyed people! And as long as it is all right, it will do the same.

Abu Huzail says that he saw His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) wearing an old coarse shirt and when he pulled the sleeves down, they reached to his fingertips, but when he left them, they covered only half of his arms. He did not leave anything pending in distribution of booty and public treasury and when he started distributing the booty the whole day passed. He did not keep anything in the house. He gave authority to the honest and when he found any official guilty of breach of trust, he guided him through verses of Quran and beseeched to the Almighty that he has not commanded him injustice.

Abu Umar narrates from Majmaul Samin that: “I saw that when His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had distributed war booty, Zakat or Khums, he swept the ground so that not single grain can stand up to testify against him on Judgment Day.” It means that he maintained account of each and everything. Abu Umar narrates that during his Caliphate, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked: “Is there anyone who would buy this sword of mine? If I had anything cash in my hand, I would not have sold it.” A man stood up and said: “I can give you an equivalent loan.”

Ahmad reports that when the Holy Prophet (S) gave his daughter in marriage to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) he gave a veil, a carpet, a pillow of date barks, a grinding stone, a water skin and a pair of socks in her dowry. Those who spend excessively in marriages must take lesson from the Prophet’s practice. The Holy Prophet (S) and his family members had not the slightest concern with worldly pleasures. His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) drew water from the well and Lady Fatima (s.a.) grinded the corn everyday.

Ahmad narrates another report from Mujahid that Imam Ali (a.s.) stated: “One day, when all of us were struck with hunger in Medina, I came out of the house to look for work. I saw that a woman had collected soil clods and was searching for water to wet the clods. So we settled on labor of sixteen dates and drew water from the well for her, but I got blisters on my hands due to this. After that, I presented the dates to the Prophet and told him everything. The Holy Prophet (S) partook the dates with me.”

Lastly, is narrated the report of Muhammad bin Kaab Qarati in which it is mentioned that Ali (a.s.) said: “I was the standard bearer of the Prophet and due to hunger my heart was sinking. In such a condition, I caught hold of my stomach and began to fight. The fact is that if I get 40000 days of such good fortune, I would remain as steadfast.”

Now the people of justice may compare Imam Ali (a.s.) to the fugitives of Uhud, Khaybar and Hunayn and see the difference between the brave one and others. Our Master has not earned the titles of ‘the Sword of Allah’, ‘the Lion of Allah’ and ‘the King of Men’ for nothing. Without any doubt, there is no warrior like Ali (a.s.) and no sword like Zulfiqar.

- 1. Pg. 388

- 2. Pg. 266

Excellence Of Shias

We should know that Shia sect is a group that obeys and follows the path of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and is convinced of the Imamate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and his sons. This sect believes in the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) as based on religious text (Nass), whether it may be hidden or public. This sect believes that the Imamate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or of his sons cannot go to others, whether by oppression of unjust or through dissimulation. Initially, all the Shias followed the practice of their Imams, but after a passage of a long period of time, there appeared many sub-sects.1

The writer says: The progeny of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) continued on the practice of the Infallible Imams of their family for a long time and then dissension arose among them and they divided into various groups. They also became susceptible to the influence of Sunni rule and many Shia sects became Sunnis. As still seen in the Indian state of Bihar today, where a large number of Sunni Sayyids are found, who, due to ignorance think that their grandfather was Ali (a.s.) and the religion of the successors of Ali (a.s.) was same as theirs.

Ibn Athir writes that the reformer of Shia religion of the second century Hijrah is Imam Ali Ibn Moosa ar-Reza (a.s.). Followers, companions and their groups are called Shia and this word may used as a singular, plural, masculine or feminine. Shias are basically loyal to Ali (a.s.) and his family members.2

Ibn Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet (S) stated: “Seventy thousand followers of mine would enter Paradise without rendering an account.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) asked: “Who are these people?” The Prophet replied: “They are your Shias and you are their Imam.”3 A report mentioned by Tibrani from His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Ali (a.s.)! You and your Shias would soon come to Allah pleased and satisfied.”4

If Allah wills, this writer also would reach the court of Allah with his Imam, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), happy and satisfied and there is no doubt that it would be like this, as the statement of the Prophet cannot be false. Imam Manawi has mentioned in his Khairul Khalaik that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Ali (a.s.)! You and your Shias will reach the heavenly fountain of Kauthar.”

The writer says: If Allah, the High wills, that day is not far off. It is also mentioned in the same book of Khairul Khalaik that the Holy Prophet (S) said: “Ali (a.s.) and his Shias would get deliverance on Judgment Day.”

The writer says that it cannot be contrary to this, because the words of the Prophet cannot be wrong. We should know that Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“And most surely Ibrahim followed his (Prophet Muhammad’s) way.” 5

That is Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) was on the religion of Muhammad (S). Allah says, they are the followers of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.)6. In the same way, the Holy Quran mentions in Surah Qasas about the followers of Prophet Moosa (a.s.):

“And he went into the city at a time of unvigilance on the part of its people, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his party and the other of his foes.” 7

Qadi Baidhawi interprets it in the way that one of them were believers of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) and one from Bani Israel who opposed Moosa (a.s.) and was from the Copts. Baidhawi writes that the Quran points to the Holy Prophet (S) and the gloss writer of Baidhawi says that this incident was included in the Quran for the Prophet only.

The writer humbly says that since according to Allah, Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) was called Shia of Muhammad and the followers of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) means Bani Israel and who were also called Shia of Moosa (a.s.), it means that the word of Shia is agreeable to Allah, so why do we take it to be disgusting.

Ahlul Sunnat hate this word but their disgust is in opposition to Allah. Now the writer asks that when according to the above words of Allah, Bani Israel are Shia of Prophet Moosa (a.s.) and according to the Relation (Manzilah) tradition8, the Prophet and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) are like Prophet Moosa (a.s.) and Prophet Haroon (a.s.), then a question arises that like Shia of Moosa (a.s.), Shia of Muhammad (S) and Ali (a.s.) are all the followers of Islam.

Now are these people Ahlul Sunnat or Shia? Ahlul Sunnat may themselves decide this, as the writer does not want to say anything more in this regard.

Lastly, the writer says when the merits of Shia people are proved from the above sources and according to the Prophet, Shias of Ali (a.s.) is such a group that it would arrive at the Pool of Kauthar along with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) on Judgment Day and get deliverance, in such circumstances, it does not befit Ahlul Sunnat to believe in the infidelity of the Shia sect and to justify cursing them.

According to the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, it is not permissible to curse Yazeed, because he was from the Muslim community, whereas Ahlul Sunnat have no qualms in cursing Shia people who are Muslims, as proved from the statements of Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Sharh Baghawi, Mulla Ali Qari, Qadi Ayaz and Qastalani etc.9

The reason for not cursing Yazeed was mostly due to the fact that in addition of being a Muslim, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is very much close to the faith of Yazeed. Yazeed also considered the Caliphate of the three Caliphs as rightful and was convinced of their excellence, just as Ahlul Sunnat seem to be. Besides the three Caliphs, Yazeed also considered his own father, Amir Muawiyah, as owner of excellence and a rightful Caliph.

Obviously, when Yazeed seems to be so much similar to Ahlul Sunnat, how can they justify cursing him? Besides, Yazeed is the Caliph and Imam of Ahlul Sunnat, complying with all the terms and condition of Caliphate. Therefore, how can Ahlul Sunnat curse him? Well, if Yazeed is not deserving of curse according to Ahlul Sunnat, let it be so, but Ahlul Sunnat should be very careful about cursing Shias, because they are also Muslims and as shown above; and it is a sect which will get salvation on Judgment Day.

- 1. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Pg. 624.

- 2. Ref. Qamoos, Vol. 2, Pg. 524.

- 3. Mojam of Tibrani and Isafur Raghebeen.

- 4. Isafur Raghebeen, Pg. 156.

- 5. Surah Saffat 37:83

- 6. Ref. Shafa, Qazi Ayaz, Vol. 1.

- 7. Surah Qasas 28:15

- 8. You are to me like Haroon was to Moosa (a.s.).

- 9. Refer to the discussion of justification of cursing the Imamiyah sect in the previous pages of this book.

Dissimulation (Taqayyah)

The dictionary meaning of Taqayyah (dissimulation) is to save oneself from

some harmful matter. Terminologically, it denotes those things that Shias consider lawful for the safety of their life and property; whereas their opponents, Ahlul Sunnat consider them unlawful. Although in all their practical actions, Ahlul Sunnat are not less guilty of it than the Shias. Their daily actions prove that dissimulation is a natural matter, and no person or group in any period of time had been able to dispense with it and neither will it be possible for them to dispense with it in future.

Since it is a natural thing, not only the rulers and monarchs were bound to it, even prophets could not avoid it. According to Taurat when Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) traveled to Egypt, in order to escape the king’s harm, he had to call his wife, sister. In the same way, Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) recognized his brothers in Egypt but concealed this matter from them and was bound to the procedures that all readers of Quran are aware of. Similarly, Prophet Isa (a.s.) knew about the evil nature of Yahuda, but in his friendship, had made him as the treasurer.

The Holy Prophet’s migration from Mecca and hiding in the cave and instructing His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to sleep in his bed; if all these actions are not dissimulation, what are they? I can quote hundreds of such examples from the life histories of the prophets, which can prove that dissimulation is not only having a natural and religious sanction; it is also acceptable from the aspect of society and civilization. The following statement of Almighty Allah:

“And cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands…” 1

…shows the legality of dissimulation and why it should not be so, when it is needed in every time and in every situation? It was on the basis of this demand of Nature that the Holy Prophet (S) has said according to the report of Miqdad that, “If a believer hides his faith with infidelity, this deed of his is the best part of his faith. Remember that you were also concealing your faith (Islam) at Mecca before.”

This traditional report is present in Sahih Bukhari and it proves that dissimulation is a perfectly valid act. Ahlul Sunnat use the word ‘Toriya’ (concealment of real feelings) instead of dissimulation and consider it lawful. The fact is that dissimulation and concealment of real feelings are not two different things. The thing is same and the only difference is that Toriya is restricted to spoken words and Taqayyah is concerned with both, words and actions. But since Taqayyah is a Shia word, propagated by Shias, Ahlul Sunnat find it despicable.

Generally, Ahlul Sunnat consider Taqayyah to mean lying, although practically, dissimulation has no connection with lying and both are different. If they were same (Allah forbid) all prophets would be called liars. Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) introduced his wife as his own sister. This action was of dissimulation and not falsehood.

Not only the Imams of the family of the Holy Prophet (S) have resorted to dissimulation, on the contrary, Sunni leaders have also used it. Here I give you an example of Abu Hanifah’s use of dissimulation, although it is not good example, but the necessity of dissimulation is proved through it.

Ibn Jauzi writes in Al Zakia that a man came to Abu Hanifah and said: “I have fallen in love with a beautiful woman, but since I am very poor, her relatives will not allow her to marry me, so please do something so that I can marry her.” Abu Hanifah said: “Would you sell a particular thing of yours in 12000 dirhams to me?” He said: “No.” Then Abu Hanifah said: “Go to the relatives of that woman and tell them: ‘Abu Hanifah knows my condition very well, you can ask him.’” So he did as Abu Hanifah had said. Her relatives came to Abu Hanifah to learn the facts. Abu Hanifah said: “That man had come to sell a particular thing to me for his marriage purpose and I was giving him 12000 dirhams, but he was not prepared to sell it in that price.”

The relatives were satisfied with this explanation and married the girl to that man. It is clear that Abu Hanifah’s action constitutes practical dissimulation. Though his dissimulation, due to its uncommendable style, lowers his status to a great degree and was not suitable for an imam.

Moreover there was hardly any need of it. It was such a dissimulation that next time it proved very harmful for Abu Hanifah and that is why people do not respect Abu Hanifah’s dissimulation till today. The consequences of his dissimulation are full of regret. The case of that woman was that when she came to know that the man she had married was a pauper and that her marriage was arranged by Abu Hanifah’s plan, she adorned herself with ornaments etc. and came to Abu Hanifah and said: “My father does not allow anyone to marry me and those who come with proposals are told: ‘My daughter is blind and cripple. Do not marry her.’” She knew that Abu Hanifah had not seen her before, so she also added that she was the daughter of so and so green grocer. She requested Abu Hanifah to marry her and also exposed her face, head, hands and legs for him. Since beauty is luring, it was enough for Abu Hanifah.

After she left, Abu Hanifah called the green grocer and stated his intention. He said: “My daughter is blind and cripple. She is not suitable for you.” But Abu Hanifah said: “It is none of your concern, I will marry her.” So Abu Hanifah married the green grocer’s daughter that same day.

In the evening, the green grocer placed his daughter in a big basket and with the help of servants, carried her to Abu Hanifah. When Abu Hanifah saw his bride, he at once recited the divorce thrice and became free.

A month later, that first woman came to Abu Hanifah. Abu Hanifah asked her what she has done? She replied: “Tit for tat! You married me to a pauper and I compelled you to marry a blind and cripple.” It is clear that the woman cheated Abu Hanifah but her dissimulation was not good. Such dissimulation is unlawful in the religion of Imamiyah.

Dissimulation is sanctioned only if it concerns security of life, property and honor. It is not lawful without any reason. At present, there is no reign of Bani Umayyah or Bani Abbas and there is no fear of life, property or respect. Therefore, generally the Imamites are not in need of dissimulation.

- 1. Surah Baqarah 2:195

Causes That Compelled the Imamiyah Sect to Adopt Dissimulation

Although dissimulation is such a natural thing that both Shia and Sunni and all human beings are needful of it, it was all the more necessary for the Imamiyah sect, and that is why it became a part of their religion. If Imamiyah had not resorted to dissimulation, their existence would not have been possible in the world, due to Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas.

On the contrary, the situation of Ahlul Sunnat was such that due to Caliphate being in their favor, they had no need to resort to dissimulation and hence it did not become customary among them. The condition of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and their followers during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas was so perilous that they had to very strictly follow dissimulation.

If they had not resorted to dissimulation, they would have been destroyed. How funny that the opponents of Imamiyah regard dissimulation as hypocrisy and do not pay attention to its necessity, although dissimulation is such a natural matter that in moral and civilization matters, no human being has ever been exempt from it. When Shah Abdul Aziz published his book, Tohfa, in the beginning he mentioned his name as Ghulam Haleem and that of his father as Qutubuddin Ahmad.

Actually, there was no need of dissimulation and the Shah had no fear of his life, property and honor. Then also he liked to use the power of dissimulation. What was the need for the Shah to resort to dissimulation in such peaceful times? Thus, if Muhammad’s Progeny resorted to dissimulation during the time of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, what was wrong in it? If they had not acted in that way, it would have been unjust to both, religion and wisdom.

We should know that the Imamiyah resorted to it not without any reason as mentioned above. But it had no connection to injustice and falsehood. If dissimulation is compared to the Ahlul Sunnat theory of validity of consensus of non-Bani Hashim persons and invalidity of consensus of Bani Hashim persons, the difference would be obvious. Indeed, this matter was established to murder the truth, as is proved to all.

Value Of Dissimulation

The value of dissimulation is that on many occasions, it is a great self-guard for safety; besides affairs of the world depend on it. If dissimulation disappears from the world, all the kingdoms would decline and all relationships would scatter and all kinds of factories would be abandoned; cities become enclosures and lanes and streets look like flowing rivers of blood; relationships would be break off and in the end, human beings would be destroyed from the face of the earth in a very short time.

We should know that dissimulation is based on a great exigency. It has full authority in the matter of the world and religion. It has no concern with any falsehood and it is not based on selfishness. For example, if anyone says: “You kill so and so person, otherwise, I would kill you,” In such a situation, one would prefer getting killed than to kill someone else. According to Shariah, it is not an occasion of dissimulation and if a person resorts to dissimulation in such a case, he would become eligible for Hell. In the following discussion, we shall prove that dissimulation is as lawful in Ahlul Sunnat as it is in Shia religion.

Allah says:

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully.” 1

It means that it is not lawful for true believers to have friendship with infidels, except in the condition of dissimulation. Baidhawi writes that Yaqoob Qari has recited it as Taqayyah and in times of fear, friendship with infidels is lawful.2

Allah says:

“And a believing man of Firon’s people who hid his faith said…” 3

He was Hizqeel, a cousin of Firon and he concealed his faith from Firon and his community for a hundred years.4 In Seerate Muhammad5, in the incident of Abu Jindal, it is mentioned that Allah has made dissimulation lawful for Muslims, if they are in danger and the sentence after that says: The Messenger of Allah (S) allowed one to keep faith in the heart and lie from the tongue, just like in the incident of Abu Jindal. In the same way, in this book on page 448, it is mentioned that the Holy Prophet (S) asked: “O Abu Dharr, what would you do when people banish you from Medina?”

Abu Dharr replied: “I would fight with my sword.” The Prophet said: “Don’t do that. It would be better for you to listen to them and obey them even if they be cruel slaves of Abyssinia.”

In Seerate Nabawiya of Sayyid Ahmad Dahlan6, it is mentioned that when the Quraish infidels of Mecca asked His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), “Where is Muhammad?” He replied: “I don’t know.” Although he knew that the Holy Prophet (S) was hiding in the cave. What was it, if not dissimulation? Let Ahlul Sunnat say it was lying, but the poor Shia can never attribute falsehood to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Similar situation is described in Tarikh Khamis7 when the infidels asked Abu Bakr about the Prophet, Abu Bakr said: “He is a guide, leading the way.” No doubt that in this situation, Abu Bakr had also adopted dissimulation.

In Seeratul Halabiyah8, Halabi says that wherever the infidels are dominant and Muslims are weak they should not curse the idols of infidels and this order continues till now. According to Seerate Muhammadiya9 and Sahih Bukhari10 the Holy Prophet (S) stayed in Mecca for fifteen years and preached for only four or five years secretly and in fear, because the infidels rejected the Holy Quran, the Prophet and Allah the Almighty. That is why, Allah revealed to pray softly, so that polytheists may not hear, but it was not necessary to hide from companions, ‘but you must not pray so loudly that infidels snatch the Quran from you.’

We come to know from the report of Isafur Raghebeen11 that when the Holy Prophet (S) prayed, he prayed in a secluded corner. One day, a disbeliever found Saad bin Abi Waqqas praying and he condemned and cursed him. Saad and the polytheist had a fight in which Saad beat up that disbeliever. Obviously, if they had been cautious as ordered by the Prophet, this would not have happened.

According to Tirmidhi12, people would first come to Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) for intercession on Judgment Day but Ibrahim (a.s.) would say: “I can’t do anything for you, because I have lied three times in my life.” The fact was that he had to resort to this because of dissimulation. That is why the Holy Prophet (S) stated that such lies were lawful for Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) by Shariat.

In Sahih Bukhari13, it is quoted from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet (S) told Miqdad that to hide belief from infidels was the best action of faith. Such as he was doing in Mecca. It shows that when you feel danger from infidels you should conceal your faith. Undoubtedly, it is the proper occasion for dissimulation.

It is related by Huzaifah in Sahih Muslim14 that “once I was with the Prophet when he said: ‘Conceal our Islam.’ I asked: ‘Why do you fear? There are six or seven hundred people in my tribe.’ The Prophet said: ‘You don’t know, perhaps you may encounter the enemies of Islam alone, and if such an occasion comes for anyone, it becomes necessary to pray in a low voice.’”

Qastalani writes that the companions of the Messenger of Allah (S) did not openly declare Islam and that they prayed secretly, so that they would not create any trouble. Baidhawi15 writes that according to the verse of Surah Shuara, Prophet Moosa (a.s.) was in dissimulation for thirty years. Qastalani says in Sharh Bukhari16 that lying is justified to save ones life from unjust people and enemies of religion.

According to Baidhawi17, the following verse permits dissimulation:

“And cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands…” 18

Tafseer Maalimut Tanzeel also supports Tafseer Baidhawi. But it should be known that dissimulation was permissible in Islam in the beginning as it was weak and that now there is no more need for it. Although according to Imam Sadiq (a.s.): “It (dissimulation) is our religion, till Judgment Day.” According to Tafseer Jalalain, Tafseer Ibn Abbas, Tafseer Nishapuri and Tafseer Kabir Razi, dissimulation is permitted only in times of need. Thus, Shia and Sunni, both consider it necessary, but it is very regretful that Ahlul Sunnat use it as a means to vilify the Shias.

- 1. Surah Aale Imran 3:28

- 2. Ref. Baidhawi, Pg. 134

- 3. Surah Momin 40:28

- 4. Ref. Tafseer Baidhawi and Tafseer Ibn Abbas.

- 5. Pg. 294

- 6. Vol. 1, Pg. 384

- 7. Vol. 1, Pg. 335

- 8. Vol. 1, Pg. 466

- 9. Pg. 191

- 10. Vol. 1, Pg. 351

- 11. Pg. 15

- 12. Vol. 2, Pg. 16

- 13. Vol. 10, Pg. 35

- 14. Vol. 1, Pg. 84

- 15. Vol. 2, Pg. 106

- 16. Vol. 5, Pg. 279

- 17. Vol. 1, Pg. 99

- 18. Surah Baqarah 2:195

Tabarra

The dictionary meaning of Tabarra means ‘to be aloof’. That is to be aloof from a group or party, but generally it has taken up the meaning of cursing. Although it has no concern with such affairs, and it was Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan who started cursing of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and thus all sorts of abusive language and taunting began to be called as Tabarra. We should know that Shias have no concern with such meaning.

The writer is entirely against the practice initiated by Amir Muawiyah and such a thing was only necessary for Muawiyah and those desirous of the religion of Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.) should think about it.

According to Sayyid Ali Muhammad, cursing is abominable. In my view, whatever the style of curse maybe, it has spoilt the Shiite religion and followers of Shiite faith should try to reform themselves. Muawiyah initiated cursing on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) on some purpose; and that purpose is not valid for Shias, therefore they should be aloof from it. The reason of cursing His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was that Muawiyah became a Caliph after making Imam Hasan (a.s.) abdicate Caliphate.

Muawiyah knew that he had no right to Caliphate. Therefore, if this cursing would continue, all Muslims of that time would abuse the sons of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) also and due to this, his Caliphate would gain strength. It happened in the same way. Due to curse and abusive language, Muslims of that time forgot about the progeny of Prophet Muhammad (S) in a very short time and thought that Muawiyah and Bani Umayyah were the nearest relatives of the Prophet and not anyone else.

Cursing was made a part of the Friday sermon and as stated previously, everyone gradually forgot Muhammad’s Progeny. Within 50 years of the death of Muawiyah, many Muslims forgot His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Lady Fatima (s.a.) completely. Hence a man from them asked a friend: “Who is this Ali, whom we all curse in the Friday sermons?” His friend replied: “He was an infidel and deadly enemy of Islam, that is why everyone curses him.”

In the same way, a person asked another: “Who was Fatima?” The reply was: “She was a wife of the Prophet.” This was when not much time had passed after the Messenger of Allah (S) and Muslims of Bani Umayyah period became unaware of Ali and Fatima; and this was the aim of Muawiyah. It is clear that the mention of the family of Prophet (S) was regarded as a crime and using abusive language became customary. As a result, Muslims of that time considered Bani Umayyah as relatives of Prophet (S) and those who were really related to the Prophet were forgotten. It is clear that this political need is not necessary for the Shias of this time.

Mourning For Imam Husain

Azadari means mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his relatives and companions who were martyred in the desert of Karbala’. Mourning is a precept as well as a practice. An example of practice is to wear black or green clothes, to construct sarcophagus (Tazia) like Imam Husayn’s tomb, to construct Husainiyyahs, to install banners, hold meetings to commemorate Imam Husayn’s martyrdom, feed mourners, distribute food among poor people, serve the poor and rich with eatables and drinks.

All these are different methods of commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). For example, standards (Alam) are installed in Iran and in India people make sarcophagus (Tazia). In China, there is no such thing; there the people go to the forest, make a fire and walk on it. Mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.) is such a deed that his believers can never give it up and enemies of Muhammad’s Progeny can never bear it.

All important religious and secular events are commemorated annually like the 12th Rabi Awwal etc. Ghazzali prohibited narrating the tragedy of Husayn (a.s.), because it cast aspersion on Abu Bakr, Umar and Muawiyah. Abu Hanifah also prohibited celebrating Eid Ghadeer for this very purpose. But the followers of Muhammad’s Progeny can never give up the remembrance of the tragedy of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and can never neglect mourning for him.

Remembrance of a beloved is a natural thing. The demand of friendship is not forgetfulness. Now the writer would like to write about the custom of mourning, lamentation and dirge recitation among Ahlul Sunnat.

The book Ashatal Maat1 states that when the Holy Prophet (S) passed away, angels came to express condolence and Allah also did not abstain from expressing sorrow. That is, Allah also gave condolence to Himself. We come to know that condolence is a natural thing and it is not out of Allah’s will. Everyone knows that Prophet Adam (a.s.) also mourned for his son, Habil’s death and why should he had not have done so, when mourning is a natural thing?

Hence, if followers of Husayn (a.s.) and other family members of the Prophet mourn for Imam Husayn (a.s.), it is a necessary thing, and it is true and appropriate. Lamentation and dirges are included in mourning and to consider it prohibited is entirely senseless.

In Mishkat2 and Sunan Nasai3, Abu Huraira states that when anyone from the family of the Holy Prophet (S) expired, women gathered and cried bitterly. One day, Umar prevented those women from crying and drove them out. The Holy Prophet (S) said: “O Umar! Leave them, let them cry, because the eyes become full of tears in mourning and it also troubles their hearts and the calamity is also fresh.” Thus, we come to know that mourning is lawful and why it should not be, when it is entirely natural?

Umar action shows his temperament, due to which he prevented the ladies from crying and drove them out. If such a thing had not been according to nature, why the Prophet allowed it? We should know that weeping in trouble is not a sin according to the Holy Prophet (S).

Waqidi’s Maghazi Futuh Sham4 shows that all those martyred in the Battle of Uhud were mourned by their women relatives, in a special gathering arranged by them. When the Holy Prophet (S) knew about it, he became angry and advised them against it. This shows that mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.) is not allowed.

According to Tarikh Khamis5, Lady Fatima (s.a.) also sat near the grave of her father and wept and recited dirges; smelt the dust of grave and recited the following verse:

“I am overtaken by such a misery. That if this trouble falls on the day, it would turn into a dark night.”

‘A’ysha also was crying and saying: “Ah! He is dead. He never ate barley bread to satiation. He sat on palm-leaf mat, instead of a throne. He did not sleep at night for fear of hell.” Now people of justice should decide whether lamentation for the tragedy of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Ahlul Bayt is lawful or not?

In Mishkat, in the chapter of eulogy of Ahlul Bayt6, Salmi reports that Umme Salma says that she saw the Prophet in her dream and that his head and beard were covered with dust. She asked: “O Messenger of Allah (S), what has happened to you?” The Prophet replied: “I had gone to the place of the martyrdom of Husayn (a.s.).”

Another tradition of Mishkat related by Umme Fazl says: “One day, I came to the Prophet and gave his daughter’s son, Husayn (a.s.) in his arms. All of a sudden the Prophet’s eyes were filled with tears. I asked the reason and the Prophet said: ‘Jibraeel has informed me that my son would be martyred and Jibraeel has given me red dust of his grave.’”

According to the tradition of Seerate Muhammad7, when Imam Husayn (a.s.) was martyred, blood rained from the sky and vessels became full of blood, the sky became so dark that stars were visible and blood oozed from beneath the stones. It is also mentioned in this book that blood rained on every house of Khorasan and Syria.

This shows that the sky and other things were all mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.). Shame on such Muslims, who refuse to mourn for Imam Husayn (a.s.). How amusing that Pir Dastagir writes in Ghaniyatu Talibeen that “Ashura (10th Mohurrum) is a day of feast and celebration. We should not mourn this day, because it is of cheerfulness and we should be happy on this day; Ahlul Sunnat will be rewarded if they do so.” Ahlul Sunnat should decide whether we should be aggrieved or happy on the day of Ashura? But since their leader, Ghausul Aazam advises them to be happy, it is better for them to do so!

Enough in justification of lamentation and elegy is that dirges are found even in the Sunni book of Madaraj Nubuwwah and also Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi has written them in Sirre Shahadatain. What else can it be except that lamentation and reciting of dirges is absolutely lawful for Shias, because when the caravan of the captives of the family of the Prophet returned to Medina from Syria, Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) asked Bashir to recite a dirge for the martyrs of Karbala’ and inform the people of Medina of the return of the family of the Prophet.

Bashir says: “I mounted my horse and was reciting couplets of the dirge about the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in a loud voice.” Thus, he arrived at the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (S) and saw some women in veils who came out of their houses weeping. All men and women were wailing and reciting dirges. Why followers of the Imam should not weep and lament? People will cry in future as people lamented before. But since Ahlul Sunnat follow Pir Dastagir, they cannot join the mourning of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Poor people, they are quite helpless. What can they do?

- 1. Vol. 4, Pg. 611

- 2. Pg. 144

- 3. Vol. 1, Pg. 168

- 4. Pg. 108

- 5. Pg. 406

- 6. Pg. 562

- 7. Pg. 474

Mutah (Temporary) Marriage

Mutah is a kind of marriage (Nikah). The only difference is that one is periodic and the other is permanent. Its detail is given in the Holy Quran. Mutah is not compulsory or obligatory but the Holy Quran considers it lawful. Since no verse of Mutah is found to be abrogated, Shias believe that it is lawful and they practice it. Non-Shias regard it unlawful, because Umar Ibn Khattab has decreed it to be illegal.

In his own words: “I prohibit both.” How the statement of the Prophet or Caliph can abrogate a verse of Quran is beyond the understanding of this writer.

According to non-Shias, some tradition of the Prophet abrogated the command of Mutah and that is why the Caliph also instructed thus. The writer says that it is the same, whether there is some saying of the Prophet abrogating Mutah or not, neither the statement of the Prophet can abrogate a verse of Quran nor the saying of Umar. According to Shias belief, only Allah can abrogate His own command.

Even the Prophet or a descendent of a Prophet cannot abrogate a divine command. But the same cannot be expected from Ahlul Sunnat according to whose belief, Umar had the right to abrogate any command of Allah, since according to Ahlul Sunnat faith most verses were revealed because of Umar; so if after the passing away of the Prophet, the Caliph abrogates a command of Allah, what is wrong in it?

By following this faith, it becomes easy to accept the abrogation of the verse of Mutah, otherwise, apparently the command of Umar for abrogation of Mutah seems to be absolutely opposed to Islamic texts. This argument is not acceptable to the writer, because to say that Quranic verses were revealed according to Umar’s opinion is meaningless. In the view of intelligent people, Quranic verses were not revealed according to Umar’s opinion and Umar’s command cannot abrogate the command of Allah.

Ahlul Sunnat believe that Allah sent revelation according to the Caliph’s wish and this shows that Umar had a share in prophethood, which means that he was superior to the Prophet. Thus, when the Caliph disliked something, Allah’s command come down according to his wish and there was no interference of the Prophet or anyone else. We also come to know that Muhammad (S) and even Allah felt it necessary to bear in mind Umar’s likes or dislikes. If it was not so, how can they say that revelation was sent according to his wish?

Muhammad (S) was a channel to convey divine revelation and preaching of verses that whatever communications were sent by Allah, he was to bring them to the believers and without interfering, whether he liked it or not. It is clear that this is the function of the Messenger of Allah (S). But revelation was according to Umar’s opinion; and Allah had to ask Umar about his opinion before sending it, which means that Umar did not only have a share in prophethood, he also was a partner in godhood.

This belief seems to exceed the faith of Bahrul Uloom Maulavi Abdul Alaa, which regards Umar only to be the tutor of the Holy Prophet (S). Bahrul Uloom says that sometime the Prophet was in a position where even angels could not tread and sometimes he came down to the earthly level and it was in one of those moments that in the last days, the Messenger of Allah (S) said:

“Give me pen and paper, so that I may write for you something that you would never go astray after me.”

Umar understood that it was the moment of his earthliness and therefore he corrected him. Upon which the Messenger of Allah (S) continued to repeat: “I seek the refuge of Allah.”

The writer says: When Umar had a share in Quranic revelation, then how could the personal reformation of Prophet Muhammad (S) be difficult for the Caliph? But the writer cannot share the Maulavi’s faith, because the saying of the Holy Prophet (S) does not show that when he said: “Give me pen and paper…” he had fallen to the level of earthliness, because if it had been so, he would not have said: “So that you will not go astray after me.”

It is a statement, which shows that what he was saying was very important. That is, he wanted to write something, which would save his followers from going astray. It is clear that such a document cannot be concerned with his terminal condition. Certainly his thoughts were on Allah, but Umar could not understand the Prophet’s style and his demand of intelligence and wisdom, otherwise, he never would have tried to correct his thinking.

When at last the Prophet said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” also it was not due to low thoughts. Rather, it seems that the Prophet was very much displeased of the people’s disobedience. No doubt, to say, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” was a demand of nature as his followers and all Muslims had always obeyed him, but now the condition was such that when he was in his terminal illness and asking for pen and paper, they were not prepared to obey him. On the contrary, Umar was also claiming that the Prophet was talking nonsense, as clear from his statement that: “The disease has overcome him…”

If the Prophet had not said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” what else could he have said? Maulavi Abdul Alaa has, in his justifications, praised priesthood a lot, but it is regretful that his justifications have no relation to Nature. Now the people of justice can decide whether Umar had any share in divine revelation or not? The fact is that Ahlul Sunnat love the three Caliphs to such an extent that they do not care for the respect and honor of the Prophet. Allah and the Prophet have only minor value for them. We are horrified on seeing people like Bahrul Uloom and other learned Ahlul Sunnat. Although there are many strange things in the world, but the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is the strangest of all.

Thus, we should know that Mutah is sanctioned by Quran and it cannot be abrogated by a statement of the Prophet or a saying of Umar. Research shows that Mutah is lawful in religion and it was lawful during the time of the Prophet till the end of Bakr’s tenure. It was only Umar who decreed it unlawful and from then onwards, Ahlul Sunnat regarded Mutah unlawful.

There is no doubt that during the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, Mutah was lawful, as Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari says that, “I performed Mutah during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr,” and also in Tirmidhi1 it is mentioned that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar that, “Mutah of Hajj was lawful with Umrah, but your father made it unlawful,” Abdullah replied, “My father made it unlawful but the Messenger of Allah (S) has made it lawful. Shall I leave the Sunnah (practice) of the Prophet and obey the commands of my father?”

Now, let us see what Mutah is?

We should know that permanent marriage (Nikah) is a civil contract in Islam, in the same way, Mutah (Temporary marriage) is also a civil contract. The difference in temporary or permanent marriage is that there is no divorce in Mutah and in Nikah, divorce is possible. It means that Mutah cannot be cancelled within the fixed period of time, as opposed to Nikah, which can be terminated anytime through divorce.

Since, according to the dictates of reason, Mutah is an unblemished contract, educated people of the world cannot deny its excellence. For example an Englishman, who was also a famous jurist of India, complied with this contract. He was among the friends of the writer. He married a respectable woman of his own community on contract for thirty years and his spouse participated in society with other married women.

Since he was not bound by Christian faith and discriminated between the merits and demerits of a thing, he did not consider such a contract to be defective. Now the excellence of Mutah is unfolded even among the people of America and it would not be a surprise if Mutah becomes customary in the whole world. We should know that both, Mutah and Nikah are based on the same principle and having the same aim. Both are means to protect against fornication. Islam has endeavored much to save the Muslims from fornication.

Islam has allowed four marriages at the same time and also fixed rational prohibitionary limits. By making Mutah lawful, in addition to permanent marriage, Allah has made martial relations so easy for the believers, which cannot be obtained by those who deny Mutah. Lack of facility in lawful sexual contact is due to the prohibition of Mutah. And this lack of facility results in fornication.

Rather, it can cause even worse consequences as seen during the time of Umar. From that time onwards, nothing could replace Mutah as a channel to save the people from fornication. When the order for prohibition of Mutah was announced in the Islamic lands, within a very short time, complaints arrived from Syria that soldiers were indulging in many inappropriate misdeeds2 due to the prohibition of Mutah, which was not surprising, considering the hot temperament of Arabs! Allah forbid! That is why, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) stated that if Ibn Khattab had not prohibited Mutah, only the most wretched ones would have indulged in fornication.3

We should know that four marriages are permissible in Islam. This order is not obligatory nor compulsory; a man can marry one, two, three or four, or due to some helplessness, he cannot even marry one. Those who advocate monogamy, should know that if Allah had made it obligatory, the religion of Islam would have advanced in other countries, but it had no chance in the land of Arabs.

A community whose males were not at all worried of hunger and thirst during fasts and who considered the best way to end the fast through sexual intercourse with the wife, to think that they would be content with one wife is only madness! Such a community cannot be saved from fornication through limited sex.

Therefore, the permission of four marriages was not without exigency. Those who have accepted monogamy and are proud of it, they have no reason to be proud of as whatever is seen in Paris and London is beyond imagination. They advocate one wife even she were leprous or sterile! Indecency is not unexpected from one who is bound like this.

Experience shows that the slogan of one wife is only used to conceal obscenity. Islam has removed the system of one wife very intelligently and allowed four wives and to be safe from fornication, has also shown the easy way of Mutah.

If Mutah is adopted, there would be no need to keep prostitutes on contract in the army and that wherever the army moves the prostitutes go along with them! Government is not concerned whether the army personnel do this lawfully or unlawfully. While the government must assure that the army should not create disturbance.

It is clear that if the government would not supply prostitutes, disturbance could be created in the army such as the disturbance created in the army of Syria when Umar prohibited Mutah. According to the writer’s view, limited polygamy and Mutah, both are the best ways and Quran has considered both lawful. Certainly, if one does not consider fornication wrong, he cannot value these facilities!

One who knows the worth of polygamy and is aware of their necessity and he knows that fornication is appalling. I am not writing this against non-Muslims, otherwise, my writing would be in a different style.

Being a Muslim, I am not against Mutah. After it was made unlawful, what difficulties the Muslims had to bear! Imam Abu Hanifah had to derive the order that if a man pays an amount of money to fornicate with a woman, the amount would be lawful for that woman and that man would not be penalized for adultery. It is clear that if Mutah had not been made unlawful, Abu Hanifah would not have to formulate this point of law. Anyhow, whatever the Hanafites may think about this interpretation, according to the writer, Mutah is much better.

This order may be acceptable to whoremongers but the fact is that it is very abominable and it destroys the communal and personal respect of Muslims. In the eyes of the people of justice, such judgment can never have a religious sanction and a wise man could never follow it. Below, the writer presents his research about Mutah. Allah, the Almighty says in Quran:

“Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed.” 4

Baidhawi states that this verse was revealed for Mutah and this order continued till after three days after the conquest of Mecca and then it was abrogated but no other verse can be seen that has abrogated this verse. Hence Noodi5 states that Imran bin Husayn says that the Holy Prophet (S) did not prohibit Mutah as long as he lived and Quran has not abrogated it.

On the same page, Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in Quran and the Prophet allowed Mutah for us, then the verse was never abrogated and the Prophet also did not prohibit it. But Umar did whatever he liked.”

It is worth considering that Baidhawi writes about abrogation of this verse, but he has not mentioned the verse, which has abrogated this verse of Mutah. If any verse had abrogated the verse of Mutah, he would have surely pointed it out. The fact is that there is no such verse that has abrogated the command of Mutah, as clear from the research of Imam Noodi. Another argument for the abrogation of Mutah is that in the chapter of ‘Fi-Nasikh and Al Mansukh’ of Tafseer Itqan6 we do no see the abrogated verse of Mutah.

In the same way, Mulla Jeevan Jaunpuri has included the verse of Mutah among the verses of legislation in his exegesis of Quran. The greatest argument of non- abrogation of Mutah is that according to Tarikh Ibn Khallikan7, the command of Mutah continued during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and the first Caliph. If any verse of Mutah had been revealed to abrogate Mutah, it would not have remained concealed from the Prophet. How surprising that Umar was aware of it and the Prophet and the first Caliph were not. In short, it is confirmed that the verse of Mutah was not abrogated by any verse.

Some learned Ahlul Sunnat who try to abrogate Mutah through the verses of Surah Momin and Surah Maarij do not realize that these verses are Meccan, while the verse of Mutah is from Surah Nisa and it is Medinite. How can verses of abrogation be revealed before verses of legislation?

Umar had announced from the pulpit that, “Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj, both were lawful during the time of the Prophet, but now I prohibit them.”8 According to Tarikhul Khulafa9, in the Chapter of innovations of Umar, it can be seen that it was he that made Mutah unlawful. Abul Fida has also mentioned it in his history and Muwattah10 also states the same.

Now let us see whether Umar had the right to cancel the command of Mutah or not, because the Prophet and first Caliph had no right and if they had this right, surely the Prophet and the Caliph would have ordered as Umar did. From where did Umar get this discretion? Umar must have secured this right in the capacity of a jurist.

Thus, Allamah Qaushiji writes in Sharh Tajrid11 that Umar went to the pulpit and made Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj unlawful and also cancelled the statement of “Hayya A’laa Khairil A’mal” (Rush to the best of deeds). He says that it is allowed for the jurist to give a verdict. Now the question is whether Umar, Abu Bakr or the Prophet had any right to abrogate a divine command or not?

Certainly, the Holy Prophet (S) had no right to abrogate even a small verse of Quran. Only Allah had the right to abrogate His command from Quran as some abrogated commands are seen in the Holy Quran. It is not possible for any tradition of Prophet to abrogate a verse of Quran, as clear from the statement of the Prophet that “If our tradition conforms to Quran, accept it and whatever is opposed to Quran, reject it.”12

When such is the position of a saying of the Prophet, then what is the value of the words of Abu Bakr and Umar?

No doubt, this jurisprudence of Umar is against the command of Allah and is not worthy to be followed by Muslims. Now let us see which followers of the Prophet followed Umar’s command and who were against it? Followers who accepted the command of Allah about Mutah, that is those who were against Umar were:

1) Abdullah Ibn Abbas
2) Abdullah Ibn Masood
3) Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari
4) Salma bin Al-Akwa
5) Abu Saeed Al-Khudri
6) Saeed bin Jubair
7) Mujahid
8) Abdullah Ibn Umar
9) Imran Ibn Al-Husayn
10) Akrama, slave of Ibn Abbas and
11) Abu Moosa Ashari.

We should know that the purified Imams of the family of the Prophet were also aloof from Umar’s jurisprudence and followed the command of Mutah.13 From the distinguished companions, only Uthman bin Affan and Abdullah Ibn Zubair are seen as supporters of Umar’s verdict. Now the writer states a few more points related to Mutah which are found in reliable books.

According to Noodi14, Ibn Abbas used to certify the legality of Mutah and Ibn Zubair considered it unlawful. When Abu Nasrah, the narrator mentioned this before Jabir Ansari, Jabir said: “I did Mutah for a short period, along with the Prophet’s companions, but Umar became angry and said: ‘Allah has allowed Mutah in Quran, but if anyone does so, we would stone him to death.”

The writer says: “O Umar! Who are you? You were ready to stone to death a follower of Allah? You are not the Lord of the world that you can abrogate the verse of Holy Quran. Even the Prophet could not do so. How can the believers of Allah and Prophet interfere in the command of Allah and His Prophet (S)?” Really, we cannot understand Umar, because he had a special type of temperament and was very stubborn all the time. He didn’t like the peace treaty of Hudaibiya, due to which he doubted the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) and could not hide it.

Obviously, if the treaty had not been signed and there had been fighting with the infidels of Mecca, they would not have helped the Prophet. Did the Prophet get his help in the war that he would give his help today? Well, the abrogation of the command of Mutah informs us of the hot temperament of Umar.

If it would be that he possessed knowledge of Quran and tradition and for this reason and had the capability to exercise the judgment there would have no need to establish committee of jurists whose member was Zaid Ibn Thabit etc. The biggest argument is that he had no intrinsic capability like Imam Ali. He was making mistakes in juridical matters and he could not understand such things even till the end of his life. With such useless ability, to issue the order of Mutah is a very surprising matter.

Imam Noodi says that Abu Moosa Ashari used to certify the legality of Mutah and he supported his view by a tradition of the Prophet. From Tafseer Nishapuri, one comes to know that even an illegal wife has a right like a legally married wife. Hence according to this explanation, the lawfulness of Mutah is proved.

From the Book of Nikah, Pg. 293, we come to know that according to Hanafite faith, Mutah is invalid but Imam Malik says it is lawful and Imam Zomur says Mutah is right because due an invalid condition the marriage does not become invalid. From Tafseer Kashaf it appears that Ibn Abbas was always convinced of the lawfulness of Mutah and didn’t revert to its unlawfulness. Noodi15 has recorded that Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari says: “I did Mutah during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr.”

Tirmidhi16 records that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar about the Mutah during Hajj. Ibn Umar replied that Mutah was lawful. The man raised an objection and said: “Your father made it unlawful.” Ibn Umar replied: “If my father made it unlawful, the Holy Prophet (S) made it lawful. Shall I give up the practice of the Prophet and follow my father’s sayings?”

It is stated in Noodi17 that Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in the Holy Quran and the Prophet ordered me for Mutah and no other verse is revealed to abrogate this verse of Mutah and the Holy Prophet (S) has not made the Mutah unlawful, but Umar declared it unlawful.” From the research of Qastalani18, it seems that Ibn Abbas made Mutah lawful and said that Mutah was lawful in times of need. It is also mentioned that Salma bin Al- Akwa says: “We were in the army and the Holy Prophet (S) came and said: ‘You are allowed to do Mutah’, therefore all did it.”

Noodi19 has recorded that Qadi bin Qalami says that even if time is not fixed verbally and it is only in mind, then also this marriage is lawful.

It is also written in the same book that Abu Moosa Ashari used to consider it lawful. One day a man asked: “Don’t you know that Umar has made it unlawful in Hajj rites?” Abu Moosa asked about it when he met Umar and he said: “No doubt, the Holy Prophet (S) and his companions did Mutah, but I disapproved such a thing in Hajj rites that people enjoy during the Hajj and bath water should drip from their heads.”

O Allah, be praised, Umar has mentioned this reason for the unlawfulness of Mutah! Allah provides facilities to believers and Umar regards them unlawful! Here, Umar himself had taken Allah’s place by force, after tutoring the Prophet! There is no limit to bad temperament! Even if the 16th part of this temperament had given you bravery, Islam would have been safe from different kinds of adversities. Bad times arrived for Islam due to Umar’s temperament. The destruction of the Prophet’s family, their troubles and dissension in Islamic Ummah etc. All this came to light only because of Umar.

Whether the bigots believe it or not, Umar is responsible for all the evils that inflict Islam. The family of the Prophet continued to shed tears of blood because of Umar and the religion of Muhammad today is not in fact the religion of Muhammad. Islam seems to be the religion of Umar or Zaid Ibn Thabit, but it is not the religion of Muhammad.

The religion of Muhammad was limited to Ahlul Bayt but now it is not an easy task to separate the religion of Muhammad from the religion of Umar. In the end, I quote a tradition related by Saeed bin Musayyab from the book of Noodi20 that says: Once His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Uthman met in the district of Affan. Ali (a.s.) was asserting that Mutah was lawful and Uthman claimed that it was unlawful. Ali (a.s.) asked: “What do you want? Do you want to prohibit something that the Messenger of Allah (S) had made lawful?”

In the same book, a tradition on this topic is recorded from Abdullah bin Shafiq, that Uthman considered Mutah unlawful as Umar had prohibited it and Uthman himself had no power to take a decision on Quranic verses. It is possible that Marwan or someone else had told him about the unlawfulness of Mutah; but Imam Ali’s view about the lawfulness of Mutah is worthy of attention, because none in the Islamic lands was more perfect in knowledge than His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after investigating all explanations and traditions of Ahlul Sunnat, we come to know that the unlawfulness of Mutah was only Umar’s creation and his command was totally against Allah and His Prophet. People of insight, who are aloof from prejudice, cannot say that Mutah is unlawful, because the Prophet, Ali (a.s.) and all family members of the Prophet conform to the command of Allah with regard to Mutah. Wisdom also dictates that whatever the Prophet and Ali (a.s.) agree upon, must be the truth; and it is the religion of Allah and all that is against it, is false.

- 1. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

- 2. Sodomy, perhaps.

- 3. Ref. Tafseer Tabari

- 4. Surah Nisa 4:24

- 5. Vol. 1, Pg. 293

- 6. Vol. 47, Pg. 310

- 7. Pg. 358

- 8. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 289.

- 9. Chapter of Awaliyate Umar, Pg. 136.

- 10. Pg. 196

- 11. Pg. 385

- 12. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 537.

- 13. Ref. Sharhe Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 2, Pg. 90.

- 14. Pg. 393

- 15. Vol. 1, Pg. 451

- 16. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

- 17. Vol. 1, Pg. 292

- 18. Vol. 8, Pg. 53

- 19. Vol. 1, Pg. 54

- 20. Pg. 104

First Case Of False Testimony In Islam

According to the report of Qays bin Hazm, Ibn Abbas, Aamir Shobi and Habib bin Umair have reported that when the caravan of ‘A’ysha, Talha and Zubair started from Mecca to Basrah to confront His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), when they reached Hawwab, the dogs started barking. At that time, ‘A’ysha ordered them to return from that place. The people asked her why she wanted to return. She replied that the Holy Prophet (S) had said that “one of my wives would rebel and the dogs of Hawwab will bark upon her.” Upon this Zubair said: “Be patient, Hawwab is very far away from here.” ‘A’ysha asked: “Do you have any witness to support your statement?” Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs who swore that it was not Hawwab and ‘A’ysha’s caravan moved towards Basra. We should know that this was the first instance of false evidence in Islam. This caravan was marching to Basra to fight with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). In this battle, ‘A’ysha was defeated and Zubair and Talha were killed. Barwan killed Talha and someone else killed Zubair. This battle was named the Battle of Jamal because ‘A’ysha participated in the battle on her camel and one of her camels was also killed in the battle. Now the writer requests attention to the following points:

(1) We came to know from this tradition that the Holy Prophet (S) knew from his foreknowledge of his prophethood that one of his wives would rebel against his successor, that is, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.); and he also knew that she would be ‘A’ysha. He also knew that when ‘A’ysha would reach Hawwab, dogs would bark at her caravan. He knew all these things and they came to be true. Since the Prophet and his executor have knowledge of the unseen, how can the Prophet’s prediction be wrong? It happened as the Prophet had stated.

(2) ‘A’ysha had heard about her rebellion from the Prophet and the Holy Prophet (S) told her that its sign will be that dogs would bark at her at Hawwab. Even though she knew all this, she did not desist from war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Ahlul Sunnat consider this error of ‘A’ysha as an error of jurisprudence, but it does not seem to be so. Being informed by the Holy Prophet (S) she did all this knowingly. It was not a battle against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), it was a battle against the Holy Prophet (S) himself.

Anyway, the decision of ‘A’ysha is in Allah’s hands. No one can say, what would happen and what not, but I want to ask Ahlul Sunnat that when Pir Dastagir has said that ‘A’ysha was the most prominent woman of the world, to be most prominent demands that one should fight with Allah and that no one can become most excellent without it?

(3) The statement of Zubair that she was very far from Hawwab was a white lie. The writer asks: “Is falsehood necessary to be among the blessed ten?” Allah, the Almighty has made falsehood a greater sin and has cursed the liars. Quran says:

“And pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.” 1

Inspite of this, in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, Zubair holds a great status. Certainly, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is entirely beyond human understanding. Allah curses the liars and Ahlul Sunnat think they are blessed!

(4) When evidence was needed, Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs of the neighboring area who falsely swore that, that place was not Hawwab. Apparently, Zubair and Talha were from the ten blessed persons of Paradise and it is highly regretful that they instruct witnesses to give false evidence. Praise be to Allah! What pure and pious persons are included among the ten blessed ones of Ahlul Sunnat! If such persons cannot be heavenly, who can be? Really the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is beyond the understanding of rational people.

(5) In the view of Ahlul Sunnat all these deeds of Zubair and Talha are errors of jurisprudence and their war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is also considered as error of jurisprudence. Everything has a limit after all! Clearly, they fought with Ali (a.s.) and also made ‘A’ysha fight against him and this is called error of jurisprudence! Indeed, in order to save them from blame, enemies of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) have created a nice trick of the error of jurisprudence. How can any intelligent person accept a religion that is having such illogical principles?

(6) The incident of Hawwab shows that ‘A’ysha remembered the words of the Holy Prophet (S) and wanted to return, but Zubair lied and bribed fifty persons to give a false testimony to prevent her. The writer thinks that it seems if Zubair and Talha would not have been there, ‘A’ysha was not capable to fight His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Certainly Zubair was a strange elder! First he was not prepared to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr after Saqifah and wanted to give it to Imam Ali (a.s.) and make other people also give allegiance to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). But later he claimed revenge for Uthman’s blood and entered the battlefield to fight against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). The fact is that he was not a man of principles and he was a slave of worldly pleasures. He had no concern with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or Abu Bakr, he was only interested in personal gains and because of it he was killed with his companion, Talha. Both swore allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.) but later broke it and joined ‘A’ysha. They had taken oath at the Imam’s hand because they thought they would gain something; but after the oath, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and it dawned on them that they could not benefit from His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in a legal way. So they left Ali (a.s.) and joined Muawiyah and ‘A’ysha.

The incident of the lamp is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was checking the accounts of the Public Treasury in the light of a lamp which burnt the oil bought from public funds. Zubair and Talha came to meet the Imam for some worldly matter and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and began to speak to them.

They understood from this act of Imam Ali (a.s.) that when he was so careful about public funds, how can they get anything from him? After that the two seekers of the world had no option but to break the oath of allegiance and join the adversaries of Imam Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after paying attention to all these points the writer says that a religion cannot be said to belong to Allah if it considers such unprincipled persons as ones who are promised Paradise. Allah has given sense to human beings to discriminate between good and bad. If a man does not employ this sense, how can he call himself a human being?

- 1. Surah Aale Imran 3:61

Umar And Bravery

It is common belief of all Ahlul Sunnat that Umar was a very brave man. Hence, Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi has mentioned in his book that the Holy Prophet (S) stated about the bravery and courage of Umar. The writer is surprised that when there was no bravery and courage in Umar, why has the Qadi confidently attributed it to him?

I have discussed in detail that Umar was not at all brave and there was no need to repeat my discussion again, but after seeing the biography of Qadi it was necessary to write afresh about the Caliph’s alleged bravery and courage. Readers are requested to pay attention to the following:

I have represented previously that during the age of Ignorance, Umar was going to display a feat of courage, but it was postponed as narrated before. When Umar came to know that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah is the Messenger of Allah (S) who wanted to establish a new religion, he became very angry and was suffering from anger and sorrow for six years, till the day he came out of his house with a sword to kill the Messenger of Allah (S).

On the way, someone said to him: “You are going to kill Muhammad (S) but children of Zahra (s.a.) will take revenge from you.” Upon this, he gave up the idea of killing and returned home. It seems that he dared to kill the Holy Prophet (S) in ire and fury, but when his anger calmed down, his courage also calmed down. In the period of Ignorance, his sole deed of courage was going to be committed, but after practical wisdom, he forgot everything.

After converting to Islam, his greatest feat was that after performing Hajj, he migrated from Mecca to Medina openly without caring for the infidels of Mecca and this speaks of his great courage! But the fact is that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl guaranteed his safety, so no one could harm him and in this condition he migrated openly and it cannot be called any kind of courage.

In the same way is the matter connected to his going to Mecca. Its detail is that when after a few years, the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to send him to the infidels of Mecca with a message, he refused to take it and stated that the reason of his refusal was that since Abu Jahl was not alive anymore, ‘the people of Mecca would kill me.’ Thus, neither his walking from Mecca to Medina was an act of bravery, nor his refusal to go to Mecca.

As for his martial exploits, he did not participate in the Battle of Badr because his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl had come to fight against the Holy Prophet (S); so how could he participate in the battle against his uncle? Secondly, he fled from the battlefield in Uhud to save his life, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) wounded.

In his own words: ‘I was scampering away like a mountain goat.’ Besides, he refused to confront Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq and in the Battle of Khaybar, he hid himself from Marhab and Harith for two days and did the same in the Battle of Hunayn. We cannot find any evidence in Quran, traditions and History that Umar or Abu Bakr ever caused an injury to anyone or were ever injured in a battlefield.

Whenever such a time arrived they used to flee from there. When this is the reality, why has Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi praised Umar’s bravery? The truth is that Umar was not brave or courageous at all, but it was all a result of his obstinacy. If Umar had courage, he would not have beaten a lady.

The greatest sin committed by him was the severe blow to Lady Fatima (s.a.) that caused miscarriage. After that, Fatima fell ill and finally passed away. It is clear that a brave man can never stoop so low.

To beat a woman is an act of cowardice and to behave mercilessly with the Lady of Paradise? Leave alone Muslims, even infidels cannot commit such an ugly deed.

We should know that Umar had no courage at all, but he was a very bad tempered man and Ahlul Sunnat believe that Umar was very brave and courageous because of his hot temper. Brave people cannot be a hot tempered. They are always kind and merciful, but Umar was not concerned with kindness and mercy. He behaved harshly with everyone, whether he was a Muslim or infidel.

An example of his real temperament is that when the prisoners of Badr were brought to Medina, he advised the Prophet to kill them all in such a way that each Muslim soldier would kill his relative by his own hands. The Prophet turned away his face from this advice and did whatever he felt appropriate. If the Prophet had acted according to Umar’s ugly opinion, people would have blamed Islam.

It is clear that Umar’s opinion shows hot temperament. What a shame that Umar did not do anything during the actual battle; but when prisoners were brought to Medina, he roamed the city with his sword. This was not an act of bravery. But regretfully, his sword could not come out from the sheath in the battles of Khandaq, Uhud, Khaybar and Hunayn. Now decide for yourself whether attribution of bravery to Umar by Qadi Sulaiman Sahab is lawful or not?

How This Writer Converted To Shiaism?

The writer’s father, late Shamsul Ulamah Sayyid Wahiduddin Khan Bahadur was a well known leader and besides being an intellectual had acquaintance with religious precepts of all faiths and respected all religions and he himself knew about the world and hereafter, because he knew Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Latin, English, Sanskrit and Hebrew languages and always referred to the religious books in these languages.

In brief, he knew all about Islam as well as the religions of Greece, Rome, Hindu, Buddha, Magians, Jews and Christian etc. He knew the Taurat and Injeel by heart as one knows the Quran by heart. If not perfect, he had sufficient knowledge.

He was pre-eminent regarding religion in the beginning and the writer witnessed him performing the fundamental rituals of Shiite faith in his last days, but after his death, his funeral was performed according to Hanafiya School, because his children and family believed in Hanafiya religion, except me. His father and grandfather, Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur also believed in the same religion but as a matter of fact, the late grandfather believed in Shiite religion, but according to the faith of his son, Akbar Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, he did not call himself a Shia. Najmuddin also believed in the Shiite religion, but being a narrator of traditions, he did not like to be associated only with Shiite religion.

Besides, from Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur, the writer’s great grandfather upto Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), all followed the Shiite faith and none were Sunni. Though his father was a learned man, he left no stone unturned in his training and education. He appointed teachers to teach his son Arabic and morals and also appointed calligraphist and appointed an army officer to teach him how to use a gun and also appointed a tutor to teach him English for a long time.

Here I want to mention about a teacher who was appointed to teach me Arabic. Most of these teachers frequently left their service and new tutors came to take their place. All these teachers were of Hanafite religion and the last tutor who was appointed for me for Arabic language was Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi. His religion was Hanafite, due to communal restriction.

The writer was seventeen years old at that time and in matters of religious faith, he was well informed. The religious faith was firm in his mind by the source of education that Allah is one and Prophet Muhammad (S) is His Messenger, and then Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), then Muawiyah, then Yazeed, and then six Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, and then all remaining Imams including Imam Mahdi (a.j.). The most prominent woman is ‘A’ysha and after her, Lady Fatima (s.a.).

After this instruction and after clearing the Intermediate exams, the writer came from Bhagalpur to Patna and was admitted in Patna College and separated from Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Gul Nurullah. There he started taking religious lesson from Maulavi Abdul Karim. He was also of Hanafite religion, but he was not convinced of Yazeed’s Caliphate and followed the Sunni religion but did accord importance to Yazeed after Muawiyah. Anyhow, his belief did not affect me, because I believed Yazeed as a rightful person, according to the instructions of Maulavi Sayyid Gul Muhammad.

When the writer was nineteen, he got a chance to witness a religious disturbance. The writer’s uncle, Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, also lived on the other side of the same house. As mentioned above, his uncle was of Sufi religion and many times Sufi people gathered in his house making nice mystic jokes everyday. But one day by chance they mentioned Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan. Since the uncle did not have any devotion to Muawiyah, he delivered a speech, from which no dignity of Muawiyah could be derived.

This was unbearable to the Sufi, who was one of our neighbors. He became extremely irritated and said that if you refuse the excellence of Muawiyah you have forgone the Sunni faith. What is the difference between deniers of excellence and a Shia? Other Sufi gentlemen present there also supported him. But the writer’s uncle remained adamant in his opinion and due to this the Sufi group broke up. Not only this, their friendship declined and both parties began to debate in writing about the excellence of Muawiyah or lack of it.

At last Shah Ali Habib of Pahelwari Sharif got information about it and he opposed Sayyid Munshi Najmuddin. First he tried to make him understand but in vain. Nawab Munshi remained same as he was before. Then Shah Ali wrote a powerful book entitled Uswatul Hasana in praise of Ahlul Sunnat faith and all the beliefs were explained according to their faith, which clarified that no Sunni can refuse to believe in the excellence of Muawiyah.

On the contrary, a Sunni can also not decline that Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah, was not a rightful Caliph. The writer is not concerned with the merits or demerits of this disturbance, but the fact is that he learnt many new things which were opposed to his previous faith. This matter fully convinced him that according to the writing of Pir Dastagir, it is impossible for Ahlul Sunnat to avoid Muawiyah.

Rather, according to Ghazzali they are also bound by their faith to accept Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah as a legal and official Caliph, like his father. But when information increased about Yazeed and Muawiyah, both seemed extremely evil; on the other hand, Muawiyah looked worse than Yazeed. No doubt, this disturbance weakened my Sunni belief. When I got free time from college, I read books regarding this controversy and was also thinking about this matter all the time.

My previous teacher, Sayyid Muhammad Gul did not even allow me to read any book of history or biography; and when I asked any question regarding faith, he said that such a question was misleading. But now the writer had access to all kinds of books. Such effect was not only restricted to the writer, it affected Maulavi Abdul Karim also, a famous scholar of Ahlul Sunnat. He announced his disbelief in Muawiyah and gradually became entirely opposed to the Amir of Sham (Muawiyah). I gradually I had no concern with Muawiyah and in my view, he seemed to be worse than his son.

Sometime after this disturbance, the writer had to travel to Chhaprah1. His uncle, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali was a very respected advocate of Chhaprah, who had obtained the certificate of High Court of Calcutta, but he practiced law in the courts of Chhaprah. His prestige was such that all people of that district respected him, besides the Europeans and Hindustani officials.

As a matter of fact, none equaled him among the writer’s peers, as far as human qualities were concerned. He deserved more than he was ever honored. He had a very good memory and was a good respondent. Allah had granted him great intelligence and he had no equal in wisdom and understanding. He was outwardly as elegant as he was internally perfect.

Along with these naturally acquired attributes, he was a learned man having studied the books of Zawahid and Sadr Awafiq and acquired knowledge of Hanafite faith from Maulana Wajidali Benarsi. He was the younger brother of the venerable Maulana Muhammad Ismail. Hakim Muhammad Ali alias Hakim Munna was the son of late jurist. Even today he is well known among the people of Chhaprah and other villages.

Thus, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali had mastery over Arabic language and in addition to that he had no equal as far as the knowledge of English was concerned.

The writer spent every evening during his stay in Chapprah with his late Uncle to gain knowledge and every moment of his company was edifying for the writer. The writer heard each statement of that gentleman with attention and tried to benefit from it. Everyday, there were useful talks, but one day in the company of some of his friends, he said: “Although many books are written to refute Shia objections, the fact is that none of them are reasonable answers to Shia objections.”

This statement created a strange effect on my mind. If it had not been a statement of Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali, it would not have created this effect on my mind, since I knew that the Maulavi had mastery on all religions and he was not interested in foolish talks. This statement of my uncle opened up for me a completely new field of research and I decided not to leave any stone unturned in my search for truth.

After that, he explained the matter of Fadak in great detail. Allah had granted him knowledge and eloquence. The audience listened to him attentively were and very much impressed and after mentioning about the matter of Fadak he himself wept. This meeting further inclined the writer to verify the truth.

On the third occasion, the Maulavi stated: “When I die, recite the same supplications at my burial ceremony that Shia people recite.” This constrained me more to inquire about the truth and I started to refer to books of both the sects. The writer was occupied in this when all of sudden Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali expired. The dead is helpless over the alive. How could I get the chance to exercise the bequest of the Maulavi against the wishes of his family?

At that time, I was also unaware of the ways and manners of pronouncing the Shia creed to dead and to recite blessings for the dead. Even if I had been aware of them, what I could have done? Maulavi Abdul Karim was present to recite the funeral prayer and I had no time to say anything.

Anyway, I wrote the supplication of Naade Ali on a piece of paper and placed it under his shroud. The Maulavi expired, but this writer did not falter from the path of investigation. The fact is that if the writer had not had the company of the late Maulavi, such readiness would not be created in his mind to research the truth. In research of truth, I had to be such as is apparent from my above writings. Below, the writer shall narrate the story of his religious research.

The writer started his religious investigation with eagerness after the death of his uncle. The late Maulavi Abdul Karim did not like my association with books. He didn’t want me to refer to the art of history or scholastic theology, but he could do nothing about it.

- 1. A city in North-East India.

Reason of Leaving the Hanafite Faith

Everyday, my knowledge increased and from my investigation I came to know that the Shia religion and the religion of Ahlul Sunnat, specially the religion of Imam Abu Hanifah are completely different religions and there is no similarity between the two and the objections of these two religions also have no concern with each other.

Secondly, some points are lawful in both religions. But the matter of fact is that the religion of Shiite is from Allah, whereas the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is quite different from the religion of Hanafiya. In this way, the creed and law of these two religions have no connection with each other.

Obviously, it is not possible for me to show all the fundamental and secondary points of difference between the two religions, but I can write about the reason of my withdrawal from Hanafite religion, because in my investigation on this religion, I came to know that Abu Hanifah, the leader of this religion has founded it on analogy.

Obviously, creation of a new religion is not unexpected through the use of analogy, hence through research, it became clear to the writer that the religion of Abu Hanifah is very much different from a religion founded on Quran and traditions. The late Maulavi Abdul Karim used to say that Abu Hanifah had done a great favor on Muslims, that he has given them a completely new religion through his use of analogy. There is no doubt that Abu Hanifah has become an inventor of a religion and indeed, if he had not resorted to analogy, there would have been no new religion.

A Few Examples of Abu Hanifah’s Analogy

(No. 1) It is a well known fact that according to Abu Hanifah, the skin of a dog becomes pure after tanning1 and one can pray in it and if one wants to bind the Quran in it, one could do so. This shows that Abu Hanifah did not consider a dog to be unclean.

It would have been better if pig skin had also become pure after tanning. If this were possible, it would have been very useful today. The best quality of saddles are made only from pigskins, whereas today’s generation of Muslims are averse to its use.

(No. 2) A dog skin dipped in a filthy impurity is allowed for prayers, as Qaffal prayed wearing such a skin in the presence of Sultan Mahmood Ghazanvi. This matter was recorded by Imam Yafaee in Miratul Jinan and Ibn Khallikan has written about it in his book, Wafayatul Ayan quoting from Mugheesul Khalq of Imamul Harmain, Abu Maali Juwaini. We should know that this prayer was recited according to the interpretations of Abu Hanifah’s religion. It is a long story, and since it is extremely despicable, the writer is not repeating it.

By casting a fleeting glance at all the basic fundamentals of prayers etc. we come to know that such prayers with its intention and ablution is the result of Imam’s dependence on personal opinion and analogy.

(No. 3) According to Kitabul Hidaya and Sharhe Waqaya, Abu Hanifah has permitted drinking of fermented beverage of dates and wine prepared from dry raisins, if one does not become intoxicated.

In the same way, it is mentioned in Fatwa Alamgir that if a person drinks nine cups of date wine and does not become intoxicated and if he drinks the tenth cup and becomes intoxicated, he would not be eligible for the prescribed penalty. Abu Hanifah has also permitted ablution with date wine.

Obviously, all these verdicts of Abu Hanifah, were due to his dependence on personal opinion and analogy; and as a matter of fact are against Quranic laws. Due to such exercise of personal opinion by Abu Hanifah, some of the followers of his school also consider berry wine permissible.

(No. 4) According to the marginal notes of Sharhe Waqaya, Abu Hanifah considers the amount paid to a prostitute as lawful for her.

In the same way, it is proved from Fatawa Qadi Khan and Kanzul Daqaiq that a man who pays for adultery is not liable for punishment.

If such a verdict of Abu Hanifah is right, then all the prostitutes in the market and their associates are not guilty. If this relationship is lawful, why Mutah is made unlawful, although it was sanctioned by Quran?

(No. 5) According to Abu Hanifah, to carry the meat of a lawful animal in the pellicle of swine is lawful. Since according to Abu Hanifah, pig is not impure like a dog, a saddle made from pigskin also cannot be unlawful. On the contrary, analogy demands that when the pellicle of a pig can be used, it is meaningless to abstain from using its skin.

(No. 6) It is mentioned in Fatawa Qadi Khan that writing of Quran with urine, blood or any filthy things is lawful for using it as a cure.

No doubt, it shows a great insult of the Holy Quran.

(No. 7) According to Hidaya2, if a man marries his mother’s sister, daughter or any close blood relative purposely and forcibly, he cannot be penalized for it. Obviously, this verdict resembles the customs of Magians (Fire worshippers) and has no connection with Islamic laws.

(No. 8) According to Fatawa Alamgiri and Durr Mukhtar, if a man falsely claims a woman to be his legal wife and produces false witnesses and wins the case and according to the verdict of Islamic judge, he gets that woman, she becomes lawful for him in the sight of Allah and people and that person is not liable for any penalty. In this way, all kinds of properties, mansions, houses, etc. become legal with the help of false testimonies. What a strange verdict! Doubtlessly, such jurisprudence seems to be the greatest source of promoting false claims.

Obviously, all such verdicts are results of analogy and inform about Abu Hanifah’s astounding capability of jurisprudence.

The writer used to be surprised during the period of his ignorance that why there was so much enmity between the Wahhabis and followers of Hanafite faith. Subsequent information showed that the claim of Wahhabis is based on Quran and traditions, whereas Hanafites totally rely upon personal opinion and analogy.

Obviously, when a school accords more weightage to personal opinion and analogy, what relation it can have with a sect that relies only on Quran and traditions? Therefore, it is not unexpected from Wahhabis to be aloof from followers of Hanafite religion. But the same thing is not true for Shafei religion, because Imam Shafei did not rely on personal opinion and analogy, unlike Abu Hanifah.

In the opinion of the writer, the religion of Wahhabiya is having more Islamic color than the religion of Hanafites, while Hanafite faith seems to be more than two-third consisting of new incidents and is unrelated to the religion of Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S).

I stop my pen from writing anymore on the topic and this much would suffice as example. We should know that due to Abu Hanifah’s exercise of personal judgment and analogy, his sect assumed a strange color and seems to be superior to the Shiite, Shafei, Hanbali and Maliki Schools. Such was the innovation of this school that even the two disciples of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad also gave up his leadership in about two-third of the matters and according to Ghazzali, mentioned as in his book, Mankhul, “Abu Hanifah has uprooted the Islamic faith and created his own new school.”

I remain content on this much only, although I have so much more information in this matter that it could be made up into a very detailed book. According to other books, Abu Hanifah relied so much on analogy, because he had very little knowledge of traditions as stated by Ghazzali. Ghazzali has also mentioned that Abu Hanifah did not know about the Islamic law properly. The author will now provide some more information about the faith and jurisprudence of Abu Hanifah.

- 1. Ref. Sharhe Waqaya

- 2. Pg. 496

Faith And Jurisprudence Of Abu Hanifah

But before I write more about him, it would be better to peruse the sayings of some of his followers in his defense, regarding the fact that he has not written any book on jurisprudence. If he had written such a book and mentioned such matters, he would have been liable for condemnation; but since he did not write anything and did not produce any such book, he is immune from all blame and condemnation.

The reply is that with this statement, the Imamate of Abu Hanifah, itself vanishes. That is since there is no documents written by him on any controversial matter, his jurisprudence does not have any value.

Hence, according to whatever records of Hanafite religion that are available today they are actually attributed to Abu Hanifah, as he himself had not written any book on the field of knowledge; then how could all the verdicts be said to be his? In that case, the complete religion of Abu Hanifah disappears.

All books of the Hanafite religion, such as Hidaya, Sharhe Waqaya, Fatawa Qadi Khan and Fatawa Alamgiri etc. have been written in vain, and the fact is that Imam Muhammad, Imam Abu Yusuf and all their elders fall into a great trouble. In short, with the dismissal of Hanafite religion, the Imamate of Imam Abu Hanifah and his saintly status also departs. What a wonderful friendship to the Imam! That in trying to save him from previous blame, they foolishly destroy his status as the Imam also!

Abu Hanifah was born in the year 80 A.H. or two or three years prior to it, which is also the year of the birth of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.); and he died two or three years after the passing away of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). Accordingly, he was a proper contemporary of the Holy Imam (a.s.); and he used to visit Imam Sadiq (a.s.) in a customary way without in any way agreeing to him in any of the matters. Rather, because of his status as an opponent, he even challenged Imam Sadiq (a.s.) sometimes and this was not hidden from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). It is a wrong notion that Abu Hanifah obtained the honor to be a student of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).

Research shows that neither Abu Hanifah loved Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) nor considered his love to be beneficial for his salvation. The greatest benefit for Abu Hanifah was in it that he should continue opposing the Imam of the time and use it as a tool to gain popularity. By chance, Abu Hanifah got nice opportunities to oppose the Imam of the time. It was due to the fact that Caliph Mansoor had deep enmity with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and he was a mortal enemy of the Imam (a.s.).

Finally, he had the Imam poisoned he passed away from the mortal to the heavenly world. Mansoor did not want the people to follow the jurisprudence of the Holy Imam (a.s.); that is why he used to assist in popularizing the verdicts of Abu Hanifah. It was the common custom of this irreligious Caliph that he used to impose a fine of a gold coin on one who made an inquiry about the verdict of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and rewarded with a gold coin whoever asked about a verdict of Abu Hanifah.

Obviously, the religion of Abu Hanifah progressed greatly through royal patronage. Therefore, why he should have lost the opportunity; such chances do not come always in ones life? Thus, his constant opposition to the Imam (a.s.) was not unexpected. It is a fact that Abu Hanifah could not derive any benefit from following the rightful Imam (a.s.), especially when the Caliph of the time was inimical to the Imam (a.s.). Abu Hanifah was an unexpected gift for Mansoor. He also, as opposed to the Imam, used to gladden the heart of the Caliph.

The details regarding Abu Hanifah’s contact with the court of Mansoor is that when he entered, the Caliph asked him from whom he had obtained his knowledge. Abu Hanifah replied: “From Umar bin Khattab, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and Abdullah bin Abbas, from their narrators; and lastly he said that during the reign of Ibn Abbas no one was alike him.” Since Mansoor himself was also from Bani Abbas, he greatly appreciated the last sentence. From that day onwards, they became very friendly and the religion of Abu Hanifah advanced by the day.

This story shows that Abu Hanifah was a very clever man and what was wrong in his mention about Abdullah Ibn Abbas? To make the Caliph his disciple in the first attempt, informs of his wisdom; no doubt, he possessed great acumen. He says that at first he wanted to obtain the knowledge of the Holy Quran and to learn the Holy Book by heart, but it did not seem beneficial, so he decided to learn the traditions, but this also seemed useless. After that he decided to become a grammarian but could not stand being a tutor.

Later he decided to become a poet, but this profession was also unprofitable. At last he preferred becoming an expert in Islamic law, as one can gain most status in the world due to it and one can also be appointed as a judge; nobles and kings also become dependent on him. This statement shows that Abu Hanifah was a really sharp guy. He selected a profession that was very beneficial for him and such a profession was very beneficial during the time of Arab Caliphs, like barristers in the present era. A man can become very rich through it.

Thus, Abu Hanifah took up the profession of an Islamic jurisprudent and scaled the peak of success. Such was the level of his acumen that he did not even follow the jurisprudence of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.). If he had shown even the slightest bent to the jurisprudence of the Imam (a.s.), he would not have achieved the glory, success, power and fame that he obtained because of opposing the Imam.

Fact is that Abu Hanifah was a very sharp man of his time, so why he should have acted according to foolish men’s advice and adopted the discipleship of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), or why he should have started following the Holy Imam (a.s.)? If he had done thus, there would have been a quarrel between Mansoor and Abu Hanifah and he would be considered guilty. He had no sympathy with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), due to his own profession. If he had any sympathy with Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), he would not said to Momin Taq in a taunting way: “Your Imam has died!” Upon which Momin Taq replied:

“But your Imam is given respite till Judgment Day.” There is no need to mention the ‘Imam’ implied Momin Taq, it is only sufficient to recite Laa Hawla Wa laa Quwwata illaa billaah… (There is no power and might, except by Allah…).

Besides Abu Hanifah also did not have much attachment to Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), according to the report of Muhammad Ibn Naufal, who says that “a few of us were sitting when Abu Hanifah arrived.” A topic of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was being discussed. Abu Hanifah said: “One must not talk about the Ghadeer tradition; I have forbidden my followers from it.”

Hashim bin Habib Sairafi became angry and said: “Don’t you know that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) himself has asked the companions to testify for it?” Abu Hanifah replied: “There is doubt about the authenticity of this report, Shia people think deeply upon it and harass the non-Shias.”

This shows Abu Hanifah had no sympathy for His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) also. It is surprising that Abu Hanifah should not allow his followers to accept a tradition regarding which Ali (a.s.) made the companions testify and the Holy Prophet (S) announced it from the pulpit! In spite of his opposition to Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) and Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), followers of Abu Hanifah claim that he was devoted to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.)!

Now I shall mention another point related to Abu Hanifah that I learnt through research. Abdul Qadir Jilani (Piranepir) the most important saint of Ahlul Sunnat, in his book, Ghaniyatu Talibeen, declares Abu Hanifah to be expelled from the religion Ahlul Sunnat.

A Sunni writer, Mehboob Subhani states that according to the tradition of the Prophet: “My community shall divide into seventy-three sects,” but the fact is that these 73 sects are actually ten sects: (1) Sunni (2) Khariji (3) Shia (4) Motazela (5) Murjia (6) Mushabbiha (7) Jehmia (8) Haruriya (9) Bukhariya and (10) Kalabiya. Then writing about the branches of these sects, he mentions 12 branches of the Murjia sect and shows Hanafite to be a sub-sect of Murjia; not including it among the Sunni sects.

Now the readers may note that according to Piranepir, only Sunni religion is worthy of salvation, hence he considers Abu Hanifah and his followers as hellish. Since Abu Hanifah and his followers do not exactly have the same faith as that of Piranepir, and when only Ahlul Sunnat are delivered of sins, how can Abu Hanifah or any of his followers be delivered? We should know that only Piranepir has not stated Abu Hanifah to be a Murjia, other religious leaders have also included Abu Hanifah among Murjia.

Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari has also mentioned in Ma’rif that Abu Hanifah and his teacher Hammad bin Abu Sulaiman and his two disciples Qadi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Hasan were Murjia. Besides, his own disciple, Imam Abu Yusuf seems to be convinced of his being a Murjia. Rather, on one occasion Qadi Abu Yusuf has also referred to Abu Hanifah to be a Jehmi and even accused him to be a Khariji! This statement of Imam Abu Yusuf is recorded in Tarikh Baghdad.

Undoubtedly, the author found all this extremely astounding during his research and more astounding are the people of Hanafite religion today, who can neither relinquish Piranepir nor remain aloof of Abu Hanifah! I really pity those who present offerings on the eleventh of Rabi II (death anniversary of Abdul Qadir Jilani), but in spite of it, according to the statement of Piranepir, they are expelled from Ahlul Sunnat group and have no right to enter Paradise. The writer was in much perplexity during his period of research, but Allah the Almighty soon removed his difficulty, as will be explained in the following pages.

The Author’s Dreams

Whatever the writer has written so far, was based on solid research and consisted of matter available in books. Those who desire to research themselves, can do so. Now he shall present some points that are not concerned with any written book or document, but they are concerned with divine commands and they have changed the writer’s life to a religious life in which the love of the family of Prophet increases every moment, reaching to deliverance.

This writer was busy in research for two or three years, until the day when he composed a couple of verses in praise of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) and after composing them, he went to sleep. In the dream, he saw Ali (a.s.) and he ran and clung to him, crying out aloud: “O Ali, I shall not leave your protection till Judgment Day and you also don’t leave me.” Then the writer paid allegiance at the Master’s hand and wept bitterly for a long time. Upon waking, he found his face wet with tears. From then onwards, the writer often recited those verses.

After another two years, again he had a dream, in which he was present in the attendance of Lady Fatima (s.a.) but she was speaking to him from behind the curtain as one speaks to a stranger. The writer humbly said: You are my great- grandmother and you are speaking to me from behind the veil? Lady Fatima (s.a.) replied: “First you make yourself eligible for it.” It was explained that since the author had given up the faith of his ancestors, even Lady Fatima (s.a.) who was in fact his great-grandmother, spoke to him from behind the curtain. If he really wanted to see her as a son is blessed with the sight of his mother, he should give up his present faith and revert to the religion of his ancestors.

When he awoke, he became very anxious and this anxiety continued for sixteen years, after which he had the privilege of seeing his great-grandmother in a dream just as a son meets his mother in the world. During those sixteen years he obtained all the information about religion and converted to Shiaism.

After these two dreams, the writer says: “I also saw the Holy Prophet (S) in a dream that he has come with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) and Imam Husayn the Martyr of Karbala’ were also standing by the side and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was talking to them about something. I could only see the side pose of Imam Ali (a.s.).

I was then honored by seeing the Holy Prophet (S) who moved two steps towards me and then told His Eminence, Ali (a.s.): ‘O Ali! He is a great glorifier of you and your sons. Look at him.’ Ali (a.s.) looked at me. His sons did not say anything, but looked at me in a kind manner. Then Ali (a.s.) said to me: ‘O Imdaad Imam, clean up your neck like I have cleaned up my neck.’

I could not understand that immediately but the inspirer explained to me that it meant that I should sever all relationship with the world and be free from it.

Thank God, from that day onwards, the writer has remained free from disputes of the world and Allah, the Almighty willing, he would be free from them till death. It is due to the courtesy of Ali (a.s.) that the writer is safe from desires of status and property, etc.

After the above dreams, the writer saw another dream in which he witnessed the incident of Karbala’ that mourners were gathered in a hall of mourning and performing the mourning rituals for Imam Husayn (a.s.). He came out from the hall, which was on a tall mountain; then he sat near the entrance. The door of the hall was facing north and there was a big forest right in front of the door.

A river flowed in the forest from west to east. When he saw the forest, he heard a voice that it was the desert of Karbala’. This river was interpreted as the age of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Then the voice said: “See, Imam Husayn (a.s.) is going from the middle of the river from west to east.” It means that as far as Imam (a.s.) goes to the east, his age is proceeding and martyrdom is coming near. Then the voice explained that when the Imam (a.s.) reaches the end, he would be martyred. The author says: “We became very sad and as Imam Husayn (a.s.) reached the end of the river, my anxiety also increased; finally the Imam (a.s.) reached till the end of river and the whole world grieved in his martyrdom.

At that time, the sky wept its weeping; the earth wept its weeping; the sea wept its weeping; the forest wept its weeping; birds and animals also wept their weeping. In other words, everything was mourning the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and we also continued to mourn. At that time the inspirer said:

‘You are fortunate to be weeping for Imam Husayn (a.s.).’ We were pleased at this. The whole world was in grief; then all of a sudden a veiled horseman, carrying a spear, clad in armor was coming towards the river.

The inspirer told us: ‘He is the Lion of Allah, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and has come for condolence.’ Upon reaching the river, the King of Men turned east and walked to the bank of the river till its limit and then disappeared. The inspirer told me: ‘O man! This incident of Karbala’ was shown you in this manner, so that you should mourn for Imam Husayn (a.s.) with respect.’

Weeping on the calamities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is obligatory. Ali (a.s.) himself mourned for his son and it is a duty of every believer of Imam Ali (a.s.) to participate in mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.). O man, remember, one who is not mourning on Imam Husayn is doing injustice to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

The writer understood the matter of mourning by this dream and there was no need to ask about its interpretation from any scholar or learned one, that whether it was necessary to grieve for Imam Husayn’s (a.s.).

We should know that the writer was a Hanafite before these dreams but after that he gave up his old faith. From writer’s precepts and practices, his family members thought that he was a Tafzeeliya1, and this continued for around three years. But when the writer became thirty years of age, he saw Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) and Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) in his dream and also saw that he was also standing near them.

The invisible speaker announced their names. The author says: “I asked Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), O son of Prophet, is your religion same as the religion of Abu Hanifah?’ Imam (a.s.) replied very emphatically: ‘We have no concern with Abu Hanifah.’ After that I awoke and passed the night somehow. In the morning I prayed according to Ja’fari School, and will follow the same method by the Grace of Allah till my last.” Obviously, all the dreams mentioned above cannot be evidence for anyone else other than the author, but for him, they were like divine commands.

The writer continues to get guidance about affairs of religion and the world through such dreams and these dreams are so clear and real that they can hardly be considered as thoughts or dreams. In other words, through research of truth and happy dreams such a religious revolution was created in him, that is necessary for a follower of the family of the Holy Prophet (S). He is the same that due to his training, considered Imam Husayn (a.s.) as a rebel but now consider him a rightful Imam and the heir and descendent of the Prophet. And who now considers all the enemies of this pure family as disgraceful and hellish. It is nothing but the Grace of the Almighty.

- 1. The Tafzeeliya sect considers Ali (a.s.) superior to Abu Bakr and Umar.

Important Points Regarding Dreams

Now we shall mention some points regarding dreams that have religious and spiritual aspects. We should know that the world of dream is strange. Everyone can see true dreams, whether one is an ascetic or a sinner, pious or hypocrite. Such as Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) had seen eleven stars, the sun and the moon prostrating in his dream; and the ruler of Egypt saw seven fat and seven feeble cows in his dream. But the spiritual aspect of dreams is such a matter that no wise and learned men of any religion can investigate it.

Ancient as well as the modern philosophy is helpless in discovering their reality, but both agree that they are amazing. Here, I don’t want to discuss about the actual material of dreams, what I want to state is that if dreams had not come into existence, some human beings would not have been able to understand those matters which are not related to the world of perception.

For instance, we perceive external things with the help of the power of perception or we can become aware of our internal matters with the help of our senses. But our external and internal powers cannot perceive in wakeful condition the feelings of dreams for which there are no words in any language. In the same way, there are some conditions related to death, which cannot be understood by any human being.

By the Grace of Allah and favors of Imam Ali (a.s.), the writer perceived such things through true dreams that had no connection with the material world and are generally understood only after death. Obviously, after getting such information, the writer or anyone like him can never adopt atheism, because after getting such information, one has to confess about life after death.

Here I cannot write about the personal aspects of my dreams but it is necessary to say that since there is life after worldly life, the atheist has no knowledge about it and that is why he denies life after death. Let people consider him very clever but with regard to the hereafter, such a man is ignorant. May I be sacrificed for my master, Ali (a.s.). I was saved from atheism with the help of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.); otherwise, atheism is becoming powerful by the day. Look at any community of the world; they are all in search for the well-being of the world and have no concern of the Hereafter.

Thousands of books are written about management and the writer has read many books on this subject; but the fact is that if this sinner had not received guidance from Ali (a.s.). he would not have obtained the recognition of Allah and the Hereafter. Peace be on one who displays amazing feats (Mazharul Ajaaib); you saved this worthless slave from destruction and showed him the right path so that Satan may not make him fall.

An Important Letter

We should know that most descendants of the Holy Prophet residing in the Indian state of Bihar are Rizwiya. A few of them are Zaidiya also but they are very few. Zaidiya Sayyid are mostly of Imamiyah religion but they are very few from Rizwiya. Mostly Rizwiya are of Sunni religion. Those who have obtained the knowledge of Arabic in the usual manner are mostly of Hanafite religion or non-conformists. Sayyids of the Hanafite religion are of different kinds. Some are convinced of superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and some believe His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) to be most superior to all the companions of the Holy Prophet (S).

Some Sayyids of Bihar commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and some consider it to be polytheism or idolatry. The following letter is addressed to a relative of mine who follows the Hanafite faith and who is also a great mourner of Imam Husayn (a.s.). In lineage, he belongs to the family of Sayyids. His name is Sayyid Muhammad Khalil. He is a doctor and is very famous in his native place as ‘the Doctor’.

Besides, he was also in the business of saddling as his ancestors were also in the same line. Besides his mourning assembles, I have hearty relation with him personally and he had sent me a letter regarding mourning of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Since I am a well-wisher of his world and Hereafter, according to my knowledge, I preferred to write to him a letter as follows, dated 29 December 1913:

“My dear friend, Salaamun Alaikum. After regards, I would like you to know that I am well and hopeful of your well being. As Allah willed, you have natural sympathy with the oppressed Imam (a.s.) and this good fortune is not a voluntary matter; it is entirely in the hands of the Almighty.

But there can be complete sympathy with Imam Husayn (a.s.) only when a person knows the whole incident of Karbala’. Mostly the matter worth consideration is the detail of this incident, as being unaware of the details, one cannot sympathize with Imam Husayn (a.s.) fully.

I have recently written a book, Misbah-uz-Zulam, to clarify all such issues. This book will be published very soon and you will come to know how this incident occurred. I cannot state all the reasons in this letter, but it is necessary to mention that if one believes in the validity of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, one cannot believe in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to be a true martyrdom and he cannot claim to be mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.) sincerely or being sympathetic to him.

Here it would be worthwhile to quote the statement of Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah after the incident of Karbala’ when Abdullah Ibn Umar wrote to him that the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was a serious matter; Yazeed said: “You fool, I have only walked the path shown by your father.”

No doubt, it is true. If Saqifah had not occurred, Karbala’ would not have come into being. Undoubtedly, the incident of Karbala’ is the natural consequence of Saqifah.

Therefore, one who believes Saqifah to be true, has no right to view Karbala’ sympathetically. Now, I shall explain how Abu Bakr and Umar caused the tragedy of Karbala’.

It is clear from the books of Saqifah that Caliphate was given to Abu Bakr with the help of Umar while His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and the family of the Holy Prophet (S), that is Bani Hashim, were removed from power. So Abu Sufyan, father of Muawiyah came to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and said: “O Ali (a.s.)!

Give me your hand, I want to pledge allegiance to you. How is that rivals have achieved the Caliphate and you are debarred from your rights? I am sending Meccan riders to fill the desert of Medina and destroy the Caliphate of Saqifah.” His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) said: “O Abu Sufyan, when you were a disbeliever, then also you were involved in mischief and disturbance and now that you have converted to Islam, you still want to create mischief and disturbance.” The reply of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was prudent as will be proved later.

Anyhow, after getting this reply, Abu Sufyan went right away to Abu Bakr and Umar and spoke to them in an angry tone: “You obtained the Caliphate and did not care for my rights? I shall destroy your Caliphate just now.” His tone shook up Abu Bakr and Umar said: “If we treat you fairly, would you still take such a severe action?”

Abu Sufyan was neither concerned with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) nor with Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. He was interested only in personal gain. He said: “Grant me a share in your Caliphate.” So in order to save the Caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar made him the governor of Syria. Since Abu Sufyan himself could not go to Syria due to old age, he sent his son, Yazeed bin Abu Sufyan instead. We should know that this appointment from Caliphate led to the foundation of Bani Umayyah Empire and in a short time, Umayyads became de facto rulers of Islamic lands.

It is clear that it was on the strength of this affluence that Bani Umayyah dared to confront His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and it was for this reason that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was martyred and even Imam Hasan (a.s.) has to abdicate the seat of Caliphate; and Imam Husayn (a.s.) was martyred in Karbala’.

The fact is that whatever calamities befell the family of the Holy Prophet (S), they were because of Abu Bakr and Umar and it is clear that to save their Caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar made Abu Sufyan’s son, Governor of Syria, leading to the foundation of Bani Umayyah Empire.

After His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), he remained the Caliph for sixteen years. After his death, his son, Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah became a ruler and he almost annihilated the family of the Holy Prophet (S). Without any doubt, this affluence of Bani Umayyah completely destroyed the family of the Holy Prophet (S), his companions and even the religion of Islam. The fact is that during the domination of Bani Umayyah, the religion of Allah fell into decadence and so much sins and transgression increased that it did not remain as a true religion of God.

All know that Bani Umayyah was worthy of dislike and that the Holy Prophet (S) had detested this tribe much and had even cursed it. Allah has called this clan as ‘the accursed tree’. It is no secret that Umayyads were the greatest enemies of Islam and the Holy Prophet (S).

As long as the Prophet remained in Mecca, this tribe endeavored for his destruction and when he migrated to Medina, these people attacked now and then and fought the battles of Uhud, Badr and Khandaq; and at last this accursed tribe was routed in the Battle of Hunayn.

In brief, the Holy Prophet (S) subdued Bani Umayyah in a long period of ten years and these people became so helpless at the time of the Prophet’s passing away that they did not even have any guts to hold their head high. But woe to the Caliphate of Saqifah, it gained power after the Prophet and Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah, accomplished his aim. Abu Bakr and Umar spoilt the Holy Prophet’s consistently hard work in a moment, due to which Bani Umayyah became powerful again. On the contrary, they advanced so much that they became rulers of the entire Islamic world and a big political religious error came to light.

On the basis of their affluence, they subjected the family of the Prophet to very bad circumstances and caused depravity of Islam. This accursed tribe was always malicious to Islam during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr and Umar made them rulers of Syria, which was really strange! It is clear that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not accept the support or allegiance of Abu Sufyan because he knew very well that this tribe was a great mischief-monger and Allah and the Prophet were annoyed of it.

How can His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) accept Abu Sufyan’s support knowingly? If Ali (a.s.) had accepted, he would have had to compensate to Abu Sufyan in some way, which would be against the policy of the Prophet. How can His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), who was truly obedient to the Holy Prophet (S), do anything against his policy? His remaining aloof from Abu Sufyan was a matter of the world as well as hereafter; he could never tolerate the support of Abu Sufyan.

Abu Bakr and Umar had to, in any way, save their Caliphate from Bani Umayyah. It was very difficult to pay attention to both, the Prophet’s policy or Abu Sufyan’s threat. The fact is that only His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and few others cared for the Prophet’s aim. If Abu Bakr and Umar had been like that, they would not have run away from the battlefields of Uhud and Hunayn or would not have refused to challenge Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq.

In short, the action of Abu Bakr and Umar in making Bani Umayyah the rulers of Shaam seems very abominable, as a result of which, the members of the Prophet’s family suffered greatly and they were involved in various calamities.

Undoubtedly, the tragedy of Karbala’ was also a continuation of this calamity. It is clear that if the Caliphate of Saqifah had not come into being, Bani Umayyah would not have achieved glory and Imam Husayn (a.s.) would not have been martyred in Karbala’. Thus, it is beyond logical thinking that one should consider himself a mourner of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and also remain devoted to Abu Bakr and Umar. The mourner of Imam Husayn (a.s.) can address Abu Bakr and Umar in a loud voice that: “All these calamities have befallen the family of the Prophet only because of you.”

Truly, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar and the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is as closely connected as cause and effect and both are inseparable. One is devotion and other is atheism. It is impossible for a man to recognize both. If he confesses to Caliphate, he cannot have faith in the martyrdom; and if he believes in martyrdom, he cannot be a believer in Caliphate. Undoubtedly, a follower of Caliphate has no right to sympathize with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

One who accepts the Caliphate and weeps on the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) is involved in an absurd action. The truth is that such people have no right to weep on Imam Husayn (a.s.) and such mourning is of no use. It is necessary for a mourner of Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he should purify his heart from the love of Bani Umayyah and their guardians. Affection of two cannot take place in one heart.

We should also know that one who wants to research about Caliphate, Imamate and martyrdom, can refer to the book of Misbah-uz-Zulam for all historical and religious matters. I hope after your close examination, the book would be printed.

Since you are a mourner of Imam Husayn (a.s.) it is necessary for you to read the book attentively. I don’t want to argue with people who are unconnected with the family of the Holy Prophet (S) or are enemies of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). I don’t need to write to an enemy of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

Well, in the end it is only proper to say that if His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had become the Caliph after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), the incident of Karbala’ would not have come to light. Being a Caliph, he would not have been a patron of Bani Umayyah; but suppose His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had supported Bani Umayyah against the Prophet’s wish, then the blame of shedding the blood of Imam Husayn (a.s.), his relatives and companions would have come on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), such as, according to sound sense, it lies on Abu Bakr and Umar. The incident of Karbala’ is a result of Saqifah Caliphate and a result of Bani Umayyah’s patronage, the credit for which goes only to Abu Bakr and Umar!

The writer has shown the results of the Caliphate of Saqifah in detail in his book, Misbah-uz-Zulam. He requests you to read it carefully when that book is published. The fact is that this Caliphate has created different kinds of dramas. If it had not come into being, Fadak would not have been taken away from Lady Fatima (s.a.), her house would not have been burnt down. Atrocities would not have been committed on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) for getting his allegiance. Bani Hashim would not have been dishonored. Umar would not have hit at the stomach of Lady Fatima (s.a.), which caused miscarriage and because of it she passed away from the world very soon.

The Holy Quran collected by His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would not have been destroyed. The religion of Zaid bin Thabit would not have gained popularity instead of that of Imam Ali (a.s.). Bani Umayyah would not have behaved rudely and would not have gone against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) would not have been deposed from Caliphate. Bani Umayyah could not have removed Imam Hasan (a.s.) from Caliphate. They could not have martyred Imam Husayn (a.s.), his relatives and companions in the desert of Karbala’.

They would not have taken as prisoners, the family of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and would not have taken them to Damascus. Bani Umayyah would not have tied horses in the Holy Kaaba and would not have behaved rudely with the companions of the Holy Prophet (S). They would not have promoted wine, music, fornication and sodomy. They could not have burnt the Holy Quran and could not have hung it on their flag. They would not have shot arrows at the Holy Quran. They would not have shed the blood of the descendants of the Prophet, like it was water. They would not have made it compulsory to curse His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Besides such unbecoming things, the Caliphate of Saqifah created great dissentions in Islam.

The truth is that if the Caliphate of Saqifah would not be there, different sects would not have come into being and the history of Arabs would not have been blemished. No doubt, that it was the first mistake of Islam that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was excluded from Caliphate. If His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) had been accepted as Caliph, Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas’s political disputes would not have come into being. As a result, due to the dispute of Bani Hashim, Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas, Arabian Peninsula would not have been mired in civil war for a long time till this community lost its reputation to Tartars forever.

This consensus not only caused rivers of blood of Bani Hashim, thousands of Bani Hashim continued to be killed. In every Caliphate, Bani Hashim continued to shed their own blood and that of their enemies. It was due to the fact that they considered themselves rightful for Caliphate and many Arab people also accepted their claim. Obviously, the history of Islam seems to be full of revolts of Bani Hashim.

Apparently, all these revolts were to secure the same right that Bani Hashim had lost in Saqifah because of Umar. All these details are given in the book of Misbah-uz-Zulam. Those interested may study this book carefully and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong? A study of this book would show that all the atrocities upon the descendents of the Holy Prophet (S), the incident of Karbala’, martyrdom of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and martyrdom of the family members of Prophet (S) are all consequences of the Caliphate of Saqifah and thus, all liability is upon the people of Saqifah.

29th December 1913
Gaya, Bihar, India

Topic Tags:

- Ashura [8]

Author(s):

- Sayyid Imdad Imam [3]

Translator(s):

- Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. Rizvi [5]

Publisher(s):

- Ansariyan Publications - Qum [4]

Category:

- Early Islamic History [6]

- Imam al-Husayn and Karbala [7]

Person Tags:

- Imam Husayn [10]

Featured Category:

- Resources for Further Research [9]

Source URL: https://www.al-islam.org/misbah-uz-zulam-roots-karbala-tragedy-sayyid-imdad-imam

Links
[1] https://www.al-islam.org/user/login?destination=node/31222%23comment-form
[2] https://www.al-islam.org/user/register?destination=node/31222%23comment-form
[3] https://www.al-islam.org/person/sayyid-imdad-imam
[4] https://www.al-islam.org/organization/ansariyan-publications-qum
[5] https://www.al-islam.org/person/sayyid-athar-husayn-sh-rizvi
[6] https://www.al-islam.org/library/early-islamic-history
[7] https://www.al-islam.org/library/imam-al-husayn-and-karbala
[8] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/ashura
[9] https://www.al-islam.org/feature/resources-further-research
[10] https://www.al-islam.org/person/imam-husayn